Men in tights

This humdinger comes from Fox News' "Father Jonathan," by way of Real Clear Politics. After illuminating the fundamental differences between Obama and Robin Hood (beside the obvious fact that one is the next president of the United States, and the other is a 500-year old English legend), Father Jonathan goes on to warn against Comrade Obama's rampant socialism, citing a 2001 interview with Chicago Public Radio in which the young state senator extolled the virtues of the "redistribution of wealth." Scandalous. Quoth the good Father:

It is hard to believe the leading United States presidential candidate suggested, just seven years ago, we should be seeking legislative and administrative avenues to effect “redistributive change,” since it is impractical now to get the courts to do it on their own. It’s even harder to believe the leading United States presidential candidate, just seven years ago, was talking about the importance of community organizers “putting together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
But then again, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. Seven years later, and just one month before Election Day, Senator Obama said to Joe the Plumber, word for word, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everyone.”

The whole thing raised a few questions for me, like "why is a Fox News 'Religion Contributor' writing editorials about issues that have nothing to do with religion?" and "Where exactly does this strange comparison of Barack Obama to Robin Hood come from?" More importantly, though, how does taxing the richest 5% of Americans -- the people who can most afford it -- qualify as "beating down some to lift up others?" And why is that worse than beating down EVERYBODY with a costly war based on false premises and deregulation policies that severely destabilized the economy?

Father John is right -- Barack Obama isn't Robin Hood. He's the future president of the United States. And dumbing down the discourse with analogies to fairy tales doesn't make the right any less wrong.