Obama: Like A Broken Record
January 7th, 2008 at 08:28pm Matt Margolis
John J. Pitney Jr., writing at National Review, explains how Barack Obama’s “message of unity” and calls for change are neither new, or genuine.
As I explained on NRO nearly a year ago, Obama is echoing what George W. Bush said in the 2000 campaign. In fact, if Obama’s speeches were term papers, I’d report him for plagiarism. “Our country has unlimited potential. But our politics is broken — at least in Washington,” Bush said in California on October 30, 2000. “You know what’s wrong, Washington is obsessed with scoring points, not solving problems.” In another California swing a month earlier, Bush said: “I’m going to reject the ugly politics of the past, where people felt like they could get ahead by tearing down their opponents.”
One could argue that Bush was merely spouting political pap — but that’s the point. The “unity” message has been old for a long time. Here’s another example:”I saw many signs in this campaign. Some of them were not friendly. Some were very friendly. But the one that touched me the most was — a teenager held up the sign `bring us together.’ And that will be the great objective of this administration, at the outset, to bring the American people together.”
That was Richard Nixon, after his election in 1968.
I suggest you read the whole thing, but the main thing you need to get from it is that anyone can claim to be a uniter, and anyone can claim to be the agent of change. But it’s just rhetoric. Those claims don’t mean anything. As Mark pointed out earlier, Obama’s “change” mantra is meaningless because he hasn’t gone into specifics. He doesn’t go into specifics because his idea of “change” is even more liberal and extreme than even Hillary Clinton’s.
Still, even his idealistic calls for change and unity, and his railing against the status quo and politics as usual are lies. Pitney explains,
Like so many politicians before him, he speaks lofty prose while leaving the wet work to underlings. Eisenhower had Nixon, who later had Agnew. Obama has David Axelrod, among others.
Axelrod has been Obama’s chief political adviser for years. In 2004, Obama defeated millionaire Blair Hull for nomination to the Senate after sordid details of Hull’s divorce came out. Obama didn’t talk about it in public. But according to David Mendell, the reporter who broke the news about the divorce papers, Obama’s campaign “worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull’s filings.” And says the New York Times, many in Chicago “believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull.”
So let’s recap. Barack Obama is a senator today because his campaign exploited his opponent’s messy divorce. This is a miracle that qualifies him for secular sainthood.
And should I really have to mention Tony Rezko and other questionable deals/actions by Obama?
Obama is getting through this campaign because of the brand he is presenting. He’s not giving an accurate portrayal of who is, what he’ll do, or where he’ll take our country.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
25 Comments
1. js | January 7th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
So, the guys a politician.
You can tell because every time his lips move, he lies.
2. Casper | January 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
This is funny. You are attacking Obama by comparing him to Bush, Eisenhower, and Nixon.
3. sleepygene | January 7th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Keep digging Matt, you and NRO have bupkus on Sen. Hussein Osama (D-IL). Yes he talks about change, just like all non-incumbent pols. His policies are liberal but his call for change are more in terms of tone rather outright policy upheaval. His campaign seems to be working, but it is early and I am sure someone has his class picture from the wahabist madrassa he went to in Indonesia. By the way how is the FEC complaint you filed against Senator Clinton? Haven’t heard about it in a while and you have not anserwed my queries. I assume it went nowhere.
4. Ricorun | January 7th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
While I was reading Matt’s post I had thoughts along the same lines as Casper’s. In my case it was… perhaps it would be more effective to compare Obama’s message with the messages of those that lost, not won their elections. Just a thought.
5. SEW | January 7th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
And Senator Hussein Obama, what is your vote? Present. Thank you for change.
6. Casper | January 7th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Matt,
You are so busy trying to find negative stories that you are missing some of the positive ones.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/washington/05aids.html?ex=1357189200&en=22860fcd68e8bf3a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
You have a great story about something really good Bush did and you totally missed it. Does this mean that Bush doesn’t count anymore?
7. neocon | January 7th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Casper,
Puhlease. The $15 billion dollar aid package has been spoken of, and referenced to, on this site many times. That’s old news, but thank you for finally noticing.
In regards to Obama, it’s fairly certain he will be the nominee, and that just amazes me. Obama is obviously a very intelligent, and a very nice man. However he is sorely inexperienced when compared to anyone on the GOP side. He believes in the doctrine of Trinity Church, which how that passes with the lefties is beyond me, has suggested invading Pakistan, and is to the left of Hillary in terms of social policies.
And that’s who the Democrats will place their money on in the general. Good luck.
8. Matt Margolis | January 7th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
“This is funny. You are attacking Obama by comparing him to Bush, Eisenhower, and Nixon.”
I’m not comparing him to any of them. The point was Obama’s message echoes the same themes of past presidential candidates. Which should prove, even to someone like you, that Obama’s message is not new.
9. Huck Fillary | January 7th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
And that’s who the Democrats will place their money on in the general. Good luck.
Better yet, neocon–Obama will probably ask Silky Pony to be his veep, and Silky’s even farther left than Obama, who snorted coke, smoked dope, and possibly dealt the stuff too.
Resume enhancements in leftist circles…
10. Casper | January 7th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Actually neocon I was the one that pointed it out to Mark a couple of years ago. I just thought it would be nice to hear a positive story.
As for Obama, I agree he looking pretty good right now, but there is still a long way to go and I wouldn’t be totally shocked if Clinton made a comeback. She has the resources. As for Obama’s religion, it doesn’t bother me anymore than the religion of anyone else who is running.
11. liberalT | January 7th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
fantastic Matt. “I am not comparing Obama to them. I am only saying that his message is similar to the the message of Bush, Eisenhower, and Nixon” Um DUDE - that is comparing them. Its ok Matt perhaps when you grow up you will get it..
12. Timothy Horrigan | January 7th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Well, it would be foolish for Obama to emulate George W. Bush’s 2000 election message… yes, Bush won the election by a landslide, and yes Gore went down to a crushing defeat….but Bush won while actually getting fewer votes than Gore.
Even the Supreme Court and Electoral College votes are what really counts, it is generally a good idea to craft a message which will actually win the popular vote
13. Huck Fillary | January 7th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Um DUDE - that is comparing them. Its ok Matt perhaps when you grow up you will get it..
Um, girlfriend, that is not comparing them.
It’s ok, libretardTHC; perhaps when you grow up, you’ll learn to differentiate. Also, maybe you’ll learn to write. Maybe JHL can teach you; she’s college-educated…
14. Christian Wright | January 7th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Bush did not win the election in 2000. He was appointed by the Republican dominated Supreme Court.
Republicans will lose the White House in 2008 (if all the votes are counted). They have nothing to offer but fascists and Christian Taliban.
15. NeoClown | January 8th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Huck Fillery,
With Hillary dropping in the polls and the fact that no one on B4V speaks to you anymore, I bet you’re in the market for a new name.
I had a group of folks read some of your posts and asked them to come up with a new moniker for you.
Here here are the top ten responses:
10. Huckless Knightly
9. Suck Billery
8. Virgil Yettohuck
7. Hucked Blowhard
6. Buck Sobama
5. Pia Longstockings
4. Moronic Dipweed
3. Kuck Pheefer
2. Mr Poofer
1. Skank Hucklepantz
16. Mark Noonan | January 8th, 2008 at 12:33 am
…actually, “Skank Hucklepantz” has some possibilities…”Skank Hillobamwards”…good stuff, really.
17. Huck Fillary | January 8th, 2008 at 4:51 am
I’ll take those names under advisement, NeoLoser. As for noone on B4V speaking to me, I am disheartened…not. Those who matter to me here speak to me on a regular basis. Those who don’t matter–you, libretardTHC, neocowjane, Diana, msJHL, Josephine, stevotinypecker, et.al.–well, you just don’t matter. You have less to offer me than I do you; you’re all a bunch of lemmings who sound/read alike. I read your posts for amusement; I attack you because you’re BDS-suffering asshats who can’t think for yourselves, and who want the government to provide for you, because you can’t provide for yourselves.
Now you have a nice day, NeoLoser…
18. Joe | January 8th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Huck, “noone”???
As you would say to others… that should be two words moron! “no one”.
NeoClown, I vote for either #3 or #6.
Matt: the main thing you need to get from it is that anyone can claim to be a uniter, and anyone can claim to be the agent of change. But it’s just rhetoric.
So apparently you are saying that Bush really didn’t mean anything when he said he was a uniter and be an agent of change. Or is the point that Bush really meant it, but every one else is just rhetoric? I don’t get your point.
19. thatjerryguy | January 8th, 2008 at 8:22 am
“Bush did not win the election in 2000. He was appointed by the Republican dominated Supreme Court.”
Yawn. Someone should let libtards know they’ve beaten this dead horse enough. Time to trot out another lie.
“Republicans will lose the White House in 2008 (if all the votes are counted). They have nothing to offer but fascists and Christian Taliban.”
And what do democrats have to offer? Nothing but surrender, appeasement, pipe dreams and higher taxes.
20. Sunny | January 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
“So let’s recap. Barack Obama is a senator today because his campaign exploited his opponent’s messy divorce. This is a miracle that qualifies him for secular sainthood.” Matt
You make this allegation with no real evidence to back it up - but is based on speculation and rumor. And yet, for so many Republicans, Karl Rove is one of your heroes. This is a man who trashed the reputations of opponents not with facts (ie, and actual divorce), but on very nasty, totally un-true statements.
Barack Obama may not have the years of experience that some of the other candidates have, but could someone explain to me what is in Fred Thompson’s resume that is so outstanding? All candidates have flaws, including John McCain, Mitt Romney and especially Rudy Gulliani. Does that mean that none of them are qualified to lead this country? It is refreshing to have a young person with a goal of uniting this country. That will not happen with the majority of candidates (from both parties) now in the running. The majority of Americans are truly sick and tired of the partisan politics that has been the trend for the past 20 years.
Now, if you are interested, here are a few of Barak Obama’s accomplishments. He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He didn’t have a rich dad to get him into these prestigipus schools, but did it on his own merit. He is an intelligent and articulate man. That in itself is very refreshing. A president that could actually speak in complete sentences and intelligently!! What a concept.
After college, he put off law school to work in his community with the poor to try to improve their lives. He decided that in order to accomplish more, he needed to continue his education, attending Harvard.
In the Illinois State Senate, he worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
In the U.S. Senate, he has focused on tackling the challenges of a globalized, 21st century world with fresh thinking and a politics that no longer settles for the lowest common denominator. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.
As a member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world. And knowing the threat we face to our economy and our security from America’s addiction to oil, he’s working to bring auto companies, unions, farmers, businesses and politicians of both parties together to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards in our cars.
So, you can make fun of his ears, circulate rumors regarding selling drugs, (he was honest enough to admit trying them in his youth - more than Bush would do), use his middle name as his first (a SEW tactic), but you cannot take away the fact that this man has created more excitement in the political world than another candidate since John F. Kennedy in 1960. And honestly, he cannot do a fraction of the damage to our country that the Bush administration has done in the past 7 plus years. Too bad the Republican Party cannot find a candidate to excite their party like Obama has done.
21. JHL | January 8th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Huck:
Please share with us how hard it is to go through life as a eunuch. Do you think the deep seated feelings of inadequacy that you suffer from are treatable?
BTW, how is the job as a doorstop at Quick Trip going?
22. phnx | January 8th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Sunny,
Since you are such an avid Obama supporter you should read for background on your candidate:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/obamas_alinsky_jujitsu.html
then get back to us on his impecable credentials.
23. Sunny | January 9th, 2008 at 8:31 am
phnx, I have no problems with Obama’s credentials. First, I do not believe everything I read in some blog, Secondly, I am not a bigoted, uninformed, easily swayed neocon. I have borrowed the information below regarding former presidents:
Our least experienced president was Abraham Lincoln. He has served only one term in the House of Representatives. And that several years before he was elected president.
Our most experienced were Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan. Buchanan has been Secretary of State, Senator, Representative, Ambassador to England and advisor to 4 presidents: Jackson, Van Buren, Polk and Pierce. Hoover’s experience with getting relief to the European people after World War I and as Commerce Secretary should have made him the perfect choice to lead this nation during the Great Depression.
Here’s to experience:
These two, with all of their valuable experience, left the United States with the two biggest crisis in our history, the Civil War and the Great Depression. It took less experienced leaders to lead the United States out of these holes. Experience has value, but pales beside the need for leadership.
24. js | January 9th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Sorry sunny, I dont believe you are not a bigoted, uninformed, or, for that matter, easily swayed.
Comparing Abraham Lincoln to Obama must be a joke. Lincoln ran on the premise of Christian morals, on the basis that all men are created equal, and that even black men had the right to freedom, just like everyone else.
Obama? Well, lets put it this way, he will say anything and everything, truth or lie, to get elected. His claim to withdrawing all the Troops from Iraq is non-sense. It was made to appeal to bleeding heart liberals, yet if it is accomplished, it will not only send oil prices through the roof (as if they were not high enough already), but it would also destroy any hope of stopping terrorism and terrorist states.
In the end, its about Obama the coward, not Obama, the wise and prudent, but a fools fool who thinks he has a chance.
25. Sunny | January 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
gosh, I wish I was as smart as you are js. By the way, does that stand for jackass?