Obama’s Indistinct Message–Chris Matthews is right! [Reader Post]

Posted on by ( 13 comments already! )
        

Loading

Chris Matthews says that George Bush was more successful in getting his message out than Obama?

This is easy to explain, by the way.  Obama rarely states simply what he actually believes or wants to see happen.  He often couches his policies with language that means often the opposite of what it really means.  The idea is, he wants to co-opt independents and conservatives who are not paying close attention, so that they will sign on to his proposals.  He is fond of the words investments, fair share, tax cuts. 

Investments are not really investments; this simply refers to the federal government spending money.  We will not reap any tangible benefits from these investments nor will we be able to draw a straight line between money that the government has spent and positive results for our country.  Essentially, we are looking at money which is given to companies run by Obama supporters, donators and bundlers and they have the potential to reap some profits (some do and some do not).  This money might be a grant and it might be a guaranteed loan from government, but it is taxpayer money which is spent often to benefit someone who supported our president.

When Obama uses the words fair share, he is not really talking about someone paying their fair share.  This is a reference to people who already pay their lion’s share of taxes, and Obama is calling upon them to pay more taxes.  In many cases, these are small businesses, which do much of the new hiring in the United States, and they are called upon to pay more of their profits to the government so that the government can invest that money.  The media assists President Obama by having polls which ask, “Do you think the rich should pay a little more in taxes?”  These polls never ask, “Do you think that small businesses are not paying enough in taxes and need to pay more?”  Paying one’s fare share is all about income redistribution; taking money which a person has earned and putting this either into the hands of those who make less or into the hands of those who support the President.  In the latter case, the money often goes from those who make less money to those who make more money, because the latter group supports Obama and his policies.

When Obama talks about all of his tax cuts, he is really talking about tax credits, which are a bribe from the federal government to do things that Obama wants us to do.  He or another politician, 2 years later, will call these tax credits by their more accurate name, tax loopholes.  Obviously, the president will never say, “I want to give out some tax loopholes to the following groups of people…”  That would never fly.  Therefore, he uses Orwellian language in order to try to gain the support of people who would not support his policies if they knew exactly what those policies are.  This is why Obama’s message and policies are less clear than those of Reagan or Bush, and why, for one of the few times in his life, Chris Matthews is correct in his assessment of the situation.

From the Conservative Review #203  (HTML)  (PDF) and expanded.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
13 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Remember Gary that the left always co-opts language to further their agenda.

0

Yeah, Bush and the GOP always get their lies out there with their hatespeak.

Bush:””See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.””

0
Reply

@liberalmann: Once again you cherry pick to try and prop up your own hateful vision.

He did indeed say the quote you paraphrased, libtardman. However, you left out context. President Bush was attempting to get his Social Security reforms passed and was giving a speech at a Performing Arts Center of a Middle and High School in Rochester, NY. The full quote, with ever important context is [empahsis, mine]:

“Now, a personal savings account would be a part of a Social Security retirement system. It would be a part of what you would have to retire when you reach retirement age. As you — as I mentioned to you earlier, we’re going to redesign the current system. If you’ve retired, you don’t have anything to worry about — third time I’ve said that. (Laughter.) I’ll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)

But if you choose to have one of these accounts — notice I keep saying “if you choose” — the government is not going to tell you, you have to do this. I think the government ought to give you the opportunity to set up one of these accounts. And the account becomes a part of your retirement plan. It’s your own asset. It’s something you leave to somebody — whomever you choose. And it makes the system eminently more fair.” – Source

Not quite as “hate speech-y” with the proper context, is it libtardman?

In other words, he was saying that to get past the far-left, liberal propaganda, you have to repeat yourself over and over.

Pretty glaringly obvious, I understand why you neglected to include the entire quote.

As Aye would say:

Thanks for playing!
.
.

0
Reply

Do you know someone who is a wonderful athlete?
Or Musician?
Or artist?
IF they ”make it” for how long do they reap the millions?
Obama would make them pay excessively during that short time.

Veronique de Rugy’s latest chart shows that million-dollar incomes are highly variable.
You can do spankingly well one year and horribly the next.
For many people, incomes spike in a single year while they exercise a decade’s worth of stock options or sell a business they built over a lifetime.
Literally half of the million-dollar income earners hit the million-dollar mark for one year before falling back into the ranks of the muddled masses.
Only six percent of millionaires scored million-dollar incomes for more than nine years running.

Obama knows this.
He does NOT care.

0

@anticsrocks: Conservatives know that we must repeat ourselves over and over, as the intelluctual children in the room (Progressive liberals) , like children, only hear what they want to hear, and are not fond of direct speech, nor are they fond of absolutes, like Good, Bad, Evil, and any other word that tries to deny them what they childishly want.
Best example is Obamma still trying to put the square healthcare peg in the round, fiscally insolvent hole.

0
Reply

Matthews is correct – the right has always been more effective with their messaging. Conservatives’ most effective messages could fit on a bumper sticker as long as they mentioned Reagan, 9/11, WMDs, the war on terror, big government, gun rights, homosexuality, something about God, etc. These mini-statements are all that many conservatives need to provide voice to their simple thoughts.

Liberals have always needed to come up with more complex explanations why women should be given the vote; why red-lining is unfair; why imperial warfare is not worthy of a democracy; why blacks should be able to use the same toilets as whites; why blacks should be able to eat at the same restaurants as whites, and stay at the same hotels; why blacks should be able to ride the same buses as whites; why blacks should be able to attend the same schools as whites; why blacks should be able to vote, etc.

You get the picture, unless you’re in complete denial.

0
Reply

@rockybutte: You said:

Liberals have always needed to come up with more complex explanations why women should be given the vote; why red-lining is unfair; why imperial warfare is not worthy of a democracy; why blacks should be able to use the same toilets as whites; why blacks should be able to eat at the same restaurants as whites, and stay at the same hotels; why blacks should be able to ride the same buses as whites; why blacks should be able to attend the same schools as whites; why blacks should be able to vote, etc.

You get the picture, unless you’re in complete denial.

Really? You are dumb enough to go there?

The GOP spearheaded all the efforts which you ascribe to liberals/Democrats.

Please show proof of your asinine comments, specifically that liberals were behind the Civil Rights movement.

0

Hmmm, Antisrocks! Let’s travel back to the ’60s when the manure hit the fan. LBJ, a Democrat from Texas, was President. He supported and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation. In the Senate, 45 Northern Democratic Senators had voted in support of the bill and one Northern Democratic Senator voted in opposition to the bill. 20 Southern Democratic Senators (from the 11 states that had formed the confederacy) voted in opposition to the bill and one Southern Democratic Senator voted in support of the bill. The only Southern Republican Senator voted in opposition to the bill. 27 Northern Republican Senators voted in favor of the bill and 5 Northern Republican Senators voted in opposition to the bill.

The conclusion: supporters (72-6) of the Civil Rights Act were from the North and opponents (21-1) of the Civil Rights Act were from the South.

Therefore, civil rights was supported by Liberals (Northerners) and opposed by Conservatives (Southerners).

The GOP became the favorite party of Conservatives beginning with the election of 1964 when Barry Goldwater, a very conservative Republican, carried only 6 states: Arizona (his home state) and 5 states from the deep south (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana).

The tide had turned and most of the Conservatives in congress are Republican and most of the Liberals in congress are Democratic.

0
Reply

@rockybutte: Wrong.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. – Source

In 1789, Congress passes, and George Washington signs into law, a bill stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.

In 1792, the Democrat Party is formed. They are the party that promotes and seeks the continuance of slavery.

In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.

In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo the 1808 and other anti-slavery decisions.

In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.

For thirty years, Democrats pass multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law takes away all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who is so much as accused of being a slave.

In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

In 1854, the Republican party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

In 1857, the Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase “all men” in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the anti-slavery Republican Party now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to deny blacks their citizenship rights, so…

In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.

In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of this citizenship, especially the right to vote, so…

In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
98% of Republicans vote for it.
3% of Democrats vote for it.

From 1866–1875, the Republican Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.

In 1875, in order to counter the Democrats’ passage of Jim Crow laws, Republicans pass the most sweeping civil rights legislation ever—the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eight years later, the Supreme Court (mostly Democrat appointees) declares the act unconstitutional.

In 1876, Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. No more meaningful civil rights legislation is passed until 1964.

In 1892, Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate, and they keep control of the House. They immediately begin establishing Jim Crow laws and repealing all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they cannot repeal, they skirt with poll taxes and literacy tests.

Beginning after the War, and thenceforward until 1935, ALL blacks elected to Congress are Republicans. In addition to those elected to Federal office, hundreds of blacks—all of them Republicans—are elected to state legislatures in the South.

In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. Democrats admit—under oath in Congressional hearings in 1872—that the Klan is a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carries out this plan by means of a series of massacres at Republican Party meetings.

In 1901, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to the White House. Democrats and the media are outraged.

In the 1920s, Republicans propose anti-lynching legislation. The legislation passes the house but is killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In 1947, Republican businessman Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, hires Jackie Robinson (also a Republican), thus integrating Major League Baseball.

In 1954, Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower) authors the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education.

In 1956, Democrats express their opposition to Brown v. Board of Education in the “Southern Manifesto.” One hundred and one members of Congress—all but four of them Democrats—sign the manifesto.

In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authors a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats. When the bill finally goes through, it is significantly weakened due to lack of support from Democrats.

In 1960, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authors a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, Senate Democrats attempt (though in the end unsuccessfully) to block passage of the bill.

In 1964, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is essentially the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including still-serving Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), employ a filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans vote for passage than do Democrats.

In 1965, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster is prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoys support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats. – Source

Want some salve for that burn rocky?

0

ROCKYBUTT
THE DEMOCRATS KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS AND NEVER CAN FIND ANSWERS, THAT’S WHY
WE ARE IN THE BIGGEST DESTRUCTION OF AMERICAN VALUES,
you just have to look at the OWLS MOVEMENT TO TRY TO GET EVERY THING FOR NOTHING,
THEY TRY TO BREAK THE WALL STREET RICH TO TAKE THEIR POSESSIONS FOR THEMSELVES,
when they are showing such ignorance of how to work for a living.
AND the CONSERVATIVES ARE SAYING IT AS IT IS, NO FUZZY GAMES PLAYING, IT CAN’T BE CLEARER
YOU HEAR EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN, AND IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT YOU HAVE TO BE STUPID.

0

@antisrocks, My goodness, I think you actually believe what you wrote. Do you believe that black is white? Up is down? Do you believe that pre-1964 Southern Democrats were the political antecedents of today’s Liberal Democrats?

I’m afraid you’re a lost cause.

0
Reply

@rockybutte: Matthews is correct – the right has always been more effective with their messaging. Conservatives’ most effective messages could fit on a bumper sticker as long as they mentioned Reagan, 9/11, WMDs, the war on terror, big government, gun rights, homosexuality, something about God, etc. These mini-statements are all that many conservatives need to provide voice to their simple thoughts.

Oh, I get it… you mean like:

Tax cuts for the wealthy (no class warfare there…)

Or “big oil”

Maybe throw granny off the cliff by killing Medicare and Social Security?

Or mouth the words “Wall Street” or CEOs into the camera with a stricken look of fear and loathing

Oh yes… conservatives and Tea Party are “racist”… you’re still beating that horse here. Is your bumper sticker yellowing with age on that one?

“In the past decade”… meaning that fiscal irresponsibility is all Bush and the GOP’s fault, and only began Jan 2001. Before that, the 30 some odd Congressional sessions and chambers controlled by the Dems since the New Deal era were so frugal…. ahem

Maybe that Iraq’s OIF was only about WMD?

Oh yes, the nerve gases and illegal missiles found in Iraq after 2003 don’t count as WMDs….

And despite the Clinton Iraq Freedom Act and the bipartisan AUMF vote, the Dems never really meant to invade and depose Saddam. I guess the title of the resolution, Authority to use Force in Iraq, was above their paygrade.

Gitmo should be closed… except when it isn’t. And let’s not breathe the word “Bagram”… the Zero’s “gitmo”. Shhhhhh… secret. Keep the discussion to Gitmo and blame it all on Bush.

Oh yes… can’t forget this one. It’s Bush’s fault, and all inherited. Everything. SS Trust Fund theft and Medicare ponzi scheme? All Bush’s fault….

Here’s a really good one. “Most fair and transparent Congress”, while constructing O’healthcare behind closed doors, rejecting all conservative amendments and no one reading it before passage.

Another goodie? Unemployment won’t go above 8% if you pass ARRA… and when it does, it’s Bush’s fault.

Here’s the biggest laugh… Bush tax cuts. Over $640 bil all together, and only $75-80 bil to the evil wealthy. But it will cure everything to forget about that$500 plus bil, and just raise it on the wealthy. What’s $500 plus bil among friends and middle class, eh? But then, as of last December, they have to be renamed the Obama tax cuts, don’t they?

One could go on and on. But here’s the bottom line. Yup… simple bumper sticker talking points.

Because, you see, we’ve learned from you that the nation is too stupid to take care of themselves without a great welfare net, and unable to wrap their grey matter around facts and issues. So we must keep it simple. The lib/progs are the masters at bumper sticker platform slogans. We’re happy you showed us the ropes.

Oh yes:

Do you believe that pre-1964 Southern Democrats were the political antecedents of today’s Liberal Democrats?

No. Actually I believe the political antecedents of today’s libs is found in the Marx, Chavez and Mao crowd.

0
Reply

@rockybutthead: No, it is you who is suffering from delusions, rockybutthead. You just cannot admit the truth and that is that the Democratic Party and their policies, (past and present) hurt minorities in this country, particularly black people.

If there is a “lost cause” here, it is you. But I guess if it makes you feel better to ignore what your beloved Democrats have done, then by all means continue to bury your head in the sand.

0