Former Austin mayor and current Texas State Sen. Kirk Watson, a prominent Barack Obama supporter, is completely stumped when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asks him to list Sen. Obama’s legislative accomplishments.
Classic! Here is Chris Matthews, the same man who gets all jiggly in his pants when he thinks of Obama, asking the State Senator of Texas, Kirk Watson, what some of Obama’s accomplishments are:
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “You are a big Barack supporter, right, Senator?”
State Sen. Watson: “I am. Yes, I am.”
Matthews: “Well, name some of his legislative accomplishments. No, Senator, I want you to name some of Barack Obama’s legislative accomplishments tonight if you can.”
State Sen. Watson: “Well, you know, what I will talk about is more about what he is offering the American people right now.”
Matthews: “No. No. What has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him. Sir, you have to give me his accomplishments. You’ve supported him for president. You are on national television. Name his legislative accomplishments, Barack Obama, sir.”
State Sen. Watson: “Well, I’m not going to be able to name you specific items of legislative accomplishments.”
Matthews: “Can you name any? Can you name anything he’s accomplished as a Congressman?”
State Sen. Watson: “No, I’m not going to be able to do that tonight.”
Matthews: “Well, that is a problem isn’t it?”
And the video:
Like I said, Classic!
It’s becoming pretty apparent that Obama will be the guy we are going against in this election and as each story unfolds on this guy my angst at running against a man who is offering that soft and gooey center of hope is slowly fading away. Don’t get me wrong, that message sounds great, but at some point the spell will be broken and people are going to question the what, when, how, why, and where of all this change. Specifics and all that.
Thats when the ultra-Socialist Obama will be highlighted and thats when the turn-off will begin.
He has two years in a Senate office. Two years! (don’t even try to count that 3rd year) So how exactly would he be able to push through anything he wants to “change.”
Give me a break.
Meanwhile McCain has many years of going against the grain, of taking on anybody and anyone who disagrees with his bills and policies. He has shown success at getting even unpopular bills pushed through. He has walked across party lines and done it. Been there and done that.
I wasn’t always happy with what he pushed through but it’s a great argument against Obama and one I know McCain is itching to use.
Other’s Blogging:
- Captains Quarters
- Michelle Malkin
- Newsbusters
- Hot Air
- Redstate
- Macsmind
- A Western Heart
- The New Editor
- Say Anything
- Joes Dartblog
- Right Voices
- Tai-Chi Policy
See author page
Though Chris Matthews largely throws softballs, every once in awhile he can bring a fastball high and inside. Kirk Watson wasn’t expecting it.
Now, if Matthews does it to Obama in a one-on-one setting, for certain, it should devastate the Obama message and persona. And, while he’s at it, he can do the same to Hillary. It’ll show the two main Democratic candidates are back benchers like Kerry … no accomplishments, no character, no depth. I don’t expect Matthews to do that, but, then again, he may surprise us.
Don’t go patting that former Carter Admin Hack, Matthews on the back for asking a simple question of a simple-minded State Senator. The shame in all of this is the MSM’s unwillingness to collectively, and continuously highlight BHO’s Senatorial accomplishment(s) of NOTHING!
Very “experienced” post Curt!
Trackbacked and linked at RovinsWorld
Just one question: Why can’t two “experienced” people like Bill and Hillary frame this obvious lack of experience the way Curt just did?
In the US Army, we have a saying: “Hope is not a method”.
One does not win engagements, defeat enemies, rebuild countries, or defend the People of America with “hope”. We have methods (tactics, techniques, procedures) and overall plans/strategies for accomplishing missions. We also have methods for improving/adapting those plans as the situation changes. Any plan relying on “hope” is doomed to failure.
Obama appears to have none of these. He just has “hope” for “change”. What that “change” entails and how painful it will be is the million dollar question.
This leads me to two conclusions on Obama:
1. Obama’s team HAS a plan and it is pure “holistic” (aka, totalitarian) socialism. Like the rest of the Democratic Party “elite”, he knows that if he states this as his method, he will lose big. If he and his team represent this then they are dangerous in their typically leftist desire for domestic imperialism over the sovereignty of the individual.
2. Obama’s team really has no clue and actually believes the infantilism of the left’s positions: I.e. “Talk” to the islamofascists and they will “love” us; people in the world “hate us” because we dare defend ourselves against attack (most do not hate us and wish we would do more against evil, but I digress) and a “caring” democrat will make them “love” us again; finally, making those *evil* rich people, like hedge fund manager Chelsea Clinton, pay outrageous taxes will make America “strong” and will not cause companies to flee the country. If he is this naive, then he and his team are dangerous due to stupidity and incompetence.
Either way, Obama, will not receive my vote. Nor will any other leftist democrat. I am still wondering how the left gets away with campaigning in a church and no one screaming about it. Oh, wait….. I was in Iraq, I saw the media make up “bad news” stories out of thin air daily. Why should the home front be any different?
The Obama campaign picked a Texas State Senator who clearly wasn’t ready for prime time.
All of you reading this… who’s your favorite candidate? Now – name a piece of legislation from them? How did you do?
I couldn’t have named any laws that Obama introduced, I admit. I’d wager than you McCain supports might have been able to come up with McCain-Feingold, since it is election time afterall. But… unlike Senator Watson, I have the advantage of the Internets at my disposal. I copied this from one of them “liberal, leftist” blogs:
During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
Sorry guys… he didn’t just show up every day and give inspirational pep talks in the Congressional lunchroom. He DID author plenty of legislation… State Senator Watson was just out of his league and wasn’t prepared for Mathew’s pop quiz.
“In the US Army, we have a saying: “Hope is not a method”. Great post ChrisG, on of the best.
I’ve been fascinated with manias for a long time. It’s actually difficult to predict how long they last before they burn themselves out. They can often withstand mountains of contrary evidence for years, just think of the Internet and housing/mortgage bubbles. Since manias are based on irrational beliefs the minds of the believers are not primed to process rational information. Personality cults of Stalin and Hitler withstood multiple disasters of cataclismic proportions and neither one EVER burnt itself out while the cult hero was still around.
I just read a brand new article today that attempts to prove that Obama actually grew up under the influence of a Communist Party member and holds serious Marxists beliefs. But so what? Do people who go to Obama rallies really understand the evils of Marxism? Yesterday Obama was able to say in the span of a few seconds that he is a believer in the market economy and he will do something about the evil overpaid CEOs and companies who outsource abroad. Did that contradiction matter to his audience? Not at all, they ate it up like cupcakes!
It’s my belief that what McCain has to do is to turn Obama into a comical figure. If he goes at him with facts and serious policy discussions he will hit a brick wall.
Chamberlin,
Congrats on being probably the ONLY Obama supporter who can say anything about what Obama has done.
However, I still will not vote Socialist (Democrat) this year (provided my absentee ballot is counted) nor does the left’s field of candidates and platforms for the next several elections look any better.
So for you, Obama falls into my 1st catagory: Obama’s team HAS a plan and it is socialism. Thank you for clearing that up.
Since Hillary Clinton, herself a socialist, cannot attack Obama’s socialism, she is in a quandry. For Obama’s sake, I hope Clinton does not have any proverbial “ice picks” around or Obama may end up as Trotsky. Since leftists posting here have troubles with sarcasm and metaphors, I must be clear. I do not mean she will kill him, but try to politically eliminate or purge him. Who knows how many FBI/IRS files are still in her possession from “File Gate”.
@ChrisG,
I wasn’t able to recite Obama’s legislation…I pasted that spiel from another blog. My assertion is that most people, political junkie or not, could give much of a verbatim list of legislative accomplishments for any of the candidates. I have, however, watched almost every debate and know where he is on the issues.
On the socialist argument: Well… that is just a fundamental disagreement between you and I about how things should be run which is unlikely to be settled in a blog thread. I don’t, by the way believe the US needs to become a socialist country in order to make the most use of its resources. Socialist ideas have a definite downside. Finding the system that works the best would require finding the correct balance. I do know the current system is broken – err… i assume we are talking about healthcare here, right?
On the sarcasm comment: See the Che Guevara post.
The sarcasm reference was not just for you. We have others who are worse.
180-200 million+ people would agree with you, if they were alive to. Also, thousands of Cubans would agree with you and many died trying to escape the Cuban socialist “paradise”.
We do have a lack of “Balance” in America. We have FAR too much socialism combined with people who promise the moon, but do not tell you how much it will take to get there and the fact you will not like it when delivered.
So yes, we will have a fundamental disagreement if you support socialism. History show socialism is a failed system which only leads to dictatorship, economic ruin, loss of individual liberty, and the crushing of dissent no matter what form of socialism (national or global/Leninist/Maoist) is used.
I also have seen his speeches and some debate points. On his issues, I cannot support him with foreign policy, economic models, and growth of government. But he is probably a great guy and is a great orator. The meat of his positions though is holistic socialism and that I cannot and will never support.
Yiddish Steel: Yes, I know Matthews is a hack, and most of the MSM is made of hacks. You probably said it better than I did and that’s it’s a shame the MSM is unwilling to expose Obama’s lack of accomplishment. I give Matthews credit for not letting go of the question.
I lost my list of George W. Bush’s legislative accomplishments. Could somebody help a brother out here?
Why bother! You’re just going to choke on your own bile.
Mr. Watson looked to me to be a mouth-breather for a while there…maybe just catching flies.
What’s so funny is that Obama/Hillary are largely running on ending the war to attract the anti-war vote, and IF either of them (Obama or Hillary) would get into office (God forbid), then you’d suddenly see your anti-war candidate saying things like, “my fellow Americans, we must not withdraw the troops too early. We will stay in Iraq until success is achieved.” Why? They don’t want failure in Iraq on THEIR watch. Then they will try to take all the credit for victory. What will all the abandoned, anti-war Obama-worshippers do then? Keep singing “Kumbaya”?
Doc Washboard,
Simply speaking:
1. 2 term governor in Texas
2. Successful private sector executive
3. Powerful response to 9/11, overthrowing the Taliban and sending OBL and Zawahiri on a permanent cave-style hiatus
4. Nomination of two excellent strict-constructionist judges
5. Vetoed S-CHIP (and other bad bills)
6. “This is the triumph of American policy really” (Bob Geldof praising President Bush on his African Aids benefit package.
There are many more…he is head and shoulders above Sen. Obama, and Sen. Clinton for that matter.
Richard owns Doc
[applause]
Well, no. Actually, it’s more on the order of “Richard proves Doc’s point.”
“Governor of Texas” is not a legislative accomplishment, and neither is “successful private sector executive.”
The rest of the things happened after Bush was elected, so they obviously can’t be used in the discussion of Obama’s preparedness vs. someone else’s preparedness for the job.
Hi Doc,
If you are talking about what made Pres. Bush more prepared than Obama when he was working as Governor of Texas, then that’s at least one of your answers. He was a Governor. And, not just Governor, but Governor of the second largest state in the Union. He was elected by the people of Texas in 1995, and was RE-ELECTED in 1998, but resigned in 2000 to run for President. He was a popular Governor, known for literally reaching across the aisle.
Although his father being a former president doesn’t qualify someone to be president, but because of that, he was more familiar than the average Joe with much of what it entails to be president, like national security, for an example. What does Osama Obama know about national security, I wonder. Although Pres. Bush’s military service has been criticized, he WAS in the military, so has knowledge in that area as well.
Another note is that because Pres. Bush’s father was Commander in Chief, and since he served as a popular Governor, George W. was well-known by most Americans. The only reason we know anything about Obama is because Oprah pulled him out of her pocket and wanted him to be known. And, because of her, he now has a cult following created in the image of Oprah.
Since it is obvious that the Obama camp is searching hard for some sign of his preparedness for any job, I guess it would unnecessary
to point out that he apparently convinced George Soros that he should pour a bunch of money into Obama 1st national campaign based solely on the fact that he had no record of accomplishment in any job. Article
“t is well-known that George Soros, the hedge-fund manager, major Democratic Party donor and anti-Israel crusader, has been a generous contributor to Barack Obama. But relatively few people realize that a loophole in McCain-Feingold allowed Soros his family members to be particularly generous in support of Obama’s Senatorial campaign.”
Article
“Barack Obama
Candidate who criticizes Clinton failure to disclose papers has dodged questions about his Illinois records”
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) dodged questions Sunday about releasing papers from his eight years as an Illinois state senator, and his campaign has not answered records requests from the state’s two largest newspapers. “
Obama’s US Congress voting record. I was surprised at the number of “no vote” indicators. Why so frequent?
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
Suek,
Looking at both the “no” and “did not vote” areas really does say a lot.