Transcript of the President’s speech.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdGX62bOkEI[/youtube]
Out of the many quotes of the week, the blathering of Chris Matthews in wake of President Obama’s “thrilling” speech Wednesday, commemorating the 50th Anniversary of “the March on Washington” and MLK’s “Dream” speech:
Matthews bizarrely argued that Obama is “everything the white conservative should have designed” as the “perfect African-American president.”
“This will sound partisan – to hell with it,” Matthews began. “The speech the president gave today is an example of why there is no credibility to his right-wing critics. He is a moderate, he is a pro-American guy, a patriotic guy, who preaches over and over again unity among the various groups in this country. He never preaches division.”
How has President Obama been anything other than divisive in his rhetoric as it relates to conservatives and Republicans? In so many speeches, he does nothing to bridge the divide. He insults. He misrepresents the opposition and sets up strawmen.
Even in this historic and otherwise stellar speech from the President on Wednesday:
And our politics has suffered. Entrenched interests, those who benefit from an unjust status quo, resisted any government efforts to give working families a fair deal — marshaling an army of lobbyists and opinion makers to argue that minimum wage increases or stronger labor laws or taxes on the wealthy who could afford it just to fund crumbling schools, that all these things violated sound economic principles. We’d be told that growing inequality was a price for a growing economy, a measure of this free market; that greed was good and compassion ineffective, and those without jobs or health care had only themselves to blame.
And then, there were those elected officials who found it useful to practice the old politics of division, doing their best to convince middle-class Americans of a great untruth — that government was somehow itself to blame for their growing economic insecurity; that distant bureaucrats were taking their hard-earned dollars to benefit the welfare cheat or the illegal immigrant.
Reading the above, how is President Obama himself not responsible for the divisiveness?
“In the span of five decades, our nation moved from institutional racism to electing a black man to the presidency. My children are taught at side-by-side with children of all colors and backgrounds, and my family enjoys boundless opportunities. In my mind, Dr. King’s Dream has been realized,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Cherylyn Harley LeBon. “That’s why it is so difficult to understand why President Obama would choose to be so divisive on a day when we should all be celebrating. Why use this hallowed occasion to take pot shots at the Supreme Court for protecting our ballots, at laws that seek to protect us from crime and to support programs that break up families and encourage bad behavior? It’s not right.”
While Obama was not the only speaker, and not the only president, to use the event to push a political agenda, Project 21 members believe it would have been more appropriate for the sitting president to eschew partisanship for the momentous occasion.
“On the surface, President Obama gave homage to our founding documents and appeared to discourage those who seek excuses for their bad behavior. But this speech, peppered with Biblical references, seemed to use all of this as window dressing for his liberal agenda,” said Project 21′s Stacy Swimp. “He condemned segregated schools of the past and current substandard schools, but the contradiction is that he opposes school choice and promotes union supremacy. The same president who praised triumph over racial animosity contributed to it with his comments earlier this year on the George Zimmerman case.”
After appropriately discussing and honoring the spirit and plight of 1963 marchers, Obama veered into a discourse on the “second goal of the March” — what he called “our great unfinished business” of “material security.” In doing so, he played into the class warfare rhetoric common to his campaign speeches. Saying critics offer a “life of lower expectations,” those with “courage to change” — those who would follow his campaign — recognize a “right to health care,” have compassion for homosexuality and oppose those who erect “new barriers” to voting.
“What is astounding to me is the abundance of discouragement and condemnation Obama piled on for this historic and uplifting occasion,” added Project 21′s Lisa Fritsch. “As a whole, the event was full of woe to the people and grumbling about social and class warfare that has become the norm when black leaders speak. But we are not trapped by the mistakes of history as much as we are trapped by Obama’s vision of a present and a definition of ‘courage’ and freedom that seems to mean a free lunch for all. That’s what puts our nation in a moral and economic decline of self-entitlement and victimization. Instead of standing on their shoulders with gratitude, joy and pride, Obama slapped us all in the face with anger and bad news.”
“The 50th anniversary of the March on Washington afforded President Obama the perfect opportunity to sum up the stunning racial progress the nation has made since 1963. He failed that test,” said Project 21′s Joe R. Hicks ”Instead, the President gave a confused, plodding talk that meandered into orthodox left/liberal ideological cul-de-sacs. While briefly touching on obvious changes that have re-shaped the nation’s political and social landscape — something required by the reason for his speech — the President then proceeded to overshadow these themes by sounding at points like a spokesperson for the disgraced Occupy Wall Street protestors. He descended into left rhetoric about the damage of voter ID laws, injustice in the nation’s criminal justice system and the need for a so-called ‘liveable wage.’ Once again, Obama took the low road — blaming conservative opponents for his inability to produce policies that would stimulate the economy and grow jobs for black workers and jobs for all Americans. All in all, it was a thoroughly unpresidential speech that missed the opportunity to help reconnect a racially-divided nation.”
Barack Obama’s speech on the 50th anniversary of MLK’s Washington address was an opportunity to bring Americans together and unite the country in memory of a greatly revered American leader. Instead, as my colleague Tim Stanley pointed out in his excellent piece, this was a deeply partisan speech, filled with campaign-style rhetoric. In Tim’s words, “he uses a day that ought to be marked by national unity as an opportunity to deliver a stump speech, even though he’s not running for election.”
Barack Obama used his address to reiterate the same themes he has been hammering home in a series of recent speeches. These ranged from class warfare and anti-capitalist rhetoric, of the kind usually deployed by French Socialists, to a call for more government programs.
Back to Matthews:
He also said Obama promoted personal responsibility in his speech. “He is everything a white conservative should applaud!”
“Look how he grew up, how he educated himself, how he always did the right thing and stayed clean as a whistle his whole life and raised his beautiful family,” Matthews continued, getting increasingly angry and animated. “Everything that white conservatives say is perfect! And he is perfect by their standards and still trash him as some kind of left-wing socialist who somehow doesn’t belong in the presidency.”
In a very bizarre statement, he then claimed Obama is “everything the white conservative should have designed and said ‘our perfect African-American president.’”
“That’s if they ever wanted there to be a black president of the United States. That’s if,” he added. “What does this guy have to do to win the approval of the right-wing white guy out there.”
“Is that too strong? I’m sorry, it is,” he concluded.
Yes, it’s all about race. And it’s all because of the “right-wing white guy out there” criticizing a sitting president that we are a few steps shy of standing in fulfillment of MLK’s Dream….
Related chuckles from the Blaze:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLzbbF5ZUOo[/youtube]
Published on Aug 28, 2013
8/28/13 – (On Martin Luther King Anniversary, Chris Matthews Explodes with Rage Over Racism Directed at Barack Obama) — Chris Matthews burst out of the gate on Wednesday with a staggering display of anger after he was asked to frame the events which will mark the 50th anniversary of Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Matthews railed against Republicans who refuse to acknowledge what he sees so clearly — the subtle racism which is ceaselessly aimed at President Barack Obama in an effort to delegitimize him.
Matthews says he expects “heated rhetoric” from the speakers who will mark the half-century anniversary of King’s inspirational speech. Instead of a message of hope, Matthews predicted — or rather hoped — that anger and resentment would be the dominant themes Wednesday’s commemorations.
“This country’s divided today — heavily divided, sharply divided — between the ‘noes’ out there,” Matthews began. “The ones who reject an African-American president , have rejected him from the day he was elected and the day they heard he might be elected.”
“The other half of the country rather disillusioned,” he continued, betraying his own sentiments. “Rather disenchanted; almost pouting with disillusionment right now.”
“Frustration and rejection are going to clash today,” Matthews added, anticipating the tone of the speech he would give. That is, if he were invited to speak.
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked Matthews for his thoughts on a quote from former President George W. Bush who praised King on this anniversary effusively and said that the erecting of a monument to him in the nation’s capital reflects “the promise of America.”
This noble and inoffensive sentiment moved Matthews to an expectorating rage. Though he praised Bush for issuing a “nice statement,” he returned to the theme that today’s racism directed at the president is so subtle that only a select few mediums (himself among them) can channel it.
“They never say their problem with Obama is that he is black but look at the pattern,” Matthews continued. “The pattern is rejection of his legitimacy at the first point saying he is not really here illegally.” Matthews insisted that some Republicans in Congress are insisting that Obama is a “crook” because he is here illegally and that talk of impeachment — a staple topic of discussion among opponents of second term presidents — is an expression of their racial hatred for the president.
“At least in the old days they were honest about it,” Matthews insisted. “Today, they are not. That’s how rough it’s going to be today, I think.” This is a bad bet. While some of today’s speakers will surely focus more on the challenges ahead than the progress behind, the most important speaker — the president — does not have a track record of echoing MSNBC’s racial resentments.
When the president does talk about race, which is rare, he is often conciliatory. In his speech addressing the verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin, Obama spoke to African-American concerns. He spoke the language of frustration and repression, getting the attention of the nation’s minorities who were frustrated by that verdict. And, in the end, he made sure to inform them that racial progress is being made and each generation moves successively closer to equality.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
“He never preaches division.”
My God what a load of crap. Matthews is psychotic.
Does anyone really pay attention to Chris anymore?
From the transcript:
Straw man.
WHO????
Yes, under Obama’s own policies!
Point one finger at imaginary others and Obama has FOUR other fingers pointing back at himself on this one.
Whether Obama ”framed it” or not, he has done just that with his own racial politics.
It’s obvious the man’s elevator doesn’t quite make it to the top floor. Perhaps we should put him and Pat Buchanan in the same room with loaded guns and not open it until the shooting is over and then finish off who’s left if either of them are.
King supported unions, Obama has done little for them. Tell me, how is this not your narrative?
@Old Guy: “Does anyone really pay attention to Chris anymore?” Who?
People truly only hear what they want to hear. How can we label a speech that gives hard truths to both sides “divisive”? Sure, people on the Right might not like the paragraphs cherry picked above, but what about the paragraph that directly follows? If President Obama wanted to score easy points with his base, why – in a speech of this magnitude, on this anniversary – why in the world would he include the following?
Does this not resonate with anyone here? I’ve read variations of these themes (albeit, not expressed as sensitively or eloquently) a million times on this blog. What was riskier for Obama, the paragraph quoted in this post – easy fodder for the Right to take umbrage with while completely ignoring the message – or asking his own constituency to answer some hard questions?
And what would have been the safest, easiest approach of all? I know: don’t include either admonition, to the Right or Left, in the speech. Just do a vanilla, safe, speech and be done with it. A post like this makes me shake my head. There is truly nothing President Obama can possibly say that the Right will not jump on to take offense.
@another vet: Hey, if it’s a one story building…..he’s golden. Much like the dribble down his leg.
From all the educated erudite people the president has at his disposal, if we are to assume these Ivy League degrees are still valid proof of intellectual accomplishment and not what appears to be a record of jumping through the hoops of political indoctrination, the president still allows the crass loudmouth Mathews to carry his water and throw rose petals in front of his motorcade.
No one can fault Mathews for his passion and partisan belligerence, no he excels in these fields, but to the public he has become the boring drunk at the party, an embarrassment to everyone.
Our president surrounds himself with buffoons and dolts, his opponents no longer hide their disgust and among his supporters, only the most rabid fawners believe or follow these coarse and obvious hacks like Mathews. He is losing America, he is losing the presidency, he has lost the confidence of the American people and he still insists on using drunken cheerleaders to deliver his political message. Like the water in the bowl after the flush handle has been pushed, it gains momentum until everything disappears and is replaced with fresh water. It is time for Obama to be replaced, his vanity strike in Syria will be the perfect excuse for America to get rid of its embarrassment and begin to rebuild this country.
Obama can’t stop preaching his propaganda or giving excuses even under the most inauspicious of times. Just like when Hilary Clinton made a jab about the US healthcare system after her husband underwent bypass surgey, Obama can’t avoid trying to manipulate the American mind when he gets up to speak.
Hard to add anything after Skook’s take, but there are two points I’d like to add.
First, this business about people opposing Obama from the get-go because he’s black. No, it’s always been because he’s red.
Second, rejecting someone with little experience who always voted “present” when the chips were down turns out to have been frustratingly prescient.
How racist can a country be that not only elects a black president, but re-elects a black president who (please pardon my language) s—s?
When you reach back into history, grabbing moments that suit your self-serving sermons stoking the fires of resentment, and hatred, the source of the fantisized intolerance you rail against will eventually respond.
90% of the whites being condemned will begin to wonder, “who the hell are these race baters talking about? I’m not racist, and I’m not seeing the racism that these preachers of hate are claiming. WTF?” And then, the hate mongers will feel vindicated, because they will have the reaction that they engendered.
Whites will eventually become resentful of the unrestrained verbal accusations, further enabled by a debilitated and unthinking MSM. Hispanics will also become resentful. Think of the tens of millions who arrived in the U.S. over the last 30 years from Europe or Asia or South America, for example, who look at these hate mongers and wonder who the hell they’re talking about.
Racism exists in some form all over the world, but in America, the reality is that it is marginal. The race baters are hell-bent on creating racism where none exists.
@Tom:
Tom,
My post was a quickie, and not well thought out and formulated (just blockquoted some stuff together after rolling my eyes at Chris Matthews). I’m sorry that I didn’t give a more thorough opinion on the president’s speech.
I acknowledge there are parts that are not divisive, are presidential, and is moving for a nation of both sides to hear, within the speech. My problem is with the inclusion of rhetoric that is framed with a liberal perspective to push a political agenda (as mentioned in the articles of those opinionators cited in this post). President Obama seems to do this quite often, in so many speeches. As if he is perpetually in campaign-mode.
Well, mostly the far right and those afflicted with ODS. 🙂
The main beef of my skeletal post was in feeding attention to Chris Matthews.
I will say this: It was a mistake for no one in the Republican leadership who was invited to speak on Wednesday, to do all that he could to arrange and rearrange his schedule to go to Washington and speak. What message does that send when not one Republican spoke at such an event? I consider it shameful, wrong, and politically damaging. It was a perfect opportunity for a conservative perspective to be heard amidst a sea of liberal Democrat speakers; and to show American unity.
I understand that President Bush had an excuse; but even if he really wasn’t healthy enough to make it, why not send Laura Bush, Jeb, or someone else to represent? It was a missed opportunity.
And I disagree with those who believe any conservative or GOP voice would have been boo’ed or would be wading into a hostile environment. Even if that were true, how cowardly not to turn up and deliver a speech anyway? Worse off to give free ammo to the political pundits on the left by not giving import to the memory of MLK’s historic speech.