People are treating Barack Obama's generalized appeals to "unity" and "bipartisanship" as if they were something fresh and new. In reality, they are recycled old manure. John J. Pitney, Jr. writes at NRO:
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.
Obama supporters would shriek at these comparisons, contending that their man follows through on his words by shunning personal attacks. That's only partially true. 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.
Read it all at the link above. Bush and Nixon, at least, had some specific ideas (not all of which were good) and the background of experience to prepare them for office. Obama does very well for an empty suit, though.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Obama, Primaries
Tags: Democrat, Obama, presidential campaign, primaries
Comments (5)
You are not criticizing the... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Steve Crickmore | January 8, 2008 9:43 AM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
You are not criticizing the message but the messenger. Did you criticize Bush because he talks endeleessly or did about spreading freedom, that's a pretty hoary subject, or in his 2000 campaign: 'compassionate conservatism' or 'balancing the budget' or getting out of nation-building, none of which he really meant. Obama is the genuine article not a natural bully like 'frat boy' Bush or 'tricky Dick' Nixon...I'm dissappointed Jim that you can't see the difference even as an old cynic who has lost all hope in politicians ever acting in the public interest or appointing the best and the brightest.
Obama has been instrumental against all odds, in passing bills in the Senate in Illinois on transparency for the police in Illinois/ video taping confessions and for lobbyist acountability in Washington D.C. but his real accomplishement is inspiring thousands of young pepole to take part in federal politics, neither for money or power something the experience of having Nixon in the White House destroyed for a generation and the Bush/Cheney Rove have done the impossible and only lowered the bar further.
I admit most politicians are full of chicanery, on both sides of the aisle, but that it makes even more special when one with very litte guile but loads of ability, but is modest about it, appears.
1. Posted by Steve Crickmore | January 8, 2008 9:43 AM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 8, 2008 09:43
2. Posted by bryanD | January 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Shorter J.J.Pitney:
"Pardon my use of the words "shriek" and "satanic" in relation to the Obamanomanon. For I am frightened and confused camper, trying to look busy typing, caught between a fat glowering Romney-stalker and a macho boss who buys his clothes in the Boys section. Needless to say, they're both terminally pissed. Want some?
"And no! I'm no relation to Gene "It Hurts To Be In Love" Pitney!....Asshole!"
2. Posted by bryanD | January 8, 2008 11:30 AM |
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 8, 2008 11:30
3. Posted by Glenn Koons | January 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It is amazing how the herd is flogged toward this Empty Suit who is just a socialist pacifist. His 'unity' material is just fine for a leftist. What libs mean when they say unity, is 'agree with me and forget those GOP Fascists and then we will be united.' A new tone is not new at all. It is the old 1930's leftism warmed over and I suggest that GOPers including our candidates read Human Events articel, Obamamania. It goes point by point on his agenda, which looks like Saul Alinsky or Noam Chomsky. Don't let this tsunami of Obama fool you into believing that His Change, is Good Change.
3. Posted by Glenn Koons | January 8, 2008 1:29 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 8, 2008 13:29
4. Posted by Jim Addison | January 8, 2008 3:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, Bill Clinton says (politely) that Obama is a lying punk. I posted the video on the main page for your viewing pleasure.
4. Posted by Jim Addison | January 8, 2008 3:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 8, 2008 15:11
5. Posted by COgirl | January 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
If any candidate wants to "unite" the country, the thing to do is to recommend that we get rid of everyone in the House and Senate. That's where the problem lies. It's naive of any candidate to think that they can "change" things in Washington. That goes for every Dem and Republican candidate. You can't change what doesn't want to be fixed.
5. Posted by COgirl | January 8, 2008 4:36 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 8, 2008 16:36