Jump to content

Neil Boortz's breakdown of the Obama speech


silentbob1272
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think as Boortz is prone to do, he oversimplifies a few points to an almost laughable degree, but he does articulate many of the downright and glaring deceptions of that speech last night. The facts to back up many of his claims in the speech just are not accurate. There are several people here that make consistently excellent arguments regarding their reasons for supporting Obama, I am honestly curious to see if anything the guys says and misrepresents would give you pause about him. I don't think a Neil Boortz article is going to change anyone's mind about their candidate, but any of you notice the same inconsistencies that he (Boortz) calls out?

I also agree with him on the set, it did not look like a temple at all

Neil's Nuze

OK .. first off, I have no problem at all with the staging. It didn't look like a Greek temple. It did not look like they were trying to present Obama as some kind of a Greek God. I actually thought it was tastefully done. You can watch the whole thing here if you're so inclined.

I'll admit to putting the television on mute when Al Gore came on. This man has been so full of complete horse squeeze for so long that I just didn't want to listen to any of it last night. I took that time to unpack.

Let's give credit, though. The Chosen One flat filled that stadium, didn't he? Never underestimate the dumb masses.

Now ... some speech specifics. You hear me constantly complaining about government education in this country. Obama's speech only reinforces my position. There are so many things that Obama said last night that would have been laughed out of the stadium if only the crowd knew how absurd they were. Those people weren't there, though, because they were educated policy wonks. They were there to engage in celebrity worship. Last night was a not-so-adult version of the final episode of American Idol.

The Obama campaign is dedicated to the idea of chaining John McCain to George Bush. Once again last night we heard that bit about McCain voting with Bush 90% of the time. That line works because the dumb masses don't know any better. Has it occurred to you that George Bush doesn't have a vote in the Senate? So just how do you measure the percentage of times that McCain is voting "with" the president? Well, perhaps you could measure the number of times that a Senator votes with the Republican members. Ahhh ... but remember, as our Washington correspondent Jamie Dupree has told us many times, most Senate votes are unanimous. This would mean that the only way not to "vote with the president" would be not to vote at all. As **** Morris wrote: "The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn't mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president."

Morris also points out a series of important issues on which Bush and McCain did not agree:

* McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.

* McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.

* McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.

* McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

* McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.

* McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.

* McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.

* After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.

* McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

Using the same methodology you would probably find that most Democrat senators also voted with Bush 90% of the time.

Now here's one part of the Obama speech that was particularly clever. As you know, we've been talking about Obama's plan to raise taxes on the very people, small businessmen and women, who are providing about 80% of the new jobs our economy is producing. Obama's response last night was to say that "I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow."

Here, again, is where the ignorance of the American voter comes into play. I can just hear some of my listeners now: "That Neal Boortz said that Obama was going to raise taxes these small businessmen. Obama said he is going to eliminate him. There! I knew it! Boortz is a liar!"

Pay attention now. Obama said he was going to eliminate capital gains taxes. These small businessmen generally don't pay capital gains taxes. They pay income taxes. Obama's plan is to raise the income taxes on these entrepreneurs. Telling the American people that he will cut their capital gains taxes is simply a charade; a charade the uneducated will buy.

Did you hear Obama last night say that McCain describes middle class as someone making less than $5 million dollars a year? Now you may laugh at that idea and think it absurd. Trust me ... there are hundreds of thousands of Obama voters out there who will take that seriously; who will think that McCain thinks that someone making $4,500,000 a year is middle class. Tell me, is that playing on the stupidity of the American people?

Then there's Obama's line about the Republicans and McCain not proposing one penny of tax relief for over 100 million Americans. Sounds good. But if you're educated; if you know the statistics; if you pay attention you will know that the bottom 50% of income earners in this country pay only about 3% of all individual income taxes collected by the federal government. When you get to the bottom 40% that percentage figures drops to zero. Now just what is our current population figure? Around 300 million or so? That would bean that about 120 million Americans have no federal income tax liability at all. Yet there's Obama saying that McCain is offering no tax relief to these people. Relief from what?

There was another line in Obama's speech that is very typical of far-left politicians. Obama seems to feel those with higher incomes in this country have not earned their way. Whatever the wealthy have was given to them, not earned. So Obama tells the adoring crowd that Republicans want to "Give more and more to those with the most, and hope that prosperity will trickle down to the rest." As I said, this is a standard Democrat theme. Wealthy people didn't earn what they have, it was given to them. And since it was given to them, there's nothing really all that wrong with taking more and more of it away from them ... just to even things out a bit. Remember, please, that Obama flat-out said that he wants to raise taxes on the rich not to bring in increased government revenues, but to make things more "fair."

This idea that whatever wealthy or successful people have was given to them is reflected in the idea that people should "give back." Charity isn't recognized for what it is; one individual giving some of what they have earned to another in need. No .. it's just someone giving back some of the stuff that was given to them. Accomplishment and the concept of earning seems to have no place in Democrat rhetoric.

As I was trying to wrap up these notes this morning a Wal-Mart ad came on television. It seems that you can go to some Wal-Marts and get a prescription for one of 300 medications filled for just four dollars. That's for a 30-day supply. If you want a 90-day supply it will cost you ten bucks. There can't be one of you out there who could possibly think that the government could provide these drugs to you for the same price. Yet Obama told us last night that the private sector simply cannot handle our health care needs.

One clear realization after last night. After watching the show in Denver ... and watching the scene at Times Square in New York City last night ... there is a clear sense of mass hysteria over Barack Obama. What fun it would be to walk up to one of those cheering people and engage them in a discussion on the differences between a capital gains tax and an income tax. Wouldn't you just love to watch their expressions as you detail the way that government has intentionally restricted free market involvement in the delivery of health care? What do you think their answer would be if you were to ask them just how you give income tax breaks to 100 million Americans who don't pay income taxes? The blank expressions of the faces of these screaming masses would be priceless.

John McCain truly has a tough – almost impossible – act to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a lot of ways, I dislike that they are choosing the tactic of painting McCain as a carbon copy of Bush. It does not give McCain the credit that he deserves, nor does it take into consideration McCain's rebellion against the Republican party line prior to the Bush presidency. I am even more surprised at how poorly McCain has responded to this angle. It's smart in that it forces him to denounce the head of his party and the sitting President, or be painted as a clone (much like they did to Gore in 2000), but it's unfortunate that it does not paint a complete and fair picture.

That being said, much of my disgust with McCain is rooted in the fact that his recrod and his disposition seems to have taken a sharp turn in 2000, almost as though Bush & Co. sat him down and told him to toe the line or they'd jettison him from their ranks.

Honestly, my main issue this election is foreign policy, and I am right with Obama in most cases, and violently opposed to McCain, on this issue. Boortz is a tool and a blowhard, but this response is fine. I found the speech pretty bland. I was ont the target of that speech, the uninformed person wondering what Obama is all about was the target for that speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to the speech, it was the whole tax thing that got me the most, not the obvious "tax cuts for the rich" bs, that has been the parroted mantra of the Democratic Party for so long, that I'm sure Harry Reid mumbles it in his sleep each night. I'm talking about the promise to cut taxes and provide relief to a segment of society which essentially pays no taxes under the current plan. It seems like blatant pandering (which I honestly expect from any politician, so not that big a deal there) but it preys upon the ignorance of the American Voter buy offering to buy their vote with money they are already getting, but fails to recognize....it just seems sleazy as ****, and I thought Boortz did a nice job of stating the facts behind the hyperbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a lot of ways, I dislike that they are choosing the tactic of painting McCain as a carbon copy of Bush. It does not give McCain the credit that he deserves, nor does it take into consideration McCain's rebellion against the Republican party line prior to the Bush presidency. I am even more surprised at how poorly McCain has responded to this angle. It's smart in that it forces him to denounce the head of his party and the sitting President, or be painted as a clone (much like they did to Gore in 2000), but it's unfortunate that it does not paint a complete and fair picture.

That being said, much of my disgust with McCain is rooted in the fact that his recrod and his disposition seems to have taken a sharp turn in 2000, almost as though Bush & Co. sat him down and told him to toe the line or they'd jettison him from their ranks.

Honestly, my main issue this election is foreign policy, and I am right with Obama in most cases, and violently opposed to McCain, on this issue. Boortz is a tool and a blowhard, but this response is fine. I found the speech pretty bland. I was ont the target of that speech, the uninformed person wondering what Obama is all about was the target for that speech.

And that my friend is the exact problem I have with McCain. He was once the only politician that COULD have gotten a vote out of me because he truly blurred party lines. Even not that long back when he went on 60 minutes and regardless of the line the party was handing out, said the troops did NOT have the proper armor for themselves or their vehicles and said that many of the bills that would have provided that protection were drowning in pork that was added to thee bills.

And now we have this John McCain.

Of all politicians to stick to and emulate..the worse president in history. I just don't get it. They must have waterboarded his ### for days .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that my friend is the exact problem I have with McCain. Her was once the only politician that COULD have gotten a vote out of me because he truly blurred party lines. Even not that long back when he went on 60 minutes and regardless of the line the party was handing out, said the troops did NOT have the proper armor for themselves or their vehicles and said that many of the bills that would have provided that protection were drowning in pork that was added to thee bills.

And now we have this John McCain.

Of all politicians to stick to and emulate..the worse president in history. I just don't get it. They must have waterbarded his ### for days .

Bingo! When the Obama/Clinton mudfest was going, I honestly considered McCain as a fall option. I didn't know that the "Maverick" would morph from who he was for over 20 years until the embodiment of all things GOP. He could have won the election already by following his own lead, but when faced with his party's non-support, he bent over and started to blow. He would have won anyway, of this I have no doubt. However, the funky ads and flip-flopping from his record make the "four more years" concern very valid. He wouldn't run the White House if elected, his Chinese and Saudi bosses (by way of the RNC) would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys know my politics from the board, I believe. I did vote for John McCain in 2000. I chose not to vote in the general election because I don't believe in crossing party lines if you aren't going to vote for the person you voted for in the primary. Just my choice.

I don't know what happened to him. Maybe age. He is not the same person he was 8 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few decent points, mostly just political spin.

I still dont get all these Boortz/Hannity/Rush shows. All of them have the mentality of "Listen to us and not "mainstream media (even though they are are mainstream media)"! They are all liars who will bend the information! Yet they are all 100% biases and have a 100% chance of bending the information into whatever point they are trying to make.

I don't get how people can listen to that. Exchanging an actual news source for a spin doctor is like exchanging a cell phone for a nuclear waste because you are afraid of radiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that my friend is the exact problem I have with McCain. He was once the only politician that COULD have gotten a vote out of me because he truly blurred party lines. Even not that long back when he went on 60 minutes and regardless of the line the party was handing out, said the troops did NOT have the proper armor for themselves or their vehicles and said that many of the bills that would have provided that protection were drowning in pork that was added to thee bills.

And now we have this John McCain.

Of all politicians to stick to and emulate..the worse president in history. I just don't get it. They must have waterboarded his ### for days .

I must have missed something... What does McCain have to do with Jimmy Carter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tax issue in the speech last night that stuck out the most to me was about raising corporate income taxes.

Just who does he think pays corporate income taxes? Evidently, he doesn't realize that consumers pay it, and corporations will simply raise prices to pay for additional taxes, thus accelerating inflation. BRILLIANT!

Oh yea... and McCain's policies aren't even similar to Bush's so... Don't know where all that comes from, aside from rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tax issue in the speech last night that stuck out the most to me was about raising corporate income taxes.

Just who does he think pays corporate income taxes? Evidently, he doesn't realize that consumers pay it, and corporations will simply raise prices to pay for additional taxes, thus accelerating inflation. BRILLIANT!

Oh yea... and McCain's policies aren't even similar to Bush's so... Don't know where all that comes from, aside from rhetoric.

You also have to keep in mind that corporations can leave anytime they wish, my friend's company is entertaining serious discussions about relocating to another "home base" which offers vastly superior corporate tax rates and incentives already, and Obama really thinks by further burdening corporate America he will create jobs????? This is one of the reasons why this guy is at best unqualified and naive, and at worst completely f'ing delusional.

You don't attract new business and keep your existing businesses in country with oppressive tax rates, because there are other countries bright enough to know better and they will go there and take their jobs with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys know my politics from the board, I believe. I did vote for John McCain in 2000. I chose not to vote in the general election because I don't believe in crossing party lines if you aren't going to vote for the person you voted for in the primary. Just my choice.

I don't know what happened to him. Maybe age. He is not the same person he was 8 years ago.

he had to change himself to get the nomination from the crazy right-wingers. if he didnt bend over and gussy up to bush the crazy evangelicals wouldnt have liked him, and he wouldnt have won the nomination.

this was the only way, and i hope to god he doesnt get elected president. because im afraid of the 4 more years thing too. its a legitimate concern considering his recent voting record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Irish Miracle: How Ireland Went from Economic Basket Case to Masterpiece

Its funny you brought up Ireland, because they are among the proposals for the relocation I spoke of.....that should scare the **** out of us by itself....Europe......Europe for Christ's sake is smart enough to figure this very simple business concept out, and we are fawning and fainting over a guy who will chase big business (and their jobs) out of this country as quickly and he can sign the papers for the new "FAIR" tax codes. It will be unintentional, but the economists are already warning against many of the very things Obama put forth as solutions last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of people rely on Hannity, Rush, Boortz, and O'reilly for the political beliefs.

They let these tools spell it all out for them so they don't have to make a decision for themselves.

I have major disagreements with Hannity and Rush. But as a libertarian, Boortz is closer to me than either of the parties.

Never realized I had a party until I listened to him. Just thought I was a left of center Conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still amazed at the class warfare rhetoric and the taxation issues which are potentially disastrous to our fragile economy. But what really struck me last night was the ultimate paradox in his speech. He took great effort to invoke parallels to JFK, particularly the idea of sacrifice. But while in one breath he's extolling the man who said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", in another he proceeds to lay out a "chicken in every pot" type laundry list of social programs and increased spending initiatives where the government takes a larger role in taking care of you. It was crystallized in his mocking of the Republican "ownership society" ideal when he seemed to disdain the idea that a poor person is on their "own" to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and as he said "if they have any boots at all".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's so simple that it is extremely frustrating that our politicians refuse to see it. Viable 3rd and 4th parties are needed.

It's not for the politicians to decide if 3rd or 4th parties work. It's up to the people who vote.

I constantly hear "Choose the lesser evil" on these boards. So the voters themselves are the ones tossing out any options outside the two majors. Don't blame the politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not for the politicians to decide if 3rd or 4th parties work. It's up to the people who vote.

I constantly hear "Choose the lesser evil" on these boards. So the voters themselves are the ones tossing out any options outside the two majors. Don't blame the politicians.

no doubt, I have heard " politicians are ruining this country" and I have always said no they are not........Its the American people ruining it, WE are the ones that allow the laughable 2 party machine to continue to dominate. We the people have not stood up and said enough of this.

until this country grows some grapefruits it will always be like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still amazed at the class warfare rhetoric and the taxation issues which are potentially disastrous to our fragile economy. But what really struck me last night was the ultimate paradox in his speech. He took great effort to invoke parallels to JFK, particularly the idea of sacrifice. But while in one breath he's extolling the man who said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", in another he proceeds to lay out a "chicken in every pot" type laundry list of social programs and increased spending initiatives where the government takes a larger role in taking care of you. It was crystallized in his mocking of the Republican "ownership society" ideal when he seemed to disdain the idea that a poor person is on their "own" to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and as he said "if they have any boots at all".

Good post. The class warfare politics is patronizing to the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, and does incent them to pull themselves up. Most of the rich in this country have earned it themselves, and politicians attack them as though they've cheated and stolen. As far as being poor, I'd rather be poor in the US than anywhere else in the world. You still get cable TV and an education. (Homeless, however is a little rougher- we do not treat our mentally ill well at all.)

It's not for the politicians to decide if 3rd or 4th parties work. It's up to the people who vote.

I constantly hear "Choose the lesser evil" on these boards. So the voters themselves are the ones tossing out any options outside the two majors. Don't blame the politicians.

I hear ya, and there's some truth to it, but to be fair, the existing establishment have passed legislation making it more difficult for 3rd parties to establish themselves.

(Don't ask the specifics, I don't remember them, and don't remember where I read it, but let me know if you find what I'm talking about.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...