Political Rhetoric: What to Watch for in the State of the Union

In case logic gets a little lost during tonight’s speeches (both the State of the Union and the Republican response), it might be useful to once again provide another little primer for those less familiar with political rhetoric. This may help sort through the nonsense.

First, if a politician says they favor “investing” in this or that government program, they really mean they want to spend more money (money the government really doesn’t have these days). When they do not favor the program, they’ll actually call it spending – but maybe add the adjective “wasteful” in front of it for the effect.

Second, notice the use of the word “access.” It’s one of the most used political catchphrases these days. When Party 2 says that Party 1 wants to deny Person X “access” to B, what that means in actuality is that Party 1 has no problem with Person X buying their own B, but it does not want to make a law forcing Persons Y and Z to pay for Person X’s  B.

Third, watch out when Party 2 says all of our problems are the results of Party 1’s policies, or vice-versa. That is seldom ever really the case. There is plenty of blame to go around to indict both parties.

Convention-speak

In case logic gets a little lost this week during part two of the major political parties’ conventions (assuming it was ever there), it might be useful to provide a little primer for those less familiar with political rhetoric. This may help sort through the nonsense (which was always there).

First, notice the use of the word “access.” It’s one of the most used political catchphrases these days. When Party 2 says that Party 1 wants to deny Person X “access” to B, what that means in actuality is that Party 1 has no problem with Person X buying their own B, but it does not want to make a law forcing Persons Y and Z to pay for Person X’s  B.

Second, if a politician says they favor “investing” in this or that government program, they really mean they want to spend more money (money the government really doesn’t have these days). When they do not favor the program, they’ll actually call it spending – but maybe add the adjective “wasteful” in front of it for the effect.

Third, watch out when Party 2 says all of our problems are the results of Party 1’s policies, or vice-versa. That is seldom ever really the case. There is plenty of blame to go around to indict both parties.

Obama: Supreme Court Shouldn’t Overturn Passed Legislation

At what point do you just stop taking anything any Washington politician says seriously? In a place where incoherent and meaningless rhetoric abounds, it becomes hard to avoid.

One of the latest examples being this recent blurb from President Obama on why the Supreme Court overturning the Affordable Care Act would be hard to imagine:

Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme  Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a  democratically elected Congress.

And I just remind conservative commentators  that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem on the bench was  judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint; that an unelected group of  people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well,  this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will  recognize that and not take that step.

And with that he quite possibly places a lot doubt on his supposed expertise as a former constitutional law professor. What could he possibly even mean by these statements? It may be helpful to pick them apart.

Words for the Weekend – 12-3-10

“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

                                      – Benjamin Franklin

Hypocrisy in TSA Debate

The controversy over the TSA’s new tactics in screening airline passengers has put the same progressives who were against the violation of civil liberties during the Bush administration into somewhat of a dilemma: Criticize the administration for its invasive pat down and scanning procedures or support it as necessary and look like hypocrites. The latter seems to be the tact most taken.

This has led more ‘progressive’ figures like MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Ed Shultz to support the clear violation of the Fourth Amendment in the name of security. Matthews suggested that the Obama administration had no choice but to implement these measures, because if there were to be another terrorist attack, they would be blamed for not keeping Americans sufficiently safe. Shultz expressed on air the confusing position that resorting to profiling was “trading liberty for security,” but the invasive pat downs are justified because only around two percent of Americans are having to endure it. He even stated it was OK because counter-terrorism experts say it is necessary.

The ‘progressive’ among us have now hypocritically voiced support for a violation of civil liberties all in the name of security — something they would have decried the government for under the previous administration. One can’t help but wonder how conservatives would have behaved had these pat downs taken place under the previous administration. Sadly, they would have more than likely supported them.

Constitutional Contempt

In light of Halloween, here is a scary and disturbing montage of clips demonstrating the contempt for and/or ignorance of our Constitution on the part of our elected officials, from The Blaze website:

Who elects these people? We do.

Secret, ‘Special’ Interests

The latest tactic progressives are attempting is to scare voters into thinking that behind every conservative, Tea Party or Republican candidate or group are secret, foreign corporations and individuals propping them up with funding. The implication is that these ‘special’ interests represent a threat to our system of democracy. 

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=obama+mtv&iid=9952373″ src=”http://view.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9952373/obama-participates-mtv-bet/obama-participates-mtv-bet.jpg?size=500&imageId=9952373″ width=”234″ height=”136″ /]Part of the issue stems from a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, in which the majority of the justices ruled that corporations have free speech rights in respect to their ability to fund political opinion. Many Democrats and progressives, including Obama, have at many times railed against the decision.

One group under attack is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Recently, there has been an effort to insinuate that the Chamber is backed by foreign special interests, despite little evidence to prove it. The Chamber’s head of government affairs has even asserted that the push to disclose donor information may be an attempt by the Obama administration to intimidate those who fund the organization. Other conservative-leaning groups, like Americans for Prosperity, have also come under fire from Obama and other Democrats desperately hoping to find a way to minimize the severity of their predicted election losses next month.