The lie is that they have repeatedly and explicitly treated the “that” in the edited remark as if it refers to one’s business, when it’s clear from the context that he was referring to the roads and bridges that lead to one’s business. The fact that the RNC has made a single ad with a less-edited version doesn’t change that.
This is not the first time Romney has done this. Last year he made an ad featuring Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”. Except that he was quoting someone from McCain’s campaign when he said it. The Romney campaign was unapologetic about it, too.
McCain’s “fundamentals” quote is different, because the context surrounding it doesn’t change its meaning. McCain did, in fact, believe that the fundamentals of the economy were strong. It was his bad luck to say so a few hours before it became clear that our economy was/is built on shifting sand.
I disagree with your analysis of McCain’s statement, but your interpretation is also valid.
And remember that the Obama campaign also made hay out of Romney’s “I like to fire people” comment, and that was as clear a case of being taken out of context as you’ll ever fine. So they still have no shame, and thus no moral leg to stand on when they whine.
Well, what context exactly makes firing people something to be enjoyed? I don’t think I’d ever like firing someone no matter what the context. Is the person fired going to like it too? Is it fun for all?
I mean even if the person that works for you isn’t doing everything exactly how you want, should it still be something that you like to do? I think even in that case, and they had to be fired due to subpar performance, I still wouldn’t say that I like having to do it. And if he means that he likes having that ability, then it just sounds like he enjoys having power over others lives.
So what context makes what he said a good thing?
Besides, I think that his fellow republicans in the primary, like Rick Perry turning it into a looping ringtone, attacked him on this first, so its disingenuous to blame it on democrats don’t you think, since it was also a republican dirty trick first? So aren’t you just proving how much worse the republicans are with this, since both this and the current Obama non-gaffe are inventions of the republicans?
I haven’t read all 700+ responses, but I just want to lay out a few points because I’m honestly surprised that this non-gaffe is still being debated.
It is inarguable that Obama’s remarks have been taken out of context by the Romney campaign and by the RNC. Seriously, that is a fact, and to argue otherwise is blatantly ignorant.
It is inarguable that Obama was referring to infrasture and not to small business owners or entrepreneurs. Any dingbat could listen to the entire speech and recognize the point that he was making, which brings me to point 3.
It is inarguable that Mitt Romney agrees with the point that the POTUS was making. Look at Mittens’s opening speech at the '02 olympics or virtually any other speech that he has delivered on the campaign trail; he has echoed the president’s point several times and has repeatedly emphasized the importance of infrastructure.
Perhaps most importantly, it’s obvious that the remarks Obama made wouldn’t even qualify as a “gaffe” to begin with. Although he probably didn’t articulate it very eloquently, he still made a salient point; the fact that Mittens and the GOP have resorted to gross distortions and outright LIES about Obama’s speech speaks to - if anything - their desperation to shield themselves from their own losing arguments.
I can’t say I’m free from all bias, but I honestly think that my primary view isn’t Democrat/Republican or liberal/conservative. It’s statements like this that worry me:
I take the President’s words at face value because I try to do that with everyone. When Romney announces plans to lower taxes or decrease regulation, I don’t say he wants to line the pockets of his friends or send twelve-year-olds to work in the coal mines. I think there’s still plenty of room for debate even though Obama’s not a socialist and Romney’s not a robber baron.
Hollerith was seminal in punchcard tabulating, but I don’t think one can uncontroversially state that he designed the first computer. IBM also wasn’t adverse to contracts with governments.
Nonsense. It’s one thing to misunderstand on first hearing the remarks. It’s another thing to be told to take a second listen for context and then claiming, outright, that President Obama said something or meant something he clearly and absolutely did not say or mean. That moves from an honest misunderstanding to an intentional distortion. The man said businesses didn’t build infrastructure by themselves. That’s what he said. period. If you willfully choose to make up your own interpretation that is other than that, you’re either being deliberately obtuse or a liar.
That’s a willfully dishonest statement.
Unbelievable that you could make such an absurd claim with an apparently straight face.
Liking the ability to fire people isn’t the same as enjoying firing people. I’m sure you like the ability to fire your doctor and get a new doctor. Doesn’t mean you want to. I’m sure you hope your doctor does a good job.
As a metaphor, it fails in a test of public opinion. Most people would say they like to choose between different healthcare providers (actually, most people would just like access to healthcare at all). Only Mitt “Job Creator” Romney and his libertarian ilk would claim to like being able to fire people.
I thought I remembered Obama stumping on this kerfuffle, but after about 30 minutes of searching, all I could find was a tweet from the Obama campaign manager quoting Romney with a “!!!” after it.
Can you find the Obama campaign making any real hay out of this? Stump speeches, articles, anything? Maybe it was just a media thing and the Obama campaign didn’t really embrace it, but just watched it play out in the media.
What about my follow up post? You should have seen that I already looked up the context on this and had a series of questions for you about how it is that its supposed to be the Democrats fault when the Republicans were the ones attacking him for this during the primary.
Your ‘Democrats do it to!’ example is actually also from the Republicans, so its disingenuous to blame the Democrats for this one isn’t it? I mean you’ve only really proven that the Republicans are very good at taking things intentionally out of context and attacking their opponents with it. On that I agree with you.
Maybe that’s how they felt. I can grant that. Or maybe they took that other poster’s advice. I’ve been on discussion boards for years, the right side doesn’t usually “win”, the majority side does. If four people are arguing one side reasonably and ten people are just telling them they are ignorant and can’t be reasoned with, how do you expect them to react?
I don’t know, I think things are either objectively right or wrong usually, with no regard to how many people are on each side. I don’t think right and wrong is something that is decided by majority in most cases.
In this case we are talking about different interpretations of something that was said though. If 100 people see it one way, and 3 see it another, do you think its more likely that the 100 are wrong in how they read it and those 3 somehow are the only ones to see the real truth.
In this case I think you are objectively wrong, and you’re just one of the last hold outs that refuses to admit that maybe you are seeing something in this quote that just flat out isn’t there.
