I debunked your list.
That’s not unreasonable, since the OP specifically asked for responses about the speck[s] in President Obama’s eye, and not about the beam[s] in Romney’s.
I suppose. To answer the OP- nothing.
I agree that what he said, even in context, was very poorly phrased. He created an us vs them situation when he should have created a “we” situation. Instead of “you didn’t build that”, it should have been “we all built that”. Most people don’t like to be lectured to, and my taxes sure as hell did help “build that”.
Here’s another one (speck, if you will). At his press conference on Monday Obama said “nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon.” His deputy campaign manager previously said: “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony.”
This has already made it into at least one RNC ad.
Look, this is almost all trivial stuff nobody cares about. But it is stupid to tell business owners “you didn’t build that” in any context. It’s stupid to tell Virginians you’re happy to be in North Carolina (Biden, might have that reversed). It’s stupid to say nobody called Romney a felon when your own campaign manager did. It’s stupid to say you don’t know somebody’s story when you had a conference call featuring him and hist story. And it’s stupid to not use the bully pulpit via press conferences and the like, wiping out some of your inherent media advantage from being president (a mistake Obama quickly fixed).
Absolutely right.
Obama (and some other Democrats) seems to occasionally fall into the trap of thinking that Americans dislike business or business owners. Which isn’t really true, in general. Lots of folks distrust big multi-nationals or too-big-too-fail banks, and we all hate our cable TV or cell phone companies. But most Americans like and respect small business owners (and even quite a few large business owners), even if they aren’t one themselves.
So there’s a way to make the point about shared responsibility without the undercurrent of mocking and near scorn that was in that particular phrasing.
OK, one mistake that the Democrats as a whole have done is not get right out in front and explain the Medicare 716billion “cuts” are really from reducing wasteful spending, including reducing excess enticement pay to insurance companies offering Medicare Advantage policies. Actually, this should have been done back in 2009/2010, and maybe the Democrats would have retained the House, but at the very latest it should have been done before Mitt could make that lie a major part of his campaign.
Another one the Democrats (in this case, President Obama himself) should have gotten out in front of is the Welfare waivers, making clear the waivers DO NOT allow states to disregard the work requirements, but instead allow them to try different methods to achieve the required results. While originally this waiver issue was sort of quietly in the background so nobody really thought about it, Mitt & friends have siezed on it as what only could be a “dog whistle” to his extremist base - look, if the damn AP is hinting you’re running a racist campaign, you’re running a blatantly racist campaign.
Doesn’t matter now how many times the Romney spin on these two items are proven false over and over again, and how often he is called out on them, Mittens has his lies set and is using them over and over.
Although, even if the Democrats had premetively explained these, judging by the comments on WeaselZippers and Red-States it would have had no impact what-so-ever on those dense drooling idiots*
*Go ahead, read some of their comments - it will convince you I’m being overly generous toward them in that description.
What’s stupid about any of that? Those things are all true, if overstated. And neither the “chains” bit nor the “squealing pigs” bit are unfair characterizations.
I agree with this. The Obama camp was caught a bit off-guard by the Medicare issue. This is like a batter letting that nice juicy curve break over the plate for a strike. They should have been ready to hit the $700 billion lie as soon as it left Romney’s lips. There’s time to recover, but they need to hit back and hit back with extreme prejudice.
Letting the welfare claim go unchallenged is another stupid thing. There need to be ads debunking Romneys lies and calling out Romney for being a liar.
The “chains” thing was stupid. Especially when said with a pseudo- African American accent. Saying the Republicans want to put blacks back in chains (ie, in slavery) is not the kind of thing that an undecided voter is going to hear and think: Yeah, I can see where this is true.
It might sound great to the true believes, but not to those who aren’t.
It’s good to know that I could quote you saying this…
…and have it be indicative of your failings rather than of my manipulation of your saying this:
The “undercurrent of mocking and near scorn” in Obama’s words is being inferred by those who already see him in a poor light and who wish others to see him in the same way. It is not remotely implied by Obama.
“Squealing Pigs” is fine, in my book.
“Back in Chains” is rather over the line when addressing a predominately black audience, however. The obvious implication is one of slavery not financial bondage. As much as I might disagree with deregulating big banks (or “unchaining Wall Street”) I have a very hard time getting from there to putting folks “back” in chains.
I voted for Obama last time and will surely vote for him again. I had a similar reaction to his “you didn’t build that” statement. I do not see Obama in a poor light.
I guess I just saw it differently. I’ve been a strong Obama supporter since he declared for the Democratic primary. I’ve worked for him, given him money, the whole nine yards. And I thought the comment was a poorly worded echo of Elizabeth Warren’s comments. He could, and should, have phrased it better.
PolitiFact doesn’t think it’s “fair”
I believe this is a statement so stupid that it needs no further rebuttal, but if you feel otherwise, let me know.
While you may eventually be right that it may not affect the election results, it was undoubtedly an inflammatory comment, and I’ve read the context and didn’t find it all that redeeming.
PolitiFact has jumped the shark. I don’t give them any more credibility than graffiti on the men’s room stall.
Biden called a spade a spade. Just letting you know, because I feel otherwise.
The you didn’t build that line has had its 15 minutes of fame. 99% of those offended by it weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway.
The most provably stupid thing that Obama does regularly is get smacked down by the Supreme court because he forces his Solicitor General to make really dumb arguments in support of untenable policies.
There’s just no excuse for that from a constitutional professor.
This was the most blatant one from January. 9-0 on a 1st amendment case is just ridiculous. You can’t explain that away by partisanship of judges:
But even on the ACA case and Citizens United, the Solicitor Generals looked really bad.
I’d also cite the insider books that get published about this administration, but apparently those aren’t considered credible like they were during the Bush years.
Yes, you *would *cite them, as you say. If you could.
What’s your favorite example, and what is your basis for claiming it isn’t considered credible?
Like the most recent allegation that Obama nixed the bin Laden raid three times before approving it, and only then when Hillary Clinton browbeat him into it.