The Republicans build their campaigns on lies because it works for them. Remember how much mileage they got out of claiming that Al Gore had claimed to have invented the internet?
The Democrats are not categorically different, however. Earlier this year they were trying to build a campaign narrative around the claim that Republicans were trying to deny women access to birth control, a claim as untrue as anything that Mitt Romney has ever said. Of course once the polls rolled in showing that most people were too smart to fall for it, the Democratic politicians in tight races, including Obama, ceased talking about that issue.
I just wanted to say I thought it was hilarious that these two posts were sequential:
Almost like saying “Bloody Mary” in the mirror three times.
Also, to the OP, the obvious reason is that according to one of the candidates, the other candidate is running a campaign based on “desperation, divisiveness and hatred.” Now, which campaign is airing blatantly false and “divisive” TV ads about throwing money to lazy welfare recipients capped by, “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message”? And that’s the campaign accusing the other one of being desperate and hateful! It’s like I’m taking crazy pills!
Santorum was headed in that direction - not directly, but by saying that the states should have the ability to make birth control illegal. Romney does not believe that, so that might be the reason for laying off this approach. If (Og forbid) Mr. Foam were the nominee, you’d see it again.
Nice try. The poll pertains to allowing an exemption for legitimate religious objections (i.e. the employer would have to prove it, sort of like someone claiming a religious pacifist objection to the draft), which is not at all the GOP position.
Can you provide an example of where Obama’s campaign said Republicans were trying to deny women access to birth control without also making clear that they were talking about how Republicans wanted to end the requirement that employers include it in their health plans?
Because I agree that such a context-free assertion would be misleading, since it is literally true for at least some plausible definitions of access but suggests they want to ban contraceptives or something, which is false.
ETA: The other problem is that you’re saying the correctly-characterized assertion polled badly. But the question would be how well the mischaracterization polled. I imagine banning contraceptives polls pretty poorly.
This would be too much of a distraction from the thread, and I don’t want to do that. Suffice it to say that your characterization is a misleading distortion on a number of levels, in my opinion. Perhaps we could pursue this in another thread where you could make your case that any sort of campaign narrative made the claim that Republicans were trying to deny women access to birth control.
I think it’s relevant insofar as ITR can establish that (1) Obama (or his campaign) ran with something egregiously false; and (2) stopped doing so because it polled badly. Neither proposition is established by his post, but I think it’s worth exploring. Perhaps we can avoid getting too deep into the weeds about how false the claim was and just credit any plausible argument for falsity.
Here is my overall problem with the above: it is still hostile to private initiative. It dilutes the value of private initiative. Sure, there was a great teacher in your past. But that great teacher had classes full of kids, year after year. If his influence was so critical, why didn’t a veritable wave of successful innovators pour out of his classroom? Sure, roads and bridges help businesses move and sell products. But so far as I am aware, there are no bridges with a toll booth that require proof of your business acumen before allowing you to pass. Everyone, smart and stupid alike, gets to use those bridges. They are not instrumental in success. They are available to all, and yet all do not succeed.
That’s a fine argument. Here you are arguing that infrastructure and institutions are necessary, but not sufficient. That individual merit and initiative is the prime mover, and the but-for cause of success.
There are two problems with this. First, again, it isn’t what Romney is saying.
Romney characterizes Obama as saying that entrepreneurs are not responsible for their success. What Obama said was that they are not *solely *responsible for their success.
And second, nothing in Obama’s comments reveals him to disagree with you. At most, his comments are ambiguous on that point. I would suggest that Obama has no problem at all with the premise that infrastructure and institutions are necessary, but not sufficient for success and that success is primarily determined by individual initiative.
No. It isn’t fair at all. Your response could easily have sought an equivalence. Instead, you asked about why I thought the “you didn’t build that” attack was unfair, a perfectly rational line of inquiry.
Are you at all familiar with the concept of “necessary but not sufficient”?
Neither the infrastructure alone nor the person alone can produce success. I fail to see how this is at all controversial, except that it’s antithetical to the current plutocratic ideology being pushed by the GOP.
No, he isn’t. Look at the specific two sentences I quoted. He clearly disputes even the “necessary” part.
Well, obviously we can let the man explain his intent himself.
I want to be clear that I’m not saying a conservative cannot take issue with Obama’s comments. He is obviously emphasizing the importance that things other than individual merit play in success. And if you already think individual success and merit receive insufficient attention in Democratic policymaking, then you’re not going to be a fan of this line of argument.
My position is that this is not at all how Romney is treating the comments. He’s making a much more crude argument which is that Obama denies to individuals any credit for their success and doesn’t think individual initiative or merit are important.