On August 30 2012 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Paul Ryan attacks Obama on medicare, Ryan holds the same position. Then attacks Obama on Simpson - Bowles he was against said plan warned the GOP that if passed Obama would have a victory.
Person A: "Let's take $100 from the budget and give it to charity." Person B: "Let's take $100 from the budget and throw ourselves a party." Person C: "They have the same policy of taking $100 from the budget."
And if we put your understanding of Ryan's opposition to Simpson-Bowles in StarCraft II terms, it'd be like the game requiring more placement games because you don't even qualify for Bronze.
On August 30 2012 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Paul Ryan attacks Obama on medicare, Ryan holds the same position. Then attacks Obama on Simpson - Bowled he was against said plan warned the GOP that if passed Obama would have a victory.
Exactly. Paul Ryan was instrumental in cock-blocking a bipartisan plan that would have reduced the deficit.
On August 30 2012 12:34 Defacer wrote: Ryan did everything he could to get GM to stay
No. Did you even read what you posted? He was part of a group that talked to GM, but that is far from everything Ryan could have done.
There's also this weird (or more honestly intellectually lazy) idea that saying things like government does too much means that you must be against 100% of the government everywhere every time. Talking to GM about what would keep a plant open is not the same thing as the massive bailout Obama orchestrated for his auto union pals.
On August 30 2012 13:23 3FFA wrote: I'm really wishing there was someone to vote for, for real. Like, someone who actually wants to do something. Hmm... can we revive Abraham Lincoln? :D
You know, most of our memories of past great presidents are caricatures of what they actually were. We talk a lot about FDR and Lincoln but they also won bitter campaigns with profound accusations that they were leading the country into ruin.
This is like saying the Celtics are in a slump so they should bring back Larry Bird. He would never be a starter in today's NBA.
On August 30 2012 13:23 3FFA wrote: I'm really wishing there was someone to vote for, for real. Like, someone who actually wants to do something. Hmm... can we revive Abraham Lincoln? :D
The president who is responsible for the South not seceding? Are you crazy? Think for a moment how glorious our country would be without the south and tell me that's a good idea.
On August 30 2012 13:23 3FFA wrote: I'm really wishing there was someone to vote for, for real. Like, someone who actually wants to do something. Hmm... can we revive Abraham Lincoln? :D
You know, most of our memories of past great presidents are caricatures of what they actually were. We talk a lot about FDR and Lincoln but they also won bitter campaigns with profound accusations that they were leading the country into ruin.
This is like saying the Celtics are in a slump so they should bring back Larry Bird. He would never be a starter in today's NBA.
Tell me about it. I've been reading up on Thomas Jefferson lately, and although I find him to be a figure worthy of utmost admiration, along with being one of the most amazing intellectuals and incredible writers ever, the stuff he did in his day... lol.
On August 30 2012 13:23 3FFA wrote: I'm really wishing there was someone to vote for, for real. Like, someone who actually wants to do something. Hmm... can we revive Abraham Lincoln? :D
The president who is responsible for the South not seceding? Are you crazy? Think for a moment how glorious our country would be without the south and tell me that's a good idea.
It's a shame that Romney's media appearances are so tightly regulated that no one has been able to force him to admit that a good half of his campaign is built on quoting Obama out of context.
Though it would be fair to say that this tight handling applies to most politicians.
On August 30 2012 13:23 3FFA wrote: I'm really wishing there was someone to vote for, for real. Like, someone who actually wants to do something. Hmm... can we revive Abraham Lincoln? :D
You know, most of our memories of past great presidents are caricatures of what they actually were. We talk a lot about FDR and Lincoln but they also won bitter campaigns with profound accusations that they were leading the country into ruin.
This is like saying the Celtics are in a slump so they should bring back Larry Bird. He would never be a starter in today's NBA.
coverpunch, I'm sick of your filthy fucking lies and misinformation!!!!!!
On August 30 2012 13:23 3FFA wrote: I'm really wishing there was someone to vote for, for real. Like, someone who actually wants to do something. Hmm... can we revive Abraham Lincoln? :D
You know, most of our memories of past great presidents are caricatures of what they actually were. We talk a lot about FDR and Lincoln but they also won bitter campaigns with profound accusations that they were leading the country into ruin.
This is like saying the Celtics are in a slump so they should bring back Larry Bird. He would never be a starter in today's NBA.
Larry Bird wouldn't start in today's NBA? Are u seriously retarded? I hope you don't actually watch basketball cause my brain hurts after that one. If you want to actually use a half decent example you could say someone like Bob Cousy or George Mikan...but Larry Bird? Seriously?
On August 30 2012 13:23 3FFA wrote: I'm really wishing there was someone to vote for, for real. Like, someone who actually wants to do something. Hmm... can we revive Abraham Lincoln? :D
You know, most of our memories of past great presidents are caricatures of what they actually were. We talk a lot about FDR and Lincoln but they also won bitter campaigns with profound accusations that they were leading the country into ruin.
This is like saying the Celtics are in a slump so they should bring back Larry Bird. He would never be a starter in today's NBA.
LOL what? I wasn't even a Larry Bird fan but that guy was sick good. As for Ryan's speech...Idk. It served its purpose right?
On August 30 2012 14:01 ticklishmusic wrote: It's a shame that Romney's media appearances are so tightly regulated that no one has been able to force him to admit that a good half of his campaign is built on quoting Obama out of context.
Though it would be fair to say that this tight handling applies to most politicians.
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Well, there's the context. Now tell me that Obama does not believe that government is more responsible for your business's success than you were. You are just doing what the fine list of government's assets, including teachers, the internet, "American system", and roads and bridges, enabled you to do. This has been the centerpiece of Romney's recent campaign commercials and for good reason.
You'll see on the debates how tight handling fares. PBS, CNN, ABC, CBS could hardly be considered in Romney's camp. Those are the network stars hosting the coming debates. Tune in and see just how much Romney OR Obama has been coddled in their campaigns.
On August 30 2012 14:01 ticklishmusic wrote: It's a shame that Romney's media appearances are so tightly regulated that no one has been able to force him to admit that a good half of his campaign is built on quoting Obama out of context.
Though it would be fair to say that this tight handling applies to most politicians.
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Well, there's the context. Now tell me that Obama does not believe that government is more responsible for your business's success than you were. You are just doing what the fine list of government's assets, including teachers, the internet, "American system", and roads and bridges, enabled you to do. This has been the centerpiece of Romney's recent campaign commercials and for good reason.
You'll see on the debates how tight handling fares. PBS, CNN, ABC, CBS could hardly be considered in Romney's camp. Those are the network stars hosting the coming debates. Tune in and see just how much Romney OR Obama has been coddled in their campaigns.
On August 30 2012 11:48 Defacer wrote: Ugh ... this speech is so poorly written and poorly delivered and so -- confusing.
So Ryan's complaining about cuts to Medicare -- the exact same cuts that the Romney and Ryan administration propose to make -- and is now railing about the Obama administration spending money that he doesn't have?
'Tax Fairness'. That's what they're calling it now?
Awkward segueway to mom ...
BTW, Solyndra was not 'crony-capitalism'. It was a bad government funded invested that fucking failed, but one project out of many from a energy budget where every other project did well. R. Congressman Issa investigated it and could not find any evidence of wrongdoing or 'crony-capitalism'.
Beacon power also defaulted. Regardless, its not a line of work I want the government involved in.
On August 30 2012 14:01 ticklishmusic wrote: It's a shame that Romney's media appearances are so tightly regulated that no one has been able to force him to admit that a good half of his campaign is built on quoting Obama out of context.
Though it would be fair to say that this tight handling applies to most politicians.
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Well, there's the context. Now tell me that Obama does not believe that government is more responsible for your business's success than you were. You are just doing what the fine list of government's assets, including teachers, the internet, "American system", and roads and bridges, enabled you to do. This has been the centerpiece of Romney's recent campaign commercials and for good reason.
Again, he never said the government was "more responsible" for your success than you were. He was simply pointing out that it ALSO plays an important role, that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum. I really don't get how there can still be confusion over this.
On August 30 2012 14:01 ticklishmusic wrote: It's a shame that Romney's media appearances are so tightly regulated that no one has been able to force him to admit that a good half of his campaign is built on quoting Obama out of context.
Though it would be fair to say that this tight handling applies to most politicians.
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Well, there's the context. Now tell me that Obama does not believe that government is more responsible for your business's success than you were. You are just doing what the fine list of government's assets, including teachers, the internet, "American system", and roads and bridges, enabled you to do. This has been the centerpiece of Romney's recent campaign commercials and for good reason.
You'll see on the debates how tight handling fares. PBS, CNN, ABC, CBS could hardly be considered in Romney's camp. Those are the network stars hosting the coming debates. Tune in and see just how much Romney OR Obama has been coddled in their campaigns.
At no point does this insinuate that the government is more responsible than you for your own successes. I can't believe you quoted the text in full, acknowledged the meaning (mostly), and then still managed to misunderstand.
That keyboard you typed this on? You didn't build that. Neither did the government. But someone did, and it wasn't you. There's no reason you shouldn't acknowledge that. But the things you do with it, that's the part that matters. The part that you build, born from your own thoughts, that's the important part. Otherwise it's just an object, or it's just infrastructure, or it's just a forum. You are the driving force, you made the important decisions, you created the final product. But it's nonsensical to assume that you did that in a vacuum.
No one who stands on the shoulders of giants should have the gall to spit down on them. There were a lot of things that happened to you, outside of your control, to bring you to where you are right now, that other people's hard work enabled you to do. Even the small things that other people say or do around you, that's shaped your life. And then you took this collected experience, and you built on it to become who you are, to think how you think, to become an individual. The type of selfishness that claims anyone has done anything apart from their environment is completely absurd -- whatever you do, you'll have done it either (in part) because of your environment, or (in part) in spite of it.
That "you didn't build that" bit is the centerpiece of these ads for a good reason alright, but it isn't because Obama wants to denigrate the value of hard work. I hope that isn't what you really believe. It must be a perspective thing, because I honestly don't understand how an otherwise reasonable-seeming person such as yourself came to this conclusion.
Shit, even Romney conceded that much when he made nearly the same point to a crowd of the hardest working athletes in the world. ...But, then again, that was in 2002. I'm sure he's changed his mind by now.
Nowadays a politician who even mentions "community" gets labeled a communist. That's poison.
On August 30 2012 14:01 ticklishmusic wrote: It's a shame that Romney's media appearances are so tightly regulated that no one has been able to force him to admit that a good half of his campaign is built on quoting Obama out of context.
Though it would be fair to say that this tight handling applies to most politicians.
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Well, there's the context. Now tell me that Obama does not believe that government is more responsible for your business's success than you were. You are just doing what the fine list of government's assets, including teachers, the internet, "American system", and roads and bridges, enabled you to do. This has been the centerpiece of Romney's recent campaign commercials and for good reason.
Again, he never said the government was "more responsible" for your success than you were. He was simply pointing out that it ALSO plays an important role, that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum. I really don't get how there can still be confusion over this.
If one gives Obama the benefit of the doubt, then I believe it's a fairly simple process to realize he was attempting to say that there are a lot of 'invisible' things the government does to help businesses that people sort of take for granted. Unfortunately, politics is rarely about giving one's opponent the benefit of the doubt, and despite Obama trying to paraphrase Elizabeth Warren's "You built a factory" riff, he ordered his words in a way that unfortunately leaves him politically vulnerable. Had he qualified a little more, such as "Even if you have a business, you didn't build those things," it would have been less easy to slice up and turn into a Republican catchphrase. Had his remarks simply not had "you didn't build that" immediately following "If you have a business", it would have been easier still, but what's said has been said. Such is politics - it's not often connected to policy, but it's how we run our elections, and have done so for quite a while. US elections going all the way back to the ones after George Washington have had a habit of being nasty.
That said, I don't think "You did build that" or "We built it" are quite as strong as Republicans want them to be. Neither of them is particularly catchy in a linguistic sense, not the "did build" strangeness nor the somewhat awkward 'built it' construction. It feels to me more like a conservative dog-whistle; it's great for pumping up those already conservative against Obama, and maybe pulling those already leaning Republican closer in, but I don't think it's going to have the same impact on a voter who isn't quite as susceptible to pure anti-Obamaness. I also feel like there's a bit of self-congratulatory smarm in a lot of these political catchphrases that can sound a little grating to the uninitiated. Moreover, hearing "you did build it" ad infinitum seemed to magnify the fact that the phrase just doesn't contain any strong words - not a yes, a no, or particularly evocative words. It's not like "No new taxes" or "It's the economy, stupid" or "war on terror" or even "yes we can".
Anyway, I realize I didn't have much to say in terms of policy, but I figured the politics of the election are just about as important - much as I personally wish it was not the case.
On August 30 2012 14:01 ticklishmusic wrote: It's a shame that Romney's media appearances are so tightly regulated that no one has been able to force him to admit that a good half of his campaign is built on quoting Obama out of context.
Though it would be fair to say that this tight handling applies to most politicians.
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Well, there's the context. Now tell me that Obama does not believe that government is more responsible for your business's success than you were. You are just doing what the fine list of government's assets, including teachers, the internet, "American system", and roads and bridges, enabled you to do. This has been the centerpiece of Romney's recent campaign commercials and for good reason.
Again, he never said the government was "more responsible" for your success than you were. He was simply pointing out that it ALSO plays an important role, that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum. I really don't get how there can still be confusion over this.
If one gives Obama the benefit of the doubt, then I believe it's a fairly simple process to realize he was attempting to say that there are a lot of 'invisible' things the government does to help businesses that people sort of take for granted. Unfortunately, politics is rarely about giving one's opponent the benefit of the doubt, and despite Obama trying to paraphrase Elizabeth Warren's "You built a factory" riff, he ordered his words in a way that unfortunately leaves him politically vulnerable. Had he qualified a little more, such as "Even if you have a business, you didn't build those things," it would have been less easy to slice up and turn into a Republican catchphrase. Had his remarks simply not had "you didn't build that" immediately following "If you have a business", it would have been easier still, but what's said has been said. Such is politics - it's not often connected to policy, but it's how we run our elections, and have done so for quite a while. US elections going all the way back to the ones after George Washington have had a habit of being nasty.
That said, I don't think "You did build that" or "We built it" are quite as strong as Republicans want them to be. Neither of them is particularly catchy in a linguistic sense, not the "did build" strangeness nor the somewhat awkward 'built it' construction. It feels to me more like a conservative dog-whistle; it's great for pumping up those already conservative against Obama, and maybe pulling those already leaning Republican closer in, but I don't think it's going to have the same impact on a voter who isn't quite as susceptible to pure anti-Obamaness. I also feel like there's a bit of self-congratulatory smarm in a lot of these political catchphrases that can sound a little grating to the uninitiated. Moreover, hearing "you did build it" ad infinitum seemed to magnify the fact that the phrase just doesn't contain any strong words - not a yes, a no, or particularly evocative words. It's not like "No new taxes" or "It's the economy, stupid" or "war on terror" or even "yes we can".
Anyway, I realize I didn't have much to say in terms of policy, but I figured the politics of the election are just about as important - much as I personally wish it was not the case.
I think the problem is transparency. Republicans, whether they can admit it to themselves, are branding themselves with their negativity. It's becoming too predictable, and too audacious. Even if you do believe that Obama is a "socialist" or what have you, I think very few people sincerely believe that he'd insult the accomplishment of building a small business -- if only because it lacks tact. It's something that sort of just has to be taken out of context -- and sure enough, it largely is.
And I don't think Republicans, as a whole, understand that this is the stuff that cost them the election in 2008. They see it worked in 2004, where they really used everything they could possibly throw at John Kerry, digging up every quote he ever made and taking it in the worst possible context, and that's just become their M.O. You see it in the Tea Party, you see it in the right-wing media, and now they're bringing it right to their national convention. All the politicians make jokes and take cheap-shots, but when you're addressing the voters on a national scale, it's something you should only slide in on occasion. You don't make it your party's mantra. It's like when McCain/Palin started talking about Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. No one outside of the indoctrinated is going to seriously contemplate the fallacious idea that the president is an anti-American terrorist. It's like tabloid-headline gossip, but instead of letting the tabloid's peddle the cheap crap, they bring it right to the campaign trail.
If today's convention proceedings were a representation of Romney's campaign, this election is in the bag for Obama. This is also why the Republicans will unknowingly lose themselves the debates. Paul Ryan can't say at the debates what he said tonight. At a debate, you're simply held more responsible for what you say. People will see that contrast in both Ryan and Romney. Republicans will see it as weakness on Ryan's part for not taking the Obama administration to task like they "know" he can, and Democrats will see it as affirmation that Republicans lie a lot when addressing their own audiences.
But either way, Republicans are branding themselves with very willful, resentful negativity. Their biggest slogan thus far, "We built that", is the exact sort of "it's all in the game" gotcha crap that I think independent voters are just completely sick of. If someone hasn't been convinced that Obama is a commie/socialist by this point, your slogans aren't going to suddenly convince them otherwise. This has all been completely self-serving to the Republican's base, but that's not what's going to give Romney a win in this election. By the time they start appealing to the better nature of people, it'll just lack too much sincerity -- and sincerity is something Romney has issue with enough already.
On August 30 2012 14:01 ticklishmusic wrote: It's a shame that Romney's media appearances are so tightly regulated that no one has been able to force him to admit that a good half of his campaign is built on quoting Obama out of context.
Though it would be fair to say that this tight handling applies to most politicians.
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
Well, there's the context. Now tell me that Obama does not believe that government is more responsible for your business's success than you were. You are just doing what the fine list of government's assets, including teachers, the internet, "American system", and roads and bridges, enabled you to do. This has been the centerpiece of Romney's recent campaign commercials and for good reason.
Again, he never said the government was "more responsible" for your success than you were. He was simply pointing out that it ALSO plays an important role, that individual initiative does not happen in a vacuum. I really don't get how there can still be confusion over this.
If one gives Obama the benefit of the doubt, then I believe it's a fairly simple process to realize he was attempting to say that there are a lot of 'invisible' things the government does to help businesses that people sort of take for granted. Unfortunately, politics is rarely about giving one's opponent the benefit of the doubt, and despite Obama trying to paraphrase Elizabeth Warren's "You built a factory" riff, he ordered his words in a way that unfortunately leaves him politically vulnerable. Had he qualified a little more, such as "Even if you have a business, you didn't build those things," it would have been less easy to slice up and turn into a Republican catchphrase. Had his remarks simply not had "you didn't build that" immediately following "If you have a business", it would have been easier still, but what's said has been said. Such is politics - it's not often connected to policy, but it's how we run our elections, and have done so for quite a while. US elections going all the way back to the ones after George Washington have had a habit of being nasty.
That said, I don't think "You did build that" or "We built it" are quite as strong as Republicans want them to be. Neither of them is particularly catchy in a linguistic sense, not the "did build" strangeness nor the somewhat awkward 'built it' construction. It feels to me more like a conservative dog-whistle; it's great for pumping up those already conservative against Obama, and maybe pulling those already leaning Republican closer in, but I don't think it's going to have the same impact on a voter who isn't quite as susceptible to pure anti-Obamaness. I also feel like there's a bit of self-congratulatory smarm in a lot of these political catchphrases that can sound a little grating to the uninitiated. Moreover, hearing "you did build it" ad infinitum seemed to magnify the fact that the phrase just doesn't contain any strong words - not a yes, a no, or particularly evocative words. It's not like "No new taxes" or "It's the economy, stupid" or "war on terror" or even "yes we can".
Anyway, I realize I didn't have much to say in terms of policy, but I figured the politics of the election are just about as important - much as I personally wish it was not the case.
I think the problem is transparency. Republicans, whether they can admit it to themselves, are branding themselves with their negativity. It's becoming too predictable, and too audacious. Even if you do believe that Obama is a "socialist" or what have you, I think very few people sincerely believe that he'd insult the accomplishment of building a small business -- if only because it lacks tact. It's something that sort of just has to be taken out of context -- and sure enough, it largely is.
And I don't think Republicans, as a whole, understand that this is the stuff that cost them the election in 2008. They see it worked in 2004, where they really used everything they could possibly throw at John Kerry, digging up every quote he ever made and taking it in the worst possible context, and that's just become their M.O. You see it in the Tea Party, you see it in the right-wing media, and now they're bringing it right to their national convention. All the politicians make jokes and take cheap-shots, but when you're addressing the voters on a national scale, it's something you should only slide in on occasion. You don't make it your party's mantra. It's like when McCain/Palin started talking about Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers. No one outside of the indoctrinated is going to seriously contemplate the fallacious idea that the president is an anti-American terrorist. It's like tabloid-headline gossip, but instead of letting the tabloid's peddle the cheap crap, they bring it right to the campaign trail.
If today's convention proceedings were a representation of Romney's campaign, this election is in the bag for Obama. This is also why the Republicans will unknowingly lose themselves the debates. Paul Ryan can't say at the debates what he said tonight. At a debate, you're simply held more responsible for what you say. People will see that contrast in both Ryan and Romney. Republicans will see it as weakness on Ryan's part for not taking the Obama administration to task like they "know" he can, and Democrats will see it as affirmation that Republicans lie a lot when addressing their own audiences.
But either way, Republicans are branding themselves with very willful, resentful negativity. Their biggest slogan thus far, "We built that", is the exact sort of "it's all in the game" gotcha crap that I think independent voters are just completely sick of. If someone hasn't been convinced that Obama is a commie/socialist by this point, your slogans aren't going to suddenly convince them otherwise. This has all been completely self-serving to the Republican's base, but that's not what's going to give Romney a win in this election. By the time they start appealing to the better nature of people, it'll just lack too much sincerity -- and sincerity is something Romney has issue with enough already.
I do agree with you. It's mostly that my personal experience was of wishing that, somehow, the American people would just 'wake up' and see that the Republicans frequently distorted the truth in their campaign attacks and in day-to-day policy dealings, and then agonized at how the Democrats always just seemed to sit there and take hits to the face without doing anything. This is why I've been mostly behind Obama's campaign strategy even if it's being criticized for 'negativity' - just sitting back and waiting for people to see that X charge is false is not how you win. Even if, for a Democrat, countering a Republican claim requires repeating a truth so obvious it feels like you shouldn't even need to say it, you still have to say it. It's sort of the feeling that I got after going through the youthful rebellious phase that one has to get the proverbial skin in the game and help your favored side win. I dealt with a lot of friends who held mostly liberal views but would then end with "they're both corrupt and voting doesn't matter, so I'm going Ron Paul. LOL" and this kind of apathy is what lets a motivated minority get outsized influence.
This sort of refusal to counter Republican messaging is what I think led to the 2010 midterm results, and I'm glad to see that sort of passivity isn't going to happen again. I do also believe that eventually Republicans will push themselves so far to the right they'll have another Barry Goldwater moment (I don't think Romney is personally extreme enough for that) and there'll be a rebalancing of the political scene.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120828080023-we-built-it-gop-convention-gi-story-top.jpg)
