Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Why can't more political ads be like this?

I think this is a pretty good ad. Clever how he works the "build that" theme in there, isn't it? The simple answer to the question is that going negative works, and both sides have been trying hard to define the other in negative terms early in the election. But it's good to see (finally) some positive ads from both Obama and Romney starting to show up.

Friday, July 20, 2012

"You didn't build that"--and Obama didn't say that.

The controversy over Obama's "You didn't build that" quote is one of the more remarkable political controversies I've ever seen.

It is further evidence that political ideology can quite literally make people blind--or in this case, deaf. I've watched the conservative blogosphere go nuts over this quote, despite the fact that there's nothing really controversial or disputable about it. Obama is saying that business owners didn't build the infrastructure they depend on to do their business. He is making the point that no man is an island, that society, ie, government is a necessary part of any individual's success.

He is not saying that a business owner did not build his own business. That's absurd on its face. No one would say that.

But the conservative side of the spectrum is so eager to hear something dumb, something ridiculous, something self-damaging from Obama, that they are willing to ignore what he actually said, and instead hear something that he didn't say.

The two lines that are at the heart of the quote are this:

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that."

Anyone who listens to or reads the quote should be able to understand what Obama is saying. I'll print it in full below. All the examples surrounding "you didn't build that" fit exactly into the point that things like infrastructure take public investment.

But from this simple statement that some things we can't do on our own, the right has exploded into a frenzy--accusing Obama of hating business, hating free enterprise, not being American.

It's a disturbing spectacle. And it will play a role in this race. No matter how distorted, unfair, untrue their reading of the quote, the right has embraced it, and will continue to believe it, just as many of them believed John Kerry somehow lied about being a Vietnam Veteran.

Whether the public at large, and not just the extreme right, gets suckered into this false history is the bigger, and more ominous, question.



Full Obama quote:
"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.

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Will Romney Pick Pawlenty??

I bragged in 2008 of going 2 for 2 in predicting VP picks, and I sorta did; jumping on the Biden bandwagon when it was becoming increasingly obvious that Obama had figured out how to double his profile on Saturday Night Live, and suggesting that McCain might want to look at Palin (that's kind of a prediction, right?) to shake up the race, which is what he did.

My chances of going 2-2 in this election cycle are excellent--I am confident that Biden will once again be on the Dem. ticket. And I think there's about a one-in-three chance that former MN Governor Tim Pawlenty will be the pick of Mitt Romney.

It's a rather astonishing turn of events. Pawlenty fell off everyone's radar rather quickly after his presidential campaign sputtered to a halt in Iowa. Pawlenty was doing OK until he coined the term "Obamneycare" and then, inexplicably, refused to stand behind it during a debate (see below). Not having the courage of your convictions is a fatal flaw in politics, and there was much debate over why Pawlenty would back down so meekly and quickly over what was actually a pretty accurate description.

I know, I'm always complaining about conspiracy theories, but I just can't help but wonder, did Romney's people get to Pawlenty in between his comment and the debate? Did they promise, well, something??

Oh, probably not. It would make a great story, though. More likely Romney just likes the cut of TPaw's jib. Pawlenty is actual quite a good media person, he seems like a likable guy, he's smart and, on occasion, funny. He does well with evangelical voters. He won't deliver Minnesota, but those type of VP coattails are probably overrated. Yes, he's a boring white guy, but he's a nice boring white guy, and BWGs are pretty obviously all Romney's going to seriously consider anyway.

I mean, when your competition is Bobby Jindal and Rob Portman, you've got to like your chances, right?

Romney/Pawlenty 2012. Has a nice ring to it.

Monday, July 16, 2012

Is Obama Swiftboating Romney?

The topic of Mitt Romney's ties to Bain Capital continues to be a big controversy in election coverage. It has prompted an Obama TV ad (below) that has progressive pundits standing and cheering, with some declaring the election is effectively over. Yeah, it's a little early for that.

It's also raised comments that the Obama campaign is, in effect, "Swiftboating" Mitt Romney--if that term is defined as turning a perceived strength into a weakness. In 2004, Bush, Rove, and their election surrogates did just that with John Kerry's military record, by finding some people willing to raise very scurrilous and mostly false accusations and suggestions. The end result was a Republican convention where thousands of the GOP faithful mocked a Vietnam war veteran's service to his country by waving bandaid-covered fingers. It was a shocking display.

If you separate the strategy from the tactics, then I guess the Obama attacks could be called Swiftboating. The Obama campaign is going right at Romney's main claim for running--he sadly isn't running on his experience as governor, because then he would have to talk up the successes of Romneycare. (This has to be one of the first times a presidential candidate has taken his biggest governing success and basically turned his back on it. It really is an amazing development.) So he's running as someone who is going to get people back to work, fix the economy, and central to that is his career at Bain. It doesn't matter to me too much whether he actually stopped running the company in 1999 or 2002, but there is a contradiction in what he's said and what the paperwork shows. And beyond that, if he wasn't doing anything at the company, it looks pretty strange that he was pulling down $100,000 a year for it.

Every day the Obama campaign can keep the conversation focused on these topics is a huge win for them. And as others have noted, when the Romney campaign is spending its time complaining about the Obama campaign and demanding apologies, they basically look weak. It's just another way that this year's election is a bizarre echo of the 2004 campaign, with the roles switched. I never would've guessed we would be comparing Bush to Obama, but there are similarities here. Weird.

To me, the distortions and falsehoods that the Bush campaign raised about Kerry are much worse than raising questions about Romney's business practices (even though I think most of us would agree he probably didn't do anything illegal). Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. Romney has been a very successful businessman, but there are legitimate questions about how he practiced his business. But I suppose how you see this could depend on your political point of view. Nonetheless, it's quite ironic that the shoe is now on the other foot. I wonder how Rove and his compatriots like them apples?

Obama in Ohio

An interesting and concise recap of an Ohio campaign swing by Obama. Tapper brings up some interesting points and shows off his cowboy boots. I'll keep an eye out for anything similar on Romney campaign stops.

Tuesday, July 03, 2012

I Believe in Miracles

Photobucket


(Where did you come from, baby? How did you know I needed you?)

When I left for a week in the north woods, unplugged, with no TV, radio, internet, etc., I knew that the Supreme Court would rule that week on the Affordable Care Act. Biggest health care story, possibly, of my career and I was unplugged.

But thanks to another camper who refused to leave his iPhone at home, along with Al Y., who passed on the word to me, I found out Thursday morning that the Supreme Court had upheld the ACA. I bent the rules a bit myself that morning by borrowing Al's Sony Walkman (!!!) and listening to some NPR coverage of this rather shocking turn of events.

Despite how I thought the SC should rule, despite what seemed like (at first) near-universal agreement among constitutional scholars, despite years of precedent and some of the sitting justices' own rulings, it seemed the court was poised to overturn the law. Most people expected them to strike down all or at least part of it.

Instead, the ACA was almost completely upheld--the ruling did throw a brushback pitch at the Commerce Clause and gave states an out for expanding Medicaid (if they are foolhardy enough to take it), but overall this was a big win for the ACA. And the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts was the deciding vote is something that nearly no-one predicted.

Since coming back home and plugging back in, I've engaged in some spirited debates on the ruling and what it means. The law's opponents talk about freedomz and taxehs and tirenny, but The Complainers, as I've dubbed them, have lost the battle, and possibly the war. Yes, Obama could lose in November, and the architect of Obamacare, Mitt Romney, could make a run at repealing or overturning all or part of the ACA.

But I'm enjoying this victory in the here and now. A law that could truly improve our nation and address one of our biggest economic and moral shortcomings has prevailed in the Supreme Court. Tens of millions more Americans will have the economic security and health care that they deserve. Lives will be saved. And yes, the bill will have to be paid. This is America. We can pay it, if we want to. And incidentally, it's nice have a president with the political will to tackle one of our biggest problems.

As for my new best friend, Johnny R., it will be fascinating if we ever get the real story of his apparent change of heart. One thing I am sure of, Roberts did not act because he was afraid of what the New York Times might say. I generally agree with those who say Roberts simply recognized ruling against the ACA would damage the court long-term, because it would come across as partisan and because history would not look kindly at the anti-ACA reasoning. But I have to say, the current Supreme Court has not really seemed too concerned with appearing partisan and activist. Possibly this was just a bridge too far for Mr. Roberts, and he mutinied. (get it?)

Anyhow, the struggle continues. There is much that could be improved about the ACA, and there are many battles ahead. And the flood of misinformation about it shows no signs of abating. But we've cleared a major hurdle.

Thanks John, for doing the right thing.