I’m not sure who recommended that Obama cut an ad insisting that “of course” he believes business owners should get credit for building their own businesses. But this seems like a very bad move:
If there was one takeaway from Christine O’Donnell’s disastrous campaign ad, it’s that this isn’t the way to push back on an attack. When a politician goes on camera to deny a provocative charge that can’t be substantiated either way (i.e. that they don’t engage in witchcraft, or that they believe in individual enterprise) it connects them with the allegation they’re denying and can raise a seed of doubt in voters’ minds.
Typically, when you’re trying to explain that someone took your recorded words out of context, you would simply just play the words in context — that usually settles it. Obama doesn’t do that in this video, which is the biggest red flag for any viewer. They’ve heard Obama’s quote with their own ears in Romney’s ad. If it was taken out of context, why doesn’t Obama’s ad just include it in context?
The second problem is that Obama is elevating Romney’s attacks and bringing more attention to a speech that is out of touch with the general public’s views on business. The ad directs viewers to the Obama campaign website, where they can view the speech for themselves — and will see on their own that the president did say what he claims he did not.
Brilliant — truly brilliant insight that one doesn't often see — and Ms. Goodman is right. nThat is what he is doing here, he is doing a far better job than Christine O'Donnell did, but I suspect he also spent a whole lot more money making this ad than she did on hers. n nO'Donnell could have gotten out of the witch mess differently — she could have played the context of the remark (discussing a disastrous date) and asked "what woman hasn't gone on at least one disastrous date?" She'd have the vote of every father of a daughter with that ad alone…. nObama could have used this to sell his "race to the top" national educational standards and quote any number of conservative think tanks citing small business' need for educated workers. n nBut in both cases, the candidates would have been exposing their greatest weakness. Christine O'Donnell was perceived to be a bit unstable and this didn't help that. B. Hussain is perceived to be a tad Marxist and this doesn't help that — and were he to cite RTTT, a lot of people like me would instantly be all over him for what I refer to as "Race to the Swamp" — he is destroying a decade's worth of MA educational reform and going for the common incompetence of Mississippi. n nBut Ms. Goodman is brilliantly right here — this was Obama's "I am not a witch" ad. nHis ultimate "jump the shark" moment, and his campaign must be in more trouble than we realize.
I seem to recall a saying in politics that if you're explaining, you're losing.
"Never Explain, Never Complain" — James Michael Curley
You give voters way too much credit.
I don't get this line of criticism. It is, in a sense, self-defeating. What if "your guy" wins, at whatever level? Are the voters still ignoramuses? And if so, what does that say about the legitimacy of any government thus formed? Those of us who follow politics obsessively – and I think that applies to anyone reading let alone commenting on this website – have to be careful that we don't equate that interest with any particular virtue. I actually might prefer that my loved one's oncologist is spending more time brushing up on the latest medical advances in his field than following the details of the Obamacare Sup Ct decision (and I know some stunningly politically ignorant doctors), for example. nLots of voters live their lives and do their jobs to the best of their ability, in the process contributing meaningfully to society. Their interests lay elsewhere, and though that may not make them as informed as us, and though they may be prey to political shallowness and make mistakes as a result (like voting for Obama), they get it eventually. How can they not? They just don't react to every event like we do. All in good time – why stay angry for four years when you can't vote until Nov 2012? nThey'll come around. They aren't stupid, they don't like being played for fools, and they ARE paying attention – they just have lives that don't involve reading Contentions for updates every hour. nSo, no, this doesn't give voters too much credit. And if it does, why the heck bother? If we really think our fellow citizens are hopeless idiots, let's turn out the lights right now.
” What if “your guy” wins, at whatever level? Are the voters still ignoramuses? “r nr nWell yes, if one considers the empty suit now holding the reigns.
You may want to take a look around you. "The lights" are already being "turned (sic) out". Events have been set in motion around the world that aren't going to be stopped by one American election. n nWhy bother, indeed. We're all just going through the motions now because that's all we know to do.
Credit where credit is due. Jennifer Rubin posted at "Right Turn" – 8:45 this morning: n n"Wow. This is his version of the 'I am not a witch' ad." n
"When a politician goes on camera to deny a provocative charge that can’t be substantiated either way (i.e. that they don’t engage in witchcraft, or that they believe in individual enterprise)". What the heck do you mean can't be substantiated? Just listen to what he said. For heaven sakes what would he have to say to substantiate he does not believe in individual enterprise? The miracle is he said it and with feeling for everyone to hear. The alternate reality response is he didn't mean it. He didn't mean it once the American rage began to roll in.
This is even worse; O'Donnell was, quite demonstrably not a witch (or if she was she'd win the election by putting a spell on the voters), where Obama did say, let's reiterate: n"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen".
This reminds me of the time in 1974 when a Nader-affiliated organization named the late Senator William Scott of Virginia as "the dumbest Congressman." Senator Scott promptly called a press conference to deny the charge, thereby, as Bill Buckley drily commented at the time, confirming it.
"I'm not a Socialist! I'm you!!" Sure thing, Barry.
ALLAH & THE NATION OF ISLAM n nChapter 112 of the Quran makes clear: n"He is God, the only One, nGod the Everlasting. nHe did not beget and is not begotten, nAnd none is His equal." n nThe "Nation of Islam" does not adhere to these core tenets of Islamic theology. They believe that God appeared on earth in the person of their founder, a "great man from the East", Master W. Fard Muhammad n nNATION OF ISLAM “MUSLIMS” ARE REAL MUSLIMS n nU CAN'T TRUST THEM n
I am not quite sure this is relevant, nor to what, but I will add one thing I was once told by folk from the Islamic world. There is no authorized translation of the Koran, one is supposed to be able to read it in Arabic. There is thus a great contempt for those who only can read an English translation and they are not considered to be "real" muslims because they don't know Arabic. n nAs one who has what essentially a 16th Century translation of the Torah (the King James Bible), I am not quite sure what to make of this little issue, but it is quite important to those who are involved…. n nAnd notwithstanding my *MANY* issues with the Nation of Islam (et al), if they can tell young black males to actually pay attention in school and try to learn something, not get every female in sight pregnant, and not go do every form of drug known to humanity — if they can actually instill some personal discipline in young black males — that (and only that) I have a hard time condemning….