Can we get back to “you didn’t build that”
Where has “you didn’t build that” gone?
It was the spark which led to the pre-convention decline by Obama, but the deflection to Romney’s Libya statement and secret doctored video has taken it off the table.
Get back to it. It’s a winner still.
0
0
Comments
I’ve noticed this about Romney, and more so about the modern Republican — it’s as if they find it embarrassing or awkward or impolite to drive an effective narrative with the singleminded relentlessness of the Left. Their campaign is too generalized and scattershot — too much about the “economy” in general without exploiting a handful of damning and powerful examples. Reagan was a genius at use of metaphor or anecdote, at playing variations on a theme. He didn’t exactly repeat himself but kept hitting the same theme, freshly and vividly. You got a clear idea what was important to him and what was wrong with the liberals. I’m not getting this from Romney.
Excellent observations. We have had years of the PC brainwashing. For all the politeness, tip-toeing around the problems, and the fear of offending; what has it gotten us? Instead of helping, I think it has actually made matters worse.
Consider the attitude with regard to bullying. What’s done? Oh, we pass policies, regulations, and eve laws, yet does it really teach the bully and the bullied anything? I doubt it. Another example of not dealing with the fundamentals of a problem, but merely dealing with the symptoms.
Unfortunately, we have a president who is trying to do so, but in a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and everything that has been our heritage. Whether Romney Team has their own version of “variations on a theme” (something thus far not exhibited) remains to be seen. Yet, I fear they too are caught in this trap of fearing to say the wrong thing and thus won’t get elected. Why don’t they turn Gingrich loose, or others like him, and if Team Romney doesn’t like something they can always retract?
I’m getting more and more of the opinion that if this is the best they can do, then maybe they don’t deserve to be elected. Let Obama have another four years. Let’s hit rock bottom. And then, and only then, will there be sufficient number of people to elect the leaders we need.
“Call a spade a spade.” And, no, I’m not concerned that this is a racist statement. It’s about cards not race!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsobm33ATC0&feature=player_embedded
That has Obama endorsing central planning (“controlling markets”) and controlling technology development.
Just think how great the cell phone industry would be if the Obami ran it.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/091712-626012-obama-roanoke-radical-doctrine-of-you-didnt-build-that.htm
You can see “You didn’t build that” from your front porch…or from an unbroken line of Collectivist thought in America…by reading that.
And, btw, Prof…I don’t think America forgot the “You didn’t build that” affront. I still see it out here in the hinterlands a good bit.
The mainstream media already decided that it was taken out of context… you see he didn’t mean that the Government helped you build your business… what he really meant was that the government provided the teachers, roads, and firefighters that you needed to build your business, SO the government deserves a share of your profits to spread out to all those other people that helped you build your business. Aren’t you so much happier knowing that he was only talking about income redistribution and not your inability to be successful on your own?
But let me get serious here for a minute. What really frightens me about the ‘you didn’t build that’ speech is that it truly does speak to socialism. It reminds me of the days of the old ‘factory owners don’t make anything, factory workers make things’.
The harder MSM attempts to drive away our narratives via ignoring them or countering them the more foolish they make themselves.
And thanks to Prof J for reminding us of one of the best yet in getting folks involved.
Weve seen during the past two weeks what the media is up to:
Drown out Foreign Policy coverup
Drown out polls showing Obama weakness
Make Romney look bad at all costs
Drown out hideous state of economy
And despite all that? Check the dates here and notice the downward spiral for Obama beginning with 9/11
Thats what all this is about: Reality isnt fitting narrative
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/files/2012/09/OvsR.png
Oh, and remember…and talk up…
“We all belong to the government”!
Obama’s remark was principally about denigrating individual dignity. While Romney was expressing concern for progressive corruption sponsored by involuntary redistribution schemes, as well as when people lack a vested interest in a positive outcome for the general Welfare.
Following the revelation of Romney’s dismissal, our local news station conducted one interview… of a black veteran who is now partially disabled and retired from the military. The odd thing is that this scenario represents a small exception to the “47%”, and, curiously, most members of the military, and certainly soldiers serving in an active theater, are white. The journalists seem to believe that prejudice represents positive progress for journalism ethics. I disagree.
Anyway, the issues of merit in this context are recognition of individual dignity and progressive (i.e. cultural) corruption.
Some thing else that got lost, both actually and figuratively, is the 2 things from the Romney 47% tape. I watched Wisconsin Governor Walker on tv this morning answering questions about it to Wallace and just struggling through an answer. Then I watched Crystal, Hume, two other people trying to put nails in Romney’s coffin.
I ended up baffled and resolved to come here and ask: Were two minutes really missing from the Romney tape? And did polling show that 70% of the people of this country either don’t care or agree with what the media are saying Romney said. Did Scott Walker and the other republican advocates this morning not know about the missing minutes? Or have they all agreed to not mention the missing two minutes or the poll results?
Something to ad to my previous post.
Why the hell is Memorandum so instramental in driving narrative? And how are the top stories elevated?
I know its the site I love to hate but I dont get their method and wonder how scientific/impartial it is in story placement.
Its something we need to get around or learn to exploit better.
My example might be the Examiner piece last week…that multipart takedown of the Obama “fiction”
I find it difficult that only 2 or 3 blogs linked into the story yet thats what was listed.
My point is the story placement doesnt seem to be “activity” generated.
Take a look right now.
And behold their “top story”
Mitt Romney Calls U.S.A. a ‘Foreign Country’ in His Tax Returns
Are you kidding me? From that dump of a newsite?
Why isnt one top story from Drudge listed?
In any event. Its something conservative blogs have to correct somehow.
LOL or simply ignore.
How about “Here, let me build that!” as a caption to this image.
(From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2207301/Is-deficits-hiding-Obama-whips-massive-wad-cash-pay-sausages-deli.html )
1. I agree that YDBT should not be forgotten, but it also should be expanded to include the majority of voters who are not entrepreneurs. Starting a business is not the only way Americans show initiative, self-reliance, and self-improvement. Reagan was good at acknowledging this.
2. I would welcome more events like the press conference in front of the closed Solyndra building. We got fired up about that one, and then…nada. For starters, Romney should do one next to some unattractive public site that Obama refuses to drill on.
I would do a couple of them in front of Ohio power plants about to be shut down.
JOBS–lost
POWER–lost
PRICES–”necessarily skyrocket”
THE GRID–pushed to failure
Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard – I can never remember how to spell his name.
And someone over on Breitbart had similar feelings. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/23/Back-off-Bill-Kristol
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-panel-baffled-why-anyone-would-think-redistribution-of-wealth-is-bad/
Are these people confused…
OR are they working at CONFUSING?
“Redistribution” is really not a muddy term.
But then, neither is “property rights”…or slavery.
Rags…You, Dude, are such a Wascally Wacist.(-:
Or, anyone is cordially invited to spend a decade or so familiarizing themselves with the massive, horrendous, ghastly, nearly unimaginable COST of Redistribution last century. 40-Million for the Soviet Union. 60-Million for the Peoples Republic of China. Shall I toss in the costs of Redistribution(cough,gasp,vomit..)in Cambodia, Vietnam, Romania, Cuba, Sandinista Nicaragua…?
That said, I LOVE this ad and urge the Mitt-Ryan Campaign to keep it and others like it OUT THERE, P*L*E*A*S*E!!
I’m going to wander completely off the main topic of the thread just to say, that is such a funny ad!
It would also be useful I think for the Romney campaign to start hammering home the tax increases under Obamacare, e.g. the new 3.8% capital gains tax slated to go into effect in 2013 — including on middle class people and prospective retirees.
“it truly does speak to socialism. It reminds me of the days of the old ‘factory owners don’t make anything, factory workers make things’.”
Yes … but I think it is true, the owners (more generally) do NOT build it (the final product). The citizen/worker needs to be recognized. But the pool of citizens gets to make a private arrangement with the capitalist owner. The risk taking capitalist has an idea and commits capital. The workers agree privately, to work for money, gaining skills but providing no capital, taking no risk. This arrangement means they are also capitalists, but not owners.
Obama says “they think they are so smart, work so hard … LET ME TELL YOU, there are a lot of smart hard working people out there.” He denigrates the capitalist arrangement. The smartest and hardest working take risks and make their ideas work. Capitalism rewards them more, while the capitalist workers also get rewarded BY THE OWNER.
But Obama says no, you take the risk, WE will take your excessive profits. You are punished for taking risk, but if you lose your investment, too bad.
The capitalist team relationship is important. It is a working relationship. but Obama says NO, you owners are bad … my unions will shut you down unless you give “our workers” what we unions demand. Government has provided and trained those workers, your agreements will be determined by US.
Just pitting “Yes I built that”, against the Obama “I care about the workers” is not the right angle. The right angle is that the owner worker relationship is private. Paying union bosses to arm twist well paying capitalists only gives us more Detroits.
Capitalists built this city … Unions broke Detroit, and demanded taxpayer bailouts.
I’m sure he could get Chicago well paid teachers that strike in there too.
related … Obama never builds anything. He seems to be anti-American on everything, and pro global redistribution of wealth and power. He doesn’t even build a campaign on himself, he raises himself by destroying his competitors. Four years ago he won on hope and hate … still has not built. He only breaks things.
He wants to break private insurance, using “public option” as a “trojan horse” to his desired “single payer”. All should be equal … you wait behind the illegal alien for a transplant as Obama’s punishment for being a capitalist.
He wants green energy to emerge, by skyrocketing the cost of other energy, shutting down the gulf and pipelines, with EPA over regulation by fiat.
He wants other world powers to emerge, by harming our relationships with old allies, but bending to old enemies. (Israel, Poland, Russia, Egypt, Libya)
He encouraged Zelaya’s breaking of Democracy, siding with Chavez and Castro. Here he rules by fiat, breaking our balance of power, rather than building bipartisanship.
He is breaking our strong dollar by skyrocketing our debt and open ended quantitative easing, leading to fiscal collapse.
Obama is a wrecking ball … he hates the builder.
I don’t know if it was Romney’s campaign, or one of the Super PACs supporting him, but I found the “Obama is not working” theme to be the most powerful and persuasive. That should be done everywhere all the time. Each ad can be focused on each issue he’s failed at. There’s a wealth of material there.
People are miserable. The solutions the President offered are indeed “not working.” Those nails hammer in themselves.
Nobody pushed “you didn’t build that” more than Romney. You want to know what happened to it? The MSM started a narrative that Mitt was committing gaffes and the dumb ass so-called “Conservative” media rushed to agree with them. Sadly this site is one of the worst offenders. The pundits who wanted different candidates just can’t seem to get over the fact their guy lost. They would rather be “right” about Romney being “the wrong guy” than getting rid of Barack Obama. Obama has given us enough material to last 1000 years, we don’t need to spend time flogging our own candidates.
1. I find nothing to fault about how our host switched his support to Romney after his preferred candidate dropped out of the primaries. His mindfulness of the big picture sets an example for me.
2. Bill is far more patient and tolerant than I am.
If I were he and somebody, who had apparently posted at LI only once before, showed up with a truculent canard like Sadly this site is one of the worst offenders, that would be the last truculent canard which that individual made here.
Just because I don’t comment much doesn’t mean I don’t monitor this site. I do, almost every day. But let me get this straight, it is fine and dandy to criticize Romney constantly but heaven forbid anyone should comment on a blogger? In fact I should be BANNED because I dared to speak my mind? You belong in the other party.
In his position I would not tolerate your manner of commenting, but your status at LI is up to the site’s proprietor.
I don’t think anyone cares what you would tolerate. It seems you don’t understand the concept of free speech. I like Professor Jacobson, he has done stellar work in regard to Elizabeth Warren. I just don’t see what we would allow the MSM to set our agenda. Romney hasn’t done anything radically wrong, it is Obama who is the failure, not Mitt.
1. It seems you don’t understand the concept of free speech.
Some people assert a right to free speech where no such right exists.
2. I like Professor Jacobson, he has done stellar work in regard to Elizabeth Warren.
Really.—
“THE DEM RATS DIDN’T BUILD THEIR EVIL PLAN ON THEIR OWN”
[It was Satan’s work…indeed. This piece of whimsy is dedicated to the IMPS, PIMPS AND WIMPS AT [OUR] WHITE HOUSE—yeah, we’re taking it back.]
The Dem Rats plan’s not subtle,
“They didn’t built it on their own”
They took “dictation” from the Father of Lies,
While bowing before his throne!
He’d promised them outrageous things!
If they’d do as he asked,
And we, the people, he hates most,
Drank his Kool-Aid really fast.
Well “four years later”, and damn their souls–
We learned the Dem-Rats are thieves.
So those “minions” who corrupt our house,
Will soon be asked to leave,
The old “choom*” magic’s dead now,
And we’ll no longer be deceived.
And though “THE WON”’s had a lot of fun,
He and his better start to grieve.
Cowardice. Effective campaign themes disappear because most Republicans are corrupt cowards.
When a Republican anti-Obama strategy starts gaining traction, the media immediately denounces it. The GOP’s old ladies/insiders/soulless consultants panic about the effects on their own personal position in the political graft hierarchy. Through pressure and unconscionable public attacks (Bill Kristol, call your office), they try to smash the effective strategy and intimidate the weaker kind of Republican into abandoning it.
Romney is the weaker kind of Republican. Like John McCain, he is very brave when it comes to ambush fratricide; in real warfare, Romney is timid, fearful, an feckless. He is running a moderately-improved version of McCain’s.
Some immutable truths:
Democrats are the political graft-meisters.
Republicans want their share of graft.
Getting that share means staying on Democrats’ good side.
Staying on Democrats’ good side means demolishing any strategy the Democrats hate.
Democrats hate anything that is effective against Obama.
Therefore, corrupt, cowardly Republicans would rather see Obama re-elected than offend Democrats and harm their own chances for corruption money.
(If that weren’t true, Boehner — who is playing the damn fool old lady catastrophizer Rush Limbaugh like a fiddle — and the rest of his turncoat dinosaurs would be fighting Obamacare funding and the deficit tooth and nail instead of enabling it.)
Situation: a President inherits a bad economy, then injects socialism and proceeds to make it a whole lot worse. He tramples the Constitution, demonizes the producers, and attempts to suppress dissent. Widespread grass-roots organizations arise to counter him, but become ineffective due to an absence of visionary leadership. I’m describing FDR.
If Romney doesn’t get his act together, he’ll go down in history with Wendell Wilkie, Bob Dole, and John McCain. And it’s entirely possible that Obama will be the Democrats’ dreamed-for re-incarnation of FDR.
I’ll have an earful to say whether Romney wins or whether he loses. In the meantime, I try to stick to what I posted five months ago:
[...] that” comment. So here’s a fun little reminded that he said it, from Politizoid via Legal Insurrection. He said it, he meant it, and he owns it.google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, [...]