So let's get the current news and debate out of the way. As a primer, I encourage everyone to read the full transcript of Obama's press conference. Buried in there is the offending comment that has led to these basic accusations, in a myriad of forms, about Obama:
- He is out of touch with the American worker and business.
- He hates the private sector (read into that all of the various things he is doing to destroy it).
- He is delusional and/or lying.
Now take quotes from the ENTIRE press conference and see if the rest of his words match what the GOP would have you presume he meant by the gaffe (and I've included some content that extends to American homeowners and workers since the GOP extrapolates the private sector to mean all of the non-1%):
"But the hole we have to fill is much deeper and the global aftershocks are much greater. That's why we've got to keep on pressing with actions that further strengthen the economy."
"If there's less demand for our products in places like Paris or Madrid it could mean less businesses -- or less business for manufacturers in places like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee."
"In the meantime, given the signs of weakness in the world economy, not just in Europe but also some softening in Asia, it's critical that we take the actions we can to strengthen the American economy right now."
"If Congress had passed it in full, we'd be on track to have a million more Americans working this year. The unemployment rate would be lower. Our economy would be stronger."
"But they left most of the jobs plan just sitting there. And in light of the headwinds that we're facing right now, I urge them to reconsider. Because there's steps we can take right now to put more people back to work."
"In addition, since the housing bubble burst, we've got more than a million construction workers out of work. There's nothing fiscally responsible about waiting to fix your roof until it caves in. We've got a lot of deferred maintenance in this country. We could be putting a lot of people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, some of our schools. There's work to be done; there are workers to do it. Let's put them back to work right now.
The housing market is stabilizing and beginning to come back in many parts of the country. But there are still millions of responsible homeowners who've done everything right but still struggle to make ends meet. So, as I talked about just a few weeks ago, let's pass a bill that gives them a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage and taking advantage of these historically low rates. That's something we can do right now. It would make a difference.
Instead of just talking a good game about job creators, Congress should give the small business owners that actually create most of the new jobs in America a tax break for hiring more workers."
"And the short-term problems are: How do we put people back to work? How do we make the economy grow as rapidly as possible? How do we ensure that the recovery gains momentum?
Because if we do those things, not only is it good for the people who find work, not only is it good for families who are able to pay the bills, but it actually is one of the most important things we can do to reduce deficits and debt. It's a lot easier to deal with deficits and debt if you're growing, because you're bringing in more revenue and you're not spending as much because people don't need unemployment insurance as much; they don't need other programs that are providing support to people in need because things are going pretty good.
Now, that's true here in the United States, and that's true in Europe. So the problem I think President Clinton identified is that if, when an economy is still weak and a recovery is still fragile, that you resort to a strategy of "let's cut more" -- so that you're seeing government layoffs, reductions in government spending, severe cutbacks in major investments that help the economy grow over the long term -- if you're doing all those things at the same time as consumers are pulling back because they're still trying to pay off credit card debt, and there's generally weak demand in the economy as a whole, then you can get on a downward spiral where everybody is pulling back at the same time. That weakens demand and that further crimps the desire of companies to hire more people. And that's the pattern that Europe is in danger of getting into."
"...let's not underinvest in the things that we need to do right now to grow. And that recipe of short-term investments in growth and jobs with a long-term path of fiscal responsibility is the right approach to take for, I think, not only the United States but also for Europe."
"And so, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is, how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry. Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more."
Throughout the above content there is reference after reference about continued concern over private sector growth, job creation, small businesses, etc., etc. Of course it's swathed in political rhetoric, but try to get anything less from any politician.
The highlighted section above represents the crux of the President's intent and the real context of the offending statement:
"The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government -- oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."
Face palm. Were the words stupid? Yes. Should he be taken to task a bit? Absolutely. Does anyone who actually listened/read to the entire conference, and, more importantly, has listened to everything the Administration has put out, really feel he thinks the private sector is fine? The administration does the usual political spin on any good numbers it can find, but I have never heard elsewhere a proclamation that all is well. Trying to stay on message about his proposals, it's pretty obvious that he incorrectly balanced the public and private sector against each other with a value of "fine", which has a more absolute connotation, and would have been better served to have said the private sector is doing "better" (which is obviously up for debate). It's asinine to proceed on the assumption he thinks everything is coming up roses, and base your political view on something so narrow. What everyone should really be debating is whether or not increased government spending, in the form of the various programs and public sector job creation, is the correct strategy. THAT is the important message and differentiation between Obama and Romney, not whether Obama hates the private sector and is out of touch.
I went to the GOP Oracle, Limbaugh, to get a review of the attack points, and I came across these quotes in couple of transcripts:
"So when he comes out and says, "The private sector is doing fine," people who have a genuine intelligence and an understanding of matters economic understand that that is a huge gaffe."
"Now, not even Obama can believe that, and does he really expect us to buy it?"
Yes Ditto-Heads, Rush is telling you that it's a gaffe (unintentional act or remark...) and that Obama could not possibly believe it. Of course Romney has had a lot to say on the matter as well and I'll use him to kill two birds with one stone here. First I'll address the accusation that, by backpedaling, Obama proves he meant what he said. Second, I'll segue to the gaffe roundup.
Who remembers this Romney quote: "I’m not concerned about the very poor."? Pulling from the previous theme, do we really think that? Is that what he meant, literally? When he tried to repair the damage, or backpedaled, did that discredit him further or is that the natural political action? I, for one, would be damn scared of a politician who stood by their gaffes and didn't try to fix them. Here's an MSNBC clip that shows the "backpedal" with some commentary (chosen for no other reason than it was one of the first Google pulled up). And Romney makes a very good point in his retraction -- he "misspoke" -- about the burden of speaking in public all of the time. Basically, these guys are "always on" and there is zero tolerance for mistake. Who of you could speak in public all of the time and never make a mistake? He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone....
So who else has made gaffes and what were the accusations leveled? All of the below are absolutely taken out of context, so do the research if you want to know the real intent:
Romney (campaign speech): Accused of being "out of touch" for the above quote.
McCain (campaign speech): Accused of being "out of touch" for this comment during the financial meltdown:
"Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Al Gore (interview): Accused of being delusional and/or a liar:
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
John Kerry (campaign speech ): Accused of being a flip-flopping liar:
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
W has so many gaffes that there are pages and YouTube videos dedicated to him/them, so I won't bother trying to pick one out (to be fair, the majority are just flubs of speech, not true political gaffes, but he still has to hold the record). That may seem unfair, but Dem or GOP, you have to admit he was a gaffe machine. He was accused of being...just about everything.
And I could go on deeper through more presidents and hopefuls. The point being that none of these really matter in the grand debate of what's important, yet this is what people cling to for their decisions, rather than go into the context and look beyond the gaffe. And then we get pundits who guide their flocks away from doing their own research and thinking and instead tell them things like, "This was a window in to the real [enter Name]", or "He/She backpedaled, so you know he/she is lying", "They're so out of touch that they can even say something like [enter gaffe]". Sound familiar? They reduce the discussion down to some fundamental kernel of "truth" that they are the purveyors of and you should base all decisions on.
Break the cycle and ignore the gaffe and soundbite drivel that you know isn't true. Dig into the issues and policies. Look at the totality of speech and doctrine. Make informed decisions from a diversity of views and information. If you do that, then I gladly accept your disagreement with my views and choices, as should anyone. If not, then I have nothing for you other than to offer to open the gate to the sheep pen so you can go stand with the others.
