Bay Buchanan on MSNBC: "YouDidn'tBuildThis-Gate" words NOT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. Surprise!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Holy fuck, Chris Jansing asked her if Obama's "You didn't build this" words were taken out of context and the talking point flood gates OPENED. Bay seems really "concerned" about the reputations of the "hard working men and women of America."



Regarding the tax returns, she gave MSNBC viewers an education in what is REQUIRED by LAW..."Governor Romney has done AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLL of that! This is the game we're playing! Give them two, they'll ask for four!"

She's stuttering and sputtering and clearly not in "relaxed spin mode."

[hfojvt]

1. Have you got the context?

I went searching for it about three days ago, but did not find anything other than a video on ABC that I did not want to watch.

[Astrad]

2. Here's what he said

"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."

It's pretty clear that he meant 'you', the entrepreneur, didn't single-handedly build the roads and bridges that contributed to the success of your business. He didn't express it the most articulately but the context is obvious and being totally misrepresented - big surprise.

[RadiationTherapy]

3. I forgive Obama for being too busy to vet this, but as a writer and communication scholar,

the speechwriter(s) made a grave mistake there. I am not suggesting they be disciplined because, obviously, most of his O's speeches and remarks are excellent.

Also, it behooves these writers to understand modern social media and how effectively and quickly a "meme poster" can be created and virally shared. I hope to make a career inside someday soon, and DU will have taught me very many ways to test speeches for out-of-context disasters.

[Atman]

4. Ezra Klein said it best this morning...

On Morning Joe. He was the most honest person I've seen commenting on this.

Essentially, no one would have noticed or cared, except for "people like us," referring to the political pundits. To paraphrase, he said "We political reporters hear the same speeches day after day. They say the same thing at every stop. We know exactly what they're saying and what they mean, we're just waiting for that one time they miss a word or skip a line and go off script. That's all that happened here, but it makes a great sound bite, and a great news story." He pointed out that Romney's "I like to fire people" comment was no different. Everyone knows what he meant, but instead we re-focus on the out-of-context soundbite.

Sad to say, I even had an "argument" with my wife about this. She thought what Obama said was stupid. I tried to explain it essentially the way Ezra did (this was last night, not after Klein's appearance on Morning Joe). She wasn't buying it. Obama shouldn't have said what he said.

"But he didn't say what you're saying he said! You KNOW what he meant!"

"Yeah, but I read his quote. It was stupid to say that."

So Klein is correct. We jump on the bullshit mistakes, because they keep the news cycle going, and those who aren't paying attention 24/7 don't realize what bullshit they're being fed. My wife included. Sorry, honey.

.

[RadiationTherapy]

6. Sorry, but the nature of instant, electronic, grassroots communication must be accounted for.

I think it was a screw up and not a particularly difficult one to miss. Even in the "context", the grammar is quite obvious: the 'that' Obama refers to is the word 'business' and not 'roads', etc. In communication, "you KNOW what he meant" means that it was not accurately communicated and requires more than an understanding of language to grasp. Such statements are particularly vulnerable to "meme-ing" and during a campaign season, it is a serious error.

[Atman]

8. I just disagree with you. Context is everything.

Okay, obviously it's not everything, because you and my wife both disagree. Along with many others. Apparently one sentence is everything, and the full speech means nothing.

As Klein also pointed out, by the media focusing on that one time that the candidates makes that one mistake, leaves out one important word, it makes the candidates more robot-like, less willing to speak freely. They can't afford to tell us what they really mean, because if they phrase it poorly the media will do what they're doing to Obama. At the same time, people scream at Obama because he uses a TelePrompTer. Well, he uses a TelePrompTer because of shit like this. He missed a word, and now even those of us on DU, who should have his back, are pillorying him.

[RadiationTherapy]

10. Ok, wait. Where are these "everything" and "nothing" categories coming from?

There are a lot of reasons why a lot of people may or may not hear an entire speech. There is no one asserting a misspoken sentence means "everything" or that the full speech and context means "nothing". Such Aristotelian categorizations (if A, then not B. If not A, then all B) are not a very compelling or, in my experience, accurate way of describing reality; particularly human communication. There may be some classical physics that operates that way, but little else.

Excuse me, but, again the dramatic contextualization you are using is unnecessary. He didn't "miss a word" and he doesn't have to be "more robot-like". He is not being "pilloried" by DU or dems or liberals in general. A critique of a misspoken thought that has been scooped up by the opposition is certainly not a lack of "having his back". Holy schmoly.

[Atman]

14. And again, we disagree.

I believe you're way over-analyzing it, while at the same time, not analyzing it enough. If that is that possible? LOL!

IOW, I'm not debating the Aristotelian categorizations. I'm not saying if A, then not B. If not A, then all B. What I am saying is that many on DU, and certainly everyone on the right (and I did mean that everyone to mean everyone), is pretending that he only uttered one sentence, and that sentence summed up the context of the entire speech. That is simply false, as Ezra Klein was pointing out. Political reporters practically sleep though the seventeenth iteration of the stump speech, and it is only when there is a misspoken word or phrase, as is the case here, that their ears perk up. Kind of like when you're listening to a favorite song that you've heard a hundred times, but this time there is a skip. It is jarring.

The trouble is, it isn't jarring to the casual listener. It gives the reporters a hard-on because they have something new to report, but it doesn't, in any way shape or form, change the context of the overall speech, and the press should not be focusing on it as a serious question. "Obama said he doesn't think businesses are responsible for building their own businesses, that government did it all!" But we all know that is not what he was saying. If we had any serious journalists left, someone would be focusing on the words and original context which they've thus far ignored, not making hay of the one time Obama screws up his delivery.

[RadiationTherapy]

16. Well, you certainly may make that implication about some people

(that they are "pretending that he only uttered one sentence&quot , but you may not make that implication of me or your wife since you know, directly, that we have heard the full context and still find it a flawed statement. The fact that many on DU seem to also find this to be a flawed statement and have also been shown the full context lends credence to the idea that it was very politically clumsy of him.

As far as "casual listeners", there are few. Whom do you know listens to or attends a political rally "casually"? I know none, personally. I only know people who care to listen and those who do not. Those who do not are now being exposed to the de-contextualized quote and it is up to those non-casual citizens to correct or further distort it as they see fit. So be it; such is politics. But let's not pretend it wasn't a mistake, that it couldn't be foreseen, and that we don't live in a time where quotes stripped of context are eagerly sought and thoroughly disseminated by all parties involved.

It was a poorly phrased sentence, it encapsulates the specific insult many business people feel comes from the left, and it was uncorrected during the speech leaving us to scramble in his defense. Even with the context, it sounds bad.

[Atman]

17. Okay...I'll give you all that.

Good explanation. The "casual listener" is the businessman who feels he was just shat upon. No argument there.

[RadiationTherapy]

19. I appreciate your understanding. We are in a time of new media and will probably be every 5 years

or so now as the instantaneous sharing of not only thoughts, but of video - and in the future, neuro-impulses - becomes more prominent. Capturing, sharing, and re-experiencing others' experiences (as synchronistically as possible) is the focus of comm tech development today.

And, if I didn't say so earlier, I don't think this "you didn't build that" splash will matter much for long.

It was great talking with you. Thank you.

[Bandit]

11. Are you suggesting everything Obama says is written for him by others?

I think he gets help with major speeches but mostly he talks off hand and is very good at it..He did not get to where he is by not being able to speak coherently and with feeling.. He is a great orator but sometimes even he isn't as clear as he wishes..

[RadiationTherapy]

12. "Everything" again? sheesh. By no means did I imply that.

I am unsure when it is speech and when it is cuff, but I certainly expect that every speech he campaigns with is some of each.

[hfojvt]

13. okay that makes sense

one missing word.

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that (system). (Other people) made that happen."

Should be "other people" rather than "somebody else" since the system was not built by one person.

Well, maybe the descendants of two people. As the Loomis family history writes (with my edits)

"This Genealogy shows how from a single man (er, and his wife), established in Connecticut in 1639, has descended an army of sturdy men (er, and women) who contributed no mean share towards making good our Declaration of Independence in 1776, and in saving our country from destruction in 1861; who have been respectably represented in the ranks of educated men (er, and women) and in each of the three learned professions; who have been creditably represented in Congress as well as in numerous State Legislatures and on the bench of Justice. These men (and women) have contributed and important share in levelling the forests of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and in subduing the prairies of the more Wester States. Wherever they have gone, they have organized churches and schools, and with few exceptions their characters have been blameless. Although most of the names recorded in this book are obscure, very few have done discredit to their ancestry through an immoral life." (Loomis, p. 17)

[Gothmog]

5. Bay is a racist idiot like her brother

I am glad that MSNBC got around to firing her brother. Bay's comments were really very stupid

[Hubert Flottz]

9. "Bay's comments were really very stupid"

She's going after Mitt's stupid base! It's all he's got!

[spanone]

7. so m$nbc gets rid of one buchanan and brings us another equally as disgusting

[Atman]

15. Oh, Puh-leeze!

Bay is far more disgusting than Pat.

Well, you know...in the way diarrhea is more disgusting than vomit.

.

[JHB]

18. So what if he's done AWWWL that is required by law?

How many people are required by law to vote for him?

Releasing tax forms may not be required by law, but it has become customary -- a custom started by Romney's own father at that. Most release many years, and those who don't have typically been in public service for a long time so their records are public that way, and/or they are married to heiresses who, while I would prefer they disclose more, are claiming their business acumen as reason to elect their husbands.

Since he's running away from his one solid achievement in public office and basing his whole campaign around his business reputation, HOW he made his money and how honest he's being are front and center to the election, not "a game".

Bay knows this and is just playing games herself. Or she believes it and has gone further 'round the bend. Either way, there's no reason to take anything that comes out of her mouth at face value (though I'll hop out of the way of anything liquid or semi-liquid, just in case).