You really think this was a gaffe?
President Obama commits the gaffe of calling Romney by Mitt’s father’s name, George:
During a speech at the New Amsterdam Theater in Times Square, the president mixed up his Republican opponent with former Michigan Governor George Romney while contrasting their economic policies.
“We are not going back to a set of policies that say you’re on your own and that’s essentially the theory of the other side. You know, George Romney,” Mr Obama said.
Gaffe, or canny political move? After all, one of the consistent Obama campaign ploys has been to paint Mitt Romney as Retro-Man, a Don Draper-ish troglodyte caught in the outdated 60s. What better way to do this than to call him by the name of his father, a famous 60s politician?
I bring you Draper, Mitt, and George (in that order, in case you can’t tell the difference):
What other associations might Obama want to conjure up in the mind of the listener by calling Mitt “George”? Well, there’s an obvious one:
I’m being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in this post, but not entirely. Slips of the tongue are sometimes much more complex than they appear.
And while I was doing the photo research here, I noticed how much Mitt resembles his father posturally. They share an unusual way of dipping their heads down when in earnest thought or observation, and a certain way of holding their shoulders. A fine example of the phenomenon is in this photo of the youngish Mitt with his dad (See, son—someday all this will be yours!). They actually are looking down here, so it seems more natural, but they both do it very commonly under other circumstances, too:
ADDENDUM: Here’s a recording of the slip. Now that I actually have watched it, I am leaning more towards the idea that it was deliberate.
In addition, it doesn’t really make sense as a slip of the tongue. It would make sense if Obama was of an age to remember George Romney as a politician. But he’s not. He was just a little child in George Romney’s heyday, and lived nowhere near Michigan. If it is a slip, it’s a mighty odd one.
The photos, Don, Mitt, George (R.), pose as dramatic reminder of that species – quintessential man (resurgent?). I would think inundating the political theater with campaign posters featuring side by side shots of Mitt and Obama would be worth… oh… 3-4 pts. at the polls – minimum.
Wouldn’t put some sort of ploy past immature, grade/high school mean, no class Obama, who used to not so subtly give the finger to his debate opponents by scratching his nose or head–often out of sight of his opponent, but very visible to his audience–with his middle finder.
However, my bet is on just too much CHOOM., and as the pressure mounts,and things go less and less his way, he is probably hitting the drugs more and more.
It was a gaffe. This makes for a recent gaffe trifecta. First, there was the “Polish death camp” outrage — I double-checked the video and it was clear that Obama was reading from a teleprompter. Obama and his speechwriters were both ignorant of the facts. (Does he read his speeches prior to giving them?) Second, was his speech before employees at a Honeywell factory in which he mentioned those “thigamagigs” that one puts on their furnaces, a.k.a. thermostats — the first thing most people think when they hear the name Honeywell.
Whichever or whatever it was, I can’t believe he’s the “smartest Pres evah”.
…someday all this will be yours!
Wot? the curtains?
It could be…. it just could be that deep down O’s not only shallow but stupid.
I know that the smart money says that, at the very least, O’s a smart politician, but the smart money is often very stupid.
Here’s someone else with the madmen reference who doesn’t think it was a gaffe
http://nakeddc.com/2012/06/05/is-george-really-an-accident/
Someone’s Law: “Do not assume a conspiracy when incompetence will suffice as an explanation.”
In this instance, I would hesitate to assume some hidden meaning lurking when The One managed to say “George”, when a simple slip of the tongue is so probable.
BHO has made gaffe after gaffe, especially when separated from his siamese twin teleprompter. I think its a gaffe pure and simple.
MJR: but it doesn’t really make sense as a slip of the tongue, although of course it still could be one. It would make sense if Obama was of an age to remember George Romney as a politician. But he’s not. He was just a little child in Romney’s heyday, and nowhere near Michigan. If it is a slip, it’s a mighty odd one.
I have posted a video of the “slip” as an addendum to the post. Now that I actually hear it, I’m more inclined to believe it was deliberate. His affect is off for a simple slip; IMHO he would laugh more, or make some sort of joke or look a trifle more abashed afterward, it it were.
I vote deliberate. The man is that much of a classless adolescent.
SteveH: did you watch the video I added above? I am in agreement.
Watched the clip 5 times… it does look/sound intentional. But if BHO thinks anyone beyond his zombie horde is interested in George Romney or is still interested in his incessant W bashing, I think he’s whistling past the graveyard. The curtain has parted. 50+% see the wizard and the wizard ain’t no wizard.
neo,
Having watched the clip, I am inclined to agree that it was not an innocent slip-up.
I’m reminded of the Clintons — virtually everything they do is planned, orchestrated; things are not left to chance, and they do not commit gaffes.
This just didn’t look like a gaffe. (You win.)
I suspect the better Romney does, the weirder Obama will act as he digs deeper into his repertoire of campaign tactics, which unfortunately does not include expressing a vision for how to improve the country or making a case as to why he should be elected.
I am convinced beyond doubt that he deliberately employs subliminal hypnotic cues and other nonverbal tactics (which probably only work, if at all, on the easily swayed, his primary constituency).
My deepest desire is so see cracks in his affectless facade as his usual modus operandi of slick, vapid platitudes and manipulative grievance mongering falters against Romney’s presentation of actual accomplishments and plans. We all know the President is a petty, impudent and incredibly immature person, and it is only by dint of great self-control, and probably an awful lot of training, that he never lets that show in public, at least blatantly enough to cut through the fog of the average uncritical voter.
“My deepest desire is so see cracks in his affectless facade as his usual modus operandi of slick, vapid platitudes and manipulative grievance mongering falters against Romney’s presentation of actual accomplishments and plans. We all know the President is a petty, impudent and incredibly immature person, and it is only by dint of great self-control, and probably an awful lot of training, that he never lets that show in public, at least blatantly enough to cut through the fog of the average uncritical voter.”
Your wish has been granted. BHO is toast. It may be a slim majority (or it may be by 5-10%) but BHO is going back to sweet home Chicago or Maui or Kenyan or Indonesia or Mecca.
I think it’s a deliberate, ham-fisted, and utterly lame attempt to link Romney and GW Bush. A “dog whistle” to Obama supporters.
Trouble is, a lot of the moderate swing voters Obama needs are starting to get a bit nostalgic for good old inarticulate-but-actually-competent W.
Had to watch it three times to see the fake spit-take aspect to it. Good call.
Romney should refer to Obama as “Stan.”
I watched it a number of times.
Calculation, methinks.
If this is the best the Reds have, and I suspect it is, they’re going to get buried in November.
How old is this guy? Twelve? This is in the same “class” as his giving opponents the finger by coyly scratching his nose with the upraised middle digit.
What a toolhead.
Buried?
He might lose California!
“no class Obama, who used to not so subtly give the finger to his debate opponents”
… but she’s Secretary of State now!
I vote for deliberate. That’s the kind of guy he is.
If it was a gaffe, it’s almost as odd as refering to his daughters as “my sons”. Personally I think it was a rather ham-handed way of associating Mitt with George Bush, an obvious trick given that W. has been in the news lately as part of his portrait unveiling.
Maybe , the wOn was associating “George” Bush with Mitt.
Maybe he was thinking of his boss, George Soros.
“In addition, it doesn’t really make sense as a slip of the tongue. It would make sense if Obama was of an age to remember George Romney as a politician. But he’s not.”
That was my thought exactly, Neo. A slip of the tongue comes from saying something you’re more familiar with or more used to saying in place of something less so. And there’s no conceivable reason for Obama to be in the habit of mentioning and discussing George Romney. It would make more sense as a slip of the tongue if he said Mitt Romney by accident when he was actually referring (for some reason) to George Romney. He’s way too young for George Romney to be that familiar to him, even if he knows who hs is. He will not have grown up with the name on his tongue his whole life as would be the case with someone older. It was deliberate, in my opinion, but probably because of the other reason you mentioned that didn’t even occur to me, the subliminal association to George Bush.