Total bullshit. The author deliberately misconstrues both the remarks of the president (and those of Mitt Romney) and also the obvious truth of their meaning. Flynn draws a parallel between these two items:

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

And his own:

“If you’ve got a medal — you didn’t win that.”

He deliberately misconstrues the intent of the president’s remarks. Anyone fluent in spoken English can easily discern that the president was referring to “roads and bridges” when he used the word “that.” This deliberate misunderstanding allows for great sloganeering and brilliantly effective ads against the president, all for the purpose of telling people he’s hostile to business. But of course that isn’t what he said. It’s fine to believe he is hostile to business, but his remarks in no way reflect this. Using his remarks out of context and deliberately misconstruing them is, as I wrote above, the worst kind of gotchaism. And frankly, the kind that Romney has been using since the beginning. Remember his very first ad against the president? He showed a clip of Obama saying “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose!” Only, the president was quoting his opponent’s campaign when he said that, not making that remark himself. Nauseating.

Whoever this Flynn guy is, he’s an asshole for writing this piece. And he’s proven himself an untrustworthy source of news and analysis.

From the American Spectator, titled “You Didn’t Win That” written by Daniel J. Flynn on 8-3-12:

“Michael Phelps has a thing or two to learn about Olympic fairness. Swimmer Michael Phelps won his twentieth Olympic medal last night when he defeated fellow American Ryan Lochte in the 200-meter medley. And his Olympics haven’t yet ended. Should he qualify, Phelps could extend his medal record in the 100-meter butterfly later today and the 4×100-meter medley relay on Saturday. “I thanked [my teammates] for being able to allow me to have this moment,” Phelps explained after his 200-meter relay victory earlier this week broke the all-time Olympic medal-record of eighteen. “It has been a pretty amazing career but we still have a couple of races left.” Despite verbal graciousness toward teammates and all the third-person “we” talk, Michael’s message is loud and clear: I accomplished all this. The 29 “individual” world records that the swimmer holds all feature the name “Michael Phelps” and no one else’s in the books. For the ten “individual” Olympic gold medals won, Phelps stood alone atop the podium. And 2008′s Sportsman of the Year camera-hogged the cover of Sports Illustrated, appearing with hands on hips and eight shiny gold medals hanging around his gloating head. If Michael Phelps has been successful, he didn’t get there on his own. I’m always struck by Olympians who think, ‘Well, it must be because I was just so athletic.’ There are a lot of athletic people out there! ‘It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.’ Let me tell you something: there are a whole bunch of hardworking athletes out there! If you were successful at swimming, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great coach somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to pay for your swimming lessons that have allowed you to thrive. Somebody built the pool. If you’ve got a medal — you didn’t win that. Somebody else made that happen. A modest proposal to counteract Olympic arrogance: share the gold. When you spread medals around, it is good for everybody. There are enough grains of gold to go around. It isn’t fair that Phelps was born with an 80-inch wingspan, size fourteen flippers, and the ability to metabolize 12,000 calories daily and still look like an Abercrombie & Fitch model. Nature endows him with gifts; man further endows him with awards. The Olympics is an elitist affront to egalitarianism. In the Olympics, the rich get richer. The haves feast on the have-nots. Unfettered competition leaves the “1%” with all the silver and gold and the “99%” with nothing. Rampant discrimination against the obese, no head starts for underprivileged athletes, and a hierarchical winners-losers dichotomy characterize the London games. Occupy the Olympics. To bring a relic of 8th-century B.C. Athens into the 21st century global village, everyone, as some enlightened soccer leagues in the northeastern part of the United States understand, should get trophies, or, in the case of the Olympics, medals. The elitist practice of placing “winners” on pedestals should be immediately abolished. We all stand as one on the planet pedestal. And competition, which brings out the worst in people, should be replaced with cooperation. If a strongman can’t clean-and-jerk 500 pounds, how about another athlete lends him a hand? Snobs might say that abolishing victory’s incentives, and compelling athletes to work together, will inevitably bring slower times. But we will place burdens on the most advantaged for the purposes of fairness. When everybody wins, we all win. Because Michael Phelps is so extraordinary, swimming requires extraordinary measures to maintain social justice against the scourge of individual “accomplishment.” Throwing a life preserver to the trailing swimmers, or pooling resources in the pool, simply won’t cut it. The Baltimore Bullet’s gaudy gold too conspicuously flashes his sins against equality, fairness, and all that is good. Tying fifty-pound dumbbells to each limb should achieve the desired results in the pool. This may have the effect of forcing Phelps underwater, putting him out of the swimming business forever, and literally drowning him with an excess of rules. But at least the summer games would be fair.”

No. I can’t imagine what possible benefit we get from doing that.

Minimum wage laws keep people from having first jobs.

Sure, I’ve heard the argument. I just don’t buy it at all.

How well-reasoned and grown up of you to say

My apologies! I was referring to politicians like Paul Ryan not to the people who vote for them. And in any case I was being hyperbolic. I didn’t mean to insult.

More and more people are coming around to the idea that bigger government is not the solution. I don’t think Johnson has a chance to win this election, but if he can get enough support to debate and get these ideas out into the mainstream, the Dems and Reps will have to pay attention. You agree with his position here, don’t you?

“he doesn’t support minimum wages or unions”

“I rest my case.”

Far from it. Minimum wage laws keep people from having first jobs. Low wage jobs aren’t supposed to be the kind of job you raise a family on. You get rid of those (which is what minimum wage laws do) you end up with less experienced adults.

“is one small notch above the devil in my universe.”

How well-reasoned and grown up of you to say. Just in case I wasn’t sure you were still on the side of the Democrats/Republicans, you compare me to the devil.

So basically he’s against it. “Good idea in principle, but I won’t sign the bill” is exactly what Romney says.

take government out of the marriage business altogether.

Good luck selling that one!

His economic policy in general would seek to reverse teh perverse gap between the very wealthy and everybody else,

Uh, how? Especially since he presumably doesn’t support the very things which helped create the middle class between WWII and the 70s.

he doesn’t support minimum wages or unions

I rest my case.

You know social security isn’t sound as it is.

On the contrary, I don’t know it. If we raised the cap on the tax, allowing it to hit 90% of income as it once did instead of letting more and more US income escape the tax, that’d help right there. I’m not at all convinced that raising the retirement age is a good idea. Just because well-to-do people can work a few more years that doesn’t mean garbage haulers can. It’s a last resort. Very last.

Well, anyone who supports ending Medicare and instead giving seniors vouchers with which to purchase private insurance is one small notch above the devil in my universe. I’d never vote for anyone who supported such a thing. Ever.

He supports gay unions but would take government out of the marriage business altogether. He said he thought the repeal of DADT was long overdue.

He’s said he supports Glass Stegall and One Dollar of Capital. His economic policy in general would seek to reverse teh perverse gap between the very wealthy and everybody else, but he doesn’t support minimum wages or unions in the way you’re thinking.

You know social security isn’t sound as it is. He would bump up the retirement age and income limit and fix employment.

He does support the Ryan plan.

So he’s for expanding access to contraception, in support of abortion rights and would sign the Lilly Ledbetter bill? I don’t see those on a quick perusal of his “issues” page. Obama is onboard with those issues, Romney is not.

Obama spent the majority of his first term holding the same position as Romney on DODT and gay marriage until finally advocating for gay rights, while Johnson supports equal rights for gay people.

The president did away with DATT and came out in vocal support of marriage equality. Romney is against those things. Johnson?

Both Obama and Romney want to heavily regulate the market

Obama and his party maybe have a chance at reinstating glass-steagall. Maybe. Romney wants to deregulate further. Johnson? He’d probably eliminate the word “regulation” from the dictionary. What I mean by “economic fairness” is policies that would halt or even reverse the perverse and growing gap between the very wealthy and everybody else through tax changes, maybe minimum wage changes, support of unions, etc.

Social safety net: both Romney and Obama support regressive taxes and other policies that hurt the poor, while Johnson supports policies that would strengthen the economy and improve possibilities of upward mobility and also including social safety nets

Yeah, I’m not into the whole trickle-down, supply side economics thing. One of the reasons we’re in the spot we’re in is because the middle class hasn’t received a pay raise since the 70s and corporate America has run away with all the money. Doubling down on it doesn’t strike me as a recipe for success.

Social security: both Romney and Obama support this failing system while Johnson would try to reform it.

I don’t know what you mean by “failing.” It’s a perfectly sound system. Bump up the income limit on the SS tax a bit and fix employment–done. What really worries me is Medicare (and all of health care.) What’s Johnson’s “reform”? Don’t’ tell me it’s Ryan’s plan to replace it with coupons for private insurance.

Johnson does seem to be in the right spot on the drug war, though. I’ll give him that much.

Still, I think there are meaningful differences on women’s rights, gay rights, issues of economic fairness, the social safety net, etc. Also, Mr. Obama seems to be quite a bit more genuine than Mr. Romney, the latter being a political chameleon extraordinaire and also seemingly quite out of touch with the concerns of average Americans. I wouldn’t think of voting for him and I think I have pretty good reasons for that, aside from brand loyalty.

That’s not really incidental. Of course he has. They’re basically the same guy, aren’t they?