How to criticize Obama without making crap up

I tweeted the other day that the GOP convention had thus far offered an excellent critique of things Obama hasn't actually said or done. Paul Ryan seemed to double down on that strategy last night, saying numerous things that were, at best, highly misleading. Poor Jonathan Bernstein blew a fuse when Ryan criticized Obama for opposing the debt commission recommendations that Ryan himself had voted against, and then later offered this explanation. Even Fox News called Ryan's speech "deceiving" and "distracting" (if also "dazzling").

But all this seems to be part of a convention strategy of attacking an alternate reality Obama rather than the one who currently resides in the White House. A national convention is a rare opportunity to get your message out to voters unfiltered, and when you spend nearly all of it criticizing the government takeover of health care that didn't happen, the apology tour that didn't happen, the war on religion that didn't happen, etc., and then make the entire convention's theme ("We built it") a response to an out-of-context quote that only works as a gaffe when you selectively edit the president's speech, and when it seems the media is finally willing to call bullshit on this stuff, it makes you look bad. It makes it look like the real Obama must be a brilliant, flawless president -- otherwise, why would you have to make stuff up about him?

Now, even the most ardent Obama fan (even Obama himself, I'll bet) would admit to some flaws over the past 3 1/2 years. Can Republican speechwriters not come up with any? Let me just offer a few suggestions for those still working on some speeches for tonight:

• The economy is still not great! Would it be so hard to say something like, "Yes, Obama inherited a lot of challenges in 2008, but so did Reagan in 1980. By 1984, we had 7% economic growth. Where's the Obama recovery?" I mean, tinker with the wording or whatever, but that's actually true. Is that not enough?
• Solyndra! Yes, it's small potatoes -- just the narrowest sliver of stimulus spending, which overall was well-spent and actually saw good results. But at least with Solyndra, the president took a gamble with taxpayer money and gambled wrong. There must be at least a handful of similar cases out there. Find them.
• Federal judges. I know this is generally a left-wing critique of Obama, and most Republicans are thrilled that there are fewer Obama judges on the bench. But the fact that he hasn't nominated more judges actually is a bit of a scandal. You can spin that to make it look irresponsible, can't you?
• You could attack ACA for what it actually does. It requires people to purchase something they might not have purchased. Yes, it's constitutional, but it seems like you could frame it as inconsistent with the current conservative vision of liberty without blowing it up into some Marxist caricature. 

I just have to think there's enough factual material out there to fill a 30-minute speech. The viewers on Fox (the primary audience for this event) might be content with the fantasy world attacks, but if you want to speak to a larger audience, a bit more might be demanded of you.

Does convention location matter?

Over at 538, Tom Schaller says the Republicans made a smart choice in situating their 2012 nominating convention in Tampa, Florida.  After all, Florida is the largest swing state, and the Tampa area is very much in play.  He then adds,

Anyone who remembers the 2008 crowds in Denver for Barack Obama’s acceptance speech at Invesco Field in August and at another huge rally in late October would be hard pressed to make the case that picking Denver had no effect on Obama’s eventual, 9-point victory in Colorado.

Well, I was at both those events, and I'll make that case.  Remember the scatterplot comparing the Kerry 2004 vote to the Obama 2008 vote?  Here it is:

Yes, Obama did notably better in Colorado than Kerry did four years earlier, but he did better just about everywhere.  The average state swing toward the Democrats in 2008 was 5.85 points.  The swing in Colorado was 5.79 -- right near the mean.  

Okay, maybe it didn't matter statewide, but maybe in Denver?  Again, not really.  The Democratic swing from 2004 to 2008 in Denver was 6.1 points, not much bigger than the state or national means.

There are some campaign activities that do seem to be associated with vote boosts for candidates, but generally such campaign effects are pretty short-lived.  Conventions are associated with short term boosts for candidates, but since they occur two months before the election, it's hard to find much influence on the vote.