New Romney ad out as Obama's support fades

Via Gabe at Ace's, Romney has an effective new ad hitting Obama on the idiotic "You didn't build that" comments:

While Obama keeps making personal attacks on Romney, insinuating he's some sort of tax evading criminal banker, Romney keeps the focus on the issues that matter.

Please Mr. President, keep putting your foot in your mouth. Or maybe Obama will try a new demagoguing tactic, since the Bain attacks aren't working out so well:

Obama's sinking in New Mexico

From the PPP no less:

PPP's newest New Mexico poll finds the race for President there getting a lot more competitive. Barack Obama continues to lead but his advantage is down to 5 points at 49-44, a far cry from the leads of 14 and 15 points he had on our previous two polls of the state.

The big difference between now and April comes with Democrats. Previously Obama was winning them 85-12 but now that lead is down to 73-21. New Mexico is a state, like North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where any chance at victory for Romney is going to require winning over a significant number of conservative Democrats. Right now he's doing a pretty decent job of that.

via Legal Insurrection.

I 'm not sure why he's losing support in New Mexico; maybe it's his stellar record on the economy, maybe it's record-breaking deportations, or maybe it's because his policies negatively impact New Mexico in direct ways. Or all of the above.

This potentially gives Romney and the GOP a huge opportunity. I've always believed Hispanics tended to be socially conservative, it's just that they more easily identify with the political party portrayed as the most pro-immigrant. Right or wrong, that's the Democrats. If the 'conservatives' would logically extend their free-market, limited government principles to immigration issues we could easily add in a whole new demographic to the GOP's base.

It's okay to be anti-illegal immigration, but it's politically cancerous to ignore legal immigration--which is a fucking nightmare for most immigrants. It should be easier, not harder for good people to enter and stay in the U.S.

Romney hits back

In the midst of the media circus/speculation mongering over Romney's tax returns and Bain employment, Mitt's campaign finally hits back.



Needless to say, the lefty hacks' knee-jerk reactions are laughable.

And then there's all that stimulus money. Maybe if I was a major Obama donor, I would have been stimulated. Then again, maybe not:



It's nice to hit back, but let's focus on where it hurts the most.

Obama's job council hasn't met in six months

This is what Hope and Change leadership looks like:

At this point, the hiatus — which reached the half-year mark Tuesday — might be less awkward than an official meeting, given the hornet’s nest of issues that could sting Obama and the council members if the private-sector panel gets together.

For starters, there’s the discomfort many business leaders may feel in appearing to embrace the president with his reelection bid in full swing.

Then, there’s the fact that some members of the commission have conspicuously declined to endorse him. And that Obama has conspicuously declined to endorse some of their recommendations. And that some of what Obama won’t endorse has been warmly embraced by Republicans...

No wonder the Obama campaign and the media would rather talk about Romney's tax records and former employment.

This single example is a metaphor of the entire administration: sloppy, lazy, ineffectual, and always directing attention away from themselves. What has been the number one issue since Obama was elected? Jobs. Or the economy in general. 

Apparently assuming the Recovery Act was a cure-all, the check-list president then spent the next two years of his administration focusing on health care. But whether you like Obamacare or not, he left Nancy Pelosi to do the heavy lifting on that. I guess he needed his time on the green.

Even if I was a socialist, I would have to admit the president has been a complete failure of a leader. But it's worse; he won't assume responsibility for his failures, not even the failure to satisfy his base.

Report: Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he claimed

According to the Boston Globe, Mitt Romney was CEO and president of Bain Capital until at least 2002, three years after he said he left.

Yeah, I know.

Romney did not finalize a severance agreement with Bain until 2002, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999. It expired in 2009.

Bain Capital and the campaign for the presumptive GOP nominee have suggested the SEC filings that show Romney as the man in charge during those additional three years have little meaning, and are the result of legal technicalities. The campaign declined to comment on the record. It pointed to a footnote in Romney’s most recent financial disclosure form, filed June 1 as a presidential candidate.

“Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way,’’ according to the footnote. Romney made the same assertion on a financial disclosure form in 2007, during his first run for president.

Either Romney left in 1999 or 2002, and while this may muddy the waters and help Democrats paint him as an outsourcer, the potentially bigger story is that he possibly wasn't honest. Coupled with the implied allegations of tax evasion via offshore accounts it isn't exactly good news for him.

I tend to think Romney will open his books, and similarly explain the Bain departure confusion, a reasonable amount of time before the election. But I could be wrong, and Romney doesn't even need to. This is a referendum on failed economic policies Obama.

Since they can't debate Romney on the issues, they will attack his character. Or lie.

Update: Is this report nothing made to sound like something?

Quote of the Day

Apparently I'm supposed to be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Barack Obama does with mine.

via Reason

Video: Romney's Full Speech at NAACP

So Romney ventured into the Lion's den, and well, it went more or less as expected.

Here's the full video from PBS:

Romney concern trolling continues

Listen, Romney wasn't my first pick. To be honest I wasn't happy with any of the GOP candidates, and it was the least interesting, least motivating, least inspiring GOP presidential primary that I can remember. Sure I want to beat Obama, and there is a HUGE swell of new Republican energy this year because of that. But that doesn't mean our candidates are the bees knees.

Paraphrasing William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, it was the establishment that wanted Romney, and now it's the establishment who is disappointed:


Yes I wish Romney could hit a little harder, keep Obama on defense (after all, it is his presidency we're after). But we fight with the candidates we have, not the ones we want to have.

Talking heads' echo chamber: Romney is in BIG trouble!

For the life of me I couldn't figure out what the deal was with a couple of seemingly small stories. Then the narrative started to take shape--that Romney is in big trouble, his campaign is confused, his supporters are angry at him, and Romney himself is looking like a flip-flopper among other depressing and nefarious things.

Take for instance this article from Politico:

On Thursday, Romney’s team put out word of a massive $100 million fundraising haul — but its skill in attracting donors has done little to tamp down longstanding concerns within the GOP about the insularity and rigidness of the Romney camp. Those gripes are now being aired in public, as center-right staples from The Wall Street Journal editorial page to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham lament what they view as an uninspired, passive campaign. Romney’s general-election approach has resembled the strategy he used during the GOP primaries, a keep-your-head-down, minimalist effort aimed at keeping the focus on his opponent.

Not to miss out on the media's current obsession, Bill Kristol wonders aloud if Romney is the next Dukakis or Kerry:

Adopting a prevent defense when it's only the second quarter and you're not even ahead is dubious enough as a strategy. But his campaign's monomaniacal belief that it's about the economy and only the economy, and that they need to keep telling us stupid voters that it's only about the economy, has gone from being an annoying tick to a dangerous self-delusion.

Of course Republican concern trolling is just not complete without the New York Times. Jeremy Peters opines:

The editorial was a stern reminder of Mr. Romney’s failure to win the trust of the Republican Party’s core conservatives, a group that pays close attention to Mr. Murdoch’s newspapers and cable news outlets. Though political strategists debate the ultimate impact of any single media outlet, what is written in the pages of The Journal and The New York Post and talked about on Fox News — all Murdoch properties — could have the collective power to shape the thinking of millions of voters.

So what do we conclude with this narrative that has saturated American punditry? Answer: OMG, Romney is gonna implode!!1!

As I mentioned, this boils down to two, very small stories.

First, one guy on Romney's campaign staff said that the Obamacare mandate is a penalty and not a tax. It's easy to take either side, or both sides, since the Court was very creative in justifying the mandate as a tax. So one guy went off message on something most normal people could take either side on. The semantics of the mandate/tax don't change what it really does.

So I would like to know, how this is so different from Cory Booker going off message? Why didn't that spell doom for the Obama campaign? Do tell.

Second and finally, the other small story is about what a rich guy tweeted. Yes, Rupert Murdoch has some problems with Romney, and why are we supposed to care? The election is a referendum on Captain Failed-Recovery Obama, not on the true conservative manliness of Romney. Murdoch even said it was a referendum and that "all else [is] pretty minor"! It's not part of the narrative so it doesn't get reported.

It's going to be one of those elections.

Obama outspending Romney by $25 million so far

Remind me again, what was all that fear about Citizens United? You know, the one where a few evil Republican billionaires would buy the election?

Tell me about that.

From July 2 through July 8, the Obama campaign has purchased $6.5 million of advertising in the battleground states; the Romney camp $4.3 million...

Obama and his supporters [are] outspending Team Romney, $110 million to $85 million

Via Politico's Alexander Burns.

AP: Romney has buried treasure in Bermuda

This is news for at least two reasons (and pardon me while I engage in some helpful generalizing):

1. Romney is too rich, and since he's Republican there must be something fishy going on.

The first reason is why every MSNBC host will be talking about this, after they've read what every lefty blog had to say on the subject of course.

How Romney appears to the left.
(comic from Steve Benson)

Even if it's unfair and fodder for partisan hacks, it's the reason why every Republican nominee needs to open his books completely, to rub the left's faces in their own warrantless suspicions. Now this could be what Romney is doing--waiting patiently for leftist anger and speculation to build so he can use that energy against them; play them for fools. The left will claim victory by proving he's rich, but most Americans don't care about that. Believe it or not, many even admire success. 

2. It's possible (if unlikely) that Romney wasn't paying all of his taxes, so we need to see what he's got. 

This is true for every candidate. Democrat, Republican, even Libertarians. If they have a viable chance at winning the election, their finances should be an open book a reasonable amount of time before November. Heaven forbid we elect a guy without vetting him, that would be awful! Thankfully we have our trusty watchdog media.

But seriously, no party and no citizen wants to find out their candidate is shady when it's too late. So Mitt should open up. When the time is right, and not a minute earlier.

Correction: I mistakenly attributed this story to the Washington Post; I've corrected the title--it's from the Associated Press.

Romney: the mandate is a tax.

Well at least we got that all sorted out.

From Politico:

“While I agreed with the dissent, that’s overtaken by the fact that the majority of the Court said it’s a tax and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There’s no way around that,” Romney said. “The American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made — said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans.”

CBS hasn't posted the full video of Romney's interview yet, so it's not clear if Romney addressed Fehrnstrom's comments, or whether his remarks on the mandate today mean he also raised taxes in Massachusetts. Republicans have urged Romney to campaign comprehensively against the law known as Obamacare, even if that means talking around his record as governor.

You know what this means? Romney is a flip flopper:

The Obama campaign responds in a statement hitting Romney as a flip-flopper: "[Romney] contradicted himself by saying his own Massachusetts mandate wasn't a tax — but, Romney has called the individual mandate he implemented in Massachusetts a tax many times before..."

All I can say is, good timing.

Update: The NYT is a little late on this, but there's a point every non-Fox News media personality keep forgetting:

Mr. Romney appeared to be making a finer point about the absolute role the Supreme Court plays in setting American law, even if the nuance was lost on many. “Well, the Supreme Court has the final word and their final word is that Obamacare is a tax. So it’s a tax,” he said.  

If SCOTUS rules that the sky is green, then as far as American law is concerned, the sky is green. It's a tax.

It's a tax, it's a penalty, it's both. Romney campaign confused.

First we have Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom going on MSNBC and saying the Obamacare mandate penalty/Obamatax is, contrary to the Supreme Court decision, not a tax but a penalty.

And right on cue every partisan enveloped in the tit-for-tat horse-race collectively climaxed in joy or anger depending on their persuasion.

So apparently these semantics are a BFD, as the President would say.

Enter Chris Christie:

I don't think it's exclusively a tax or a penalty, it's both.

Wait, wait. So it goes both ways? Does this have something to do with bipartisanship where both sides win? I r confused.

But Romney isn't. He's had enough of the rhetorical kama sutra required for the Obamatax:

For an issue that's supposedly potent against Democrats, Romney's campaign is declaring a cease fire. This, even as the law polls unfavorably and it proved to be a motivating force for Republicans and disaffected independents in the 2010 midterms.

It's becoming clear that Romney has decided to focus on the economy at the expense of everything else... He's avoided criticizing the administration's handling of the botched Fast and Furious operation, even as it threatens to become a serious vulnerability for the president.

So Romney is trying the successful McCain strategy of playing nice? But let me say seriously that I think the National Journal overstated the facts. Actually they just linked to the story about Fehrnstrom and decided that was enough to call it a "cease-fire". Great work guys!

In response to Mr. Fehrnstrom going off message, conservatives are upset about Romney's apparent silence:

The Obama campaign has seized on remarks made by Romney adviser Eric "Etch-A-Sketch" Fehrnstrom this morning on MSNBC, to the effect that the individual mandate in Obamacare (and Romneycare) is not a tax. Fehrnstrom allowed Chuck Todd to push him off message--and re-ignited the fears that conservatives have long had about Romney's will and ability to fight. In response, conservatives--who had just coalesced around opposition to what many now call "Obamatax"--exhort: Mitt, start fighting, or give up and let someone else do it.

This just won't do; McCain strategy off. I guess rhetorical kama sutra sprinkled with semantic foreplay is back on.

So is the Romney campaign, in fact, declaring a “cease-fire” on Obamacare? No, no, no, says Romney spokesman Ryan Williams. “From our perspective, Obamacare has been and will continue to be a central issue in the campaign,” says Williams. “It presents voters with a bright line that divides the two candidates. Gov. Romney is going to repeal Obamacare and President Obama is going to keep it. There is a clear choice in November.”

To make matters worse for team Romney, Mitch "squishy balls" McConnell throws in this stinkbomb:

"Odds long to undo health care law."

[Republicans] promise to efficiently manage the Leviathan with a measured hand. And maybe some tax breaks from time to time. And who better to keep that promise than the man whose team gave us state-run health care in the first place?

I'm beginning to doubt the competence of Romney's campaign. Their messaging is so confused and changes day to day, compounded by the fact Romney is known as a flip-flopper. If your guy can't stay on message, fire him on the spot. Make him walk out of the interview in shame. But if there is any truth to the "cease-fire", Susan Duclos explains why it might be a good idea:

Obamacare will be a defining issue in the November 6, 2012 presidential election as will the economy and jobs, but the individual battles fought until that day must be divided up accordingly where Romney's strength in business can be utilized by his campaign and his weakest area, health care, can be utilized by other sources.

Yes, Romney's campaign is confused, or at least incompetent at appearing otherwise. They need to get on message, stay on message, and don't be afraid of a little multitasking. There's gold in them there hills!

Jon Stewart blasts Romney for being rich like Jon Stewart

Pot, Kettle.

Apparently Jon Stewart doesn't like rich people, unless perhaps they subscribe to the same ideology.

If Romney only switched sides all would be forgiven; as we all know socialists and progressives get a platinum hypocrite card which permits them to drive SUVs, fly in private jets, and make gobs of cash on the backs of their staff and fans guilt free. After 6 months of membership in the elite club you get to bash rich Republicans on TV for doing the same thing! Calling everyone racist is optional, but encouraged.



Now honestly, I don't know if or how much Stewart gives to charity or if he shares with his staff, but I'm willing to bet Romney has given to charity and helped others in need far more than Stewart has. But that still doesn't excuse rich Republicans for being Republican.

NYT: Obama's Bain attacks on Romney are so working!

Riiight.

So a failing president's attacks on a successful businessman are "making inroads"? Wait a minute... Yes, of course.  I just got off the phone with Karl Marx and he confirms that the Bain attacks are a good idea.

There you have it.

For a different opinion, ask Cory Booker. Mr. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection isn't buying it either.

Politico reporter Joe Williams is out, after idiotic Romney remarks

It looks like another lefty reporter who talks before he thinks just got canned. Joe Williams has left Politico after he made some stupid comments about Romney (and others).

...Harris and executive editor Jim VandeHei sent a memo to staff announcing that Williams' remarks "fell short of our standards for fairness and judgment," and that he would be suspended pending review.

There's at least one other in Politico who could use a lesson in "fairness and judgment".