Mitt Romney told Fox News yesterday that President Obama is waging "a personal attack campaign," adding, "He's going after me as an individual. Look, I'm an American, I love this country."
I have no idea if the Republican nominee actually believes this or not, but if Romney is going to keep pushing the line, it's worth taking a moment to apply definitions to some of these terms. A "personal attack campaign" involves a candidate being attacked on purely personal issues that are unrelated to policy or official duties. If there was an effort to question Romney's patriotism or smear him over his Mormon faith, that would constitute a "personal attack campaign."
Obama is doing the exact opposite, routinely telling his own supporters, "Gov. Romney is a patriotic American. He's raised a wonderful family. He should be proud of the great personal success." To the extent that the president is "going after" Romney, he's doing so by focusing on his rival's background and experience, not "personal" issues.
Romney, apparently feeling sorry for himself, is either lying or he's confused about what a "personal attack" is. To question a presidential candidate's record is not to go after him or her "as an individual."
Indeed, if Romney felt unfairly put upon by Bain Capital criticism, Obama's new offensive will really have him reaching for the fainting couch.
The Obama campaign is opening a new front in its war against GOP rival Mitt Romney, ABC News has learned, with planned attacks to begin this week on Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts and the campaign promises Democrats say he left unfulfilled.
Team Obama will point to Romney's rhetoric on job creation, size of government, education, deficits and taxes during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign and draw parallels with his presidential stump speeches of 2012. The goal is to illustrate that Romney has made the same promises before with unimpressive results, officials say ... the latest line of attack will be a major focus from now through the election.
As Greg Sargent noted, "The point the Obama campaign needs to drive home is that Romney has already tried to bring his private sector experience to bear on the public sector, even if he isn't eager to talk about it."
It's a compelling message, arguably more potent than the Bain criticisms.
As I've been arguing, Romney's basic pitch is that he was successful in the private sector, so he'll be successful in the public sector. But we already know that when Romney tried to apply his corporate know-how in government, he largely failed -- which is why the former governor tends to ignore his one term in Massachusetts altogether.
Indeed, we're looking at a campaign dynamic without a modern precedent, especially for a governor running for the White House. In 2000, George W. Bush said, "Look at what I did in Texas." In 1992, Bill Clinton said, "Look at what I did in Arkansas." In 1980, Ronald Reagan said, "Look at what I did in California."
And in 2012, Mitt Romney is saying, "Look at what I did at Bain Capital."
It's an untenable approach, and it makes sense that Obama's team will make an effort to exploit the weakness. And the more this becomes the subject of debate, the more it will be incumbent on Romney to explain why he failed to impress much of anyone when he tried to lead.
"His favorability was basically a straight line down from his honeymoon," said David Paleologos, director of Suffolk University's Political Research Center and a longtime Massachusetts pollster. "Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt." [...]
Romney entered the Massachusetts State House in January 2003 with a flashy favorability rating of 61 percent.... By November 2004, voters were souring, and a Suffolk poll found his favorable rating had dropped to 47 percent... By November 2006, as he closed out his increasingly absentee term, his overall job approval rating had cratered to 36 percent.
This isn't just because Massachusetts is a reliably "blue" state. It's had plenty of modern Republican governors -- Weld, Cellucci, Swift -- and all were more popular with their Bay State constituents than Romney.
To shine a light on this is called "scrutiny," not a "personal attack."
Leave a Comment:
Here's a freebie for the Obama folks:
"Romney was a failure as the governor of a small state. What makes him think he is qualified for the bigger and more important job as Leader of the Free World?"
The Peter Principal: People rise to the level of their incompetence.
"The Peter Principal: People rise to the level of their incompetence."
If that's the case, after 8 years of Srub & 30+ years of trickle down - the people of this nation have been dumbed down to the 8th level of Dante's Inferno......
Its the Republican's playing the victim card. Like how the multi-billionaires are whinging and carrying on about 'unfair attacks' on them 'just for being rich'.
These people have no f*#!ing clue as to what a real victim of their policies goes through. They are as far from 'victim' as one can get.
A two-fer right off the bat! FOX and Mitt on one line. Sh""t don't get any deeper than that.
"Mitt Romney's family turned its back on America -- picked up and left our country -- so they could go and join a fringe polygamy commune in rural Mexico with an anything-goes sexual environment that was well outside the bounds of American civilization."
I believe that's what's known as a personal attack.
A rich person worries about their money . Oh no the stock market crashed and I'm down to my last 5 million . I'll have to put the race horses on short feed
as opposed to a poor person who just worries how to get some .
Like how will I feed my family , how will I put gas in the car to get to work .. you know High class problems
They are just doing the Karl Rove thing, while they shout about Obama not being an American.
Scott Walker is doing the same thing, bitching about all the union money coming into his state.
It worked so well with Bush they figure it will always work.
Multi-national corporations on the other hand...
How dare Obama attack Romney as an individual! He should be attacking Romney as a corporation. What - what? Corporations are people too?
How Romney can so glibly lie and lie and lie and lie continues to stun me.
I think Harry Truman said it best: He talks out of both sides of his mouth and lies out of both sides.
Mitt von Munchausen has done nothing to disprove any of the political ads that so offend his Madison Ave. persona. His entire campaign is a house of cards that under close inspection of his morality.(the bully) his financial acumen (vulture capitalism), his unwavering spinelessness (never found an issue unworthy of changing his position) and craven pandering to the wealthy and narrow-minded fringe groups, would crumble in the smallest breeze of inspection.
America has now heard that Obama is attacking Romney on a personal level. Never mind that they haven't heard any attacks on Romney BY Obama. They've heard that there's been attacks, and that's enough. So when Romney (or the shadowy Super PACs) start (continue) attacking Obama personally...hey, the n****r was asking for it.
A Republican's comments never have to be proven, they just need to be MADE, thus becoming Truth.
I think you're onto something. Another wrinkle would be that by whining now about Obama attacks and making himself the innocent, Romney will be able to float above the coming SuperPac crap storm this fall. Then he'll say stuff like, "While I'm personally opposed to these kinds of attacks against the president, I can understand the rationale behind them. After all, his campaign has been nothing but personal attacks against me."
Mr. Romney's resume should include under hands-on job experience: "barber."
Note to Fox News: many people say that Romney is hiding something in not releasing his tax returns. Some believe that disclosure would embarass him. What about it?
How much income tax is owed on money in those off-shore accounts?
This is classic Karl Rove strategy... don't address the issue, attack your opponent and put them on the defensive. It doesn't matter if you are guilty of the same thing that you accuse your opponent of, just as long as you make the accusation first. And it doesn't matter if your accusation is true or not, as long as it puts your opponent on the defensive and takes the focus away from the real issue.
That should read "even he isn't eager to talk about it."
"Romney ... is either lying or he's confused..."
Now, Steve. The "Romney is a liar" movement is just beginning to gather steam. Don't waver now.
I don't think the Obama camp just stumbled onto this. I think this was always the plan.
Debunk Romney's claim that he was a job creator at Bain, then show how that Bain experience meant nothing when applied to governing.
And I don't think Obama will go after Romney's character at all, because Romney will do it all by himself. Americans may be ignorant about a lot of the issues, but we know a phony when we see one.
Romney is a phony. And that will be the final nail in his coffin. The attacks on his time at Bain and his time as MA Gov. will be the body blows, then Romney will deliver a self inflicted knockout punch by being the phony that he is.
I think I'm all out of analogies.
The fact of the matter is really that Romney is just not running a good campaign. He's not likable, because he's just a transparent phony, and no amount of Rove tactics will dig him out of his hole.
Furthermore, he's simply making himself look like a self-pitying ninny by going out and complaining about personal attacks when, as you point out, President Obama has been attacking the record and not making any kind of personal attack on Mr. Romney.
Romney is still in red-meat primary mode, because he's terrified of moving to the middle, hence his endorsement of/by that idiot Donald Trump. That's going to cost him, especially since President Obama has a high likability and a decent approval rating for the shape that the economy is in. The fact that the GOP is caving on increased revenue and bricking themselves over defense cuts isn't helping things for them.
For all it's worth, Florida can putz around with removing people from the rolls, they can try to suppress the vote, but it ultimately won't matter. The math right now looks great for an Obama re-election. Of course, we're still way too far out for the numbers to be truly meaningful, but the Romney campaign can see the trajectory as well as anyone else, so they're trying to do some serious muddying of the water.
The problem is that President Obama is good at being clear, concise, and making his point sharply, without sounding like a partisan hack (since he's not). So, I'm going to have to agree. Romney just seems like a phony, a liar, and someone who's out of touch with the average American family.
If he'd been the nominee in 2000? Absolutely he would have won. Same thing if we'd had President Gore, I think that Romney could have run a social-issues campaign in 2004 and won. This year? No. Too many people are still too hurt by the Bush-era's policies, and people are sick of hawkish behavior towards the Middle-East and Asia. John McCain can talk about how the PotUS has failed in Syria, but that just doesn't ring true with most Americans.
The same party that has called Obama illegitimate, Muslim, fascist, socialist, cowardly and other more heinous things has no grounds for bellyaching about personal attacks.
If Romney Ran the Country Like Bain...
If former Governor Mitt Romney were elected and really did imposed the tactics he used to run Bain Capital, the first thing he’d look to do is to cut the bottom 15% underperforming states.
Using 20 twenty-year (1990-2009) cumulative data of loss ratio (spending minus taxes received as a percent of GDP*) to stabilize for single year outliers, New Mexico, Mississippi, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, North Dakota, Maine and Alaska would be on the chopping block. (Maryland and Alaska were tied, however Maryland’s data includes Washington D.C.).
Using the Bain model, Montana, North Dakota, Maine and Alaska would be sold as a package deal to Canada. New Mexico would be sold to Old Mexico (although Arizona may have to be tossed in to sweeten the deal). West Virginia would be broken up between Ohio and Pennsylvania, and WV’s state executives laid off. (The other border states to West Virginia; Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland, have negative loss ratios so combining any of them with West Virginia would seriously impact their viability as a going concern.)
Finally, the national debt would be transferred to Alabama and Mississippi and then they’d be spun off into the separate country of Missibama. This newly formed country could then simply default on their debt and go through bankruptcy reorganization and emerge as a new country called the Republic of the Southeast Conference.
Of course during the following year, the remaining bottom 15% - Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Kentucky, South Carolina and South Dakota should be very nervous.
*from data published in the Aug 1st 2011 edition of The Economist online.
Romney is simply expressing one of those quirks of the right wing mentality in which they are their ideas. It's all part of the right wing's tribal identity thing. It's what also makes right wing conservatives unfit for politics and for democracy, since to compromise on an idea is like cutting off an arm or a leg or something. Liberals understand that ideas are meant to be contested and within limits don't take disagreement personally. But conservatives carry their ideas like flags -- it's what defines them as citizens of Hannity's America or Fox Nation. And so Romney knows exactly what hot buttons he is hitting when he accuses Obama of attacking him "personally" when all the President is really doing is contesting Romney's ideas and his questionable behavior.
If Romney wants to play the victim he can, but it does not do much to inspire confidence or demonstrate leadership.
I only caught the tail end of a report, but if I understood correctly Romney was criticizing President Obama for not getting the military involved in the Syrian conflict. Apparently he is taking advice from McCain who thinks the only way to solve anything is with military action. Romney would follow an ill-advised & wrongheaded strategy without even thinking twice about it. Because sending troops into Syria will end up getting more people killed. It will add to the confusion & make the problem worse, not better.
If Romney wants to appear as a leader he ought to know what he is talking about first. And he ought to think before he leaps. That is not a personal attack; it is well-deserved criticism. Playing the victim is the coward's way out.
Moreover since Romney does not like to answer questions or be second-guessed or challenged or criticized or held accountable he really should not be running for president.
Eric Ferhnstrom, one of the key political advisors to the Romney campaign is heavily figured in the personal attacks on Elizabeth Warren in the MA senatorial race, as he is also a key operative in the Scott Brown campaign.