In recent weeks, President Obama's re-election campaign has focused heavily on Mitt Romney's controversial private-sector background, shining a light on the mass layoffs the Republican orchestrated at his private-equity firm. As promised, Obama's team is shifting today to the follow-up message: Romney wasn't a good governor, either.
In this new, four-minute video, the president's campaign focuses heavily on Romney's awful jobs record in Massachusetts, the tax increases Romney imposed through increased fees, and the debt he accrued during his one term in office.
Just as importantly, though, it emphasizes an argument that often goes overlooked: when Romney ran for governor in 2002, he made a series of promises that are remarkably similar to those he's making now. Namely, Romney was prosperous in the private sector, so if voters give him a chance, he'll work wonders in the public sector. In hindsight, we now know he failed to produce once in office -- but he's making identical promises now, almost word for word. If his policies failed to create jobs at the state level, the video argues, why should voters believe him at the national level?
To my mind, this is a far more potent and salient message in 2012. The Bain Capital criticisms are accurate, and brutal to a real degree, but they're also complicated. Sure, Romney got rich by laying off American workers, but typical folks don't know what a private-equity firm is; they've never heard of Bain or the effected companies; and Romney uses the discussion itself to again argue that Obama is somehow hostile towards businesses.
It's infinitely easier to make this more straightforward case: Romney was an ineffective, unsuccessful, and unpopular governor who quit after one term, so don't make him president. He promised to use his business know-how to create jobs, but failed miserably -- Massachusetts' job creation record during Romney's term was "one of the worst in the country," ranking 47th out of 50 states.
Asked to defend Romney's economic record, even his most ardent supporters either can't think of a persuasive excuse, or they come up with an argument that makes Obama look better.
As a rule, Romney never talks about his gubernatorial record -- which itself is a bizarre tactic with no modern precedent among presidential candidates -- omitting references to Massachusetts from his speeches and ads. While Bush, Clinton, and Reagan each ran on their gubernatorial successes, Romney pretends his one term never happened.
Obama, however, will apparently have plenty to say on the subject.
Leave a Comment:
Both Presidents Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush were businessmen. Look what they did to the economy in their respective administrations. Businessmen do not make good presidents! Enough said!
wow did you get this off of the lib talking point blog. You sound like a parrot, or did you clip and past this off of MSNBC's other blog page. You forgot to include Jimmy Carter in that list. Oh, yea , and Ronald Reagan.
Reagan was not a businessman. He was the President of a Trade Union; aka "Union Boss" or "Union Goon."
Wow chem
Calling me parrot. I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!
I don't need "lib talking points" as you put it. I work in a library and can look things up in actual books. As to Jimmy Carter I have always seen his seed store as secondary to him being a farmer. That's how he presented himself, as a farmer. And Reagan? I have yet to come up with what business he had. Actor yes. Union Boss yes. Politician yes. Business man no. What business did he run pray tell chem? Because iIf he did and he ran a business like he did the economy... well his trickle down economic polices have shown to be disastrous.
For the record my father is a retired businessman and an economist. I have nothing against businessmen (or business women for that matter) per se but I believe the skills that make a good executive and a good president are different. Executives are used to having it their way or the highway. A president can't do that. He/she must work with other people. As far as I can tell Romney lacks basic people skills.
P.S. Swquak! ;-)
chemdmd: Nice to see that the morons stupid enough to pass the IQ test low enough to qualify as Republicans can use computers just like real people, despite the lack of frontal lobes and opposable thumbs.
Chem, you do know that Carter did better on the economy than virtually every Republican president since WWII, right? And that the one who beat him just squeaked past him?
What was it that Senator Obama did that prepared him for his current job. Was the ONLY senator on 36 issues to vote present. Nice, I wish he would still vote that way. A shoe would do less harm to our country then he has done.
You seem lost. The fox news website is that way >>>>>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_occupation
40 Ronald Reagan[3][4] Actor & broadcaster, President of the Screen Actors Guild[5]
One thing he did was be a Constitutional scholar. Another thing he did was serve in the Illinois legislature. Another thing he did was become an Illinois Senator. Another thing he did was verse himself in lots of policy. And another thing he has and Republicans can learn from is empathy and the ability to understand the problems of others. He also understand that life is more than negotiating markets and that life is more than markets.
Romney looks like a very small, mean-spirited man in comparison.
Romney quit the governorship two years into his term, he just kept drawing a paycheck. I don't think Romney has ever worked more than a couple hours a day, even then not very hard. He has entitlement remember. I don't trust that he will work for us either.
I'm really trying to remain civil.
Americans have a right to know the real record of the man rich Republican donors decided would be their presidential nominee. The real Mitt Romney has been hidden behind his campaign's facade of hostility to the press and brutally enforced distance from regular voters. Romney has had a chance at putting his vaunted "business experience": to work in government, and it was a stunning failure. Romney as commander in chief of Massachusetts was a disaster, killing jobs and ruining the lives of millions. Romney as commander in chief of the entire United States? Disaster on a grander scale. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Nice little snippet, pretty damning too. As others have mentioned, I too cannot wait for the debates between Obama and Rmoney..
Trollop,
You forget that in our presidential debates, the ability to debate and the command of all the issues is minimized entirely by the way our Press handles 'debates.' They can take a one-sided a$$ whipping from a Dem (like Kerry did and Obama will do to a larger scale) and turn it into a BOTH SIDES are just as right and make it into an 'even match.'
They do this a number of ways but the predominant way is they poll 'likely voters' or just people that claim to be independent (their not) and the polls determine 'how effective' the points made were. Irrelevant to the discussion is what is true, fact, fiction. That doesn't come until the next day and there's no poll done with people who watched the debate and know better or at least are informed by the fact-checkers immediately after-the-fact.
I think if the debates were scored in a fair manner and fact-checking was done on the spot, Obama would eat Romney's lunch also but that's not how the debates are set up.
Romney can and WILL SAY ANYTHING, even if it's a lie during the debates because he knows that he can. He does it on 'the stump' now for the same reason. He's not interested in a debate so much as 'winning' or 'minimizing the damage' in front of America.
It's really pathetic how it's all done. Even if Obama handily 'wins' the debate, you won't be able tell from what you hear in the press/MSM the next day or even after the debate. It'll appear 'both sides" made good points/arguments and leave it to the uninformed to decide (the Fox model of keeping you stupid).
Memory Isn't There Today (MITT), can't recall what he himself said a month ago, so how is whatever he did years ago even relevant?
Romney had a much friendlier environment to work with in Massachusetts than he does with the nation as a whole. A relatively wealthy, urbane, well educated citizenry. Residents who are more accepting of the idea of taxes to pay for programs. Also, economic tailwinds from the equity provided to individual consumers by a growing housing bubble.
He won't have those advantages as President.
"As a rule, Romney never talks about his gubernatorial record..."
That's because Mittens sucked at his job! Bush sucked at his job and look at where that landed US - 2 wars, a tanked economy, and the rise of the Plutocrats, et.al! Think sheeple, think!
GOPers excuse Romney's poor performance as governor by saying he inherited a recession. But guess what? He didn't make it better, did he? And yet he absolutely bans discussing the little fact of the Bush near-depression that Obama inherited.
Really, the GOP and Romney in particular are just one-sided, unfair and they think that that's a VIRTUE!
I know I'm biased, but I think this is really effective.
More importantly, as Steve said, Team Romney doesn't have a good answer for why his private sector know how didn't make for success in Government.
And that is the whole basis of his campaign.
Romney is putting forth a theory that sounds logical to the average voter. But, the problem is, he's already put this theory into practice and it failed.
What else does he have to offer?
I'm sorry, “It's our turn now”, is not a good enough reason.
"...never heard of Bain or the effected companies..."
Affect vs. Effect.
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx
Grammar, it's not just for breakfast anymore.
Here's what the wingnuts will respond with: Obama's a Socialist. It's about all they have.