Obama gets dirty--and it is backfiring!

[Larryrsf]

By Karl Rove
July 19, 2012

Obama Gets Down and Dirty

The president's campaign puts out a steady stream of smears against Mitt Romney, including an insinuation that he committed a felony in an SEC filing.

Since mid-May, President Barack Obama and his campaign have been attacking Mitt Romney for "shipping U.S. jobs overseas." They've suggested he made false filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. And they've hit him for having "Swiss bank accounts and offshore investment funds in the Caymans." Before considering their political impact, let's review each of these charges.

The first allegation*that Mr. Romney "shipped jobs to China and Mexico"*was called "misleading, unfair and untrue" by the Washington Post fact checker and labeled "bunk" in an editorial. The Annenberg Center's FactCheck.org said it "found no evidence to support the claim that Romney . . . shipped American jobs overseas." Neither has anyone else. But Mr. Obama has not backed down, with his campaign spending more than $30 million to run TV ads on the subject for nearly three months.

The second charge*with its implied suggestion that perhaps Mr. Romney should be in jail rather than running for president*came in a July 12 conference call. Mr. Obama's deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, accused Mr. Romney of "misrepresenting his position at Bain" to the SEC, "which is a felony."

Three days later Mr. Obama doubled down on the incendiary charge during an interview on WAVY-TV in Portsmouth, Va. He personally attacked Mr. Romney for saying he left Bain's leadership in 1999 while, during the subsequent three years he spent running the Olympics, signing "an SEC listing that says he was the CEO, chairman, and president of the company." What the president didn't say was that this is a customary practice for CEOs who take a leave of absence from their firms. This is precisely the reason that FactCheck.org found the president's charge misleading while the Washington Post said the "facts essentially exonerate Romney." And of course Obama has instant access to any number of experts who know this.

Consider another high-profile CEO: In January 2009, Steve Jobs took a leave from Apple for health reasons. But like Mr. Romney, Jobs later signed SEC documents listing him as CEO, even though he'd relinquished day-to-day control of the company to Apple's chief operating officer. Maybe a reporter should ask Mr. Obama if he believes Jobs was a felon.

Then there are the attacks on Mr. Romney's foreign investments. Democrats fling around words like "tax haven," "offshore account" and "secretive investments." But according to their annual financial disclosures, a number of West Wing staffers are wealthy and have foreign holdings.

They have bonds from around the globe. Through international mutual funds, they own stock in holding companies in tax havens like the Caymans, Bermuda, Guernsey, Curacao and the Isle of Man.

There's nothing wrong with any of this. But if Mr. Obama excoriates Mr. Romney for foreign investments, then why doesn't he cleanse his own West Wing staff of millionaire foreign investors?

Have the president's attacks worked? When the Obama campaign launched its Bain attack on May 15, the race was tied at 45% in Gallup's tracking. As of Tuesday, Gallup had it virtually unchanged: Mr. Obama 47%, Mr. Romney 45%.

Still, they have had an effect. The Romney campaign's response*which included whiny demands that the president apologize for his attacks*has unsettled GOP activists, causing them to wonder how prepared Mr. Romney and his team are for the mudfest they've entered. The attacks have drawn attention to the Obama campaign's demands that Mr. Romney release more years of tax returns. And they've allowed Mr. Obama to avoid talking about the continually bad economic news*the lousy June jobs numbers, last Friday's drop in consumer confidence, Tuesday's drop in retail sales and more.

The danger for Mr. Romney is that if these charges go unrefuted, they could discourage swing voters from going for him this fall when they decide whom to support. Therefore, Mr. Romney should challenge Mr. Obama directly*as he did effectively on Tuesday and Wednesday*but in a way that makes the Republican bigger and more presidential than the incumbent.

This is his opportunity to remind voters*in a tone of disappointment and regret, not anger and malice*that Mr. Obama's negative attacks will not put anyone back to work, reduce our growing national debt, or get America moving in the right direction. The attacks are more than just "misleading, unfair and untrue." They are proof Mr. Obama isn't up to the job and no longer worthy of the nation's confidence.

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, July 19, 2012.

[The Purist]

I didn't read all that crap, but I can break down the script for the next few months:

Romney will attack Obama's character, and Obama will attack Romney's character. They will have to focus on a bunch of bull like scandals, personal documents, and past associations. The economy & foreign policy should be the most important issue, but they will spend most of their time on something like birth control or same sex marriage.

They can't attack each other on policies or voting record, because they essentially agree on everything.

[buddha33]

Thanks for this piece from the always unbiased Karl Rove. If you come across a weight loss article by Louie Anderson, send that along.

[Larryrsf]

I didn't read all that crap, but I can break down the script for the next few months:

Romney will attack Obama's character, and Obama will attack Romney's character. They will have to focus on a bunch of bull like scandals, personal documents, and past associations. The economy & foreign policy should be the most important issue, but they will spend most of their time on something like birth control or same sex marriage.

They can't attack each other on policies or voting record, because they essentially agree on everything.

Not really. Stand by for great new ads that list the many, many thousands of jobs and new companies fostered by Bane and Romney. The difference will be overwhelming-- and if he is not leading by 10 points when those ads come out (after the Convention), he will surge to a 20 point lead and go from there to the election gaining every day. The country is deciding right now that Romney not only looks like a President, but that they would be very proud to have him as their president.

Romney is "squeaky" clean and more people are starting to realize that fact. Read his amazing personal history. Anyone who has given almost half his adult life to his church and almost 30% of his money to his charity and taxes has an astonishing amount of personal integrity.

Larry

[The Purist]

Not really. Stand by for great new ads that list the many, many thousands of jobs and new companies fostered by Bane and Romney. The difference will be overwhelming-- and if he is not leading by 10 points when those ads come out (after the Convention), he will surge to a 20 point lead and go from there to the election gaining every day. The country is deciding right now that Romney not only looks like a President, but that they would be very proud to have him as their president.

Romney is "squeaky" clean and more people are starting to realize that fact. Read his amazing personal history. Anyone who has given almost half his adult life to his church and almost 30% of his money to his charity and taxes has an astonishing amount of personal integrity.

Larry

His political policies still suck. The problem is you will only get 4 more years of Obama, and possibly 8 years of Romney. I do think Romney would be better for Saturday Night Live skits.

[The Purist]

"Obama gets dirty and it backfires!"

This is an interesting title, btw. I thought maybe he went in the backdoor on someone, and it triggered and unfortunate accident.

[24putts]

the always unbiased Karl Rove.

Rove is the genius who thought illegal aliens - er - newcomers, would vote Republican. How's that working out?

[Larryrsf]

Rove is the genius who thought illegal aliens - er - newcomers, would vote Republican. How's that working out?

Not quite, ha. "The Architect" doesn't make many mistakes. Rove got George Bush elected twice and soon will get Romney elected once. Rove is the brain behind the huge private funds that will finance Romney's ad campaign-- All those smart billionaires like the Koch brothers turned to him, of course.

The closest thing Obama has to Rove is Axelrod, the advertisng hack from Chicago. He is probably the brain behind the Chicago political crooks like Rahm Immanuel, Rezko, and Blogovich. This is the campaign team that got Obama elected to the State Senate and then the US Senate by systematically ruining his opponents. They were vulnerable and that was easy. But they are flummoxed now by the squeaky clean Romney. The Chicago tactics won't work. When they throw mud at Romney, it bounces back on them.

Larry

[poe4soul]

Not quite, ha. "The Architect" doesn't make many mistakes. Rove got George Bush elected twice and soon will get Romney elected once. Rove is the brain behind the huge private funds that will finance Romney's ad campaign-- All those smart billionaires like the Koch brothers turned to him, of course.

Larry

Curious Lary, are you ok with USCOTUS's ruling concerning campaign finance reform? Are corporations really people and protected by the First Amendment?

[24putts]

Are corporations really people and protected by the First Amendment?

Why are most billionaires Demoncats?

[jt1135]

Ask 60sdude (aka Nifty II)

[jmtbkr]

Why are most billionaires Demoncats?

I'm independant

[poe4soul]

Why are most billionaires Demoncats?

I don't know why?

[24putts]

I don't know why?

I guess it's because Dems are not really the party of the little guy.

[Larryrsf]

Curious Lary, are you ok with USCOTUS's ruling concerning campaign finance reform? Are corporations really people and protected by the First Amendment?

ABSOLUTELY!!! That intelligent SCOTUS ruling made a level playing field between unions and business. Before that, unions could extort unlimited money from their members, many of which are Republicans, and give it to Democrats. It was outrageous!

And of course corporations are people. Mine have really been ME and my partners, people. Are corporations only buildings and machines? NO, Corporations are organizations of people, investors and officers.

Now I hope those Conservative PACs crush Obama, just bury him with ads and even intimidate the mainstream media and those who advertise where there is extreme bias. You should too. The PACs are armed with HUNDREDS of millions of dollars (some from me!). Obama is having trouble raising money. So sad.

Larry

[Larryrsf]

I guess it's because Dems are not really the party of the little guy.

The KKK and most other historic actors against blacks were ALL DEMOCRATS. Al Gore's father was as rabid a racist as the worst in the deep South. Today the DNC simply tolerates blacks, but they don't want to give a black real leadership power.

That's why smart blacks are Republicans.

Larry

[24putts]

That's why smart blacks are Republicans.

Now there's a pool that won't make a splash.

[buddha33]

Why are most billionaires Demoncats?

It's just a function of how one is doing socioeconomically. Once you have enough money, your needs are taken care of and you become more concerned with the welfare of others. Drop a $100 bill in front of a crowd of billionaires and I guarantee the reaction is different than if you dropped that same $100 in front of an inner city bus stop.

[Larryrsf]

It's just a function of how one is doing socioeconomically. Once you have enough money, your needs are taken care of and you become more concerned with the welfare of others. Drop a $100 bill in front of a crowd of billionaires and I guarantee the reaction is different than if you dropped that same $100 in front of an inner city bus stop.

I strongly suspect that the current Forbes list of Billionaires are mostly conservative entrepreneurs like the Koch brothers. Of course there are a few exceptions like Buffett, but all you have to do is watch CNBC and listen to the panel participants.

Larry

[The Purist]

The richest of the rich don't care about parties. They usually own or finance monopolies. The best way to keep a monopoly is to buy stake in the gov't (through lobbies) to help maintain these monopolies through legislative help. Squeeze the competition out through legislation & "regulation." Then when even the lack of competition isn't enough to turn a profit, try to get the gov't to mandate the use of your product (ie. force people to buy it). Contribute money to the candidate for each party that will promise to help you out in return and you are good to go no matter who wins.