All of these seem to be true. It's as if the Obama campaign thinks Americans are either really dumb or completely incapable of understanding the truth behind some seriously misleading campaign rhetoric. Quite honestly, it's getting pretty old, and I hope the American people don't buy everything Obama is telling them. You will see why below.
Now before you jump up and say, "well, it's being done by the Romney campaign, too," me and the writers of this blog say, "okay, we are open to it... let's see it." If you have something that you think the Romney campaign is doing that is misleading, please share it in the comments section below. Frankly, I'm not seeing it yet. But if it's out there, please share it. It's all about learning and sharing information.
With all that out of the way, I come back to the theme of the title: What is the Obama campaign's strategy? Is it to put forth misleading information and hope that no one checks up on it? Where do I begin?
Millionaires' and Billionaires' Tax Rates: I'll start by going back in time to Obama's speech in Osawatomie, Kansas. I'm not going to talk extensively about it because I've written about this many times, and the following links provide all the relevant information. The main theme of this speech was the "Buffett Rule," and that millionaires and billionaires weren't paying their "fair share" in taxes. Of course, upon hearing this, I decided to investigate to see if President Obama was being truthful and for some crazy reason the wealthiest citizens of this country were paying lower tax rates than middle class taxpayers, or if he was just blowing smoke, over-exaggerating, and misleading the public. I think it's easy to show that, yes, while a ridiculously small part of the "millionaires and billionaires" class do pay lower tax rates than middle class taxpayers (and yes, that should be corrected), Obama's claim (especially based on how much he touts it) seems to be that this is the norm, and to me, that is very misleading. Check out the following links:
- http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2011/12/media-and-half-truths-obamas-biggest.html
- http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/03/tax-rich-obama-class-warfarecampaign.html
- http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/01/stopping-lefts-propaganda-with-truth.html
Mitt Romney's Time at Bain: Boy, did this one seem to backfire a little, or what? I asked a question, "What is the Obama campaign's strategy? Is it to put forth misleading information and hope that no one checks up on it?" With regards to Romney's time at Bain, it seems the question is more like, "does the Obama campaign know that most Americans do not have a great deal of understanding of private equity, and the best it can do is to play to this lack of knowledge using fear and misrepresentations?" The Obama campaign has been touting its "Romney Economics" campaign message (seen here: www.barackobama.com/romney/economics/) which gives a scathing analysis of the former governor's tenure at Bain. On the contrary, prominent democrat, named, oh, I don't know... Bill Clinton seemed to rebuke Team Obama's message with an analysis that calls Romney's time at Bain "sterling." Newark, New Jersey mayor and Obama surrogate Cory Booker slammed the Obama campaign for its attacks on Romney's time at Bain (seen here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/cory-booker-bain-attacks-obama-campaign-mitt-romney_n_1531036.html). Of course, both of these well known democrats were given the "hush, hush" command and have since backed off their positions.
By most accounts, Romney's time at Bain was a success. He was very good at accomplishing the goals of Bain Capital. Team Obama likes to cloud some issues together, however. It claims that Romney is saying he created jobs at Bain, but that's not what Romney is saying. Romney has said his that from his experience working in the private sector, he understands business. As stated, by most accounts, he did well... in business. He knows how to run things. He knows how to manage and fix situations. He knows how to set goals, and he knows how to meet them. Obama hopes that since Americans don't understand private equity all that well, he can play a shell game and highlight a few of the failures of Bain while under Romney (yes, there are some), to give a cross-signaled message that Romney isn't a job creator. He uses fear and generic misunderstandings to paint a false image, and to me, it's sleazy. I hope Americans don't fall for it.
So What About Jobs and Mitt Romney? The democrats (often times DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz), Obama, the liberal media, and players of the like are now trumpeting this completely misleading charge that "Massachusetts was 47th in job creation under Mitt Romney." Ugh. Again, sleaze? Lies? Intent to mislead? I think that the broadcasters of this charge are all guilty. I wrote about this in a previous post (seen here: http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/05/will-gop-unite-please.html). Keep in mind the claim is about job growth. As you can see in my link, when you're already doing pretty darn good with regards to unemployment overall, it's difficult to produce numbers that show growth when there really isn't room to grow. Wasserman Schultz and the Obama campaign seem to cloud this issue... again.
FactCheck.org had something to say about this (http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/). It says, in reference to the Obama ad that is now highlighting this "47th in job creation" claim:
- "The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney. That’s a bit misleading. Massachusetts’ state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left."
Going from 50th to 28th is a BIG improvement, but Team Obama doesn't mention that. It does mention that job growth "fell" to 47th, (I don't know how they can conclude this) but going from 50th to 28th in anything is not a "fall" or a "decline" at all. With the analysis I did that shows Massachusetts was doing just great (and better than the national average with respect to unemployment), and FactCheck.org's take on it, is it safe to assume the Obama campaign is intentionally trying to confuse this issue, too?
Massachusetts was Number 1 in Debt? Yes, that is a new Obama attack ad. But is it true? Is Obama trying to play with misinformation again? Check this article to see CNN's take: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/12/welcome-to-the-out-of-context-campaign/
- "The latest ad from President Barack Obama's re-election campaign accuses Mitt Romney of being "number one in state debt" during his time as governor of Massachusetts.
"Eighteen billion dollars in debt. More debt per person than any other state in the country," the spot states.
But the ad leaves out some important context. The state was already $16 billion in debt at the end of Romney's first year in office. Under Romney's watch, that debt load rose by $2.5 billion to $18.5 billion, a 16% increase. However, that smaller, less sexy 16% figure is left out of the spot.
The omission leaves the viewer with the impression the entire $18 billion debt was amassed during Romney's administration, a nearly impossible feat given that state lawmakers are required under the Massachusetts constitution to balance the budget ever year."
Even the Washington Post (holy cow, this is a surprise) had something to say about this (seen here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obama-hits-mitt-romney-on-debt-in-new-ad/2012/06/12/gJQAz7HEXV_blog.html):
- "Worth noting: the national debt has grown at a much higher rate under Obama than debt in Massachusetts did under Romney. And Massachusetts already ranked first in the nation for highest per-capita debt when Romney took office."
Of course, there are many more examples of this, and I'm sure there will be more to come. So is all this simply an example of Obama lying and misleading? How else can this be taken? Is it a deliberate attempt to avoid talking about the economy? You decide.
You forgot one important and shoddy message (mainly of the democrats in general):
ReplyDeleteMitt Romney is too rich and too out of touch to be president.
For some reason, Romney is too rich, but Obama isn't. I guess democrats get to "play by their own rules" when it comes to labeling people.
Good article.
Good morning MN 4 Rick. Romney is too rich but John Kerry who is twice as rich as 0bama (thanks to some good marriages) wasn't too rich in 2004. You have got to love the liberal double standard.
DeleteOops, I meant twice as rich as Romney, not 0bama.
DeleteHappy almost-Friday!
DeleteBy my view of events, Romney's 'disconnected' reputation has far more to do with the political gaffs he has made than the amount of money he has in the bank.
There’s no question that this ‘wealth disconnect’ has never been used as much against a presidential candidate in recent memory as it has for Romney, despite the fact that (as mentioned) many presidential candidates before him were also very wealthy. The difference is though, that most of them still succeeded very well in relating to voters and what they wanted to hear. Romney, in his attempts to be more spontaneous and personable, has made some innocent blunders (by his own quote).
Bush came across to many as ‘the guy I’d like to have a beer with’; despite him being born into wealth and accruing much more over his lifetime. But he topped polls on a personable level, because he came across as a very good all-around American guy. Someone who liked and felt passionate about Baseball, who enjoyed a good beer in a bar, and who seemed like a down-to-earth fellow.
Romney doesn’t give off the same vibe. When asked about whether he watched a given sport, where Bush and others would list off teams they followed Romney instead says no and refers to being friends with team owners. An innocent statement that is not wrong in any way, yes, but whether you like it or not he just removed a way to relate to many people. Bush’s response had people think “oh man, he likes X team too! Just like me!” How many people saw Romney’s response and felt they could relate the same way? “Oh man, he’s friends with the team owners too, just like me!” Nope.
It removed a way for people to relate and feel connected to Romney, and he’s done this on a few instances. ‘Liking to be able to fire people’ is a connotation that, let’s be honest, does not sit well with an American population that has been struggling with employment rates; in addition to being a statement few can actually relate to. It also didn’t sit well to say ‘I’m unemployed too’ to a group of long-term unemployed people in FL.
Things like the above make people feel disconnected. How many people do you honestly believe feel they can relate to Romney? Now, how about someone like Bush or even Obama? Regardless of your feelings/political affiliation, I think you can agree that more people can relate to Bush/Obama on many things than Romney.
The degree to who is responsible most for the evolution of this reputation, whether Romney, the Democrats taking advantage of it, or the sensationalism of the media reporting on these incidents is of course debatable. And so is the importance of whether or not you can connect to a president. But such is politics, no presidential campaign or candidate is perfect and Romney is no exception. You make mistakes, the other party takes advantage.
But honestly, in my opinion by attempting to fight the idea that Romney is disconnected the GOP is doing more harm than good. If the worst thing the Democratic Party can find about Romney is that, then the election is over. Likewise, if the GOP wastes all this energy trying to tell voters that Romney is ‘just like them’ or even ‘no less like them than Obama’, then they might as well be handing the election over first.
These are not the issues that are going to win over the votes either side needs.
At the end of the day it’s a trivial issue that is the Democrat equivalent of the GOP attempting to paint Obama as a Kenyan socialist; sensationalism that won’t get you anything but votes from the people who were going to vote for you anyway, and deter the real voters from the election.
Romneys gaffes? Are you sure they are gaffes? Or are they not really gaffes, but the leftist media publishes it repeatedly that they are and you now simply repeat what they said. When you think about it, there haven't really been gaffes, just the media telling us they are. And to go along with your comment below, just like this article asks, what is an example that Romney is doing that is misleading? I think this post did a great job and gave clear examples of Obama doing it. It's incredibly decietful for Obama's camp to say what they are saying about "47th in jobs growth" and Mass public debt KNOWING it's not the full truth. What say you?
DeleteRomney 2012
They're gaffs just as much as they are for any other candidate.
DeleteObama was caught in saying ‘the private sector is just fine’ this week, and I've since seen that quote more than 20 times in different places. Heck, Mitt's campaign has even already capitalized on it as well:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/06/11/obama-the-private-sector-is-doing-fine/
http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-pounces-on-obama-private-sector-is-fine-gaffe-is-he-full-of-crap-2012-6
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-romney-ad-slams-obama-for-private-sector-is-doing-fine-comment-but-lacks-context/2012/06/14/gJQAqlLpcV_story.html
This is politics.
I sure understand what Obama meant by his statement, and even agree with it to an extent. But I still acknowledge that it was a mistake to say it that way. Just like as a level-headed voter, I also understand and to an extent agree with what Mitt Romney was truly trying to say in his ‘gaffs.’ But again, that doesn’t change that it was a mistake.
To deny that the presidential candidate you favor has never made mistakes is silly. Especially while capitalizing on every mistake the opposing candidate makes; which regardless of how you, I, or other people feel both parties have done and will continue to do.
Ultimately whether you agree with it being a gaff or not, the fact that a candidate provided one that is easily exploited by the other party (and/or media), means it was a mistake.
I’m certainly not disagreeing in most of ‘take it and run with it’ things being childish, sensationalistic, and misleading… but unfortunately that’s just not how it is.
Obama: I complain about Massachusetts' debt but I have accumulated $5B of my own.
ReplyDeleteObama: I complain about Romney's "job creation" but haven't held my own promises.
Obama: I complain about Romney being so rich, though I'm rich myself.
- The Hypocrite in Chief
I would beg the question, is there any campaign in memory that doesn’t have lies, deception, and trickery? :)
ReplyDeleteCampaigns are basically made of a combination of talking points, out of context quotes, or exerts of data/results that never tell the whole story. Mostly because it would be completely unrealistic and ineffective to do otherwise… as no practical campaign advertisement is really going to make sure to provide a fair criticism with all the background information without either losing attention of the audience, confusing them, or reducing the effect of the criticism itself.
The fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of the population doesn’t follow politics very closely (no where near like I’d imagine the people of this blog do), and these cheap, quick, attention-grabbing and overly simplified advertisements are what is most effective for most people. Which of course, can’t practically be done without coming across as lies/deceitful due to the lack of proper context and information.
But of course, then people like us see them, and we all have to laugh at how ridiculous they can be. The best thing we can all do about it is promote the facts, as being done here.
Believe me though, I’m not justifying any of it; but at the end I think this is a case of the pot & kettle.
Governor Romney strikes me as a man who is accustomed to making decisions - and not having to do a lot of explaining about the reasons for them. He's made choices and he's lived with the consequences - both good AND bad.
ReplyDeleteThis sets him apart from our 'rock star' president - who makes decisions that he can't follow through with (with the exception of drone strikes)and talks A LOT about what 'I, I, I want' for America, all the while pushing us closer to a point of no return.
Furthermore, Obama doesn't simply 'bend the truth' in his speeches and ads, like MOST normal politicians - on BOTH sides... he tells blatant, outright, ugly LIES that anyone with half a brain can easily refute - with FACTS.
Unfortunately, many on the left are so moony-eyed in love with this president - that they follow blindly and choose NOT to find the TRUTH.
Pot & Kettle? In spite of the risk of being called racist, I'm calling that kettle - black!
This whole conversation is a big joke
ReplyDeletetalkin as if your beloved party isn't exactly the same....
I wish you guys would wake up, both sides are full of this crap
just like good ole mit flip flopping on every major issue he runs on
and he just ran an add with a quote from obama that was actually a quote from mccain
please........
both parties are junk
both candidates are junk
both men have lied more times than i can count on both hands
anyone wish to argue those statements? I doubt it cause even you Romney lovers know he is full of crap.
you have just been brain washed into following your party lock step and so you have dedicated all your time to replace one crappy president with another crappy president....
This whole conversation is a big joke
ReplyDeletetalkin as if your beloved party isn't exactly the same....
I wish you guys would wake up, both sides are full of this crap
just like good ole mit flip flopping on every major issue he runs on
and he just ran an add with a quote from obama that was actually a quote from mccain
please........
both parties are junk
both candidates are junk
both men have lied more times than i can count on both hands
anyone wish to argue those statements? I doubt it cause even you Romney lovers know he is full of crap.
you have just been brain washed into following your party lock step and so you have dedicated all your time to replace one crappy president with another crappy president....
Loyal Watcher - good morning and Happy Friday!
DeleteYou have your opinion, and that's fine. That's exactly why I put the following paragraph in the beginning :-): "Now before you jump up and say, "well, it's being done by the Romney campaign, too," me and the writers of this blog say, "okay, we are open to it... let's see it." If you have something that you think the Romney campaign is doing that is misleading, please share it in the comments section below. Frankly, I'm not seeing it yet. But if it's out there, please share it. It's all about learning and sharing information"
You say, "your beloved party isn't exactly the same." First, as a Ron Paul supporter, aren't you in this party, too? He certainly is? Secondly, I wrote that team Obama is not telling the full truth with the recent attacks on Mitt Romney. I cited the attacks, and I cited how I believe they're not truthful. I now ask, since you say "both sides" are doing it, can you cite one where Romney is doing the same thing? Is he making a claim about Obama that isn't true? As I said in the beginning, I'm open to it.
This has nothing to do with "flip flopping." Again, this has to do with the Obama campaign making a claim, advertising it (such as the 47th in job creation one cited above), and how, in my opinion, it's very, very misleading.
You say they've lied? Can you back it. And how have I been brainwashed? Can you please back this?