Lies? Deceit? Deception? Trickery? False information? Tomfoolery? Pick one. Share your own.
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:
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.