Tag Archives: Mitt Romney presidential campaign 2008

Cantor won’t defend Romney’s deceptive Jeep ad

MSNBC

Rep. Eric Cantor certainly isn’t rushing to defend Mitt Romney’s infamous and misleading Jeep attack ad.

The Virginia lawmaker and House GOP number 2 said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press that he’d “not seen the ad,” which has been running in Ohio and which drew a sharp rebuke from the CEO of Chrysler for its false suggestion that the company is shipping American jobs to China.

“I think the point of that ad is that we need a president who is actually going to focus on increasing the competitiveness of America,” Cantor said.

But asked directly by host David Gregory whether he thought the ad was “deceptive,” Cantor was evasive. “I’ve not seen the ad, I’ve just heard it now,” he said. “Apparently they’re not running it in Virginia.”

Cantor’s comments were quickly tweeted out by Obama campaign press secretary Lis Smith, who noted:

Even @EricCantor passes on defending @MittRomney’s deceptive auto ads.

In one version of the ad, an announcer declares:

Barack Obama says he saved the auto industry. But for who? Ohio or China? There now comes word that Chrysler plans to start making Jeeps in – you guessed it – China. Mitt Romney. He’ll stand up for the auto industry. In Ohio, not China.

In fact, Chrysler is mulling opening a production plant in China to serve the Chinese market. American jobs would not be affected, as the company’s CEO Sergio Marchionne made clear this week in an unusual note to employees.

The Obama campaign has hit also hit back hard, releasing its own ad calling the Romney charge “dishonest.” And even Fox News’s Chris Wallace on Sunday called the ad “misleading.”

Still, another Romney surrogate took a different approach from Cantor.  Asked Sunday by Candy Crowley of CNN why the Romney campaign had not taken the ad down, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio declared: ”the ad is accurate.”

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney Campaign, Rep. Eric Cantor

Ohio Romney Rally – Interviews with Supporters

Romney’s lies and right-wing propaganda has worked on these low-information Romney supporters.  None of them can actually state facts that are true, only Fox News and other right-wing talking points.

Low information voters, also known as LIVs or “misinformation voters”, are people who may vote, but who are generally poorly informed about politics. The phrase is mainly used in the United States, and has become popular since the mid-nineties. (Wiki)

3 Comments

Filed under Right Wing Myths and Falsehoods, Right-wing disinformation campaign, Right-Wing Propaganda

Romney Trained Poll Watchers To Mislead Voters

What more will Mitt Romney do to steal this election?  Will the American people accept this behavior?  The press has given him a pass on almost all of his lies.  Now even they are fed up with Romney’s diabolical tactics and lies…

Addicting Info

For training Romney Poll Watchers in Wisconsin, of which 8 sessions have been held, the campaign produced this lovely little document to instruct their volunteers as to the proper procedure and the law:

The problem is, these instructions, and the associated training, is full of errors and omissions.

Romney-Volunteer-Observer-Training

From Page 5:

Any “person [who] has been convicted of treason, a felony, or bribery” isn’t eligible to vote.

Not only is this bad grammar, but it is incorrect. According to the state regulations once a person has served their sentence, their right to vote is automatically restored.

From Page 10:

If a handicapped voter is unable to come into the polls to vote, an assistant can deliver the ballot to the voter if the CEI verifies the elector’s proof of residency.

This is also not true. Under Wisconsin law the CEI does not have to verify the elector’s proof of residency.

The a tricky part is also found on Page 10:

Election Observers should not assist [voters].

This is the Romney campaign skirting the law, giving a judgment call on “should or should not” when in fact the law allows for voters to request assistance from anyone, including poll observers.

But the most disgusting is from pages 8 to 10, where they list acceptable identification, but leave a multitude of options off the list. The options they left off include:

  • letters from public schools
  • student loan papers
  • correspondence with a Native American tribe in Wisconsin
  • vehicle registration
  • food stamp correspondances (sic)
  • an affidavit from a public or private social service agency

Why does the Romney campaign engage in such easily verifiable deceptions? If a poll observer is found to be enforcing these illegal activities, it is the observer which will find themselves under arrest. And their only defense will be that the Romney campaign told them to do it. But, sadly, lies are what we have come to expect from the campaign of what once was considered a decent man.

2 Comments

Filed under Voter Disenfranchisement, Voter Intimidation

KRUGMAN: ROMNEY “DOESN’T HAVE A PLAN, HE’S JUST FAKING IT.”

I’ve always been a Paul Krugman fan.  Here’s why…

Class Warfare Exists

Paul Krugman is on a roll calling out Mitt Romney for his false assertions about his tax and “jobs” plans.  There is a reason why a “large margin” of economists and 68 Nobel Laureates have said they prefer Obama over Romney (source).

But – I am amazed at the number of people who are even going to vote for Mitt Romney.  The election isn’t going to be a blowout even though I think the fundamentals are in Obama’s favor … but even if Obama had a blowout like never seen before and he won 60% of the American vote which has never been done in modern history (if ever) … that would still leave 40% of Americans actually voting for this guy.  That scares the hell out of me.  I can appreciate social issues being a core driver for some but when it comes to economic issues, income inequality, the social safety net or foreign policy …. Romney is a HUGE step backwards.

Krugman actually calls Romney a liar HERE; an excerpt:

But back to the Romney jobs plan. As many people have noted, the plan has five points but contains no specifics. Loosely speaking, however, it calls for a return to Bushonomics: tax cuts for the wealthy plus weaker environmental protection. And Mr. Romney says that the plan would create 12 million jobs over the next four years.

Where does that number come from? When pressed, the campaign cited three studies that it claimed supported its assertions. In fact, however, those studies did no such thing.

So when the campaign says that these three studies support its claims about jobs, it is, to use the technical term, lying — just as it is when it says that six independent studies support its claims about taxes (they don’t).

The most recent math by the tax policy center said that Romney’s tax plan to reduce income tax rates by 20% affecting 53% of Americans would still be short $3.7 trillion … yes – TRILLION dollars.  Mitt Romney has said that his plan will not add to the deficit and the only possible solution is that it would increase taxes on the middle class.  There is no other solution.  Read more on that HERE.

And as I’ve already shared HERE … Krugman’s absolutely correct … Romney’s plans are pure fantasy:

Regarding Romney’s Tax Plan:

  • The Congressional referee – the Joint Committee on Taxation says Romney’s plan is impossible HERE.
  • The former McCain economic adviser and current chief economist for Moody’s says the arithmetic “doesn’t work” HERE.
  • Politifact says Romney’s claim that 5 independent studies corroborate his math is “mostly false” HERE.
  • A Fox “journalist” actually says “How can you not tell the people these facts” HERE.
  • An independent study by the Brookings institution says Romney’s tax plan isn’t mathematically possible HERE.
  • Factcheck.org says his math is impossible in Romney’s Impossible Tax Promise.
  • I’ve given a very simple explanation that Romney’s plan will in fact cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans HERE.
  • The Tax Policy Center says Romney’s plan is a $5 trillion tax cut which would give anyone making more than $1 million a year at least an $87k tax cut HERE.
  • Bill Clinton says Romney’s tax math is impossible HERE.
  • Fox’s Chris Wallace calls out the Romney campaign for their math HERE.

Regarding Romney’s Jobs Plan:

The Washington Post did in fact call it a “bait and switch” … they said Romney’s tax plan “doesn’t add up”.  We’ve shard their article along with a history of Romney’s economic advisers who were also Bush’s main economic advisers HEREan excerpt:

This is a case of bait-and-switch. Romney, in his convention speech, spoke of his plan to create “12 million new jobs,” which the campaign’s white paper describes as a four-year goal.

But the candidate’s personal accounting for this figure in this campaign ad is based on different figures and long-range timelines stretching as long as a decade — which in two cases are based on studies that did not even evaluate Romney’s economic plan.  The numbers may still add up to 12 million, but they aren’t the same thing — not by a long shot.

In many ways, this episode offers readers a peek behind a campaign wizard’s curtain — and a warning that job-creation claims by any campaign should not be accepted at face value. The white paper at least has the credibility of four well-known economists behind it, but the “new math” of this campaign ad does not add up.

2 Comments

Filed under Mitt Romney Lies

Mitt Romney debates himself, Healthcare, Education, Taxes

Watch Romney the “Shape shifter” do his thing…

 

 

Comments Off

Filed under U.S. Politics

Mitt Romney’s base instincts

Mitt Romney's base instincts

Mitt Romney’s base instincts

What can I say about  Mitt Romney except, “…sloppy campaign, Mr. Fix it.”

Salon – Joan Walsh

His advisors admit he’s not after swing voters any more, he’s hyping fear and culture war to turn out the far right

All eyes are on Politico’s expose of Romney campaign infighting – mainly a lot of anonymous handwringers complaining about Stuart Stevens – but this piece in BuzzFeed deserves more attention: In “Romney’s New Strategy Turns Right,” campaign advisors tell McKay Coppins, “This is going to be a base election, and we need them to come out to vote.”

It’s going to be a base election for Romney, all right – “base” as in low and crass, and “base” as in designed to turn out the base.

That’s been obvious to me for a while – I said so last week on PoliticsNation – but it ought to get more attention now that the Romney folks are tipping their hand. Again. Weeks ago, of course,  anonymous members of Team Romney told the New York Times  they were “convinced [Romney] needs a more combative footing against President Obama in order to appeal to white, working-class voters,” and so he “has added a harder edge … injecting volatile cultural themes into the race.” Romney’s dishonest welfare ads, insisting that President Obama “gutted” the work requirement, was just one example of the campaign’s ugly new racial appeal, the Times showed.

At the same time, the GOP convention in Tampa at least tried to showcase a more diverse party, with Gov. Susana Marinez, Sen. Marco Rubio and Condoleezza Rice among the most prominent speakers. After Clint Eastwood’s cranky old man act mocked Obama, Romney himself took a more respectful approach in his speech, even attempting an appeal to disappointed Obama voters.

The BuzzFeed article shows that the campaign abandoned that approach almost immediately, maybe after seeing Romney got absolutely no convention bounce. Since then, Romney abandoned his standard stump speech, which focused on the economy, for a harder-edged pitch larded with references to God and patriotism and sharp attacks on Obama:

In heavily-Evangelical Sioux County, Iowa, Romney’s introductory speakers — including conservative Rep. Steve King — sermonized at length about keeping Christian values, and vouched for his love of Jesus Christ. In Virginia Beach, he spoke to a flag-waving crowd of veterans and military families — appearing alongside televangelist Pat Robertson — and built his remarks around patriotism, defense spending, and keeping God on the national currency.

Romney’s shrill foreign policy stands over the last week accomplish similar political goals: riling up anti-Obama Islamophobes, many of whom believe that the president himself is a Muslim.

CONTINUE READING

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney Campaign

Don Lemon Clashes With Romney Adviser Over Candidate’s Attack On Obama Response To Libya

When you double down on what turned out to be a complete error on Romney’s part, the people that advised him on the faux pas will do and say whatever they can to cover their behinds…

The Raw Story

On Wednesday on CNN’s “Newsroom,” anchor Don Lemon went head-to-head with Richard Williamson, a foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential nominee former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).  Lemon set about trying to address Romney’s response to the riots and killings of U.S. personnel in Egypt and Libya with Williamson, a discussion that quickly turned heated as Lemon questioned the timing of Romney’s statements.

“When this country was in the midst of a diplomatic crisis overseas, our people were in harm’s way, is this the time for a candidate for the presidency to speak out in a way that’s critical of the government? It couldn’t wait?” he asked.

“Well, let me make a few comments to your presentation,” said Williamson, deflecting Lemon’s question by attempting to offer an alternative version of the official timeline of events.

Early in the conflict on Tuesday, as rioters were amassing outside embassy gates in the Middle East, the Egyptian embassy issued what it hoped would be a mollifying statement decrying attacks on people of faith in the Muslim world, a statement that the Romney campaign has attributed to the Obama administration and called an “apology for our values.”

Williamson argued that U.S. embassy personnel had released the statement after the walls of the embassy had been breached.  Then he asserted that it was only at the prompting of the Romney campaign that the White House issued its own statement about the attacks.

Lemon asked if such lengthy dissemination is necessary when U.S. personnel have lost their lives and the government should be presenting a unified front.  Then, he tried to turn back to his original question, “Thank you for everything you just said, but my initial question was, it couldn’t wait?”

“Well,” said Williamson, “let me reiterate, the timeline you suggest is not the same as what I just went through.”

“I’m not asking about the timeline, it couldn’t wait until all the information was out — hang on, let me finish,” he said as Williamson talked over him.

When Lemon asked the question again, Williamson chucked and rolled his eyes before saying, “That’s a silly question.”

“It’s not a silly question,” Lemon countered, as Williamson made a show of hiding his face in his hand, shaking his head.

“I came here to talk about the failed policies in the Middle East, which is what the American people are interested in,” he said, “the failed policies of leading from behind, and what you want to do is play a ‘process-getcha’ question.  I don’t want to play your game.”

Finally Williamson said, “The governor made the statement. It was fine, it was acceptable, it was right.  Did you just hear me?  It was fine, it was acceptable and it was right.”

“I heard you,” said Lemon briskly, “but that’s not what I asked you.  But we’ll move on now.”

After some back and forth, Lemon circled back to his original question, asking whether or not Romney’s handling of the issue has the appearance of opportunism, and of exploiting the deaths of foreign officers for political advantage.

“What’s best in the situation is to stand up for our values,” said Williamson, doggedly, “and being willing to lead from the front.”

Watch the clip, embedded via Mediaite.

6 Comments

Filed under Middle East Conflicts, Mitt Romney

HuffPo: Romney Advisers: We’re Losing

Obama is pictured Sept. 8 in Florida. | AP Photo

Two GOP officials said Ohio leans clearly in Obama’s favor now. | AP Photo

You think?

Politico

President Barack Obama heads out of the national political conventions with a much clearer path to winning, top advisers to Mitt Romney privately concede.

The Romney campaign, while pleasantly surprised by Obama’s lackluster prime-time performance, said the post-convention bounce they hoped for fell well short of expectations and privately lament that state-by-state polling numbers — most glaringly in Ohio — are working in the president’s favor.

“Their map has many more routes to victory,” said a top Republican official. Two officials intimately involved in the GOP campaign said Ohio leans clearly in Obama’s favor now, with a high single-digit edge, based on their internal tracking numbers of conservative groups. Romney can still win the presidency if he loses Ohio, but it’s extremely difficult.

The Obama and Romney campaigns anticipate little movement in national polls before the first debate on Oct. 3, which both see as the most important day of this campaign. They also see eye-to-eye on their belief the election will come down to whether Romney can persuade voters he understands the problems of ordinary people and that his solutions are at least marginally better for turning things around economically.

Where the two camps differ — and differ starkly — is on their theories of the case for navigating the final nine weeks. Romney, armed with more dismal jobs numbers, will run a one-size-fits-all campaign, wrapped around the message that the economy is bad, Obama is to blame, and that change of leadership is absolutely essential. The Republican plan rests heavily on Romney’s capacity to bury Obama with negative ads — and reap the benefits of his billionaire backers hitting the president even harder, and more relentlessly. This, more than anything else, alarms the high command in Chicago.

A Democratic official said the other big worry for the Obama campaign is that when you dig into the small slice of undecided voters (probably only 6 percent to 8 percent of the electorate, according to the campaigns), the demographics are not favorable to Obama: mostly white, many with some college education, economically stressed, largely middle-aged.

“Many of them voted for Obama in 2008 and felt good about that vote, and still think Obama’s a good person who really tried hard, but the economy sucks for them,” said the Democratic official, who has access to reams of internal polls and focus groups.

Continue reading here…below this fold: (“PHOTOS: 18 defining Obama moments”)

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Why Obama-Romney Debate Will (Continue To) Be Vicious

This is a good read from Huffington Post‘s Editorial Director, Howard Fineman

The Huffington Post

Okay, I admit it: I was wrong. I was guilty of optimism. Also naiveté and ignorance. I predicted in this space that the elevation of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would produce a more serious, substantive tone in the campaign.

Well, if anything, the campaign is closer to the new hit movie “The Campaign” than it was a week ago. All we’re missing in reality is a punched baby and a candidate-only wrestling match.

What happened?

Well, for one, Ryan turns out, upon closer inspection, not to be a purifying ideologue, but rather a young, power-hungry, ladder-climbing trimmer — less Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman and more Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

Ryan’s principled opposition to big government and the welfare state would be more convincing, and give him more leverage and interest in serious debate, if he hadn’t voted for a wide swath of the Bush-era expansion of big government and the welfare state. He even sought to shovel federal money back to Janesville, as his family business had done for generations.

He shifted to the right out of ideological remorse, I’ll grant him that, but also out of calculation, once Barack Obama loomed on the horizon. Ryan has been amassing a war chest of his own ever since, and now has more money on hand than any other GOP member of the House. Looking back on it, it is remarkable that he didn’t run for the Republican nomination.

This is no debate society guy. He is a 42-year-old spreadsheet-reading attack dog.  That is all his budgets were about. He knew they couldn’t become law. He rarely passed any laws. He wanted Tea Party cred, and to advertise himself to the conservative money.

So Ryan’s one reason the conversation is mired in the mud. There are many others, some obvious, some not so. Here is a list of (some of) the reasons why this is still (as I have written before) the nastiest, most abrasive and personally accusatory presidential campaign in modern times:

ROMNEY – In the GOP primary, Mitt Romney’s main strategy was to destroy and discredit his foes. He crowed that there was “no whining in politics” after he tanked Newt Gingrich in Florida. He ran almost no positive advertising, advanced only vague positions and plans, and insisted on privacy or total control of the narrative around the most revealing parts of his life and career — his family, his faith, his business, his wealth. He may as well have been the helmeted Robocop. That strategy continues: The campaign’s main imperative is to accuse the president of a failure to create jobs and of success in wasting money.

OBAMA – It’s hard to sell uplift when 23 million people want and need full-time work, so the president is selling the fear that the Romney team will dismantle the cooperative social state that the country has erected on a bipartisan basis starting with the New Deal and Social Security in 1935. He has used Romney’s secrecy about his wealth to cast the GOP nominee, in personal terms, as a selfish man who is blissfully ignorant about the way real people live their lives.

LIKABILITY – One of the president’s leading advantages remains the fact that he is well liked on a personal basis. Romney seems to be under no illusion that he can achieve a similar popularity, which, in its own way, is refreshing. He doesn’t seem to need to be liked. But he can try to bring the other guy down to his level, which is what he is doing by accusing Obama of cheapening the discourse.

IMMEDIACY vs. COMPLEXITY – The main problems we face are monstrously complex: the federal budget and national debt; global banks and finance; the U.S. health care system; global climate change. And yet our attention spans grow shorter, and the old conversations we called “civil discourse” are too slow for our nervous systems. A half-century ago, Richard Nixon and Jack Kennedy – two of the toughest customers ever in U.S. politics — participated in a campaign and a series of televised debates that now seem impossibly polite and substantive, and lengthy, by today’s fiber-optic standards. If you have no time, the easiest thing to do is to hurl an accusation.

MEDIA – The more visual the media becomes, the more personal it becomes, and the more emotional. Measured, granular discourse about abstract topics fades and becomes all but impossible. One must try to make the other guy literally squirm, preferably on camera.

OUTSIDE MONEY – The flood of unregulated, secretly sourced outside money coarsens the debate in two ways. First, the rules favor independent groups that make accusations, because they can’t legally advocate for the election of a candidate. But they are free to trash anyone they want. And secret money doesn’t have to take responsibility for harsh attacks. We may never know who was flinging the dirt, which gives rich donors more freedom to throw it.

BASE GAME – The late Lee Atwater used to say that politics was a “base game.” I don’t think he ever bothered to examine the double meaning of that, but in any case, the idea was that you turned out your base. That was it. And in a split electorate, with a relative handful of undecided, the bias is toward hysteria. That is, excite your own base and depress turnout for the other guy. Romney for the first time has a positive way to do that: the base genuinely likes Ryan. But for the most part, the method will continue to be to attack. Same goes for the president — and Ryan is good for that, too.

BIDEN vs. RYAN – This match-up is going to be a sideshow of nastiness, with nearly a 30-year age difference between the two. You can already hear the GOP trying out the geriatric attacks on the vice president. Expect more.

NETHERWORLD – Race and religion are sure to surface as corrosive forces. The Romney campaign accused Biden of using racial language in Virginia when he said that banks wanted to keep voters in “chains.” But was that a way to decry the rise of race as a topic, or amplify it?

So much for my apology and explanation. And if you want to see what campaigns used to be like, check out an excerpt of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960. Obama-Romney won’t be anything like it.

Comments Off

Filed under Uncategorized

Analysis: Most of Romney’s new Twitter followers are fake

Romney, Maria Dryfhout : Shutterstock.com

Is there even a fiber of moral decency in this man?

The Raw Story

Most of Mitt Romney‘s newest Twitter followers are fake, according to an investigation of bogus social media accounts.

A pay-for-follower service most likely drove the presumptive Republican nominee’s recent and dramatic spike in online followers, concluded Baccardua Labs, a digital security company.

The widely reported surge in tens of thousands of new followers for@mittromney from 21 July – which provoked commentary and suspicion – appeared to have been purchased from a dealer, it said: “We believe most of these recent followers of Romney are not from a general Twitter population but most likely from a paid Twitter follower service.”

The analysis, part of a wider investigation into what the report called the underground Twitter economy, found telltale signals that about a quarter of the new followers were less than three weeks old and had not tweeted. Some 80% were less than three-months-old.

The report’s author, Jason Ding, said there was no way of identifying whether it was the work of the Romney campaign, a Romney supporter or an opponent out to discredit him.

“Romney’s newest followers could have been paid for by himself, his associates or by his opponents. So far, there is not a feasible way to confirm who is responsible.”

Authentication was not required when buying Twitter followers from eBay or other websites, he said, and anyone could buy followers for other Twitter users.

mitt romney twitterAs of Wednesday, Romney had nearly 800,000 followers.

Zac Moffat, the Romney campaign digital director, denied that his side was responsible. “The Romney campaign does not buy Twitter followers,” he told CNET. “We have reached out to Twitter to find out additional information regarding the rapid growth.”

By Wednesday afternoon @mittromney had more than 792,800 followers. He gained 116,922 in a single day, 21 July. Around a tenth have since been suspended by Twitter.

Barracuda said this fit a wider pattern of clandestine Twitter trading which it began studying in May. “Our team set up three Twitter accounts and purchased between 20,000 and 70,000 Twitter followers for each of them from eBay and another website searched from Google.”

It identified “dealers” who charge an average of $18 for 1,000 followers. A dealer can earn up to $800 a day for 7 weeks of selling followings if they can control 20,000 fake accounts, it said. They can earn extra revenue by selling tweets and re-tweets.

The report defined dealers’ clients as “abusers”, with the average abuser boasting 48,885 followers. The phenomenon of fake accounts is not new. The oldest was said to be @krails, created on 15 January 2007. Dealers controlled the following speed and total following number of fake accounts to avoid being suspended by Twitter. “Dealers can apply obscure techniques to make them hard to detect, eg randomly following some famous and some average people, or posting tweets grabbed from the Twitter stream, etc.”

Prices for 1,000 followers ranged widely from $2 to $55 depending on how “real” they seemed. “This underground Twitter business is just blooming,” the report said.

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney Lies