New Romney ads focus on economy, deficit

posted at 12:41 pm on September 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Team Romney refocuses this week on the economy and job creation, as the Washington Post predicted earlier today, with a simplified presentation of Mitt Romney’s plan for a first term.  Instead of talking about the details of his economic plan, which are as accessible on the website as it was months ago, the new ad “The Romney Plan” breaks it down into three digestible pillars — improve and defend American trade, cut deficit spending and reduce federal spending, and attack the regulatory growth that threatens small business:

The campaign also released an attack ad focusing on the impact of Obamanomics on families, especially on the decline of median household income:

The part about trade will evoke the concerns felt this week on the foreign-policy front, but only indirectly.  At least for right now, the Romney campaign wants to keep hitting Obama on the stagnant (or worse) economy and bad job-creation environment.  The attack on the regulatory adventurism of the Obama administration is a key part of that attack, because as John Merline notes at Investors Business Daily today, a second Obama term would make matters even worse:

Using official government sources, the National Federation of Independent Businesscalculates that there are more than 4,000 federal rules in the pipeline, and that just the 13 biggest ones would, if imposed in an Obama second term, cost businesses a total of more than $515 billion over four years.

That tally doesn’t include the more than 100 still-to-be-written regulations needed to enforce the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, or the mountain of regulations required by ObamaCare. The health law has already resulted in thousands of pages of rules, including 18 pages simply to define what a “full-time employee” is. …

In the first 3 1/2 years, his administration issued 37% more “economically significant” regulations — those costing $100 million or more — than had the Bush administration in his first 3 1/2 years, according to data from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

A broader analysis by the Heritage Foundation that includes independent agencies found Obama had imposed nearly four times as many new regulations as Bush in his first three years, with a combined price tag of $46 billion a year.

John has a few of the problem areas identified, but one in particular caught my eye:

Auto mandates. The Department of Transportation wants to require all new cars to include a rear-view video camera that turns on when cars are backing up. The cost? $10.8 billion over four years.

I had one of these installed last week on my 11-year-old CRV.  I was replacing a 15-year-old stereo I had moved into my current vehicle from my previous one, and I wanted to address a sight-line issue on this car that had always worried me.  Many new vehicles come with a camera already installed, because customer demand has prompted that innovation.  Many cars don’t really need it, though, especially sedans, where the view is much more clear from the rear window.  Why mandate the inclusion?  Why not let customers and manufacturers decide when it’s needed and when it’s not?  After all, I never backed into anyone in the eleven years I had my car prior to the camera installation, although I’m happy to have a better look now.  Why is the federal government intervening in this transaction at all?

That’s the kind of question that needs to be asked a lot more often in Washington, and clearly this is not the administration to ask it at all.

Update: Could Team Romney get some resonance among younger voters with a tailored economic argument?  Glenn Reynolds offers a glimpse at a potential opening:

Young people younger than 30 are “desperate for jobs,” as their cohort faces the worst unemployment prospects in decades. According to The Atlantic, last months’ jobs report was an awful jobs report for young people because it demonstrated that new jobs just aren’t being created at a sufficient rate to absorb all the young people entering the jobs market from high school and college. Wrote The Atlantic’s Jordan Weissmann, “In short, there are a lot more young adults still sitting at their computers scrounging around jobs boards for work than there should be at this point in the year.”

There are. And it gets worse. Because of the senior squeeze mentioned earlier, older “gray-collar” workers are staying in, or re-entering, the jobs market to make up for the income they’re losing due to lower interest rates, and to offset higher costs of living. These older workers, because of their already established track records, might be out-competing younger workers even in such entry-level areas as food-service jobs.

The old plan was that older workers would be able to leave the workforce for a comfortable retirement, opening up opportunities for younger workers. That plan isn’t surviving the realities of $4 gasoline, fractional-percentage interest rates, and surging food and medicine prices. With the older workers not leaving, the jobs just aren’t there for younger workers.

There may be some gold in that argument if made effectively to younger voters.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Interesting take. I don’t know if that’s their strategy, but it’s very risky. If Obama has a 4-5 point lead in mid-October, it’s going to be awfully difficult to overcome that over the home stretch by counting on a blizzard of ads.

changer1701 on September 17, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I don’t know, but its the only thing that I can think of. I think the reason people are upset are not that Romney’s ads are “bad” but that they aren’t “hard”. That he isn’t playing the same game that Obama is. Regardless of what Democrats like to bleat on the MSM talk shows, though, Republicans really have not been as hard hitting as Democrat ads. And by “hard hitting” I mean disgusting in many ways with the lies and misleading “truths” they like to push. I also personally do not think that Obama is 4-5 points ahead of Romney now, like polls using the 2008 turnout model say he is. I think the race is MUCH closer, if not Romney winning, as Rasmussen shows (and Ras is the only one using a more current turnout model for their polling results). Don’t forget, Ras was the closest pollster in BOTH of the last Presidential elections. I would trust that over heavily leaning Democratic polls.

Highlar on September 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

It seems to me Romney’s ads should say:

Gas prices up
Food prices up
No jobs – college graduates can’t get jobs
Small businesses closing for years
Strip malls vacant
Health insurance premiums up
Home values down
School failures
Bailout failures
Trillion dollar deficits for years
The coming 21 trillion debt will make us like Greece
American Dream – over! and America no longer exist as we know it.

“This is scary, but it doesn’t have to be this way. We can change this! We can save our great country. We can restore it!”

SheetAnchor on September 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM

astonerii doesn’t care. It’s an Obama voter.

lorien1973 on September 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Actually I do care. Not passing on an ever increasing burden onto our children is my one and my only issue this election.

Thus, a balanced budget, something even the ultra conservative HotAir commenters now cannot ever imagine happening in their lifetimes, is the one and only solution to my one issue. Romney hit on it here, in both advertisements. It is a move in the right direction… Get him comitted to that one goal, and I can forgive the rest. I do not care what the economy is today, I care what burden we pass onto our children. Mine and yours. They are innocent in all this. Elderly are complicit in it all. I always voted for the guy who promised reduced deficits and debts and most also promised to work towards getting a balanced budget amendment to the states.

We have seen what happens without such restriction with the 16th and 17th amendments on the books. Time for one more to protect the next generations rights and freedom.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 2:07 PM

(Re-post, paraphrased)

I am passionate about the deficit and these ads bore even me.

Everyone is clamoring for specifics. These ads offer only more of the same political pablum that makes everyone’s eyes glaze over. I was beginning to wonder if Mitt Romney’s economic plan might involve some very sour entitlement medicine of which he was not yet ready to offer the public a taste. Maybe he doesn’t feel they can handle the truth, I though. So I went to the website, where I found… nothing to fear. He wants to cut rates for everyone. He wants to eliminate capital gains and interest taxes for anyone making less than $200K. Even the dirtiest, bongo-drumming Occupier couldn’t object to that.

The average person is not going to go to the website and download some pdf, read it, and spend even one minute thinking critically about it. The “swing” voter who does not yet have an opinion (hard for me to fathom, really) needs to be spoon fed bottom-line realities of life with Obama for the next four vs. Romney for the next four.

Messaging is an art. Whoever is doing Romney’s ads right now does not have that artistry. Not everyone does. But given the millions of talented people in this country desperate to remove this terrible President surely we can find a few who do. They don’t need to look very far. Paul Ryan, whose speeches inspire confidence, optimism, and that warm “morning in America” feeling, even in these dark times, gets it about what message needs to be sent and how to send it.

equitare on September 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I don’t know, but its the only thing that I can think of. I think the reason people are upset are not that Romney’s ads are “bad” but that they aren’t “hard”. That he isn’t playing the same game that Obama is. Regardless of what Democrats like to bleat on the MSM talk shows, though, Republicans really have not been as hard hitting as Democrat ads. And by “hard hitting” I mean disgusting in many ways with the lies and misleading “truths” they like to push. I also personally do not think that Obama is 4-5 points ahead of Romney now, like polls using the 2008 turnout model say he is. I think the race is MUCH closer, if not Romney winning, as Rasmussen shows (and Ras is the only one using a more current turnout model for their polling results). Don’t forget, Ras was the closest pollster in BOTH of the last Presidential elections. I would trust that over heavily leaning Democratic polls.

Highlar on September 17, 2012 at 2:02 PM

And I agree with that…most of them are not as hard-hitting as they should be. The two Ed posted about certainly aren’t. There was one last week featuring Clinton that was much stronger. But, assuming worst-case scenario where Obama is truly ahead by that much, I hope they’re not waiting to unleash the barrage…I think that’ll be too late.

changer1701 on September 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

astonerii doesn’t care. It’s an Obama voter.

lorien1973 on September 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I think he has decided to sit it out.

sharrukin on September 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

I saw Obama ads all through the football games on different networks this weekend. Not one Romney ad.

What channels are you seeing them on? The Obama campaign isn’t spending ad money in TN, though they might be doing national buys on the cable nets.

I see Obama ads on local channels here in NE TN during local shows constantly.

Moesart on September 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

We are close to VA and NC.

Moesart on September 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM

I think he has decided to sit it out.

sharrukin on September 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Lorien knows better. It is the method of debate that progressive liberals use. They attack you relentlessly until you either give up and leave or you agree with them. The same level of discourse as school yard bullies, SEIU thugs, and primarily came from Romney supporters in the primary and continues to this day. Romney brought out a very bad crowd to infect the Republican party with. This is how the progressives take over all their conquests over the last 70 years.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Romney is fine.

Im going to start calling out the eeyores.

Three national polls today. Romney +2 in Rasmussen and Obama +3 in Gallup an d SurveyUSA.

Big whoop. That’s in spite of all the phony driven media narratives and eeyore Republicans.

Thing is Romney cant win any substantive campaign. The media will crush anything he says and does.

He has to be passive. And let Obama beat himself. Keep the focus on this failed loser.

There is no question in my mind that the enthusiasm gap is on our side. College kids may support Obama in polls, but there is little enthusiam like 2008. The 18-24 demo just isnt going to show up in November.

swamp_yankee on September 17, 2012 at 2:32 PM

They attack you relentlessly until you either give up and leave or you agree with them.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Well Romney has to make a positive case for people to choose him VS Obama. He hasn’t done that so far and people are not going to dump Obama if they don’t see Romney as significantly different.

sharrukin on September 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Well Romney has to make a positive case for people to choose him VS Obama. He hasn’t done that so far and people are not going to dump Obama if they don’t see Romney as significantly different.

sharrukin on September 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I agree, he needs to.

Both of these ads add to Romney for me. They both talk about my one issue. I am going to try and ask Romney a question at a debate perhaps if I can get my name in the ring for that sort of thing. I am sur eyou pretty much know what it will be. I want Read My Lips… clarity.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Speaking of deficits, I have a serious question…

Can anyone know why the actual increase to the total national debt each year is much bigger than the “deficit” reported by the White House OMB?

Examine the actual increases to the total national debt here:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
And compare to the annual deficits as reported by the White House OMB here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

At the end of FY 2007, the total national debt was just over $9 Trillion.
The total national debt is now over $16 Trillion, so the sum of the deficits from FY 2008-20012 should be around $7 Trillion.

But they are not…

Here are the reported deficits for FY 2007-2012 (in millions of dollars), as reported by the White House OMB:
-458,553
-1,412,688
-1,293,489
-1,299,595
-1,326,948
The sum of those five deficits is -5,791,273
In other words, since that is “(in millions of dollars)”, that sum is just under $5.8 Trillion.

So, the White House claims that the last five fiscal years added $5.8 Trillion in new deficits, but the real amount of new debt in the last five fiscal years is over $7 Trillion.

Where did the other $1,200,000,000,000 go??!!??

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM

“Can anyone know” is the mixed up combination of “Does anyone know” and “Can anyone tell me”…

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Where did the other $1,200,000,000,000 go??!!??

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 2:57 PM

It has been eplained often, but when the government owes another part of the government money, that is not counted into the deficit, but is counted into the actual debt. It is BS accounting that any other entitity would find itself behind bars practicing, much like the hundreds of trillions of unfunded liabilities that medicare and SS have in the out years. Any other entity would be behind bars using budgeting like the government uses.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Thank you for your response. Is there any site on the web that shows when the government “borrows” money from another part of the government? I know that they’ve been “borrowing” the Social Security trust fund money for decades, but where can you see how much they’ve “borrowed” in a given Fiscal Year?

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 3:15 PM

We need to fix Cloward/Piven.

I suggest the lash.

Akzed on September 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Once I perfect my time machine, -they are on the list.

slickwillie2001 on September 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

astonerii doesn’t care. It’s an Obama voter.

lorien1973 on September 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Someone named ‘stoner’ is a fan of Jackass? There’s a shocker.

slickwillie2001 on September 17, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Thank you for your response. Is there any site on the web that shows when the government “borrows” money from another part of the government? I know that they’ve been “borrowing” the Social Security trust fund money for decades, but where can you see how much they’ve “borrowed” in a given Fiscal Year?

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I do not know that one. I gave up trusting government numbers long ago.

Wiki seems to have a reasonably accurate explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I hate wiki… it is ripe for abuse by bullies and is run by an out and out progressive… But there you go.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM

And when Newt Gingrich claims that the Congress had a budget surplus for four straight years, that’s a lie because even though the OMB shows a “budget surplus” for FY 1998-2001, the government still ran a deficit when you look and see that the total national debt went UP each of those four years. The closest they got to a truly “balanced budget” was a $18 Billion increase to the national debt in FY 2000.

The last Fiscal Year in which we TRULY had a surplus and paid down the total national debt was… FY 1957!

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Someone named ‘stoner’ is a fan of Jackass? There’s a shocker.

slickwillie2001 on September 17, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Someone names slick willie has very little intelligence or ability to debate anything, now thats a surprise!

Obamafication runs strong in you child, the dark side holds sway over you, it is why you lash out with nothing in your hand and nothing in your brain.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 3:23 PM

And when Newt Gingrich claims that the Congress had a budget surplus for four straight years, that’s a lie because even though the OMB shows a “budget surplus” for FY 1998-2001, the government still ran a deficit when you look and see that the total national debt went UP each of those four years. The closest they got to a truly “balanced budget” was a $18 Billion increase to the national debt in FY 2000.

The last Fiscal Year in which we TRULY had a surplus and paid down the total national debt was… FY 1957!

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 3:21 PM

I do not agree with the fake numbers used, but the fact is that social security and medicare tax dollars are not actually or factually for social security or medicare. The Supreme Court of the United States long ago ruled that those monies are in fact perfectly fungible instruments that can be used for government functions. The laws themselves do not make them special monies only for certain funding. This has been known since at least the time of Reagan when he made that explicitly clear to everyone who watched his speeches, like me when I was 12 years old. Just like Cheif Roberts said that because the mandate is in the form of a tax penalty, it is constitutional, so too is the tranfer of money from social security to pay for any other government function, it is simply a tax. Nothing more, nothing less. You have not been paying into a trust fund, you have just been sending money to the government so it can spend it.

So, while you can technically claim Newt did not balance the budget because he used Social Security and Medicare funds to do it, he did in fact Balance the real budget. The one that includes all incoming money and all outgoing money. That is the one that matters. Incoming = Outgoing means balanced.

The whole fraud of SS andmedicare is just that, fraud. It should end. I want it ended. No I do not need my tax money returned to me with interest. But unfortunately, the rest of America is not so open to that idea… Hence the end of our nation is ensured so long as the congress critter can keep borrowing money and going deeper into debt.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Yes, it’s the economy and the fiscal crisis stupid! Let the foreign policy blunders of this administration speak for themselves. Let them be supplementary. The only thing Romney should be doing with respect to the administration’s foreign policy failures is outlining where he stands and no more. Thanks to Seal Team 6, 0bama gets better marks on foreign policy than on the economy, but so did George H.W. It’s a mistake for Romney to try and overstate his case on Obama’s FP blunders. Jobs, gas prices, food prices, income…focus, focus, focus.

I don’t understand why people are demanding specifics in a 30-second ad. 30 second ads aren’t the place for specifics. I want to hear more specifics from Romney on the campaign trail. I want to see him call press conferences to roll out policy, not platitudes. I want to see him hammer away at policy specifics at the debates. I understand people asking for specifics, but just not from a 30-second ad.

I hope Romney is watching the Reagan/Carter and Clinton/Bush debates as part of his preparation.

ncconservative on September 17, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Total National Debt:
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/14/2012 $16,045,783,217,833.70

Republicans held majority control (2+ out of 3) of the three budget-making bodies (House, Senate, and Presidency) From January 3, 1995 to January 3, 2007, and were responsible for passing the budgets for FY 1996-2007. In those 12 fiscal years, the total national debt increased $4,033,670,471,553.09 or about $336,139,205,962.76 per year

For 12 straight years, the average Republican-majority deficit was $336 Billion per year.

On January 3, 2007, Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, and with that Democrats took majority control (2+ out of 3) of the three budget-making bodies (House, Senate, and Presidency) and have held it continuously since then.

The last reported Total Debt numbers are from last Friday (9/14/2012) and there are still 16 more days in the fiscal year. But to date, in just under 5 years, the Democrat majorities have increased the total national debt by $7,038,129,845,571.22 or about $1,407,625,969,114.24 per year.

Let that sink in. Republican majorities increased the total national debt by $4 Trillion over the span of 12 years. And Democrat majorities increased the total national debt by $7 Trillion over the span of just 5 years.

Average annual increases to the total national debt under the current Democrat majority have been OVER FOUR TIMES the size of the average annual increases to the total national debt under the prior Republican majority!

$1.408 Trillion per year (FY 2008-2012) vs.
$0.336 Trillion per year (FY 1996-2007)

One of the most disgusting aspects of that is that Pelosi and Obama campaigned on the promise of “fiscal discipline” and against the “record deficits” of the Republicans under Bush.

The truth is that Pelosi, Reid, and Obama had no intention of reducing deficits. Instead, they intended to make spending and defiicts skyrocket.

They are such incredible LIARS, and if Romney MUST point out the difference between what the Democrats PROMISED, and what they DELIVERED.

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 3:47 PM

They are such incredible LIARS, and if Romney MUST point out the difference between what the Democrats PROMISED, and what they DELIVERED.

Team Romney, please refer to my earlier comment here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/05/dnc-chair-that-awful-conservative-newspaper-misquoted-me-by-er-accurately-writing-what-i-said/comment-page-1/#comment-6218958

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 3:52 PM

astonerii doesn’t care. It’s an Obama voter.

lorien1973 on September 17, 2012 at 1:55 PM

I think he has decided to sit it out.

sharrukin on September 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM

…on the toilet!

KOOLAID2 on September 17, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Romney should go to the coal fields, showcase the abandoned mines and unemployed miners, shuttered power plants, all while the Mideast is burning on a split screen. Tie our foreign oil dependence on the middle east to death of Americans . Showcase the pipeline shut down while our embassies are being attacked. Advocate for energy independence and freedom from foreign oil controlled by folks who hate us! It will resonate with all Americans!! We all drive cars, use electricity, are being ripped-off on energy costs, and hate wars in the Muslim world!! This will show a vivid contrast of Obama and Romney!! Let’s have an election with this as a major issue!! It underlies lots of issues of the Obama agenda!!

Marco on September 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

…on the toilet!

KOOLAID2 on September 17, 2012 at 4:27 PM

That is exactly the level of discourse I expect from Romney supporters. They are darned near exact duplicates of the OWS variety and SEIU variety of thug that progressives adore. Romney, bringing the Obamafication of the nation to the republican party since 2011.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Romney should go to the coal fields, showcase the abandoned mines and unemployed miners, shuttered power plants, all while the Mideast is burning on a split screen. Tie our foreign oil dependence on the middle east to death of Americans . Showcase the pipeline shut down while our embassies are being attacked. Advocate for energy independence and freedom from foreign oil controlled by folks who hate us! It will resonate with all Americans!! We all drive cars, use electricity, are being ripped-off on energy costs, and hate wars in the Muslim world!! This will show a vivid contrast of Obama and Romney!! Let’s have an election with this as a major issue!! It underlies lots of issues of the Obama agenda!!

Marco on September 17, 2012 at 4:37 PM

One small problem, the media would then dig up the video of him standing in front of a Coal Power Generation plant where he says.

I will not create jobs, or hold jobs that kill people. That plant, that plant kills people.

Romney clearly was a progressive until the 2012 primary season started.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 4:47 PM

As governor, he also argued for limits on oil and gas drilling in order to protect the environment. In his state of the Commonwealth address in January 2005, Romney said, “I’m concerned about the preservation of our natural resources. I will file legislation to protect our oceans from off shore drilling and commercial development. The oceans should not be up for grabs like some Wild West land rush.”[41]

yeah, that does not fit with the pro energy items either, and by that time he had already decided to not run for re-election. So its clear that is who he is in the core.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Just watched the ads. I like the message. Now drive it home, make it happen. Your answer when asked how you will do it?

Pass the Cap and Balanced Budget Amendment through congress, by strong arm if needed, and get it to the states. Then everyone will have to work together to get it done! American voters will be able to elect a new congress and a new president after the passage of the Amendment in order to insure that their values will be protected in the balanced budgets proposed.

That would be a real start in turning America around.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM

These ads are pretty boring.

Punchenko on September 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM

I don’t know what everyone is complaining about. Those look like good ads to me.

Count to 10 on September 17, 2012 at 6:12 PM

so i see the mittster’s a bitter clinger moment. when it rains…

sesquipedalian on September 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Pass the Cap and Balanced Budget Amendment through congress, by strong arm if needed, and get it to the states. Then everyone will have to work together to get it done! American voters will be able to elect a new congress and a new president after the passage of the Amendment in order to insure that their values will be protected in the balanced budgets proposed.
That would be a real start in turning America around.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Who made this guy speaker and fortune teller of the American people? The bubble on this blog gets more amazing by the day.

HotAirLib on September 17, 2012 at 6:33 PM

These ads are pretty boring.
Punchenko on September 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM

The candidate is boring that’s why. And we all thought Ryan was brought in to spice up the campaign.

HotAirLib on September 17, 2012 at 6:36 PM

There are so many on our side who want to see Obama exposed for what he is… but those people aren’t the target of these ads…

The target of these are people who went for Obama but are unhappy. Those people don’t want to hear what a big mistake they made. They want permission to give up the utopian post-racial dream without seeming racist.

Those people didn’t hate everything Obama did. They just don’t like the results. Attacking the man will get no where with them. They never agreed that he was ruining the economy or violating our basic principles… I know lots of people who haven’t got a clue that Obama has done end runs around the checks and balances… and they might never understand it. Or care.

You don’t get those people by making them defend Obama against the cruel cruel world. They thought what he did would work. You are attacking them too.

Romney is leading them along a road they are reluctant to take… with logic and patience.

You aren’t the target audience. It is no wonder you don’t like the ads… they aren’t for you.

petunia on September 17, 2012 at 6:37 PM

What a strange purist world some of you live in… only it isn’t really… just selectively purist when you dont’ like some one… you cut people you like plenty of slack.

Such as the violation of the basic concept of choosing our leaders by a vote… that seems very very basic to me… yet people who call themselves Libertarians denied Republicans who voted their voice at the convention!!! They felt justified in taking over state delegations against the vote and voice of the people!!!

What kind of American would do that?

petunia on September 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

What kind of American would do that?

petunia on September 17, 2012 at 6:42 PM

The kind that laws are made for.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Petunia 6:37

In other words, we should be careful to preserve the delicate feelings of idiots who made an uninformed vote and don’t have the decency to admit their screw up. Yeah, that makes sense. And here was I, thinking that getting your base motivated and out to vote would more than compensate for that sliver of morons. Silly me.

You’re right. Romney should enable these idiots by being sensitive to their feelings about their own stupidity and the sheer contemptible stupidity of the person they voted for.

avgjo on September 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

sorry, should have read

‘sheer contemptible incompetence and vapidity of…’

avgjo on September 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

I will not create jobs, or hold jobs that kill people. That plant, that plant kills people.

Romney clearly was a progressive until the 2012 primary season started.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 4:47 PM

And you would vote for a candidate that says they would create jobs that kill people??

That was a specific plant that refused to put the proper controls to “scrub the air”…9 years ago.

You can have relatively clean air, and have a coal plant, you can produce energy and be reasonably clean…but no reason to have a plant that ignores common sense and laws.

right2bright on September 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

so i see the mittster’s a bitter clinger moment. when it rains…

sesquipedalian on September 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM

And?
You see telling the truth as a bad thing?..why do you suppose that is?

Mimzey on September 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

These ads don’t exactly knock it out the park. One major problem with the Romney campaign is that many Americans don’t understand the impact of exploding deficits and an out-of-control debt. All the president has to say is something general like, “I just want millionaires and the wealthy to pay a little bit more.” Or, “Romney wants to cut give his rich friends tax breaks.”

Fiscal conservatism works, but it’s a hard argument to make to many Americans who don’t know the facts – eg., that 50% of Americans don’t pay federal taxes, that raising taxes on the wealthy only causes them to stash their cash where it can’t be taxed, and so on.

Romney needs a broader campaign theme against Obama. Killer ads would focus on Obama’s general incompetence – bowing to foreign rulers; the stalled economy (b/c of Obamacare’s promise of higher taxes and Dodd-Frank); not having our embassies properly protected overseas on 9/11; jetting off to Vegas for a fundraiser the morning after our Lybian ambassador had been killed and his body dragged through the streets; the oil spill; the debt ceiling crisis (why didn’t he raise the debt ceiling when the Dems controlled the House and Senate?); recovery summer; “you didn’t build that”; prioritizing Letterman, Beyonce, and the Pimp with a Limp over Netanyahu . . .

Or, how about Barack”Excuses” Obama ads running down his own list of excuses for failed economic performance – the European debt crisis, Japanese tsunamis, USA heatwaves, etc.

I think the Romney campaign is leaving too much on the table. This election can be easily won by focusing thematically on the president’s overall failed record, excuses, and incompetence.

The Bringer on September 17, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Have any of you guys heard of this blog called datechguy? This guy has some really interesting stuff on poll data that might make us all feel better.

Terrye on September 17, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Yeah, the ads are kinda weak BUT I have to remember that they are directed to people in mostly swing states. If he goes nuclear now, they will tune him out. They are inundated with constant ads. It’s a long month or two till November.

Hopefully he will go nuclear after he’s prepared the battlefield with these content ads.

Hopefully…

PattyJ on September 17, 2012 at 7:04 PM

And you would vote for a candidate that says they would create jobs that kill people??

That was a specific plant that refused to put the proper controls to “scrub the air”…9 years ago.

You can have relatively clean air, and have a coal plant, you can produce energy and be reasonably clean…but no reason to have a plant that ignores common sense and laws.

right2bright on September 17, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Uh huh? Seriously. An attack on a business like that is going to be whitewashed by you?
He passed a cap and trade bill. Scrapped it when it would not work and began work on a regional greenhouse gas initiative… You cannot have a coal plant that does not create “greenhouse gasses”. Or a gas fired one for that matter.

Then he also said the ocean was off limits to energy production.

Sorry, it follows an entire path of hatred for energy producers that fits the Malthusian desire to limit the number of humans on earth. He had a card carrying Malthusian advising him, you know that right? The very same one Obama hired as his Science CZAR. Now is Mitt a Malthusian? Probably not, but he certainly does not mind being in their company and carrying their water for them.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 7:06 PM

And?
You see telling the truth as a bad thing?..why do you suppose that is?

Mimzey on September 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM

yes, speak up, mitt, speak about those horrible parasites!

If These Secret Videos Are Real, They Look Brutal For Mitt Romney

or maybe not. well, too late now, anyway.

sesquipedalian on September 17, 2012 at 7:11 PM

heart-ache.

sesquipedalian on September 17, 2012 at 7:15 PM

starting on day one 288 billion on GDP, starting on day one of his successor, GDP of 338 billion. A 17.4 increase in 4 years.

If we shift it a year to allow for Romney’s policies to have been the driver…
Starting 1 year in 298 billion and 4 years later at 352 billion.
an 18.1% increase.

California, which know for a fact was not run well, start in 2003 with 1,550 billion and ended 4 years later with 1,765 billion, or a 13.8% increase.

Illinois, 519B to 628B, for 21%.

I dunno, Texas? 825B to 1,150B, hmmm 39.4%.

If you look back on the charts for Massachusetts, you see outside of the hits for the 2008 crisis and the 9/11 attacks, the growth is a constant linear trend… So, if Illinois beat Romney, California did moderately well in losing and Texas blew the doors off romney for GDP growth, and Romney’s predecessors all matched him and his successor, after the crisis, is matching his growth percent…

These are just numbers. But they tell the tale of business climate in each of the states. Before Romney, there was the same growth rate, outside of the downturn as with Romney and after Romney the same growth rate outside of the 2008 crisis, directly before and directly after. In fact, doing a straight edge comparison, Romney’s period in office is actually a slightly shallower slope than the other two periods, pre 2001 and post 2009.

Now we know why numbers were not presented.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I watched both ads. You are not any help to anyone rioting in the world until you get your own house in order. Right now Obama is borrowing money to give it away.

Fleuries on September 17, 2012 at 7:35 PM

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Wrong page!

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 7:36 PM

So, while you can technically claim Newt did not balance the budget because he used Social Security and Medicare funds to do it, he did in fact Balance the real budget. The one that includes all incoming money and all outgoing money. That is the one that matters. Incoming = Outgoing means balanced.

astonerii on September 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I understand what you are saying. I guess I prefer to look at the total debt outstanding, because most voters wrongly think that there actually is money stored in the Social Security Trust Fund, rather than just I.O.U.’s.

But regardless of which numbers one uses for analysis, the outcome is not pretty for Democrats, and Team Romney should be making this case to the American people…

Analysis #1:
Using Treasury Department numbers of Total Debt outstanding (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm and http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np) and calculating FY deficits as the increase in total debt from 09/30 of one year to 09/30 of the following year, we find that… average annual increases to the total national debt under the current Democrat majority have been OVER FOUR TIMES/ the size of the average annual increases to the total national debt under the prior Republican majority!

$1.408 Trillion per year (FY 2008-2012) vs.
$0.336 Trillion per year (FY 1996-2007)

Analysis #2:
Using White House OMB numbers of annual surplus/deficit (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls), we find that average annual deficits under the current Democrat majority have been OVER ELEVEN TIMES the size of the average annual deficits under the prior Republican majority!!!

$1.158 Trillion per year (FY 2008-2012) vs.
$0.104 Trillion per year (FY 1996-2007)

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Have any of you guys heard of this blog called datechguy? This guy has some really interesting stuff on poll data that might make us all feel better.

Terrye on September 17, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Your link had a second “http//” in it.
The correct link is:
http://datechguyblog.com/2012/09/17/demoralized-as-hell-the-poll-the-media-isnt-talking-about-edition/

And the info there is good. Thanks for passing it along!

ITguy on September 17, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Petunia 6:37

In other words, we should be careful to preserve the delicate feelings of idiots who made an uninformed vote and don’t have the decency to admit their screw up. Yeah, that makes sense. And here was I, thinking that getting your base motivated and out to vote would more than compensate for that sliver of morons. Silly me.

You’re right. Romney should enable these idiots by being sensitive to their feelings about their own stupidity and the sheer contemptible stupidity of the person they voted for.

avgjo on September 17, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Whether we want to admit it or now, Romney will NEED some of these voters to switch sides and vote for HIM and not Obama again. astonerii is right in saying that these ads are directed at them and not at the hard line Republican. Another point to make is that we already KNOW the base is fired up. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. Republican registrations are at a decades long high. More people are identifying themselves as Republicans in YEARS. Getting the base to turn out is NOT the problem for Mitt. The problem is in getting those undecideds and former-Obama-voters to turn to him. I DO believe the base-firing ads are in the works and going to be out there, but that’s something that doesn’t necessarily need to happen until after the debates, at least until after the first debate. Until then, Romney needs to court those OTHER voters, from the other side, to slide over into the Romney column.

And like I said earlier, I personally like these ads (like the China ad, which the one is a carbon copy of with different information). They show how Obama has failed this country. They give people things to think about…facts to chew on…and will eat away at Obama’s image. That IS still Obama’s greatest strength…people still find him “likable”, which is unfortunate. Romney needs to chip away at this likability. A full out, negative, attack assault on Obama won’t do that.

Highlar on September 17, 2012 at 10:23 PM

Just went to the bank. Told the teller I wanted to withdraw some savings so I could redistribute it before Obama got his hands on it. The guys to each side of me applauded. One lady in the bank started with “both” sides are just saying awful things about each other. She’s tired of it. So, I challenged that notion. No, it’s just ONE side that’s lying and trying to destroy. And guess what? She agreed.

Remember when Obama told his followers they needed to get in your face? I don’t recommend that, but I do recommend that you not let the much-repeated fictions be repeated. It’s like O’Reilly who often says both sides are the same as regards nasty statements, and every time, I want to throw something at the TV. It’s NOT true. The nasty, abusive ugliness comes straight from the leaders of the Democrat Party and their most ardent, famous supporters.

Don’t let it pass. Talk to everyone—even strangers. Make our case and hold the main stream media responsible for their cover-ups. Challenge people to research.

Portia46 on September 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Romney’s ad people should play audio of O saying how jobs are the first and last thing he thinks of every day with pictures of him golfing, hanging with Clooney, dancing, singing, etc…and end saying are you still buying it America?

Another should put all the different ‘hard pivot to jobs’ announcement dates going by with a graph of the unemployment rate and end with the same question.

clghitis on September 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2