Contrary to what some credulous news reports have indicated, the Obama campaign does not seem tremendously confident about beating Mitt Romney next fall. Case in point: a relaxed and confident campaign doesn’t attack its opponent for an ad proposal – one that never even went beyond the consideration phase – cooked up by an unrelated outside group. Or at least if it does, it uses surrogates and outsiders to make the point.
But the Obama campaign has been scraping bottom to find angles to attack Mitt Romney on. So it’s not a surprise that campaign manager Jim Messina blasted Romney today for responding too “tepidly” to reports that a conservative super PAC was considering an ad blitz targeting Jeremiah Wright:
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina doesn’t seem to think the Romney’s camp’s reaction is strong enough.
“The blueprint for a hate-filled, divisive campaign of character assassination speaks for itself. It also reflects how far the party has drifted in four short years since John McCain rejected these very tactics,” Messina responded. “Once again, Governor Romney has fallen short of the standard that John McCain set, reacting tepidly in a moment that required moral leadership in standing up to the very extreme wing of his own party.”
For the record, here’s Romney’s “tepid” response to Guy Benson, which sounds pretty unambiguous to me:
“I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they’ve described. I would like to see this campaign focus on the economy, on getting people back to work, on seeing rising incomes and growing prosperity — particularly for those in the middle class of America. And I think what we’ve seen so far from the Obama campaign is a campaign of character assassination. I hope that isn’t the course of this campaign. So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they’re thinking about … It’s interesting that we’re talking about some Republican PAC that wants to go after the president [on Wright]; I hope people also are looking at what he’s doing, and saying ‘why is he running an attack campaign? Why isn’t he talking about his record?’”
Romney is right. Republicans are far better off targeting Obama’s record, rather than his 20-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright. As toxic and offensive as Wright’s sermons and political commentary are, if that line of attack was ineffective in 2008, it’s not going to be effective four years later.
That said, it’s amazing that the story of Obama’s vehemently anti-American, anti-Israel pastor is now so off-limits that a conservative super PAC can’t even consider broaching it without sending the media into a frenzy.
Slime and scare tatics will be the major compoenents of the Dems campaign strategy. However, nits not entirely off limits to point out Obama's lack of character and ethics.
I could not agree more with rashirey1. Obama's association with Rev. Wright says a great deal about whom Obama was and is. It is a big mistake to allow the Obama campaign to determine what the campaign themes should be for the Romney campaign. Romney like McCain is running scared and if he thinks that his character and its associations are going to be off limits for Obama he is seriously mistaken. The negative reaction to the SuperPac is a big mistake.
The reason the dems are nervous is that they can't run on Obumble's record, he has nothing.
Yes, Romney's right as a matter of campaign strategy. But on the other hand, conservatives must not fall in with the media's pretense that there's nothing dubious or sinister about the Wright/Obama connection. It should at least be held in reserve, to be deployed whenever the Obama campaign attempts to smear Romney by making a connection between him and some unsavory fringe character. You can bet your bottom dollar that stuff like that is coming Mitt's way. When it does, our retort should be, "What about Jeremiah?"
I agree completely. I don't really understand why pointing out Obama's connection to Wright is off limits, and I disagree that the tactic "failed" in 2008. It was never used by the McCain campaign. That said, Romney has been consistently polling better than Obama, so the "Wright card" may not be needed. But it should be held ion reserve. Just in case.
It's too late for Mitt Romney to make a big deal about Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. That should have been done in 2008! McCain destroyed his campaign because of his political correctness. Only Romney's surrogates can effectively attack the president on this point.
Amusing that when the Obama staff looks to reference for campaign standards they go with the McCain campaign rather than their own. Not enough character and integrity to run a clean and constructive campaign themselves but just enough awareness to know the difference. Or perhaps used up the monthly supply of audacity elsewhere.
In '08 it should've been done because there was very little else about Obuma to go on, it was part of his definition; now there is the whole 3 1/2 year abysmal economic record, extreme partisan zealot record, and utter lack of intelligence and class record that anyone can focus on. Wright is old news.
I'm very disappointed that the Romney campaign has decided to emulate the McCain decision to give Obama a pass on the Wright connection. It would be understandable if the media were doing its job of exposing BOTH candidates' pasts, but we know they protect Obama mightily. n Wright is a vicious anti-Semite and hates his country, and Obama called him his spiritual leader so the connection between the two should be grounds for attack. n Yes, the key to the election is the economy but I hope Romney isn't going to soft-pedal his recent tough stances on many social issues. If he expects to get credit from the MM for ''fair play' he's sadly mistaken. In fact, if he's regularly attacked in the MM it will show he's hitting raw nerves and his campaign is effective. n
I'm confused. Jim Messina says McCain rejected the tactic of talking about Wright during his campaign. Then, later in the article, the same tactic is described as having been "ineffective" in 2008. So, was it used or wasn't it? I don't think Wright was mentioned much at all in 2008–not by McCain, not by the MSM. The only place was on some internet blogs. That would mean the tactic was ineffective simply because it wasn't used.
Slick Mitt is your problem. You bought a pig in a poke.
Apparently MItt is going to make the same mistakes of the McCain Campaign. Yesterday he came out and denounced these types of campaign ads. So, it looks like Ohbongo is going to determine what ads are run and what ads are NOT run, and my hopes for a "gloves off" campaign that reveals the true Ohbongo is not going to happen. The Republicans will be nice and sweet, and the Democrats will eviscerate them! Bad mistake on the part of the Republicans. A negative campaign needs to be run, because there is so much negative about Ohbongo and his impact on the Nation. It needs to be repeated over and over again in public. Mitt needs to start by emphasizing what a liar Ohbongo is. And he needs to counter ever lie the guy tells by highlighting it to the voters. If he doesn't, he's going to lose. "Remember The McCain!"
Needs correction. This piece says, "…if that line of attack was ineffective in 2008, its not going to be effective four years later." I think it's supposed to say, "…if that line of attack was NOT effective in 2008…."