The extreme right wing American Future Fund is spending $3.4 million on an attack ad against President Obama to run in seven battleground states. What's their attack? That he's Muslim? No. That he's a socialist? No. That he's gay? No. That he's against the free market? No. That he's black? No.
What is it? They claim Obama is too cozy to Wall Street, in the pocket of Wall Street.
The gist of the minute-long ad is that while President Obama says he's helped crack down on financial-industry excesses, American Future Fund would have voters believe he's actually a close Wall Street ally. We learn, for example, about the $42 million Obama received from "Wall Street bankers and financial insiders" in 2008, and the vote he cast before becoming president in support of the Bush bailout of the financial industry.
Maddow Blog
Yes, big Wall Street money is attacking President Obama for not regulating them enough, just as they spend millions to try to kill regulation.
Very Romneyesque.
It's aim may well be to muddle the picture. If both sides are too close to Wall Street, why bother voting? Or maybe it's the Romney tactic of "you are too!" Romney now takes credit for the auto bailout.
I expect to see more and more of this. Homophobes attacking President Obama for being too late on marriage equality. Next we will hear that Obama killed jobs in the auto bailout. Whoops, they're already running that line.
Today, the Obama campaign began airing an ad attacking Mitt Romney over layoffs at Bain Capital, which the Obama team is holding up as emblematic of Romney’s economic philosophy. Byron York reports that the Romney campaign has settled on a line of pushback — compare what Romney did at Bain to what Obama did with the auto companies.
“Few remember today how many (non-union) workers lost their jobs in the Obama administration’s handling of the matter,” York writes of the Romney camp’s counterargument. York adds: “in the auto bailouts, whatever else one thinks of them, Barack Obama pushed for downsizing and laying people off in a failing business he had taken over.”
If this is indeed the comparison the Romney campaign plans to pursue, it’s a curious one. After all, Obama didn’t personally profit when he bailed out the auto companies. By contrast, Bain walked away with at least $12 million in profits after its episode involving GST Steel, the company that is the subject of Obama’s ads. More broadly, Jon Chait notes: “Romney’s career produced huge gains for owners
The Plum Line
Millions will be spent on this. Steve Benen at the Maddow Blog doubts it will suceeed.
First, AFF is giving away the game, conceding that Wall Street ties are necessarily a bad thing. But if that's true and voters work from that assumption, it's AFF's allies -- Republicans -- who'll suffer most. After all, it's the Republican presidential nominee who's the new darling of the financial industry elite, vowing to eliminate safeguards against Wall Street excesses.
The underlying message the AFF is trying to get across is among the most ironic things we'll see this year: "Obama is too friendly with Wall Street, so vote for Republicans, who'll make things easier on Wall Street."
And second, the right is eventually going to have to decide what it is, exactly, they hate about Obama, because at this point, I don't think even conservatives know for sure.
I think most people can tell the difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, and most know who is a tool of Wall Street. To make it clear, I know which side I am on. Workers will be far better off if President Obama is re-elected. Workers will be seriously screwed if Romney wins.
I whole-heartedly support the re-election of the President.
