Visual source: Newseum
Dan Turner at The Los Angeles Times analyzes the latest Obama campaign ad against Mitt Romney. Click on the link to watch the video, it's a very effective ad:
By focusing on Romney's performance as governor of Massachusetts, it not only explores a topic that's directly relevant to his skills as a government leader, it devastatingly belies the GOP hopeful's claims that he is a job creator -- probably the key platform of Romney's campaign. On our relevancy meter, it's a Bull's-Eye.
Romney makes a habit of referring to his experience in campaign appearances, urging voters to look at his record as governor if they want to know what he stands for. But that record isn't particularly sterling, and until now it has received far too little attention outside of Massachusetts.
Peter Fenn at
U.S. News & World Report points out that Obama needs to go negative to give voters the truth about Romney:
For Obama to not engage in the battle, to focus on soft, fuzzy, feel-good ads would be a drastic mistake. The Romney team does not want the campaign to be a comparison of the two candidates and their records and approaches; they want it to be a simple referendum. They would simply like to avoid making this a choice between two candidates. That is why they prefer to be on the attack from the start. [...]
So, my belief is that the Obama campaign is not too negative at all—certainly not when compared to the Romney operation. In fact, there are a lot more issues to discuss, a lot more of Romney's record in Massachusetts to focus on, a lot more positions on issues to explore. The more the Obama campaign turns up the power on the microscope, the better for a reasoned and reliable judgment by the voters.
The notion that the press or the pundits will do your work for you when it comes to providing the compare-and-contrast elements of a campaign is long out the window. The Romney team learned that lesson in the primary, now it is the Obama campaign's turn.
Daniel Ruth at
The Tampa Bay Times brings us the latest in the growing GOP rift between extremists and more reasonable conservatives:
During his committee appearance, Bush explained that while he too is tax-averse, he had never signed Norquist's loopy manifesto, noting: "I don't believe you outsource your principles and convictions to (other) people." [...]
Bush created two problems here. First, he hinted that those Republicans who had signed the bumptious pledge were essentially little more than spineless, gutless toadies, all too happy to sign away their scruples to satisfy the demands of a self-anointed Washington insider. Some of these folks include signatory Mitt Romney, who would have signed Norquist's keister if he thought it would win him the support of the tea party's Herbert Hoover Brigade. With a single comment, Bush exposed Republicans who love to tout their rugged individualism as little more than groveling curios on Norquist's stump charm bracelet.
And just as important, Bush blithely dismissed Norquist's bona fides as an influential player in national politics. A handful of other Republican candidates also have decried the pledge as absurd. Now the scion of one of the party's most revered families was undermining Norquist's dubious reputation as a power broker.
David Horsey at
The Los Angeles Times argues against two-party rule:
The open secret of the Republicans in Congress is that they are not going to lift a finger to improve the country’s economic situation as long as it might benefit President Obama. For both ideological and purely partisan reasons, Republicans have downsized or completely squashed any economic plan emanating from the White House from the day Obama took office.
Whether you think this is a good thing or a dereliction of duty, the reality is the government of the United States has been mired in a kind of political schizophrenia that has made it unable to effectively address the frightening fracture of the global economy. The president and congressional Republicans are like two stumbling characters tied together in a three-legged race unable to make any progress because they cannot agree on which direction to go.
The best thing that can happen is that one party or the other wins both the presidency and control of Congress in the November election. It may have made sense in a more civil era, but divided government no longer works; the divide is simply too great. We desperately need a coherent national economic policy, and even a flawed one that is fully implemented may be better than one that is permanently stalled.
Karen Finney writes about combating voter suppression in The Hill:
By 2004, voter suppression was outsourced to GOP state parties, which engaged in a massive voter-caging program disproportionately targeting minority Americans in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky. It was later revealed that Tim Griffin, a protégée of George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove who served as the interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Arkansas, was involved in voter caging while working on the former president’s reelection.
Between hard-fought reforms and unprecedented outreach efforts, the 2008 presidential election was the most ethnically, racially and economically diverse in American history. [...] As the 2012 election nears, an estimated 5 million Americans could again be disenfranchised by new waves of suppression tactics.
As America works to help fledgling democracies around the world, we should also recognize the need — once again — for comprehensive reforms to make our own democracy stronger by ensuring that every eligible American has the opportunity to make his or her voice heard.
Another example of Republican officials
acting like 8-year-olds:
Kimberly Small, Republicans’ choice for state representative in the West Side/Northwest Side 10th district, has some postings on her Facebook page that might cause controversy with her would-be constituents.
One is a picture of First Lady Michelle Obama wearing a short skirt to the Children’s Choice Awards with a caption that says she is dressed like a “hoochie mama.” The Urban dictionary defines the phrase as a loose woman.
The second is a joke about President Barack Obama throwing his wife into a baseball field when he misunderstands a request to throw out the “first pitch.”
“I don’t think they were offensive,” Small said.
