Obama's Mitt Romney Ad Backfires Big Time

Blaming (or praising) Romney for anything that happened during his time in office is like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on the cabin boys. Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature with veto-proof majorities. The state did move from 50th to 47th in job creation during those years, so the ads have nonetheless been misleading. They suggest the state's ranking fell when it actually rose.

I know Con. The president has always used the "misleading" statements just like Clinton did..."I didn't sleep with THAT woman" must have meant he was thinking of a different woman when he said it. lol

And, of course, Obama isn't going to point out any progress by Romney...it's all spin for the commander-in-crap.

According to Factcheck.org, he took it from 50th in growth when he entered office to 28th in his last year, and improving yet. The 47 number is a 4 year average I believe. I also think unemployment went down some as well, like from 5.6 his first year to 4.5 or something like that. Not bad numbers impact wise really with an unemployment level so low; the key I think was he turned the negative trend of the state around. There are several other misleading claims in the ad too.

LOL, J.

Reminds me of the "Blame Bain Campaign" strategy (thank you for coining that term!) - It is a losing strategy because all it does is highlight the public equity failures. It is laughable.

It wasn't intentional Renee, Obama just gave that one to me so easily. And, I agree with you that blame games always fail.

Haha, too easy.

I gave you a shout out in one of my articles ;-) I love it, I think you should copyright it ;-)

Thanks for the link Renee. In the off chance enough people are dumb enough to put him back into office I might.

The economic mess is the result of choices made in the 1980's and 1990's. Congress dismantled the safeguards put in place in the 1930s. Republicans want to keep dismantling. Democrats have no backbone and they vote against the best interests of the country and their own party.

To have a democracy we need an educated electorate. We need people who can intelligently vote on issues they understand. I am saddened by many posts in Gather and by how little the authors understand the issues.

A am sad too, when people try to promote government as the solution for all problems at the expense of freedom. Freedom is what built the country and if one part of its foundation is eroded, socialistic supports only work for so long as they always fail. Freedom is the only real fix. Our world history is proof.

Socialism and communism fail when they run out of other peoples money. And THAT is their track record EVERY SINGLE TIME. There is no short supply of "useful idiots".

Yes, Yes they are. They will start to argue deffinitions of words, but in the end you and know that there goal is big government with centralized rule and our goal is freedom for all. They think they are smarter and entitled. Sad really. Some say it is a disorder.

I'm saddened by how little some Gather readers understand the facts Mary Ann, but I continue to try and educate them, like how the recent jobs report showed Obama cost the country 1.3 million in jobs rather than creating any. Facts like that.

Hasn't every diversionary campaign that Obama and his leftist army attempted, just FAILED miserably? Yes, every single one.

He is running out of smoke...

Oh, he'll keep trying... what else does he have? His record is crap. :)

He has all of his accomplishments:
1.
2.
3.
...
Shall I list them again?

No wait, I'm still reading this list.

Hehe...no, I was so underwhelmed the first time! (Laughs!)

Laughs!

Good one, Opinate!

ROFL Clark!

Oh my gosh, A+ Clark. and hilarious one liners. You guys are so funny. Good way to start the day.

Hi Jane. I think this is the first time I met you. Great post! Thanks. :)

Republicans on Gather, and among the electorate--who are unhappy with the performance of the current state of the economy--always seem to employ the following myopic, malignant subjectivity, to Obama's so-called failure:

"What have you done for me, lately?"

This narrow-minded attitude of the Right's own version of instant gratification [instant gratification normally attributed, by the Right, to the ideology of the so-called spoiled OWS Left], flies in the face of many economists who have warned the following:

The 2007 economic collapse--an implosion in place, well before January 2009 and significantly encouraged by Republican-backed deregulation--will require maybe a decade or more, for the country to recover, if, indeed, it ever does.

What deregulation are you referring to Brett and how did it encourage the economic collapse?

No Brett, its not what the government can do for me, it is what has it done to me?

Lee, I think Brett needs to read up on the community reinvestment act.

If banks were allowed to fail and deregulated, they never would have given out loans like they did, thus the housing bubble would not have existed. No bubble, No pop!

Brett "
"What have you done for me, lately?"

Brett, where's your head man? You're head is facing the wrong direction. Screw it back around :) Now ... see all those democrats wailing they want MORE. MORE I SAY! It the Republicans that are shaking their heads in amazement and walking away.

Your logic is as far off as when you made the comparison in your article of Bush/ Romney.

As you stated you can't have it both ways...Bottomline Romney claims he was (and is) a "job creator"...yet he ranked 47 out of 50 states....as you said ...you can't have it both ways.

Further, when Romney left office as Governor he had a 34% approval rating...no wonder he decided not to run for re-election. Currently in June,2012, Obama leads Romney in MA by 20 points...Ummm...Do they know something we don't.

Don't forget the claim that he, quote, balanced four budgets--when, indeed, the governor, for Massachusetts, is OBLIGATED by law, to do so.

When Romney was in office, he could have been 50 out of 50 and had one job created, more than when he left and would be one better than Obama. Who has a net loss of jobs, lost forever in fact they are calling it the "new normal". No Obama could have spent the first two years of his term actually creating jobs by getting government out of the way of the people who actually add value to this country, the private sector. But no! He decided to get in the way and encouraged the stagnation that we see today. Yes , he owns this an no amount of blame will hide this.

Romney can create more jobs just by being elected than Obama could buy with $1Trillion.

"Romney can create more jobs just by being elected than Obama could buy with $1Trillion." EXCELLENT point!

Yes Brett, and congress is supposed to create a budget, by law and we are into our 3rd year without one.. So where was the community organizer, when we needed the democrats in both houses and the president to sign a budget into law? Yes I know you can blame this on the republicans, but I remind you that they passed a budget and the democrats refuse to bring it up for a vote. And that does not excuse the first two years of his term.

Thanks Opinion Nate Ted...

George has obviously not read the latest news guys, the part that says Obama cost the country $1.3 million jobs rather than created them, like Romney did. I'm surprised Obama even dares to mention Romney's job creation record in light of his lack of one. The president has no shame.

You know, that's true. The worst person the Republican can run would be better than the (I wanted to say 'than the back stabber that's in there) but I promised myself I would show honor to the seat of the Presidency no matter who had it.
So, The worst person the Republican can run would be better than our current President Obama.

Ms. Brown....You quote the "latest news guys"...This is your "source"?...Please...not very credible ..Further you state "Obama cost the country $(?)1.3 Million jobs rather than create them like Romney did"...please even Romney does make that crazy claim..

Ms. Brown..I love good debate but when people like yourself "create" facts to serve their arguments...well it's simply a waste of time....and frankly...it would be nice if you wouldn't waste ours.

Read it for yourself George: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/340439/20120513/jobs-job-growth-unemployment-presidents-clinton-fdr.htm?page=all

And George, I may take down your posts if you keep trying to attack me personally, rather than taking the time to ask for a link. It's too adversarial and highlights your obvious bias against any factual information that makes your political candidate look bad. Man up and show you can hold a conversation without trying to verbally kill the messenger.

Read your source article ...thank you...Yes it did say Obama was "negative 1.3 million jobs", however the way you presented could lead one to a very wrong conclusion. The facts are when Obama entered Office he inherited Bush's "great recession" where jobs were being lost at a rate of 700,000 to 800,000 jobs @ MONTH...resulting in almost a cumulative job loss of almost 8 million jobs. Obama has been slowly scratching to get jobs back (ie 1.3M jobs "lost" reference)..no..not there yet but progressing...Lastly..as part of "getting jobs back" let's not forget the 2 million jobs "created" and #1 World ranking retained, when Obama saved the Auto industry in the USA rather than Romney's plan to "let them go bankrupt"

Liar. Smith, Obama didn't "save the Auto Industry," genius.

He saved the UAW. And, he did it with money that he STOLE from us.

Wake Up.

Mark-John K.

I really don't think of you as a complete idiot but what's my opinion compared to the others who read your reply

It isn't much, Sir...it isn't much ;)

I didn't have time to read through everyone's comments but here's a reality check concerning Mitt's time as gov. of Mass. When he took office the state was around 50th in job creation. It was losing ground long before Romney took office. When he LEFT office it was 12th.. that's right folks.. Mitt brought it up to 12th place from dead last. http://aboutmittromney.com/economic.htm

As for GM.. Mitt wanted to do a PROPER bankruptcy RESTRUCTURING job.. he never said he wanted to let GM fall. What happened here, President Obama bailed out his rich friends without any consequences for their failures... and it continues to be the case.. the VOLT is a loser by all accounts and worst the Karma Fisker (big brother to the Volt) not only didn't create any AMERICAN JOBS as promised, it went overseas.. along with American taxpayers money and was voted by Consumer Report as the WORST car they ever tested.. failing every test they threw at it and even having to be towed from the track.. by a gas powered tow truck!

So obviously, when combined with numerous other screw ups under Obama's watch we need to seriously reconsider his tenure in office.

As for Bush people have such short memories... he worked under a spend thrift Congress (Democratic), struggled with the after affects of 9-11 (no small feat).. wherein the economy lost TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS overnight.. many of those TAX PRODUCING businesses have never recovered. Why don't we hear about that? Instead we have these knot heads condemning one of the hardest working presidents of recent times. George W. Bush actually prevented the U.S. from going into a deep depression. And it was that big mouth Barney Franks who said the Bush administration was trying to create problems where none existed concerning the banking/housing sector when they questioned his leadership. No problems hey Barney?

But with all that said, take heart.. even President Lincoln's generals dissed him .. as "the gorilla"

Oh, and while I'm here.. I might add: Mitt ran a balanced budget four years in a row, didn't increase taxes and left Mass. with $700 million dollars in the kitty which was not there when he entered office. I suppose there is room for anyone who wants to whine over what he wasn't able to accomplish but I think over all the man has proven himself to be a real leader capable of getting tough jobs done.

Why are some people so quick to demean a leader for being rich? There have been some 20th Century leaders that came from humble circumstances, like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini -- but they didn't work out very well.

Many who rise from poverty to lead rise with anger towards those who "hold back" the poor and want to create scapegoats.