Decider In Chief: Obama's Osama Ad and Republican Outrage

On the anniversary of the Osama Bin Laden kill, Team Obama releases "One Chance"--an ad that promotes Obama's signature anti-terror achievement ... and criticizes Mitt Romney. Shameless? Brilliant? Both?

Let's take a look.

The Ad
One Chance is 1:29 in length which tells you right away that it's a "narrative" ad. It's there to tell you a story--in some detail--instead of being a 30-second air-blitz piece (I wouldn't be surprised if they trimmed it to 30 seconds to for some slots, though).


The ad opens with a somber but not dirge-like tune, which tells us "we're going to get serious here." It has the Obama-blue background with the "elegant lettering" . It reads, with words that grow to large size "The Commander-in-Chief gets one chance to make the right decision."

Five seconds in we get to the narrator ... Bill Clinton!

He is sitting in some kind of office (we see a blurry bookshelf in the background). He's wearing a blue tie and looking, even with the white hair, quite young and fit. He holds up a finger as he talks to us, smiling.

"That's one thing that George Bush said that was right," he tells us, "is that the president is the decider in chief."

As he lays out the case--that if anything had gone wrong (that it's not Bin Laden--or that the SEALS are captured or killed) it would've had a huge downside for Obama. But, says Clinton, he did the right thing--he made the tough call. We see images of the cabinet meeting, Obama pointing towards someone authoritatively.

Framed in the center of the picture isn't Obama (he's far left at the head of the table) but Hillary Clinton. We see the head-on picture of Obama pointing next. Clearly telling it to someone like it is.

We see a day-time shot of a compound with a huge stony mountain dominating the background. Abbottabad, Pakistan, reads the legend. Osama bin Laden compound.

Then we get to the mandatory green-lit night vision shots. Helicopters in flight, a pilot adjusting something in the bird's cockpit.

These are the shots that remind us that the night-raid was a touch-and-go affair--that it was real military men on a super secret, dangerous mission.

The next shot, 19 seconds in, is Obama, knuckles against his mouth, watching. He's clearly waiting for the word back from the field (or maybe pondering the seriousness of what he's about to do?).

Clinton appears again (for the "Imagine if they had been captured, or killed. The downside would've been horrible for him). And then it cuts to a silhouette of Obama in the White house window--seen from the back. The sides are blacked out. He stands alone, looking out the window. The buck stops with him--and it's a tough call.

"He took the harder and more honorable path," Clinton says. We see an iconic shot of firemen sporting their FDNY jackets seeing a massive scrolling news-feed: "OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD" it reads. The man in the center has his arms raised in a Y of triumph.

These men are American heroes. They are cheering a heroic act. Their joy is joy for all Americans. Isn't it?

At 43 seconds in--approximately exactly half way, we get to Part II.

PART II: Romney
"Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?" asks the screen in its elegant Obama-blue. The music swells, adding a slightly more ominous under-tone. The slide changes:

"Mitt Romney criticized Barack Obama for vowing to strike al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary." -- Reuters, August 4th, 2007

We get a white screen with a picture of Romney over a shot of the capitol building's columns. The quote appears to the left: "It's not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." Mitt Romney (R) Presidential Candidate Associated Press April 26

Romney's own voice gives the voice-over.

"What did he mean by that," Wolf Blitzer asks, noting "It's given us a bit of controversy giving Osama bin Laden's role in killing 3000 Americans on 9/11." Whoever he's talking to is off-screen to the right. The piece is vibrant with under-statement as Blitzer uses every term in the constellation ('3000 Americans,' 9/11, and 'his role.'). The screen cuts to black before we hear an answer.

Again, Obama stands in front of the the window. "He had to decide," Bill Clinton tells us. "And that's what you hire a President to do. You hire the president to make the calls when no one else can do it."

It ends with the Obama - Biden sunrise of the Obama campaign logo. It may or may not be morning in America but for 2 seconds it's morning on your TV.

And hey, Osama is still dead.

What Does It Mean?
The text (as opposed to any "subtext") is very, very clear: Biden has been saying of Obama's policy: "Bin Laden is dead, General Motors is alive." He has recently amended that to: "Would Romney be the reverse?"--this ad makes that point explicitly.

Having Bill Clinton narrate it is a master-stroke. While Clinton did, in fact, famously fail to kill Osama, whatever that costs, he is remembered as a popular president from a time of economic strength. And he's charismatic. Very, very charismatic. Having him talk about Obama this way is powerful. He also can get away with the forcefulness of his speech because, hey, he sat in the chair too.

Notice that Clinton does not disparage Romney--they leave that for the news sources and Wolf Blitzer. Clinton just talks up Obama. This is because going negative hurts you--it hurts both parties (when seeking revenge: dig two graves. When going negative, lose two favoribility scores ...). So it's playing with fire.

Obama does not want to erode his scores (and Clinton, although it's less meaningful for him, doesn't really either--ex presidents need to be above the fray to some degree) and this ad walks the tight-rope of doing both. As such, it tries to be fair or, well, pretty fair (for example, it does not show an 'alternate reality' of Osama thumbing his nose at us or Al Queada cheering). It consciously avoids getting visceral.

What Do The Republicans Think?
Well, firstly, that it's using the Osama kill to score political points. Duh. They point out that Obama had criticized Clinton for doing exactly that. Maybe Obama did get Osama ("fair enough")--but he lost the middle east (blast the Arab Spring!). Of course it wasn't all that gutsy--who wouldn't have done it? Romney would--he's a slash and burn capitalist, right? The link also points out that Obama might've somehow slipped blame due to "blaming it on military advisers." I think that's fairy-tale thinking: Carter didn't fly the choppers that crashed in the hostage crisis rescue either.

But basically? HEY! OBAMA! YOU GOT HIM--STOP CELEBRATING--IT HURTS US!

I think that's clearly the message here: If you believe that a hypothetical McCain incumbent wouldn't be taking a victory lap for this, you're out of your skull.

Also: This TPM piece gives the 5 Stages of Republican Reaction to Osama's Death.

1. If you can't say anything nice ...
2. Congratulations, President Bush
3. Stray Attacks
4. Even Ralph Nader Would Have Done It
5. ... And Never Let Us Speak of This Again

What Do I Think?
Firstly, I think it's clear that Obama was right to find this the ultimate test of his presidency. While he may have made the only rational call (bombing would be messy and might not confirm a kill--and without a confirmed kill we'd look awful--and might get into a hot-war with Pakistan--plus: what if he lived through it?) it was certainly a nail-biter.

I think it's also pretty clearly true that while "anyone would've done the same" is a reasonable approach ... it's clearly not true: alternate contender Ron Paul has said he wouldn't (then said he would). Clinton, himself, didn't go all out and while Osama was not yet the mastermind of 9/11, sending SEAL Team 6 into Abbottabad is, well, that's a pretty risky attempt.

So basically: Obama gets credit.

Secondly, would Romney have failed to kill him? No. Not likely. Yes, he criticized Obama but, come on: when Intel was saying "we're on to him?" Of course he'd stay the course. His approach might've been a little different--who can say--but I find it non-credible that Romney would let the guy go. And so will viewers.

But this is an object lesson in why you do not do blanket criticism. The Republican policy of criticizing everything Obama does has a cost--and this is it. You hand your opponents enough ammunition and some of it will come back your way.

Finally, this is an effective ad because of Bill Clinton's presence. He has the presidential gravitas to say the things he is saying. He is young enough to look good on the screen (Bush Senior giving us a talk would look ... well, at least Romney would look young in comparison). He is old enough to carry the weight he needs to. The ad, without him, is a victory lap pure and simple. With Clinton agreeing, though? It's more like a civics lesson. Clinton conveys that he agrees with Obama's take on the kill--that it was a hard decision and took guts--and so whatever we may think? It doesn't matter: 'cause Clinton actually knows (and note: I'm not saying that it was a super-gutsy move--I don't know if there was another real option--but Clinton saying it was a gutsy move is way, way more credible than narrator-X or Joe Biden saying it was a gutsy move).

So I think this ad works. I think that while the use of the fire-fighters image is kinda co-opting their hero status for Obama's political message ... he did earn it. After all, just ask his critics: maybe he did lose the Middle East. Maybe all the GOP guys should be shouting that from the rooftops (and squeezing their eyes tightly shut with fingers in their ears lest they be asked point blank what they'd do differently and have to expound on the virtues of foreign adventurism)--but after they're done ... although they'll want to whisper it ... it was the Obama administration that did kill Bin Laden.

Rating: A

How To Read Polls (Like a Partisan)

Following polls, closely, is, I think, a little like "Fantasy Football" for political junkies. You choose your team (or try to convince people you don't have one) and then look with fascination at each poll that rolls out. Trying to understand polls is complex--I'm not going to bore you with it here (although there are some good articles here, here, and here). No--I'm going to tell you how to read the polls as a partisan¹.

You are a Democrat and See a Poll You Don't Like

If you are a partisan Democrat then you have a bit of a problem: you may say that the main-stream media is against you--but why isn't anyone buying it? They aren't buying it because it's flimsy. The media may, as a whole, be dedicated to seeking the truth ratings--but that "most reporters are Republicans?" I don't think too many people are going to swallow that. 

If you are faced with a poll you don't like you should do this:

1. Is it Rasmussen or Fox? If YES, you're good. This graph is old (from 2000) but who cares: Raise your right hand and say "Rasmussen over-samples Republicans and they have a lousy track record" (link from Nate Silver). But if you want something more recent, check this out: Rasmussen Polls Were Biased and Inaccurate (also Nate Silver)




2. What if it's someone else? That's easy: It's still Rasmussen's fault! If you can show that the poll number is an aggregate? Well, they're factoring in a barrage of Rasmussen robo-calls to knock down the more carefully done polls! 

Rasmussen’s polls, being automated “robocalls”, constitute a huge fraction of the aggregate polling data for any period of time. No outfit comes anywhere near producing the number of polls he does. So anyone doing an aggregate of all polls over a, say, one week period will find much more data from Rasmussen than anyone else.

You are a Republican and See a Poll You Don't Like
 This is also easy: Unless the poll is Rasmussen you do the following:

1. It doesn't count because it's the liberal media bias! CNN? Pfft. Mainstream. MSNBC!? HAH--Lame-stream! And so on.
2. Internals or it didn't happen. If the poll doesn't publish its internals then you dismiss it abruptly. It's trash.
3. Check the over-sampling of Democrats. If you ask Democrats if Obama is doing a good job of course they're going to say "Yes" (Or Heil, or something, right? Amirite?). So when you look at the internals, check and see if it's a perfect D/R/I split.
4. Likely voters vs. voters vs. adults. If the poll says it samples "likely voters" then it's the best--if their model is good. If it says it samples "voters" it's crap. It it samples "adults?" Uhhh ... why'd you bother. If' it's a web poll? urinate on it.
5. If it's Rasmussen? People are stupid.

You Are Not A Partisan

If you are not a partisan, how do you handle polls? Easy: They, uh, don't matter this far out.

Drawn from FiveThirtyEight’s polling database, which includes thousands of surveys, here is the average of the 10 most recent national polls as of late April in each election year going back to 1972 (for the 1980 election and before, fewer than 10 general election polls conducted in the first four months of the year were available).

The leader in national polls at the end of April in the past two elections has gone on to win. Before 2004, however, the April leader lost the popular vote more often than not.

¹ This is based on the material I have seen in the comments and content of various blogs.

Silencing Whistle Blowers: Someone Would Have Talked!

From WhoWhatWhy:

We’re constantly told that no such thing could happen in the good ole USA (certainly not in the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, for example), if for no other reason than that it is impossible to keep such plots secret.

Or, in the common parlance: “Someone would have talked.”

The logic goes: since no one has come forward to describe their role in such plots, therefore no plot has existed.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

 The article linked talks about former CIA officer John Kiriakou's release of information (including names of CIA operatives) to reporters and, allegedly, telling the CIA that when his book was going to be published it would contain some "fictionalized" things that were not, in fact, fictionalized. In the book he discusses the waterboarding of a suspect as well as other CIA operations.

Is this true? Is the government silencing critics? Let's look at another case: From Prison Planet:

When Tom Vanden Brook and his editor Ray Locker researched a story about the astronomical sums being spent by military propaganda campaigns, one of their first stops was the Pentagon.

Published in February, their story outlines a massive propaganda effort costing U.S. taxpayers hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars a year that produced dubious returns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The investigation prompted a federal investigation into one of the “information operations” contractors that had $4 million in unpaid federal taxes and liens against them.

Maybe the team expected that, but what Vanden Brook and Locker did not expect was to be personally attacked online by a sophisticated team of Internet assailants.

In fact, they were: someone went after them creating fake Twitter and Facebook accounts to try to discredit them. They used proxy servers and other techniques to maintain anonymity. The work may not have been scary-super-genius level but it was the work of a "determined detractor" and someone with experience.

So Are Whistle Blowers Being Silenced?
One can make a case that the government is doing all kinds of things--like assassinating Andrew Breitbart--or plotting to use massive race riots to disrupt elections--and people aren't coming forwards because of stuff like the above. Indeed, if you believe that this sort of thing is happening all the time then something must explain the lack of leaks. So let's take a look.

The Obama Administration Burned The NSA Whistle Blower
Thomas Drake blew the whistle on an NSA program that was hugely expensive, potentially violated civil rights, and was made obsolete by a cheaper piece of software that was already running safely and legally. The Obama administration prosecuted him--but their case fell apart. He got a minimal sentence and now works at an Apple store. He spent over 100k in legal fees and lost his retirement. Yes, he didn't go to jail--but yes: he's a cautionary tale for any would-be whistle blower.

The Obama Administration STILL Hasn't Answered For Operation Fast and Furious
This isn't exactly a whistle-blower operation but apparently the Obama administration sold guns to Mexican cartels which were used to kill US Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. This is all part of US Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to brainwash the American public against guns! Despite heavy (conservative) media coverage ... they might get away with this. If the US government can get away with gun-running and survive congressional investigation ... what can't it cover up?

Bradley Manning Is Being Tortured
Bradley Manning, the Wikileaks leaker, was subjected to some very harsh and (in my opinion) needlessly cruel conditions in captivity. He was stripped to his underwear, had his prescription glasses confiscated, and has been harassed by marine guards. He has been held in prolonged solitary--a form of psychological torture. Would this deter any potential leaker? You bet.

What's Going On?
First things first: let's establish that nothing in the above list of grievances or conspiracies involves anyone getting politically murdered. It doesn't involve fixing a national election, faking a presidential birth certificate, or killing Vince Foster. In these cases the wrong-doing is:

1. Waterboarding subjects. But the actual charges are around releasing CIA names and publishing real, factual information on things like the "magic box" (a device used to track cell phones in Pakistan) when the CIA was told those details would be fictionalized.
2. Showing that the government did a shitty job with propaganda efforts in Afghanistan. If we take the above at face value we are meant to believe that the government had its propaganda operation exposed and retaliated with an intimidation campaign that involved fake Twitter accounts. Unsettling and unsavory--but not quite the Heart Attack gun they used to kill Breitbart.
3. Waste of Taxpayers Money. The heart of the allegations in the Drake case is that the NSA spent money badly, enriched NSA contractors (who were ex-NSA) and -- oh yeah -- could've violated civil liberties. The last is what we, as Americans, probably care most about (although we're not happy about the NSA wasting money either) but it isn't the heart of the charges. The heart of the charges are about financial shenanigans.
4. Questionably legal methods to bag major illegal firearms dealers. The US Border agent getting killed is a side-effect. The stuff about brainwashing is conspiracy theory (the number of common Americans who know about this is so small that one might wonder how any brainwashing could be posited in the first place).
5. All kinds of foreign faux-pas. The payload of the Wiki-Leaks leaks made America look snarky and nasty but there was nothing exactly scandalous. It noted previously unremarked civilian deaths, the greater-than-thought use of special forces, our real feelings about Pakistan, and so on.

Secondly, in most of these cases there are circumstances that really need to be considered when taking the whole thing in context. The above descriptions, in most cases, leave out 

1. Kiriakou published a book, did talk-show circuits, and so on. He did 'clear' his book with the CIA and then didn't do what he agreed to. This was noted in an email that "no one would go through years of cable traffic to see if it's true." If you are going to blow the whistle this may not be the best way to do it.
2. The shadowy agency that was prosecuting the two reporters? We'll never know--the US Government covers its tracks well. Except, oh wait--we do know. It's these guys: Leonie Communications. Gawker totally nailed them. It's a brother and sister run outfit that are the guys who bilked the US Government. They're hugely in debt to the IRS. They do know their way around the Internet though. Go figure.
3. It should be noted that Drake went to Congress first (which is proper-channels and is protected), then the DoD Inspector General, and then finally ... to a reporter. This is where he got hammered (although he did not release classified data to the reporter--which is why he did not do jail time). While it's not a good story, the take-away might be that if Congress doesn't care and the DoD Inspector General doesn't care, maybe he shouldn't have cared. However, I do find this more legitimate as a complaint (unlike the first two).
4. For all the heat around Operation Fast and Furious, it seems to be at least partly political in nature. Gunwalker operations had occurred under Bush's watch in 2006 and 2007 and they were not subjects of Congressional scandal.
5. While the treatment of Manning was not, in my opinion, proper, last year he was moved to Leavenworth which, apparently, "greatly improved his conditions." What he did was certainly ill-advised and personally destructive--but I think that it is hard to expect another outcome when releasing reams of material to an extra-national source.

What Does It Mean?
Conflating what happens organizationally when you leak classified data to external sources violating the protections set up to protect whistleblowers (Drake, Manning) with what happens when you either lie directly to the CIA about what you're going to print or getting cyber-bullied by civilian contractors who you made look bad confuses the point so badly that it's hard to group these without a lot of hand-waving.

Where are the Leonine hit squads!?

The problem with political assassinations and other wet-work style or class hypothetical machinations is that once you undertake them you have the armed-pilot problem.

One of the "obvious" responses to terrorism on airlines is to arm pilots. It makes sense, no? It's hard to take over a plane if the pilot can shoot back--and if the pilot is a terrorist you're pretty much done anyway, yes? (That one recent case notwithstanding). So it's a no-brainer.

The problem with arming pilots is the same as arming prison guards: yes, they also would like to have guns--but once you put a gun into the equation the terrain changes. The question for terrorists (or would-be escapee prisoners) is no longer "How do I take over the plane without a weapon ... that's hard ...?" it becomes "How do I get the gun?" Which is considerably easier.

That's why armed Air Marshalls never announce themselves--so people who want to harm the plane don't know where to go first.

If you start conducting political assassinations and are part of a government where one half hates the other half then the play stops being "How do I influence these fucking independents?" and becomes "How do I expose the Obama administration for forging his birth certificate and murdering Andrew?" At that point the playing field is even (the Republicans are also a rich, powerful, corporate-backed conspiracy machine)--and you have a weak-point.

While the Republicans are trying to use Fast and Furious to hurt the administration, this is far more of an optics (it looks bad) and procedural (could they really be permitted to do that?) issue rather than a clear-cut moral one (which is what government sanctioned murder would be). If mainstream Republicans really thought the Clintons had murdered Vince Foster they wouldn't have wasted their breath hitting him on wimpy philandering charges--they'd have gone for the throat. They didn't think that--because they are not insane.

This is the same for 9/11 Truthers. If the Democrats thought there was a chance Bush planned the event? They'd just have to prove that and the hated Bush administration would be Mission Accomplished out of office. This would be irresistible to political operators at all levels of government (we can see that with Arizona's Sheriff Joe trying lamely to forensic Obama's birth certificate--and apparently not doing 20 minutes of Google research on Photoshop layers and scanners with OCR turned on).

What Do I Think?
The coroner's report is out: Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure. Apparently the lefty-bet was cocaine but nothing like that was found in his system. This will not convince people, of course, who have already made up their minds fact-free--but it's consistent with what I believe to be true about the world.

The WAR on DOGS!

Don't say: doggy dog world | Do say: dog-eat-dog world
Comment: The world is even worse than you think if you think it merely a "doggy-dog world." Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news.
100 Most Often Mispronounced Words and Phrases in English

You wonder why they call it "The Silly Season"?  Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are in the doghouse thanks to dueling derogatory dog-related discourse from both parties. Is there anything to the dog fight? Or is it just a shaggy dog story? (Can I help myself? No. I cannot help myself. I checked. I can't stop doing it.)

Romney's Kick in the Canines

DogsAgainstRomney.com: For all your Romney-Hates-Dogs Needs

If you haven't heard the story by now it's probably because you've been locked in a kennel on top of a speeding station wagon. I case you do not know, here is the story (From Time Magazine):

The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus's rather visceral protest.

The story (apparently reported in 2008 in the Boston Globe) was supposed to illustrate how Romney dealt with "emotion free crisis management," handling a family situation quickly and efficiently (As efficiently as Bain Capital laying off a bunch of pregnant mothers? We report, you decide!). However, once the ball started rolling Romney was in deep doggie doo with everyone from PETA to run of the mill pet-lovers who were appalled by actions.

Obama's Going To The Dogs


After several months of the dog-pile on Romney, someone went and dug up a quote from Obama's book where he notes he was introduced to dog meat in Indonesia. This has led to a deluge of dog-discourse around ... recipes!


What Does It Mean?
David Frum points out that each of these stories does, apparently, play into a negative stereotype each candidate has:

Thus, the "larger meaning" supposedly exposed by the dog-on-the-roof story: Romney is a heartless technocrat, ready to conduct brutal experiments on unsuspecting people or beasts and who only laughs if the experiment does not go well for the subject/victim.

And thus too the "larger meaning" seen by partisans inside the Obama-eats-dog story: Obama is an alien, raised in alienation from basic American values, and protected by a complicit news media that refuses to report embarrassing facts about him - like dog-eating.

I think this is pretty insightful.

On the other hand, all of this fits a much larger pattern anyone with small kids will know: MOM!! HE HIT ME FIRST!! NO!! YOU STARTED IT! Whether it be the War on Women, cutting entitlements for seniors, or dog-sasters, each side's primary line of defense is "The other guys did it/will do it and will do it worse!"

About the only place Romney hasn't gone is claiming that Obama is worse for gay rights than he would be--but just wait for him to Etch-a-Sketch (I bet if I went through the GOProud site I might find something like that. Maybe?).

What Do I Think?
Well, I think it's nonsense. I suspect that being strapped to the roof of the car wasn't great for the dog but I suspect he did it more than once and that the dog didn't complain until he got sick up there. But I'm not sure--in any event, while I don't think Romney is the utterly heartless automaton that his detractors do, I think it's pretty clear he (a) has a bit of a tin-ear when it comes to connecting with people (people who don't own NASCAR teams, anyway) and (b) has zero business giving anyone a quote to shore up "emotionless crisis management." That's like a body-snatcher giving a quote that shows off just how almost-identically they can simulate the host: you don't give the game away.

Similarly, the Obama-Eats-Dogs thing is clearly just push-back. Republicans got tired of being beat up by the dog-story so they found one of their own. If any GOP folks were shocked that Obama had, at one point, eaten something strange in Indonesia I'd be surprised: I figure anyone in that category already figured he ate human flesh at Illuminati dinners ... maybe at the kids table or something? Who knows what those guys believe.

But anyway: it opens the door to a lot of great dog-puns which, as far as I know, may have actually killed a reader. So I'm down with it: LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR!

Air War: Competing Presidential Campaign Ads

We're going to look at the latest videos from the dueling Romney and Obama campaigns. Today is chosen at random and we'll look at the most recent ads from each candidate and their Super PACs to see what they're trying to tell you.

What you see above is "Romney's World View"--it's the Super PAC "Priorities USA" and it's pro-Obama.

Romney's Super PAC is still re-tooling: their last Ad is anti-Santorum and it's off the air. Instead I am going for the latest RNC ad: "From Hope to Hypocrisy: The Senator Who Became a Sellout."



And here's the latest from Mitt and Barack themselves:

Mitt Romney: President Obama's Measure of Progress



Barack Obama: President Obama Celebrates Earth Day




The Ads
With the exception of Mitt Romney's World View (the Priorities USA Obama Super PAC attack ad) none of these are especially interesting in and of themselves--but taken as a whole we can see where, for this limited period of time, the campaigns stand.

Team Romney
Both Team Romney ads have a similar theme: trying to hang the president on his own words. In the case of the RNC's "Hope to Hypocrisy" we see a message that contrasts Obama's thundering promise (2008) not to have lobbyists in his White House with his record--a bunch of lobbyists. It touches on his (lack of) transparency on who he met with, and when--and it has Anderson Cooper and some other talking heads using the h-word ("hypocrisy") to beat him up on it.

Romney's own "Measure of Progress" has Obama saying (2008) about how they, the Democrats, measure progress (you have extra money to help pay the bills). It then uses text over various pictures to show the decrease in jobs and unemployment rates. It notes, specifically, that the lost jobs will be double what fills the North Carolina convention center where the DNC will meet. This is all done over a driving frantic drum-beat  which is, again, punctuated by Obama's soaring oration.

Both Romney ads are over a minute long making them "narrative-style" ads rather than media-saturation high-punch attack ads.

Team Obama
Romney's World View goes for the guts with the Romney Money-Shot. It was a photo-op for Bain Capital which showed Romney and his team of Corporate Raiders Investors with, erm, money stuffed in their clothes--Mitt, front-and-center, smiling somewhat evilly. It uses the attack-ad female voice-over and shifts the filter to green for quick-cut close-ups on the dollar bill Romney is handing to his buddy. It talks about how he paid very low taxes and will cut his further--while cutting benefits for the (elderly) rest of us. It ends with "If he wins, we lose." The sound is a fairly sedate track with a few low-key ominous chords thrown in for the quick cuts.

On the other hand, Obama's ad is a little bit of sunny education about Earth Day--it has some history about it. It trumpets what we've done (more green jobs, etc.) It mentions reduction on our need for foreign oil and shows heart-lifting pictures of clean skies, American flags, and gleaming solar panels. The wind-power windmill shot makes certain to put an actual worker in the frame presumably climbing a tower to fix something (and get paid). I suspect this is a created picture and not a real one.

I looked "one down" to see if I could get a for-real Obama attack ad--but, no--not really. There's a Joe Biden spot encouraging us to turn out since Romney will have a deluge of negative ads and the only antidote is "us" out there pounding the pavement talking up Obama in our own voices. It was kinda an attack ad--but not really: it's more a "come and volunteer" ad.

Both Obama spots end with the rising-sun O meaning it'll be morning in America ... when he's elected again.

The Earth Day ad is long--but Romney's World View is 30 seconds and, honestly, very coherent for a quick-hit attack ad.

What Does It Mean?
Right now Obama has a substantial cash advantage over Romney (although the Super PACs make it more equal). If the election were held today it would be close. Obama leads in the polls but only by 2-3%. People "following history" say his approval rating needs to break 50%. Right now it's 2% away from that--so it seems easy--but it's been stubborn there and Romney is going to erode it (if the economy does pick up that'll help it--but either way, it's going to be tight).

This means that, from this point on, the teams have to refine their messages quickly and specifically. Let's look at the specifics:

Team Romney
Strategically Romney has a few challenges.

1. On the message front, Romney has it easy. his story is simple: Obama has failed the economy. He did not create the downturn--he just made it worse. His slogan and website is "Obama Isn't Working.com"          
2. Secondly he must shore up the base. He isn't great at this: "The Romney campaign continues to leave many evangelical voters feeling a bit out of sorts. It seems more and more the Romney campaign calculus is that the campaign will get the evangelical vote without much effort." Romney, however, has the whole GOP establishment behind him--so he's good on that count.
3. He must woo Latinos and women enough to cut into Obama's dominance there. Rubio is working on an alternate DREAM act--and Romney just needs to Etch-a-Sketch a little and he can turn on his and Ann Romney's charisma. This is not to discount Latinos or women as stupid though--Romney's whole campaign thus far has been designed to make this outreach possible (he has taken heat all over the place for being a moderate squish). He just has to execute his plan and hope people believe him.

Team Obama                                                                                  

 Team Obama has some advantages--but they have a harder time in some areas too. Here's how they look:

1. The economy still isn't great and there are signs of trouble on the horizon. Obama will do everything he can think of to stimulate the economy but at this point it's largely out of his hands. If he can use an executive order against gas-price speculation to get fuel prices down, though, that'll help.
2. Obama needs to mobilize the youth vote and get his demographics to turn out. He is hugely dependent on the ground game and so needs a very large organization. Money alone can buy ads--but not feet. Consider that Florida--a razor thin state at best--could sway based on the Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin case. If central-Florida blacks vote in larger than usual numbers almost all of them will vote Obama. In the central Florida "cow corridor" that could sway the whole country. On the other hand it could go the other way too, right?
3. Obama has had some trouble finding a specific message and slogan. He can't have bi-partisanship. He can't heal the nation--Hope and Change are out the window. His options are:

• Fairness: Millionaires gotta pay their fair share. The GOP will protect them! Painting Romney as Mr. 1% is crucial to this. And it polls well. The downside is that "fairness" will not fix the economy. This is a dangerous hill to fight on--it's a winning battle but may not be a winning war.
• Senior Scaring: The GOP budget plans cut entitlements (which they have to). This is dangerous for anyone not incumbent to try so ... hey? Good ground for Obama. If Obama can hold the Kerry states he can win with Florida. Florida is a senior state. This could be a winning battle for the whole war--assuming they can tie Romney to the Ryan budget and not produce a damaging budget themselves.
• Liberal Agenda: Obama has it easy with Latinos and women--the GOP has made some serious miss-steps there. Where the GOP has to do damage control, Obama just needs to let things stand and give some minor lip-service. But this isn't a cross-demographic campaign. This, again, could play out in Florida. But it's no sure thing.

How the Ads Work

The Ad war is just getting started--but we can see this her is the plan: Romney wants to talk about the economy and (almost) nothing but. He feels that Obama's own words are powerful here--and he's right: using the candidate's in-context own-words against him is not only the high-road but it's reasonably convincing. That is, unless the economy is doing well enough in November ...

Obama, however, plays the 1% card on one hand and goes happy (Green Jobs! Heal the Planet! Earth Day) on the other. I don't think that Obama's base--whatever they may say--is really against him all that strongly. Yes, a lot of people are disappointed--but expectations for Obama were so over the top that was inevitable. I suspect that part of Obama's positive message-strategy is that he wants to keep his favorable numbers up under Romney's onslaught. Going positive is a way to do that so long as you can hit back.

So there you have it:

1. Romney: All offense on the economy
2. Obama: Split strategy going Fairness and Base-Baiting

What Do I Think?
These are all test-fires and early ones. We have not seen really damaging ads (Mormon Attack, Ayers/Wright/Etc.). I would think that those will wait until someone starts losing for real. Risking a super-negative attack is, well, risky. Romney has seen his favorables plummet when he went nuclear and he knows it could happen again--especially since people like Obama. Similarly, Obama knows that saying things about Mormons will backfire: you only do that in a desperate case of need.

No one is that desperate right now.

I also think that of all the ads up there, the best is Obama-PAC's Anti-Romney. The use of the damaging photo (exclusively) with some green-framed cuts edges towards sophisticated (it's a tight ad) whereas the RNC ad is fairly hard hitting it has a specific issue that if people are not convinced that Obama's policies made the economy worse--of course that's what Romney would say--the first part that everyone agrees on (that Obama didn't cause the down-turn) is pretty bad for the Republicans: it plays into excusing Obama for the still-hated Bush's missteps (polling shows people still blame Bush--Romney knows that--that's why he's taking this line of attack).

If I had to guess I would assume that given that Obama's advantage is so minimal, we will see the economy drive the war-strategy. If Spain doesn't collapse--if gas prices come down--then around the time of the convention Romney will need to change his approach. On the other hand, if the economy goes bad then Obama's favorable ratings will drop and Romney will pull ahead. At that point they will need to go with the "He looks like the guy who fired you" tactic. Or worse.

The Norway Shooter: Behring Breivik

Behring Breivik is the guy in Norway who:

1. Released a YouTube video (pictures are from ass-hat's video) and a 1500 (!) page PDF manifesto that explained why he was doing what he was about to do
2. Set off bombs in downtown Oslo and then, while authorities were distracted
3. Went to an island where kids affiliated with a major political party were summer-camping and murdered a bunch of them

He did this because he believes that this will strike a key blow in his war against the cultural dominance of Islam over the west. He is now on trial and has been evaluated as an extreme narcissist--or maybe crazy--or both. Or whatever (because of Norway's laws there are ramifications to whether he is crazy or not and how long they can hold him--forever if he's crazy. I think 21 years with option to extend if he's not). 

What The Fuck?

There are news sources with deeper analysis than I, an over-seas observer, can possibly provide here--but I want to to talk about this for a minute because there are a few things that you might not know. Let's start with: What Was He Thinking!?

What WAS He Thinking?

Here, from reading part of his manifesto, is what he was thinking: Europe is under attack by Islam. Their plan is to immigrate / infiltrate, breed, and then spread their intolerance and tyranny across the west creating Eurabia--a subjugated land where Europe used to be.

If they take Europe that's like FIVE ARMIES A ROUND--and a ROUTE TO GREENLAND!

Facilitating this, either wittingly or unwittingly, is Political Correctness: Cultural Marxism. It is the belief that all cultures deserve equality regardless of their tenants or behaviors and, just as Marxism tries to enforce economic equality, Cultural Marxism enforces cultural tolerance to the point where western civilization will be destroyed. 

Clearly the use of the same color and a general circle mean they're the same--WAIT, THE STAR-FLEET COMMAND INSIGNIA LOOKS KINDA LIKE THAT!

Cultural Marxism may or may not intend to have the world subjugated under Islam--I did not see a clear link--but it is definitely opening the door for the "Trojan horse."

As such, targets that are directly Islamic is not the primary target. The primary target is the establishment. He writes that students are "considered acceptable indirect targets as for example 95-99% of journalism students will support multiculturalism indirectly / directly." He suggests not attacking royal family abodes.

In addition to being a publicity stunt for his manifesto (he doesn't say this, but c'mon) he wants to spark conditions where he will get to make his case for TV cameras--to recruit for the cause: an order of like-minded terrorists called the 'Justicar Knights.'

It's All Encyclopedia Britannica's Fault

Well, okay--maybe not all. Back in 1878 Britain struck a deal with the Ottomans promising to protect them from Russia in return for Cyprus. Part of the deal was a "wide scale revision" of Encyclopedia Britannica (10th edition and onwards) to shore up the story on Muslims and Islamic behavior which they had called "evil" before. This started the ball rolling.

Encarta is so much better than Britannica ... and FOX NEWS is way better than the BBC

A Perfect Cover Story: World of Warcraft

You should create an alibi that will explain your odd behavior as you become a Templar (a lone-wolf warrior in his model). This should explain isolation and travel. He suggests "tell them that you have started to play World of Warcraft ... and that you wish to focus on this for the next months/year ... Tell them that you are completely hooked on the game ... Emphasize to them that this is a dream you have had since you were a kid. ... Ask them to respect your decision."

He then suggests that if you need to explain travel, you, you go completely into fantasy: "say you are visiting one of your Wow friends, or better yet, a girl from your "guild" who lives in another country."

As a back up: "Say that you are gay and are in the process of discovering your new self and that you don't want to talk any more about the issue."

Forecast calls for shitty graphics Breivik made himself

Music To Kill By

In order to keep your spirits up, you will need mental discipline and music. He recommends the band Saga and provides a play list of the best stuff. The band is not amused:

It has come to my attention that my music has been cited, along with a number of other people and groups, as going some way to inspiring one of the most vile and criminal acts in recent history.

I cannot begin to describe how saddened I am to hear that and wanted to inform you all of my shock and utter horror at such an atrocity.

On Killing Women
He's not happy about it--but hey?

It is essential to know that approximately 60-70% of all cultural Marxists or suicidal humanist are female and up to 20% of police officers and military personnel (system protectors).

Maybe he's just concerned with killing some women ...

Why Didn't He Mention Alanis?
I suspect Alanis Morisette would find this ironic:

Annual political party meeting Barbeque
An efficient plan will involve a flame thrower/assault rifle assault strategy

The Future of Sex
He spends a lot of time talking about his ideal future state. Marriage will be a 20 year + commitment, abortion will be illegal. Women will be strongly discouraged from education above a Bachelors degree (but not prevented from higher). There will be "Las Vegas" zones where sex is freely available, contraception is available, and sex education above Europe in the 50's and 60's is available. These sex-zones will be quarantined from the rest of society so that people can go and frolic and not ruin it for the rest of us. All schools  will be gender segregated.

Those weren't the Trojans I was talking about

Here is his video
The embedding didn't work--but you can view it here.

Get them young, aim for the women ... WAIT, WHICH OF THOSE GIRLS IS PLAYING BASEBALL!?!

What Do I Think?
It is clear to me from reading Breivik's manifesto that he is not insane. His mind is in perfect working order. While I can't speak to his list (his giant list) of facts ('facts') I can suppose they are all more or less true. Even the one about Encyclopedia Britannica--why not? The problem is not his facts--he gets the trends right. He zeroes in on specific ugliness of some of the Islamic integration in Europe. He's troubled about the below-replacement white European birthrate. He's not the only only one.

What's different is his solution: to inspire a movement by specific use of an atrocity to amplify his message. Let's face it: a body of work with the page count of the Twilight novels is not going to be widely read without a body count.

Is he a narcissist? Almost certainly as I understand the diagnosis. His manifesto has pages on ribbons and medals awarded to his orders of 'Justicar Templars.' He fills pages with operational planning and strategy guides--he lists personal combat equipment, by body-part, with notes as to weight (You can tell he spent a lot of time playing World of Warcraft, yeah?). He certainly sees himself as creating a movement that will re-shape the world. He's lined up everything to ignite the spark. His plans are complex, strategically questionable, and grand-ideal type stuff ...

But none of this is crazy.

What it is, is evil. If there's anything he is right about it's that we, in our enlightened age, have gotten away from calling things evil. We want to say he's crazy 'cause how could a sane person do those things? We limit "evil" to the Nazis and the ring-fence them with the Godwin rule. In Norway there is no capital punishment--so they can't execute him.

I am not really an advocate of capital punishment, per se. We are human--we get things wrong. We make mistakes both in procedure (the judiciary) and process (bungled executions are a stain). And yet, sometimes this robs us of the most legitimate response: he ought to be executed.

Not for vengeance--that's a low-road reason. Not for deterrent: if he did get advocates they would certainly be willing to die for the cause (It's right there in the manifesto!). He should be executed for justice--because that's the strongest legitimate response to evil--which is what this is.

Now it might make him a martyr. There might be good pragmatic reasons for not killing him. Leaving him in jail might "actually be worse." This is all possibly true and these are all good points. But what do I think?

I think they ought to try him and execute him.

Open Mic Night: Romney Shoots His Mouth Off

The nomination hasn’t been etched, but already he’s sketching

Defeating Barack Obama is a priority.

So is keeping the presumptive nominee from etch-a-sketching and erasing the conservative movement. ...  isn’t this just a little too soon?

What's He Talking About?
 He's talking about this:

At a closed-to-the-press Florida fundraiser Sunday night at which his remarks were overheard by some reporters standing outside, Mitt Romney was asked about his media strategy for the general election campaign. According to reports in the Wall Street Journal and MSNBC, Romney said his campaign has been treated well by Fox News but that he needs to expand his audience beyond the leading cable news channel.

"Fox is watched by the true believers," Romney told donors, according to the Wall Street Journal. "We need to get the independents and the women."

He didn't just stop there. He wants:

1. A GOP version of The DREAM Act. He has to do something to get Latino votes.
2. He will not eliminate the Department of Education (too politically dangerous)
3. According to the above article:
He would look to eliminate the second home mortgage deduction and deductions for state and local taxes in order to keep his promise to cut tax rates across-the-board without lowering the overall share of the tax burden that wealthy Americans shoulder.

Having his comments overheard by reporters outside the private home where he was speaking is reminiscent of Obama's open-mic incident with the Russians. This comes after Ann Romney called Hilary Rosen's "She's never worked a day in her life" comment an early birthday gift.

What Does It Mean?

Here is what Reason thinks it means:

This incident tells us two things. The first is that Romney’s campaign staffers are going out of their way to ensure that their candidate is viewed as blank slate. Because the Republican party lacks a coherent, widely agreed upon set of policy commitments, they are pitching Romney as a sort of generic GOP EveryPresident: pro-business, pro-America, anti-Obama, but for the most part devoid of coherent, fully formed policy commitments.

The second is that Romney is still attempting to present himself differently to different audiences—giving top-level donors the impression that he has revealed policy specifics, but hedging his language as he does, and later denying through his campaign that they were meaningful details at all. Romney, the former private equity deal maker and management consultant, has always altered his persona to fit his audience: When he ran for Senate in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy in 2002, he described his views as “progressive.” A decade later in the GOP primary, he describes himself as “severely conservative.” In between, he descibed himself as whatever was most convenient for the audience and the moment.

I think this is largely true with a couple of notable exceptions.


What Do I Think?
I think there's a "real Romney" down there and, in fact, I think we kinda know what it is: he's a moderate Republican with specific beliefs but no strong passion (he is probably pro-life--but is probably not het up about it enough to want to deal with the fall out from, for example, trans-vaginal ultrasounds). I suspect Romney wants everyone to have health care in a general 'I-am-a-Mormon-pastor" type of way--and is proud that he more or less did that--but sees himself as being in a corner with the base and probably thinks it's quite unfair that his heath care plan was an asset 4 years or so ago.

I think he's vaguely concerned about illegal immigration--after all, he'd never knowingly hire an illegal to cut his grass--He's running for president, c'mon man!? But would he go and, you know, check? No. Not really. Can't be arsed. And if he had a nanny? I bet he did check--because, hey!? HE'S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT (and I bet even when he wasn't, for decades he knew he might--but maybe not from kindergarden like Barack Obama, amirite!?).

And then he's smart--so he knows he can't say that "I don't really give a crap--I'd like to try to salvage the economy guys" because while that would be a potentially block-buster winning message: Who could disagree with it? (People who think Obama is better at salvaging the economy than Romney--while the polls may disagree a little, ask any conservative who they think ought to win that conversation.) saying that is political suicide.

Every time Romney tries to have that conversation some not-Romney surges above him in the polls and he has to tack-back right and say the absolute minimum to keep the base voting for him. His hair has to smoke without catching fire. So it's no wonder Romney has come through the process looking beat up.

Not that the pantry is bare of Not-Romneys he is going to keep looking for a center-right crash-pad where he can set up camp. Will he get it? 

My gut says "I doubt it"--there are too many people invested in social conservatism and extreme fiscal conservatism to happily allow Romney that position--however, if he continues to suffer in the polls (he's ahead in a few now--and way down in a few others--and in some bad demographics, like Latinos) I think Beat Obama is going to start overcoming Ideological Purity.

Jamaica Mistaica: The GOP and the Buffet Rule

I've got a big suspicion 'bout ammunition. 

I never forget to duck. 

Maybe you've heard of the Buffet Rule. It ought to be something about Margaritas--but instead it's Obama's lead jab. The Buffet Rule is this: Millionaires--people making 1MM or more a year--should pay what middle class Americans pay in income tax. It sounds simple. It compares Warren Buffet to his secretary (Debbie Bosanek)--however rich she really is, it pits a "common job" against one of the richest men on the planet.

That's her

And it's like that kick in the Karate Kid movies: If Do Right, No Can Defend.

At least not if you're a Republican.

Apparently.

What Does That Mean?

The Republicans are not happy about The Buffet Rule. For one thing? It doesn't actually help anything with the deficit. 

The Buffett tax would raise $47 billion from 2012 through 2022 if imposed on taxpayers earning more than $1 million, or $500,000 for married individuals filing separately, according to a March memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan body that estimates tax changes for lawmakers.

Critics note that the additional revenue would do little to tame the $1.2 trillion federal budget deficit that is forecast for this fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Proponents say every little bit helps and the bigger issue is fairness.

For another thing, it hits rich people, which, if you are a Republican means job creators. Taking their money and giving it to poor people means fewer jobs, lazier poor people, and the destruction of the Republic. Or something.

But mostly? I think the Republicans don't like it because (a) rich people are a key constituency and (b) it was proposed by Democrats--so it must be bad. In any event, coming out bi-partisan to pass a bill that might as well read Obama-bama-bama-Second-Term-Love-Me is not on the GOP-controlled House's agenda. It could be a bill to end flag burning and teach cavemen-riding-dinosaurs in school (whoa! Cool!) and since it came from Obama, if it was really popular, they'd still probably have a hard time getting the freshmen to vote for it (And certainly not if Nancy Pelosi endorsed it).

So What's The Big Deal?

Huh? Oh, it's this:

It polls well. It polls really, really well. Which means when Republicans talk about how it doesn't help. How Capital Gains money or whatever is already taxed. How the wealthy create jobs (just don't say trickle-down. It sounds kind of dirty) and so on? What people hear is "blah-blah-blah. SAVE THE RICH!" Since this is what (some) people are kind of afraid the GOP is going to do anyway (and Mitt "R-money" Romney isn't helping there) this is a problem.

So Obama is going to keep hammering on the Buffet Rule and the Republicans, like a punch-drunk boxer, are too ideologically blinder-ed to get their hands up.

What Is The Working Defense Against the Buffet Rule?

What should they be doing? As I am a bad-ass political strategist, I am going to tell you: pass it.

Huh? Specifically, the Republicans should tie it to some legislation they kind of want and pass the fucker. They get something--not privatized Social Security, and end to Medicaid, or a return to the Gold Standard--something small--and the Democrats get their Buffet Rule and every millionaire who doesn't like it? Contributes to the new KickObamasAss SuperPAC. It's a win-win-something.

This is because as long as they keep talking about how bad it is they are feeding a narrative that hurts them. Sometimes the only way to win is to lose. Sometimes you have to get things off the table or turn the ball over--or whatever metaphor you want--because fighting the Buffet Rule has bad optics.

It's All About the Optics

The 2012 election either will be a referendum on Obama's first term--or should be. Even if you like Obama, there is no reason people should not be voting on what they think of his current job. Maybe even, especially if you like Obama. However, so long as:

1. The GOP congress looks like obstructionist wet blankets
2. Romney can barely fit both feet into his mouth around his silver spoon
3. The Base is really, really fired up to elect a garden gnome, a ham sandwich, or, you know, maybe that Mitt guy--WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET RID OF OBAMA!! I'D ELECT LOKI, NORSE GOD OF LIES IF THAT'S WHAT IT TOOK--Wait, was he Mormon? As long as that's the dynamic? 

It's not really a referendum: for you to get to the point where you can have a dispassionate vote on the issues you have to clear up "Is this guy going to take over America, leverage us to the Chinese, cut work to 24% unemployment, and retire to his offshore account where he can Scrooge McDuck in his ocean of money?" (He's done it before--I saw Newt's video!). So far, on the Buffet Rule, the optics? They don't look good.

What Do I Think?

I think that calling 'Class Warfare' on the Buffet Rule is a losing strategy. If that's class warfare, any tax that is not a flat-tax is class warfare on someone and while that might be an argument for a flat tax (which could also be cast as warfare against the poor, eh?) it's not exactly the argument Republicans are making either. 

The pincer maneuver for the Buffet Rule is getting Romney to release 10 years of so of his tax records. Apparently he really doesn't want to and, erm, that's gonna leave a mark. The best the GOP can hope for right now is that in the past 7 years there's nothing worse than we've already seen. No, he doesn't pay a lot--but hey? He gives a lot to charity. If that's all that's in there? If/when they come out? Air-ball.

But if that were true, why not do it now (you could ask the same thing about Obama's birth certificate, right?)? I have no idea what's in there--but as Mitt's father pioneered releasing Tax records as a disclosure for running for office, I have to think that Romney, releasing only one year, has stuff he'd rather everyone not see.

And with Team Obama holding a winning hand for this round of political poker, if I were Romney, I'd think the only way out was through: reveal everything, disarm the Buffet Rule, and try to take that conversation off the table.

The War on The WAR on Women: Hilary Rosen

If the election were held today Team Romney would be in big trouble in the women demographic. As this excellent Slate article describes, the War on Women begin in 2011 with the No Tax Payer Funding for Abortion Act (which gave us the term "forcible rape") and the term was then picked up by Debbie Wasserman Schultz who started using it when Planned Parenthood was attacked. The meme gained steam with various (often unpopular) personhood amendments (such as the one shot down in Mississippi) and various trans-vaginal ultrasound bills. At one point Reince Priebus said that if the Democrats said the Republicans had a War on Caterpillars the media would be talking about the GOP's problems with caterpillars (which produced the sadly predictable: ZOMG! He compared women to caterpillars!!)

The Slate article declares the War on Women (as a meme) dead:

In her fateful CNN appearance, right before she evaluated Ann Romney’s economics cred, Hilary Rosen begged the media to “just get rid of this word, ‘war on women.’ ” After all, “the Obama campaign does not use it, President Obama does not use it—this is something that the Republicans are accusing people of using.”

If only.

The problem for Romney is not that Democrats have been harping The War on Women meme against the RNC--which they have, despite what the Slate article implies--it's that whatever is going on, Romney is deep in the hole with women in real life.

This is no joke: the bottom deficit (which is echoed by many other polls) is fatal (should it persist). It's also not the first time he has faced this particular problem:

In the Republican primary, Janet Jeghelian had touted her ability to exploit Kennedy’s “trouble with women.” Romney, chiseled and wholesome, might have thought he could do the same by highlighting his evident devotion to his picturesque family. “They made a real point to paint him as a really dedicated family man and husband,” says Scott Helman, co-author of The Real Romney. “He really cast himself as a Kennedy foil.”

None of it mattered. When the election came, Kennedy crushed Romney among women, winning their votes by more than two to one.

The problem is two-fold: the first is that there are some GOP positions (such as making abortion illegal in the case of rape and incest) that are, legitimately, problematic with women. The second is that adopting "women's issues" as a platform is not going to endear Romney to a base that already is suspicious of him. There is not a great deal of unclaimed territory on prominent "Women's issues" where Mitt can move in without triggering the Etch-a-Sketch meme.

This puts Team Romney in a bit of a corner. To wit:: his adviser got caught flat-footed on a question on the Lilly Ledbetter Act:

"Does Governor Romney support the Lilly Ledbetter Act?"

Six seconds went by. "Sam," an unidentified voice replied, "we'll have to get back to you on that."

The Ledbetter Act, the first piece of legislation President Obama signed in 2009, expanded the ability for citizens to sue their employers for unfair pay. Passing Congress with only three Republican votes (all in the House), it was a big win for Mr. Obama with women, in no small part because while anyone can sue his or her employer for pay issues, Ms. Ledbetter was a woman and the case had picked up many prominent backers among women's rights organizations.

So the question put the Romney people in a vise. Republicans, whom former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney must convince he isn't a mushy moderate, despise the law. Women, whom current polling tells us are going to vote for Barack Obama in droves, love it.

So How Does Romney Fight The War on The WAR on Women?
The first counter-offensive was "No! No--it's the Democrats! They're the ones waging the WAR ON WOMEN!" In addition to referencing some Bill Maher based rhetoric (which was not all that convincing) Team Romney had launched this counter-offensive: The 92% attack: The claim that the "real" war on women is being run by Obama whose policies have lost all kinds of jobs, 92% of which are women's!

I want to note that I went looking for a Team Romney quote that was not some mainstream media press outlet bashing it. I had to go to like page 3 of Google with "92% Romney" as my search-string. I then went to the Romney.com website and was unable to find a reasonable image to copy-paste to the blog. I had to download the PDF, take snapshot, save as a PNG, and upload it to Blogger. What the heck, Team Romney!?

This counter-strike launched like a North Korean Satellite/Ballistic Nuclear Missile. While modestly factual it was roundly dubbed misleading and even (gloriously, for Orwellian double-speak) "TRUE but FALSE" by one fact-checker outlet. Team Romney complained. PolitiFact said:

We considered the Romney campaign's complaints but do not see any evidence that warrants changing our ruling.

The other economists agreed the statement was misleading and, for the most part, said it wrongly blamed Obama for broad trends that were part of a long, deep recession.

Worse, some analysis say: Those female jobs lost? Government jobs. None of this is strictly fair or convincing (are we supposed to be surprised the main-stream media doesn't think much of Romney's latest info-graphic!?) but to be equally fair Team Romney's 92% Attack does not seem to be meant to be taken seriously either (are we expected to believe that Obama doesn't actually want everyone back at work to give him his next four years!? HOW ELSE WILL HE BAN FIREARMS!?).

Yes: the economy has been bad for women. As a point for Romeny that's fine: he's saying he's better on the economy (for everyone) than Obama. But in context to the War on Women? It's making it sound like he's claiming that Obama went around cutting women from payrolls. A political attack ad should not inspire a "What do you take me for!?" reaction on the part of the reader.

The Flag Maneuver
Back in 2000 when Bush and Gore were slugging  it out for President of the United States each of them gave successive press conferences appearing before ever-larger numbers of American flags. Whoever had the most flags WOULD WIN!? Amirite? With Obama appearing in front of a bunch of women, Romney did the same in Hartford:


If this worked, Quadaffi, who gave a speech to an auditorium in Italy he had packed to the gills with attractive women would be like BEST WOMEN'S RIGHTS GUY GOING.

Still, eh: whatever. You can't blame a guy for trying. (remember how much crap Obama took for not wearing a flag pin?)

Enter The Rosen
But then Team Romney caught a break: Hilary Rosen said on Anderson 360 that Ann Romney might not be the best person to make statements about how jobs concern women because she "had never worked a day in her life." Ka-Boom. From Eric Fehrnstrom's Twitter feed:

Eric Fehrnstrom‏ @EricFehrn

 Follow

 

Obama adviser Hilary Rosen goes on #CNN to debut their new "kill Ann" strategy, and in the process insults hard-working moms.

The condemnation from the right was instant and unanimous (Michelle Malkin noted that Hilary Rosen had been able to do what Romney had not: unify the party!). There were allegations that Rosen was a DNC operative (kinda. Not exactly an Obama adviser). Ann Romney responded she had raised five kids--you think that's not work? And so on.

There it was--handed to Team Romney on a platter. Let's take a count:

1. Raising kids is work. Being a mom is work. Yes, Ann Romney has all kinds of advantages many of us don't--but unless it comes out that she had to ask her cadre of nannies the names of her kids, the statement that she had "never worked a day in her life" is bullshit. Read this excellent post on the matter.
2. This plays directly into the narrative that feminist liberal democrats (which is all of them, AMIRITE?) disparage stay-at-home moms. Is that universally true? No. Is it "true enough to hurt?" You betcha. Because this dovetails with an existing narrative it has way, way more power than if, for example, Rosen had said that Romney was going to start a nuclear war with Russia or some nonsense. Wherever you fall on the "what do feminists / democrats / liberals really think about stay-at-home moms" thing is irrelevant: it had enough mindshare to pop.
3. And pop it did: The optics on attacking Ann Romney are terrible. Here's a despicable list of deplorable people saying degenerate things about Ann Romney on Twitter. Yes, people say horrible things all the time. Yes Obama, the Democrats, etc. are not responsible for what some asshole tweets. That's all true--but the optics, man, the optics. Ann Romney isn't Michelle Obama. She isn't even Sarah Palin. Attacking her looks bad. Bad enough that Team Obama did, in fact, immediately call for an apology (They have yet to do that with Bill Maher. Maybe if Rosen donates 1MM they'll be okay with it?)
4. But it wasn't FAIR. Romney was talking about economics and public sector jobs. Being a mom isn't a public sector job. No, it's not. And you know what? If you don't think this is fair you have already lost the conversation. How you interpret this or spin it is irrelevant. It's about the media narrative and going he-said/she-said just doesn't matter even if, on paper, it looks like they're unrelated.

Return of the (Ann) Romney

Going forward, I expect we'll see a lot of Ann Romney doing her part to try to close the gender gap. I'm not sure how effective she will be but I know two things:

1. She can't be worse than Mitt herself--and she'll probably be much better.
2. So long as she plays her cards right and is a little bit careful she can be in the public eye without being overly political (so long as she sticks to "This is what I'm hearing from women" she should be okay--combined with a little "Here's a personal perspective as a woman on [insert issue].") So long as she doesn't cross the line into political attack mode (calling Obama a socialist, for example) we can be sure that any counter attacks on her will continue to look bad. Maybe bad enough to help her husband in the polls.

What Do I Think?

I don't know what the cycle time on this will be. There is only so much Ann Romney can reasonably do for Mitt without actually becoming a legitimate target. The principals have all mostly apologized and, most importantly, Team Obama has repudiated the comments--which may limit the damage. But the lesson ought to remain: Romney will remain somewhat vulnerable on the women-issue only so long as the Democratic engine doesn't give him space to maneuver.

If he has space, he will likely appear as a pretty moderate guy (to the chagrin of the GOP Base). Comments like Hilary Rosen's give him that space. If Romney is to have a 'Sister Soulja Moment' it will likely be handed to him on a silver platter by the liberals.