Obama campaign’s latest ad targets Romney’s ‘Swiss bank account’ - Polidicks

[video=youtube;R5e0QoUdPJM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5e0QoUdPJM[/video] [B](CNN)[/B] – The latest television ad by the Obama campaign paints Mitt Romney as a man who outsourced jobs, tried to hide a Swiss bank account, and enjoys a common cause with big oil interests. Called “Swiss Bank Account,” the 30-second spot begins airing Tuesday in the key battleground states of Ohio, Virginia and Iowa. In a few days, President Barack Obama will hold his first campaign rallies in two of those states: Ohio and Virginia. The ad begins by trying to discredit an anti-Obama ad funded by the Americans for Prosperity which the narrator describes as “Big Oil's new attack ads.” The narrator quotes a Washington Post fact check which rated parts of the ad “erroneous.” The Obama administration's green energy program has come under fire by conservative groups that have criticized investments in Solyndra and other new technologies that failed. The narrator says the president's green energy agenda created jobs in the United States; not overseas. The ad then asks, “What about Mitt Romney?” - leaving the impression that there may be a link between these unnamed oil interests and Romney. The narrator says that when Romney ran Bain Capital, he sent U.S. jobs to China and Mexico. It also says Romney outsourced jobs from Massachusetts when he served as governor. It ends by telling voters that Romney had a Swiss bank account and failed to disclose income from it on his public campaign disclosure statements. “It’s just what you'd expect from a guy who had a Swiss bank account,” the narrator says. Obama only speaks in the ad to approve it. Senior Democratic officials have said repeatedly they would try to define Romney early in the election and the ad suggests they're trying to define him as a fat cat who is looking out only for the wealthy. Tuesday morning the Romney campaign responded to the commercial. "With the worst job creation record in modern history and the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression, President Obama is trying to distract Americans from the real issues with a series of sideshows," said Romney campaign spokesperson Amanda Hennenberg. "Unable to defend his failed record of 23 million Americans struggling for work, wasteful boondoggles like Solyndra, skyrocketing national debt, and unacceptably high energy prices, President Obama has once again resorted to attacking Mitt Romney." On the tax disclosures, Romney campaign press secretary Andrea Saul recently said that "any document with this level of complexity and detail is bound to have a few trivial inadvertent issues" and that Romney is "clearly coming down on the side of disclosure." The ad will air on broadcast television channels and the Obama campaign describes it as "a significant buy." [URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/01/obama-campaigns-latest-ad-targets-romneys-swiss-bank-account/"]Source.[/URL]

[QUOTE]On the tax disclosures, Romney campaign press secretary Andrea Saul recently said that "any document with this level of complexity and detail is bound to have [B]a few trivial inadvertent issues[/B]" and that Romney is "clearly coming down on the side of disclosure."[/QUOTE] I guess the fact that he pays vastly less taxes then the average American despite being worth tens of millions of dollars is trivial.

Attack ads are dumb IMO. What about ads that explain why I should elect X instead of why I shouldn't elect Y.

How about promise to fix the fractional reserve banking sys-... I mean excuse instead

[QUOTE=mac338;35782558]Attack ads are dumb IMO. What about ads that explain why I should elect X instead of why I shouldn't elect Y.[/QUOTE] Is it an attack ad to call your opponent a liar if they lied? What if what you are saying is both true, and relevant to that persons policy? I'll agree that generally attack ads aren't preferred but if Romney wants to push the idea that he (and the GOP at large) is this job creating engine combating Obama, the job killer, when the data shows the exact opposite to be true, then I see it less as a negative ad and more of an informative one. The fact of the matter is that Romney decimated jobs and is the face of vulture capitalism. [editline]1st May 2012[/editline] Genuine question. If someones policy is objectively bad, not an opinion, but proven to be ineffective through historical observation, and you point that out, is that an attack? I really don't see that.

The sad thing is no matter who we elect they will be remembered as the ones who saved America from the great recession. Simply because the business cycle is going into the expansion phase, that will followed by the prosperity era. Essentially meaning unless they try their hardest to make us stay in a recession, things will get better. Though I wouldn't put it past Mitt to really screw us over.

[QUOTE=mac338;35782558]Attack ads are dumb IMO. What about ads that explain why I should elect X instead of why I shouldn't elect Y.[/QUOTE] Well that's what attack ads are. "This is candidate X - he's a good guy because of reasons. This is candidate Y - he's a dirty fucking crook. So elect X."

[QUOTE=Coridan;35782903]Well that's what attack ads are. "This is candidate X - he's a good guy because of reasons. This is candidate Y - he's a dirty fucking crook. So elect X."[/QUOTE] Drop [QUOTE]This is candidate Y - he's a dirty fucking crook.[/QUOTE] is all I'm asking

[QUOTE=mac338;35782558]Attack ads are dumb IMO. [/QUOTE] Only in the US.

Hey, it's just like what Penultimo says to El Presidente Always have a Swiss Bank account for when your presidential term ends early

I never knew obongo was this immature too.

[QUOTE=mac338;35782558]Attack ads are dumb IMO. What about ads that explain why I should elect X instead of why I shouldn't elect Y.[/QUOTE] More importantly, as attack ads are all the right has right now (seriously, look at what groups they've funded and whether they're allowed to do endorsements or not- they've stacked all their funds in the "slam Obama" strategy), if Obama decides to be the better man here, the election would really just be about him. To Obama, or not to Obama. And that essentially destroys any competition he might have in terms of public perception.

Leave the attacks for debates, not for ads where there's nobody to oppose the claims.

[QUOTE=sami-pso;35782990]Only in the US.[/QUOTE] Except when they do them in other countries, right?

[QUOTE=Raidyr;35782551]I guess the fact that he pays vastly less taxes then the average American despite being worth tens of millions of dollars is trivial.[/QUOTE] Romney didn't make the tax laws.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35785574]Romney didn't make the tax laws.[/QUOTE] No, it's the failure of every previous and recent administration for not properly fixing tax laws.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;35785776]No, it's the failure of every previous and recent administration for not properly fixing tax laws.[/QUOTE] Exactly. So while what Romney pays may be unfair, it is not his fault. I think it's stupid for either candidate to "attack" the other on their taxes. Neither set up the current system.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35786189]Exactly. So while what Romney pays may be unfair, it is not his fault. I think it's stupid for either candidate to "attack" the other on their taxes. Neither set up the current system.[/QUOTE] I agree, but it's also fair to say that it's not exactly right for him to do so. I don't blame him, but for the position of President, I'd like a little more integrity. Not that Obama is a god or anything, but still, across the board that's what I'd like.

Attack ads are used because in a two party system all you need to do is make your opponent look bad rather than make yourself look good. Doesn't matter how bad you are or how much you've lied, if you can make your opponent look worse, you can do whatever you want. Why would a politician clean up their act when they can simply attack the opponent, and then win by default?