Going negative, the lying Democratic way

Further proof--not that it was needed--of Democratic trickery, deceptiveness and desperation is summarized in this The New Republic headline, "Bain Attacks Might Work, Even If It Can't Be Proven":

While Nate Cohn is referring to the effectiveness of the shrill negative Romney ads by President Barack Obama (D) re-election camp rather than their proven erroneous content, no matter. For the Dems, just go-- no, not rogue, that's too difficult--but false. Because lying about Bain might work.

[T]he Bain attacks only need to reinforce existing unfavorable perceptions of Romney among undecided voters or raise apprehensions that might ultimately be exploited by future stories or attacks. This might not show up in the head to heads in July, but it could in November if Obama reclaims a portion of the white working class vote or they don't turn out for Romney.

As Cohn worriedly noted previously 

Why haven't historic events changed the election? None alter the fundamentals of the race: poor economic conditions have lodged Obama's approval rating beneath 50 percent,

(snip)

What could change the game? Not ideological battles, like gay marriage or health care, which reinforce existing partisan divides and energize voters who have already cast their ballots.

(snip)

[A]ttitudes toward the Republican nominee are malleable at this early stage. For that reason, reports about the effectiveness of the Bain attacks must be taken seriously. The attacks strike at the core of Romney's business message and provide the foundation for additional attacks on Romney's policy proposals and primary gaffes. While they are unlikely to break the race open, the Bain attacks could plausibly make a lasting difference, unlike the big but transient news of the last two months.

So, the effect of the newly deemed constitutional (Un)Affordable Health (Obama)care Act is...transient? And lying about Romney will make voters forget their intense distaste for it. Well then, if necessary, lie! And it is necessary. Go opaque; don't even release, oh say, college transcripts. Deny proven questionable associates. Just divert and attack wildly.

We now have another glimpse in the clear window of the post Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) new/old Democrat civility.



Further proof--not that it was needed--of Democratic trickery, deceptiveness and desperation is summarized in this The New Republic headline, "Bain Attacks Might Work, Even If It Can't Be Proven":

While Nate Cohn is referring to the effectiveness of the shrill negative Romney ads by President Barack Obama (D) re-election camp rather than their proven erroneous content, no matter. For the Dems, just go-- no, not rogue, that's too difficult--but false. Because lying about Bain might work.

[T]he Bain attacks only need to reinforce existing unfavorable perceptions of Romney among undecided voters or raise apprehensions that might ultimately be exploited by future stories or attacks. This might not show up in the head to heads in July, but it could in November if Obama reclaims a portion of the white working class vote or they don't turn out for Romney.

As Cohn worriedly noted previously 

Why haven't historic events changed the election? None alter the fundamentals of the race: poor economic conditions have lodged Obama's approval rating beneath 50 percent,

(snip)

What could change the game? Not ideological battles, like gay marriage or health care, which reinforce existing partisan divides and energize voters who have already cast their ballots.

(snip)

[A]ttitudes toward the Republican nominee are malleable at this early stage. For that reason, reports about the effectiveness of the Bain attacks must be taken seriously. The attacks strike at the core of Romney's business message and provide the foundation for additional attacks on Romney's policy proposals and primary gaffes. While they are unlikely to break the race open, the Bain attacks could plausibly make a lasting difference, unlike the big but transient news of the last two months.

So, the effect of the newly deemed constitutional (Un)Affordable Health (Obama)care Act is...transient? And lying about Romney will make voters forget their intense distaste for it. Well then, if necessary, lie! And it is necessary. Go opaque; don't even release, oh say, college transcripts. Deny proven questionable associates. Just divert and attack wildly.

We now have another glimpse in the clear window of the post Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) new/old Democrat civility.



RECENT VIDEOS