Are Republican attack ads bolstering Obama?
In the last couple of weeks, two of the most high profile Republicans — Mitt Romney and Rick Perry — unveiled scathing attack ads aimed squarely at President Barack Obama.
The TV spots represent sharp-edged, take-no-prisoners indictments of Mr. Obama and his record on the economy.
Perry, the governor of Texas, describes Mr. Obama statements about American workers as “pathetic” and describes the administration’s policies as “socialist.”
Mr. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, claims point-blank that Mr. Obama has “failed” to salvage the American economy after it began to teeter in 2007.
The ads focus on what, clearly, is Barack Obama’s big weakness: an economy that continues to sputter along three years after he took office, with unemployment stuck around 9 percent.
And this is, clearly, the right debate to have.
What could Mr. Obama have done differently to help Americans facing a foreclosure crisis and chronic unemployment? What policies might have been more effective at shoring up the middle class?
What role should government play in restoring prosperity, if any?
Which is why it’s so bizarre that Mr. Romney and Mr. Perry chose to base their new ads not on policy ideas, or on fact-based criticism of Mr. Obama, but on unambiguously, demonstrably false bits of doctored video.
Mr. Perry’s advertisement, which you can see here, includes a clip of Mr. Obama purportedly saying, “We’ve been a little bit lazy I think the last couple of decades.”
“Can you believe that?” Gov. Perry responds indignantly. “That’s what our President thinks wrong with America? That Americans are lazy?
The problem, of course, is that Mr. Obama didn’t say that. At all. Again, this isn’t shades of gray stuff.
In fact, Mr. Obama was talking to a group of corporate executives about the need for American officials and corporations to work harder to attract foreign investment. Here are his comments in full:
“I think it’s important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. And there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity — our stability, our openness, our innovative free market culture. But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.”
The Washington Post’s “FactChecker” column gave Perry’s ad its lowest “four Pinocchio” rating — which means the ad contained “whoppers.”
Perry and Romney have ripped Obama’s remarks completely out of context, similar to Romney’s ridiculous Four-Pinocchio claim that Obama “apologized” for America overseas.
In both cases, the candidates are trying to feed into a subterranean narrative that Obama is not quite American, or certainly not proud to be an American. But, frankly, it’s just lazy politicking on their part.
Mitt Romney’s new ad, which you can see here, may be even lazier.
It appears to quote Mr. Obama saying, “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” As if he’s referring to the likely outcome in the upcoming presidential race.
Only here’s the problem: When Mr. Obama spoke those words, in 2008, he wasn’t even president yet. And he was actually quoting Republican Senator John McCain, then his rival for the White House.
The full sentence, edited by Mr. Romney’s team smack in the middle goes like this: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.'”
Yes, I know, false advertising is a mainstay of modern American politics.
But these TV spots come at a terrible time for the GOP slate of contenders, who are desperately trying to establish their credentials as viable contenders for the White House, at a time when the country needs strong leadership.
It comes at a time when Americans are really leery of Washington-as-usual gamesmanship. I think that’s one reason that Newt Gingrich’s numbers continue to climb. For all his foibles, he seems to really be talking about problems and solutions.
This is also a moment when the President appears legitimately vulnerable to reasoned, thoughtful and critical attack on his policies.
But if Gov. Perry and Mr. Romney have to resort to this kind of sleight-of-hand tape editing, what does it say about the real goods — the ideas, the passion, the leadership — they bring to the fight?
As always, your comments welcome.
I think many independent voters see through this garbage and, unless a new third party candidate emerges, will ultimately vote for Obama (perhaps reluctantly) and give him a close electoral victory.
Personally, I want an alternative to our current POTUS, but not once current candidate on the Republican ticket is remotely appealing to me, including Gingerich. It really is a shame that this group seems to be the best the Republican party can muster.
Do you really mean independent voters, or intelligent voters? ;)
I agree, none of the current Republican candidates are appealing
Attack ads work. Thats why they use them.
Perry and Romney use these tactics because they work. Maybe a significant number of independent voters see through these lies, but I doubt it. Unfortunately, debate based on facts, evidence, and policy questions rarely happen these days. The most important thing in the minds of conservatives is to get rid of President Obama. And, the tactics used in doing so don’t matter too much.
To me, it is like living in a town with a severe crime wave at election time. Incumbent Sheriff Barney Phyffe hasn’t done much to control the problem, but I have some real concerns about the challenger, Mr. Anthony Soprano.
More the point, great post Brian! These distortions (as with those from the other side), need to be pounced on and exposed with greater regularity by the media and the public. If we made elections more about the honesty of the candidates claims (“If you lie or distort, you don’t get my vote.”) , we would have much better candidates. Hope this one makes your ADE column.
Unfortunately, in today’s news outlets, you cannot report these “distortions” (lies). Reporting facts is considered partisan.
I’m not sure I’d call them lazy. Seems pretty calculated to me.
A good amount of people won’t know, or won’t care about, the truth behind these deceptions. The people who made these ads are counting on that.
The current GOP has a different definition of “truth” than the traditional one associated with the pinochios. It is not related to objective truth but more an emotional truth. Calling Obama a socialist, for example. The all do it, even Gingrich who probably actually knows what the definition of socialist is. The media bothering to Point out that Obama is not a socialist is not really going to do much.
and Brian – I would take strong issue with your statement “This is also a moment when the President appears legitimately vulnerable to reasoned, thoughtful and critical attack on his policies.”
The president is legitimately vulnerable because unemployment is so high. Where have you heard any “reasoned, thoughtful and critical attacks on his policies”? Maybe from Paul Krugman.
Peter – Newt Gingrich did use the term “reactionary socialist” a day or so ago, so he either doesn’t know what a socialist is or what a reactionary is or both.
He said that American businesses had gotten lazy when it comes to trying to attract foreign investments. How is that not telling those businesses that they are lazy? He said what he said.
In the following article from a British newspaper April 3rd of 2009 the author subtitled that the president had offered an apology and later referred to the president’s comments as a mea culpa used to alter European views to prompt more engagement in Afganistan. While not saying we apologize or we’re sorry, that writer the statements as an apology.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5100338/Barack-Obama-arrogant-US-has-been-dismissive-to-allies.html
Same day, same paper different author
“By Toby Harnden World Last updated: April 3rd, 2009
Here in the Rhenus Sports Arena in Strasbourg, I’ve just witnessed what is surely a very important – I hesitate to say historic – moment in transatlantic relations. Barack Obama went further than any previous president in apologising for American behaviour.”
While the words apologize or sorry were not in the statements these were two perceptions of English reporters-not Republicans on that particular speech. So if fact-check is based on explicit wording what the president said doesn’t make the bar but people look for meaning not words.
I won’t disagree our politics have been ham-handed at times and am comfortable saying we goofed or did wrong- depending on the issue.
Paul – I think he said that the businesses had gotten lazy about going after exports.
peter is right, paul is just perpetuating the distortion. there’s a big difference between saying that american businesses are lazy in general (paul’s take) and that american officials and businesses have been lazy about promoting america abroad (what obama actually said).
“I think that’s one reason that Newt Gingrich’s numbers continue to climb. For all his foibles, he seems to really be talking about problems and solutions.”
Hahahahahahahahaha! Good one, Brian.
The puzzling thing is, there’s a sane GOPer without the Romney baggage, name of Huntsman, and nobody pays him any mind.
Kevin Drum asks a good question:
“How flat-out, knowingly false does something have to be before the press is willing to just call it a lie? We’re about to find out!”
Don’t be shocked by all this. We are just seeing the start of a very ugly campaign season. I was just reading an article that pointed out Obama will have no choice but to run a negative campaign due to his very poor performance over the last three years. If you can’t run on your accomplishments what’s left?
of course that’s a fine point, pnelba, but let’s not kid ourselves. it’s much more important for the press to appear unbiased than to tell the truth.
take the failure of the super committee. it failed because of republican intransigence. full stop. democrats, as usual, were willing to offer all kinds of concessions to make a deal, but republicans wouldn’t budge on taxes. and now the press reports have to make it sound like somehow both sides are equally at fault. it’s really quite a crock.
but how poor has obama’s performance really been, gary? his foreign policy — crucially, an area in which he’s not been constrained by congress — has been incredibly successful. obviously the economy remains in very bad shape, but obama’s intervention likely staved off a depression. i wish he’d done a lot better too*, but they policy errors that have occurred under him have been almost uniformly been ones of excess conservatism.
*and although, yes, obama is the guy at the top, life is complicated and it’s not like everything is his fault (just like the recession is by no means 100% bush’s fault). a better congress and better monetary policy from the fed would make a huge difference.
Attack ads tend to work for both sides. It’s in the middle where can backfire.
Hermit, Well when members of your own party treat you like your “radioactive” and would rather you not campaign in their state, I’d say your performance has been sub par.
Gary – the president’s low popularity is far far higher than congress’s.
Peter, This is true but congress is made up of many individuals whereas we have only one president. But we both know both congress and the president have very low ratings. Some of the lowest ratings in history.
i disagree, gary. that some democrats don’t want to campaign with obama is an indication of his unpopularity, nothing more and nothing less. that’s different from his performance.
Gary, will you please be more precise in how President Obama has performed poorly. I’m interested in specifics.
Gary – Obama has failed to move the GOP. Thats his performance “failure”.
Well, his PERFORMANCE, or lack of, is the reason for his unpopularity. He was focused on a health bill when the public wanted help with jobs/economy. He ran on “hope and change” most Americans feel cheated. I believe unemploment was 8% when he took office. For the past three years it has been 9% or higher. Maybe I should ask you, why do you think he is unpopular?
”
I believe unemploment was 8% when he took office. For the past three years it has been 9% or higher. ”
So Bush cranked it up to 8% during his time at the wheel, and Obama’s net gain was only 1% ??
Am i making an assumption here or playing semantics using “reporter’s math”?
Gary, you are correct that President Obama probably should have addressed jobs before health care. But thousands of people have hope now thanks to the ACA. Students can remain on their parents health insurance and people can no longer be dropped from their health insurance policy because of pre-existing conditions.
As for change – I think President Obama was talking about our political system – how Congress interacts with the executive branch. Can you honestly say the President has not bent over backward in trying to compromise with Conservatives?
Also, it is incorrect to say that he has not focused on jobs or the economy. He did sucessfully bail out the auto industry which is thriving today and adding jobs. He has done nothing but talk about the economy for the last several years and has proposed policies that would provide jobs. Unfortunately, there are those that say, without any evidence, that only cutting taxes will create jobs.
“”How flat-out, knowingly false does something have to be before the press is willing to just call it a lie? ”
This is an important question. Brian? Martha? Dale? I’d be interesting hearing from someone in the media on this.
Dave, Remember that during the campaign season there are millions of dollars to be made or LOST through campaign ads. Call me a liar and I doubt you would see any money from my political party. NPR is in a unique situation but they still have to be careful. Wasn’t it last year the GOP wanted to greatly cut back funds to PBS?
“What could Mr. Obama have done differently to help Americans facing a foreclosure crisis and chronic unemployment? What policies might have been more effective at shoring up the middle class?”
For starters, how about all the things Obama promised and has been trying to do but the Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail to keep him from doing. They said at the outset what their agenda was, to make Obama a one term president. They haven’t had a new positive policy idea since Bush. In fact the few proposals they do make are rehashes of the Bush policies that got us into the current mess. There are things they could propose but the GOP is too beholden to the 1%.
Gary, are you implying that NPR has to “satisfy” Conservatives in order to survive? If so, does that mean they have to perpetuate lies to survive?
Paul’s comment, “He said what he said” illustrates why attack ads work. Some people will believe what they want to believe, no matter the truth. Give them an ad that speaks to them and it won’t matter if it is subsequently revealed as a pack of lies.
How false does something have to be before the press will call it a lie? So false it becomes embarrassing to repeat it. Look how gingerly the press treated the birthers’ lies for months, even years. It wasn’t until Pres. Obama released his birth certificate that many in the press finally called out the birthers as liars.
What percentage of the GOP is in the 1% ?
I’m gonna guess about 99%.
Does the media have an obligation not to air an ad that they know is a blatant lie?
2 cents – probably not even close. But it makes one wonder why a good portion of the 99% support the 1% so strongly.
i again disagree, gary. i think you’re conflating obama’s performance with that of the country as a whole. i don’t deny for a second that things are going poorly. and i think that’s why obama’s unpopular — no president is going to keep his/her numbers up for long in a sucky economy. but obama inherited that sucky economy. he entered office just after the worst financial crisis since the one that birthed the great depression. and he’s done… ok. i can tick off things that he could have done better just like anyone else, but you might have noticed there’s been no depression this time (though europe might still have the last word on that…).
Apparently American businesses are thin-skinned too. Didn’t the President use the phrase “We’ve” been lazy??
God knows you can’t ever criticize an American….remember Carter?
Pnelba-
I know it’s a rhetorical question that you asked, but in short:
Our human nature. People want a leader, and in the lack of a good one, they’ll take anyone. When it’s desperate, some will follow into the desert and eat sand.
Companies invest where there is money to be made. They may install manufacturing facilities to get past trade barriers such as tariffs. They don’t invest merely because someone courts them. They may invest if they want access to markets such as when China said to Boeing if you don’t build a factory here, we won’t buy your airplanes.
I have seen many reports over the past 20 years of our companies, and especially our government people going overseas supposedly to plead for business. The lazy statement is thoughtless. Could have used the word ineffective and said something like “redouble our efforts” and been less critical and more encouraging.
How ironic that people’s memories are so short. Newt Gringrich lead the charge for bank deregulation which started the Savings & Loan crisis and dominoed into the current modern day mortgage & lack of regulation on derivatives crisis. He is all about deregulating and that’s what gets this country in trouble all the time (and he’s running for president?).
Another misnomer that is repeated is that the ‘jobless rate is at the worst since the great depression.’ At 9%? How quickly we’ve forgotten that the jobless rate during the Reagan administration exceeded 10% and we also had inflation, with Reaganomics, the new quote was ‘stagnation’. It was the worst of times.
During the Bush administration, we went from a surplus to a deficit and additionally, kept the money for the wars off the books until Obama got in office. So if you take the deficit that was inherited by Obama and then add in the Surplus money (they must have spent that as well, right), then the past 10 years of tax breaks for the RICH – IT’S NOT WORKING so don’t blame Obama.
Jeff, you don’t think it would be fair to characterize Detroit automakers as lazy at several periods in the last forty years? Surely you remember them continuing to crank out the gas guzzlers despite rising gas prices more than once (unless you’re pretty young). What’s interesting is seeing Japanese car makers doing the same thing now… Of course, it’s even more interesting that some people keep buying oversized SUVs.
Re: November 22, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Two thumbs down? really? that isn’t a legitimate curiosity to wonder how many of our Congressional leaders would be considered to be in the top 1% of the wealth holders in this country? or did i mispeak in singling out the GOP, let me then rephrase and include our Democratic bretheren too.
Walker- the context of “laziness” was in regard to bringing investment into this country and within the last 20 years- not the quality of products. Traditional American car companies have improved substantially in that time. I agree that in the 70’s and 80’s quality was not a high priority.
There are other factors affecting interest in US development and the rise of other economies are major factors in the last 20 years.
If oversized SUV’s are what people want sell them. Gas guzzlers? They are utility vehiclesl for a reason.
Two, I think the thumbses down (swear I wasn’t one of them) came about because you said “GOP,” implying all Republicans, and not “GOP Congressional members” or some such. Maybe all GOPers believe they’ll someday be in the 1%, but saying they already are is not statistically accurate. :)