Obama Camp Goes After Romney On Fees, Outsourcing In New Ads

[ProSense]

Obama Camp Goes After Romney On Fees, Outsourcing In New Ads

The Obama campaign is continuing their attack on Mitt Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts with two new ads out Wednesday.

One, called “Mosaic,” attacks Romney for raising the tax burden as governor and hiking up fees on “for everything from milk to nursing homes, from school bus rides to poultry inspections.”

The second ad, called “Come and Go,” highlights Mitt Romney’s background at Bain Capital, saying that as a “corporate raider” Romney outsourced jobs – and “as governor, he did the same thing, outsourcing state jobs to India.”

The ads are running in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.

Watch “Mosaic”:

Watch “Come and Go”:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-camp-goes-after-romney-on-fees-outsourcing

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. If jobs should not be outsourced, why is another so-called "free trade" agreement in the works?

[ProSense]

3. Wait

"If jobs should not be outsourced, why is another so-called "free trade" agreement in the works?"

...are you making Romney's case?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. Obviously not.

[emulatorloo]

5. Just a knee-jerk response maybe?

I am sure you aren't trying to distract from Romney's record. Or draw a false equivalency.

[Flint Stone]

27. I hear you.....

Like NAFTA has created so many jobs here in the States.

[magical thyme]

7. it's a legitimate question

if a DUer can think to ask it, what's to stop Romney from asking it and making his own case?

Your defensive response to the question suggests you cannot think of a good answer to it. Hopefully *somebody* can think of a good answer to it, just in case Romney or someone on his team thinks to raise it.

Maybe they won't dare because they support free trade too, I don't know. But personally I think coming up with a good answer to the question would be a much, much better response.

[emulatorloo]

8. Is there an "Outsourcing American Jobs" section in the proposed agreement?

If so I would love to see some quotes from it.

As to Romney and his team, they will pretty much say anything and tell any lie they have to. I do have a feeling Plouffe etc are up on that.

[ProSense]

9. See the

"...what's to stop Romney from asking it and making his own case?"

...ads in the OP. Yeah, he'd ask it, but it would make him a complete hypocrite and a fool. Do you really think he wants to go there? Don't answer that.

Your defensive response to the question suggests you cannot think of a good answer to it. Hopefully *somebody* can think of a good answer to it, just in case Romney or someone on his team thinks to raise it.

See the above response and these:

Mitt Romney Commissioned Pro-America Pins --- Made Them In China
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002640392#post4

Meanwhile, Lynn Sweet at the Chicago Sun-Times notes that a conference call hosted by the Republican National Committee (RNC) yesterday attacking President Obama for “high unemployment” was hosted by a firm in The Philippines (apparently a subcontractor of Verizon, whom the RNC used).

It wasn't a "defensive response" that suggests I "cannot think of a good answer to it." It's easy enough to refrain from drawing false equivalencies to step all over two very good ads against Romney.

See, I'm not interested in campaigning against the President, especially using bullshit comparisons.

[emulatorloo]

10. Agreed, appears to be a non-sequiter to distract from effective ads and Romney's record as Governor.

[magical thyme]

13. you see, you responded to me with an example of why Romney can't go there

All you needed to do was respond to the original question with a similar example. Because right now, trade agreements are linked with outsourcing in many people's minds. Especially those of us who have been deeply impacted by outsourcing. So they are a sore spot. From a campaign perspective, obviously it's better to kick Romney on his outsourcing sore spots because he doesn't dare kick back, but the fact is that until somebody shows otherwise, they are a sore spot for dems too.

Some of us are on dial up. Some of us can't even afford digital tv antennas on the roof, and are too rural to get tv without them. So we can't see the ads, either posted here or on tv.

Your response appeared defensive because you couldn't be bothered to answer that poster's question.

"See, I'm not interested in campaigning against the President, especially using bullshit comparisons."

Once you post a thread, you're out in the real world, where you may be asked hard questions. You can help the President by giving direct answers to questions that your posts invoke, or you can hurt the President by blowing off people who ask questions you don't like. The choice really is up to you.

[ProSense]

15. Actually

"you see, you responded to me with an example of why Romney can't go there.

All you needed to do was respond to the original question with a similar example."

...here was my response: See the ads in the OP. Yeah, he'd ask it, but it would make him a complete hypocrite and a fool. Do you really think he wants to go there? Don't answer that.

"Once you post a thread, you're out in the real world, where you may be asked hard questions. You can help the President by giving direct answers to questions that your posts invoke, or you can hurt the President by blowing off people who ask questions you don't like. The choice really is up to you. "

Are you serious?

I'm under no obligation to chase tails.

[magical thyme]

16. I didn't say you were under any obligation to do anything

I said you have a choice. You made your choice, the same one you make consistently. Which doesn't help the President that you claim you want to help, imo.

[ProSense]

18. Question:

I didn't say you were under any obligation to do anything

I said you have a choice. You made your choice, the same one you make consistently. Which doesn't help the President that you claim you want to help, imo.

Do you fashion yourself as a forum police?

I mean, if I wanted to respond to every comment with, "+1," "-1," "=1," "FAIL" or something else, I could. Is there a rule that comments should "help the President"?

Are you trying to "help the President"? Or are you simply hijacking the thread over a non sequitur?

[magical thyme]

21. no, there is no rule that comments should "help the President"

and no, I am not the forum police.

You have stated:

"See, I'm not interested in campaigning against the President,"

And asked:

"are you trying to make Romney's case?"

Which I interpreted, also in light of the content of the OP and many of the replies, that you are trying to help the President. And I expressed the opinion that blowing off people doesn't help the President.

This is a *discussion* forum, is it not? So people *discuss.* The offer their perspective. Sometimes that takes things off on a tangent.

I don't think moving from "outsourcing" to "free trade agreements" which are seen to foster outsourcing, is a non sequitor.

On the other hand, I think the following is totally a non sequitor. Don't see how it relates to anything here:

I mean, if I wanted to respond to every comment with, "+1," "-1," "=1," "FAIL" or something else, I could. Is there a rule that comments should "help the President"?

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider an appropriate response to the OP? "RAH!RAH!" "GO GET'EM!" "+1,000,000!"?

Or discussion of the content, potential blowback, responses to potential blowback or why potential blowback won't happen?

Rhetorical question. I honestly don't care.

[Flint Stone]

28. I'm not interested in campaigning against the President either

But I'm not reading a whole lot of good new about this Trans-Pacific Partnership, and apparently he's for it.

Rest assured this TPP agreement will be signed, and American labor will get fucked again because both Romney and Obama are all for it.

This is just another nail in the coffin of the middle class, and I think election season is the perfect time to bring it up.

You see, I'm not a Republican, I don't tote anybody's line but my own.

[NNN0LHI]

11. You should have been concerned about that when my job was outsourced, in the early 1980's

Were you concerned about outsourcing back then?

Don

[emulatorloo]

12. Probably arguing like I was then - that "Dems and Republicans are the same"

Fortunately I came to my senses sometime in Reagan's second term.

[magical thyme]

14. I can't speak for Macintosh

but I can tell you I was. My boss was one of the people proposing it. When I raised the question of "who is going to buy our products if we outsource jobs to whereever" she went off the deep end screaming at me. I read later that they expected to find a billion new customers in India and another billion in China, so were essentially blowing off little USA, with our paltry 300mill or so.

She ended up an executive VP at Gartner Group, who was instrumental in pushing the high tech industry to outsource work. She's now retired and probably made it into the top 10% or better. I suspect she's the head of the identity theft ring operating out of HP.

I ended up like so many others; losing most everything I saved over the last decade and hanging by my fingernails.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. Are you assuming that any poster such as myself was not concerned about "free-trade"

agreements when you "job was outsourced, in the early 1980's"?

If there is any logic in assuming that raising concerns about another so-called "free-trade" agreement means that any particular poster supported or was indifferent to jobs were outsourced in the 1980's, I don't see it.

If you are otherwise just asking whether I was concerned in the 1980's, the answer is yes. In fact, I was concerned prior to that in the 1970's.

Outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs actually started earlier, in the 1970's, when Nixon went to Red China and various electronic companies began manufacturing in the Far East. Prior to Nixon's visit, all televisions were manufactured in the United States. His visit changed that.

[jonthebru]

20. Not every "free trade" agreement involves outsourcing or moving jobs out of the country.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

24. Name one "free-trade" agreement that didn't involve the outsourcing of jobs. Just one.

[Atman]

2. I think I've used those same stock photos a hundred times.

Doing political mail, those were among our favorite seniors. "Real" America! LOL!

[WI_DEM]

6. Good!!

[HopeHoops]

17. Good message.

[Swede Atlanta]

19. I think these ads are effective

As to the issue of free-trade agreements, 2 comments or observations.

First, one reason why these have historically been so damaging to American workers is because the agreements either do not include provisions about workers rights, health and safety, etc. or those provisions have never been enforced against a country like Mexico.

Second, part of the reasoning behind these agreements is it is supposed to reduce barriers to American businesses competing in these new markets. The idea being that American goods are now sold in these markets. Those American goods need to be manufactured somewhere and that somewhere has always been assumed to be the U.S. What has happened, of course, is the goods of American companies or multi-nations are making their way into these new markets but the goods being sold are not made in the U.S.. The goods are made in other countries and then sold in the new markets.

I do believe that with or without free trade agreements, American companies would have moved a significant number of jobs overseas. The only way to make them think twice is when doing so does not save any money. Tax incentives and disincentives would be one way to make the practice of outsourcing less attractive. Adding vigorous oversight of the safety of imported goods with the cost charged to those that would import them is another.

[erpowers]

22. Good Ads

These ads can make people think about what Mitt Romney might do if he becomes President.

[RBInMaine]

25. Another GOOD ONE ! Go right after the bastard ! I like this because it attacks him in MANY ways.

First, it attacks him as being an out of touch member of the 1% who cut taxes for the rich but SCREWED everyone else. It attacks the very Republican LIE that THEY are the tax cutters for everyone. NOT TRUE ! The asshole raised FEES on TONS of things that middle classers had to pay for. It again attacks his economics credentials HEAD ON. It attacks his shitty record as governor. It is just a WONDERFUL attack ad that frames this bastard RoMONEY just the way he needs to be framed up. MORE MORE MORE !! NONSTOP. Keep letting the bastard have it right in the eyeballs !

[Flint Stone]

26. When I saw the 1000 fee hikes, I thought it was about Ebay

LOL