Romney camp hits back at DNC for “Mitt v. Mitt” attack ad

November 28, 2011

Mitt Romney’s campaign lined up a bevy of surrogates on Monday to respond to the DNC’s new “Mitt v. Mitt” ad campaign by pressing home their point that Obama is attacking Romney in order to avoid talking about the sputtering U.S. economy.

Although Romney had no public events scheduled for Monday, his campaign arranged a series of conference calls with supporters to “discuss President Obama’s record.”

Former Minnesota Governor and presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, three Ohio legislators, and New Hampshire’s state Senate Majority leader and House Majority leader were among supporters who set up at least six different press conference calls with reporters in states targeted by the DNC.

Their message: Obama is attacking Romney because he doesn’t want to talk about the high 9 percent unemployment rate.

“Before the first vote in the Republican primary is even cast, the Democrats are blasting Mitt Romney and trying to tear him down, and I think the reason for that is they don’t want to focus on their own failure,” said Pawlenty, who joined Romney’s team after ending his own presidential campaign in August. “The last thing they want to do is run against Mitt Romney.”

Photo credit: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

7 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Soooo, they didn’t answer the ad’s charges of Mitt’s flip-floping? Gee, I wonder why not? As for the unemployment rate, I’m sure Obama would love to talk about 30 years of Reaganomics and ongoing Republican obstructionism.

Posted by KWE | Report as abusive

LOL, this is just plain comedy considering this coming from same people who less then a week ago where in the news for taking an Obama quote out of context. And they ADMITTED to doing it on purpose AND kept the ad running. Then the cry about this? Seriously the average 10-year old has more maturity then that.

Posted by USAPragmatist | Report as abusive

@USAPragmatist

I agree, it is hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. Of course this is just a repeat of the last 30 years of elections of each side taking things out of context and running ads on it. More of the same until we get publiclcy financed elections.

Posted by UnPartisan | Report as abusive

Poor Mitt. Let me know which one came forward. I can see a great ad campaign featuring Mitt the wrestler and Mitt the boxer. Which one will win ? Hypocrisy so far is only on the Republican side of the aisle. They lied on their first ad out and were brazen enough to keep running it even when it was pointed out to them that it was a lie. Republicans can keep talking about the economy because it is bad, but I have not heard one peep from Willard as to what he intends to do about it. Something that will succeed I mean.

Posted by aota | Report as abusive

UnPartisan: For the US to move forward we have to get away from excusing every misdeed committed by any politician by simply saying, well they all do it. Not good enough.

There is no excuse for Mitt Romney’s campaign to run an ad for the intended purpose of deceiving the public. Since when is that okay? It’s not, and if Obama’s campaign does the same thing, he, too, should be called on to pull it. One can only assume that Romney would govern the say way, telling people whatever works for Mitt Romney. That conduct is habitual with Romney.

A difference of opinion on issues is one thing, but a knowing lie is unacceptable. Where would it end? Our country is suffering enough due to our unwillingness to regulate how we finance our political campaigns. 94% of the candidates who spend the most money in their campaign wins his or her election. So what’s next, the winner goes to the candidate who lies the best? Absolutely not. Mitt Romney has a responsibility to the public to remove his deceptive, prevaricating ad, and if he was any kind of a man at all he’d remove it on ethical grounds, but apparently that’s asking too much of Mitt Romney.

Writing it off as ‘it comes with the territory’ has to stop, because frankly I’m not aware of Obama having done the same thing in 2008 against John McCain. But I do recall George W. Bush running those Swiftboat ads, discrediting John Kerry for honorably serving our nation when Bush avoided serving in Vietnam thanks to his dad’s connections.

I also recall the ad Saxby Chambliss ran against Max Cleland discrediting his service to our country and linking him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein during a 2002 Senate campaign, and Max Cleland sacrifice both of his legs and one arm in that service to his country. There were even Republicans, John McCain and Chuck Hagel, Cleland’s fellow servicemen who also served in Vietnam, who called on Chambliss to stop the ads. The smear campaigns against both Kerry and Cleland worked. They both lost their elections to two men who didn’t serve in Vietnam. Chambliss avoided service using 3 deferments.

How can a democracy function properly if the people are choosing their leaders based on lies? How can we make good choices for the country if we don’t know the truth about the candidates running for office? Since the GOP seems unable to monitor themselves then perhaps the government needs to create a bi-partisan panel that follows certain criteria to ascertain whether or not political ads are true or not. If not, the candidate must remove the ad by law. This demonstrate why there really is a need for government.

Posted by doggydaddy | Report as abusive

Wow look at the hypocrisy of the repulicans, so it’s okay to run the misformed cut & paste ads against Obama, but now it’s hurting when Democrats responds? I’m really glad that finally the democrats are playing the same game i.e. to retaliate.

Posted by politicaljunkie | Report as abusive

Romney has, according to the latest Rasmussen poll, fallen into a distant 2ND place; and in THIRD place in Iowa polling (behind Gingrich and Ron Paul). Odd that while Newt is surging in the polls, Obama continues to go after Romney. They must think that at some point, Newt’s candidacy will implode.

Posted by Red_In_Denver1 | Report as abusive