Ad War Update

Apr 17 2012 @ 12:00am

Obama's Super PAC spotlights Romney's riches: 

Paul Waldman comments on the now-famous photo at the center of the ad: 

Romney hasn't really told a persuasive story about how his personal wealth figures into his candidacy. Other rich candidates have; Ross Perot, for instance, argued that he put aside his successful business to help the country out of its terrible deficit problem. It seemed to make sense; there were reasons Perot didn't win, but being too rich wasn't one of them. Romney would like us to think that his success in business is evidence that he's smart, competent, and understands the economy, and these are all things that would make his presidency just as successful as Bain Capital. And maybe they would. But the Obama folks are going to do their best to make sure every time he tries to make that case, they're there to say, "Oh yeah? Just look at this picture."

The Obama campaign annotates Romney's NRA speech: 

Meanwhile, the RNC issues the latest in its "'Hope' to Hypocrisy" series: 

Alex Burns has more

There's a bit of a messaging chess game being played here between Obama and Republicans, as the president starts to pre-spin a possible summer economic slowdown (he has said inaction on Capitol Hill could stall recovery) and the GOP tries to preempt any inclination the public might have to cut Obama some additional slack. The RNC message fits in with the second goal, as well as the broader Republican priority of making sure Obama pays as high a price for the recession as possible.

Lastly, the RNC latches onto the GSA scandal:

Mataconis rolls his eyes

Testifying under oath before Congress without knowing whether ones words could end up becoming the basis of a criminal charge is positively idiotic, and it would have been malpractice for an attorney not to advise their client to assert their 5th Amendment rights. For confirmation of that fact, one need look no further than the case of Roger Clemens, who foolishly volunteered to testify before a Congressional Committee when he didn’t have to and is now again on trial for perjury (the first trial having been dismissed when prosecutors accidentally used inadmissible evidence during their opening statement). Not only is it not surprising that these individuals plead the 5th, it would have been surprising if they hadn’t. 

Previous Ad War Updates: Apr 13Apr 11Apr 10Apr 9Apr 5Apr 4Apr 3Apr 2Mar 30Mar 27Mar 26Mar 23Mar 22Mar 21Mar 20Mar 19Mar 16Mar 15Mar 14Mar 13Mar 12Mar 9Mar 8Mar 7Mar 6Mar 5Mar 2Mar 1Feb 29Feb 28Feb 27Feb 23Feb 22Feb 21, Feb 17, Feb 16, Feb 15, Feb 14, Feb 13, Feb 9, Feb 8, Feb 7, Feb 6, Feb 3, Feb 2, Feb 1, Jan 30, Jan 29, Jan 27, Jan 26, Jan 25, Jan 24, Jan 22, Jan 20, Jan 19, Jan 18, Jan 17, Jan 16 and Jan 12.