Mr.Soptic pictured above in Obama Campaign Ad, appears in Obama Super PAC Tying Romney to Soptic's Wife's Death - Image and article: Foxnews.com
A new ad from a Political Super PAC which backs President Barack Obama’s reelection effort, released on the 7th of August, is just steps from being slanderous, plays upon a man’s grief, and has drawn criticism from CNN as well as the Boston Globe. The Globe’s article: “Ad by pro-Obama super PAC exaggerates link between Mitt Romney and woman’s death from cancer” reveals some facts about the ad: the man in the ad, which the Obama Administration claims to have no prior knowledge was featured in a conference call with reporters two months ago, after the campaign launched two anti-Romney ads – during that call, “Soptic told the story of his wife’s death.” (Boston Globe)
Additionally, there are some flaws in the grief stricken man’s timeline: The plant where Mr. Soptic worked, was closed in 2001, Mitt Romney was busy running the Olympics in Salt Lake City (Denver Post, Feb. 2000). According to Politico, Mr. Soptic’s wife died in 2006, 5 years after the plant was closed leaving Mr. Soptic’s timeline of a wife dying 22 days after being diagnosed with terminal cancer 5 years after he lost a job at a plant which closed in 2001, is somehow tied to Mitt Romney in any way, shape or form, somewhat delusional. For the PAC, and the Campaign with full knowledge of the man’s history, to run the ad, is slanderous. That’s a new low in American politics.
Not for nothing, but the man is obviously grief stricken, it is 2012, his wife passed way six years ago, and he’s blaming a man that had zero connection to his family in this ad, and assuming that Mitt Romney had somehow been aware of his personal circumstances, but does not give a whit about his personal loss! It is human nature to want to cast blame when there is a loss, some people tend to handle grief better than others, therefore, Mr. Soptic has found a way to vent his grief, and mix that with a little politics. The Campaign and the PAC are using this man, in an attempt to smear the opposition and this is apparently just fine with some people.
The Los Angles Time’s, Michael Kinsley’s Op-ed “Kinsley: Hitting Romney below the belt? A pro-Obama attack ad implies that the GOP candidate is responsible for the death of an Indiana woman who lacked health insurance.” , consistently asks the rhetorical “So What?” when referring to falsehoods in the Pro Obama ad.
”Critics say that when her husband was let go, the woman still had health insurance through her own employer, but lost it when she had to quit her own job due to unrelated medical problems. Well, so what?Any story like this is going to involve a series of misfortunes.”……
“By the time the plant was closed, Romney was no longer in charge of day-to-day decisions at Bain. Again, so what?”
The Op-ed, interspersed with screamingly ridiculous assertions regarding Mitt Romney in general, is obvious in its intent to support the President – yet the tactic by the Obama Campaign to attempt to smear Romney by using his former association with Bain Capital have, to date, failed miserably. In late July of 2012 a poll by USA/Gallup found that by a margin of 2 to 1, respondents thought Romney was more capable of handling the economy than the President, in spite of Bain Capital. For the Obama Super PAC to use this particular tactic defies logic.
The nation is politically split, according to polls, however, that belies the fact that those who consider themselves independents, and can and will lean towards a candidate based upon their records to date, if available, and vote regardless of political affiliation of any candidate, and generally make the final decisions in any given election. An ad that is designed to appeal to the fringe elements of a candidate’s base, playing this late in the game, after the tactic has failed, suggests desperation.
Perhaps those polls showing the race as extremely close are not particularly accurate.
Perhaps the campaign is attempting to rattle Romney and PACs that back him to run ads that are similar in nature – thus being able to point to Mitt Romney running a negative campaign. Smartly, he has not taken the bait. Ads by the Romney campaign have been "compare and contrast" in nature. Although, Romney’s PAC’s can be just as vicious and play just as fast and loose with advertisements (review attacks on Gingrich and Santorum during the primary), those ads sunk to lows, gaining “Pinocchio’s” from the Washington Post – but somehow, not quite as low as accusing someone of murder. The Post routinely reviews political ads for falsehoods such as a recent Obama Campaign ad, receiving 4 “Pinocchio's” for falsehoods against Mitt Romney(Washington Post)
No comments:
Post a Comment