DNC Romney Attack Ad

I’ve noted repeatedly over the past few weeks my sense that Mitt Romney is the Republican frontrunner for 2012. Apparently, the Democratic National Committee agrees. Politico’s Mike Allen:

DNC TARGETS ROMNEY with a video titled, “Wall Street’s Best Friend.” A Dem. official: “We’re not waiting until this fall to make a campaign issue out of unanimous Republican opposition to Wall Street reform, we’re starting right now. The video … is indicative of attacks other Republicans can expect if they continue to stand with Wall Street executives over Main Street Americans.”

Here’s the video:

It’s truly remarkable that, months ahead of an election in which they’re projected to lose a massive number of seats in the House and Senate, the Democrats are spending their money attacking a former Republican governor.   I know we talk about a “permanent campaign” but this is ridiculous.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics, , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. john personna says:

    It’s truly remarkable that, months ahead of an election in which they’re projected to lose a massive number of seats in the House and Senate, the Democrats are spending their money attacking a former Republican governor. I know we talk about a “permanent campaign” but this is ridiculous.

    Same battle.

    I’m actually surprised by the Republican opposition to Wall Street regulation. I guess I was lulled by their Tea Party overtures, and thought they would court popular discontent.

    Are they blowing it?

  2. James Joyner says:

    I’m not sure. Unlike healthcare, I think most Republicans agree that reform is needed and on the general direction reform needs to take. And I can’t imagine that some significant number won’t climb on board once they get all the compromises they can. But there does seem to be a strong bet on “We can’t let Obama have any more wins.”

  3. john personna says:

    The thing I’m most annoyed with this morning is the way Republicans have … lied really … about this $50 billion bailout fund.

    They act as if it is from general revenues and just continues the madness of the past, hiding that it is exactly the opposite. As I understand it, that $50 billion will be collected as fees from the very institutions which risk blowup and bailout.

    Of course Wall Street hates paying their own bills, and I guess of course the Republican party is still more big business than tea party.

  4. G.A.Phillips says:

    I guess I was lulled by their Tea Party overtures, and thought they would court popular discontent

    Once again you guys should watch Beck, very good show about how Obama is in neck deep with Goldman sucks personal, in a another grand conspiracy, er, whatever, just saying.

    But I’m sure you liberals have excuses sent via the talking point apparatus ready?

  5. john personna says:

    I, the moderate, have mentioned a few times how I thought Goldman had too much power, and that I thought Obama was too friendly to their ilk.

    That’s why it’s kind of strange that he and the Dems seem to be turning to a better strategic position here.

    Regarding James earlier comment about compromise … of course Republicans want compromise that lets them please both Wall Street and appease the Tea Party (or vis versa). Of course, the Dems might be smart enough not to give them that.

    As strategy, the Dems are better served if they can put up a plan that seems totally reasonable to the mainstream (and more moderate Tea Partiers) and have the Republicans refuse it. That sets them up, going into November, as the party of Wall Street.

  6. Dantheman says:

    john p,

    “I guess I was lulled by their Tea Party overtures, and thought they would court popular discontent.”

    Why? The Tea Partiers are well explained as the far-rightmost group of Republicans who rise up every time a Democrat enters the White House, funded and reflecting the policy preferences of wealthy donors who really want to use these groups to prevent the new President from taking away what the donors feel is theirs.

    They rose in 1961, in 1977, in 1993 and again in 2009. Their rhetoric is largely unchanged, except for the specifics of which policies of the day constitute creeping socialism. And each time the so-called liberal media is taken in and thinks that the movement is new and spontaneous, never mentioning the wealthy right-wing funders, and must be taken seriously, no matter how little their rhetoric reflects reality.

    Were the Tea Partiers real centrist anti-government populists, they would be on the forefront of opposition to the new Arizona “immigration” law, as there are few government intrusions worse than being able to jail someone for no reason other than not having proper papers with them at all times. This is the sort of law totalitarian governments worldwide have used to control the populace. Instead, we hear silence.

    Were the Tea Partiers really opposed to deficit spending on Wall Street bailouts, they would be in favor of the anti-bailout provisions which were in the bill, as they were funded by the banks themselves to have money available for bailouts if needed. Instead, we hear opposition.

  7. G.A.Phillips says:

    Why? The Tea Partiers are well explained as the far-rightmost group of Republicans who rise up every time a Democrat enters the White House, funded and reflecting the policy preferences of wealthy donors who really want to use these groups to prevent the new President from taking away what the donors feel is theirs.

    lol!

    They rose in 1961, in 1977, in 1993 and again in 2009. Their rhetoric is largely unchanged, except for the specifics of which policies of the day constitute creeping socialism. And each time the so-called liberal media is taken in and thinks that the movement is new and spontaneous, never mentioning the wealthy right-wing funders, and must be taken seriously, no matter how little their rhetoric reflects reality.

    lol!!

    Were the Tea Partiers real centrist anti-government populists, they would be on the forefront of opposition to the new Arizona “immigration” law, as there are few government intrusions worse than being able to jail someone for no reason other than not having proper papers with them at all times. This is the sort of law totalitarian governments worldwide have used to control the populace. Instead, we hear silence.

    lol!!!

    Were the Tea Partiers really opposed to deficit spending on Wall Street bailouts, they would be in favor of the anti-bailout provisions which were in the bill, as they were funded by the banks themselves to have money available for bailouts if needed. Instead, we hear opposition.

    lol!!!!

  8. G.A.Phillips says:

    Once again you guys should watch Beck, very good show about how Obama is in neck deep with Goldman sucks personal, in a another grand conspiracy, er, whatever, just saying.

    Oh wait, what was I thinking, none of you liberals would believe the truth about this man, even if he told it to you himself like he did on the campaign trail or like he does evey day like a dozen times.

    Forget about it………..

  9. floyd says:

    Oh look! It’s class warfare! Why?
    Because it works,politicians cry… don’t look at my crimes, blame them and elect us again!
    Why do they treat the electorate like fools?
    Because it works!

  10. Dantheman says:

    GA,

    Thank you for the detailed, point-by-point refutation of what I said.

  11. Drew says:

    You know, I’ve always said, when a country has a GDP growth problem, a budget and balance sheet problem, the thing to do is reject a successful businessman for President, a guy who has dealt with these issues all his life, and elect a lawyer and community organizer.

    Brilliant.

  12. An Interested Party says:

    Just out of curiosity, who was the last successful businessman elected president who helped boost GDP and balance the budget?

  13. john personna says:

    Which successful businessman was that? Did the Republicans pass him their nomination?

    (McCain is a genuine hero, but I think he worked in private industry for only about one year, around 1981.)

  14. john personna says:

    (Doh! Sorry, you probably meant Sarah!)

  15. Dantheman says:

    AIP,

    I think the answer is Carter.

  16. Dan says:

    Oh, this is utterly ridiculous. Check out this for a little perspective on the DNC attacks.