Romney touts "strong leadership" in new ad

(CBS News) In a new campaign ad out Friday morning, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney takes on the Obama campaign's recent criticisms at his past gubernatorial record, presenting a series of achievements in Massachusetts as evidence of his "strong leadership" in the state.

"Mitt Romney on day one. The difference is strong leadership," a narrator in the ad intones, obliquely referencing the president before ticking off a series of facts about his tenure lading the state.

"As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney had the best jobs record in a decade," the narrator says. "Romney reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent. He balanced every budget without raising taxes. He did it by bringing parties together to cut through gridlock."

"From day one as president, Mitt Romney's strong leadership will make all the difference on jobs," the ad continues.

The 30-second spot is an apparent response to the Obama campaign's recent attack on Romney's record in Massachusetts. In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" over the weekend, Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod hammered Romney's claims on job creation during his term as governor from 2003 to 2007, and earlier this week, the campaign released a new ad calling Romney's Massachusetts jobs record "one of the worst" in the country.

The Romney campaign did not announce where the ad is running or how much it's spending on air time.

[hhandyman]

a bit of secret or right guard will cure that strong odor. and wont kill as many jobs for the middle class. its all about Mitts governers roll and what he failed to get done there or what he did do that didnt really assist his state to a better than low average in success in the same era as Bush.. of course that appointed president seemingly only brought the us DEBT from his rich man givaway tax breaks and the UN PAID wars he left us with.

[magicbymark]

Mitt, on day one you'll be conceding defeat by a slim margin of 53% to 47% of the voting public. Which is about right given the fact that there are more people making $50,000 or less than the folks making a million dollars or more. we know that we'll never be millionaires if you're elected. Day one. Concede.

[BlameRepublicanz]

Donald Trump belittles Romney's business background and calls him "just a fund guy"...pretty much insults him on national TV...then Romney parades around with him talking about how happy he is to have his endorsement.

thats strong leadership?

[BlameRepublicanz]

Strong leadership from mitt huh...like when he couldnt stand up to Rush Limbaugh when he called that woman a **** and prostitute and only said "I wouldnt have used that kind of language" or when he's parading around town with the King Birther entertainer who is playing him for name recognition

[davcor2]

Come on folks . . . . Mitt couldn't lead a thirsty horse to water. Romney is the arrogant kid that was raised with a silver spoon. This is not about saving this country, for him it's about prestige and position. If you don't see that you are blind to the real facts.

[hillzhavays]

Perhaps you could provide some of those facts for us. What you've put here is called an "opinion". While colorful, it is certainly not a fact.

[2happy2ride]

The irony is actually laughable. It's very typical, character assassination posing as facts, misleading & arrogant assumptions & a narcissistic conclusion.
I would respond; You know absolutely NOTHING about Romney yet you know even LESS about the incompetent man you do support.
You dare accuse others of blindness to FACTS?? There is not 1 fact in your...whatever it is.

[RabidRighty]

Quit fooling yourselves. Romney and Obama are puppets from the same master. Quit pretending one is different than the other. Quit pretending the other party is going to come to the rescue. The same two parties have been rotating back and forth for how long now and look where we are.

If you vote for Romney or Obama, you are voting for all the failed policies of the past few decades...

[karlejohn]

This election is probably the most important that I can remember. Romney as been caught in too many flip-flops, just plain lies. Trying to be President by any means necessary. Matthew 25:45, "And he will answer, 'I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me."

[superdem1]

If Mitt Romney wins the Presidency, he will have shown the Democrats exactly what they must do:
1. Filibuster every Republican effort in the Senate from day 1, no matter what it is.
2. If a bill does beat the filibuster, attach obnoxious riders making passage impossible.
3. Filibuster every Republican nominee for every postion, paralyzing the government, even if the nominee is someone you like.
4. Declare Romney a "One Term President" and make his defeat priority number 1.
5. Question Mitt Romney's legitimacy at every opportunity, no matter how absurd, no matter what evidence shows.
6. Call Mitt Romney a Socialist every chance you get. Why not, if it works ? Americans don't know what a Socialist is anyway.
7. When it's time for re-election, declare him the most do-nothing, least effective, most radical President in American History.
8. Declare Mitt Romney a failure, even if his policies save the country, even if you once supported everything he did.

[lesserof2evil]

If Robme wins the election, it doesn't matter what the Dems do, this country will go down the toilet except for the 1% obviously.

[Lucky12345678]

The real nugget in the article is that Romney will negotiate while Obama will only attack... You must decide in November to continue "Hope and Change" or work together in building a future for the USA and it's children...

[RabidRighty]

Obama = Romney.

[Cru09]

I'd prefer to stay in my house and keep the job "hope and change" bestowed. Going back to GWB times means going back to having no career and no shelter, and if AZ is any indication, the future the GOP wants to build is only for the children that will soon be outnumbered.

[RabidRighty]

Choosing between Obama and Romney is like choosing between STDs. No matter who wins, we lose. They are more the same than they are different.

Please tell me how replacing one plutocratic, millionaire Harvard lawyer with another plutocratic, millionaire Harvard lawyer makes any difference in the end?