New Romney ads focus on his "first 100 days" as president
(CBS News) Mitt Romney's presidential campaign on Friday released four versions of a positive television ad, each tailored for a key swing state: Virginia, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina.
The ad focuses on what Romney would accomplish in his first 100 days as president, and each state hears a slightly different version: In Ohio, voters hear that Romney "stands up to China" on day one of his presidency and by day 100, "repeals regulations that are strangling our energy industry and costing us jobs." (watch at left) The other three states hear that Romney "moves to repeal Obamacare" on his first day.
The ads focus mostly on economic issues, which a new Pew report shows is the one area (out of a possible 10) where Romney has an advantage over President Obama. The poll also confirms that the economy is predictably the most important issue for voters.
Specifically, Virginians hear that Romney will increase offshore drilling and attack the deficit. Iowans learn of Romney's promise to work towards a balanced budget, and in North Carolina, voters learn that Romney will move to "cut taxes that kill jobs."
The swing state ads follow earlier Romney ads that made "Day One" promises.
Popular in Politics
- Adviser on White House scandals: "Partisan fishing expeditions" won't distract Obama 166 Comments
- Michelle Obama decries "slander" that educated blacks are "trying to act white" Play Video
- Romney condemns "breach of trust" in Washington
- Obama: Racism is no excuse for not excelling Play Video
- Benghazi-disciplined diplomat a prolific poet
- Republicans continue beating Benghazi drum 106 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice" 363 Comments
- Where is the Benghazi cover-up Republicans promised? 426 Comments
Mitt Romney's top economic advisers last week painted a clear portrait of the policy initiative the Republican presidential hopeful plans to use to restore robust growth to the U.S. economy. In a phrase: more tax breaks for business.
It's a lack of demand that's really impeding investment.
A growing number of economists and business leaders believe that lagging income, whether for people who already have jobs or those who are still un- or under-employed, has become the central problem facing the U.S. economy. Stagnant income explains why the rebound has failed to become self-sustaining, they say.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/06/11/Romneys-Jobs-Plan-Gets-Hammered-by-Economists.aspx#page1
Oh, yes, it was about Romney's first 100 days. Yes, he is going to stand up to China and make them "toe the line" on fair trade. More likely he will "flip-flop" and export more jobs to China and call that balancing trade. Well, also he will make the tax system more conducive for business. We all understand this is Republican talk for giving more tax dollars to corporations so they can sit on them and wait for some miracle to produce the CUSTOMERS that are so important to any business's decision to expand or for new businesses to develop. Well, he does have a good idea about developing offshore oil. I'm all for that if he can get the "oil barons" to promise not to dirty the waters any more. We know they will keep their promise if we just trust them and lift all those "pesky" environmental regulations that cost them sooooo much money. Oh yes, American middle class, you're doing great and everything will be better when you receive the benefits of "trickle down" economics from all the business development from the corporate tax breaks and the reduced taxes for the wealthiest billionaires I propose. Just hang in there Mr. Middle Class America. Your time will come soon. We've heard that song before. (Didn't like it then, don't like it now.)
Mitt Romney's financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.
During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said in a statement. "Mitt Romney spent 25 years in the real world economy so he understands why jobs come and they go."
LOL! So do we......romney's love for the almighty American dollar, and his need to placate his koch head donors and the outsourcing they will do for America's middle class!
Guess that's why he loved outsourcing middle class jobs to Chindia, and putting the millions in his own pocket! What a POS!
No, what's amusing and shows a lack of understanding simple economics, it that you fail to realize that despite Obama not taking office until Jan. 20th, 2009, FY 2009 started back in Oct. 2008 under the bush regime, and the FY2009 budget deficit was already $1.2 Trillion when Obama took office!
That's a fact, so 'try' spinning your way out of reality, smoker!
See, you do use neo-Marxist as a derogatory LABEL, and still cannot define it in the least!
I defined neo-liberal very clearly, and your picture is in the dictionary under that term.
You're using "neo-Marxist" as a derogatory LABEL and personal attack, just like the rest of the far-right is using the frank luntz buzz words of "Communists," "socialists" and "Marxists."
At least you're very consistent with your personal attacks!
Do you have any ability to comprehend? You take my sentence there, and then make a statement that had nothing to do with my statement!
If a person ascribes to views that fall within a certain political thought or ideology, then I ascribe that ideology to them.
Thus, I an a neo-liberal because I ascribe to positions that are found in neo-liberalism. That isnt an attack when someone calls me a neo-liberal...it is an accurate assessment of my views.
Same goes with your views and neo-Marxism.
You are consistent with your nonsensical posts, though!
Go ahead, be a man, little one that you are, and define "neo-Marxist."
"Occupy, tax cuts (on their own) bring in MORE revenue to the Treasury, not less."
Completely wrong on both accounts, but at least you're consistent.
You still have failed miserably to define your label of "neo-Marxist," that you use as a personal attack on others, and tax cuts have never increased revenue, even the busheviks said that, after deficits started going through the roof in the 2000s.
The bush tax cuts have cost us $4+ trillion in lost revenue since 2001, and the TPC says that willard's proposed 20% cut in taxes will cost us $5 Trillion in lost revenue in the first decade!
Well, I know why...because then you would have to change your tune!
LOL!
I see you're still making the usual attacks, and cannot for the life of you, define neo-Marxist like I asked, 2 hours ago.
So, I will wait to answer a question when I see a question!
While we already know the "birthers, baggers and buffoons" worship at the altar of lobbyist grover nitwitt, and just can't stand the concept of our severe revenue problem since 2001, we surely don't need to raise taxes -- just remove deductions and tax loopholes and tax havens, or both individuals and corporations to fix our severe revenue problem.
Now smart guy, according to you, "putting" 20 million Americans back to work is a great idea, but just like mannequin mitt -- no specifics or details of how YOU would accomplish that feat.
Also, if we were indeed able to "put" those 20 million Americans back to work with mannequin mitt's magic wand, and our revenue problem was solved, how will we pay down the $16 Trillion national debt, especially as interest rates rise as our economy finally grows?
That will leave us with a budget surplus larger than the remaining budget.