Is it Crazy Time already?

When I started seeing campaign ads on TV back in April, I thought it was odd. It made sense for some of the local races in our May primary, but does President Obama really need to let me know right after Easter that he’s running for re-election? Anyway, I guess that’s what we can expect now that we’re officially a battleground state. (That, and reacting to news that the vice president is coming to town with, “Huh, Biden again?”)

Is it me, or does it seem early for the presidential contenders to be going negative? And, while I went into a lot of detail about a recent Romney ad yesterday, the Obama supporters aren’t totally innocent here.

I haven’t seen this ad on TV yet. Called “Understands,” it features a former steelworker whose mill was bought by Bain Capital and later closed. Years later, his wife developed cancer, didn’t get treatment until it was extremely advanced, and then died three weeks after her diagnosis. I feel for this man; it’s awful losing someone that way. But that doesn’t change the fact that this ad is grossly misleading, and kind of intellectually insulting. For one thing, as the LA Times and other have noted, the mill where he worked was on its way to shutting down anyway, with or without Bain, and – here’s the kicker – his wife had health insurance from her own employer! Oh, and Mitt Romney wasn’t even running Bain at the time.

This ad makes it sound like Romney personally rolled into town to chain closed the mill’s doors, instructing his underlings to leave the employees as forlorn as possible. “They don’t look sad enough,” Romney Warbucks says, twirling the end of his mustache. “Let’s take away their health insurance. This man’s wife is terminally ill, huh? Even better!”

It’s important to note that “Understands” was paid for by Priorities USA Action, NOT the Obama campaign or the Democratic Party. Priorities USA Action is a super PAC that supports Obama’s re-election, but by law can’t coordinate with his campaign.

By contrast, Romney personally approved, and the Republican National Committee paid for, the “Obama doesn’t like working” ad that I wrote about yesterday. Romney also approved, and the RNC paid for, this ad, "Be Not Afraid."

I wrote yesterday that Romney was doubling down on the whole culture war thing and that I didn’t understand why he thought that would help him win – but man, he’s REALLY going down this road, isn’t he? And I still don’t understand it. Romney had a valid line of attack questioning Obama’s handling of the economy, an issue for which the Obama campaign never really developed a solid answer, and he’s ditched it in favor of running on “values”? Every single poll I’ve seen all year says the same thing: the number one issue on voters’ minds is the economy. When the people whose votes you’re trying to get straight up tell you, “This is the thing I care about the most,” and your response is, “That’s nice. Let’s have a prayer,” – well, good luck with that.

By the way, it should go without saying that “Be Not Afraid” is as inaccurate on its face as the welfare ad was. The provision in the ACA that requires employers to cover contraceptive care for women is as accommodating to religious objections as it can be and still function. Employers who have a moral objection to paying for an employee health plan that includes birth control simply don’t have to pay for it – their insurance provider does. Now, why these employers have these moral objections, and why they think their employees should have to abide by their personal beliefs are subjects for another post.

The point is that, bottom line, the ACA does not do what Romney says it does in this ad. And even if it did, it’s a stretch to characterize that as an “attack on religion” – actually, calling it a stretch is an insult to the concept of a stretch. And what’s up with highlighting the Lech Walesa quasi-endorsement? I’m going to tell you this as a 32-year-old who started reading Newsweek when I was 11 (AND THAT IS WEIRD) that practically no American under age 40 even knows who Lech Walesa is, let alone what on earth he might have to do with religious freedom. (To the kids: Community organizer. )

The people who will respond to that particular dog whistle are the ones who believe the Soviet Union collapsed not because Communism is an ineffective economic system, but because it’s EVIL, and only President’s Reagan’s prayers could beat it. These are the same people who are only pro-Israel because they think that as soon as Israel is whole again the world can end and Jesus can come back. In other words, the super-evangelical Christians that have always thought Romney was too moderate. By chasing them, Romney continues to alienate voters who don’t really want the president to try and be their minister. (Yes, pandering to evangelicals worked in 2004 for President Bush – barely – but that was in a contest against John Kerry, who excited exactly no one.)

I know what you’re going to say, and you’re right – I am being harder on the Romney ad than the pro-Obama ad. Both are based on ludicrous premises, and verge on outright lying. Both are unfair attacks not on the opponent’s policies, but on his character. But the difference is that Obama had nothing to do with “Understanding” – with producing it or paying for it to air. Romney at some point looked at the welfare ad and this “Obama hates God” ad and said, “Yep, looks fine to me.” And then the Republican Party paid to air it. That may sound like hair-splitting, but I think a distinction that matters.

What worries me is, if the campaigns and the PACs that back them are getting this nasty in early August, what do they have planned for the next three months?