Yesterday, Charles Krauthammer contended Mitt Romney’s poll numbers were “so much worse in the swing states than they are in the national polls” because, for the past six months, Democrats have been falsely advertising that the Republican nominee “wants to cut the taxes for the rich and to tax the middle class”:
You see ad after ad, and they are both false. I think he needs to look at the camera straight, explain in a sentence or two why each is completely false, and to then turn to the president and ask him how he can premise his entire election on a way of presenting the Romney position that is so at odds with the truth….
Not only have Obama’s ads been generally dishonest, but they have been overwhelmingly negative. The SuperPACs and unions cutting ads for the Democrat seem more intent on vilifying Mitt Romney than in making the case for Barack Obama. One union even tracked down Mitt Romney’s garbageman who somehow seemed to know that the Republican didn’t value his services.
When running for governor of Massachusetts, however, Romney had spent a day working as a garbageman and feeling “invisible” in that job, wondered if “it was because a lot of us don’t think garbage men are worthy of notice; I disagree – anyone who works that hard deserves our respect.“*
The ad, in short, offered an impression of Romney at odds with reality.
And it’s not just the ads. It’s comments like Vice President Biden’s yesterday (echoing things the president himself has said on the campaign trail) falsely claiming that Romney would raise taxes on the “middle class.” Deceptive though it is, Obama’s negative campaigning has been effective to some degree. Although Obama’s policies have exacerbated many of the nation’s problems (and sometimes even created new ones), he could still win.
But, if he did, how would he be able to govern? How can a man who has run such a divisive campaign manage to unite the nation?