The Obama campaign has launched way more negative attack ads than the Romney campaign.
The negative ads practically write themselves with Romney as the presumptive nominee.
That's the biggest excuse I've ever heard. Any candidate can EASILY run attack ads. The relative easiness is a moot point. The fact remains that Obama has run more negative ads than Romney. Period. Sure, superPACs run negative ads. But I'm an idealist with this issue: I don't believe there is much coordination going on between the PACs and the Romney campaign. The ads may benefit Romney, but he ain't signing off on them.
The people behind those Orwellian super-PAC ads by Rove, Norquist, et al, act as if they intend to be the real power in America if Mitt Romney is elected, the House remains R and the Senate goes R. Those people intend to turn the political process into a sham with themselves deciding even who eats and who starves. They are technically excellent, some of the most adept propaganda ever made. They still serve a hidden agenda -- one in which the political process becomes nothing more than dividing up economic and political power among a few who expect to get even richer by treating the common man even worse.
Mitt Romney increasingly follows the line of those groups much like a former democrat (agrarian, liberal, socialist, or even conservative) might have sold out to Commies to advance a political career in central or southeastern Europe in the late 1940s or early 1950s. Maybe some of the personalities of an earlier time might serve to reassure people that things couldn't be so bad because such-and-such pol could never be a Stalinist. But he has sold out his old supporters and allies even if he never adopts the Communist label.
The objective here is to establish a pure plutocracy in which lobbyists are the enforcers. Such is a new form of dictatorship... and it will sting as harshly as most of the others.
