Mitt Romney Proposes Campaign Truce Where Obama Must Agree Not To Campaign

Barack Obama - No Apology

Mitt Romney clearly believes that he is above the rules to which the rest of us peasants are subject. He thinks that he can be as nasty as he wants, but if his opponent should respond in kind, then Romney pitifully demands apologies. Yesterday, in a monumental display of arrogance, Romney spoke of his dismay over negative, personal advertising directed at him with out so much as a nod to his own harsh personal attacks. An interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd was presented thusly

“This is business not personal: Romney also said in the interview he would like a pledge (of sorts) with Obama that there be no ‘personal’ attack ads. ‘[O]ur campaign would be – helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues and that attacks based upon — business or family or taxes or things of that nature.”

So all Obama has to do is promise not to campaign. After all, Romney has made his business career the core of his justification for running for president. But now he doesn’t want Obama to mention it. And since Romney isn’t discussing the Olympics or his term as governor of Massachusetts either, that doesn’t leave much for Obama talk about.

And what has Romney promised to do in return? Nothing. He offered no concession whatsoever to entice Obama into accepting this proposal. He certainly didn’t offer to stop taking mangled, out-of-context quotes and reshaping them into lies about Obama’s agenda. However, he did make a veiled threat about “dredg[ing] up the old stuff that people talked about last time around.” Presumably he means birtherism, Rev. Wright, and palling around with terrorists. But he would never get personal, would he?

This is just another example of Romney demanding a separate set of rules for himself as well as a having an acute lack of honesty with regard to his own misdeeds – as this video makes plain:

Fox Nation Ignores Polls By CNN, Reuters, And — Fox News

It must be hard being the PR agency for the Romney campaign (aka Fox News) when the real world is constantly interfering with your efforts to distort reality. Nevertheless, Fox News soldiers on to try to spin the gloomy prospects of Mitt Romney’s Circus of Desperation into something passably positive.

Today Fox Nation featured a story on the campaign horse race that blasted the headline: RASSMUSSEN: Romney Opens Up Lead Over Obama. Rasmussen, a notoriously partisan right-wing pollster, showed Romney ahead 47% to 43%. It’s no surprise that Rasmussen gave the edge to Romney because that’s what they’re paid to do. What you did not see if you were reading Fox Nation is that three other polls were also released, and all three of them put Obama significantly ahead of Romney.

Fox Nation Polls

CNN’s poll had the race at 52% for Obama (notably above the 50% mark) and 45% for Romney. The poll also has Obama ahead 53% to 42% with Independents. And significant majorities believe that Romney favors the rich (64%) and that he should release more tax returns (63%).

The Reuters poll placed Obama up 49% to 42%. In addition, Reuters reports that 46% of registered voters say Obama is stronger on jobs and the economy, compared with 44% for Romney. And on tax matters, 49% saw Obama as stronger, compared with 38% for Romney.

Most striking, however, is the poll from Fox News itself. Fox is giving Obama a 49% to 40% lead. That’s a nine point advantage that is larger than any of the other polls just published. The lead is even greater among Independents who favor Obama by 11%.

The surprising part of this is that Fox Nation reported only on the Rasmussen poll that showed Romney ahead. They couldn’t even bring themselves to report on their own poll conducted by their own pollsters. That’s the sort of biased cherry-picking that is the hallmark of Fox’s “news” charade. And even with their pet pollster Rasmussen, last week, when they had Romney down a couple of points, Fox Nation left it out of their coverage. That’s a crystal clear message to pollsters from Fox: If you want to be covered, you better say what we like. And that goes for Fox’s pollsters as well.

Mitt Romney [Hearts] Bill Clinton

I sat down this morning intending to write an article about the absurd new crush that Mitt Romney and the GOP have on Bill Clinton. It’s a flagrant rewriting of history concerning the man that Republicans tried to impeach, but seek to cuddle up with now that he’s one of the most popular former presidents. But as I was doing research for the article I discovered that Michael Tomasky had already written it for the Daily Beast. So here are a few brazenly appropriated paragraphs:

It’s hardly a secret what Mitt Romney is up to in trying to invoke Bill Clinton’s name in ads and speeches. Clinton was the good Democrat. The sensible centrist. And—let’s lower our voices here—the white one. It’s been transparent since it started in May, made all the more so this week by using Clinton to slam Obama on welfare.

I hope he uses the occasion of his convention speech, and for that matter the whole fall campaign, to destroy Romney, saying to every swing voter: “If you voted for me, you’d be nuts to vote for this guy. He’s making up a version of me to serve his own purposes, and he’s against almost everything I stood for and stand for.”

Bill Clinton

It’s obvious that using Clinton to try to appeal to the Clinton swing voter is pretty central to the Romney plan. As soon as Romney polished off Rick Santorum back in May, he started singing Clinton’s praises. It was his way to appeal to the center. He doesn’t have the courage to do that by taking any actual centrist positions, of course. The positions remain hard right. So he chose to do it instead by using Clinton as the vehicle through which to make ominous insinuations about Obama, implying to audiences that Clinton was the sober pragmatist whose legacy the ultra-liberal Obama had defenestrated.

Clinton can do more than validate Obama. He has the authority to shred Romney. Some conservatives appear to have this fantasy, expressed by Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post yesterday, that Clinton has more in common with Romney. That’s too ridiculous even to bother rebutting, except to note that it can provide fodder for some great laugh lines built around the idea that yes, back when he was president, Clinton did agree with Romney on several things, like abortion rights and the assault weapons ban. Then Romney changed all his positions. And, of course, there is the one issue that looms above all others, which Clinton could frame as a simple and devastating question: “Governor, if you think I’m so great, if you agree with me so much, why don’t you support my tax rate for the top 1 percent?”

Mitt Romney and his Republican Disinformation Society want Americans to forget that they were not merely opposed to Clinton’s agenda, they were veritably obsessed with demolishing him personally and politically. In addition to the impeachment over private personal matters, Republicans launched fruitless investigations into Arkansas land deals; they alleged that he ran drugs from state airstrips; they accused Hillary of murdering Vince Foster. The budget bill that led to years of prosperity did not receive a single Republican vote in congress. What it did receive was assertions of socialism and predictions of the end of America. Sound familiar?

Voters need to remember this when they hear Romney et al praise Clinton. They need to remember that their own agenda is diametrically opposed to the Clinton Doctrine. Republicans have a desperate need to latch onto Clinton because their own past presidents were such horrific failures. Clinton will be making the official nominating speech for Obama at the Democratic convention. George Bush won’t even be attending the Republican convention.

We can expect Bill Clinton’s name to be heard often in this election season. And it will be mentioned by both sides because they know that the American people respect him and his achievements. But every time Mitt Romney and the GOP mention Clinton’s name should be a reminder to vote for Obama, just as Clinton is going to do.

Romney Campaign Strategy Revealed: Force Obama To Shoot Down A Barrage Of Lies

For a candidate who has been running for president for at least six years, Mitt Romney is woefully short of a message or a coherent campaign theme. He has spent much of that time Etch-a-Sketching his positions on health care, abortion, gay rights, Iraq, and pretty much anything he has previously taken a position on. He is a man without a political soul.

Mitt Romney

However, the lack of a message does not equate to the lack of a strategy. To the contrary, it makes the formation of an effective game plan all the more critical. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, he has not been able to devise a game plan, effective or otherwise. Consequently he has settled on a haphazard approach that consists primarily of hurling wildly dishonest misrepresentations of President Obama’s positions and forcing the President to waste precious campaign time debunking Romney’s lies. It’s a tactic that aims to run out the clock on the campaign and hope that some of the mud sticks to the target. For instance, Romney has flung these spitballs at the President:

“You didn’t build that.” This is a deliberate misquoting of Obama who was actually referring to roads and bridges, not the private businesses that Romney has tried to imply were the subject of the remarks.

“The private sector is doing fine.” This is another misrepresentation where Obama was correctly making a relative comparison of the private sector, which has grown over the past three years, to the public sector, which has been shrinking.

“We tried our plan and it worked.” Here Romney deliberately asserted that Obama was referencing his own record and implying that it had achieved complete success. In fact, Obama has consistently said that more needs to be done and this comment was plainly referencing the success of the Clinton era policies as opposed to the failure of the GOP’s years under Bush’s policies.

“[Obama] removed the requirement of work from welfare.” Most recently Romney made this accusation that is directly refuted by the facts. What Obama did was to permit waivers for states that could affirm their progress in moving people from welfare to work, and allowing them flexibility to enhance their programs. It’s a modification that Romney himself had requested when he was governor of Massachusetts.

These phony attacks are utterly baseless. However, they do require the Obama team to waste time responding. It seems inevitable that Romney intends to continue this tactic of flinging falsehoods rather than focusing on issues that are relevant to voters. He really doesn’t have much choice considering that he won’t reveal any details of his agenda, which would give the candidates something substantive to discuss. What’s more, he is desperate to divert attention from his refusal to release his tax returns, but he doesn’t have anything else legitimate to talk about.

This strategy is creating some peculiar moments in the campaign. This morning Romney unleashed an onslaught of faux outrage over an Obama ad that featured Joe Soptic, a man who lost his job and health insurance as a result of Romney’s vulture capitalism. Romney complained that the ad portrays him as the killer of Soptic’s wife who died of cancer without insurance. Romney’s spokesperson, Andrea Saul showed up on Fox News (where else?) to declare that if the Soptic’s “had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care.” The irony in that statement is that Romney has been feverishly trying to avoid the health care plan he implemented as governor. What’s more, this is an argument that admits that the Soptic’s would have benefited from the plan that Romney now seeks to repeal for all Americans.

The overt dishonesty that Romney has exhibited throughout this campaign, a characteristic observed by his GOP opponents in the primary, is a major contributor to his record low favorability ratings. However, the media does not seem to have caught on. President Obama expressed his disappointment in the “false balance” that is presented in the press. That has been a problem for years. It is simply unacceptable that reporters insist on balancing facts with lies. There is no journalistic requirement that a story about the organic composition of the moon be “balanced” with the opposing opinion that it is really just green cheese. Politicians whine about bias when they are called out for straying from the facts. But the press has an obligation to be biased, so long as it’s a bias for the truth.

Romney’s Tax Returns vs. Obama’s College Transcripts

A new debate is developing around the reluctance of Mitt Romney to release his tax returns as almost every presidential candidate has for the past forty years. Obviously the prospect of leveling with the American people is abhorrent to Romney as he strains desperately to keep his financial past a deep dark secret.

The new twist is that numerous Republicans and Romney backers are offering him advice on how to deal with the blowback he is suffering for his secrecy. It appears that everyone agrees that continuing to conceal his taxes has been noticeably detrimental to his campaign and that he needs a way out – fast. So conservatives have coordinated a response that they think will shift the focus back to President Obama:

Wayne Allyn Root (TheBlaze): Romney should call a press conference and issue a challenge in front of the nation. He should agree to release more of his tax returns, only if Obama unseals his college records.
Mike Huckabee: Let [Romney] make this challenge. I’ll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts
Donald Trump: If I were Romney, I would say very simply I will release my returns, which are 100 percent legit, if you release the information that we want
Judson Phillips (Tea Party Nation): There are a lot of records that Americans should want to see from Barack Obama. To start with, there are his records from Occidental College.
Rush Limbaugh: I am calling on Barack Obama to release his Harvard transcripts.
Erick Erickson (CNN): If I were Romney, I would not release them until Barack Obama released his college transcripts.

What a great idea. I am totally in support of this. Even though no candidate has ever had to release college records and it may be a precedent that would be better left unset, in this particular circumstance it could have a beneficial effect. If Obama were to call their bluff and accept this challenge we would finally get to see what Romney is hiding in his tax returns. There is just one problem.

Romney's TaxesDespite the gathering horde of right-wingers rushing to propose this challenge, there is one very conspicuous player who has not stepped onto the field. That’s right, Mitt Romney has not taken up the call to engage in this political truth-or-dare. Why do you suppose that is? Most likely he cannot risk the prospect of Obama agreeing to trade personal histories with him because of the harm he would endure if voters knew what is in his tax returns. It’s easy for a gaggle of pundits to issue meaningless challenges for which they cannot insure Romney’s compliance, but it is highly unlikely that Romney himself will take it up.

This allegedly spontaneous surge of right-wingers proposing a doc-dump contest is intended to put Obama on the defensive. As usual, Fox News is tightly integrated in the scheme with two of the quotes above (Huckabee and Trump) provided by people on the Fox payroll. Additionally, the quote from Wayne Root is the featured headline atop the Fox Nation web site today. Root’s column is a cornucopia of conspiracy crapola that burnishes his birther status.

Root: Here’s my gut belief: Obama got a leg up by being admitted to both Occidental and Columbia as a foreign exchange student. He was raised as a young boy in Indonesia. But did his mother ever change him back to a U.S. citizen?

“Change him back?” When was Obama ever not a U.S. citizen? Even the zaniest of the birther theories assert that Obama’s citizenship was fabricated when he was an infant. Root’s nonsensical musings continue with allegations that Obama rarely attended classes and had inferior grades. Of course, that’s exactly how you get to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduate magna cum laude.

It is notable that while a motley collection of conservative blowhards are trying to goad Obama and Romney into a street fight, there are a few far more authoritative voices that we have yet to hear from on the matter of Romney’s taxes. Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr. headed up John McCain’s VP vetting operation. Along with campaign manager Rick Davis, and McCain himself, these were the only people known to have seen Romney’s tax returns in recent years. And none of them have stepped forward to confirm Romney’s assertion that he paid taxes in the last ten years. The only comment McCain has made on the subject was that Romney’s taxes had nothing to do with his decision to choose Sarah Palin. He just “thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate.” Let that sink in for a minute.

As I stated above, I think it would be great if Romney actually had the guts to issue a challenge to Obama to trade tax returns for college transcripts. And I think Obama would jump at the chance. However, there are good reasons for Obama to be reluctant to engage in such a contest. First of all, it is unseemly that no other candidate for president has ever been asked to release his academic records. For some reason, conservatives have selected Obama as the first candidate ever to be subjected to such inquiries. He’s also the first ever to be asked to show a birth certificate. In addition he has been challenged on his religion and his patriotism as well. It’s a pattern that aims to define the country’s first black president as foreign, treasonous, and somehow apart from the rest of America. For that reason it would be unwise to comply with ridiculous demands to prove his fitness to serve. Such demands are concessions to irrational hatred and bigotry.

On the other hand, there is no valid reason for Romney to continue to be obstinate about releasing his tax returns. It complies with a forty year precedent set by his own father. More importantly, it is vital information that voters require to assess the qualifications of someone who seeks to take control of the nation’s economy. Particularly a candidate who has based his whole campaign on his alleged financial acumen.

And The Olympic Gold For Freestyle Stupidity Goes To Dick Morris Of Fox News

Dick Morris has done it again. I wouldn’t cover this ignorant gasbag if it wasn’t so much damn fun. He has absolutely nothing of substance to say and what he does say is certifiably bonkers.

Dick Morris

Last night on the Sean Hannity program on Fox News (not exactly a Mensa gathering either), Hannity introduced his theory that Bill Clinton would be a drag on President Obama’s reelection campaign:

Hannity: You know Bill Clinton better than anybody else. Now here is a guy that I suspect, before all is said and done, is gonna, in his own way, undermine Barack Obama’s reelection chances.

First of all, Morris has not had any relationship with Clinton for sixteen years, since he was fired when it was revealed that he had allowed a toe-sucking prostitute to listen in on conversations with the President. That’s the sort of character that compelled Fox News to hire Morris. In response to Hannity, Morris said this:

Morris: I guarantee you, Sean, based on what I have heard from third parties or I have spoken to that William Jefferson Clinton is going to cast his ballot for Mitt Romney. However, he’s going to open his mouth for Barack Obama because his wife is hostage. They have her under lock and key as secretary of state, and he is scared that Obama will lose and blame him if he undermines Obama. So he will do everything he asks him to do and then he will jab him whenever he can.

Of course. It’s so obvious. Right after Clinton officially nominates Obama at the Democratic convention he’s going to rush off and vote against him. As if denying Obama that one vote will counter all the positive PR his convention speech will produce. Morris thinks that a life-long Democrat is prepared to vote against a Democratic incumbent for president based on what he’s heard from third parties.

The business about Hillary, however, is the truly idiotic part of this. Morris seems to think that making a woman the most powerful diplomat in the world is equivalent to tying her up in the back room of a flop house. And if Clinton is so worried about being blamed for an Obama loss why would tell anyone that he that he is voting for Romney? Particularly anyone who would actually speak to Dick Morris.

The manure spread by Morris is high grade bullshit. And it’s something he does frequently. Take for example his 2008 book “Condi vs. Hillary,” which contained his astute prediction for the 2008 race in the title. That didn’t exactly pan out for him, did it? From the introduction to the book:

{T]here is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election. She has no serious opposition in her party […]

The stakes are high. In 2008, no ordinary white male Republican candidate will do. Forget Bill Frist, George Allen, and George Pataki. Hillary would easily beat any of them. Rudy Giuliani and John McCain? Either of them could probably win, but neither will ever be nominated by the Republican Party.

So Morris got the Democratic nominee wrong, despite his conviction that there was “no doubt.” He also got the Republican nominee wrong. And the Republican who Morris said could not be nominated, but would win if he were, was nominated but actually lost. Is there any way he could have been more wrong?

And now Morris delivers that sort of analysis on Fox News. It is perfectly aligned with the low bar for intelligence and reason that Fox sets for their pundits and anchors. And anyone who watches and believes this tripe deserves the howls of ridicule they will receive when they are inevitably proven to be as stupid as Morris et al.

Fox Nation Tries Out New Misquote Of Obama For The Romney Machine

The folks at the Romney campaign, and their PR reps at Fox News, must have been pleased with the phony controversy they created by deceitfully editing President Obama’s remarks. Their dishonest portrayal of the President as dismissive of the efforts of business developers successfully exploited the short attention spans of many media pundits while simultaneously stimulating the drool glands of conservative dittoheads.

So satisfied with their reality distortion, they are already testing a new iteration on the Fox Nation web site: “Obama: Our Union Isn’t Perfect”

Fox Nation

Consistent with their modus operandi, the Fox Nationalists have excerpted an out-of-context snippet from a speech Obama delivered to the National Urban League. The rhetorical surgery creates a deliberately false impression of the President’s views. In this case, the intent is to malign Obama for insulting America which, of course, he never did. Here is a more complete segment of Obama’s remarks where he was recalling his work on behalf of low-income families in Chicago:

“I confess the progress didn’t come quickly, and it did not come easily. Sometimes it didn’t come at all. There were times where I thought about giving up and moving on. But what kept me going day in and day out was the same thing that has sustained the Urban League all these years. The same thing that sustains all of you. And that is the belief that in America, change is always possible. That our union may not be perfect, but it is perfectible. That we can strive over time, through effort and sweat and blood and tears until it is the place we imagine. It may come in fits and starts, at a pace that can be slow and frustrating, but if we are willing to push through all the doubt and the cynicism and the weariness, then yes, we can form that more perfect union.”

The far-right wingnuts who manage to squeeze something derogatory out of these words are fundamentally dim-witted. They are the sort of patriopathic zealots who can’t comprehend that nothing, including America, is perfect. And despite their glassy-eyed flag-lust, they are not even aware that it was our founders who set the nation on a course to perfect the union. They even wrote it into the Constitution.

Obama’s speech was an indisputably positive expression of the limitless scope of opportunity that America represents. It was an affirmation of our nation’s unique ability to grow and to heal despite all obstacles. Yet the gloomsayers at Fox managed to dial up their pessimism and animus and extract something so utterly contrary that it bears no resemblance to the meaning intended by the President.

It is that ability to detour so sharply from the obvious that makes Fox Nation such a productive factory of falsehoods. And it should surprise no one if this warped wording becomes the subject of Mitt Romney’s next lie-riddled advertisement. After all, Fox is the testing grounds for Romney’s campaign of manufactured outrage. You might call it his hissy fitness center.

Check out Jon Stewart’s brilliant take on the subject:


Fox Nation vs. Reality: Who’s To Blame For Bad Economy?

There have been numerous polls asking respondents to say who they hold responsible for the state of the American economy. In every one of them George W. Bush ranks at or near the top, with Congress and Wall Street following close behind. Usually President Obama is not the target of most of the blame.

Leave it to Fox News to come up with a poll that contradicts the others. And it should come as no surprise that the poll they’ve latched onto is the work of Rasmussen’s Pulse Opinion Research. However, even with a fixed pollster, and a rabidly partisan news outlet, Fox still finds it necessary to outright lie about the poll’s results:

Fox Nation Blames Obama

The headline of this article is blatantly false. In Rasmussen’s poll 34% said that Obama is the most to blame for the slow economic recovery. Most elementary school graduates know that that is not a majority. What’s more, if you add the responses of those who said that it was either Congress, Wall Street, or George W. Bush, it comes to a clear majority of 61% saying that Obama is not to blame. Some other significant results from the poll that Fox Nation declined to report are…

  • The poll found almost 6-in-10 are unhappy with the actions of Republicans in Congress who have challenged the president on an array of policy initiatives.
  • Fifty-seven percent of voters said congressional Republicans have impeded the recovery with their policies, and only 30 percent overall believe the GOP has done the right things to boost the economy.
  • Centrist voters, who may well decide the 2012 outcome, tend to blame Republicans in Congress more than the president for hindering a more robust recovery.
  • 53 percent of centrists said Obama has taken the right actions as president to boost the economy, compared with 38 percent who said he had taken the wrong steps.
  • Seventy-nine percent of centrist voters said Republicans had slowed the economy by taking wrong actions. Only 13 percent of centrists credited GOP lawmakers with policies that have helped the economy.

And that’s the poll that Fox Nation managed to feature on their website with a headline blaring that a “Majority Blame Obama For Bad Economy.” The Fox Nationalists must take great comfort in the knowledge that their audience is too stupid to actually look into anything themselves – or understand it if they did.

Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Jobs Council Fraud?

The headline story on Fox Nation today calls the President’s Jobs Council a fraud. There is nothing in the story that indicates what the nature of the alleged fraud is, but the charge stills hangs there like rotting fruit.

Fox Nation

The root of the complaint has something to do with the frequency with which President Obama meets with the White House Jobs Council. The Fox Nationalists appear to be upset that he doesn’t do it often enough. Coincidentally (wink), that’s the same theme that Mitt Romney has been pitching on the campaign trail recently.

But here’s the thing. The Jobs Council has mostly done its work already. They issued a report with some specific recommendations. Those recommendations have been addressed by both the administration and Congress. The White House has acted on 54 of the 60 recommendations for executive action. Congress passed the JOBS Act which contained many of the ideas proposed by the Council. There are many other proposals that Republicans in Congress are blocking because they are more focused on making Obama a one-term president than they are on helping Americans get back to work.

It’s ironic that Romney and Fox are so concerned with the meeting schedule of a Council that they so fiercely opposed. They have rejected many of its recommendations and they were never particularly fond of its formation. Fox News in particular was maniacally critical of its chairman, Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric. Bill O’Reilly called him “a despicable human being” on the air. So it’s rather peculiar that they are now upset that Obama hasn’t spent more time with them. Of course, if he did meet more often they would be crticizing that.

UNHINGED: Mitt Romney Lies About Obama Remarks He Agrees With

Ever since President Obama delivered a speech wherein he praised America’s innovators and entrepreneurs, the Romney campaign, and the press, have been distorting his remarks by extracting a single sentence in order to imply that Obama is anti-business. The segment of the speech below shows what Obama said with the out-of-context sentence in bold:

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Obama was obviously referring to roads and bridges in that quote. He went on to cite as examples firefighters, the GI Bill, and the Golden Gate Bridge. It could not be more clear. Nevertheless, Romney hit the campaign trail to intentionally lie about what the President said. But the absurdity of his distortion just went up a notch. In his stump speech, Romney is now blasting the President’s remarks even while he is saying exactly the same thing. Just prior to his criticism of Obama, Romney says…

“I know that you recognize a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors, there’s no question your mom and dad, your schoolteachers, the people that provide roads, the fire, the police. A lot of people help.”

So how is that different from what Obama said?

Mitt Romney's Debt Reduction PlanActually, there is a difference. Obama supports firefighters, teachers, and police. He wants to expand their ranks, which would also create thousands of new jobs while benefiting society. Romney is opposed to such spending that he regards as government bloat. Last month he came out fiercely objecting to more government jobs of this specific type:

“[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.”

Try to follow along here. First Romney knowingly misquotes Obama. Then Romney castigates Obama for saying the exact same thing that he is saying. And what he is saying is something he has previously objected to bitterly. Makes perfect sense – if you’re a lobotomized chimpanzee in a coma. Otherwise you have to be scratching your head. As I previously wrote, Romney is very concerned about helping the American people:

That’s right. The American people need help, and not the kind that President Obama is proposing. They don’t need fires extinguished by lazy civil servants. Real Americans will pick up their garden hoses and attack the blaze from their rooftops. Forest and prairie fires are actually a cheap method of clearing unsightly trees and brush. And paramedics only serve to exacerbate the socialist notion that victims of heart attacks and car accidents are “entitled” to life-saving emergency care.

The American people don’t need more police either. Protection from robberies and assaults is only sought by pussies and the French. And besides, if you really want police protection you can just start earning more money and move to a wealthy community where more officers are deployed and private security can be acquired for hefty fee. This is America, dammit. If you can’t get rich and pay for your own security, that’s your fault. And if you don’t stockpile weapons in your home, then you don’t really love your family. Just ask Mitt Romney (shooter of varmints) if he relies on the government for protection (well, except for all those secret service agents that cost taxpayers millions of dollars).

And don’t even get me started on teachers. What a waste of money that could have been spent on invading Iran. It’s not like America is the stupidest country in the world. At 37th worldwide there’s like 100 other countries that are stupider (and 36 that are smarterer).
Mitt Romney - We're Not StupidAgain the solution is simple. Send your children to expensive private schools like Romney’s Cranbrook, where they can get a superior education while traumatizing other students because they look different than you. The kids that are stuck in overcrowded public schools should stop whining and be grateful for community colleges and the jobs awaiting them at McDonalds. Romney has finally shown the courage to put an end to the fallacy that our children are the future when, in reality, they are just a bunch of germ-ridden fiscal burdens. Although the end result of this might make it harder for Romney to live up to his campaign slogan: We’re Not Stupid!

The Obama campaign has released this video that nicely summarizes how Romney will say anything to smear Obama: