When it comes to over-the-top politics, the Obama campaign has set a new standard with recent attempts to paint Mitt Romney as a felon.

This clever and utterly false allegation was advanced more than once by Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s deputy campaign manager.

During several days of media rounds that included some tough challenges — “Felon?!” — Cutter variously stuck to her guns, softened a bit and, finally, under relentless pressure, retracted the comment — or at least the felony insinuation. But the fact that the campaign advanced the notion in the first place is revealing. Trying to define Romney in some criminal light was obviously a strategy and, not to leap to conclusions, suggests both desperation and a lack of any substantive criticism.

Here’s how Cutter justified the original innuendo on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when co-host Mika Brzezinski pressed her on her use of the term. If Romney misrepresented himself on his Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings related to his tenure at Bain Capital, then he would have committed a crime, she said.

Sheesh. If/then: What a basis for defamation and slander. Applying that calculus, we’re all guilty of somebody’s random supposition. But all is fair in love and politics, right? Or don’t facts matter just a little bit?

Extending fairness where none is apparently appreciated, there were a couple of facts that might have given one pause about Romney’s relationship to Bain Capital after he left in 1999 to reorganize the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. His name did still appear as head of Bain on paperwork between 1999 and 2002, according to The Washington Post, which could cast doubt on his assertions that he had no managerial role at Bain after 1999. But all one has to do is ask, and many did, and the answer was not confusing.

Romney was still a “passive, limited partner” with “no management capacity,” according to a 2002 statement he filed with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission. But his partners ran the company after Romney left — rather hastily — to save the Olympics. Romney’s name was first floated by the Olympic committee on Feb. 2 and he accepted the challenge on Feb. 11. Nine days is hardly enough time to pack a toothbrush, much less push the paperwork necessary to hand over a multibillion-dollar business.

The purpose of the Obama campaign’s allegation was to paint Romney as that modern scourge — an uncaring corporate suit who outsources jobs and lays off workers. It is true that Bain worked with some companies that outsourced jobs to other countries — that most common of business practices conceived not only to enhance profits but also to feed Americans’ insatiable appetite for cheap goods. But all of it occurred after Romney’s tenure.

Of course, the real purpose of the charge was to portray Romney as dishonest. This is what businessmen would call a hard sell, not least because Romney’s assertions have been verified by independent sources, including The Washington Post. In May, the paper’s Fact Checker wrote:

“We’ve gone over this problem with the Obama campaign before, awarding three Pinocchios to a January memo the team released blaming Romney for job losses and bad deals that took place after the former executive had stopped working for Bain. … These facts essentially exonerate Romney from allegations that he was responsible for any outsourcing, bad deals and layoffs that occurred with Bain’s companies in the early 2000s.”

Thus, the Obama campaign knew that what they were saying was false but proceeded to try to plant the “felon” idea, anyway. On July 2, well before Cutter made her media rounds, fact-checkers at the Annenberg Center for Public Policy (FactCheck.org) similarly exonerated Romney:

“After reviewing evidence cited by the Obama campaign, we reaffirm our conclusion that Romney left the helm of Bain Capital when he took a leave of absence in 1999 to run the Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics — as he has said repeatedly — and never returned to active management. The Obama campaign’s recent ads thus mislead when they point to investments made by Bain, as well as management decisions made by companies in which Bain invested, after that time.”

Fair play? Dishonest? Lazy? Or just plain desperate to grab any twig as Romney inches up in the polls? It’s a shame that Cutter, a smart, talented woman, was drafted for such a dastardly role. Negative ads are one thing; slander is quite another.

Kathleen Parker is a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. Her email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.

Join the Conversation

18 Comments

  1. I still say he could have called the big shots from any telephone in the world. I know if I was the CEO and on the hook for anything that might go wrong I sure as heck would want to know what was going on at Bain and if I didn’t think that was the way to go I sure as heck would stop it cold. This could be done once a week in about 15 min. or less.  I am sure he has faith in the people left in charge and they could fill him in on any deals very quickly.
      Whether he knew or not what was going on is a big question.

      1. By what I see for political ads on both sides, the truth is handled so carelessly that “could have” is a lot closer to the true than many ads I’ve seen.
        Both sides of the issues should be given 30 lashes when the ads don’t pass the truth test.

    1. Your setting up a lot of big “ifs”. At least two fact finding organizations have studied the situation at Bain’s during Romney’s absence confirming Romney did not actively managed the company. Yes, he could have called or spent 15 minutes a week or less, but in fact it doesn’t appear he did or had any influence if he did. Also, there is no evidence that so-called “bad decisions” made at Bain’s during that time were illegal or even inappropriate.

      The truth of the matter concerning all the controversy is that the Obama campaign went overboard before checking out the facts.  

        1. You stated in your first comment, ” Whether he knew or not what was going on is a big question.” Why should this be a big question? I agree with Poster Larry Cable who said ‘ ” Could have”  is not a reasonable basis for making defaming accusations.’

          The Obama campaign obviously jumped the gun by suggesting Romney committed a felony by misrepresenting himself on his the Security and Exchange filings.  Kathleen Parker, the writer of the column above, is right on with her assessment: “The purpose of the Obama campaign’s allegation was to paint Romney as that modern scourge — an uncaring corporate suit who outsources jobs and lays off workers.”

  2. Can’t wait to read Parker’s piece on how it’s Obama’s fault that Romney’s overseas media blitz was such an embarrassing failure.

    1. ha ha you should tune out the lame street media. This administration is in free fall and what they will stoop to is going to get lower.  Ya’ll making a big mistake when you start believing your own propaganda.

      1. You might need to change the channel, too.  I’m an R, and this group isn’t in freefall.

      2. “lame street media”?

        The correct epitaph is “lamestream media.” It’s a pun based on the term “mainstream media.”

        If you’re going to parrot right-wing talking points, at least parrot them accurately.

  3. This is a pathetic column by Parker, could she be anymore partisan ?    The  straight out lies that the Romney campaign have presented overwhelm what the Obama team has done, beginning with Romney’s very first add putting John McCain’s words in Obama’s mouth. A complete deliberate lie, not innuendo.  Absolutely shameful.   Cutter’s comments were factual, they were not lies.   Finally the Democrats are giving as good as they are getting, way past time.
    I guess that does not sit too well with Partisan Parker.
    If Parker wishes to speak to Mitt’s strength’s, she does not do it here.

  4. The O’Bama campaign is as dirty as they get.  This is a campaign that cannot tout achievements so must begin to smear the opposition as early as possible.  Look at where these folks got their starts; Chicago the cesspool of Democratic party politics.  O’bama is a disciple of Chicago style politics.

    1. If you think Mittens and his pacs are running a clean campaign then I have a bridge to sell you.
      Both parties are down and dirty and will continue to do so until Nov. 6th.

      1. This is a libs answer to a dirty campaign.  Does it make Obama’s campaign any cleaner?  I thought Obama was different?  I guess he as filty as they come or anyone else.

        1. Are you agreeing that Mittens and Obama are both running down and dirty or what in hell are you saying?    

  5. I’ve always found Ms. Parker’s articles to be objective, but I can’t believe that she doesn’t offer the possiblity that Bain’s philosophy and business practices were the same under his reign.  At least guilty by association.  I wonder what she thinks about his offshore accounts?

  6. If it wasn’t for President Clinton’s signing a normalized trade agreement with China, Bane wouldn’t have the opportunity to outsource. It isn’t like Bain was the only company outsourcing at the time, it was the business trend as Americans flooded Wal Marts across the country for cheap goods made in China. Even if Bain outsourced with or without Romney’s knowing, weren’t they just adapting to current business trends? I am not agreeing with the practice, but it isn’t fair to shun a republican for practices enabled by a democrat (and vice-versa in other situations).

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *