As a twenty-year-plus adman, I've observed the Romney ad plan with trepidation. Presumably due a variety of poll-driven rationales, it has failed to exploit many of the President's most glaring (and chilling) weaknesses. Simply put, the Romney ads focus on Mitt's strengths (good), Obama's policy weakness (good), Obama's lousy record in office (good), plus they provide somewhat tepid responses to the toxic lies and specious charges hurled against Romney (ok).
What this campaign doesn't do is define Obama as a man with a history. A really bad man with a bad history. It ignores his character, fails to question his mysterious past, avoids mentioning his apparent document fraud, ignores his extreme leftist actions and never, perish the thought, points out those pesky anti-American mentors and associations the President has had for his entire life.
This approach can be boiled down, for me, to Rubio's speech at the convention in which he stated that Obama is "a good man, but a bad president."
I fear this gives the President an unwarranted pass that could affect the decisions of undecided voters. The gamble the Romney ad campaign appears to be taking is that these voters are too delicate to be presented with the truth about Obama and would be so horrified by it that they would vote against Romney because of it. I think thatomitting Obama, the ruthless, Socialist from the conversation is a bet we shouldn't be making.
And we found out that's not how Clint Eastwood rolls.
Here are Clint's key messages about Obama, the man:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
