Mendacious Mitt Claims He Wanted the President to Succeed?

      There was a reason he was insisting this at his convention speech. He's trying to get the undecideds and some former Obama supporters.

      In saying he wanted the President to succeed-and is calling for his firing "more in sorrow than in anger"-he's assuring these voters that he's not Rush Limbaugh.

      He was not rooting against the President from day one like Rush and Mitch McConnell. McConnell, remember, said that the number one priority was making sure that Obama was a one term President.

     Notice what he didn't mention: he didn't say the economy was his top priority, not growth, not jobs, not anything to do with the country but a partisan project to destroy the President.

     Rush for his part was already talking about an "Obama recession" prior to him getting in office. It's not really so hard to get how Ryan would blame the President for a plant that was closed before he got in office as Rush the day after Obama won his election was already claiming the President had failed-as the market was down the next day.

     Of course that the market has been up since the President has been in office, Rush never notices.

      Romney and his buddies in the GOP Congress were planning the President's destruction before he even got in office. They planned to not support him not matter what he proposed-even if it was something they had in the past claimed to agree with.

     Romney who has been running for President for 6 years, had been planning to run against him since before he got in office. The GOP did everything to sabotage this President, to make sure he fails, and now thinks the country will hold him alone responsible.

    Still, what does give us some reason to hope is a piece by Greg Sargent, who suggests that Romney's strategy misreads persuadable voters:

      "The Romney camp operates from the assumption that everyone has decided Obama has failed — a view the base is ideologically committed to — and they just need to be wooed away."

     "But persuadable voters may be taking a more nuanced view of the economy and this presidency. Perhaps they are no longer sure how much a president can do to fix the economy; they understand the depth of the crisis and of our underlying problems; they disapprove of the pace of the recovery but understand Obama faced relentless partisan opposition and haven’t concluded Obama’s approach is discredited. They actually agree with his basic priorities and governing goals in key areas, and they are open to the argument that Romney’s approach is not the solution to their problems. The simplistic Obama-as-abject-failure formulation may be a misreading of voter perceptions and of why some are remaining with Obama, and may hamper the Romney camp’s ability to make a stronger affirmative case for his alternative."



     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-why-are-obama-swing-voters-sticking-with-him/2012/08/31/65b46edc-f35a-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html

     Romney's simplistic 'it's all Obama's fault" campaign, then won't work if Sargent's right about the swing voters Romney's trying to woo.