When the presidential candidates are calling each other liars or something close to that, that’s hardly new – but a major American corporation all but calling a presidential candidate a liar, when did that happen before?  Never mind happen twice.  In one week.

Widespread coverage of the story of the Chrysler Corporation’s flat contradiction of Mitt Romney’s campaign assertions, followed by General Motors doing the same, suggests that such sharp corporate responses are unprecedented.  Certainly the relationship of these corporations to the Republican Party are far removed from the time when one of President Eisenhower’s cabinet members said that, “for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa” (although the urban legend version has him saying “what’s good for General Motors is good for America”).

The catalyst for these sharp corporate reactions came on October 25, in Defiance, Ohio, when Mitt Romney told listeners at a campaign rally:  “I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China.”  [emphasis added]

Romney’s Comment Was Not True

That was not true.  The Bloomberg story stated:  “Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models at plants in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. [Chrysler] referred to adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China.”  [emphasis added]

Chrysler executive Gualberto Ranieri responded promptly to Romney campaign comment with a blog statement that used  italics for emphasis:  “Let’s set the record straight:  Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China….  A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.”

Ranieri called Romney’s conclusion “a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats.”  Romney neither responded not retracted the  comment.

On October 28, the Romney campaign came out with a television ad that kept pushing the story, with more carefully crafted language, but continued controversy.   Firedoglake reported that the ad is “ so false that, as you can see by the title of the video, it’s posted on youtube by people opposed to Romney.”

Chrysler’s CEO Objected At Length

Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne went public on October 30 in a lengthy email that began:  “Chrysler Group’s production plans for the Jeep brand have become the focus of public debate.  I feel obliged to unambiguously restate our position: Jeep production will not be moved from the United States to China….”  [emphasis added]

After mentioning specifics of Chrysler’s production infrastructure, Marchionne concluded his email by saying:  “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and will constitute the backbone of the brand.  It is inaccurate to suggest anything different….”  [emphasis added]

Romney and his campaign have declined to discuss the Jeep statement on the record, despite repeated questions from reporters. Romney continued making variations of his initial claim in stump speeches, and his campaign issued a radio ad that went further, and claimed General Motors (GM) was also shipping jobs to China: “Under President Obama, GM cut 15,000 American jobs, but they are planning to double the number of cars built in China, which means 15,000 more jobs for China. And now comes word that Chrysler plans to start making Jeeps in, you guessed it, China.

“The ad is cynical campaign politics at its worst,” said General Motors spokesman Greg Martin: “We think creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back in this country should be a source of bipartisan pride.” [emphasis added]

GM said: “Campaign Politics at its Cynical Worst”

GM spokesman Martin also said: “We’ve clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days. No amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.”

By October 31, the Denver Post joined other newspapers around the country, including the Toledo Blade, the Cleveland Leader, the Youngstown Vindicator and two Detroit papers criticizing Romney for “falsehoods and half-truths” (Denver), “blatant lies” (Cleveland), and “[making] things up out of whole cloth” (Youngstown).  FactCheck.org called Romney “flat wrong” in his original comment on Jeep going to China, while the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC — which “promotes ethics in public life”) argued that Romney was right and the media are biased.

Although NLPC quotes an ambiguous section from the original Bloomberg story to bolster its argument, it  goes on to omit the Bloomberg clarification later in the same story about “adding Jeep production sites rather than shifting output from North America to China.”

According to Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank on October 31:

“It’s difficult to quantify a candidate’s relationship with the facts, but The Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, has calculated that, for much of the campaign, Romney and Obama were roughly even in their prevarications until the past few months.  Back in May, Romney’s average “Pinocchio” rating from Kessler was 1.97 on a scale of 0 to 4. Obama was at 1.91. Now, Obama is at 2.11 and Romney is at 2.40 — putting him at the level of hogwash perpetrated during the primaries by Rick Perry (2.41) and Newt Gingrich (2.44)….  Romney is in a whole new category….  When it comes to truth, Romney still lives in Defiance.”  

Chad PeaceCampaign Critics - We cover the good, the bad, we critique, and make recommendations for campaigns.

California is undergoing a quiet revolution out West. Coming off of its first non-partisan open primary, there are several races this year that won’t look familiar to everyday politicos. And a new Bill Bloomfield commercial proves that the landscape has changed.

Because of the new “top-two” style primary system, this year’s 33rd congressional district is pitting Bill Bloomfield, an independent businessman, against Democratic stalwart Henry Waxman head-to-head. In this Democrat heavy district, Waxman has been reelected comfortably 19 straight times to his seat in Congress. But with the new rule change, an independent Bil Bloomfield has a real shot against the Congressman.

Waxman, known as one of the more partisan members of Congress, is not likely to pick up many non-Democrat votes. And while Bloomfield is a first time candidate, he is no political novice. In fact, he was an early supporter of the non-partisan open primary. The theme of his campaign has been that partisanship doesn’t work, and representatives like Waxman are at the heart of the problem.

in his latest commercial, Bloomfield is hitting Waxman right at his base, appealing directly to Democratic voters. “I’ve voted for Henry Waxman 19 times. Not this time.”

Watch the New Bill Bloomfield Commercial

Related Articles on IVN:

-Open Primary Could Unseat Five Incumbent Partisans in CA

-California’s New Electoral System Challenges Partisanship

-Independent Candidate Bill Bloomfield Shakes Up CA CD-33

-Bloomfield and Waxman Race Is Heating Up CA-33 District

Chad PeaceCampaign Critics - We cover the good, the bad, we critique, and make recommendations for campaigns.

The latest Rasmussen Reports Poll shows that, while 55% of voters are seeing more negative political ads, most are actually less likely to vote for the candidate who ran them. And 44% of voters aren’t even seeing them. Most political consultants would argue that they’ve done all the focus polling and that when it comes down to actually voting, this just isn’t true: people will vote for the guy who runs the negative ad for the fears they’ve created about the other.

What is not communicated between consultants and their clients (the candidates) is that these focus polls are conducted after ads and messaging have already been produced. This is the reality of the political world we live in today. Consultants universally agree that negative ads work. Therefore, they all run negative ads. The guy who wins ran negative ads because everyone ran them. So, conclusion: negative ads work … cycle repeats.

So when we get to the focus groups the consultants try to prove, rather than test, that their negative messages works. If the focus group responds negatively to the negativity, they conclude: “Well, they must be lying.” Or, “They say that here, but not when they go to the polls.”

Coming up with negative messages is easy and fun. The reality is that negativity has become so institutional in the small circles that control the political dialogue that many of them don’t even know what a campaign of persuasion even is, let alone how to write the messaging for them.

So what we end up with is: conductors (consultants) prove that negative ads work, tons of money is spent putting the ads on the airwaves that less and less people are seeing, and those who see them don’t like them. But they’re just lying.

From Rasmussen:

Most Americans are paying at least some attention to political advertising on TV this year and think it’s more negative than in previous years. But most also are less likely to vote for a candidate who runs a negative ad. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of American Adults who watch television at least occasionally say they pay attention at least somewhat closely to political advertising. This includes 26% who follow the ads Very Closely. Forty-four percent (44%) aren’t following the televised ads, with 13% who don’t watch them at all.

Chad PeaceCampaign Critics - We cover the good, the bad, we critique, and make recommendations for campaigns.

Credit: debates.org

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was started in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to organize and host presidential election debates in the United States.

Reportedly nonpartisan, CPD is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation headed by former RNC chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and former Clinton press secretary Michael D. McCurry. The organization hosts debates that are sponsored by contributions from corporations and foundations.

Prior to 1987, the League of Women Voters moderated the debates, but withdrew their participation, refusing to become “an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

The CPD’s mission statement is as follows:

 ”The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000,2004 and 2008.”

For the CPD to successfully complete their mission of providing the best possible information to viewers and listeners, they must invite every candidate who has a mathematical chance of winning the presidential election. That is to say, a candidate must be listed on the ballot in enough states to be able to win 270 electoral votes.

There are currently four candidates who meet this requirement: Barack Obama, Gary Johnson, Mitt Romney, and Jill Stein. These four candidate also each receive matching FEC funds, which are paid for through the one dollar check off on individual income tax returns.

Since each of these candidates have varying opinions on the issues being debated, and each have different information to provide, they must be invited to participate in the debates. Failing to invite Gary Johnson and Jill Stein is failing to provide a large portion of information to the viewers and listeners.

Some have considered the failure of the Commission to consistently invite eligible third parties a violation of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and others have filed complaints with the Federal Elections Commission.

With a record high percentage of U.S. voters identifying as independent from the Democratic and Republican parties, one would think that the Commission would feel obligated to invite candidates from outside the two-party system.

A poll released by Gallup on Sept. 12 asked, “Do the Republican and Democratic parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do such a poor job that a major third party is needed?” The results showed that 46 percent of Americans believe a third party is needed.

Ross Perot has been the only third party candidate invited to participate by the Commission when he was invited in 1992.

The Commission requires candidates meet a set of “nonpartisan selection criteria” to receive invitations to the debates. The first and second criteria are that a candidate must have evidence of constitutional eligibility and evidence of ballot access.

The third and most controversial rule has been highly contested:

“The CPD’s third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.”

Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson referred to the 15 percent rule in a letter he sent to the Commission stating, “this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.”

“In all due respect, it is not the proper role of an non-elected, private, and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates,” said Johnson.

Jill Stein, Green Party candidate, answered questions in a Reddit AMA Sept. 12 where she said, “We haven’t thrown in the towel on this. In fact we haven’t begun to fight. Fight we will because the American people deserve a real debate. The idea that a private corporation – the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) – controlled by the Democratic and Republican Parties is being allowed to silence opposition voices is anti-democratic and unacceptable.”

The Commission has not yet sent debate invitations and Executive Director Janet Brown said in July, “those lobbying to get Johnson in the debates are making assumptions about something that has not happened.”

Taylor TylerCampaign Critics - We cover the good, the bad, we critique, and make recommendations for campaigns.

Photo: Gage Skidmore

Up against the billion dollar campaigns of Obama and Romney, the Gary Johnson campaign is pushing for a grassroots cash injection on the fundraising platform “Social Teeth.” The goal is to raise $50,000 in support of a “Gary Johnson will End the Drug War” ad where he compares the current War on Drugs to prohibition and questions why a president who has admitted to smoking himself is committed to a war the makes it criminal.

The Johnson campaign says they will use the ad for:

Network and Cable Television: Target local networks in swing states for networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox, with a focus on high-viewership primetime television. Supplement with exposure in targeted local cable networks like Comedy Central, MTV, and ESPN.

As the first post on “Campaign Critics,” I am not suggesting that this is a bad advertisement, a bad fundraising platform, or even a bad message, but the efficacy of an advertisement from the Johnson campaign will get the most “bang for its buck” not by convincing libertarian-leaning swing voters that only a vote for Johnson will help end the War on Drugs, but by appealing to the vast majority of Americans from all political spheres that a vote for Johnson is the only alternative to the empty political debate that prevents issues like the drug war from ever really being considered.

Few people will share an ad about ending the drug war with their grandma, their parents, or openly on their social networks. Doing so might lead others to the obvious (but often wrong) conclusion about your lifestyle and/or politics. But cut to the core of the general dissatisfaction of Americans, and you might just find an avenue to reach many more voters not because you have convinced someone, but because they want to share information with their social groups that they already agreed with.

With that, here is my two cents for an advertisement script:

Title: 3 Reasons, 2 Parties, 1 Solution

(1) On-screen Title: The Patriot Act and “Liberty”

a.     Imagery: Man with tape over mouth, TSA patdown, etc…

b.     Johnson Voiceover: 12 years is enough time for the Patriot Act.  If it doesn’t end now, will it ever?

c.      On screen text: Bush authored, Obama Extended.

(2) On-screen Title: Federal Marijuana Regulation and “Freedom”

a.     Imagery: Elderly with doctors and drug cartels

b.     Johnson Voiceover: Federal government trumping state law. $75 billion in lost tax revenue. Turning doctors into criminals.

c.      On screen text: What started with Nixon, persists under Obama

(3) On-screen Title: War and “Peace”

a.     Imagery: Dead civilians in the street. Children crying at feet of injured. Map of wars we have fought in last 10 years.

b.     Johnson voiceover: We’ve spent over 1.3 trillion on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. The lives that have been shattered are priceless.

c.      On screen text: Both parties favor bullets over diplomacy

3 Reasons: Cool screenshot of words with imagery: Liberty, Freedom, Peace

2 Parties: Bush and Obama shaking hands

1 Solution: Gary Johnson, “I’m the libertarian candidate, but I’m the people’s representative.”

Here’s the “End the War on Drugs” ad from the Johnson campaign:

Chad PeaceCampaign Critics - We cover the good, the bad, we critique, and make recommendations for campaigns.

I live in San Diego. Home of sun, fun, and pension fiascos. Like most places in America, we periodically elect a Mayor. This happens to be one of those years. And, boy, have things gotten serious. The big issue in San Diego Mayor’s race is what to do about a water gun fight that got out of hand in the City’s signature Balboa Park, trashed the Lilly Pond and scared the heck of out of innocent fish.

Had a big time Mayoral debate the next day. All the poobas where there. TV, newspaper, bloggers. The whole enchilada. Read all the coverage this morning. Very exciting. Seems one candidate blames the other candidate’s significant other for organizing the online invite to the squirt gun fight.

The accussor’s indignation was apparently matched only by the accuse’s impassioned denial of any involvement by relatives, friends, or known pets.

Apparently, the rising rate of real crime in the city’s core wasn’t a topic for the evening. Guess they didn’t talk about the city’s crumbling infrastructure. The massive pension deficit. The big budget Convention Center expansion plan. The Chargers leaving town. Not even the new terminal being constructed on the wrong side of the airport (you’d think someone would notice that).

Nope, according to all the news guys, the big issue was the Water gun fight. Who was responsible? Why weren’t the cops there to protect the fish?

Apparently, both of these clowns were consumed by condeming the “outrage” and distancing themselves from  the “criminal behavior”.

A WATER GUN FIGHT! Over 1000 people, nobody got hurt — not even the fish!

There could be as much as $10,000.00 in damage (not good — but hardly catastrophic). Those responsible will have to deal with the damage, but c’mon, this is the home of Over-the-Line and Comicon. And, its August and its HOT AS HELL!

Both of these guys were so consumed by their own egos and how they could capitalize on the “event” politically that they missed the obvious. What a real candidate for Mayor would have done is say, “hey it was a water gun fight. That’s cool. We should have more of those. And, isn’t it great that the cops were smart enough to NOT show up? (Imagine the criticism when things got rowdy and the cops moved in with batons and mace to protect the threatened fish.)”

“We’ll sort out who has to pay for the damage (in fact I’ll kick in $500 bucks). And, next time (wag finger here) lets be a little more careful. Isn’t it great that we live in a city where water gun-play is news. Lets lighten up and talk about something serious. Did you know that my opponent is actually from Jupiter?”

Don’t know which is worse, the candidates who take themselves too seriously or the media that is too dumb to notice. Or did I get that backwards.

Steve PeaceCampaign Critics - We cover the good, the bad, we critique, and make recommendations for campaigns.

Welcome to the new “Campaign Critics” blog. Like Yelp for candidates.

Chad PeaceCampaign Critics - We cover the good, the bad, we critique, and make recommendations for campaigns.