I think I know why the Romney campaign believes this could work, but I really don't think it can:
Trying to shift the presidential campaign narrative away from his personal finances and tenure at Bain Capital, Republican Mitt Romney will launch a fresh assault this week accusing President Obama of political cronyism at the expense of middle-class workers.
In a coordinated offensive starting Monday, the Romney team and its allies will say that the president has been a "typical politician" and has demonstrated "systematic favoritism" toward top campaign fundraisers by lavishing them with federal appointments and their companies with taxpayer money and special government deals, according to campaign officials...
For openers, there's this:
This is I'm-rubber-you're-glue in more than one way, of course:
haha. romney campaign decides they will mock obama's singing too! mi.tt/NqX6iu— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) July 16, 2012
But the reason I suspect it won't work is that only wingnut voters -- people who are already committed to oppose Obama with every fiber of their being -- accept the premise that Obama is a horrible believer in political cronyism while Republicans are noble believers in pure non-crony capitalism that plays no favorites and lets the chips fall where they may. Non-wingnut America is divided into those who believe all politicians are corrupt and those who believe Republicans are far more pro-fat-cat. The right has utterly failed to sell the center on the notion that Obama is more corrupt than the typical Republican.
In fact, this utterly contradicts the message the right has, to some extent, successfully sold to the center: that Obama is a business-bashing lefty who looks askance at all rich people and all businesspeople. How do you sell that message one day and then turn around the next day and say Obama's in bed with plutocrats? If you're a wingnut, maybe it makes sense -- after all, you already see George Soros as a commie, a Nazi (National Socialist, wink wink), and an uber-capitalist. But for normal people, that message creates cognitive dissonance. So I don't see it working.
Meanwhile, Cokie Roberts was on NPR this morning, and she told NPR's Renee Montagne that she doesn't see much benefit for Romney from this line of attack:
COKIE ROBERTS: ... Romney has put out an ad of his own where it shows pundits saying that the president is waging a dirty campaign -- "Whatever happened to hope and change?" I've frankly, Renee, never seen such an attack work, because those kinds of ads are all about process and not about reality to voters. And you've seen them over and over again in presidential campaigns, and voters kind of expect candidates to have their own ads, and to have ads that are, you know, attack ads, and I don't think it really signifies to them.Again, Romney and the Kool-Aid drinking right-wingers in his campaign simply can't believe that swing voters don't find Obama as repulsive as Fox fans and dittoheads do. They're premising their attacks on voters being ready to see Obama as a nasty guy.
Once upon a time, Romney's line about Obama was that he's a nice guy, but he's in over his head. But he got slammed for this by the likes of Michelle Malkin. So we get Romney trying to turn Obama into something most voters don't think he is. Yeah, that'll work.
Cokie also says this about Romney's refusal to release more tax returns:
ROBERTS: Even Republicans now are all over Romney to do that. They say that this is just crazy, he needs to get them out there, that if he has something to hide he needs to just get it out soon, and if he has nothing to hide, for heaven's sake, get those taxes out there, take whatever hit there is to take, and move on, because this is killing them, the way it is now.thisWhen Cokie Roberts is saying that a Republican's campaign tactics are "killing" him, he's in trouble.