Obama: “Most of the ads are negative. In fact, almost all of the ads are negative; and it’s understandable that as you watch these TV ads that you start thinking that politics just doesn’t seem to get what’s going on in your lives. That there’s so much negativity and so much cynicism; and it’s understandable if at a certain point, people just say ‘you know what, there’s a disconnect here. This is not speaking to me. It’s not speaking to what’s going on in my neighborhood, my community.’” (President Barack Obama, Campaign Rally, Virginia Beach, VA, 7/13/12)

THE “DISCONNECT” IS BETWEEN REALITY AND OBAMA’S RHETORIC 

On The Campaign Trail, Obama Is Implying That “Republicans Are Responsible For The Tenor And Volume” Of Negative Ads. “It’s nothing like the first campaign, the former Illinois state legislator and U.S. senator said — when he and his wife circulated fliers printed at Kinko’s. It sure isn’t. Yet the way the president told it today, it sounded as if the Republicans are responsible for the tenor and volume of it.” (Mark Silva, “$10 M Checks, Obama Complains – Yet Look Who’s Gone Negative,” Bloomberg, 7/6/12)

New York Magazine’s Frank Rich: Obama’s “Political Hit Men” Indicated That Their Attack Ads Were “Inevitable” As Far Back As August 2011. “And yet from the blowback that erupted once his Bain ad hit the fan—from his own camp, from the pious arbiters of Beltway manners, and, of course, from his adversaries—you’d think Romney was an innocent civilian under assault by a drone. What was everyone so shocked about? As far back as August 2011, Obama’s political hit men were signaling the inevitable to Politico: The president, ‘resigned to running for reelection in a glum nation,’ had little choice ‘but to run a slashing, personal campaign aimed at disqualifying his likeliest opponent.’” (Frank Rich, “Frank Rich: Nuke ‘Em,” New York Magazine, 6/17/12)

Abandoning The Brand Of Hope And Change, Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod Voluntarily Admitted That Obama Ran A Negative 2008 Campaign And Said He Would Do The Same In 2012. “Axelrod disputed the revisionist notion that Obama ran a strictly positive campaign four years ago — just ask Hillary Clinton and John McCain if they agree that Obama played patty-cake — and said the campaign is doing what it did in 2008, drawing a contrast between Obama and the opposition.” (Glenn Thrush, “Obama’s Negative Feedback Loop,” Politico, 5/30/12)

76 Percent Of The 68,443 Obama Ads That Have Aired Over The Last 30 Days Have Been Negative. “Off the 68,443 ads that Obama has run on TV (local broadcast, national network & national cable) in the 30-day period ended July 2, 52,016 had an ‘anti-Romney message’ — 76 percent of the total, according to New York-based Kantar Media’s CMAG, which monitors campaign advertising.” (Mark Silva, “$10 M Checks, Obama Complains – Yet Look Who’s Gone Negative,” Bloomberg, 7/6/12)

 “Obama’s Negative Ads Have Overtaken His Positive Ads.” (Mark Silva, “$10 M Checks, Obama Complains – Yet Look Who’s Gone Negative,” Bloomberg, 7/6/12)

• “Since April 10, When Republican Rick Santorum’s Exit Essentially Made Romney His Party’s Presumptive Nominee, Obama Has Run 112,202 Ads, Of Which 58,151 Were Anti-Romney And 54,051 Positive.” (Mark Silva, “$10 M Checks, Obama Complains – Yet Look Who’s Gone Negative,” Bloomberg, 7/6/12)
• And “Obama’s Ads Ran Three Times As Frequently As Romney’s.” “Obama’s ads ran three times as frequently as Romney’s (23,815) — though the effective gap was narrowed by super-PAC spending: with the work of Romney-allied committees, Restore Our Future (7,939 ads) and Americans for Prosperity (5,968 ads). And there is evidence that those attack ads from camp Obama have taken a toll on Romney’s favorability ratings in key states. No one’s running a campaign out of Kinko’s anymore.” (Mark Silva, “$10 M Checks, Obama Complains – Yet Look Who’s Gone Negative,” Bloomberg, 7/6/12)

OBAMA IS WELL-VERSED IN NEGATIVE ATTACKS

PolitiFact: Obama In 2008 Ran “More Negative Ads In American History” Than Any Other Presidential Candidate.  “Rubio said, ‘No candidate has run more negative ads in American history than Barack Obama did in 2008, especially in the general.’  In sheer numbers, that statement is correct: Obama bought many more ads than McCain did, both positive and negative. Nevertheless, two studies suggest that, overall, Obama’s ads were not significantly more negative than his rival. He ran the most negative ads because he ran the most ads. We rate Rubio’s statement Mostly True.” (“Marco Rubio Said ‘No Candidate Has Run More Negative Ads In American History Than Barack Obama In 2008,” Tampa Bay Times’, “PolitiFact” 2/6/12) 

In 2008, Obama “Ran More Negative Ads Than Any Other Candidate In History.” “The ad’s potency speaks to a fact about Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign that often goes overlooked. That year he ran more negative ads than any other candidate in history, according to the Wisconsin Advertising Project, a nonpartisan political research group.” (Jeremy W. Peters, “Aggressive Ads For Obama, At The Ready,” The New York Times,5/8/12)

“Even The Sainted Hope-And-Change Campaign Of 2008 Spent Heavily On Negative Ads – More Than The McCain Campaign Did.” “’What ever happened to hope and change?’ asked Bob Schieffer of CBS News. He apparently forgot that even the sainted Obama hope-and-change campaign of 2008 spent heavily on negative ads—more than the ­McCain campaign did. (Does no one recall the exquisite ‘Seven,’ in which the old hero was presented as a doddering doofus unable to name the number of houses he owned?)” (Frank Rich, “Frank Rich: Nuke ‘Em,” New York Magazine, 6/17/12)

Obama’s 2008 “Hope And Change Campaign Was The Happy Cover On A Dogged, Overwhelming Attack Campaign.” “We’re talking about a campaign that outspent John McCain by as much as a 3-1 ratio in the final stretch, and devoted most of that money to negative ads. The ‘hope and change’ campaign was the happy cover on a dogged, overwhelming attack campaign.” (David Weigel, “The Myth Of The Positive 2008 Obama Campaign,” Slate, 5/22/12)