Well, Mitt Romney is at it again. He repeatedly asserted that McCain supported "amnesty". Then he airs ads saying McCain supported "amnesty". Then he claims his ads DON'T use the word "amnesty".  Then he says he didn't know the ads used the word "amnesty". Then he says the ad shouldn't have used the word "amnesty". Then he says that there's a legal and a "colloquial" definition of "amnesty", and that McCain's views are in fact a form of amnesty after all.

Wow. How many different positions and contradicting and untrue claims is that, all in the course of just a couple of days? But more importantly, how many of those claims are even true anyway? The answer is, not many.

First of all, the ad did in fact use the word "amnesty" (watch the ad here), and Romney has tried many times to frame McCain's view as supporting "amnesty". So the ad was in line with Romney's own assertions. And the ad includes the tag "I approve this message" with the image of Romney on screen, per the legal requirement under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which requires candidates to take responsibility for ads aired on their behalf.

So, Mr. Management Guru allows ads for his campaign to go on the air, with him personally saying he approves of the message, all within the framework of federal laws requiring him to take personal responsibility for the ads, and he claims he didn't bother to watch an ad airing in one of the most important (especially for his campaign) primary states? No SOP to ensure review and accuracy for his ads, by the guy who uses his managing experience as his primary qualification for office?

And which has worse implications -- that he is being dishonest about having seen his own ad in such an important state, an ad that mimics verbatim his accusations against McCain; or that he indeed did not review or see and was unaware of the content of an ad attacking another candidate, an ad that used a term (amnesty) that Romney now claims should not have been in the ad, but he still was willing to attach his own face and voice saying he approves of the ad? Which would be better for him as a candidate running for office who repeatedly points to his great managing experience as his best qualification for office?

Also keep in mind, if he is telling the truth and he really did not see his own ad, why on Earth did he insist that the ad didn't use the word "amnesty"? What was the basis for his denial, since he claims he didn't see the ad before he approved it and let it air? And if, as he later said, the ad should not have used the term "amnesty", then what does that mean about Romney's own use of that term to attack McCain? Even worse, why does he say the ad should not have used a term he'd already been using, if he later was going to say that even though the ad shouldn't have used the term he in fact DOES think it applies after all (apparently under the "colloquial" definition of the word, I guess)?

Now, a big issue might come out of this whole situation:  namely, Romney's disclaiming of responsibility for the content of the ad, and his public statement that he hadn't seen the ad.  Remember that there is federal regulation mandating standing by your political advertising? Well, take a look at this, from 2 USC 441 d:


The FCC gives two examples of acceptable statements to comply with the law [Sec. 110.11(c) (3) (iv)]:


Is Romney in compliance with the law, if he in fact did not review and approve the actual ad before he added a disclaimer saying he DID approve the ad? At the very least, if he didn't see the ad and approve it before adding his approval message and letting it air, he would seem to not be in compliance with the spirit of the law, even if there is enough wiggle room for a slippery snake to skirt actual compliance by relying on a loose interpretation of the law. So could Romney be in any trouble for this, having admitted on camera that he did not even see the ad before it aired? Or what about his attempt to deny responsibility for the ad? That is pretty obviously against the spirit of the law as well -- can any candidate just ad the legally required "I approve" message but never actually approve any ads, then just publicly deny any responsibility for the ads? I would be interested in seeing what a lawyer has to say about it -- or more to the point, what the Federal Election Commission has to say about it, and what the FCC thinks about it!

This creates two points that should be explored and that Romney should be forced to publicly answer to: first, is it his standard practice as a manager to look people in the eye and claim he approved a message that in fact he never saw; and second, does he realize he seems to have violated at least the spirit of the law covering political campaign advertising?

What makes it especially notable (and hilarious) is that the same Romney ad that uses the word "amnesty" also attacks McCain over the campaign finance law that Romney says "limits free speech". Which law is that? Why, it's the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act), one of the most important aspects of which is the "stand by your ad" provision that Romney seems to have fudged on!  Gee, I guess he dislikes McCain's campaign reform law so much that maybe he decided not to bother following it...

If the media won't pursue these questions, then I hope McCain's campaign does. Romney should be confronted with these questions constantly between now and Tuesday in New Hampshire, and in fact every day beyond as well. This is just another example of Romney flip-flopping like a fish on dry land, making assertions that are dubious (he claims McCain's immigration plan would allow every single illegal immigrant to get a visa to stay in this nation, which is a totally false assertion, for example), then making even more dubious assertions about his assertions (like insisting his ad didn't say what it actually said, then saying he hadn't seen the ad when he was insisting it didn't say what it actually said). He needs to be held accountable for running what can only be described as a less-than-honest campaign.