Which Presidential Candidate Has Killed More Innocents? Let the SuperPACs Fight it Out!
Pro-Obama SuperPac Priorities USA runs an ad more or less accusing Romney of being responsible for a woman's death. You know, Bain Capital restructured a company, man got fired, no insurance, wife delays a doctor's visit, cancer, DEAD! (UPDATE: Peter Suderman had earlier today torn apart the factual basis of this ad.)
Enjoy the ad below. It's very tasteful and restrained, for that sad and untrue story it tells.
At the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf notes that blaming your opponent for people's deaths should be a little awkward for Obama fans, what with the drones and the death rained from the sky on the innocents and all that:
It would be nice if Obama defenders could respond that he's done everything in his power to minimize civilian casualties, but that isn't true. Drones that fire missiles, then sometimes fire again when rescuers rush to the scene, or when funerals are held, does not minimize civilian casualties. When a drone program defines "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent," the effect is not to minimize civilian casualties, but to maximize the cover the United States has to kill people without raising alarm from outside observers.
Do Obama supporters who cheered this anti-Romney ad understand the sort of commercial that grieving family members of this 16-year-old American boy killed in a CIA drone strike could make?
Lucy Steigerwald blogged in June on half-assed liberal defenses of Obama's killin' ways.
