Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Romney's 10-Gaffe Stumble Around Israel - All in Just 24 Hours

Is he up to the Pres Job? Nope.
Here is a rundown of Mitt' Romney's schedule of gaffs this week while visiting Israel. All within 24 hours:
1. The capital of Israel should be Jerusalem.
It's unclear if Romney meant the Jewish-occupied part or the Arab occupied part, or the whole thing, or what.
2. Romney said he would "never" disagree publicly with Israel.
Presumably, if Israel is caught attacking a US navel vessel and killing crew members (as has happened) or Israel is caught sending spies against the US (as has happened) a Pres-Rom would deal with all this privately . . . 
3. Keeping Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons would be the "top" US foreign policy objective for Romney.
But Romney has already said that Russia is the US' greatest adversary. Many (most?) foreign policy experts disagree with either or both of these simplistic and contradictory foreign policy positions.
4. Romney as President, will "stand by" Israel, should Israel use weapons against Iran.
In other words, Romney would go to war against Iran, at the beck and call of Israel.
5. With no clear explanation for either decision, Romney first closed a fund raiser to the local media, got criticized for this in the media and then had to open it to the Israeli media.   
6. Romney backed away from his foreign policy advisor, David Senor, who remarked that Romney  “would respect” unilateral Israeli strike on Iran

7. Romney first agreed to meet but then at the last minute cancelled his meeting with Labor Party head, Shelly Yechimovich. The cancellation was announced by the Prime Minister's office, not by Romney's staff.

8. Romney first invited and then cancelled dozens of invitations to his Jerusalem Foundation speech. Many cancellations were made only after dozens of people had lined up to attend.

9. Romney at first invited only two media outlets to the Jerusalem Foundation speech, but after a media uproar, the decision was reversed and all media were told they would be admitted.

10. In a speech at a King David Hotel fund raiser, Romney says the economic disparity between Israel and Israeli-occupied Palestinian areas is the result of differences between the two "cultures."
This comment played to many,  as either a racist insult to Palestinians and Arabs generally or as an odd re-kindling of the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as share dealing business people.

All in just 24 hours.

(Meanwhile, July 31, 2012, Romney's staff is trying to outdo their boss with their own gaffes. - Romney Aide to Reporters: "Kiss My Ass.")

On Israel visit, Romney talks the talk, but stumbles the walk 

Romney outrages Palestinians with comments at Jerusalem event 

Romney Campaign Muddles Iran Stance

NYT - Romney Trip Raises Sparks at a 2nd Stop

Friday, July 27, 2012


Here are the organizations that are partners of the Civil Marriage Protection Act coalition.

Each one of these groups knows the issue before Marylanders on Nov 6 2012 is CIVIL MARRIAGE for All Marylanders.

The issue is not RELIGIOUS WEDDING CEREMONIES - who can conduct them, where they can take place. No church will be forced to conduct a wedding ceremony contrary to church doctrine or tradition.

Check out this list. If your group has not yet joined the coalition and would like to partner up, just fill in the form.

ACLU of Maryland
Baltimore Black Pride, Inc
Baltimore Hebrew Congregation
Baltimore NOW
Baltimore Ethical Society
Beltway Bears
BFR Motorsports
Brown Memorial Park Avenue Presbyterian Church
CASA de Maryland
Chesapeake Squares
Christ Congregational Church
Columbia Jewish Congregation
Cumberland Setusfree
Equality Maryland
Evangelical Reformed United Church of Christ
Family Equality Council
First Unitarian Church of Baltimore
Govans Presbyterian Church
Hearts & Ears
Human Rights Campaign
IFPTE Local 70
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington
Jews United for Justice
Marriage Equality USA
Maryland Black Family Alliance
Maryland NOW
Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO
Maryland State Education Association
McDonough GLOW
MD Catholics for Equality
MD Faith for Equality
Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG
NAACP-Baltimore Branch
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Open Door Metropolitan Community Church
Paint Branch Unitarian Universalist Church
Progressive Maryland
Rockville United Church
SEIU 1199
SEIU Local 500
SEIU MD/DC Sate Council
St. Marks Lutheran Church
Temple Emanuel
Temple Oheb Shalom
The League of Women Voters
The Taskforce
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Church of Silver Spring
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of Maryland
Unity Fellowship of Baltimore
Women’s Suburban Democratic Club of Montgomery County
Young Democrats of Anne Arundel
Young Democrats of Maryland
Young Democrats of Montgomery
Young Democrats of UMBC Democrats

If your group has not yet joined the coalition and would like to partner up, just fill in the form.

Partner List | Marylanders for Marriage Equality

Delegate Pat McDonough: 'I'm Never Leaving My House Again!'

(Disassociated Press) Speaking from his back bathroom through a tin can, Delegate Patrick McDonough announced he will never go outside his home again. Ever.

"The prob," McDonough said, "is DNA." Mr. McDonough went on:

"Back in the day, everything was Black and White. Not any more. 
"A while back I complained about 'Black youths' doing this or that and one of my very strongest supporters out here in White Haven pointed out that there were probably some Hispanic kids messing around, too. 
"I never even thought of that! Everyone knows that Hispanics are non-White. Everyone I know, anyway. But does that make them Black?
"Someone told me that the head of the Harvard Black Studies program is half-White. Does that mean Dr. Gates ought to be able to walk around free as a bird down at the Inner Harbor? 
"I mean, he used to be a Black youth . . .
"It's just all gotten too confusing.
"I blame President Obama and his White mother.
"Is the President Black or not? 
"Morgan Freeman says the man is White. 
"Well, if he's White, then all the hubba hubba about his birth certificate does not make any sense. Does it? 
"Romney's daddy was born in Mexico, for crying out loud. Is Mitt a Mex?
"This is all just to confusing.
"Take Italians. Are they White or not? I mean, you got lots of White-looking Italians such as Britney Spears, Jennifer Aniston, Taylor Swift, Paris Hilton, Bruce Springsteen, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bon Jovi, all teh Fondas - Bridget, Jane, Henry; then you got your Frank Sinatra, your Sean Penn, your Madonna, your Lady Gaga. 
"But what if it turns out they are Black? Black like Obama? 
"Am I supposed to say Bruce Springsteen and Leo DiCaprio should stay away from the Inner Harbor? 
"I thought I would be OK just pointing the finger at Black Baltimore and the Inner Harbor. But if Italians are Black and Obama is White and Baltimore starts welcoming Hispanics . . . 
"You tell me: where is it safe to be a nativist bigot these days? 
"I can't deal with this. I can't walk out my door now, worrying about who's what, and who or what I might run into.
"I wish we could go back to the good old days where if someone looked Black, you could just not let'm in. 
"As soon as we stopped doing that, everything got all complicated on me.
"Maybe I better just sit here and shut up."

Maybe so . . .


McDonough says mayor creating 'super magnet' for illegal immigration

Pat McDonough ratchets up 'mobs of black youth' talk, criticism of mayor on WCBM weekend show

Morgan Freeman: Obama Not 'First Black President'

"There is no African American we have ever tested who is 100 percent black. None," Gates said.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Here is the Text of Maryland's Civil Marriage Protection Act

This is the TEXT of the LAW. Watch this site for postings about how the law ought to be (but is not) read by the opposition. 

We all need to remember:

the LAW, as written, is not about weddings, or about who officiates, or where a wedding takes place. Nope. 

The law is about access to a government-issued Marriage License. 

The law does NOT require any religious organization to perform weddings that do not accord with church doctrine.

AN ACT concerning
Civil Marriage Protection Act

FOR the purpose of altering a provision of law establishing that only certain

marriages are valid in this State; making stylistic and conforming changes in

certain provisions of law prohibiting marriages within certain degrees of

relationship; prohibiting  certain officials from being required to solemnize or

officiate a particular marriage or religious rite of a marriage in violation of a

certain constitutional right; establishing that certain religious entities have

exclusive control over their own theological doctrine, policy teachings, or beliefs

regarding who may marry within that faith; prohibiting certain officials from
being subject to any fine or penalty for failing or refusing to join individuals in
marriage; prohibiting certain religious entities from being required to provide
services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges to an
individual under certain circumstances; providing that a certain refusal by a
certain religious entity or an individual employed by a certain religious entity
may not create a civil claim or cause of action or result in any State action to
penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate against such entities or
individuals; prohibiting certain fraternal benefit societies from being required to
admit an individual as a member or provide insurance benefits to an individual
under certain circumstances; providing that a certain refusal by a certain
fraternal benefit society may not create a civil claim or cause of action or
constitute the basis for the withholding of governmental benefits or services
from the fraternal benefit society; providing for the construction of this Act;
providing for a delayed effective date;  making this Act contingent on the
resolution of certain litigation under certain  circumstances; declaring that the
provisions of this Act are not severable; and generally relating to valid
marriages and religious freedom.

BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,
Article – Family Law
Section 2–201 and 2–202
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2006 Replacement Volume and 2011 Supplement)

MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:



(B) Only a marriage between [a man and a woman] TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO


(a) Any marriage performed in this State that is prohibited by this section is

(b) (1) [A man] AN INDIVIDUAL may not marry  [his] THE INDIVIDUAL’S:

[(i) grandmother;
(ii) mother;
(iii) daughter;
(iv) sister; or
(v) granddaughter.

(2) A woman may not marry her:

(i) grandfather;
(ii) father;
(iii) son;
(iv) brother; or
(v) grandson]

[(3)] (2) An individual who violates any provision of this subsection

is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine of $1,500.
(c) (1) [A man] AN INDIVIDUAL may not marry  [his] THE

[(i) grandfather’s wife;
(ii) wife’s grandmother;
(iii) father’s sister;
(iv) mother’s sister;
(v) stepmother;
(vi) wife’s mother;
(vii) wife’s daughter;
(viii) son’s wife;
(ix) grandson’s wife;
(x) wife’s granddaughter;
(xi) brother’s daughter; or
(xii) sister’s daughter.
(2) A woman may not marry her:
(i) grandmother’s husband;
(ii) husband’s grandfather;
(iii) father’s brother;
(iv) mother’s brother;
(v) stepfather;
(vi) husband’s father;
(vii) husband’s son;
(viii) daughter’s husband;
(ix) husband’s grandson;
(x) brother’s son;
(xi) sister’s son; or
(xii) granddaughter’s husband]

[(3)] (2) An individual who violates any provision of this subsection
is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine of $500.

SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That an official of a religious
order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a
marriage ceremony may not be required to solemnize or officiate any particular
marriage or religious rite of any marriage in violation of the right to free exercise of
religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by
the Maryland Constitution and Maryland Declaration of Rights. Each religious
organization, association, or society has exclusive control over its own theological
doctrine, policy teachings, and beliefs regarding who may marry within that faith. An
official of a religious order or body authorized to join individuals in marriage under §2–406(a)(2)(i) of the Family Law Article and who fails or refuses to join individuals in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for the failure or refusal


(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization,
association, or society, or any  nonprofit institution or organization operated,
supervised, or controlled by a religious organization, association, or society, may not be
required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or
privileges to an individual if the request for the services, accommodations, advantages,
facilities, goods, or privileges is related to:

(1) the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage that is
in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs; or

(2) the promotion of marriage through any social or religious programs
or services, in violation of the entity’s religious beliefs, unless State or federal funds are received for that specific program or service.

(b) A refusal by an entity described in subsection (a) of this section, or of any
individual who is employed by an entity described in subsection (a) of this section, to
provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges in
accordance with subsection (a) of this section may not create a civil  claim or cause of
action or result in any State action to penalize, withhold benefits from, or discriminate
against the entity or individual.

(c) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed or construed to prohibit any religious
organization, association, or  society, or any nonprofit institution or organization
operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious organization, association, or society,
from limiting admission to or giving preferences to individuals of the same religion or
denomination when otherwise permitted by law.


(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a fraternal benefit society
described in § 8–402 of the Insurance Article that is operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious organization may not be required to admit an individual as a member or to provide insurance benefits to an individual if to do so would violate the society’s religious beliefs.

(b) A refusal by a fraternal benefit society described in subsection (a) of this
section to admit an individual as a member or to provide insurance benefits to an
individual may not create a civil claim or cause of action or constitute the basis for the withholding of governmental benefits or services from the fraternal benefit society.

SECTION 5. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That, if a petition to refer this

Act to the people is filed with the Secretary of State in accordance with Article
XVI of the Maryland Constitution and Title 6 of the Election Law Article, and a dispute
arises as  to the validity or sufficiency of the signatures required to complete the
referendum petition as provided under Title 6 of the Election Law Article, this Act
shall not take effect until the resolution of any litigation resulting from the dispute.

SECTION 6. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That, notwithstanding the
provisions of Article 1, § 23 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, the provisions of this
Act are not severable, and if any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid for any reason in a court of competent
jurisdiction, no other provision or application of this Act may be given effect and this
Act shall be null and void.

SECTION 7. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That, subject to Section 5 of
this Act, this Act shall take effect October 1, 2012 January 1, 2013.

Approved by the Governor, March 1, 2012.

SOURCE: (House Bill 438) Civil Marriage Protection Act

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Romney Attacks Obama for Saying Businesses Need Start-Up Help


Romney Attacks Obama for Saying Businesses Need Start-Up Help  - Something Romney Himself Has Been Saying 

(BTW Here is How President Obama and Mitt Romney compare on support for small businesses.)

Romney - taking an Obama sentence out of context, said the other day:

“It shows how out of touch he is with the character of America. This idea of criticizing and attacking success, of demonizing those in all walks of life who have been successful, is something that is so foreign to us that we can’t understand it.”
Here is the sentence from President Obama:

"If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that." 

And here is the context:

"There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges.

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

You be the judge: 

Did Obama say (as Romney spins it):

"It shows how out of touch he is with the character of America. . . ."

Or, was Obama talking about "a great teacher somewhere in your life . . ."

and "roads and bridges" when he said: "you didn’t build that."

Meanwhile, while criticizing Obama for praiding " . . . this unbelievable American system" that fosters business growth, Romney admits that businesses ought to benefit from society's help:

“I was on a bus trip a few weeks ago, you may have seen, across Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan. . . . I was in Indiana, Wisconsin, and these are the states headed by Republican governors, and you know what? They are doing the right things, and it’s making a difference.”

Nice to know that Romney wants businesses to benefit from government support - like roads and bridges. Too bad he also wants to remove the Medicare and Healthcare safety nets which keep poor, working people from dropping out of the already-shrinking American middle class. 

American working people? They are not part of Mitt's circle of  support. Romney is much more interested in supporting the super-rich Latin American right wing. (See: Romney's Bain Capital Invested for Right-wing Salvadorans Associated with Supporting Death Squads)

Monday, July 23, 2012


Free Bumper Sticker Campaign

Spread the Love and the 

Friday, July 20, 2012

Registering Voters for Equality

Registering Voters for Equality

Registering Voters for Equality
Mark Patro sells roasted coffee at Pink House Coffee at the Fells Point Farmers Market on Saturday mornings.  He decided that while there, he would collect pledges for the Marylanders for Marriage Equality (MD4ME) campaign.    As he was collecting signatures, several people said they would sign if they were registered to vote.
Working independent of MD4ME, Patro, who is the president of the Baltimore County chapter of PFLAG, launched his own voter registration drive to boost marriage equality at the ballot box in November.  He underwent training to teach volunteers who would then be certified for either instructing others or to perform actual voter registration.
“I went to the Catonsville election headquarters for Baltimore County and got myself trained to register people to vote,” Patro told Baltimore OUTloud.  “Now I can offer to register unregistered pledge signers at the Farmers Market, and I also can train others to become Voter Registration Volunteers.”
After being trained and certified, a person is able to complete a voter registration application for another— instead of encouraging them to do it themselves and never really knowing if they followed through. It's an important part of the marriage equality campaign to ensure that people who support marriage equality are registered to vote before October 15.
Over 20 people turned out at the GLCCB on the evening of July 3 to receive the instruction from Patro. On the Facebook page, “Marriage Equality Information Exchange,” Mike Bernard, one of those trained, went one step further and posted, “I challenge all of us to train 10 of our friends and colleagues.”
College students, according to recent polls, are more likely to support marriage equality and represent a large number of unregistered voters, making such registration efforts critical in winning the referendum.  Several hundred thousand eligible voters in Maryland are not registered.


Baltimore OUTloud - Lesbian Gay Bisexual Trangender - LGBT - Equality - News - Arts - Culture - Registering Voters for Equality

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Romney's Bain Capital Invested for Right-wing Salvadorans Associated with Supporting Death Squads

In 1984, Mitt Romney tapped "an eclectic roster of investors" to jump start the investment fund Bain Capital. 
Who were these investors? 
"Previously unreported documents" reveal that one third of the original 37 million dollars raised was from "rich Latin Americans including powerful families from El Salvador living in Miami during their country's brutal civil war."
"At that time US officials were publicly alleging some exiles in Miami were funding right-wing death squads in El Salvador."
"Some family members of the first Bain Capital investors were later implicated as backing groups responsible for killings, though no evidence indicates the relatives invested in Bain or benefitted from it."
"Romney has said he checked the investors' backgrounds. His campaign and Bain Capital declined to provide specifics."
Considerable amounts of early money invested in Bain was channelled through banks in Panama "then one of the world's most secretive jurisdictions, which offered confidentiality and tax advantages."
"The use of an offshore corporation to invest in a US business shields foreign investors from estate taxes . . . ."   

Source: "Inside the Origins of Romney's Bain Capital," Baltimore Sun, July 19, 2012, p. 10.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Red States are the real 'Welare Queens'

" . . . 22 of the 23 states that went red in the last two elections are unable to produce as much as they consume. For all their inane anti-government bluster, they are welfare queens. Meanwhile, if you want to see where all this country's productivity resides, just look for blue on the map."

SOURCE: Charles, San Francisco - in a post to this NY Times article

Councilman TODD HUFF's Bad Idea - keep County Residents from Higher Ed

Last Year, my Councilman, Todd Huff endorsed the notion that Baltimore County kids be required to pay out-of-state tuition to go to college. 

Huff singled out undocumented kids for his peculiar form discrimination. 

Huff took this public position without first meeting  with a single constituent on the subject.

Huff has failed - for over a year - to agree to meet with constituents about this subject.

Making it harder for kids to go to college was a bad idea in 2011.

It is a bad idea in 2012.

It hurts the kids.

It hurts Maryland.

The DREAM of Higher Education | Educating Maryland Kids [VIDEO]

On November 6, vote to support kids going to college.


Saturday, July 14, 2012

PP Ads Sway Women Voters Against Romney? OF COURSE!

Mitt Romney is in trouble with women voters and he isn't even the GOP nominee yet.

The Huffington Post reports that Planned Parenthood Action Fund's $1.4 million ad campaign is influencing women against Mitt Romney. The ads highlight Romney's positions on women's issues and are targeted to female voters in key swing states.
According to Hart Research surveys women who recalled seeing the ads said that they were far less likely to vote for Romney than women who did not recall seeing the ads. 
The ads were launched on May 31, 2012 and targeted Romney's record on: abortion and contraception rights, and equal pay for women. The survey asked about women's view of Romney on those specific issues. 
Significantly, in a post-ad survey three of five of the most frequently volunteered criticisms of Romney were points specifically highlighted by the ads:
Romney's announced intention  to overturn Roe v. Wade 
Romney's plan to eliminate Planned Parenthood funding 
Romney stance (or lack thereof) on equal pay.

SOURCE:   Laura Basset - Huff Post - Planned Parenthood's Anti-Romney Ads Swaying Women In Swing States

WSJ Does Not Like Romney the Candidate, or the Romney Campaign

Here is a Wall Street Journal Editorial about the guy who is supposed to be THEIR GUY

Romney's Tax Confusion

The candidate's response on the ObamaCare mandate reveals larger campaign problems.

If Mitt Romney loses his run for the White House, a turning point will have been his decision Monday to absolve President Obama of raising taxes on the middle class. He is managing to turn the only possible silver lining in Chief Justice John Roberts's ObamaCare salvage operation—that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty is really a tax—into a second political defeat.

Appearing on MSNBC, close Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom was asked by host Chuck Todd if Mr. Romney "agrees with the president" and "believes that you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?"

"That's correct," Mr. Fehrnstrom replied, before attempting some hapless spin suggesting that Mr. Obama must be "held accountable" for his own "contradictory" statements on whether it is a penalty or tax. Predictably, the Obama campaign and the media blew past Mr. Fehrnstrom's point, jumped on the tax-policy concession, and declared the health-care tax debate closed.

Assistant editorial page editor James Freeman on the GOP's muddled message over whether the individual mandate constitutes a tax. Photo: Associated Press

For conservative optimists who think Mr. Fehrnstrom misspoke or is merely dense, his tax absolution gift to Mr. Obama was confirmed by campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul, who tried the same lame jujitsu spin. In any event, Mr. Fehrnstrom is part of the Boston coterie who are closest to Mr. Romney, and he wouldn't say such a thing without the candidate's approval.

In a stroke, the Romney campaign contradicted Republicans throughout the country who had used the Chief Justice's opinion to declare accurately that Mr. Obama had raised taxes on the middle class. Three-quarters of those who will pay the mandate tax will make less than $120,000 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Romney high command has muddied the tax issue in a way that will help Mr. Obama's claims that he is merely taxing rich folks like Mr. Romney. And it has made it that much harder for Republicans to again turn ObamaCare into the winning issue it was in 2010.

Why make such an unforced error? Because it fits with Mr. Romney's fear of being labeled a flip-flopper, as if that is worse than confusing voters about the tax and health-care issues. Mr. Romney favored the individual mandate as part of his reform in Massachusetts, and as we've said from the beginning of his candidacy his failure to admit that mistake makes him less able to carry the anti-ObamaCare case to voters.

Mr. Romney should use the Supreme Court opinion as an opening to say that now that the mandate is defined as a tax for the purposes of the law, he will work to repeal it. This would let Mr. Romney show voters that Mr. Obama's spending ambitions are so vast that they can't be financed solely by the wealthy but will inevitably hit the middle class.

Democrats would point to the Massachusetts record, but Mr. Romney could reply that was before the Supreme Court had spoken, that he had promised Bay Staters not to raise taxes, and so now the right policy is to repeal the tax along with the rest of ObamaCare. The tragedy is that for the sake of not abandoning his faulty health-care legacy in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is jeopardizing his chance at becoming President.

Associated Press

Perhaps Mr. Romney is slowly figuring this out, because in a July 4 interview he stated himself that the penalty now is a "tax" after all. But he offered no elaboration, and so the campaign looks confused in addition to being politically dumb.

This latest mistake is of a piece with the campaign's insular staff and strategy that are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn't been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.

The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault. We're on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that "Obama isn't working." Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is assailing Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch rich man, and the rich man obliged by vacationing this week at his lake-side home with a jet-ski cameo. Team Obama is pounding him for Bain Capital, and until a recent ad in Ohio the Romney campaign has been slow to respond.

Team Obama is now opening up a new assault on Mr. Romney as a job outsourcer with foreign bank accounts, and if the Boston boys let that one go unanswered, they ought to be fired for malpractice.

All of these attacks were predictable, in particular because they go to the heart of Mr. Romney's main campaign theme—that he can create jobs as President because he is a successful businessman and manager. But candidates who live by biography typically lose by it. See President John Kerry.

The biography that voters care about is their own, and they want to know how a candidate is going to improve their future. That means offering a larger economic narrative and vision than Mr. Romney has so far provided. It means pointing out the differences with specificity on higher taxes, government-run health care, punitive regulation, and the waste of politically-driven government spending.

Mr. Romney promised Republicans he was the best man to make the case against President Obama, whom they desperately want to defeat. So far Mr. Romney is letting them down.

A version of this article appeared July 5, 2012, on page A10 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Romney's Tax Confusion.


The Wall Street Journal: Romney's Tax Confusion - WSJ.com