The Chronicles of Mitt: May 17, 2012

  Hello, human diary. Mitt here.

There was a brief kerfluffle today when a fellow wealthy American (a sports team owner, as many of my acquaintances are) was purported to be considering re-launching old 2008 attacks on Barack Obama involving the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who I understand to be a bad person'even though he is religious, which is a bit confusing, since normally all religious individuals are by definition good and correct. I believe I have diffused the situation with my response: I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they have described. (I am quite pleased with myself for formulating it in this efficient matter, as now I shall be able to use the precise same wording for any number of future incidents throughout the campaign.)

I am currently quite irritated, Mr. Diary, with the campaign of character assassination against me. I have always attempted to campaign in a generally positive way, although there have been many times in which I have repudiated the effort by a PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they have described. Generally, I have avoided speaking at all whenever possible, but during the debates I was always careful to say only positive things about President Obama. I think the videotapes will indicate the accuracy of this statement, and if they do not than I repudiate the efforts by those videotapes to promote a strategy of the nature they have described. Nonetheless, the opposing campaigns have consistently attempted to portray me in a negative fashion, which is unfair.

I think it only proper that no campaign should be allowed to bring up my past record or behaviors when I was in school, or when I was a businessman, or when I was a governor. Bringing up past actions on my part is nothing more than character assassination. My opponents should be required to limit their discussions to things I have done only during this particular campaign; also, my opponents should not be allowed to bring up things I may have said or done during this campaign. I strongly repudiate their strategies that are of the nature they have described.

Today, I visited New Hampshire once again, where I briefly bantered with the local commoners at the Sawyer Bridge, in Hillsborough. It is a very picturesque stone bridge, and is of significant historical interest. I understand that this bridge received over $150,000 in stimulus monies in order to effect repairs, however; this seems imprudent. It is true that the bridge is quite picturesque, but I think it would be equally picturesque as a pile of rubble. And rubble also has economic value, does it not?

I have asked Eric F. to draft an ad campaign around the idea that Barack Obama is anti-rubble, and that these "stimulus" efforts are unacceptably standing in the way of the rubble industry. It is doubtful we will be able to promote such an advertisement ourselves because of my unrelentingly positive nature, but I am certain one of our supporting PACs will be able to use the idea, upon which I shall repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they have described.