Charlie Cook and Washington establishment miss the point of Bain attack ads

Charlie Cook, a font of Washington wisdom whom I respect, has followed behind the new meme that the Obama Campaign's attack on Romney's business record and personal finances amount to a personal attack, rather than one on policy grounds.

Read:

It isn't clear when the Romney campaign plans to introduce its candidate to the voters, to have his sons talk about their Dad, or to have Ann Romney talk about her husband. Maybe they plan to hold off until the convention. But if I were running, every day that undecided and independent voters in swing states were getting pounded with ads portraying me as an awful person, I'd think I would want some testimony to contradict it. I'd want to have someone telling those voters what kind of person I am and why I am worthy of their support. But what do I know?

I beg to differ with that bit I bolded.

The reason this is business, not personal, is because Mitt Romney says that it is his experience as a businessman that justifies his election and policies, whatever they are. Mitt Romney isn't out touting any idea or policy prescription for the economy beyond a number of typical Republican talking points about big government, etc. etc. His main argument is that President Obama doesn't understand the economy, and that by way of his personal success in leveraged buyouts, he does. He is offering himself, not his policies, as the prescription for what ails the country. Mitt Romney doesn't talk policy. Mitt Romney is the policy.

Therefore, it is only fitting to vet Mitt Romney. Thoroughly. That is exactly what the Obama Campaign is doing. It would be political malpractice to do otherwise. It is a disservice to the country for the media to do otherwise.

For example, Mitt Romney says he knows what to do about taxes. What exactly does he propose to do about them? Consider the famed carried interest loophole. Mitt Romney says he isn't in favor of raising any taxes, including closing the carried interest loophole, which he himself benefits from significantly. He has been squishy about where he stands on it and offers no real definitive position on the matter. He also rejected the proposition when asked would he accept any deal with Democrats that provides a ten to one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases to control the deficit. Therefore, it only stands to reason that Romney will only cut spending. But he has also pledged that he will increase Defense spending significantly but declined to provide any detail about paying for it. These things can't possibly add up. But does Mitt Romney talk about these things out on the trail? No. Does he offer them up as a policy that will make the economy grow? No. So what is his point exactly? Who knows. His basic position is "trust me." Whenever he's asked, he simply returns to the mantra that the president has failed and he knows what to do because he's a rich businessman. One can't have a policy debate with a feather. We need to see weight. If he wants the American people to just trust him on these things and pay no attention to the details, then it is worth finding out if he's trustworthy. Thus, we need to see his tax returns and business documents. We need to examine all facets of his business record. He invites this with his plea for trust.

On every single major issue, be it creating jobs, immigration, health care, foreign policy, trade with China, you name it ... Mitt Romney doesn't have a solution he's running on. He's simply saying, "I'm not Obama ... trust me." That's not going to cut it. That's why he's losing ground in the swing states.

Mitt Romney is making his own bed. He is the one lying, both literally and figuratively, in it. If his policy prescription is himself, then attacking him is by definition attacking his policies. A thorough examination of his policy (himself) is just business, not personal. However, if Mitt Romney wishes to have a serious policy debate and doesn't want any more talk about his business background and personal trustworthiness, then he should lay some serious policies on the table and run on them.