Despite Democratic queasiness, Bain attacks work

Like them or not, these ads work. Apparently pointing out that Mitt Romney made his money in large part by screwing people over is, in fact, something that voters respond to:

Despite doubts among some Democrats about the wisdom of attacking Mr. Romney's business career, Obama commercials painting him as a ruthless executive who pursued profits at the expense of jobs are starting to make an impact on some undecided voters, according to strategists from both sides, who differ on whether they are causing any substantial damage. [...]

In the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 33 percent of respondents in swing states said that hearing or reading about Mr. Romney's business record had made them view him more negatively, as opposed to 18 percent who said it made them view him more favorably.

Funny how hearing that someone made millions upon millions of dollars by buying businesses, loading them up with debt and then laying everybody off makes you think twice about electing the guy leader of the whole nation. And despite the Mitt camp's assertions to the contrary, you know they're worried about it'hence their (unsuccessful) meeting with the Washington Post to try to get the Post's Bain coverage scrubbed.

So despite "some Democrats" getting all queasy about insulting our Wall Street betters, who we totally need to be sucking up to so that they give us some of their delicious money, it seems that the central message of Occupy is still strong: People who make money by cheating others should not be heralded as the be-all, end-all of the American economy.

So what happens with this new story, then, the one that says the guy running as the ultra-conservative Republican nominee for the presidency helped his company make money by investing in a medical company that disposed of aborted fetuses, then lied about it afterwards? What's this, you say, Mitt Romney's supposed deep moral stances on these things are tossed out the nearest window whenever there's a dollar to be had in doing the opposite? I can't wait to hear the conservative spin on this one.