WSJ Erases Romney's History Of Invoking Rev. Wright To Attack Obama

A May 18 Wall Street Journal article claimed that the “tenor” of a recently proposed super PAC ad campaign to attack President Obama over his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright “was far different than that adopted so far by [Mitt] Romney,” and that Romney's campaign “has been focused on raising money” and the economy while “rarely straying beyond those topics.” But as Politico pointed out, Romney invoked Wright as recently as February to attack the president.

From the Wall Street Journal (note: full article available behind pay wall):

Mr. Romney's comments on the Obama campaign's attack, three days after the ad was released, underscored his campaign's approach in recent days: It has been focused on raising money and building Mr. Romney's image as a businessman concerned about the economy and federal debt, rarely straying beyond those topics--including putting him in front of a monitor at public events showing an updated total of the national debt.


The tenor of the proposed ad [linking President Obama to Reverend Wright] was far different than that adopted so far by Mr. Romney and many other GOP-leaning groups, which have chosen not to attack Mr. Obama personally. The episode was a reminder that while independent super PACs have shown their power to assist candidates they favor, they also hold the potential to complicate or contradict a candidate's own messages.

But as Politico noted, Romney independently raised the subject of Rev. Wright in a February 7 interview on Sean Hannity's radio show. After Hannity played a clip of a speech by Obama in which he warned against “the dangers of sectarianism” and noted that “the diversity of America's populations” meant that “we are no longer a Christian nation,” Romney attacked the president, saying “I'm not sure which is worse, him listening to Reverend Wright or him saying that we ... must be a less Christian nation.” From The Sean Hannity Show:

ROMNEY: The other part of his quote is also an unusual thing, where he says that sectarianism presents a great threat. Look, we've had -- he may not be much of a student of history but perhaps he doesn't recall that from the very beginning, America had many different sects, many different religions, that part of our founding principle was that we would be a nation of religious tolerance.

Also, without question, the legal code in this country is based upon Judeo-Christian values and teachings, Biblical teachings, and for the president not to understand that a wide array of religions and a conviction that Judeo-Christian philosophy is an integral part of our foundation is really an extraordinary thing. I think again that the president takes his philosophical leanings in this regard, not from those who are ardent believers in various faiths but instead from those who would like to see America more secular.

And I'm not sure which is worse, him listening to Reverend Wright or him saying that we must be a less Christian nation.