In response to:

Obama's Bain Attacks Could Backfire

Paul408 Wrote: May 29, 2012 4:00 PM
The fact is that in 1912, the taxes on the rich were much lower than they are today. They were 0. So, your first "fact" is a lie. The second, W had a 1 off spending increase, TARP which we shouldn't have had, but did. So, 900 billion of that was a one-off. Without TARP, W falls below 5% increase. Obama KEPT the spending levels at the one-off level, which means the emergency spending level was increased 1.8%. If he actually took responsibility for what he did, he's over 5%.

The ham-handed Barack Obama campaign attack ads on Mitt Romney's former firm Bain Capital have drawn a lot of ire from other Democrats.

And not just because they were sloppily fact-checked (the ads hit Romney for layoffs long after he left Bain) and because a leading Obama money bundler is a Bain executive himself.

Chiming in with various degrees of disapproval were Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker ("nauseating"), former Rep. Harold Ford, Obama car czar Steven Rattner, Sen. Mark Warner and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell.

There are other signs of unease among Democratic elites. Obama contributions...