>>> me now the stephanie cutter . let me start there, where i left off. why pennsylvania ? you guys seem to be more concerned about it than republicans are in targeting it. do you -- how nervous are you guys about pennsylvania ?
>> oh, i disagree, chuck. the president's on a bus tour all through ohio today. we're in the northeast part of the state. it just made sense to hop over to pennsylvania and touch base with those voters dl. you know, i'm sure throughout the course of this campaign we'll be back in pennsylvania again not because we're concerned about it but because we want to talk to the voter tons ground there. we feel pretty good about where we stabbed nd in pennsylvania but no doubt, we will be back there.
>> do you believe the conventional wisdom that the white vote in this midwest is the swing vote of this election?
>> i think they're a very important part of this election. the president is going to be speaking with many of them today, as you know. i listened as you went through our bus tour route. that's the heart of the midwest . one in eight jobs in ohio is tied to the auto industry . so it's critically important to those voters about where people stand, where the two candidates stand on the auto industry and whether -- who stood up to save it, who wanted to let it go bankrupt. today there's a article in the " toledo blade " where the president is starting his tour about new enforcement actions against china who are putting tariffs on our autos, our exports, into that country. so i think all of this, the industrial midwest , many other states, are going to be looking at this about who identifies with them, who is in touch with what's going on in their daily lives and who is fighting for them. i think it's a critically important piece of this electorate.
>> i want to shift to health care . it's basically same question that's been asked of governor romney . is if mandate attacks of them?
>> we asked several times in the difference between obama administration and the president and mitt romney is we've been consistent. h is a penalty administered through the tax code . it's a penalty of less than 1% of the american public.
>> does the nuance matter there?
>> who can get health care and choosing not to get it. they're choosing not to get it so they're taxing you. at the end of the day it doesn't matter what we're calling this. we've been consistent about what it is. it's a penalty on the 1% that aren't getting health care and can afford to do it. contrast that with mitt romney . it's a tax, it's a penalty. i watched a power point yesterday from 2009 where mitt romney was walking through his health care law , which as you know is almost identical to the president's health care law , talking about taxing people. he just needs to figure out whether what it is on his end. we're pretty clear on our end.
>> it's not clear. you're saying the same thing that governor romney said. he said he seems to be reluctantly saying, well, the supreme court said it's a tax so, fine, it's a tax. but then he says his own -- it's not what it is in massachusetts . it was a penalty. and you're saying we you're not being very clear either about this whole tax source of penalty. if you're going to hold them accountable on having to be clear of whether it's a tax versus a penalty, i think it's only fair that you guys are just as clear. no?
>> we're pretty clear. go back and look at our supreme court arguments. go back and look at everything that we have said about the president's health care law . it's a penalty. it's a penalty that's administered through the tax code . on less than 1% of the american people who are choosing not to get health care but can afford it. mitt romney can call it a tax, a penalty. we don we just hope he chooses one and sticks to it.
>> the difference but -- hang on a minute.
>> look at what has happened over the past five days. his spoerks person calls it a penalty. a couple days later after his right wing of his party rises up and criticizes him he is suddenly calling it a tax. that's what this debate is all about, whether mitt romney can take a principled position and stick with it. that's the question.
>> but the difference between a tax and a penalty is a penalty means you've done something wrong. so do you believe that not buying health insurance somebody is doing something wrong? it's a supreme court decision. the way john roberts wrote it is he was making the case that, look, it's not illegal to not buy health insurance . so, therefore, because it's not -- you're not committing some sort of misdemeanor here, it's not a penalty, it's a tax.
>> no, that's not what he said. he said that there are several different ways you can go at this. and he thought, he disagreed with the commerce clause decision, but he thought that congress had the power to penalize people through the tax code . if you don't get insurance and you can afford it, congress has the power to penalize you because you're passing your cost on to everybody else. but, again, that's not really what this demand is about. this debate is about two presidential candidates , a president who is standing by his position, consistent on his position, pretty clear on his position.
>> the president was -- talking candidate who was taking both sides of it over the past -- just in the last week we've seen both sides of the issue. but over the course of the in m. years when he was been putting his health care plans out there he's called it a penalty, a tax, gone back and forth. ultimately both of these laws do the same thing. they penalize people who can afford to get health insurance but are choosing not to. they do penalize people because it means they're passing their costs off to me and you. that's what this is.
>> i'm going to ask you about an ad you're currently running that has to do with you're hitting mitt romney for outsourcing. "the washington post " -- you're quoting a " washington post " story saying that, you know, this is proof, mitt romney did nothing but outsource when he was at bane. now, the same " washington post " said, gave you four pinocchios saying that what you're claiming the article said is not what the article said. it's in one of their outsourcing ads before the article ran, in fact, earned four pinocchios. there's little in the post article that backs up the obama campaign spin. you know, if there's not passing the fact checker , do you feel as if you have to redo your ads?
>> i'm not understanding -- so if we're not passing the " washington post " fact checker we should redo our ads?
>> a lot of fact checkers say the ads are a little over the top , a bit misleading. you've taken issue when romney has done this to you.
>> sure. we feel pretty comfortable with the ads that we have up for a couple reasons. mitt romney oversaw bane capital. we all know that. bane capital invested in companies that were pioneers in outsour outsourcing. that's a known fact. what's what "the washington post " reported. mitt romney has made millions of dollars, personal profit, out of outsourcing. the second thing that some of these fact checkers take issue with is when romney left bane. he said he left before the olympics. there are plenty of records out there, whether it's s.e.c. files, his own words, his own attorney's words, that show he didn't leave bane until 2001 . and many cases occurred between the time he said he left for the olympics in 2001 of outsourcing. so we're just -- you know, we believe that these ads are fact chul. we believe these ads tell an important story about mitt romney , how he's made his money, what his beliefs are in our economic system. don't just look at those ads, chuck, look at his policies today and what he did in massachusetts . he outsourced state jobs in massachusetts . his policies today encourage outsourcing. he has a chance to fix it. he has a chance to show, no, i'm for the american worker, i want to bring american jobs back here but he won't. his policies don't do that. he doesn't say that.
>> if you were advising a democrat running for the house and senate, would you advise them to skip the democratic convention or go to the democratic convention ?
>> i would advise them to do whatever they think is best. some are skipping it because they want to spend the time campaigning. some are going to go. and enjoy it. so it's ultimately a personal decision. this happens every four years. it's happening on the republican side , too. so either way is not a big deal .
>> so you don't take the campaign doesn't take personal offense?
>> no. not at all.
>> all right. stephanie cutter , deposition any campaign manager for the president's re-election. thanks for coming on this morning.
>> thank you.
>> oh, i disagree, chuck. the president's on a bus tour all through ohio today. we're in the northeast part of the state. it just made sense to hop over to pennsylvania and touch base with those voters dl. you know, i'm sure throughout the course of this campaign we'll be back in pennsylvania again not because we're concerned about it but because we want to talk to the voter tons ground there. we feel pretty good about where we stabbed nd in pennsylvania but no doubt, we will be back there.
>> do you believe the conventional wisdom that the white vote in this midwest is the swing vote of this election?
>> i think they're a very important part of this election. the president is going to be speaking with many of them today, as you know. i listened as you went through our bus tour route. that's the heart of the midwest . one in eight jobs in ohio is tied to the auto industry . so it's critically important to those voters about where people stand, where the two candidates stand on the auto industry and whether -- who stood up to save it, who wanted to let it go bankrupt. today there's a article in the " toledo blade " where the president is starting his tour about new enforcement actions against china who are putting tariffs on our autos, our exports, into that country. so i think all of this, the industrial midwest , many other states, are going to be looking at this about who identifies with them, who is in touch with what's going on in their daily lives and who is fighting for them. i think it's a critically important piece of this electorate.
>> i want to shift to health care . it's basically same question that's been asked of governor romney . is if mandate attacks of them?
>> we asked several times in the difference between obama administration and the president and mitt romney is we've been consistent. h is a penalty administered through the tax code . it's a penalty of less than 1% of the american public.
>> does the nuance matter there?
>> who can get health care and choosing not to get it. they're choosing not to get it so they're taxing you. at the end of the day it doesn't matter what we're calling this. we've been consistent about what it is. it's a penalty on the 1% that aren't getting health care and can afford to do it. contrast that with mitt romney . it's a tax, it's a penalty. i watched a power point yesterday from 2009 where mitt romney was walking through his health care law , which as you know is almost identical to the president's health care law , talking about taxing people. he just needs to figure out whether what it is on his end. we're pretty clear on our end.
>> it's not clear. you're saying the same thing that governor romney said. he said he seems to be reluctantly saying, well, the supreme court said it's a tax so, fine, it's a tax. but then he says his own -- it's not what it is in massachusetts . it was a penalty. and you're saying we you're not being very clear either about this whole tax source of penalty. if you're going to hold them accountable on having to be clear of whether it's a tax versus a penalty, i think it's only fair that you guys are just as clear. no?
>> we're pretty clear. go back and look at our supreme court arguments. go back and look at everything that we have said about the president's health care law . it's a penalty. it's a penalty that's administered through the tax code . on less than 1% of the american people who are choosing not to get health care but can afford it. mitt romney can call it a tax, a penalty. we don we just hope he chooses one and sticks to it.
>> the difference but -- hang on a minute.
>> look at what has happened over the past five days. his spoerks person calls it a penalty. a couple days later after his right wing of his party rises up and criticizes him he is suddenly calling it a tax. that's what this debate is all about, whether mitt romney can take a principled position and stick with it. that's the question.
>> but the difference between a tax and a penalty is a penalty means you've done something wrong. so do you believe that not buying health insurance somebody is doing something wrong? it's a supreme court decision. the way john roberts wrote it is he was making the case that, look, it's not illegal to not buy health insurance . so, therefore, because it's not -- you're not committing some sort of misdemeanor here, it's not a penalty, it's a tax.
>> no, that's not what he said. he said that there are several different ways you can go at this. and he thought, he disagreed with the commerce clause decision, but he thought that congress had the power to penalize people through the tax code . if you don't get insurance and you can afford it, congress has the power to penalize you because you're passing your cost on to everybody else. but, again, that's not really what this demand is about. this debate is about two presidential candidates , a president who is standing by his position, consistent on his position, pretty clear on his position.
>> the president was -- talking candidate who was taking both sides of it over the past -- just in the last week we've seen both sides of the issue. but over the course of the in m. years when he was been putting his health care plans out there he's called it a penalty, a tax, gone back and forth. ultimately both of these laws do the same thing. they penalize people who can afford to get health insurance but are choosing not to. they do penalize people because it means they're passing their costs off to me and you. that's what this is.
>> i'm going to ask you about an ad you're currently running that has to do with you're hitting mitt romney for outsourcing. "the washington post " -- you're quoting a " washington post " story saying that, you know, this is proof, mitt romney did nothing but outsource when he was at bane. now, the same " washington post " said, gave you four pinocchios saying that what you're claiming the article said is not what the article said. it's in one of their outsourcing ads before the article ran, in fact, earned four pinocchios. there's little in the post article that backs up the obama campaign spin. you know, if there's not passing the fact checker , do you feel as if you have to redo your ads?
>> i'm not understanding -- so if we're not passing the " washington post " fact checker we should redo our ads?
>> a lot of fact checkers say the ads are a little over the top , a bit misleading. you've taken issue when romney has done this to you.
>> sure. we feel pretty comfortable with the ads that we have up for a couple reasons. mitt romney oversaw bane capital. we all know that. bane capital invested in companies that were pioneers in outsour outsourcing. that's a known fact. what's what "the washington post " reported. mitt romney has made millions of dollars, personal profit, out of outsourcing. the second thing that some of these fact checkers take issue with is when romney left bane. he said he left before the olympics. there are plenty of records out there, whether it's s.e.c. files, his own words, his own attorney's words, that show he didn't leave bane until 2001 . and many cases occurred between the time he said he left for the olympics in 2001 of outsourcing. so we're just -- you know, we believe that these ads are fact chul. we believe these ads tell an important story about mitt romney , how he's made his money, what his beliefs are in our economic system. don't just look at those ads, chuck, look at his policies today and what he did in massachusetts . he outsourced state jobs in massachusetts . his policies today encourage outsourcing. he has a chance to fix it. he has a chance to show, no, i'm for the american worker, i want to bring american jobs back here but he won't. his policies don't do that. he doesn't say that.
>> if you were advising a democrat running for the house and senate, would you advise them to skip the democratic convention or go to the democratic convention ?
>> i would advise them to do whatever they think is best. some are skipping it because they want to spend the time campaigning. some are going to go. and enjoy it. so it's ultimately a personal decision. this happens every four years. it's happening on the republican side , too. so either way is not a big deal .
>> so you don't take the campaign doesn't take personal offense?
>> no. not at all.
>> all right. stephanie cutter , deposition any campaign manager for the president's re-election. thanks for coming on this morning.
>> thank you.