Obama in Ohio: Why is he swiping at Mitt Romney over ... China?

Bashing China plays big in this crucial battleground state. Obama claims that Mitt Romney, as a businessman, sent US jobs to China. Romney counters that Obama, as president, waited until the election to stand up to China on unfair trade practices.

Carolyn Kaster/AP
President Obama points to the crowd as he leaves a campaign event at Eden Park’s Seasongood Pavilion on Monday in Cincinnati.

President Obama spent Monday reaching out to voters in a key swing state, hitting home the message that he's prepared to fight China over what many in Ohio see as unfair trade tactics.

"My opponent has been running around Ohio claiming he's going to roll up his sleeves and he's going to take the fight to China," Mr. Obama told a crowd of Ohioans at a rally in Cincinnati. "You can't stand up to China when all you've done is send them our jobs."

Obama and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney have been trading swipes on the stump and in advertisements over China lately, each trying to convince voters that the other is all talk.

On Monday, Obama underscored his message by filing suit with the World Trade Organization against China for unfair trade practices. In the suit – the second one against China that Obama has filed recently – the US charges that China is unfairly subsidizing its cars and auto parts for export. 

"Many people [in Ohio] come out of that tradition and context where heavy manufacturing was important and are very sensitive to ... where manufacturing has moved jobs overseas," says Paul Beck, a political scientist at Ohio State University in Columbus.

Ohio, along with Virginia and Florida, is considered one of the most critical battleground states for both campaigns, and no Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio.

While Obama talks up his trade policy and actions against Romney, his opponent has fired back, claiming that Obama's criticism of China now is all political, and that he's failed to act to help American manufacturers during his presidency. 

"Campaign-season trade cases may sound good on the stump, but it is too little, too late for American businesses and middle-class families," Romney said in a statement. "I will not wait until the last months of my presidency to stand up to China, or do so only when votes are at stake. From day one, I will pursue a comprehensive strategy to confront China's unfair trade practices and ensure a level playing field where our businesses can compete and win."

His campaign also played up the loss of jobs that has occurred during Obama's tenure.

"American manufacturing is struggling in the Obama economy," said Amanda Henneberg, a Romney campaign spokeswoman. "The president's misguided, ineffective policies have hampered the private sector and allowed China to flaunt the rules while middle-class families suffer."

But the issue is a tough one for Republicans, notes Professor Beck, because they're generally viewed as favoring free trade. And it's even tougher for Romney, who carries extra baggage on the issue due to his tenure at Bain Capital. Many voters see his work there as contributing to moving American jobs overseas.

Trade and job loss overseas is "still an issue that plays into the hands of Democrats, with China being the symbol right now," says Beck.

Obama is losing no chance to drive that point home, rebutting Romney's claims that his administration hasn't done enough to curb China's unfair trade practices with his own statements questioning Romney's credibility.

In one new Obama ad now playing in nine swing states, including Ohio, the ad opens with Romney saying, "it is time to stand up to the cheaters and make sure we protect jobs for the American people," before launching into an attack of that message.

"Mitt Romney? Tough on China?" the narrator asks. "Romney's companies were called pioneers in shipping US manufacturing jobs overseas. He invested in firms that specialized in relocating jobs to low-wage countries like China." The ad charges that some of Romney's fortune is invested in China, before concluding, "Romney's never stood up to China. All he's done is to send them our jobs."

Obama, who lost the 2008 Democratic primary in Ohio to Hillary Rodham Clinton by a sizable margin, may have other challenges in Ohio. Some working-class white voters again have been slower to embrace him, as he lacks the union roots that appeal to many Democratic voters in the state.

But his bailout of the auto industry helps Obama with many such voters, says Beck, and gives him some credibility – including with swing voters – that may be tougher for Romney to achieve.

At this point, the state seems to be leaning slightly toward Obama, with polls averaging about a four-point advantage for Obama. Pollster Nate Silver, who keeps a running weighted projection for all states at The New York Times's FiveThirtyEight blog, gives Obama a three-point advantage and a 72 percent chance of winning the state.

Bashing China is low-hanging fruit for both campaigns as they try to attract Ohio voters; the issue will be who comes across as having more credibility.

As he spoke to Ohioans Monday, Obama sought to remind them of actions he has taken – not just the suit he announced today, but in the past.

“We’ve brought more trade cases against China in one term than the previous administration did in two – and every case we’ve brought that’s been decided, we won," he told them. In July, Obama also announced a complaint against China on the eve of a campaign trip to Ohio. In that case, he filed suit over billions of dollars in duties that China levied on American automobiles.

Meanwhile, Romney, in campaign appearances and in his own ads, has highlighted Obama's failure to label China a currency manipulator.

"Seven times, Obama could have stopped China's cheating. Seven times, he refused," says one current Romney ad that takes on the China issue.

"Under Obama," the narrator in the ad says, "we've lost over half a million manufacturing jobs, and for the first time, China is beating us."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.