JENNIFER RUBIN: Romney’s only “anti” should be anti-Obama.

It is tempting for Mitt Romney to fight fire with fire, and based on this past week it’s hard to quibble with success. But ultimately it is a losing proposition to try to match Democrats stride for stride in the “anti” games. Democrats will always pander more, play the misogyny (or race) card more effectively and be more shameless in gimmickry (e.g. the Buffett rule). That they and their liberal allies in the blogosphere lay claim to the high ground is a tribute to their audacity.

Romney would do far better to decline to and indeed condemn the “anti” game. Romney’s advantage lies in articulating an inclusive, positive pro-growth, inclusive message. He needs to be the “no blue states, no red states” candidate. Truth be told, Obama’s economic policies don’t discriminate — they are rotten for men and women, old and young, and every ethnic group. The anti-business, anti-growth, anti-fiscal-discipline, anti-defense-spending Obama policies are the anti’s on which Romney should focus.

Romney caught a break this past week. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude fighting divisiveness with divisiveness is a viable campaign strategy.

For fun, he should try giving a speech that’s as close to word-for-word Obama’s 2004 DNC speech as he can manage. Just to further heighten the contradictions.