the counterattack

So, after suggesting items to avoid on the counterattack (see my post of Thursday Sept. 21), what options are left when wanting to respond to an attack on Mitt? A few ideas come to mind.
1. Address any items that are lies or part-truths by putting out the correct information and citing a source, if possible.
2. If the topic addressed by the attacker is a matter of opinion that cannot be proven, we can still give reasons why we don't agree with what they have to say by giving counter-examples, and citing sources.
3. When it comes to the situation where the columnist is against Mitt's position on a particular issue, then that's good. That's the battlefield where we want to be. Use whatever truthful and responsible literary means necessary to counter their reasons and support Mitt's position (which is hopefully your own personal position too). Remeber not to criticize in the ways mentioned on Thursday.
Don't forget that one can always bring up the point that Mitt Romney possesses more talents and skills as a leader than any other candidate.
Finally, going on the attack or counterattack should generally not take up much of a Mitt-promoter's time. I myself would try not to use more than 10%-15% of my output for addressing the negative or for addressing other candidates - while 85%-90% for promoting Mitt.