The Obama campaign has repeatedly twisted itself into pretzels within pretzels to try to paint Mitt Romney as an evil capitalist who outsourced jobs to foreigners at the expense of American workers. One ad asked if Americans “really want an outsourcer in chief in the White House.”

Turns out, we’ve already got one.

Twitter is buzzing today about the Republican National Committee’s new Obamanomics Outsourced website. The microsite exposes “the truth about how Obama shipped the recovery overseas.”

Over his four years in office, Obama promised that he would focus on creating “jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced.” However, as he racked up trillions in new debt, billions of dollars did go to create jobs that were outsourced or spent overseas.

One example: “Swiss-Based Landis+Gyr received over $50 Million in stimulus contracts for their smart grid meters.”

Switzerland? But, isn’t sending money to Switzerland the root of all evil?

The site includes examples of President Recovery saving or creating jobs in over 20 nations.

The Dems, of course, haven’t caught up quite yet. They’re sticking to the same ol’ failed talking points this morning.

Obama’s official campaign site even criticizes Romney’s chief economic adviser for saying, “Outsourcing is good for America.”

What. A. Joke.  Pot, kettle, we see no introductions are necessary.

Today at The Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty nutshells the candidates’ records on overseas outsourcing:

So, just to clarify on the amount of business contracts each candidate has sent to foreign and overseas companies:

President Obama: Almost $29 billion.

Mitt Romney: $0.

Even Obama’s lapdogs at The Washington Post are nailing the president for his record.

American jobs have been shifting to low-wage countries for years, and the trend has continued during Obama’s presidency. From 2008 to 2010, U.S. trade with China alone cost about 450,000 American jobs because of the growth of Chinese exports, said Robert E. Scott, a pro-labor advocate at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. That figure was less than in previous years, but the decrease was probably tied to the U.S. economic slowdown, which crimped demand for imports.

“I think he has walked away from the campaign commitments,” said Scott, the institute’s director of trade and manufacturing policy research. “He has done far too little to improve U.S. trade.”

Will others follow?