In some ways, one of the more disappointing aspects of the 2012 campaign has been the lack of focus on Mitt Romney's tenure as governor. It's received some scrutiny, to be sure, but I've long believed the public hasn't heard nearly enough, which is a shame -- arguably nothing in Romney's record matters more than his only experience in public service.
And after largely pretending he'd never been a governor, Romney himself is just now starting to put a positive spin on his one term in Massachusetts.
In this ad, released this week by the Romney campaign, a voiceover tells viewers Romney "turned Massachusetts around, cut unemployment, turned the deficit he inherited into a rainy day fund. All with an 85% Democratic legislature." This came on the heels of another ad, in which Romney says he'll bring Republicans and Democrats together: "I've done it before. I'll do it again."
Romney pushed a similar message at the end of Monday's debate: "America's going to come back. And for that to happen, we're going to have to have a president who can work across the aisle. I was in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle."
In terms of the specific claims, there's quite a bit wrong with Romney's boasts -- his jobs record was abysmal and he left his successor with a deficit -- but it's especially important to realize that Romney never believed in bringing Republicans and Democrats together.
On the contrary, in his one term, the former governor issued more than 800 vetoes, over 700 of which were overridden precisely because of his reluctance to work with Democrats. As National Journal noted, Romney demonstrated a "relative disinterest in bipartisan collaboration" during his tenure.
The New York Times added, "[I]n contrast to his statements in the debate, many say, Mr. Romney neither mastered the art of reaching across the aisle nor achieved unusual success as governor. To the contrary, they say, his relations with Democrats could be acrimonious."
I don't doubt the focus groups respond well to Romney's calls for bipartisanship, but the record he's describing doesn't have the slightest resemblance to reality. It's one of the reasons Romney left office so deeply unpopular with those who saw his governing abilities up close.
Leave a Comment:
Well, the timing is perfect for Romney. The closer it is to the final election, the less time the Democrats have to react to the campaign spin of his governorship. Finally, his campaign folks are showing some signs of intellegent life! I mean seriously. Has there ever been a worse campaign run for a presidential candidate? Or perhaps I should go all 'Republican' and just say, "I really don't want to know."
Obama moves to make the War on Terror permanent
Complete with a newly coined, creepy Orwellian euphemism – 'disposition matrix' – the administration institutionalizes the most extremist powers a government can claim
-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/24/obama-terrorism-kill-list?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
Re: the presidential election, do you think Romney would be better?
It's nice and luxurious to have purity of ideals and refuse to vote for Obama because of the parts of his record that you find repugnant. By doing so, you *are* voting for Romney. Is that what you really want?
Thank You for Standing Up
"Voting will not alter the corporate systems of power. Voting is an act of political theater. Voting in the United States is as futile and sterile as in the elections I covered as a reporter in dictatorships like Syria, Iran and Iraq. There were always opposition candidates offered up by these dictatorships. Give the people the illusion of choice. Throw up the pretense of debate. Let the power elite hold public celebrations to exalt the triumph of popular will.
"We can vote for Romney or Obama, but Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil and Bank of America and the defense contractors always win. There is little difference between our electoral charade and the ones endured by the Syrians and Iranians. Do we really believe that Obama has, or ever had, any intention to change the culture in Washington?
"In this year's presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate, either the Green Party candidate or Rocky Anderson, assuming one of them makes it onto the ballot in New Jersey, but voting is nothing more than a brief chance to register our disgust with the corporate state. It will not alter the configurations of power. The campaign is not worth our emotional, physical or intellectual energy.
"Our efforts must be directed toward acts of civil disobedience, to chipping away, through nonviolent protest, at the pillars of established, corporate power. The corporate state is so unfair, so corrupt and so rotten that the institutions tasked with holding it up-the police, the press, the banking system, the civil service and the judiciary have become vulnerable. It is becoming harder and harder for the corporations to convince its foot soldiers to hold the system in place."
-- Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/thank_you_for_standing_up_20120123//
-- Glenn Greenwald
http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812
Excerpt from How Would A Patriot Act? by Glenn Greenwald
Now I am for all that , and agree with all of it , but as a working stiff , I can assure you most , well about all , of the working poor do not vote already , has that been working out well for them ?
I am all up for , and take the time to support these ventures you speak of thru many means , I have gladly sacrificed for such causes , and will again , but if I do not make my house payment , I am homeless , then I smell bad , then no one wants to play civil disobedience with me , so there is 8 hours out of my day already
Until we come up with a real program that brings a majority of workers across america together , it is near impossible to instigate the change , and please do not preach to me on where to go and pitch in , I am already there
The aca in its self has helped many people I know , so I have to vote for sanity to survive and fight another day
Chris Hedges is an idiot who proves that moron stupidity isn't just a Republican thing - I am certain he would have been one of those telling people not to vote for the morally compromised Social Democrat in the German elections in January 1933, since not doing so would "speed the revolution." How'd that work out, Chris?
He's also well-off enough that if it gets as bad is it will, he can always move to France.
The best thing a person on the left can do with Chris Hedges is ignore him. I remember idiots like him from the 60s, who had their heads up their assets, where he keeps his.
@ Rollo-5302374
Given that you apparently chose to ignore the evidence presented by Greenwald, check out the ACLU and the progressive blog links I included below which validate his article. Do you care, or do your blind partisan loyalties outweigh your concern for civil liberties? I strongly suspect the latter.
800 Vetoes? Is that a misprint? I'd like some what to confirm that.
Not a misprint. There were, as Steve said, around 700 overrides of those vetoes, showing that Romney was trying to block overwhelmingly popular legislation. Bipartisanship, indeed.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the exact number of Romney Veto's was 844. Which would practically be almost every bit of legislation passed by the then State Congress. Couple that with being a "business man" having one of the worst job growth rates, leaving a Billion Dollar Deficit and Bush-esk approval ratings. You begin to see why he was a 1 term Governor. Mitt didn't want to be Gov. of Mass, much like he doesn't want to be President. He just wants the titles on his Resume.
You've nailed it: it's all about the titles.
Massachusetts folks can correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, a lot of it was for show, so he could advance his presidential ambitions by bragging to the wingnuts about how he'd fought those northeastern liberals. All politicians are ambitious, but most try to have a record of achievement to serve their ambitions. Romney is one of the rare ones who had no qualms about screwing over the people who'd elected him if that would be better for him.
And it's pretty damn clear that he's running for president for the same reasons.
One important fact that keeps getting dropped about Romney's vetos and the overrides: Some of them were UNANIMOUS. That is, Republicans and Democrats in our legislature worked together to override his vetoes.
And we had Republican governors before Romney who actually were bipartisan. It's not like Romney was our first Republican governor...we had elected them for 12 years before he showed up.
Tip for Mitt: If he truly wants to work across the aisle, perhaps he could start by calling the other party by its actual name, the Democratic Party, rather than the "Democrat" Party.
Mitt working across the aisle? With black people? With liberals? With women? With those of Muslim faith? With anyone not in his income bracket?
Funny, where's he shown during his campaign that he's even willing to accept these folks as being on the same level as he?
The Biggest New Spying Program You’ve Probably Never Heard Of
By Chris Calabrese, Legislative Counsel, ACLU Washington Legislative Office at 2:18pm
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/biggest-new-spying-program-youve-probably-never-heard
National Counterterrorism Center operates "Disposition Matrix" and knows everything about you
http://privacysos.org/node/857
The National Counterterrorism Center Just Declared All of Us Domestic Terrorists
Posted on March 23, 2012 by emptywheel
http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/03/23/the-national-counterterrorism-center-just-declared-all-of-us-domestic-terrorists/
What does that have to do with Romney or vetoes? Find an appropriate thread, or stop concern trolling.
I hope you live in a blue state where you can afford your moral purity, you idiot.
"What does that have to do with Romney or vetoes?" -- VeryVeySad
It's relevant because low information voters think that they're getting a choice with Obama, when in fact they're both tyrannical Kleptocrats. People such as yourself focus on the political theater in order to divert your attention away from the systemic dysfunction of the 2-party system. That's more than "sad", it's irresponsible.
But there are differences that you're getting; your complaint is that you don't like what similarities do exist. The two aren't the same. That's the same false equivalency crap on the other side. Well both sides do it is a great way to disillusion people into not voting, but it's not a great way to solve problems. Obama and Romney are the same about many issues- no one here disputes that- but that is NOT the same as saying they are the same on EVERY issue. And those differences are enough to prompt a person to vote one way or the other. Does this mean that people should be uneducated about the bad things either candidate does? No. Does this mean that people shouldn't demand better? No. But you're painting this as basically just stay home and smoke pot cause aint neither going to legalize it so they both must invariably suck. The only way you can conclude this is if you focus on one issue at a time and most people have the ability to realize that multiple policies can be focused on and dealt with in a singular election.
I don't personally like the expansion of our government to combat terrorism and I am personally very concerned about my own privacy. With that said none of the links you provided, if you noticed, actually provide abuse. They all speculate that abuse could happen- and while such a thing certainly needs to be guarded against- they make erroneous conclusions on the basis of a false premise (I.E. you're already being spied on simply because the government has the ability if criteria X, Y, and Z are met to spy on you and since I don't trust the government I invariably conclude that they must have already concluded X, Y, and Z about you). You make the leap in logic without the facts or argumentative basis to make the leap. I am still concerned about the spying programs we've developed and I see us entering an era of back-door classified operations like we did during the Cold War that ended up creating this terrorism problem in the first place. It's a short-sided goal that often has worst consequences than intended. But that doesn't automatically mean that omg omg the sky is falling, either.
@ Cartoonthenews!
They are both the same on substantive issues. If you don't see that, then you're not paying attention. The two-party system is corrupt and will stay that until people such as yourself finally start to understand the Oligarch's rely on your ignorance to vote in the LOTE. You perpetuate the status-quo with your ignorance. Wake the hell up.
Why Barack Obama is the More Effective Evil
http://blackagendareport.com/content/why-barack-obama-more-effective-evil
How about you put up or shut up? What am I ignorant on? What policies are they the same on? Why aren't the policies where they differ- like gay rights, education reforms, infrastructure bills, taxation reforms, and immigration reforms- important policies? What oligarchy am I playing in to and how am I playing in to them? What status-quo am I perpetuating? Health care reform wasn't the status quo. Now was it as liberal of a bill as I wanted? No. But it was a change from the status quo. The bailouts were not the status quo and neither was the stimulus package. A massive infrastructure bill is not the status-quo. Repealing DADT was not the status-quo.
PROVE your damn premise. You call OTHER people ignorant without providing facts. You don't prove your premise with facts or with argument. You just say they are both the same and then wave any challenge to that statement. Again just because you don't like the policies in place with regards to privacy doesn't mean that this then translates into there not be substantive differences between the two on things like abortion or gay rights. One person doing something the same IN ONE AREA doesn't automatically transfer to the other area. And if it does you have to PROVE the premise.
Calling people stupid is a lazy way of not having to provide any evidence or intellectual bearing to your argument. Additionally it says something powerful about you personally when everyone else around you is telling you you're wrong, and yet you insist what you believe is correct. How about another possibility? How about that you don't know everything and you are just as biased and ignorant as the people you insult? That one can't ever exist can it?
For the record a speech by a person, especially in which that person is outright telling factual lies within his speech, does not constitute actual facts about this or that.
That is the same problem with before. You presented articles in which someone was giving their opinion that Obama might do something evil because that person subjectively and arbitrarily decided Obama had done this or that. This isn't evidence. It's not empirical and cannot be traced or fact checked. It's a random person's ramblings on the Internet. If you want to prove your premise then you have to provide empirical information that backs up your conclusion.
Critical thinkers don't just accept information as it is given to them and this is what I love about people, such as yourself, who get all hocked up on calling everyone else ignorant. I asked you to prove the premise and gave you substantive issues in which the two differ. What is your rebuttal? You claim I'm ignorant and am pandering to an illusion and then conclude that I am "asleep." Yet at no point did you disprove my argument. You didn't argue it down, you didn't deny it, you didn't factually debunk it, you just whined that you didn't like it. That isn't an argument; it's subjective opinion put in the form of bullying. So prove it. I am going to cross examine you and fact check you because I'm a critical thinker. Until you prove yourself correct I will remain a skeptic. Period.
Romney was clever in many of his vetoes at Governor. I studied the pattern of vetoes and approvals of the 2006 Massachusetts health care plan, which passed in several separate bills. Romney signed some of the bills comprising parts of the plan, and vetoed several others, with all of the vetoes overridden by big bipartisan majorities.
To me, this was an astonishing revelation, and suggested that even back in 2006, Romney was already calculating which portions of the health care debate might matter in the distant future, when these same issues would be debated on the national Presidential stage.
Hmmm...this comes off as far too intelligent and strategic to be Mitt Romney's doing...based on what I've seen.
That's because it was the wall st lobbyist HC insurance ceo's doing all that thinking , not romney
"there is a bit wrong with Romney's boasts" -- indeed there is a bit wrong with nearly ALL of Romney's boasts. Instead of trying to find out whether anything he says is false, we should start trying to find out whether anything he says is true. Start out assuming that what he says is false because nearly everything he says is false.
Someone should ask Romney whether even he can work with the Tea Party in Congress. Those people are dedicated to destroying the Federal Government of the United States by "starving the beast" and shrinking it so that it can be drowned in a bathtub. This sounds like sedition/treason to me.
This question of whether he can deliver Republican votes on any moderate measures was actually asked on one of the MSNBC morning shows this morning.
He might even be able to work with the Democrats if he proposes something that will actually help the country, but can he get the Republicans to go along?
Romney has no centrist vision. He would totally owe his presidency to ALEC and the Far Right, and he'll have to go along with them on everything they want to get re-elected in 2016. As long as his church leaders & ultrarich buddies are happy and his secret money stash increases exponentially, he doesn't care what happens to the 99.9%. Perhaps his $2T for the military will include hiring a lot of low income Far Right guys to protect his governing elite and the .01% from the rabble.
I too am surprised that Mitt Romney's record in Massachusetts has not received more scrutiny in the national press. One only needs to look at his approval rating and poll numbers in that state to see that his claims need to be investigated more deeply. I seem to remember that President Obama's record as Senator and state representative were widely debated prior to the election in 2008.
In addition, the President's religious beliefs and associations (Reverent Wright) were then and are still NOW being attacked by the right, but there has been no examination of Mr. Romney's Mormon faith, and his church's stands on women's and minority rights. I am amazed that the evangelical christian right is willing to overlook his religion because of their hatred of Mr. Obama, and the left does not think a candidate's religious beliefs should be included in the debate, giving Mr. Romney a pass on this area.
I believe that the whole "binders full of women" issue is a direct result of his Mormon faith, as they do not allow women any leadership roles even in their own households.
This is silly but turning around a state/commonwealth should be easier than turning around a much larger political entity like an entire country
Plus--Romney and Obama both began their terms in less-than-ideal conditions and both took over for a Republican
Has anyone seen this video. Rachael I wish you would discuss this on your show. It is scandalous. It shows how Romney chooses his policies if it benefits him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yR_Mn4Skt4
You talk about bipartisanship? I have never in my life seen a President divide this country as much as this one has. He so divided the country that in the last election there was an uproar from coast to coast because this man did everything he could to ignore and close out the Republicans. This from the man who said he was the great uniter......
pascoguy65, you haven't the slightest bit of evidence to back up your nonsense.
The dividers of this nation are do-nothing Congress Republicans and their conservative propoganda machine. What has Fox or Talk Radio or any rightwing member of Congress given Obama credit for, but boy, they ladled on the blame just to "prove" that all their negativity and obstruction wasn't actually against the American people or that 1 Dem president, but rather for noble and honorable reasons. HA. What noble or honorable reasons was that exactly?
You get on here to dump your junk instead of reading, and thinking about what your party does to stick it to the American people, you included, Sir, every. single. day. There is plenty of evidence on these boards to show you who the dividers really are, and it isn't that 1 man in the White House.
Thumbs totally down...
With Mitch McConnell saying that his first duty is to make Obama a one-term president, you think Obama is dividing the country? With Congressional Republicans doing nothing but voting to abolish a woman's rights to make her own healthcare decisions and to repeal Obamacare instead of passing jobs legislation, you think Obama is dividing the naton? When the Republicans have used the filibuster to stop every piece of legislation that might help our economy, you think Obama is dividing the country? Yeah, those Republicans know allow about bipartisanship. They put their party above the needs of the country. Shameful.
"In this world of pain and sorrow, there is much to be thankful for. As for me, I am glad I am not a Republican." -- H.L. Mencken, 1924
Ditto to what NeedMoreCoffee wrote.
Thank you, libgal. Beautifully detailed.
I have to give you credit, your talking points are spot on! Did you copy and paste from another Democrat blog? You talk about Conservative media, but you are on this woman's blog who has nothing good to say about a Republican. Obama has never been bipartisan. Feel free to admit it.
Why does the Affordable Care Act have an individual mandate? Because the Republicans supported it when it was their idea. The President did try.
Provide evidence for your claims pasco; both yours about Maddow and yours about Obama. Until then we can reasonably conclude you're presenting a subjective opinion that is totally slanted in favor of Republicans and ludicrously against anything remotely objective to the contrary of his already pre-packaged beliefs about the current president.
You automatically labeled me as a Republican...how funny. Just because i disagree with you. I am a gay, Independant, middle of the road, civil service employed, Union member, living with a disability. my Health insurance premiums, which I pay in total for myself and my partner, have gone up $295 a MONTH since the dynamic duo has been in office. my house has gone down in value from $270,000 to $157,000. The price I pay for gas went from $2.10 a gallon to $3.58 a gallon. All of this since Obama came into office 4 years ago. He did NOTHING with his his house an senate for his first 2 years. he now comes out for gay marriage, when he could have easily introduced it 4 years ago. if you come to my house, you would find an autographed picture on my wall of myself and Hillary Rodham Clinton from the late 90's when i worked with her on her health care plan. her plan was bipartisan, obamacare was an unwanted prostate exam. i am disgusted with this man. Tell me, how could things get any worse for me with a new administration????
Mitt Romney could do away with your union, eliminate your job because it is in the public sector, and repeal the Affordable Care Act making it difficult for you to get insurance if you need to change jobs. Your taxes could go up because he has to pay for the tax cut for the 1%. Apparently you have conveniently forgotten about the repeal of Don't ask/don't tell, the stimulus that saved tens of thousands of jobs, the reform of the student loan industry, Wall Street reform to keep people from playing with your retirement like Monopoly money, and ending the war in Iraq to name a few.
The scariest thing is that you don't know what Romney is going to do. He won't tell you, because then you might not vote for him.
Nope. I stated you're pretending to present facts when you're in reality presenting an opinion ludicrously slanted in favor of Republicans based on arbitrary and subjective terms. But I do love that even though you admit this is what you were doing it must automatically mean that I'm just upset with you that you had the audacity to agree. It can't be because I asked you to prove the things you claim and am saying I don't believe your opinion is reality because...oh, geeze, I dunno, I like facts? You can't let absolutism control your life like this. Someone saying "provide evidence" isn't saying "YOU'RE A TERRIBLE PERSON AND SHOULD DIE!" Someone saying "your statement is completely subjective and ludicrously against the president" is not saying "SO THEREFORE CIVIL WAR!" You can't operate on that kind of coin toss...well I mean you can, but damn. What your cat snuffs you when he doesn't want pet so you shoot him with a shot gun? It's just crazy.
You do realize that this means you're automatically debunking that Obama and Biden have anything to do with your insurance premium increase, yes?
As the result of the housing market crash yes. Values are coming back up, but the estimates have stated it may take until 2020 before the free market brings those values all the way back.
A. this is still lower than it was when Bush was in office at his highest point and B. this has to do with the current state of international markets. There is little, if anything, the US can do to affect gas prices, you understand this yes?
Well at least we agree that Obama is not to blame for these things, good to know
You mean aside from passing healthcare reform, repealing DADT, passing the stimulus, passing the second part of TARP, cutting taxes, passing WallStreet reform, passing the LillyLedbetter Act, and committing a treaty to end the Afghanistan war in 2014 instead of 2016, right? There actually are more bills, but meh. I think that's a good list to start with.
Gay marriage cannot be legalized through a federal piece of legislation, just so ya know. But I will meet you half way here: he could have came out in favor of gay marriage immediately. However this assumes that he was in favor of gay marriage and that he cynically played to the middle. I don't know that this is true and I have no evidence to prove either way, so I cannot make the accusation and therefore cannot begrudge him on the basis of something I don't have evidence for. If you have prove to the contrary then that'd at least formulate a compelling argument on that matter.
Oh I agree I would have preferred a bill that nationalized health care and thought the bill presented by Clinton was far more to the left than the bill presented by Obama. With that said Obama made it very clear from day one that he was going to attempt to work with the US Congress to come up with a bi-partisan deal and that meant he took plans from both Massachusetts health care reform (under Romney) and from the bill presented by the Republican Party to counter the bill presented by Clinton in the early 90's. It was a bi-partisan bill using primarily Republican ideas. I don't blame you for not liking the Republican idea of a mandate as opposed to universal health care, hell I don't even blame people for being skeptical of the insurance exchange. However this was done for bi-partisan support which ended up not happening. So what are we disgruntled about here? That he didn't go more left? Well in order to be disgruntled about that we would have to assume he knew he wouldn't get any Republican votes and therefore his posturing to the conservatives was pointless. Did he know this? Do you have evidence? So while I agree we can be disappointed in the legislation, you're making the leap here in logic to presume that X and Y could've been done without actually knowing whether or not it could have. That seems premature at best.
Well that's specious reasoning. That's like asking after your car breaks down in the middle of a desert what could possibly go worse. Lots of things: you could die due to starvation or dehydration, you could be attacked by animals, you could burn alive in the desert heat, you could wander from your vehicle and fall into a raveign. There's lots of things that could be worse. What has Romney proposed that, in your mind, is better than what Obama has proposed? Otherwise you're saying your motivation to vote against Obama is your disappointment that his policies haven't done enough to fix the issues you've been facing. OK granted I get the disappointment, but this is such a logical leap here. He didn't have a public option so I'm going to vote for the guy that's going to COMPLETELY repeal reform! Because NO reform is better than SOME!!! He didn't completely restore the housing market, so I'm going to vote for a guy that has proposed cutting off all mortgage relief and assistance because NO help is better than SOME help!!! It's taking the fact that you didn't get 100% of what you wanted and then just jumping to the inverse; it's completely illogical.
*ravine
I should also point out that when I said burn alive I don't literally mean light on fire. I mean the temperature inside the vehicle from the outside heat could increase at a steady enough pace that your body dehydrates too quickly and you die. Basically burning alive from the inside. It's a common cause of death in arid, hot climates like that of Arizona.
"a voiceover tells viewers Romney "turned Massachusetts around,..."
And ran the state into the wall! While I get it that Robme is disinterested in the actual work of government, I also fault the corporate owned lame-stream media that has given this man a virtual pass on his actual record and throughout his candidacy! The "freedom of the press" to ignore the real issues is astounding and not in a good way. What does it say about our society over-all when WE are not getting the very necessary information to make the "informed decisions"?
Robme ran a successful vulture capital company, that is very different then ruining a nation! The last disinterested plutocrat that ran this nation got US involved in 2 wars, gifted his buddies with tax cuts and war profiteering ,and ran the deficit out of control - if anything WE know what that looks like and are we really going to do this again?! Mitt Robme is rich, spoiled, disinterested, has already written off 47% of Americans, and has never articulated any plans - are WE really going to enable this guy by voting him into the office of the Presidency?
Romney is a lot like Bush -- he's written off a lot more than the 47% he admitted to, and he doesn't give a #$%^ about real governing, about solving problems for the common good, etc. He has no heart, and his brain is corrupted. He is a tool for others who lust for power, riches beyond all imagining, and an otherworldly "salvation".
ALEC will use him to garner far more power so they can control the country, rip off whatever resources they want, making the US like much of China, India, etc where the poor are grateful to work 12 hr shifts w/ 1 day off a month and live in polluted squalor. Meanwhile, the fundamentalists will use him to eviscerate women's and others' rights and instigate war in the middle east to fulfill their weird end-of-the-world, we-go-to-heaven-and-you-don't scenario.
One thing that came out of the debate the other night that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere was Romney's claim that he would be able to balance the budget within 8 to 10 years. Given the mathematics of his tax cut plan this is laughable on its face, but no one seems to have noticed the time frame. He's busting Obama's chops for not fixing the economy in only 4 years, while his own plan would take at least 8 to 10? Isn't this a tacit admission that ANY plan would take more than 4 years to reap real results?
Can anyone picture Harry Reid and a President Romney in a love fest? I can't. Romney is blowing smoke again.
But... but... it's illegal for him to smoke! Unless he's Lyin' for the Lord.
We need to record every bit of this political garbage for when Mitt Romney flip flops yet again after taking office and does NONE of what he promises in these ads. All this needs to be shoved in the face and brain of every last person who votes for this smug 6' pile of human $%#&$*.
Are the Repubican voters going to apologize to the rest of America after we all get a swallow of what Mitt Romney plans to shove down the throats of this nation? No. They never apologize for anything. They'll just continue to blame whatever Dem will be handy at the time.
Mitt can say he's the perfect savior of America, but every lie out of his mouth has proven otherwise. It's pathetic that we've reached this state of politics, put here by those inside our own borders...
Well put , It is shocking to witness , snake oil salesmen are actually going to take down america eventually , because we refuse to see THE TRUTH , as one of the foundations to build a nation on
Look at the lance armstrong deal , what nation will ever trust americans again , in that respect? snake oil , it taints all of us
Is there anything in the ad that is actually true, other than that he was governor?
Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges both rightly accuse Obama of several seriously flawed programs but, as JulieCAC correctly points out, actions that would enable the Romney campaign ignore the consequences of his election.
This man comes from a long line of infidelity and rape, no wonder he's confused.
I learned something today when I was speaking with a very wealthy acquaintance.
He said he had been to the bank where his money is earning less than 1% interest and he can't wait until Romney wins so that he can start using his money again. He
went on to state how he, his equally wealthy friends, and CEOs that he knows
are/have been sitting on their asse(t)s in order to make sure the economy
doesn't recover so that Obama is not re-elected.
He was lamenting this situation wherein his money has not been earning him additional
wealth since Obama was elected (not sworn in, "elected"). He went on to say that if Obama is re-elected and the House of Representatives stays under Republican control, that the House will continue to be obstructionists and the wealthy will continue to sit on their "piles of cash" for another four years.
I certainly feel his pain - idle, non-productive assets are a huge waste. I thought of all
the small businesses that have been starved off by these economic sanctions of
the 1%.
As a business person, however, he should know that, when everybody is sitting on the sidelines, that's the best time to jump in - because the field is clear. He also should know that, if the economy had recovered faster, increasing tax rates on the super-rich would not be such an urgent matter. He should also know that you can't sell your product if the middle class can't afford to buy it.
This attitude is real; they (the wealthy) discuss these strategies and actions. I
heard it straight from the horse's mouth. And I'm not going to feel bad when
his tax rate goes up and all that money he's been sitting on goes to the tax
collector. Big dummy.
Governor Romney has no convictions, only ambition.