President Obama's campaign slams Romney's MA economic policy.
 

Mitt Romney's Massachusetts Record Criticized In New Obama Campaign Video

Now we may be getting to the real meat of this coming election and on the issue that will probably be the deciding one. Which contender can improve on the US economy?

Wow - Didn't even know Willard had an economic policy in MA, other than raising taxes ... errrrr ..... "user fees" ........

So, What Do We Have Here?
 

It's a pretty slick, well-conceived ad. Negative? Sure. But as much as I wish all the campaigning could be positive, it looks like we'll have to get used to it. I've seen worse negative advertising though. Joe the Plumber and some of the Reverend Wright clips in 2008 were worse.

If the facts in the ad are correct--and I don't hear any clamor from the Romney campaign that they're not--what do we have here? It seems to me that we have an incumbent who campaigned on "change" and simply hasn't delivered. And his opponent who is making similar promises, but has a record that belies what he says he intends to do.

Boy, what a choice. I can't see much space between them. One major difference is that one is an incumbent and one isn't. For me that's beginning to look like the only meaningful tie-breaker.

We know by now that you do not like voting for incumbents. I have used this tactic sometimes too if I do not like the way local politics are going. I usually only approach voting with that kind of position though when the incumbents had a lot to do with what the current situation is. Not sure how either Romney or President Obama can stop the huge amount of spending going into governmental programs which goes back through a few US Presidential administrations. Romney wants a huge military industrial complex build up to counter the threat he sees from Russia, China, and various other nations. Obama wants to continue with his Obamacare and other social welfare programs which also cost a lot of money. Both Romney and Obama look like they will continue to take us deeper and deeper into debt.

Obama has the power of the veto pen. He also could have accepted and endorsed the Simpson-Bowles recommendations and thrown them into the lap of the Congress. I would have given him "credit" for that, although certainly not all the commission recommendations would have found their way into law.

Instead, Obama has neither used the power of his veto pen, the bully pulpit or any attempt at getting the political factions to compromise. Some might argue that he tried, but no one can honestly say that he's had any effect on the Congressional legislative process or agenda at all. Yes, he began his term wih an awful situation left by the Bush administration. But, he has done little if anything to improve it.

Some of the stuff Romney says he wants to do are really scary ideas and there is nothing on his resume that says he is either capable or experienced in accomplishing any of what he promises. He has governed using the art of compromise with a state legislature with ideological values far from his own. Maybe that's a glow of hope.

But like I said, from what I can see, the differences between Obama and Romney are paper thin.

Obama - Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive.

Willlard - GM is dead, Bin Laden is alive.


..... it's not just a bumper sticker ....

another plus to not forget for Romney....he is not a part of the Washington establishment....add that to his business background and he is the better choice without a doubt.....for very many of us.

btk

The only reason Mitt Romney is not part of the Washington establishment is because he lost the election for senate when he ran against Ted Kennedy in 1994 and lost the primary in 2008 when he ran for president against John McCain. If you want to vote for a two time loser, that's your choice.

I didn't ask for a reason why he is not a part of the Washington establishment.

The fact of the matter he is not and that whether liked by some or not is a fact.

Cheap shots from Obama supporters must be like a pacifier to babies.

btk

I've had enough of liberal lawyers in charge. It's time for a businessman to take a shot at the problems the lawyers have wrought.

Yeah, Junior Bush was one of those businessmen and look at the great job he did with the government. He and Darth Vader ran the country into the ground with their Wag The Dog war not only in trillions of dollars but with American lives lost.

The country is in worse shape now. You'd have to be a fool not to see it.

Calling people names doesn't help your argument, but makes me discount it.

You are free to bloviate, though.

Paper Thin And Looney Tunes
 

It might be worth a shot, but don't get your hopes up too high. If you observe what Obama has done in four years compared to what Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts and think about some of the 'sound good' ideas he's campaigning on, the difference between them is paper thin, in my opinion.

Take Romney's idea that the lame duck Congress and a POTUS who may or may not have been re-elected by the time Congress re-convenes after the election should simply let the $7 billion in thoughtless spending cuts and tax increases "happen". That may actually occur, but for any responsible candidate to embrace such an idea is looney tunes. If that happens, stay tuned for a major nose-dive in the financial markets, another cut in the U.S. debt rating, and our modest economic recovery immediately slammed into a double dip recession. And a lot of that will be well underway and irreversible by the time the POTUS, whoever he is, is inaugurated on January 20.

Romney's embrace of such an idea suggests that his business experience isn't serving him too well in considering the needs of the largest economy in the world.

Watch.

Hey, well it appears that the "Obama Media Channel (MSNBC)" interviewed the current Democrat Governor of Massachusetts, and avid "Obama supporter" Deval Patrick, to get his take on Obama's trashing of Gov. Romney's performance as Governor of Massachusetts and the evil Bain Capital.

Well, Gov. Patrick couldn't help but praise Gov. Romney and the unemployment rate that was lower than the national average at 4.3% when Gov. Romney left office. He also told his interviewers that Bain Capital was a fine company, and that their company strategy was being distorted.

I wonder how soon before he's taken to the woodshed and come out properly chastised, and talks about how he was misquoted and taken out of context.

Deval Patrick aims for Mitt Romney, hits Obama - POLITICO.com

I not up on all the financial ramifications of what you're saying, if what you're saying is accurate, but all I can say is, do I take what you say or what Gov. Romney says as prophetical.

I'm not sure, yet.

But I certainly have no trust at all in the machinations of the current occupant of the "people's house".

It's Romney's time.

You can say whatever you want about Mitt Romney. In all probability there will be very little truth to it, nothing but spin. Regardless I will not vote for Barack Obama. Barack Obama has been a failure as president. He has been incompetent as a leader. He needs to be replaced. Mitt Romney is running against him for president. He will have my vote. The country will be a better place with him at the helm. Maybe not perfect but much better.

as head of Bain Capital he is very aware and familiar with the triage routine applied when taking over a company that is in trouble/distressed.

He will bring to the office of POTUS that experience and perhaps most importantly he will bring to the WH a staff and collection of aids from his business past. And like all good executives he will bring in people that compliment his strengths.......as opposed to politically motivated rewards to people who bring no business acumen to the table as in the current administration.

Yes he will find out there are things that just cannot be done so easily in the business as usual environment of the current WH and congress.

However, I look forward to him and his staff again employing those tactics used in fixing distressed companies of implementing what can be implemented to accomplish a task. Which is a very different skill set than Obama and his team which make use of rhetoric only.

His Washington inexperience is a definite plus.....he will not know why things CANNOT be changed, therefore increase the odds of at a minimum attempting to do so.

There just is no comparison between a politically motivated person, Obama and a business executive, Romney. Competent business executives do not subscribe to the status quo. Competent business executives will not let three and a half years go by with no change in things that are broken and not working, which the current business as usual defends.

btk

Given Obama's well publicized propensity to mis-inform leads one to believe that Obama's negative ad concerning Romney's Massachuetts experience was done with the same selectivity as other points of light/non he presents at the lectern. Massachusetts is deeply Democratic and many of Romney's policies/programs including RomneyCare were altered by the Dems.

Romney's style is not openly combative or argumentative. Some mistake that for a weakness but he is celebral and keeps his emotions in check and draws his appeal by responding factually and logically.

I believe there is a major difference between these two candidates ethically, intellectually, philosophically and experience-wise as respects the position being sought. Hands down Romney has advantage and Romney will deliver becuase his agenda represents what is best for America