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" ........

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.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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. 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

Originally Posted by billethkid

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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.

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

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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.

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.