The Cellar - Obama vs Romney Debate

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Obama vs Romney Debate (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=28167)

So he doesn't get any credit for the good things, but he takes all the blame for the bad things? Ouch--that doesn't sound like a fair criteria!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stormieweather (Post 835518)

He says he did all these great things as governor, but really, a lot of them occurred or were put in motion before he was elected. As Bruce stated above, the actual change in MA during Romney's leadership was dismal.

He can take credit for Romneycare, upon which Obamacare is based. Of course, he says he would repeal Obamacare as soon as elected and do something else. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint (Post 835534)

So he doesn't get any credit for the good things, but he takes all the blame for the bad things?

Is Romneycare a good thing or a bad thing in that formulation?

No, but he's taking credit for being a great governor, when the facts show the state suffered while he was there.
It's my native state, I have friends and family there, I own property there, and had more than a little interest in the goings on during his term. My brother, a Republican and elected office holder in MA, will vote for Gary Johnson before Romney.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 835536)

Is Romneycare a good thing or a bad thing in that formulation?

Good question, but neither--I wasn't referring to Romneycare at all.
Sorry, I was posting from iPhone and did not quote properly to what I was responding to.

Romneycare, and what it means about Romney the Governeor, or Romney the President, is a confusing can of worms. Could be its own thread.

My point is, again the statement is that "the state suffered while he was there" so Romney takes the blame for events that happened during the chronological period while he was in office. Conversely, the good things that happened while he was in office "occurred or were put in motion" before that chronological period, so he doesn't get credit for them. So could the bad things not have been put in motion before he was elected? Could the good things not have been influenced by his leadership while he was there?

I don't think this kind of analysis is even defensible--this is just plain bad (biased) logic.

Interesting background into the difference between Debate 1 Obama vs. Debate 2 Obama:

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYTimes

After watching a videotape of his debate performance, Mr. Obama began calling panicked donors and supporters to reassure them he would do better. “This is on me,” the president said, again and again.
Mr. Obama, who had dismissed warnings about being caught off guard in the debate, told his advisers that he would now accept and deploy the prewritten attack lines that he had sniffed at earlier. “If I give up a couple of points of likability and come across as snarky, so be it,” Mr. Obama told his staff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint (Post 835565)

Good question, but neither--I wasn't referring to Romneycare at all.

My point is, again the statement is that "the state suffered while he was there" so Romney takes the blame for events that happened during the chronological period while he was in office. Conversely, the good things that happened while he was in office "occurred or were put in motion" before that chronological period, so he doesn't get credit for them. So could the bad things not have been put in motion before he was elected? Could the good things not have been influenced by his leadership while he was there?
.

I know next to nothing about Romney's record as a governor, but this makes sense.