Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney was a complete failure as governor-- not sure why you'd think he would do better as president.

+1

+2

Romney reminds me of a dick boss who fails a project for months and then comes in a meeting one day talking about how he implemented some other guy's proposals and everyone believes his bullshit because he said it really convincingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney was a complete failure as governor-- not sure why you'd think he would do better as president.

I've actually never heard anything bad about his term as governor, please tell us some specifics. I assume you are somewhat exaggerating due to the strength of your feelings on him, but I would like to know how he was bad.

Not the PP, but I posted on another thread that I lived in MA when Romney was governor, and he did nothing. Nothing. Just signed whatever the Democratic legislature sent him. He calls that "reaching across the partisan divide," but that's not what most people call it. Can't remember him proposing anything, ever. The voters of MA have a history of electing weak republican governors to try to counterbalance the strong democratic legislature. I don't think the people of MA bear him much ill will because really, he did nothing.

And that's who Romney is - an empty suit. He has no convictions, no vision - he wants to be President because HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. I just don't understand why Obama doesn't point that out.

LOL you just described Obama to a T. He stood there with a blank look on his face.

12:05 Well, Obama has been a complete failure as a president. I don't know why you think he will be any different in the next 4 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney was a complete failure as governor-- not sure why you'd think he would do better as president.

I've actually never heard anything bad about his term as governor, please tell us some specifics. I assume you are somewhat exaggerating due to the strength of your feelings on him, but I would like to know how he was bad.

Not the PP, but I posted on another thread that I lived in MA when Romney was governor, and he did nothing. Nothing. Just signed whatever the Democratic legislature sent him. He calls that "reaching across the partisan divide," but that's not what most people call it. Can't remember him proposing anything, ever. The voters of MA have a history of electing weak republican governors to try to counterbalance the strong democratic legislature. I don't think the people of MA bear him much ill will because really, he did nothing.

And that's who Romney is - an empty suit. He has no convictions, no vision - he wants to be President because HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT. I just don't understand why Obama doesn't point that out.

Dick boss? Even people who are Democrats and have worked with Romney all say he's a really nice genuine person. Is it because he's a republican that you spread such falsehoods?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Competent grown up doesn't get you anywhere in DC. He's got no core, so what is he going to do? It's not the president's job to implement things-- it's his job to set priorities, but he's got no specific priorities or principles.

Really? Technically speaking throughout our nation's history, the president proposes legislation to Congress, which they in turn introduce, amend, pass it or let it die. Once the laws of the land are passed, it's also the executive branch's responsibility to ENFORCE the law.

When you think the president's job is to rally the troops and make us feel good, then you disqualify yourself from comprehending our nation's great history.

BTW, obvioulsy I cannot find it, but have been looking, but Senator Obama stated in his debates vs. Hillary et. all, that he was 'not going to get into specifics for the other side to tear down'. like I can't find it, but have been searching transcripts here and there, I have to hold out that the oppo researchers will find it some day.

I understand what the job of the executive branch is, but there are approximately 2.5 million civilian executive branch employees.
So do you think he should take turns doing the job of each of them for a day?

F*ck no, in an ideal world, he's honestly not qualified to by a White House chief of staff, it's just that simple. Is your point that he's too busy, above the fray and shouldn't have a hand in how his administration is delivering services to the taxpayer? When's the last time his cabinet met? Jobs Council? Good god, those are made for TV press events and he's not even attempted to hold one. The Osama sit. room picture is such old news, but he's got nothing new.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Competent grown up doesn't get you anywhere in DC. He's got no core, so what is he going to do? It's not the president's job to implement things-- it's his job to set priorities, but he's got no specific priorities or principles.

Really? Technically speaking throughout our nation's history, the president proposes legislation to Congress, which they in turn introduce, amend, pass it or let it die. Once the laws of the land are passed, it's also the executive branch's responsibility to ENFORCE the law.

When you think the president's job is to rally the troops and make us feel good, then you disqualify yourself from comprehending our nation's great history.

BTW, obvioulsy I cannot find it, but have been looking, but Senator Obama stated in his debates vs. Hillary et. all, that he was 'not going to get into specifics for the other side to tear down'. like I can't find it, but have been searching transcripts here and there, I have to hold out that the oppo researchers will find it some day.

I understand what the job of the executive branch is, but there are approximately 2.5 million civilian executive branch employees.
So do you think he should take turns doing the job of each of them for a day?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney was a complete failure as governor-- not sure why you'd think he would do better as president.

I've actually never heard anything bad about his term as governor, please tell us some specifics. I assume you are somewhat exaggerating due to the strength of your feelings on him, but I would like to know how he was bad.

Not the PP, but I posted on another thread that I lived in MA when Romney was governor, and he did nothing. Nothing. Just signed whatever the Democratic legislature sent him. He calls that "reaching across the partisan divide," but that's not what most people call it. Can't remember him proposing anything, ever. The voters of MA have a history of electing weak republican governors to try to counterbalance the strong democratic legislature. I don't think the people of MA bear him much ill will because really, he did nothing.

I'm from Mass. so I guess I am more familiar with his time there. I don't have time to fully document his tenure as governor but 10 seconds pulled up this Boston Globe story, including these assessments from perhaps the main lobbyist for businesses in Mass. (AIM) and someone (Widmer) from a respected business-funded thinktank--

On the campaign trail in 2002, Romney promised a jobs creation program “second to none in the history of the state,” pledging to use his corporate connections to lure chief executives across America to Massachusetts.

The results fell far short of the promise. During Romney’s four years in office, the state added a net 31,000 jobs, a growth rate of less than 1 percent compared to 5 percent nationally during the same period. State unemployment fell to 4.7 percent from a peak of 6 percent, but remained above the US average, then 4.4 percent.

Meanwhile, as the state recovery lagged other parts of the country, a net 233,000 people -- 3.5 percent of the population -- left the state, many seeking jobs elsewhere.

“He was going to be the number one salesperson,” said Brian Gilmore, spokesman for Associated Industries of Massachusetts, the state’s largest business advocacy group. “I don’t think that turned out successfully.”

As with balancing the budget, Romney took a conventional approach to economic development, moving to reduce some business regulations and using taxpayer money, in the form of incentive programs, to try to stimulate job growth. Widmer said Romney undertook few initiatives that could have fundamentally altered the economic equation for the state, such as policies aimed at lowering Massachusetts’ electricity costs, which are among the highest in the nation.

Widmer pointed to William Weld, another Republican governor who took office during a recession and overhauled the state’s worker compensation system. It took a decade for those reforms to take full effect, but worker compensation costs for business plunged by two-thirds and helped make the state more competitive.

Romney did not have the patience for tackling issues that might only pay off in the long-term, Widmer said.

“His economic record was uninspired,” Widmer said. “They never developed an economic strategy nor implemented a coherent set of initiatives that would improve the state’s business climate.”

http://www.boston.com/businessupdates/2012/09/05/governor-romney-faced-similar-economic-situation-obama-with-similar-results/S2cHk3JRGn0hHRnbEFuh2M/story.html

Obama = ronald reagan

Romney = Herbert Clark Hoover