Since we're evaluating Obama on his performance as President, I wonder why we hear hardly anything about Romney's performance as Governor. One example from a relevant situation: WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney argues that federal disaster response should be handled at the state level, but when disaster struck Massachusetts, he was missing in action, according to some of the state's local politicians. On Oct. 9, 2005, heavy rain storms caused the Green River to rise to historic levels and begin flooding into Greenfield, Mass. The flooding destroyed a trailer park and demolished swaths of low-income housing. Roads were impassable. The flood waters submerged the town's water treatment plant. As the rain fell and the Green River rose, Greenfield's then-Mayor Christine Forgey tells The Huffington Post that she did not hear from Romney. About 75 people, including many retirees, lost their homes in the trailer park, she says. Still many more were displaced. Forgey says a resident opened up the high school and used it as a crisis shelter. A radio station launched a food and clothing drive and the Red Cross provided services. New Hampshire had faced the same flooding. It's damage was worse. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, called up the National Guard and cut short a trip to Europe to return to his state so he could oversee the flood response. Forgey, according to press accounts, tried to get Romney on the phone, but she only got as far as a the Lieutenant Governor's chief of staff. She and others started complaining to the press in the hopes of getting the governor's attention. The town could handle distributing donated shirts and juice. But Greenfield, with its population of 18,000, couldn't repair this level of loss, which had been estimated to exceed $1 million. Forgey said she needed the state government to respond and for Romney to declare an emergency. But for days, Greenfield residents were on their own, with limited outside help. "We really didn't get the response we were looking for," she says. "I had to declare a state of emergency ... We really needed help desperately, desperately." On the first day, Forgey says she did not hear from Romney. Nor the second day. Nor the third. Romney wasn't in Massachusetts when the flood hit, and the emergency did not alter his plans. The Associated Press reported at the time that the governor had been scheduled to speak to an economic club in North Carolina. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/mitt-romney-disaster-response-massachusetts-_n_2041142.html
I dislike Governor Perry intensely, thinking that he's terrible for Texas (he is), but I'll give him credit for his actions during emergencies. There is no excuse for Romney being "out to lunch" during that kind of disaster. None, not if the story is true.
No it's not. But Mitt Romney is a lot like most of the crummy people in the D&D. They don't make excuses; they just pretend the thing never happened.
Wouldn't have mattered if he was in Vegas if he could have done his job. On Sept. the 12th Obama met personally with people related to the embassy and security, and still made it to Vegas. He was also able, like almost every president before him to read the security briefing rather than the meetings that G.W. Bush instituted. This shows that Romney wasn't able to do his duties. Thus there is a huge difference.
"Independent" voters like jopatmc are the reason why the right keeps claiming that Romney is winning among indys and has higher voter "enthusiasm". They are all tea-party Ron Paulites who have bought so strongly into ideological purity that they don't even what the "R" next to their name anymore. They are still bitter over Ron Paul getting squeezed out of the convention. But come hell or high water, they will vote for Romney, because the other guy is a socialist who hates America. Carry on, "independents". Hope you've already submitted your visa applications to the Canadian consulate.
I am not a Ron Paulite. Would never vote for him. He's foolish on foreign policy. I do believe Obama has many socialist policies and beliefs. I stop just short of calling him a socialist. I do believe Mitt Romney has been a very successful businessman and has been an outstanding leader both in the Olympics and as governor. I do believe he has the much better platform of ideas to help fix our economy. I do not believe everything he does. But the differences are not significant at this time, when the economy is so important. Hope that helps you define who I am.
Oh, come on now. Redistribution....spreading the wealth around......government ownership of industries....government mandated healthcare.... puhlease
You haven't named one single socialist policy. Any and every tax is a redistribution of wealth. That's been going on since long before Obama. Which industries has the government taken over?
They have? Which health care business did the govt. take over? Oh that's right they didn't. They don't own the hospitals, doctors' offices, insurance companies, or any of it. Remember? They didn't take over health care in any way shape or form.
That is so not true, although I think you honestly believe it, unlike people like basso, who simply trolls the forum for kicks. I enjoy your basketball takes, jopatmc, even when I disagree. It's the same here. You're wrong, in my opinion, but keep posting.
How is it socialist? The government does not own any of it. It actually enriches the private sector insurance industry. What is maddening about this argument is -- a socialist healthcare policy is EXACTLY what this country needs, and is what every other developed country in the 21st century has. The US government has bent over backwards to avoid actually taking over healthcare like it ought to, and the right wing still says it's a socialist policy.
How do you reconcile these ideas? Romney made most of his fortune through leveraged buyouts -- borrowing money to invest in companies, putting up their assets as collateral, "harvesting" them for profit (his own words), and then leaving them on the hook for the debt. If that's his definition of successful business, the last thing you should want is for him to apply his "business experience" to the national economy. Romney was an outstanding leader in the Olympics? Why did he need a federal bailout to balance the books then?
