Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
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.