Obama vs Romney Debate

BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:15 pm
http://www.youtube.com/politics?feature=inp-lt-ype-94
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:17 pm
Romney was asked if it was the job of the dept of energy to keep gas prices low.

There's a long talk (after a pivot) about coal. No discussion at all about the question.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:17 pm
Romney tried to talk over the moderator but was told that he'd have plenty time to speak. "That answer was waaay off the mark"
Griff • Oct 16, 2012 9:19 pm
That's fewer not less governor.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:21 pm
Obama "That is not true, Governor Romney."

Romney "you cut leases on public lands" "No, we did not" "ok, how MUCH did you cut leases?" really didn't let the president answer.

"What you're saying us just not true." three times now from Obama. Let's see how many times he's called out.
infinite monkey • Oct 16, 2012 9:22 pm
:)
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:23 pm
Romney talks over the moderator again.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:23 pm
TAXES!

This should be interesting.
infinite monkey • Oct 16, 2012 9:24 pm
And he has those beady little eyes. ;)
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:24 pm
deductions

mortage deduction
child tax credit
education tax credit and one more.

question is what about these deductions?
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:27 pm
"Im gonna limit deductions especially at the high end.

middle income people will get a tax break.

let's pick a number, you can fill up a bucket up to say, 25K$ and pick your deduction to that limit.

NO TAXPAYER WILL PAY INTEREST ON DIVIDENDS OR INTEREST OR CAPITAL GAINS.
infinite monkey • Oct 16, 2012 9:27 pm
Pants on fire rom.

Signed,

The middle class
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:28 pm
obama:

my philosophy simple. relief for middle income from pressure over 20 years.

I have already cut takxes for middle people 3600 dollars and 18 times for small businesses.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:29 pm
I can't wait for the transcript and for the fact checking.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:32 pm
businesses will keep more capital. rates down mean more money and more hires.

:facepalm:

my five point plan does it

jobs
bal budge
fix training
label china currency manipulator
Happy Monkey • Oct 16, 2012 9:34 pm
Simplify the tax code by leaving all deductions in place and letting the taxpayer pick which ones to use up to a limit?
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:34 pm
top five pct STILL WILL PAY 60% of taxes.

middle clas will get tax break

so... less revenue

leave out deductions for now, cutting taxes, NOT rates, cutting taxes "they will still pay 60% of the taxes" and "middle income will pay less taxes" equals less taxes. Now what happens to the deficit?
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:37 pm
Happy Monkey;834528 wrote:
Simplify the tax code by leaving all deductions in place and letting the taxpayer pick which ones to use up to a limit?


could be.

He's said $25k and $17k of total limit of deductions. Perhaps they have a buffet of what deductions to list them under, but this is his way of saying he's not going to take away anyone's favorite sacred cow, everyone says, look I can still deduct the thing I want to to deduct.

"I just descrbed a number adn they can put their deductions in that"

a NEAR quote from Romney.
Happy Monkey • Oct 16, 2012 9:39 pm
But how does that simplify anything? You still have to calculate your deductions!
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:39 pm
I must say that I believe the simplification of our tax code is a good thing on its face.

I think that Gordian knot can only be cut by someone who has made their peace with political suicide. And it will take a mass suicide. I do NOT know how it can realistically be done. I think it should be done.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:42 pm
Happy Monkey;834532 wrote:
But how does that simplify anything? You still have to calculate your deductions!


well, it doesn't.

I does say you can only deduct a certain amount. I haven't personally met any of those limits in my life, but they may already exist.

What it DOES DO is shield him from anyone's objection that he's gonna take away "their" deduction which they'd "need", true or otherwise.
infinite monkey • Oct 16, 2012 9:42 pm
"Concerted effort to find binders full of women..."

Please quit condescending to women...I. just don't think you get it.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:43 pm
adress equality of pay for women

R--"I'm gonna make thinks getter for womey by making this economy better"

O--"I signed the Lily Ledbetter act".
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:46 pm
BigV;834522 wrote:
"Im gonna limit deductions especially at the high end.

middle income people will get a tax break.

let's pick a number, you can fill up a bucket up to say, 25K$ and pick your deduction to that limit.

NO TAXPAYER WILL PAY INTEREST ON DIVIDENDS OR INTEREST OR CAPITAL GAINS.


show of hands

how much of your income came from wages

how much of your income came from interest or dividends or capital gains.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 9:47 pm
"governor that's not true"

in response to contraception access.

four.
Lamplighter • Oct 16, 2012 10:04 pm
My income (middle-middle class) has very little coming from interest, dividends, and/or capital gains.

So @ Romney, he would fix it so I'll pay lower (middle class) taxes on little to no income.

... which is the way it is already !
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 10:06 pm
crowley--let's talk about self deportation governor

romney--no, let's talk about what the president said

romney, self deportation let's people make their own choice

omg, now it's a benefit to them? wow.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 10:07 pm
and the fists fly.

romney says obama has investments in the caymans in obama's pension. just fucking wow.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 10:20 pm
romney--obama took two weeks to say libyan attack was terrorism

obama--I said it was act of terror the next day

romney--OH! make sure that is on the record candy

crowley--he did say it was an act of terror the following day

obama--can you say that a little louder candy? crowd cheers

romney--(retreating) it took the administration two weeks

(talking over each other) go to the transcript.

***

crowley fact checks romney into the boards. ouch.
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 10:26 pm
BigV;834545 wrote:
romney--obama took two weeks to say libyan attack was terrorism

obama--I said it was act of terror the next day

romney--OH! make sure that is on the record candy

crowley--he did say it was an act of terror the following day

obama--can you say that a little louder candy? crowd cheers

romney--(retreating) it took the administration two weeks

(talking over each other) go to the transcript.

***

crowley fact checks romney into the boards. ouch.



rose garden remarks the following day.

By JOSH GERSTEIN |
9/27/12 10:12 AM EDT

Despite a drumbeat from the right and even independent fact-checkers that President Barack Obama has been unwilling to label as terrorism the attack on a United States diplomatic mission in Libya, the president indicated just a day after the killing of the American ambassador there that the assault was part of a series of "acts of terror" the U.S. has faced.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in a Rose Garden statement on Sept. 12. "Today, we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Notwithstanding Obama's initial statement, Republicans have faulted him for failing to use the word "terrorism" to describe the attack, even when he was asked directly about it during an interview on Monday.
JBKlyde • Oct 16, 2012 10:29 pm
I want a bouncy ball revolution..
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 10:33 pm
JBKlyde;834548 wrote:
I want a bouncy ball revolution..


oooooookaaaay... but I urge caution.

Be careful, very, very careful about what you wish for.

Wish granted.

one bouncy ball revolution, coming up.

[YOUTUBE]0F3R7R1Hou8[/YOUTUBE]
Griff • Oct 16, 2012 10:54 pm
Did Romney just promise national health care?
BigV • Oct 16, 2012 11:02 pm
I heard nothing of the sort.

Let's go to the [strike]video tape[/strike] transcript.

Also here, but I only get as far as Romney's last answer. Where did you hear that? What kinds of words did you hear?
JBKlyde • Oct 16, 2012 11:03 pm
OK so like this.. take all the pressure you are having of "mY illogical nonsence"' and imagine a ballon.. now just let all the " my iloggical nonsence" be a warning of what "illigeal narcitics and cigeretts will do to you and let it go like the man in the moon...
Adak • Oct 17, 2012 12:09 am
I know it's just another fact checker's check mark against him, but I was surprised to hear Obama talk about getting more oil.

Sure, we're getting more oil - but that's on private land, not public land. On public land, Obama has sharply curtailed oil drilling.

This is the first time I've ever actually been ashamed of Obama. That lie is SO BIG, I don't see how it can be ignored.
Happy Monkey • Oct 17, 2012 12:25 am
Adak;834566 wrote:
I know it's just another fact checker's check mark against him, but I was surprised to hear Obama talk about getting more oil.
That lie is SO BIG, I don't see how it can be ignored.
Sure, we're getting more oil -
Rearranged for clarity.
Adak • Oct 17, 2012 12:31 am
Obama says he's supported getting more oil, when in fact, he has opposed it in almost every possible way.

He's cut back so much on the drilling in the Alaskan OIL reserve, that the Alaskan pipeline oil is in danger of freezing up - barely enough hot oil flowing through it.

@Happy Monkey:

Is completely joining into that lie, OK with you? I'm not sure whether you're joking or not.

Since gasoline and diesel are close to double what they were under Bush, this IS an important issue for our economy - and immediately for our own fuel, as well as the price of all goods and services that must be transported.
xoxoxoBruce • Oct 17, 2012 1:01 am
The price of gas/diesel have more to do with futures speculators, than the supply of oil. The same is happening to food.
In CA it's the availability of finished product because big oil has cut refining capacity so close, there's no way to meet demand when a refinery goes down unexpectedly.
Griff • Oct 17, 2012 6:48 am
Griff;834556 wrote:
Did Romney just promise national health care?


BigV;834557 wrote:
I heard nothing of the sort.



I was joking. He was bragging on Romney care.

If people know where their own and the income of the richest Americans comes from Romney bombed that issue. He also had to support contraception, which his nutter base won't like.
infinite monkey • Oct 17, 2012 8:34 am
infinite monkey;834535 wrote:
"Concerted effort to find binders full of women..."

Please quit condescending to women...I. just don't think you get it.


Funny tweets during the debate (oh, and I called it! Knew the binder comment was going to get picked up and batted about!)

Elon James White -- I feel like Obama's staff stabbed him in the chest w/ the adrenaline needle from Pulp Fiction. THAT DUDE IS AWAKE! #twib2012 #debates

Samantha Bee -- When Obama is talking, Romney makes the same face my Catholic grandmother would make at a Wiccan wedding

Jordan Zakarin -- I agree with Romney that we really don't need another 'Fast and the Furious' sequel. Enough, Vin Diesel. Bipartisan consensus

Patton Oswalt -- "Binders Full of Women" is my favorite Motley Crue album. #debate

Adam Sternbergh -- "Binders full of women" is what they find in a serial killer's apartment.

Steve Agee -- Fonzie had binders full of women too. #debate #littleblackbook

Elise Foley -- Oh god, I just realized that now people will dress as binders for Halloween.

David Weinberger -- Well, there goes the gangbanger vote! Nice job, Mr. President! #debate

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/tech/social-media/funniest-second-debate-tweets/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
glatt • Oct 17, 2012 8:40 am
Griff;834595 wrote:
... Romney bombed that issue. He also had to support contraception, which his nutter base won't like.


Look at Adak. He is willing to ignore the moderate stuff coming out of Romney's mouth because he's already bought into Romney. At this point, Romney can do or say basically anything and his nutter base will still support him.
Stormieweather • Oct 17, 2012 8:40 am
Adak;834572 wrote:
Obama says he's supported getting more oil, when in fact, he has opposed it in almost every possible way.

He's cut back so much on the drilling in the Alaskan OIL reserve, that the Alaskan pipeline oil is in danger of freezing up - barely enough hot oil flowing through it.

@Happy Monkey:

Is completely joining into that lie, OK with you? I'm not sure whether you're joking or not.

Since gasoline and diesel are close to double what they were under Bush, this IS an important issue for our economy - and immediately for our own fuel, as well as the price of all goods and services that must be transported.


I thought Obama's explanation of the public land leases was perfectly clear. Oil companies had leases on public land but weren't utilizing them. Obama's administration ended them so the land could be used now, not when the oil company felt like it/wanted to make the most profit.

NY Times fact checking:

Oil and gas production on public lands has fluctuated during the Obama administration, but it has increased modestly (about 13 percent for oil and about 6 percent for gas) in the first three years of the Obama presidency, compared with the last three years of the administration of President George W. Bush, according to an analysis from the Energy Information Administration.

The Interior Department produced a report this year showing that drilling permits received and issued by the agency had indeed declined from the last years of the Bush administration to the first years of the Obama administration — but not by half. (In the 2007 fiscal year, the government issued 8,964 permits to drill on public lands; in 2008 the figure was 7,846. The numbers for 2009 and 2010 were 5,306 and 5,237.)

Mr. Obama said that 7,000 drilling permits had been granted but were not being used by oil companies, an accurate figure, according to the Interior Department.

Mr. Obama stated that renewable energy production had doubled during his presidency, which is true, and that oil imports were at their lowest level in 16 years, also accurate. He also said that the boom in natural gas production could produce 600,000 new jobs, a highly optimistic estimate, but he qualified it with the word “potentially.”


NY Time fact checking
henry quirk • Oct 17, 2012 9:51 am
Watched the first in its entirety, part of the second, part of the third.

Unimpressive: all.

Used car salesmen lookin' to move lemons.


What I want to see...

O and R (B and R) sitting across from one another, asking each other questions, no 'moderator', only a timekeeper.

Unscripted, un-governed, utterly spontaneous: let the chips fall...


The question I wanted to hear last night...

'Mr. President, nuthin' you've done over the past four years has significantly helped or hindered me, and, nuthin' you've proposed in your campaign (for the next four years) is liable to help or hinder me. Mr. Governor, nuthin' you've proposed in your campaign (for the next four years) will significantly help or hinder me, so, gentlemen, why should I vote for either of you?'
Spexxvet • Oct 17, 2012 10:11 am
henry quirk;834609 wrote:
'Mr. President, nuthin' you've done over the past four years has significantly helped or hindered me, and, nuthin' you've proposed in your campaign (for the next four years) is liable to help or hinder me. Mr. Governor, nuthin' you've proposed in your campaign (for the next four years) will significantly help or hinder me, so, gentlemen, why should I vote for either of you?'


Dude. Dude.

You've made it very clear that you don't want to help anybody and you don't want help from anybody. That's what you're saying you've gotten / will get from both of these guys, not that I agree with your assessment. Flip a fricking coin, though I can't believe you vote at all, it doesn't fit your "independent" character.

My question would be:
The middle class has been sacrificing for the good of the country for the last 30 years. We've seen our real income decrease, government services cut, living expenses increase, and our jobs sent oversees. How are you going to reverse this trend?
henry quirk • Oct 17, 2012 10:43 am
"You've made it very clear that you don't want to help anybody..."

Not true. I help folks 'I' deem in need...'you' don't get to make that determination for me...certainly, some jackass in government doesn't get to make that determination for me

#

"That's what you're saying you've gotten / will get from both of these guys..."

Indeed. What other fuckin' reason is there to vote for any of 'em if not for the potential benefit that candidate might bring if, or when, elected? If you have another reason for voting: I'd like to hear it.

#

"I can't believe you vote at all"

Irrelevant whether I do or don't. After a fashion: I'm payin' (like you) the salary of the Number One Public Servant. I think this entitles me (and you) to question a potential (or current) employee.
xoxoxoBruce • Oct 17, 2012 12:04 pm
Oh no, Romney lied about the binders, he didn't ask for them.
What actually happened was that in 2002 — prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration — a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.


Well so what, he still appointed women.
First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about — and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about — budget, business development, etc. — went to women.

But he did appoint them.
Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006.

Um, maybe the the women couldn't hack it because he used the MassGAP list instead of his own.
Third, note that in Romney’s story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn’t know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?

link
BigV • Oct 17, 2012 12:27 pm
[VIMEO]50923260[/VIMEO]

I could only watch the debates on the radio and some of the voices seemed familiar. It seems like the audience members at the debate and the people featured in this video were drawn from the same pool.

I don't know... maybe it's just me.
BigV • Oct 17, 2012 12:29 pm
infinite monkey;834601 wrote:
Funny tweets during the debate (oh, and I called it! Knew the binder comment was going to get picked up and batted about!)
--snip

Yep! You sure did!
infinite monkey • Oct 17, 2012 1:40 pm
;)

See my current usertitle. :lol:
henry quirk • Oct 23, 2012 10:40 am
...what crap.

Again: mediocre of intellect and thought (the both of 'em).

You folks can follow either as you like.

I won't.
Flint • Oct 23, 2012 12:12 pm
I think Obama did very well on repeating over and over how Romney's policies are 'all over the place' (regardless of whether they are or not, he says it so many times you're convinced there must be something to it); also the phrase 'as commander in cheif' sounds much more authoritative--as compared to a guy who, by definition, isn't already the president; also Obama had a finely crafted program of implying Romney's lack of knowledge (Russia as the greatest threat without the context of how different threats are defined; the 'apology tour' as something which was a 'whopper' when fact-checking is not applicable to an obviously subjective matter of opinion); and of course, Obama had really great zingers! I think these are all things that will stick with people despite their lack of substantive merit. I wish Obama had made a better case for his principles, for us thinkers. I have red flags that go up when a speaker relies too heavily on emotion.


By contrast, I think Romney had the problem that I often run into as an IT guy: facts are boring. Sound, traditional ideas aren't sexy. Listening to an executive-level businessman speak about the broad view of matters, wherein large chunks of ideas are zipped in small keyword packages, for brevity's sake, tends to, when not examined thoroughly, appear to contain deceptively less information than if fully expounded. I got it, I understood what he was saying, but as a technical person who deals with logic all day long, I tend to latch on to concepts like: the guy who is telling me that he knows how to do something can demonstrate that he has previously been successful at doing this thing. That counts more than rhetoric, to me. That counts more than the other guy having great zingers. To me.
xoxoxoBruce • Oct 23, 2012 12:16 pm
Flint;835364 wrote:
By contrast, I think Romney had the problem that I often run into as an IT guy: facts are boring. Sound, traditional ideas aren't sexy. Listening to an executive-level businessman speak about the broad view of matters, wherein large chunks of ideas are zipped in small keyword packages, for brevity's sake, tends to, when not examined thoroughly, appear to contain deceptively less information than if fully expounded. I got it, I understood what he was saying, but as a technical person who deals with logic all day long, I tend to latch on to concepts like: the guy who is telling me that he knows how to do something can demonstrate that he has previously been successful at doing this thing. That counts more than rhetoric, to me. That counts more than the other guy having great zingers. To me.
That's what Obama did in the first debate and got creamed. He learned.
DanaC • Oct 23, 2012 3:06 pm
xoxoxoBruce;835366 wrote:
That's what Obama did in the first debate and got creamed. He learned.


Excellent point.
Big Sarge • Oct 23, 2012 3:30 pm
I think President Obama really scored some points with this debate. It will all come down to those battleground states and electoral votes.
Ibby • Oct 23, 2012 5:15 pm
Flint;835364 wrote:
I got it, I understood what he was saying, but as a technical person who deals with logic all day long, I tend to latch on to concepts like: the guy who is telling me that he knows how to do something can demonstrate that he has previously been successful at doing this thing. That counts more than rhetoric, to me. That counts more than the other guy having great zingers. To me.


The thing is, to me, the guy with proof that he can do this thing is Obama, and Rmoney is the one with the zingers and the problem record.
Flint • Oct 23, 2012 5:31 pm
Ibby;835411 wrote:
The thing is, to me, the guy with proof that he can do this thing is Obama, and Romney is the one with the zingers and the problem record.
I understand we all look at things with a certain viewpoint, and it's hard to disentangle our observations from our preferences, but I do observe that as a Governor (not the President, but still a bigger job than anyone we'll ever know has done), Romney worked across the aisle with Democratic leaders to do a bunch of things that everyone always says they are going to do, but he actually got them done (they happened under his leadership), i.e. a balanced budget, top-performing education system, and healthcare reform.

You don't have to like him, but these are good things. He knows how to do these things.



On the zingers, come on dude. Google "romney obama zingers" ...
Obama has been unanimously crowned the king of zingers. Don't take that away from him--he worked hard for that title!
Sheldonrs • Oct 23, 2012 5:57 pm
Flint;835415 wrote:
I understand we all look at things with a certain viewpoint, and it's hard to disentangle our observations from our preferences, but I do observe that as a Governor (not the President, but still a bigger job than anyone we'll ever know has done), Romney worked across the aisle with Democratic leaders to do a bunch of things that everyone always says they are going to do, but he actually got them done (they happened under his leadership), i.e. a balanced budget, top-performing education system, and healthcare reform.

You don't have to like him, but these are good things. He knows how to do these things.



On the zingers, come on dude. Google "romney obama zingers" ...
Obama has been unanimously crowned the king of zingers. Don't take that away from him--he worked hard for that title!


I was living in MA when he was Governor. He wasn't even in the state for over 400 days during his 4-year term. The things that got done were done mostly without much if any input from Romney. He put his NAME to the popular things, but that's about it.
That's the main reason he had all his records sealed when he left.
xoxoxoBruce • Oct 24, 2012 1:40 am
While he was governor, Massachusetts;
1. Ranked 47th in job growth.
2. Suffered the second-largest labor force decline in the nation.
3. Lost 14 percent of its manufacturing jobs.
4. Experienced “below average” economic growth and was “often near the bottom”.
5. Piled on more debt than any other state.
Stormieweather • Oct 24, 2012 9:41 am
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:
Flint • Oct 24, 2012 11:47 am
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!
Happy Monkey • Oct 24, 2012 11:51 am
Stormieweather;835518 wrote:
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:

Flint;835534 wrote:
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?
xoxoxoBruce • Oct 24, 2012 11:59 am
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.
Flint • Oct 24, 2012 3:06 pm
Happy Monkey;835536 wrote:
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.
Happy Monkey • Nov 9, 2012 8:54 pm
Interesting background into the difference between Debate 1 Obama vs. Debate 2 Obama:
NYTimes wrote:

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.
DanaC • Nov 10, 2012 4:57 am
Flint;835565 wrote:
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.