Quoting Mitt out of Context

Puppycow said:
Well the worst financial crisis in a long time happened just before he took office, and its negative impact is taking a long time to heal. He managed to stop the bleeding, but recovery from a severe financial crisis always takes years.
Click to expand...

Has he managed to stop the bleeding? I'm not sure about that, both because I see no evidence that anything he did is responsible, and because it's too early to conclude that the labor force participation rate has actually leveled off yet. Plus, of course, leveling off is not really good enough.
 
So all the bad stuff that happens is Obama's fault, while none of the good things that happen are to his credit. Nice, Zig.
 
I find it amusing that Romney is getting a better shake in the liberal blogs over this than from his Republican opponents. In the blogs, though they're making fun of Romney over this, they're making it clear that he's being misunderstood by lack of context.

As for Romney's anti-Obama ad, that's worse than out-of-context misleading. They actually pick up Obama in mid-sentence, where Obama is quoting a McCain aide, and pretend that the quote originates with Obama. Very not nice, but then this stuff ain't beanbag.
 
MattusMaximus said:
So all the bad stuff that happens is Obama's fault, while none of the good things that happen are to his credit. Nice, Zig.
Click to expand...

Go back and reread that first post of mine that you responded to. I never said I blamed Obama. What I said was that the economy is doing terrible, and that Obama is going to avoid talking about it (not completely, because that's not possible, but when he can). You only ever contested the first point, and now you're not even doing that. You've changed the subject completely, and to a strawman at that.

Look, this is the reality of politics: regardless of whose fault it is, a lot of voters will still hold him responsible. And it doesn't help for him to argue that he's not responsible because that just creates the impression that he can't fix it either. So the obvious move is to focus on issues other than the economy. It doesn't matter how unfair any of that is, but that's how politics works.
 
Ziggurat said:
Plus, of course, leveling off is not really good enough.
Click to expand...

Why? You may have missed my post above your's because the times are very close, but as I pointed out, the labor force participation rate used to be even lower before 1980, and Americans are getting older and the baby boomers are starting to retire. It could be that some households have decided to go back to having one breadwinner instead of two, which used to be the norm.
 
Puppycow said:
Why? You may have missed my post above your's because the times are very close, but as I pointed out, the labor force participation rate used to be even lower before 1980, and Americans are getting older and the baby boomers are starting to retire. It could be that some households have decided to go back to having one breadwinner instead of two, which used to be the norm.
Click to expand...

It used to be the norm when we had more traditional gender roles. That's changed, it's unlikely to come back, and it certainly isn't back yet. So while some people might choose to take that route, there's no reason to think that it's a significant factor in what's going on now. The drop is also far too precipitous to be due to baby boomer retirements, which are going to phase in more gradually than that. If the blame could be laid at their feet, it would have been.
 
Regardless:

Mitt Romney said:
"I want individuals to have their own insurance," Romney said yesterday in a speech at the Nashua, N.H. Chamber of Commerce. "That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me." http://abcn.ws/woxwfr
The "I like being able to fire people" line became an instant hit among his rivals.
Click to expand...

I take issue with a number of points:

  • That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy - no, it means that the insurance company wants to minimise its outgoings. While keeping you healthy is one way of doing it, a more effective way is to pay nothing for preventative care AND then deny you treatment. To minimise costs and maximise profits there is an incentive for insurance companies to deny care
  • It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them - this pre-supposes an effective market and that insurance companies don't refuse to take you on, or refuse to cover you for pre-existing conditions. Mrs Don has a friend with Crohn's disease. If this friend wants to keep coverage, she has to stay with her existing provider regardless of how expensive it gets. The only alternative would be for her to fund treatment herself
  • It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them - this also assumes that if you change insurance provider you can keep the same physician. From what I understand, some companies stipulate the doctor/service provider you can use so if you want to keep the same medical professionals, you may have to keep the same insurance provider

Mitt was also knowingly using the word "fire" rather than "change provider". He was trying to portray himself as being a big powerful man. If you're going to play with "fire" (see what I did there :)) you're going to get burned.
 
Sure it's being taken out of context, but when you're Mitt Romney - a guy a fair number of Rs don't like, in part, because they see him as John Kerry with more money - you just can't under any circumstances string the words "I like to fire people" into a sentence. He's not their fabled candidate they'd like to have a beer with, he's too patrician, and as Huckabee observed Mitt does indeed look like the guy who fired you.

Not smart to throw that kind of red meat to Newt, who also ain't the brightest crayon in the box at the moment. He spend years trying to rehabilitate himself into a respectable enough person to be considered an elder statesman within the party but he doesn't care about them, only himself, and is willing to throw a Molotov now that it's clear the party won't give him what he wants. He's going to spend a few more years in the wilds after this nominating process is over I suspect.
 
DavidJames said:
Corporate profits at record levels and you want to blame Obama for the lack of jobs?
Click to expand...
I don't blame President Obama for the lack of jobs. Do you blame corporations? If you owned a business and saw you could have sales growth and profit with a smaller workforce than you had would you hire more people.
Should a company just hire unneeded workers?

Simplistic but if companies see they can earn more by hiring more they generally will, if not they won't.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I don't blame President Obama for the lack of jobs. Do you blame corporations?
Click to expand...
Nope, corporations can make as much money as they choose. I just think people should not make the mistake of saying life is bad for everyone (eg the "economy" is bad) when there are people, the people who used to employ your neighbors, but laid them off, are doing quite well now.
 
Last edited:
I could have dreamed this, but didn't Mitt Romney's campaign just say this?

First of all, ads are propaganda by definition. We are in the persuasion business, the propaganda business…. Ads are agitprop…. Ads are about hyperbole, they are about editing. It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context…. All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art.
Click to expand...

So I guess Willard set the bar. It's his world, we're just living in it. Anyone complaining should take it up with that rich guy with the dog on his roof.
 
bikerdruid said:
i think it is entirely pathetic, that the most powerful nation on earth has to choose between morons for a leader.
it is a sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...

Both Obama and Romney have law degrees from Harvard University. Romney added an MBA from that institution as well. You may disagree with their politics, but neither of them is a moron.
 
Brainster said:
Both Obama and Romney have law degrees from Harvard University. Romney added an MBA from that institution as well. You may disagree with their politics, but neither of them is a moron.
Click to expand...
No you don't understand when someone disagrees with your politics you are a moron. An intelligent person can never arrive at a view different than your own.
 
Brainster said:
Both Obama and Romney have law degrees from Harvard University. Romney added an MBA from that institution as well. You may disagree with their politics, but neither of them is a moron.
Click to expand...

I don't think any candidates are morons, they just think voters are morons and play the part accordingly. Just listen to the BS coming from people like Romney and Santorum. You'd have to be a great fool to think it relevant or be persuaded by it.
 
Ziggurat said:
The funny thing is, even "out of context", I think both quotes are still spot on. It's great to be able to fire people, because that means you have power, and let's be honest, who doesn't like to have power? And the economy is doing terribly, so Obama really is going to try to steer the debate away from the economy.
Click to expand...

i dont like the power, it brings alot responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom