Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Oct. 22, 2012 | 2 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
When Mitt Romney talks about what he accomplished in office as the governor of Massachusetts, he really means what the state legislature accomplished because he had little say about so many things in the state.
Eighty-seven percent of the legislature was Democratic. He didn’t rule; he was ruled. It was not a matter of working with the opposition, which did whatever it wanted because Romney lacked the power to stop it.
Anything he accomplished during his tenure as governor was really the state legislature’s accomplishments, not his. He was truly the proverbial figurehead.
Alert- Robert Blanner has written several partisan LVS letters backing democratic party positions and candidates. What would you expect him to write, A pro Romney letter?
Freeman:
Your style is getting old.
Why don't you try a rebuttal of the issue being addressed in the letter instead of attacking the person.
Geez.
ASadTeacher,
These partisan letters are getting old but I'm not sad.
Robert is desperate to divert from the Obama dismal economy policies and the meltdown of Obama's foreign polices.
Obama calls his dire situation a bump-in-the-road
---
It is clear that Romney worked hand in hand with the Eighty-seven percent of the legislature was Democratic.
When Obama took office he told Republican that he won and did not need to work with them
Obama never worked with Republicans to form Bi-Partisan bills
Freeman...
Oh, yes you are.
Alert- Freeman has written numerous partisan comments backing republican party positions and candidates, usually accompanied by a mind-numbing blizzard of numbers. Hence, the origin of the expression "snow job".
Letter writer is correct. Let me expound further. If President Obama followed the lead of Governor Romney in Massachusetts and forged alliances and partnerships with his opponents, the country would have moved forward in the last 4 years. Not barackward.
CarmineD
Mr. Blanner is partisan and wrong, as usual. As President Obama has, you try to do what you can do when you don't always have control of the legislature.
As a recent 'fair' article points out 'Romney vetoed eight provisions of the Massachusetts healthcare bill, including the employer mandate, non-citizen immigrant coverage, a powerful bureaucracy known as the Public Health Council, and limitations on improving Medicaid. The only individual mandate Romney had in mind required the purchase of catastrophic medical insurance similar to the automobile insurance requirement (and he supported a mandate escape). His vetoes were easily overridden by the 85% Democratic legislature, which along with the succeeding Democratic administration of Deval Patrick expanded the healthcare plan to suit their ideology.'
Do Mr. Blanner and others want to include those facts when they label Mr. Romney as a flip flopper because he doesn't agree with things in the ACA.
You can't have it both ways: That he was an ineffective governor and a flip flopper. Of course, Mr. Blanner does exactly that in his efforts to denigrate Romney because it is so tough to defend the President's record and the President has put out so little as a plan for a 2nd term.
Michael
As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney has been described as a Republican island in a Democratic sea. He vetoed about 800 bills, almost all of which were overridden by the Legislature, some unanimously. So much for his bipartisan chops. Romney downplays his one accomplishment, Romneycare, and takes credit for every other good thing that happen due to legilative action taken in spite of him.
While Governor, Romney said "I like to veto bills". I suppose that falls in the same category as his statement that "I like to fire people." Who knows what else he finds entertaining.
In rebuttal to Mr. Blanner, these are some of the reasons I find to vote for Romney.
My number one wish is to see a vibrant 3rd party emerge to challenge the doctrinaire R and D parties. Until that happens, I think many people like me are drawn to R or D candidates that don't appear to be doctrinaire; who look like they will think 'out of the box'. Obama was that candidate in 2008. Many people who voted for him in 2008, are now disappointed because he has governed like a doctrinaire D.
This year, that candidate is Mitt Romney for the R's. This explains why he had such a tough time in the primaries. If he wins, he may be like Obama and govern like a doctrinaire R, in which case I'll be disappointed.
We need a moderate in office; a person who thinks 'out of the box' and yes, someone willing to compromise. It's asking the nearly impossible for someone to accomplish that in this environment. Obama has had office for 4 years and has not done it. I'm ready to try someone else.
Michael
Obama failed to get our economy up to recovery pace and has not created an environment for business expansion and entrepreneurship. Obama doesn't understand the plight of the unemployed/under-employed who are struggling. If a president isn't in tune with business then he stands little chance at succeeding in creating environment for job creation to help our jobless Americans. I'm voting for Romney because he understands business, the economy and understands we need to get the unemployed working again and he will reduce our budget deficit.
Governor Romney refused to accept his salary as Governor: 4 years at $140,000 per year. And according to a recent study by Forbes magazine, Governor Romney's decision to go into public life cost him $2 billion in personal wealth. Why? The Forbes study calculated the profit and loss on the companies part of Bain Capital since the governor left and the governor's interest in them. The math and figures are correct. Mr. Romney by pursuing a career in public service left behind over $2 Billion in personal wealth that he would have had if it were not for his decision to serve.
CarmineD
Romney worked with the state legislature in a bipartisan manner. Something Obama/Reid have no clue about.
Romney is now running for figurehead of the USA or FOTUS. He will do the bidding of the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and others.
Why was Romney not re-elected if he did such a great job as governor?
Antigov,
There is an adage in politics that says, Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to. Romney violated that adage in the 2nd debate and hurt himself when he ask President Obama a couple of questions.
Romney wasn't re-elected because he did not run for a 2nd term. You should really do a little research before you start to write.
Michael
@PISCES41,
Alert- Freeman has written numerous partisan comments backing republican party positions and candidates, usually accompanied by a mind-numbing blizzard of numbers. Hence, the origin of the expression "snow job" (Jim Weber)
Good stuff, Jim. It's good to read humor, I like it. :)
Michale Casler,
You are interested in facts? From what I have seen, republicans don't care about facts.Romney did not run for a second term because his approval rating was so low after his first term.
To all the commentators who have written about Mitt Romney and the Massachusetts health law during Romney term as governor.....Mitt, you didn't build that!
The Massachusetts House and Senate lead Mitt Romney on health reform in Massachusetts. Health Care Reform in Massachusetts was not initiated by Mitt Romney.
Again, to be clear. Health Care Reform in Massachusetts was not initiated by Mitt Romney!
Going further, Mitt Romney was dragged along during the many steps in completing health reform in Massachusetts.
Mitt Romney "signed into law" health reform in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney was not the force behind the reform.
So, as my young friends always say when something is not quite in order. "Don't get it twisted"
President Obama wins re-election by 6 to 8 points.
Longtimevegan,
Jim Weber actually loves my blizzard of numbers! LOL
As a business consultant, I interview different levels of a business's organization and compare that information with business data from the company. Most of the time there is a 5% to 20% gap between their knowledge and what the real facts are. The top level execs at times believe everything they hear from lower level staff without validating the accuracy of the information. I can't afford to make business recommendations on perception, it has to be based on reality so that is why I'm a numbers guy. Data and its interpretation aren't for everyone.
For the TOTUS being a 'figurehead' would be a step up.
@RefNV,
"The top level execs at times believe everything they hear from lower level staff without validating the accuracy of the information." (ReFreeman)
Thanks for the response. Not to trump your assessement, but many executives that I know, do validate lower staff members information. In fact they rely on it.
Mr. Freeman; you state, "Jim Weber actually loves my blizzard of numbers!"
.............................
In reply to Mr. Freeman; Like the rest of us Democratic voters, I don't think Mr. Weber enjoys your "snow jobs" either.
@Ref My experience is the exact opposite of yours, or, perhaps more properly, our interpretations of the same data are opposite. Case in point: the interactions of "top level executives" and "lower level staff". What I find, particularly in organizations where the "top level executives" are MBA's and "parachuted" into the organization, is that they do not know enough about actual operations of the particular enterprise to judge what is right or wrong and so make bad decisions based on models and/or metrics which they learned in B-school but which are not applicable to the situations at hand. Data are nice, but the real trick is to measure that which is truly critical and discriminate signal from noise.
You should see, Mr. Freeman, the difference in the two presidential candidates. Romney flip-flops because in his past political roles he is what is called a "Decision-Obeyer". Whatever audience Romney is in front of, he appeases them. Of course, like President Obama referred to, this brings on the syndrome of "Romnesia".
Now, a true decision-maker like the way President Obama is, wouldn't a candidate such as this remain our best choice to occupy the Oval Office?
Common sense would tell us yes. Does a search party need to be formed in an attempt to find yours? Appeasing leaders are disastrous. George W. Bush proved this!!! Please, please say Mr. Freeman you have located on your own, common sense. We can only hope that you are moving yourself, "Forward" like the majority of Americans are.!!!
JanmaraLas vegas
I do believe we are allowing politicians like Romney to destroy our society. I say that as people are being subjected to the worst kinds of deceit.
Our society is being bombarded with Lying as a virtue and not providing details. Ronald Reagan said "Trust but verify" No verification here.
For example why is Romney being allowed to get away without showing his tax returns. That means that now and in the future any scoundrel will be able to avoid this issue . Wouldnt the public feel betrayed if it were found that Romney avoided paying taxes,. That he settled with the government under the amnesty program? To me credibility is the absolute primary qualification for the office of the President.
Who in their right mind can feel comfortable with a leader who's positions change everyday. That all he really stands for is "saying whatever he wants."
If America elects Romney to the office of the Presidency. This will be the final straw and people will truly realize its better to lie, steal and subvert rather then follow the rules. Thats a terrible example to make for future generations.
This will insure that we will accelerate our decline on the world stage.
Rome and Great Britain were at one time equal and greater powers then the United States and look at where they wound up and what we can look forward to as a country if this mans becomes president and his tactics become an example.
What a mess!!!!
@Janmara1,
"Who in their right mind can feel comfortable with a leader who's positions change everyday. That all he really stands for is "saying whatever he wants." (Marvin Adelman)
In reference to Mitt Romney's changing positions on the issues.
Sounds reasonable, right! Reasonable statement of facts. Of fact! Of a politician changing positions on the issues.
In essence, lying to the voters as to who you really are and what you stand for.
Now, who disagrees with Marvin Adelman's statement? Anyone? Please proceed.....
If the letter is fact it still does not change my mind. Using the same logic Obama would be considered a proverbial figurehead so not worthy to be re-elected.
Leric,
I consult mainly companies with strategic alignment, mergers and acquisitions. Many companies do not mine its own data to further analyze its operations. Some companies still rely on programmers to write/run query reports as opposed to bringing in an operations analyst who has more extensive tools to write more robust queries linking multiple tables with a common data point. I go into companies that have 10-15 reports to analyze each functional area and I leave them after my work with 50 plus however, the information flows into a summary dashboard with a detail button they can further click to get details. I do this work pre and post-merger and if I do all of my work right then a company will be strategically aligned to its target markets using less effort, with less stress and can utilize more resources to grow the business as opposed to more effort and stress maintaining current business levels with no room to expand/grow. So I'm required to understand two different organizations in similar markets who may have alignment issues with its markets and who operate and measure its business differently. If the VP or director gives me incorrect information then I could jeopardize a successful merger with faulty assumptions. To do my work, I need accurate and validated data. Leric, you stated "What I find, particularly in organizations where the "top level executives" are MBA's and "parachuted" into the organization, is that they do not know enough about actual operations of the particular enterprise to judge what is right or wrong and so make bad decisions based on models and/or metrics which they learned in B-school but which are not applicable to the situations at hand. Data are nice, but the real trick is to measure that which is truly critical and discriminate signal from noise". I agree with this point.
Bchap,
I decided a few weeks back to not engage you with partisan rhetoric. I read your posts dating back to July of this year and found you jousting with other posters on topics you have strong opinions on. I think your opinions are good for this board and you enjoy sharing your thoughts like all of us do so I'm going to wait until after the election to engage with you on topics to avoid the partisan jabbing that I sense could result so close to the election.
@RefNV,
ReFreeman, how can a person oppose something using a false misguided analysis, then turn around and articulate a reasonable position using agreeable logic?
Look, I would like to read more from the "ReFreeman" who posted 12:38pm.
After reading the post from you at 12:38pm, maybe just maybe, you might be holding on too tight. Loosen up, you sound great my friend. Good stuff, ReFreeman, good stuff.
In reply to Mr. Freeman; you recently wrote that I used to be a moderate commentator, but have recently turned into an extremely aggressive left-wing liberal.
In your most recent post, you asked that our confrontational nature end until after the election. I could respect that request. However, when you mercilessly attempt to slander and degrade my Democratic voting colleagues you have personally attacked me. You would agree that should Iran attack Israel, that the United States has been attacked. The same applies here. I will, politically speaking, go on the offensive against you. And, in closing, Mr. Freeman, each and every time I will come after you in the discussion forum it will be with a lot more than just "horses and bayonets".
I am not a "figurehead" and it would be a mistake to think that I am. Good day.
Bchap,
Truth be told, I don't know where you're coming from politically. On a post in the link below, you wrote:
' In reply to Bob Jack: Take a good hard look at all the liberal posts that smeared and vilified your letter to the editor. And then, reread them again. Whether you want to believe it or not, "Teamster" was right when he wrote, "we liberals out-number you". Therefore Bob, traditional values that you and I share are pretty much gone forever, as far as being the majority view. All these liberals that have "trash talked" you on our Independence Day prove that we always must remember their code; "666, The number of the evil beast".'
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jul...
Then on the link below you wrote:
'In reply to the "All Comments" section; I can differentiate between necessary mandates and those that should be voluntary in a free market / enterprise system. I surely will not pay any attention to a group of dodgy socialists.'
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jul...
You seem to be confused Bchap. If you're a democrat then what's with the "dodgy socialists"
and "liberals that have trash talked" or "we always must remember their code; 666, The number of the evil beast" comments when talking about trash talking liberals? You're all over the road with your political rhetoric. Do you know what the meaning of the word obfuscate is? Or are you flip-flopping your political views every few months?
In reply to Mr. Freeman; Hardly, for you failed to highlight my entries a short time later where I admitted to have played some Republicans in this discussion forum to gain their real views of President Obama that was sent to me via e-mail. Once several had exposed in their words their racial prejudice views of our commander-in-chief I called them on it. There was Republican outrage in the discussion room, however, the Republicans who had made these racist remarks against our President, disappeared permanently from the Sun discussion room. Why did they? I made it clear I would expose publicly the contents of their e-mails.
Call it what you want. I played these racists and they got burned for their bigoted beliefs. In the aftermath, this is why you see the posts that I make, simply because, I truly know what many Republicans are all about.
In addition Mr. Freeman, you claimed to be out of state during this timeframe. You should have done your homework on my previous posts more completely.
But thank you anyway for the time you devoted. I have to say, I'm a bit sorry for you coming out being at best, at inept investigator. Maybe you should stick to being a business consultant, if this is what you are good at.
And yes, just in case you are wondering, I still have those racist e-mails.
Mr. Freeman; I shall close out this issue that you have brought forth. But, I'll give you a bit of advice on "Figureheads".
I'm certainly beneath your socioeconomic class. It is true, as both a United States Marine and a prison guard; I've always been just a "foot soldier".
However, as one of our most notorious "Figureheads", disgraced former President Richard Nixon was burned by just two journalistic foot-soldiers. He underestimated their resolve to bring out the truth in the Watergate scandal. As I previously have stated, that is a huge mistake to make.
I'm not running for political office, so I really could care less what Republicans think of me. I had a point to prove in this discussion room, and I proved it.
You see Richard Nixon left trails of proof that ended his run. He wasn't as smart as he thought he was. The racist Republican commentators who sent me those explicit e-mails, not only left a trail of proof with me, personally, there is a record of such proof that the Las Vegas Sun would have access to. You see, Mr. Freeman, these Republican commentators where not so smart either. They sent me these e-mails through the Las Vegas Sun system. Do you actually think these Republican commentators would have voluntarily left posting their comments if there was not substantial proof that they had done so?
See, Mr. Freeman, I live under the motto of, "If one is saying or doing something morally or criminally wrong, they have to get lucky every day. People like me only have to get lucky once in catching them." This is the powerbase of a foot soldier and the weakness of a "Figurehead".
Bchap,
It's good that you've come clean on some of the motives to your written posts.
If you reference me or my posts in the future then I will engage and reply back to your posts unless your posts are overtly partisan. I still think this forum benefits from hearing differing points of view so I would encourage you to continue to post your thoughts.
Best wishes to you.
In reply to Mr. Freeman; I probably should have realized that when I read in one of your posts that you had been away for some time, a little bit of thought on my part would have told me you were not here in this discussion forum when all these racially oriented discussion room demonstrations unfolded.
I certainly would NEVER have any type of cause whatsoever to classify you, or most of the Republican supporters remaining in these discussion forums into one of those exposed bigoted groups. Mr. Freeman, we heatedly disagree on politics, but not on morality issues. I will do better in my posts directed towards you in the future.
Concerning the final debate last night, while the majority of my fellow Democrats are celebrating another Obama discussion victory, I am worried about the outcome of that subject debate at the voting booths. For the Republicans, it was brilliant political strategy for Romney to recess his expected extreme combative stance against President Obama's foreign policies, and redirect many of his comments, as a moderate back to the economy. The subject most Americans care most about. Although I believe the President did exceptionally well in winning this debate, I'm left wondering if Romney's tactics were, in reality, a "blessing in disguise" for him. As an absolute Obama supporter, I'm concerned!!!
For, whoever of the two shall win the presidency, one thing is for sure, as the media said, "Whoever wins the White House" will be the "Economic Recovery President".
Mr. Romney is well spoken AND "soft" spoken. He'd be easier to listen to, rather than the harshness we can expect to continue from Mr. O and company. Mr. Romney is able to communicate the message without being irritating in the transmission.
Re Freeman (1238 comment): Breathtaking verbiage, signifying nothing.
Re Roslenda (1156 comment): "well spoken and soft spoken". LMAO. He has blabbed on and on in each debate, running over the moderator, and the POTUS, when it suits him, which is ALWAYS. He has run the same talking points into the ground. His remarks are scripted and have no relation to his actual beliefs. Be afraid of this puppet if he's elected; no core values and beholden to his 1% campaign contributors, not you or me.