Obama: "I'm not running a negative campaign."

reply to post by Hefficide


FRom your article......nothing was done wrong...nice try at stirring up emotion over NOTHING!

“Items that are personal or confidential, of course would not be appropriate to put in the public domain,” Romney said. “We’d be violating our trust in doing so.” Romney said the documents his administration handed to the state archives provide a good view of how he worked. “So we followed not only the law in Massachusetts, the precedent of prior governors and legislators, we went beyond that, providing 700 boxes of records,” Romney said.

Why would they turn over all their records to the next governor especially a Democratic one....this is standard procedure...print, submit to archives, wipe the computers.


As a moderator, you should know better.

Grasping at straws and political baiting.....typical.

reply to post by timetothink

Originally posted by timetothink

Why would they turn over all their records to the next governor especially a Democratic one....this is standard procedure...print, submit to archives, wipe the computers.

We'll take this slow so that you don't get lost this time: From the same source we've both quoted from:

]PETERBOROUGH, N.H. — Documents obtained by WBUR show that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s staff shortened the lease for computers in the governor’s office. The change in leases allowed the governor’s staff to wipe the hard drives on all the computers before returning them to the leasing company. It’s the latest development in the story of Romney and why his staff destroyed electronic records before he left office.

They shortened the lease and erased the hard drives.

Massachusetts law does require the governor to turn over all emails to the state archives, even if they are not made public. They can be destroyed, but they have to be printed before they are wiped out. Two sources told WBUR that Romney’s staff did say they printed their emails before they destroyed them. Still, over the weekend, in the town hall in Peterborough, N.H., Romney found himself trying to explain to reporters why 11 of his senior aides bought back their hard drives.

Apparently you know the situation better than Romney does. Maybe you should shoot him out a text message or a Tweet letting him know that you've got his back on this one. You'll spin it. I mean the poor guy seems to be at a loss for words.

“Items that are personal or confidential, of course would not be appropriate to put in the public domain,” Romney said. “We’d be violating our trust in doing so.”

Oh, look there. He didn't need your help anyway... He figured out a quick back step all by himself. Hooray for our man Mitt!

The new lease could be a completely innocuous attempt to give the new governor fresh computers. But it was standard practice to scrub the hard drives once a lease had expired, so changing the lease also allowed Romney’s staff to order the hard drives scrubbed before returning the old computers. We asked Romney’s campaign staff about this, but they didn’t get back to us.

Uh oh... campaign staff hasn't figured out the right lie to throw in here! They might need that help after all.

And there's the clincher.

Now let's refresh our memories... what you said was:

"Why would they turn over all their records to the next governor?"

Nowhere in the article does it say that. In fact the article deliberately and clearly goes out of its way to differentiate between electronic records and paper records. The 700 boxes represented only paper records. I'll trust the readers to follow the link. Your facts were so off that I would to quote more than the rules allow to address everything. I'd basically have to post the entire piece here. You were way off base with your statements.

In arriving at the conclusions that you seem to have come to - I can only conclude that you either did not understand what you read... or you have some sort of agenda maybe. Either way, even though you cherry picked bits and pieces from an article - but you didn't cherry pick the right post to try and tear apart.

Originally posted by timetothink
As a moderator, you should know better.

Grasping at straws and political baiting.....typical.

edit on 21-8-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

As a moderator I do know better. I double check things. Maybe you would fare better if you did likewise.




Throw up a post that's nothing but manipulations and ad-hom attacks and then preemptively throw out "grasping at straws and political baiting.

Shame, shame, shame.

~Heff

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by jjf3rd77

 

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
You are using generalizations because you don't like the fact that I am insulting liberals. No one else seems to have a problem with it.

I have a problem with it. And that's why I'm not responding to you. If you want to have a discussion with me, you can be civil. If you can't, then I won't respond. Pretty simple.

Romney's and the GOP superPac ads are as negative as Obama's and the Dem's are. Every election is ugly. This time, Obama is using the same tactics that the GOP has used in the last few elections and the GOP doesn't like it. Good day.

So why did you respond with more deflection instead of examples?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
when you have Monmouth University saying Obama leads by only one point...Then you know things are bad...

What is the significance of this?

Why does a poll at a small private university have more importance than other polls which differ in their conclusion?

Sometimes a 'negative ad' is just telling the truth ... so the target of the negative ad crys 'negative!!' to try to deflect from the truth of the so-called 'negative ad'.

Sometimes a 'negative ad' is just plain stupid and negative .. like saying that Romney is guilty of (indirectly) murdering a woman. Negative and untrue.

Obama may think that he's not running a negative campaign because he might actually believe that what he (and his surrogates) says about Romney is true. And he can TECHNICALLY claim not to be running a negative ad because the PACs run the ads ... TECHNICALLY.

But politics is naturally negative ... it can't be escaped.

reply to post by Hefficide


Why don't you believe Romney's answer then? Is everything that comes out of the man's mouth a lie? If so, then you should be looking at Obama, not some electronic records that Romney may or may not have deliberately destroyed to maybe hide something. There's no conclusions based on facts that I am seeing.

You don't like Romney's response therefore you make crap up!

Originally posted by Kaploink
What is the significance of this?

Why does a poll at a small private university have more importance than other polls which differ in their conclusion?

Sorry its just a local poll of mine, from a democratic area showing how deep trouble Obama is in. Showing that all this negativity has not given him a single point!

In fact, people are quite sick of it. Polls show.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
This time, Obama is using the same tactics that the GOP has used in the last few elections and the GOP doesn't like it.

You try to make it sound like negativism is a GOP thing .. not a democrat thing. Like Obama is a johnny come lately to the negative thing .. only doing it because everyone else is??? Some Obama Negative Campaign History -

Obama Negative Attack Ads

Even some Democrats are skeptical. “They achieved the rare distinction of running a negative campaign without being called to account for it,” a former top aide to Hillary Clinton told Politico, referring to her 2008 primary race against Obama. “Will they be able to pull that off again? A lot less likely.”

Attacking your adversary is nothing new in elections, but often it’s the candidates themselves doing the attacking, and often it’s the candidates themselves who pay the price for low-ball tactics.

In Obama’s successful race for an Illinois senate seat in 2004, his opponents in the primary and general election blew up over divorce filings.

In his 2008 campaign for the presidency, during the primaries the Obama side attacked Clinton’s credibility. Its campaign slogan was “Change You Can Believe In.” In the general election, Obama’s aides went after John McCain, calling him “erratic.”

Obama the negative campaigner

What percentage of Obama’s television advertising during the 2008 campaign included an attack on John McCain? Well above 50%, according to research by the Wisconsin Advertising Project (pdf). And what percentage of statements by Obama or Obama spokespeople that were reported in the New York Times contained attacks on McCain? About 40%, according to the the book Attack Politics by Emmett Buell and my former colleague and Monkey Cage contributor Lee Sigelman. (The comparable figure for McCain was 50%.) Now, according to Buell and Sigelman’s data, Obama’s campaign was less negative than many other past presidential campaigns, but it was hardly just hopey-changey.

Some commentators seem to assume or imply that Obama’s 2008 message of unity and bipartisanship meant that he didn’t “go negative” in the heat of that campaign. He did. And he will.

Obama's Campaign Style - Go Negative, Stay Clean

If the catchphrase weren’t already taken, you could call Barack Obama’s signature style of negative politics “leading from behind.”

But as the president’s reelection team begins in earnest to attack Mitt Romney, Obama faces one of the most difficult tests of his political career: to tear down Romney without getting a single smudge of dirt on his own shirtfront — a trick he has performed deftly in previous races.

Left Talk - Obama Goes Negative (2008)
Obama goes Negative On McCain Oil Money (2008)
Obama Goes Negative On Hillary - 2008
Left Wing NY Times - 'Obama went negative plenty of times in 2008'
Left Wing NY Times - Obama Goes Negative 2008
Washington Examiner - Obama Goes Negative To Side Step His Sorry Record 2012
ABC News - Obama Launches Negative Ad 2007
Hindustan Times - Obama Goes Negative On Romney
Time Magazine - Obama Goes Negative 2008
NY Magazine - Obama Goes Negative 2008


It's not just a GOP thing ... As for other recent democrats ....
NY Times - Clinton Goes Negative 2008
Clinton Goes Negative 2008
Examples of Negative Campaigns by both Dems and Republicans
Negative Campaign Ads - a history

reply to post by FlyersFan


You can also go back to Chicago but that's less documented

But the liberals will ignore these articles and continue to claim Romney is also negative with nothing to back that up

As if electing either candidate from the bipartisan corporate party mattered.

Divided and conquered, rooting for a red or blue puppet held up by the same billionaire puppeteers.

Keep flinging feces at each other as the elite's agenda rolls over you.

Deny ignorace? In here??? LOL

reply to post by Hefficide


Show proof of legal wrong doing, not just an inflammatory article that suits your agenda. You are using the same tactics as Obamas campaign manager by claiming an illegal act with no proof.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

No. Pictures illicit a visceral and emotional response. Actions speak louder than words.

~Heff

Paul Ryan actions : Protect and strengthen MediCare

Paul Ryan actions : Newsflash .......Romney / Ryan way ahead in Wisconsin

That's 10 electoral votes.

I see Romney / Ryan with 315 Electoral Votes November 6, 2012.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Lots of Facts there Flyer.


Negative Campaign attack PROOF OVERLOAD !!!!!

reply to post by timetothink


Given the situation... I don't feel like going into it. It was an off topic tangent to begin with and I am not going to derail this thread any further pursuing whatever it is you think you're doing.

Feel free to reread the OP this thread, the posts in it, the links provided, and then it should all be pretty clear and easy to understand. But as for further bickering and back handed tactics? Nah. No thanks.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


What I think I am doing is calling you out on a link that YOU posted and now want us to pretend is not there and not discuss it further.

You posted, link I replied.....I am not the one with the problem.

Bottom line is you posted a mistruth, have no proof of illegal doings and THAT is the end of it.

"They're gonna put ya'll back in chains!"... VP Biden

I heard... or I "understand" that Candidate Romeny "may" have cheated on his taxes... Harry Reid

As a leader in my store, I set the tone, I set the culture, I set the pace... and when one of my team makes a mistake... I am responsible. It doesn't matter who or what or how... I have to answer for it. I am the leader.

Likewise, Obama is running for President. He has a team in place. He sets the tone. He controls what comes out. And when someone does something irresponsible... it is he that is responsible. If he is running half the campaign he should be running, every move... every press release... every catch phrase is rehearsed and choreographed. There are no missteps or coincidences...

If there are missteps... and if he really doesn't know what is going on... then he really is inept and should remove himself from the political scene and get a grip on reality.

Frankly, I think he and his staff are in panic mode... and like a drowning man that can't swim, he is grasping at anything that may float. And in the background is a mechanical shark with the words "silent majority" spray painted on the side getting closer... What's that music?

dum DUM...dum DUM...DumdumDUMdumDumDUM

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by Hefficide

 

What I think I am doing is calling you out on a link that YOU posted and now want us to pretend is not there and not discuss it further.

He doesn't want to discuss the article because he can't and he lost and he won't admit it...

The liberals always talk about intellectual dishonesty. Well, that was your case, you are wrong. Now, apologize for it!!!!! I apologized and made clear why I posted a poll from Monmouth University, even though it seemed off topic it really wasn't because it shows that all this negativity isn't helping Obama. In fact, its hurting him, and helping Romney!!!! Romney has gained at least two states since Obama's negative campaign began. North Carolina and Wisconsin! That is huge!!!!!

reply to post by jjf3rd77


That is straight up BS. The reasons I won't debate with that member are my own and none of your business at all.

The article states what it states and if the TWO of you, COMBINED cannot comprehend the English language? Then that fault lay elsewhere than with me. But don't pull that liberal cowardice crap on me. Not for a second.

I've shown you both the errors of your straw men. So that would be repetitive anyway.

All Presidential Elections have been nasty. This is shaping up to be the worst. To deny the negativity from Obama himself, is on it's face the height of hypocrisy.