logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Should Romney Attack Bush
Amlord
post Sep 25 2012, 03:51 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



One of the problems that Mitt Romney is having is the Bush legacy. Some people in the US electorate are giving President Obama a pass on the current state of the economy because they see the problem to have risen under Bush.

The Obama campaign has reinforced this by telling voters not to return to the failed policies of the past.

To counter this, Romney might want to think about decisively distancing himself from the policies of Bush.

Questions for Debate:

Should Mitt Romney attack Bush in order to distance himself from this line of attack?

Would a better course be to contrast the "failed policies of the past" with the "failed policies of the present"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 7)
Paladin Elspeth
post Sep 25 2012, 05:21 PM
Post #2


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Questions for Debate:

Should Mitt Romney attack Bush in order to distance himself from this line of attack?

I'm trying to think if there is any real advantage to Romney criticizing Bush. I don't think there is one. It would serve to alienate people in his party who supported President Bush and who still like him. I'm pretty sure that strategy will not get him any votes from Democrats. An acknowledgment that mistakes were made during the previous administration would not be out of line, but I don't think it is necessary or helpful to bring up Bush's name in the campaign.

I don't think anybody is accusing Romney of being "best buddies" with George W.

Would a better course be to contrast the "failed policies of the past" with the "failed policies of the present"?

That's what Romney's been doing, at least the "failed policies of the present" part. We'll see the fruits of his effort soon.

To George W. Bush's credit, he has chosen to not interfere with the present administration. I respect him for that.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Sep 25 2012, 05:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Sep 25 2012, 06:35 PM
Post #3


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,126
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Should Mitt Romney attack Bush in order to distance himself from this line of attack?

No. Mitt Romney should attend a Ranger game. He could sit in the owner’s box between Bush and Nolan Ryan and bask in Ryan’s glory.

Mitt could also imagine that when they sing “The National Anthem” and “God Bless America” it’s in his honor.

This post has been edited by BoF: Sep 25 2012, 06:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Sep 25 2012, 10:35 PM
Post #4


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,831
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Questions for Debate:

Should Mitt Romney attack Bush in order to distance himself from this line of attack?
No. Attacking Bush would simply serve to support Obama's continued blaming of Bush for Obama's failures. Obama spent one BILLION dollars to get the job. He wasn't drafted. He wasn't blackmailed into it. He eagerly sought it, and promised certain results, which he has failed to deliver.

Would a better course be to contrast the "failed policies of the past" with the "failed policies of the present"?
No. A better course would be "this was the situation when you campaigned and made these promises. You and your policies have failed to deliver." Whether the failure was because of lousy judgement of the situation, lousy policies, or lousy execution, none of those causes are the fault of the previous administration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Sep 26 2012, 02:48 PM
Post #5


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,365
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Sep 25 2012, 06:35 PM) *
Questions for Debate:

Should Mitt Romney attack Bush in order to distance himself from this line of attack?
No. Attacking Bush would simply serve to support Obama's continued blaming of Bush for Obama's failures. Obama spent one BILLION dollars to get the job. He wasn't drafted. He wasn't blackmailed into it. He eagerly sought it, and promised certain results, which he has failed to deliver.

Would a better course be to contrast the "failed policies of the past" with the "failed policies of the present"?
No. A better course would be "this was the situation when you campaigned and made these promises. You and your policies have failed to deliver." Whether the failure was because of lousy judgement of the situation, lousy policies, or lousy execution, none of those causes are the fault of the previous administration.


Excellent strategy for the Romney campaign, I must say. It not only insults the intelligence of the electorate, it sets up a great piece of bad logic: Romney is against everything that Obama failed to accomplish.

You know, like health care reform, the dropping of DADT, keeping boots off the ground in Libya, and pulling boots off the ground in Iraq.

And then there's the dismal record of job growth versus job loss, his arrogant take-over of GM, his defunding of Wall Street failures, his schmoozing with terrorists like OBL and killing the guy in the process, his failure to strike AQ leaders with sneaky drones, his constant campaigning against the middle class, and oh, just so much that can be said without any regard to what actually happened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Oct 1 2012, 05:48 PM
Post #6


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 25 2012, 11:51 AM) *
One of the problems that Mitt Romney is having is the Bush legacy. Some people in the US electorate are giving President Obama a pass on the current state of the economy because they see the problem to have risen under Bush.

The Obama campaign has reinforced this by telling voters not to return to the failed policies of the past.

To counter this, Romney might want to think about decisively distancing himself from the policies of Bush.

Questions for Debate:

Should Mitt Romney attack Bush in order to distance himself from this line of attack?

Would a better course be to contrast the "failed policies of the past" with the "failed policies of the present"?

No. what he should do is point out that the "failed policies of the past" line they use to try and tie "Bush" to the financial crisis is an outright lie. Even Bill Clinton laid more of the blame on Democrats going back to before Bush was in office......
QUOTE
CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...s#ixzz284S0e357
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...-clinton-agrees
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Oct 1 2012, 08:44 PM
Post #7


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Should Mitt Romney attack Bush in order to distance himself from this line of attack?

No. Obama already has the anti-Bush vote.

Would a better course be to contrast the "failed policies of the past" with the "failed policies of the present"?

He needs to concentrate on the here and now. It's the ith hour, and the only chance he has (other than some unforeseen catastrophic event in his favor) are with two simultaneous angles.

1) "Are you better off today than you were four years ago"?
(doesn't matter why or who is to blame, politics are local and just about everyone cares about his/her bottom line more than anything else).

2) Come across as likeable. "Attacks" will only serve to make him look less likeable, no matter who they are directed at (attacks do work, but they shouldn't be done by the actual candidate, only tangential supporters). No one wants a turd as their leader.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Oct 1 2012, 09:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 1 2012, 09:27 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



Should Mitt Romney attack Bush in order to distance himself from this line of attack?

No; it would be petty and valueless. We already have a political system built more on attacking one's opponent than presenting one's policies. Why add to the dungheap?

Would a better course be to contrast the "failed policies of the past" with the "failed policies of the present"?

Romney's in a bit of an untenable position on this one. He's trying to contrast the 'failed policies of the present' with the failed policies of the future. He simply doesn't represent a significant change from Obama...who didn't represent a significant change from Bush. He needs to do better than "I'm going to be a little bit better than the current guy, trust me".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 15th, 2018 - 06:17 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.