• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How bipartisan was Mitt Romney really as a Governor? Not that much maybe?

Peter King

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
29,957
Reaction score
14,683
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Romney touted how good he could work with the democrats as Governor because they had most of the power in the state.

But how bipartisan was Romney? He used his veto 844 times during his governorship, something that does not sound that bipartisan IMHO. Most of the time his veto was wasted effort as in a vast number of these vetoes were overridden by the democrats.

The NY times writes:

But on closer examination, the record as governor he alluded to looks considerably less burnished than Mr. Romney suggested. Bipartisanship was in short supply; Statehouse Democrats complained he variously ignored, insulted or opposed them, with intermittent charm offensives. He vetoed scores of legislative initiatives and excised budget line items a remarkable 844 times, according to the nonpartisan research group Factcheck.org. Lawmakers reciprocated by quickly overriding the vast bulk of them.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/politics/romney-claims-of-bipartisanship-as-governor-face-challenge.html?hp&_r=0
 
Peter King said:
Romney touted how good he could work with the democrats as Governor because they had most of the power in the state.

But how bipartisan was Romney? He used his veto 844 times during his governorship, something that does not sound that bipartisan IMHO. Most of the time his veto was wasted effort as in a vast number of these vetoes were overridden by the democrats.

The NY times writes:



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/politics/romney-claims-of-bipartisanship-as-governor-face-challenge.html?hp&_r=0
Click to expand...

Oh... well if the NY Times wrote it... than it must be true...

(only... MA has a line item veto... so he actually signed bills while using the veto... and the Democrats after his 2nd year, and the loss to GWB in the general election, overrode nearly every veto he had, if we are on the topic of obstructionism...)

If you want to count things Mitt Romney vetoed... you'd have Democratic opposition to his trying to put mandatory sentences on repeat drunk driving offenders, his trying to toughen teacher testing standards, his trying to raise MA standardized test score standards, etc... In all he used 844 vetoes, and only about 700 of them weren't overriden by votes after Romney had already signed bills into law... by the heavy supermajority of the Democratic Party... that's not Romney refusing to work with Democrats... that's the other way around... and STILL Romney got a mountain of good work accomplished...

You're missed the point if you're just looking for Rep-Dem divide as well... Because it wasn't that everything was forced to be bi-partisan... Under Romney, everything had a business-like non-partisan approach to it that focused on data and results... As he had promised to bring during the election... He did...

Mitt Romney cabinet was filled with mostly non-partisan business executives, and was 50% women and 50% men... His Lt Governor was female...

His legislation was drafted by bringing members of both parties, independents, outside agencies, and business professionals together to collaborate on finding the most appropriate solutions, and then putting them forth...

That's the same approach he'll be taking in Washington... get the partisans out of politics... get the movers and shakers to crafts fair and equally balanced legislation, and put it to the floor of the legislature knowing it has support from both sides...
 
It was under his tenure as governor that we got both gay marriage and Romneycare; so he was far TOO LIBERAL so far as I'm concerned, whether he was bipartisan or not.
 
This is but one example of how Romney lied his way through the debate. And it makes it even more disgusting how Obama let him do it.
 
Tigger said:
It was under his tenure as governor that we got both gay marriage and Romneycare; so he was far TOO LIBERAL so far as I'm concerned, whether he was bipartisan or not.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage was from a decision of the MA Supreme Judicial Court... Romney fought it, but in the end was a few votes short of getting it sent to the people of the state to vote on...

MA Healthcare Reform Act that created the Health Connector and CommonwealthCare was a brilliant piece of legislation which dropped healthcare in MA from $715M annually to $415M, and allowed MA to keep it's annual subsidy from Medicare of $300M from the federal government, after the federal government mandated health care to be provided to everyone regardless of insurance... essentially dropping healthcare spending in MA feom $415M to $115M...

This bill also combined plans from Romney, Travelisi, DiMasi, Blue Cross Blue Shield, The Heritage Foundation, and had it analyzed by Deloitte and Touche to see if it would work... in an amazing example of bi-partisanship, public and private partnership, and Romney's business-like data driven results oriented style... and just how effective it can be...

AND HOW FAR MORE PREFERABLE ROMNEY'S GOVERNANCE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WOULD BE THAN OBAMA'S!!!
 
haymarket said:
This is but one example of how Romney lied his way through the debate. And it makes it even more disgusting how Obama let him do it.
Click to expand...

Where is the lie?

Romney worked with an 87% opposition party, that were very obstructionist... and still accomplish quite a lot...

That's the truth... no matter what the liberal post-debate narative has become...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Oh... well if the NY Times wrote it... than it must be true...
Click to expand...

And then you concede that it was true. :lol:

Obviously Romney had no choice but to try for bipartisanship, as it was the only way he could conceivably get anything done. That may not be the case if he wins this time.
 
This is sort of like Romney bragging about balancing the budget, when he was required by law to balance the budget, just as every MA governor is and does.

Romney faced a legislature dominated by Democrats. He had to at least try for bipartisanship. It will be a very different story if he wins the WH.
 
haymarket said:
the mention of the over 800 vetoes would have amply illustrated the lie.
Click to expand...

Where is the requirement to state how many vetoes you make in order to make the case that you worked with both sides?

What Romney said is true... what the Democrats are scrambling to do post-debate is react off Romney said, by doing things Obama was unable to do during the debate... try and look for tailored stats which mis-state the facts and attempt to refute Romney's claims...

The fact is he accomplished a lot on MA, with the opposition of an 87% legislature...

The fact is also that he used the line item veto on 844 occasions, and was overriden by that opposition party's super majority 700 times...

That's a line-item veto, though... not the same as equating to the presidential veto... if you mention it in that debate it confuses that point... It wasn't like Romney said "This bill sucks im putting it down"... Mitt Romney's use of the veto was to suggest legislatuon, it goes to the floor of the legislation, get mutated and grows with spending programs, and he gets it on his desk, and says i like what you did here, but this isn't good and I'm sending it back to get revised...

That's a whole different type of veto, that IS working both with and against the opposition party...
 
AdamT said:
This is sort of like Romney bragging about balancing the budget, when he was required by law to balance the budget, just as every MA governor is and does.

Romney faced a legislature dominated by Democrats. He had to at least try for bipartisanship. It will be a very different story if he wins the WH.
Click to expand...

Required to by law doesn't equate to being able to accomplish it...

If it worked that way, there'd have been no way he'd be facing a $3B deficit when he came into office...

He came in facing the largest deficit in MA history at that time...

The simple fact you can't deal with is that Romeny came in saying he was going to turn MA fiscal crisis around... and he did just that...

He balanced the budget in his first year... and created a rainy day fund of $2B by the end of his second...

He also turned around the numbers of population and job loss... increasing the size of the workforce and dropping unemployment...

Nice fail at trying to make it seem like Mitt Romney was only fiscally responsible because he was required to in MA, and since that law isn't at the federal level that he wouldn't be... really grasping again...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Where is the requirement to state how many vetoes you make in order to make the case that you worked with both sides?

What Romney said is true... what the Democrats are scrambling to do post-debate is react off Romney said, by doing things Obama was unable to do during the debate... try and look for tailored stats which mis-state the facts and attempt to refute Romney's claims...

.
Click to expand...

What makes you think there is some hard and fast number?

You re right. Obama blew it badly during the debate and now Dems are scrambling to correct the record. Better late than never.
 
One point that is missed is Mitt Romney was a successful businessman who became a politician, while President Obama was a professional politician who moved up a partisan party ladder. The businessman has to work in the world of cause and effect to be successful. If you wish a business to succeed you need everyone. A democratic customer or supplier is a good as a republican customer or supplier. It is all about money and efficiency.

A professional politician only needs half the people to succeed. The professional politician may have a harder time working with those, against who they have spend so much time demonizing, for personal gain. While a successful businessman knows opportunity is everywhere, but also knows bad business practice when he sees it (veto).
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Required to by law doesn't equate to being able to accomplish it...

If it worked that way, there'd have been no way he'd be facing a $3B deficit when he came into office...
Click to expand...

Every MA governor balances the budget. Patrick has done it every year during much more difficult circumstances.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Where is the lie?

Romney worked with an 87% opposition party, that were very obstructionist... and still accomplish quite a lot...

That's the truth... no matter what the liberal post-debate narative has become...
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but it was the governor that was obstructionist and not the other way around.
 
haymarket said:
What makes you think there is some hard and fast number?

You re right. Obama blew it badly during the debate and now Dems are scrambling to correct the record. Better late than never.
Click to expand...

I never indicated there is some hard and fast number... i said where is the requirement that you have to... you dont...

They're too late... Obama can't get that performance back, its on the record... just another addition to his abysmal record...
 
Peter King said:
I am sorry, but it was the governor that was obstructionist and not the other way around.
Click to expand...

No it isn't... the MA Governor is entitled to a line-item veto... to sign a bill into law that he thinks does a good thing, but put a line-item veto on things like extra spending programs that he thinks are wasteful to take them out of it...
 
haymarket said:
What makes you think there is some hard and fast number?
Click to expand...
Oh for God's sake! YOU are the one who began throwing out numbers here:
the mention of the over 800 vetoes would have amply illustrated the lie.
Click to expand...
Do you actually read what you type! You have met your debate adversary, and it is YOU!

Lord have mercy......

The rest of us can just sit back and watch you debate yourself.
Sadly, that would still not guarantee you a win.
 
Tigger said:
It was under his tenure as governor that we got both gay marriage and Romneycare; so he was far TOO LIBERAL so far as I'm concerned, whether he was bipartisan or not.
Click to expand...

Did he support gay marriage or was that something the democrats steamed rolled over him with?
 
IndepCentristMA said:
No it isn't... the MA Governor is entitled to a line-item veto... to sign a bill into law that he thinks does a good thing, but put a line-item veto on things like extra spending programs that he thinks are wasteful to take them out of it...
Click to expand...

you can have that opinion, but I think it was more an issue of partisan bickering between the governor and his overwhelmingly democratic house and senate.
 
SMTA said:
Oh for God's sake! YOU are the one who began throwing out numbers here:

Do you actually read what you type! You have met your debate adversary, and it is YOU!

Lord have mercy......

The rest of us can just sit back and watch you debate yourself.
Sadly, that would still not guarantee you a win.
Click to expand...

I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. And apparently neither do you since all you want to do is personally attack me with snide and petty remarks rather than make some valid point about the issues.
 
Peter King said:
you can have that opinion, but I think it was more an issue of partisan bickering between the governor and his overwhelmingly democratic house and senate.
Click to expand...

LMFAO... says the person who is only aware that it happened because he read an article about it during an election 5+ years after Romney was out of office... :roll:

No, it had to do with Romney not liking parts of certain bills that he was in favor of, but didnt like how state legislators used their influence to help hook up contractors with government contracts, etc.

It didn't happen all that often during his first 2 years in office... After Bush won the 2004 election, it happened nearly every time around... The Democratic legislature became pissed with Romney, upset that he was likely trying to position himself nationally, and taking credit for balancing the budget... So they became increasingly obstructionist against Romney...

And yet, after that point he still passed numerous pieces of legislation, including Melanie's Bill, the Welcome Home Bill, and the Healthcare Reform Act of 2006...
 
haymarket said:
I do not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. And apparently neither do you since all you want to do is personally attack me with snide and petty remarks rather than make some valid point about the issues.
Click to expand...
Let's try again.
YOU start out throwing out numbers, then YOU complain about using numbers.
Then you complain when called out for twisting them around.
It is simply illogical. Sheesh!
 
SMTA said:
Let's try again.
YOU start out throwing out numbers, then YOU complain about using numbers.
Then you complain when called out for twisting them around.
It is simply illogical. Sheesh!
Click to expand...

Like I said, you are only interested in attacking me with some petty snide remarks.

the fact that Romney had over 800 vetoes is a fact and speaks volumes about his lack of being able to work with the legislature. That figures out to four per week for heavens sake. I do not know if that is a record but it sure is one very large amount of vetoes by any standard. FDR set the record with over 600 in 12 years by comparison.

If you have some point beyond that, you should try to make it because so far you have not even come close
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom