E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDOSWELL, VA -- Once again throttling back on his most vociferous attacks on President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney continued his effort to paint the president as a partisan without a plan, and pledged to work across the aisle with Democrats if elected president in his second event of a three-stop Virginia campaign day.
Charles Dharapak / AP
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney greets supporters at a campaign stop at Meadow Event Park, in Richmond, Va., Thursday, Nov. 1, 2012.
"I'm going to meet regularly with Democrat leaders and Republican leaders. I won't do that once a year, when I say regularly I mean much more frequently than that, because we're going to have to work together," Romney pledged. "These are critical times. This is an election of consequence."
Democrats immediately seized on the irony of Romney delivering these remarks while standing next to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., whom Democrats have long accused of using his power in the House to act as one of the "chief architects" of GOP obstruction to President Obama's agenda.
“For the sole purpose of political gain, congressman Cantor and Republicans in Congress, like Romney’s running mate congressman Ryan, have blocked efforts to achieve a balanced deficit reduction deal and to pass legislation to create jobs now," read a statement from Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. "The American people need someone who will move us forward, not just serve as a rubber stamp for the right wing.”
Romney, who has dialed down his criticisms of President Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, and as the campaigns move into the closing argument phase, continued to ding the president for what he said was a lack of an agenda and a campaign based upon attacks alone.
GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney hits the campaign trail in Roanoke, Virginia criticizing President Obama's economic and energy policies.
"For a while there he was talking about saving characters on Sesame Street, and then it was word games with my name that he was playing, and then of course he got very anxious and went out there and just attacked me day in and day out," Romney said. "Attacking me does not create an agenda for him."
Romney makes one more appearance in Virginia today: a rally in Virginia Beach that was originally planned for Sunday night, but had to be rescheduled due to the approach of Hurricane Sandy.
Leave a Comment:
Yeah, we've seen this lie already in play. Mit the Git spewing more lies.
Ya know, this article is about Mr. Romney saying he will be bi-partisan by meeting with democratic members of the congress. I find it interesting that he DOESN'T say that he'll consider their recommendations. All the meetings in the world are worthless unless one is willing to compromise and be open to the other side's ideas.
One must listen very closely when a politician says something. They are extremely good at obfuscating their true intent.
Mr. Romney says that he worked closely with the Democrats while Governor of Massachusetts. What he fails to say is that during his term as Governor, he had over 800 line vetoes and regular vetoes, most of which were overturned by the Massachusetts legislature.
All politicians say they're bi-partisan, but most have their own agendas.
I wonder what Mr. Romney's agenda is. He refuses to give any specifics.
So, Romney wants to be our boss. Many, or most bosses love to tout their open door policy but when it comes to listening or acting upon an employees input, the reality of the open door is that it is a facade that merely exposes the pot stirrers.
What Romney and republicans don't understand is that a country will never run like a business. Countries don't make money and you can't fire the "employees", and, as it was in 2008, the pot stirrers have found the "open door" and don't want a boss to dictate country policy to them. This is a country of the people not a business for the BOSS to profit.
Mitt will be bipartisan lol
Just ask the good people of MA, or read Masses of MA, what they thought of his leadership skills, he used his time as governor to veto most everything, plus was busy furthering his own private agenda of becoming President of the US, and was absent from MA more than he was present.
Plus he privatized his own elevator, would not want to be stuck inside an elevator having to listen and discuss altering views...he segragated himself!
Fumbling, Mumbling and extremely desparate Mit....but the polls must not have yet caught up with all his lies - why is this race even close??
sea2sea obama may have said no, but it's not his call.
It amazes me how few people actually understand how their own government works. That responsibility fall under Congress just like the lack of prosecution of the investment houses falls in Congress' lap.
I knew Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts, and I know numerous people who were in our state legislature who attempted to work with him on many issues. He managed to alienate just about everyone who was here in state government at the time. He was not bipartisan then, and he isn't now.
Romney ran a pitched battle against Democrats while governor of Massachusetts. Thank goodness for the invention of the Etch-A-Sketch.
Romney is a lying joke... He has NO history of "working" with the other side of the aisle. What we heard from those people he "worked" with was that they were bullied, ignored or extorted. That's his idea of working with people.
The man holds a black belt in lying and yet he can do no wrong in the eyes of a bunch of folks. Amazing...
Republican fiscal policy in the House is dictated by lobbiest, Grover Norquist.
Republican fiscal policy in the Senate is dictated by lobbiest, Grover Norquist.
Romney has signed a fealty oath to Grover Norquist. So, if Romney is elected, the countrys economic policy will be up to Chancellor Grover Norquist. That must be another interpretation of the Second Amendment or something.
On November 6, vote for Barack Obama or Grover Norquist (aka Mitt Romney) Norquist should be a shoo in, as he will run both the legislative and the executive branches of government and end gridlock. Dictators know how to cut through the red tape of democracy and representative government.
Heil Grover!
This election is between the Reality and the Lies. Republican have declared that the Lies have it.
Romney is the first liberal/moderate/conservative/lunatic fringe candidate nominated by the Republican Party. Democrats can at least work with two of him.
Bullsh!t.
Romney touts his record in Massachusetts as the reason he can be believed to be able to work across the political spectrum. As with so much of what he says, under scrutiny it "just ain't so". While he was governor of Massachusetts he had a full electorate both house and senate that were Democrats. He had NO CHOICE but to work with the Democrats because they had power to override any of his vetos. This only proves that once his back was up against the wall he had to work with Democrats. This doesn't require any bipartisan talent.
What is true, though, is that Romney has demonstrated his inability to hold a moderate stance and has pandered to the extreme right wing Republicans, Tea Partiers and Rush Limbaugh lovers, who if he were elected would no doubt tip the scales to the extreme right.
I have not heard one time when Obama mentioned A Bi-Partisan tone in this campaign.....
Hey Mike, were you not paying attention to the Presidents attempt at fostering bipartisan progress early in his first term? The time for bipartisanship was then... this second term with a democrat majority congress is when republicans will cry the really big tears. Think I'll buy some KMB stock!
mike, then you haven't been listening...
Ok ..maybe i have not been listening...When ?
When he said to the Republicans ...'There are consequences when you Lose an Election"
Or maybe when he said to the Republicans ...You can come along for the ride...but you have to sit in the back seat"
Or maybe ...With his Super Majority with Obama Care ....A major issue that should be Bi-partisan...He went with an up or down vote....Really maybe i must have missed his compromise or Bi-Partisanship..
Please give me good solid examples and not perceptions....because that is all I can remember.
This to me is where he lacks "Back Bone" and Leadership...and this is where he lost any hope for B-partisinship. Lets face facts ...the House will stay Republican...Senate will maybe stay Democrat...The President may stay the same (to early to tell)... If that happens...Republicans..still hate the President... Democrats will still have a problem getting things done ...all because of a President who cant Lead.
Mike, Could not find a reference to the "lose an election" quote so I won't respond to that one. If you've got it, post it. The back seat/driving into a ditch comment is just plain funny and quite indicative of how Democrats feel in the wake of 8 years of W. However, the quote below from the Washington Post is more significant than any sound-bite you may attempt to sensationalize.
I really dont know what you are talking about with the comments...but they were made.
Nice Editorial...I am sure the Huffington Post has a similar one...How many Republicans voted for the Bill?
So he holds a a meeting with Democrats and Republicans ...and how many ideas did he take away from the Republicans?
Again ...he has never compromised ..went through the motions...but never compromised
Why do you think he cant work with the other side ? Every other President was able to find common ground...he cant.
You can lead a cow to water...
Thanks for your perceptions ...You gave me a an editorial ...Washington Post...Go figure
Feigning desire for factual data suits you well mike-Pa. Your boss has the same problem and can't produce a single piece of data to support his platform. It's irrelevant anyway... get in the back seat, sit down and shut up.
He assumes they'd even meet with him. President Obama asked for several meetings, lunch meetings and dinner meetings and the Republicans never showed up! Why would he think we'd not do the same?
He has not asked Cantor for a meeting for at least a year. Also please name one meeting where the Republicans did not show up.....I have not heard that...maybe it did happen.
Romney says 'give me 8 years and I will turn this economy around'...'i know how to get it done'
The economy has strengthened these past few years, after policies put in place by Obama. More would have been done if Republicans did not have a mandate to make Obama a one term President. Job trajectory right now!! for the next few years is over 12 million new jobs. Without any of Romney's influence. Running an investment firm and using hedging and trust funds for personal gain has nothing to do with running a country. And his role as Governor of MA is clearly (by the Masses in MA) a failure.
And look at the stock market...of course Romney himself has been a big beneficiary of high S&P/Dow/Nasdaq profits.
If Romney needs 8 years, and from all Obama has accomplished in 4 years, and dealing with the worst economic downturn since the great depression, think what Obama will accomplish in the next 4 - especially if he has a Democratic senate.
Go Bipartisan O & Joe
Obama after 4 years has to come to the realization that the republicans don't have ears, they only have what appears to be ears. Mr. president you can't fix stupid or crazy and that is what you are trying to deal with. The only thing the republicans want is no taxes on the 1% and the elimination of all social programs. You have to understand that Romney is Hilter figure the republican are looking for. Romney will do more damage to the constitution than any other president. Romney wants war with Iran, China and Russia, he doesn't need a reason and is will to use his demented mind to get it and the US citizens will suffer from his demented decisions.
Romney says an 87% Democratic Congress gets things done.
Let's make it happen.
I'm pretty sure he will change his mind about working for bipartisanship. I'm only basing that on the fact he has swapped positions on most of his platform and statements over the last several years.
Romney promises to meet regularly (ie., more often than once a year) with Democrats, and he may in fact do it. George W. Bush had occasional meetings with Democrats. Bush didn't listen to them, and the meetings were short, but it enables Bush to say he had "met with Democrats."
Romney won't listen either. He didn't listen when he was governor of Mass. The Democratic legislation overrode his veto numerous times in order to get things done.
He entered the office of governor with a 66% approval rating, and it was 34% when he left office. (http://veracitystew.com/2012/05/19/romney-ended-governorship-with-34-approval-rating/)
Let's finally face facts. Romney isn't going to do much to accommodate people who don't agree with him. He'll say anything to win the White House but the only time he's revealed a glimpse of his real self is when he didn't know he was being recorded.
It's not that he's a bad man or anything. It's that he'll owe his presidency to Big Donors, evangelists, Tea Party members, and neoconservatives. (Of his 24 foreign policy advisers, 17 are radical neocons left over from the Bush administration, including John Bolton, who wants to destroy the UN, and Dan Senor, who led the provisional government in Iraq and couldn't have done a worse job if he'd tried.)
These are the people who will tell him what to do, and they don't include any bipartisan Democrats. Left on his own, under normal circumstances, he'd probably run a mediocre, undistinguished, business-friendly administration like Calvin Coolidge or Warren G. Harding.
His problem is that they won't leave him alone. He'll be surrounded by rigid and unyielding zealots. He'll have to sign whatever they put in front of him or face a primary challenge in 2016.
His election would result in an epic disaster and, if it happens, all the blame will be on Obama who -- throughout this stressful and combative period, and for all his misjudgments -- has acted like an adult, not a demanding child.
I'm curious as to how many times Obama has met casually with GOP members just to meet and get together. I am also curious as to how often Obama actually held agency head meetings and questioned their budgets and appropriations let alone their goals and plans as agencies. I wonder how many times Obama had the balls to hold agency heads accountable for their sloppy accounting methods. And I'm curious as to how often Obama set aside his ego in order to actually partake in objective dialogue and discourse with legislators who were conservative. I'm curiuos as to how often Obama actually shut his mouth long enough to listen to Senators from rural areas and whether he was ever able to comprehend the various demographic makeup of our Nation as a whole.
I don't love everything Romnet touts, but I do believe he has the objectivity to listen to other points of view and to hold get togethers that are not purely meant as occasions to hear himself talk and pontificate.
Obama was expecting a bi-partisan government when he took office but was soon wised up. Bi-partisanship wasn't going to make Obama a one-term president.
After the elections of 2010, I doubt that there were many Republicans left who would meet with Obama. "Compromise" and "negotiation" were dirty words. Zealots don't compromise, and as John Wayne put it, "talkin' words is fer wimmin." There was little room on the right for bi-partisanship. Olympia Snowe simply resigned, while other moderates lost their primaries.
It was worse in the House. Obama and John Boehner, a sensible guy, actually hammered out an agreement between them but Boehner had to reneg because he couldn't control the Tea Party types who had been elected in 2010.
I wouldn't call it "partisanship" because the GOP in modern times has been a party of good conservative sense, like a governor on an engine -- cautious in its approach to social and economic change. The Tea Party, evangelicals, right-wing billionaires represent something else. It's an ideology that transcends political party. It's a philosophy, an attitude towards life that resembles Social Darwinism more than anything else.
Judging from your post, I doubt that anything will persuade you to challenge the beliefs you already hold. But I believe you're wrong about Romney's willingness to talk to those who disagree with him. He can't afford to. He'll owe his presidency to the Big Donors, the evangelicals, and the Tea Party, and he'll have to sign whatever they put in front of him -- or face a primary challenge in 2016.
Day one. Let's all come together to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
He will hold regular meetings to remind them he's in charge and this is how it will be . Any cooperation with the enemy will be seen as weakness by the baggers . He has no choice but to be a dictator as his draconian policies will never fly with the Dems . All his past rhetoric indicates that he will not listen to anyone on the other side of the aisle if he doesn't have to . Another Romney lie just to get elected . Then instantly forgotten .
My first thought on this article is that Obama said the exact same thing about Republicans back in 2008. There is a huge difference between what a candidate says and reality.
Romney can only meet regularly with Democrats to work in a bi-partisan way if the Democrats are willing to do so. Just like the Republicans had to be willing to work with Obama to get anything done the last 4 years. Is anyone else seeing a trend here?
Romney pledges bipartisonship.....HA HA HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HEE HO HO HO HO HA HA HA HA OOOHHHHHHHH....I can't stand it...HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE!!!!!!
Bottom line. Bubbas and Evangelical white racist Christians would wade across flood waters to vote against a Black President. The problem is that their other choice is a Mormon that needs a Visa to get his wealth back into this Country while shipping jobs over seas for a profit. They won't even walk thru a puddle for Willard come election day. That's the difference between the 2010 midterms and the 2012 election
Hmmm....did whites vote 95% for McCain in 2008 as did the black community for President Obama?
I'm
starting to think I like the idea of Romney winning. And when he gives he and
his rich buddies more tax breaks and takes this country's economy over the edge
of that cliff that President Obama has worked so hard to pull us back from with
nothing but treasonous opposition from the idiots on the right, I am going to
love it.
Then
when the right pulls out the second trick in their three trick pony act, I
might actually weep for you idiots when he sends your kids into war so he and
his rich buddies can get even richer while your kids come home in boxes.
And
the third trick is to deregulate everything, banks, insurance companies,
utility companies and its "bend over middle class"!!!
ROMNEY
RYAN 2012 BRING IT ON
I think I agree. Eyes aren't going to be opened until its a done deal, then we will just have to suck it up and live with the consequences. Still, it seems a high price to be able to say I told you so.