Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Romney Attacks Obama for Time at Harvard

Posted by   + Show Post

While Mitt Romney appears to have a commanding lead in the battle for the Republican presidential nomination, Rick Santorum had been besting him in the category of higher ed-bashing. Perhaps hoping to go after Santorum fans, Romney yesterday attacked President Obama for ... having spent time at Harvard University. One possible problem is that Romney has two Harvard degrees himself (law and business) while Obama has only one (law).




Read more: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/04/06/romney-attacks-obama-time-harvard#ixzz1rVHjIk4e 
Inside Higher Ed 

by on Apr. 8, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Replies (61-70):
JakeandEmmasMom
by Gold Member on Apr. 10, 2012 at 6:36 PM
1 mom liked this
That is my point. If Romney's supporters want to bring up things that they disagree with from his term, that's fair. But to say that he's unqualified because of a "lack of experience" is silly. He's the incumbent. He doesn't lack presidential experience.

Quoting Meadowchik:



Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:




Quoting Jambo4:




Quoting Meadowchik:


 


Quoting LIMom1105:


was he getting at? Obama should not have obtained a law degree?  Because this was what he was doing at Harvard.  And it was okay for Romney to obtain two master degrees from Harvard (which is what he did)?  Please explain what he was really saying.


If he ripped into Obama for spending too much time at the Univ. of Chicago (12 years teaching) this I could understand. That is not the real world.  But I suppose Harvard has a much more elite ring to it.


Foolish statement, no matter how you dice it.


I think Romney was aptly pointing out Obama's lack of real-world credentials...they both had privileged educations, however Romney succeeded in business by his own merit.  Obama was a professor and Senator and now President, those combined with Harvard can combine to make three very bubble-like places which Obama has spent the majority of his adult life in.  It's a legit point when people are underscoring the importance of a president being "in touch" with everyday Americans.


Absolutely... and when you contrast that to Romney, Romney's got more rounded experience.. one thing for sure, he knows how to take a deficit and turn it into a balance budget and even a surplus.. Obama could use some pointers there, for sure! (and before anyone starts pointing fingers at Congress.. yeah.. Romney didn't have a legislative body of his own party either.. some how he managed to work with others and get it done)  Oh.. and he's got the managing of the Olympics that was also dismally in debt as well as the security problems logistics (being that it was the first major international event after 911).  Romney has a variety of experiences to add to his impressive resume.


Romney may have varied experience, but the President has experience as...President. 


And how effective has Obama been as President?


Truly...I think the "lack of experience" card is pretty silly to play against the President at this point.  The President has never had an issue in terms of connecting with working people, because he's not perceived as trying to take anything away from them.  See what I mean?  


It explains Obama's poor leadership performance.  People were hoping that his Hope and Change rhetoric would be the beginning of something truly transformative and they were wrong.  He couldn't even coalesque the GOP with the Dems around a HCR model backed by the conservative Heritage Foundation.  Sorry, but that's leadership failure, and it is a bitter pill for libs who would have preferred he go full out for the public option.  Obama didn't depend on the GOP support anyways...if you're gonna piss off the GOP, atleast do it with something you supported before.  And let's not pretend that a national mandate isn't a huge boost to corporations, btw!


Compare that to Romney, who garnered nearly unanimous support for Romneycare in Massachusetts, with a Dem supermajority.  Even though he disagreed with some things and had to use his veto pen several times (although it was overridden the majority of times) he presided over the passage of a conservative HCR plan. 


There is simply every indication that anything Obama did well during his term, Romney would have done better or would have done differently and still better; Romney is as thorough as anyone in thoroughly researching issues and gathering experts to work with him. Combine that with the wisdom of experience and Romney is simply more competent.


 I don't see Obama improving as a leader in the last 4 years, so I don't count his experience as a big plus, and I do actually chalk that up to a gaping lack of previous executive experience.  It just explains alot.  Yes, Obama is a good campaigner and is skilled in shaping public perception, but when it comes to presiding over legislative governance; he's just got nothing special.


 



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Jambo4
by Gold Member on Apr. 10, 2012 at 7:16 PM


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:


Quoting Jambo4:


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting LIMom1105:

was he getting at? Obama should not have obtained a law degree?  Because this was what he was doing at Harvard.  And it was okay for Romney to obtain two master degrees from Harvard (which is what he did)?  Please explain what he was really saying.

If he ripped into Obama for spending too much time at the Univ. of Chicago (12 years teaching) this I could understand. That is not the real world.  But I suppose Harvard has a much more elite ring to it.

Foolish statement, no matter how you dice it.

I think Romney was aptly pointing out Obama's lack of real-world credentials...they both had privileged educations, however Romney succeeded in business by his own merit.  Obama was a professor and Senator and now President, those combined with Harvard can combine to make three very bubble-like places which Obama has spent the majority of his adult life in.  It's a legit point when people are underscoring the importance of a president being "in touch" with everyday Americans.

Absolutely... and when you contrast that to Romney, Romney's got more rounded experience.. one thing for sure, he knows how to take a deficit and turn it into a balance budget and even a surplus.. Obama could use some pointers there, for sure! (and before anyone starts pointing fingers at Congress.. yeah.. Romney didn't have a legislative body of his own party either.. some how he managed to work with others and get it done)  Oh.. and he's got the managing of the Olympics that was also dismally in debt as well as the security problems logistics (being that it was the first major international event after 911).  Romney has a variety of experiences to add to his impressive resume.

Romney may have varied experience, but the President has experience as...President. 

And how effective has Obama been as President?

Truly...I think the "lack of experience" card is pretty silly to play against the President at this point.  The President has never had an issue in terms of connecting with working people, because he's not perceived as trying to take anything away from them.  See what I mean?  

It explains Obama's poor leadership performance.  People were hoping that his Hope and Change rhetoric would be the beginning of something truly transformative and they were wrong.  He couldn't even coalesque the GOP with the Dems around a HCR model backed by the conservative Heritage Foundation.  Sorry, but that's leadership failure, and it is a bitter pill for libs who would have preferred he go full out for the public option.  Obama didn't depend on the GOP support anyways...if you're gonna piss off the GOP, atleast do it with something you supported before.  And let's not pretend that a national mandate isn't a huge boost to corporations, btw!

Compare that to Romney, who garnered nearly unanimous support for Romneycare in Massachusetts, with a Dem supermajority.  Even though he disagreed with some things and had to use his veto pen several times (although it was overridden the majority of times) he presided over the passage of a conservative HCR plan. 

There is simply every indication that anything Obama did well during his term, Romney would have done better or would have done differently and still better; Romney is as thorough as anyone in thoroughly researching issues and gathering experts to work with him. Combine that with the wisdom of experience and Romney is simply more competent.

 I don't see Obama improving as a leader in the last 4 years, so I don't count his experience as a big plus, and I do actually chalk that up to a gaping lack of previous executive experience.  It just explains alot.  Yes, Obama is a good campaigner and is skilled in shaping public perception, but when it comes to presiding over legislative governance; he's just got nothing special.

 


How much of a learning curve do we need to extend to Obama?  That's my question.

im23vaughn
by Bronze Member on Apr. 10, 2012 at 10:06 PM


Quoting LIMom1105:

 

Okay, he definitely has more real world work experience, I will agree with that.  But does he have experience outside of his own bubble?  The financial world, particularly at the time Romney was employed in it, is a bubble all it's own.  Staff do come from different backgrounds, but it is primarily composed of white males, many from well off backgrounds (not saying they are all from rich families, but many are from families who did not struggle).  Mitt himself was from a family who did not struggle.  This isn't a bad thing, but I do not think he understands real people any better than our President.  Our President is from a biracial family where the father was not present, his grandparents raised him, and they were not exactly poor, but not well to do by any means. His grandmother worked while raising him.  In many ways, I think this background helps you understand "real" people a bit more and their struggles than Romney's, but I suppose this is a matter of opinion. 

Again, I think if this is what Mitt wanted to convey he should have focused more on Obama's time as a professor. Instead, he implied that he spent many years at Harvard studying law, when it was 3 which is more or less standard.

Yes and the real question is how did Mitt's business experience translate into government experience. He didn't do a great as gov of Mass. The UE was one of the highest in the country and he only managed to lower the UE rate by around 0.2% a year. (5.8 to 5.0% the national UE rate went from 6.0 to 4.8) 222,000 Mass citizens left the state while he was president. ( the 2nd highest number of citizen's leaving in state in the US with the exception of LA. ( Hurricane Katrina) A lot of people attribute him lowering the UE to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people left his city.

He has a huge deficit, but was luckily saved by the Dem Congress who before he got into office passed some legislation that cut his deficit in 1/2. He implemented Romney care which Conservatives claim to hate. He even stated Romney care should be implemented nationally & supported mandates.

He raised fees. (240 million of fee increases) Fees at college universities increased by 63% under Mitt. (So he RAISED taxes in the form of fees to balance his budget, but then blast Obama for attempting to raise revenue to balance the national budget.)

He added 44,000 jobs in the 4 years he was gov of Mass. Hardly something to brag about. Mass had a 1.4% growth rate ( the national average was 5.3%). Mass was 47th in job creation. Job growth was 0.9% compared to the national 5% job growth.

Under his governorship State jobs grew at TWICE the rate as public sector jobs in Mass. He supports the privitazation of social security.

This is just a little bit of what Mitt has done in the public sector. And it isn't that great. A ton of our great POTUS weren't business men. Being a community organizer is important. Obama has seen 1st hand what people are going through. He didn't just start talking to the poor when he decided to run for POTUS. He gave up going to a law firm and earning millions to help the less fortunate. Isn't that the kind of POTUS we want. One that cares more about the people of the US & not the corporations of the US.

Clairwil
by Gold Member on Apr. 10, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Quoting pj2becca21:

this one is about the united nations

Ah, you're a conspiracy theorist.   Ya should have said.


F. N. O. R. D.


Since nobody will believe me, I can safely tell you (as a paid stooge of the New World Order) that we've had our eye on you for quite some time now.  Your private messages make interested reading, and we have your phone numbers on the silver list.  Please don't make any long term plans.  As soon as camp space becomes free, and the higher priority targets have been dealt with, you and your family are scheduled for a little mental re-programming.

mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Apr. 11, 2012 at 10:23 PM


Quoting Carpy:

Actually his point was that he spent to much time there instead of actually working in the real world.  Community activism is not the real world.

Working hands on, in the community... I think that's as "real world" as it gets...

love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Apr. 11, 2012 at 10:29 PM


Quoting pj2becca21:

this one is about the united nations

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

What statements has Obama made regarding Eugenics?  Why would you think he has a "high stance" (sorry not clear on your meaning) regarding abortion?

As for the OP - I thought higher education was a good thing.  Romney should stop pandering - he's just as well (if not better) educated than Obama.

Quoting pj2becca21:

Killing off a good majority of the world poputlation. that why he has the high stance on abortions 

Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting pj2becca21:

his stance on Eugenics.

His stance on eugenics?




SMH... You really believe the shit you come across on youtube don't you?...

love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Apr. 11, 2012 at 10:32 PM


Quoting Jambo4:

Romney actually did dual degrees during his time and did some major butt kicking and knuckling down coming out with some great grades.. but that's not the point Romney is trying to make.  His point is that Obama spent little time elsewhere (private sector, etc) so he missed out on a lot of experience that could of benefited him.

Quoting jaxTheMomm:

Don't know.  He may have taken semesters off, experimented around with different majors, etc while Romney may have gone back to back semesters, taken summer sessions, etc.

Quoting jcribb16:

I'm saying that apparently Obama was there for 1 degree for longer than Romney was there for 2 degrees.  There is a "Why" question there for why it took Obama longer to earn 1 degree than it did for Romney to earn 2 degrees.

Quoting nanaofsix531:

That is fine.Everyone should be educated but why is he bitching about Obama being there to long when he was there longer?What makes it any better for him?It was ok for him to be there 4 years but 3 years was to long for the President?

Quoting jcribb16:

Maybe because Romney earned 2 degrees?

Quoting nanaofsix531:

Romney was at Harvard a whole year longer than Obama.Was he there to long to???????






So, the only "real experience" is gained by working in the private sector? Really?

love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Apr. 11, 2012 at 10:40 PM


Quoting Jambo4:

Does anyone have more of the clip to show?  This one gives such a tunneled view.  Maybe he did say something about his 12 years of teaching at Univ of Chicago of Obama..

Oh and another plug for Romney.. not only did he simultaniously earn business degree  (Baker Scholar, top 5 percent of class) and a law degree ( graduated cum laude, in the top 3rd of the class), but he was also married and a father.  He wasn't there to play.  He was focused and made the most of it.

clappingclaps for Romney... now what's your point?...

love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Apr. 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 Your list is lies and bullshit.

CONGRESS is who you are mad at...and most of the things you are upset (and somewhat misinformed about) were bi-partisan NOT dems...but BOTH..in fact McCain wrote the detention bill

Quoting pj2becca21:

He has take away many of our Rights....

  • Right to habeus corpus - Congress...
  • Freedom of speech ( we have to protest in reglated ZONES - That was under Bush as well...
  • Freedom of the press ( we are big lied to and we never hear the most important things) That isn't the POTUS, that is the CORPS that OWN the media
  • Freedom of Association ???
  • freedom of Goverment information ???
  • freedom from unreasonable serches & seizures You mean CONGRESS??
  • 5th amendment  Proof??
  • 6th right to legal representation LOL..again, CONGRESS
  • right to a speedy and public trial - See above
  • freedom from cruel and unusual punishment again , not the POTUS
  • right to equal protection  Proof?

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 What rights did he try to take away?

Quoting pj2becca21:

Obama was a constitution Professor at harvard. Yeah he spent way to much time there. Yet he is still try to take away our constitutional rights away and making this unconstitutional bill/ laws ( obamashitcare, sopa, pipa, acta, national defence authorization act, His stance on abortion and force birth control* on the porn industry and human* his stance on Eugenics.

 


 

Thank you... I guess it's safe to say that she really doesn't know how our government works...

love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

mommygiggles317
by Silver Member on Apr. 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:


Quoting Jambo4:


Quoting Meadowchik:


Quoting LIMom1105:

was he getting at? Obama should not have obtained a law degree?  Because this was what he was doing at Harvard.  And it was okay for Romney to obtain two master degrees from Harvard (which is what he did)?  Please explain what he was really saying.

If he ripped into Obama for spending too much time at the Univ. of Chicago (12 years teaching) this I could understand. That is not the real world.  But I suppose Harvard has a much more elite ring to it.

Foolish statement, no matter how you dice it.

I think Romney was aptly pointing out Obama's lack of real-world credentials...they both had privileged educations, however Romney succeeded in business by his own merit.  Obama was a professor and Senator and now President, those combined with Harvard can combine to make three very bubble-like places which Obama has spent the majority of his adult life in.  It's a legit point when people are underscoring the importance of a president being "in touch" with everyday Americans.

Absolutely... and when you contrast that to Romney, Romney's got more rounded experience.. one thing for sure, he knows how to take a deficit and turn it into a balance budget and even a surplus.. Obama could use some pointers there, for sure! (and before anyone starts pointing fingers at Congress.. yeah.. Romney didn't have a legislative body of his own party either.. some how he managed to work with others and get it done)  Oh.. and he's got the managing of the Olympics that was also dismally in debt as well as the security problems logistics (being that it was the first major international event after 911).  Romney has a variety of experiences to add to his impressive resume.

Romney may have varied experience, but the President has experience as...President. 

And how effective has Obama been as President?

Truly...I think the "lack of experience" card is pretty silly to play against the President at this point.  The President has never had an issue in terms of connecting with working people, because he's not perceived as trying to take anything away from them.  See what I mean?  

It explains Obama's poor leadership performance.  People were hoping that his Hope and Change rhetoric would be the beginning of something truly transformative and they were wrong.  He couldn't even coalesque the GOP with the Dems around a HCR model backed by the conservative Heritage Foundation.  Sorry, but that's leadership failure, and it is a bitter pill for libs who would have preferred he go full out for the public option.  Obama didn't depend on the GOP support anyways...if you're gonna piss off the GOP, atleast do it with something you supported before.  And let's not pretend that a national mandate isn't a huge boost to corporations, btw!

Compare that to Romney, who garnered nearly unanimous support for Romneycare in Massachusetts, with a Dem supermajority.  Even though he disagreed with some things and had to use his veto pen several times (although it was overridden the majority of times) he presided over the passage of a conservative HCR plan. 

There is simply every indication that anything Obama did well during his term, Romney would have done better or would have done differently and still better; Romney is as thorough as anyone in thoroughly researching issues and gathering experts to work with him. Combine that with the wisdom of experience and Romney is simply more competent.

 I don't see Obama improving as a leader in the last 4 years, so I don't count his experience as a big plus, and I do actually chalk that up to a gaping lack of previous executive experience.  It just explains alot.  Yes, Obama is a good campaigner and is skilled in shaping public perception, but when it comes to presiding over legislative governance; he's just got nothing special.

 


Fortunately, we live in a country where our President cannot just do whatever he wants. He can have all the hope and change possible, but if there is no support for his ideas, what do you think happens?...

love you signExercising Knowledge, Wisdom and Understanding...

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)