did anyone see this?I don't know how you cope with these people on TV.
They do that in America, rarely do they have a fair interview. You had Kudlow and two business hacks who are all pro capitalism and obviously pro Romney.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
They do that in America, rarely do they have a fair interview. You had Kudlow and two business hacks who are all pro capitalism and obviously pro Romney.
Wants an apology
feck off Mitt you ballbag.the desperation in which the right wing hacks defend him tells me Romney is dead.
Even if he did not run Bain, he was happy enough to take the money.
Therefore he made his money from a company he owned 100% that outsourced jobs.
Makes him a total hypocrite.
Go on...Romney...shows us your taxes.
Wants an apology
watch his eyes as he denies he had any connection with Bain. Liar.
The classic 'I don't recall'
This wont go away....
show us your taxes...where the money in Bermuda, Switzerland and the Caymans came from.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Romney retired retroactively
Oh wait...
More problems for RLC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/mitt-romney-bain-capital_n_1674209.html?ref=topbar
WASHINGTON -- Add another document to the pile of evidence contradicting Mitt Romney's continued insistence that he ended his active role with Bain Capital in early 1999, part of his long-running effort to avoid responsibility for the company's activity, related to outsourcing and bankruptcies, during the years that followed.
A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court."
In August 2011, Romney told federal authorities, as part of the financial disclosure process, that he "retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee [for the 2002 Winter Olympics]. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."
Bain Capital Investors is a Bain Capital entity.
Previously reported evidence shows that Romney was listed as the CEO, chairman and president of the company after 1999 in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; took a six-figure salary; signed corporate documents related to major and minor deals and attended board meetings for at least two Bain-affiliated companies. The state document was filed two and a half years after Romney now says he retired from the company, demonstrating his deep and ongoing connection to the firm.
The mountain of evidence that Romney had a connection to the firm after 1999 leaves him with two possible explanations, neither of them political appealing: Either Romney was officially in charge of the company but took no actual responsibility for it, or he was involved then and is either lying or shading the truth now.
The latter has its obvious drawbacks, and the former doesn't paint Romney as a portrait of stand-up leadership. President Barack Obama over the weekend seized on Romney's attempt to shed responsibility for the company he officially ran, arguing that a U.S. president doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing when he's responsible for what happens on his watch.
"Ultimately, I think, Mr. Romney is going to have to answer those questions because if he aspires to being president, one of the things you learn is you're ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations," Obama said in an interview with the District of Columbia's WJLA-TV.
It's a line of attack Obama employed with deftness against his Republican opponent in 2008, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suspended his presidential campaign to address the financial meltdown.
"Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time," Obama said then, rejecting McCain's request to postpone debates. "It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else."
On Friday evening, Romney responded to the barrage of Bain reporting and attacks by the Obama camp by scheduling a raft of interviews with major media outlets, during which he repeated his claim that he had had nothing to do with Bain after 1999.
Romney retired retroactively
Oh wait...
More problems for RLC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/mitt-romney-bain-capital_n_1674209.html?ref=topbar
WASHINGTON -- Add another document to the pile of evidence contradicting Mitt Romney's continued insistence that he ended his active role with Bain Capital in early 1999, part of his long-running effort to avoid responsibility for the company's activity, related to outsourcing and bankruptcies, during the years that followed.
A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court."
In August 2011, Romney told federal authorities, as part of the financial disclosure process, that he "retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee [for the 2002 Winter Olympics]. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."
Bain Capital Investors is a Bain Capital entity.
Previously reported evidence shows that Romney was listed as the CEO, chairman and president of the company after 1999 in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; took a six-figure salary; signed corporate documents related to major and minor deals and attended board meetings for at least two Bain-affiliated companies. The state document was filed two and a half years after Romney now says he retired from the company, demonstrating his deep and ongoing connection to the firm.
The mountain of evidence that Romney had a connection to the firm after 1999 leaves him with two possible explanations, neither of them political appealing: Either Romney was officially in charge of the company but took no actual responsibility for it, or he was involved then and is either lying or shading the truth now.
The latter has its obvious drawbacks, and the former doesn't paint Romney as a portrait of stand-up leadership. President Barack Obama over the weekend seized on Romney's attempt to shed responsibility for the company he officially ran, arguing that a U.S. president doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing when he's responsible for what happens on his watch.
"Ultimately, I think, Mr. Romney is going to have to answer those questions because if he aspires to being president, one of the things you learn is you're ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations," Obama said in an interview with the District of Columbia's WJLA-TV.
It's a line of attack Obama employed with deftness against his Republican opponent in 2008, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suspended his presidential campaign to address the financial meltdown.
"Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time," Obama said then, rejecting McCain's request to postpone debates. "It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else."
On Friday evening, Romney responded to the barrage of Bain reporting and attacks by the Obama camp by scheduling a raft of interviews with major media outlets, during which he repeated his claim that he had had nothing to do with Bain after 1999.
Conservative Pundits Wonder If Romney’s Hiding Something In Unreleased Tax Returns
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...s-returns-hiding-something.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
It’s a bad sign for Mitt Romney when conservatives begin to question why the presumptive Republican nominee won’t release more of his tax returns. But on Sunday, that’s what happened. Conservative analysts joined Democrats in wondering whether Romney is just being impolitic in not releasing several years worth of returns — or whether he’s trying to hide something.
Democrats have been calling on Mitt Romney to release more than one year of his tax returns with a series of web videos and public statements. So far, he has released his 2010 returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns.
To politicos across the ideological spectrum, Romney’s unwillingness to release anything beyond these two years raises the question: if it’s worth the bad press to keep the tax returns private, they must contain something worse.
“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” said conservative columnist George Will, on ABC’s “This Week.” “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”
On the ABC roundtable, Republican strategist Matthew Dowd had a similar take.
“There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said. “So there’s obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something.”
“Many of these politicians think, ‘I can do this. I can get away with this. I don’t need to do this, because I’m going to say something and I don’t have to do this,’” Dowd said. “If he had 20 years of ‘great, clean, everything’s fine,’ it’d all be out there, but it’s arrogance.”
In the last week, several Republicans have advised Romney to release his returns. That list includes former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former RNC chairman Michael Steele and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who called for “total transparency” and said he releases all his tax returns. On “Fox News Sunday,” the Weekly Standard’s editor Bill Kristol added his voice to the list as well, calling for Romney to “release the tax returns tomorrow” and “take the hit for a day or two.”
The speculations from Will and Dowd jibe with what Obama surrogates have been saying, and reveal why the president’s backers see a political benefit to harping on Romney’s tax returns.
On ABC’s “This Week,” Chicago’s mayor and Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said that in 2008, John McCain saw 23 years of Romney’s tax returns and opted for Sarah Palin instead.
“The Romney campaign isn’t stupid,” Emanuel said. “They have decided that it’s better to get attacked on a lack of transparency, lack of accountability to the American people, versus telling you what’s in those taxes.”
The Romney campaign played down the issue, arguing that Romney is already doing more than is required by law by releasing his 2010 and later his 2011 returns. “We are going to release them,” Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie said of those two years on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And that’s above and beyond what the law requires, by the way.” On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” top Romney aide Kevin Madden also said Romney had already gone “above and beyond.”
The Obama campaign is framing the issue as indicative of how Romney would govern.
“I’m not suggesting that based on what we know, that he’s done anything illegal,” top campaign adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But what I am suggesting is that he’s taken advantage of every single conceivable tax shelter loophole that we can see. And now is he the guy that’s gonna clean up our tax code and make it advantageous to average taxpayers and the country? Or is he gonna look at it through the lens of his own experience?
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...s-returns-hiding-something.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
It’s a bad sign for Mitt Romney when conservatives begin to question why the presumptive Republican nominee won’t release more of his tax returns. But on Sunday, that’s what happened. Conservative analysts joined Democrats in wondering whether Romney is just being impolitic in not releasing several years worth of returns — or whether he’s trying to hide something.
Democrats have been calling on Mitt Romney to release more than one year of his tax returns with a series of web videos and public statements. So far, he has released his 2010 returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns.
To politicos across the ideological spectrum, Romney’s unwillingness to release anything beyond these two years raises the question: if it’s worth the bad press to keep the tax returns private, they must contain something worse.
“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” said conservative columnist George Will, on ABC’s “This Week.” “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”
On the ABC roundtable, Republican strategist Matthew Dowd had a similar take.
“There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said. “So there’s obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something.”
“Many of these politicians think, ‘I can do this. I can get away with this. I don’t need to do this, because I’m going to say something and I don’t have to do this,’” Dowd said. “If he had 20 years of ‘great, clean, everything’s fine,’ it’d all be out there, but it’s arrogance.”
In the last week, several Republicans have advised Romney to release his returns. That list includes former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former RNC chairman Michael Steele and Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, who called for “total transparency” and said he releases all his tax returns. On “Fox News Sunday,” the Weekly Standard’s editor Bill Kristol added his voice to the list as well, calling for Romney to “release the tax returns tomorrow” and “take the hit for a day or two.”
The speculations from Will and Dowd jibe with what Obama surrogates have been saying, and reveal why the president’s backers see a political benefit to harping on Romney’s tax returns.
On ABC’s “This Week,” Chicago’s mayor and Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said that in 2008, John McCain saw 23 years of Romney’s tax returns and opted for Sarah Palin instead.
“The Romney campaign isn’t stupid,” Emanuel said. “They have decided that it’s better to get attacked on a lack of transparency, lack of accountability to the American people, versus telling you what’s in those taxes.”
The Romney campaign played down the issue, arguing that Romney is already doing more than is required by law by releasing his 2010 and later his 2011 returns. “We are going to release them,” Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie said of those two years on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And that’s above and beyond what the law requires, by the way.” On CBS’s “Face the Nation,” top Romney aide Kevin Madden also said Romney had already gone “above and beyond.”
The Obama campaign is framing the issue as indicative of how Romney would govern.
“I’m not suggesting that based on what we know, that he’s done anything illegal,” top campaign adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “But what I am suggesting is that he’s taken advantage of every single conceivable tax shelter loophole that we can see. And now is he the guy that’s gonna clean up our tax code and make it advantageous to average taxpayers and the country? Or is he gonna look at it through the lens of his own experience?
Mitt Romney 'Legally' Bain Capital CEO Until 2002, Former Partner Says (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/mitt-romney-bain-capital_n_1674631.html
A former Bain Capital partner acknowledged Sunday that Mitt Romney "legally" remained the head of the private equity firm until 2002, contradicting Romney's claims that he left the company in February 1999.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Up w/ Chris Hayes," Edward Conard, who worked at the private equity firm during Romney's tenure as CEO, noted that Romney remained "legally" in charge of the company for at least two years after the former governor says he left to take over the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
“Mitt’s names were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company," Conard said. Conard served as managing director of the firm from 1993 to 2007.
MSNBC reports:
Despite Romney's statements that he left in 1999, Conard's new remarks suggest that, in fact, Romney's continued ownership of the firm enabled him to negotiate a better exit deal. "We had to negotiate with Mitt because he was an owner of the firm," Conard said.
The legal transfer of ownership dragged on for three years after Romney's informal departure to run the Olympics in Salt Lake City, Conard said, because Romney was aggressively negotiating his retirement package and compensation with executives and lawyers at the company.
"He'd created a lot of franchise value, and we were going to pay him for that," Conard said, adding: "We had a very complicated set of negotiations that took us about two years for us to unwind. During that time a management committee ran the firm, and we could hardly get Mitt to come back to negotiate the terms of his departure because he was working so hard on the Olympics."
Conard's comments are the latest in a growing pile of evidence that contradicts Romney's repeated claims that he ended his active role at Bain in 1999. On Sunday, The Huffington Post reported on a corporate document filed in December 2002 that lists Romney as a "managing member" of Bain Capital Investors. Earlier reports show Romney listed as CEO on 2002 Securites and Exchange Commission filings, attending board meetings for Bain-affiliated companies after 1999, and receiving an at least $100,000 salary from Bain in 2001 and 2002.
The discrepancies between these documents and Romney's account of his departure have become the focus of the presidential campaign, as President Obama's team raises questions about the Republican candidate's truthfulness. Beyond the issue of honesty, there are deeper implications for Romney if he was involved in the company after 1999, as Bain's outsourcing activity during that time has raised concern.
Obama addressed the controversy on Saturday, telling DC-based ABC affiliate WJLA that Romney should come clean on his record.
"Ultimately, I think, Mr. Romney is going to have to answer those questions because if he aspires to being president, one of the things you learn is you're ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations," the president said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/mitt-romney-bain-capital_n_1674631.html
A former Bain Capital partner acknowledged Sunday that Mitt Romney "legally" remained the head of the private equity firm until 2002, contradicting Romney's claims that he left the company in February 1999.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Up w/ Chris Hayes," Edward Conard, who worked at the private equity firm during Romney's tenure as CEO, noted that Romney remained "legally" in charge of the company for at least two years after the former governor says he left to take over the Olympic Games in Salt Lake City.
“Mitt’s names were on the documents as the chief executive and sole owner of the company," Conard said. Conard served as managing director of the firm from 1993 to 2007.
MSNBC reports:
Despite Romney's statements that he left in 1999, Conard's new remarks suggest that, in fact, Romney's continued ownership of the firm enabled him to negotiate a better exit deal. "We had to negotiate with Mitt because he was an owner of the firm," Conard said.
The legal transfer of ownership dragged on for three years after Romney's informal departure to run the Olympics in Salt Lake City, Conard said, because Romney was aggressively negotiating his retirement package and compensation with executives and lawyers at the company.
"He'd created a lot of franchise value, and we were going to pay him for that," Conard said, adding: "We had a very complicated set of negotiations that took us about two years for us to unwind. During that time a management committee ran the firm, and we could hardly get Mitt to come back to negotiate the terms of his departure because he was working so hard on the Olympics."
Conard's comments are the latest in a growing pile of evidence that contradicts Romney's repeated claims that he ended his active role at Bain in 1999. On Sunday, The Huffington Post reported on a corporate document filed in December 2002 that lists Romney as a "managing member" of Bain Capital Investors. Earlier reports show Romney listed as CEO on 2002 Securites and Exchange Commission filings, attending board meetings for Bain-affiliated companies after 1999, and receiving an at least $100,000 salary from Bain in 2001 and 2002.
The discrepancies between these documents and Romney's account of his departure have become the focus of the presidential campaign, as President Obama's team raises questions about the Republican candidate's truthfulness. Beyond the issue of honesty, there are deeper implications for Romney if he was involved in the company after 1999, as Bain's outsourcing activity during that time has raised concern.
Obama addressed the controversy on Saturday, telling DC-based ABC affiliate WJLA that Romney should come clean on his record.
"Ultimately, I think, Mr. Romney is going to have to answer those questions because if he aspires to being president, one of the things you learn is you're ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations," the president said.
In 4 months time these Bain attacks will be old news.
Whilst Obama is overwealming favourite, I think it is early to go negative.
He has a lot of explaining to do but I am sure he will worm his way out of it.
In 4 months time these Bain attacks will be old news.
Whilst Obama is overwealming favourite, I think it is early to go negative.
Its not really negative though, its a legitimate concern for job creation.
In 4 months time these Bain attacks will be old news.
Whilst Obama is overwealming favourite, I think it is early to go negative.
have you read what the issues are?
only Romney can make it go away...but he cannot.
He either releases his tax returns or he does not.
its a catch 22. the rumblings are that the conservatives will want an alternative nominee.
yes. the issue is about job creation. But Romney has painted himself into a corner. As the President said. Romney's calling card was he was this business guy who knows how to create jobs...his calling card. Not his experience as Governor...which stank.
So Romney now has to prove that he actually created jobs while he was 'in charge' of Bain.
But the evidence is he at least benefited as 100% owner of an enterprise that profited from sending American jobs overseas.
The Obama team has said, the real goal is Romney's tax returns.
Now there is agreement between Republicans and Democrats, that Romney has something to hide.
This morning talk shows only highlighted how desperate Romney's position is.
He is Toast.
I'm with Jaz. This is awkward for Romney but I can't see it mattering much, for three reasons:
Firstly, I reckon most Americans who really believe that companies like Bain are or should be about 'creating jobs' were going to vote for the Democrats anyway. (I think it was a mistake for Romney to even get himself into the position of claiming this at all, even if that would've meant departing from standard GOP boilerplate.)
Secondly, the idea that even if he wasn't hands-on in 99-01, the buck stopped with him because it was his company, is just too subtle to have much impact.
And most importantly, there's no evidence that, beyond a basic level of competence - that'll be you, George McGovern - the out-party candidate is actually very important to the result. Presidential elections are a referendum on the President. The GOP, with amazing difficulty, successfully negotiated the hurdle of not nominating a complete spaz, and unless Romney turns out to have done something actually criminal, it's now all about Obama and the economy.
The way this really hurts Romney, IMO, is opportunity cost: the election may be four months away, but Obama has the lead and Romney needs to get the conversation back to the economy fairly quickly. But he's certainly not 'toast', and there's zero chance of the GOP turning to another nominee.
But I think the really important news this week was this side of the Atlantic - Spanish 10-years hovering around the 7% mark. If the Euro isn't sorted out soon, our cretins are going to end up giving your maniacs the White House.
Firstly, I reckon most Americans who really believe that companies like Bain are or should be about 'creating jobs' were going to vote for the Democrats anyway. (I think it was a mistake for Romney to even get himself into the position of claiming this at all, even if that would've meant departing from standard GOP boilerplate.)
Secondly, the idea that even if he wasn't hands-on in 99-01, the buck stopped with him because it was his company, is just too subtle to have much impact.
And most importantly, there's no evidence that, beyond a basic level of competence - that'll be you, George McGovern - the out-party candidate is actually very important to the result. Presidential elections are a referendum on the President. The GOP, with amazing difficulty, successfully negotiated the hurdle of not nominating a complete spaz, and unless Romney turns out to have done something actually criminal, it's now all about Obama and the economy.
The way this really hurts Romney, IMO, is opportunity cost: the election may be four months away, but Obama has the lead and Romney needs to get the conversation back to the economy fairly quickly. But he's certainly not 'toast', and there's zero chance of the GOP turning to another nominee.
But I think the really important news this week was this side of the Atlantic - Spanish 10-years hovering around the 7% mark. If the Euro isn't sorted out soon, our cretins are going to end up giving your maniacs the White House.
I agree that this is not going to change the minds either way of those who have decided. But it will impact turnout. There is much greater enthusiasm on the Democrat's side. These things really excite the base. But Romney cannot run away from this..that is the problem. The questions will keep coming up. Sure the job numbers have not been great...but there are no great 'problems' on the horizon. No the Spanish and Euro issues...at the worst will take time before it actually impacts American jobs. We are less than 4 months away form Nov 6th.
In any case The EU have always let things get to the brink before sorting things out.
I agree Romney needs the discussion be about teh economy. But Romney has not shown any details about how he can improve the economy...jobs being the key...and the moment he starts talking about jobs...Bain comes up again.
It will depend a lot on strategies. But I see little evidence the GOP has anything that the the Democrats cannot handle.
I think this Bain situation puts a dent in his credibility. He's been saying he had nothing to do with Bain after Feb 1999 the entire election. Since that appears explicitly untrue at this point based on SEC filings, why was he going with the narrative that he had left in 1999? Were there unsavory details that he wanted to leave out so he would not be held accountable for them? While lots of Republicans hate Obama, many of them are working class people who have seen their jobs disappear overseas. If it is shown that Romney was still a part of Bain and made money off those deals, their enthusiasm, which is already limited, will dissipate further.
His tax returns, should he release them, will probably hurt him even more because he's made a large amount of money, which few people begrudge him, but the fashion in which he earned it will damage his image. If he made lots of money from 2007-2009 while everyone else was struggling, it would alienate him even further. The two things combined will shrink his margin of error, which is already very small.
I think the thing that should be hammered home by the Obama campaign is to show how much he has lied, not exaggerated but lied, on the campaign trail. The stories about Obama going on apology tours, being friendly with our enemies, not being at Israel's beck and call are all things that are patently untrue but the White House hasn't challenged them. If they can bring out his lies about Bain, then his credibility takes a hit because if he's lying about that, why should anyone trust anything that he says? It's something that can be proven that he lied about. It won't win the race, but it would again reduce his margins for winning. He already has a thin line to walk.
Still, it's the first time a Democrat has been driving the narrative since around 2008, which is fairly impressive.
Good points Matt.
The big difference here is this is not some 'misspeak' or 'gaffe'. And the media love dirt. They smell it. While the Conservatives hate Obama they will be very uncomfortable with a 'mormon' who they all know not to be a genuine conservative who has been caught lying.
The big difference here is this is not some 'misspeak' or 'gaffe'. And the media love dirt. They smell it. While the Conservatives hate Obama they will be very uncomfortable with a 'mormon' who they all know not to be a genuine conservative who has been caught lying.
Its all about shaping Mittens early on. He is secretive about his religion, family and teh things he did at Bain. People just dont know Mitt.
Why not take the opportunity to shape his perception now rather than let Mitts & friends big bucksshape it later?
Perceptions of the candidates are shaped 6 months before the elections. Its maximising the Obama $$ contribution early rather than compete in an expensive crowded air-time come Oct/Nov.
Its clever and opportunistic. They cant afford to go head-on come the fall.
Why not take the opportunity to shape his perception now rather than let Mitts & friends big bucksshape it later?
Perceptions of the candidates are shaped 6 months before the elections. Its maximising the Obama $$ contribution early rather than compete in an expensive crowded air-time come Oct/Nov.
Its clever and opportunistic. They cant afford to go head-on come the fall.
I don't for a second believe Romney won't be the nominee, though. The way the process works, it would take a significant portion of the majority of delegates Romney received, (which will be, for the most part, hand-picked Romney supporters chosen specifically for loyalty,) to be party to his defeat at the Convention.
Honestly, he'd have to be accused of a felony or some massive tax evasion, beyond just dodging tax and appearing to have actually illegally evaded it, for this to happen.
Honestly, he'd have to be accused of a felony or some massive tax evasion, beyond just dodging tax and appearing to have actually illegally evaded it, for this to happen.
did anyone see this?
WTF.. how is this allowed to be classified as news in US? I thought we had it bad in India but even here no news broadcast on any major channel is this biased towards one side.
Meh, if there's legitimate concerns about all of his financial and business dealings that would be a huge trust issue with the american public, it might even deter the sheep who vote the GOP regardless of the candidate. A president should not be taking office with a huge cloud like that hanging over him.
The American voting public arent as clued in to global economics so although a faltering euro would give the GOP ammunition it certainly wouldnt automatically give Romney the white house.
Having said that if Romney wins and continues with neo con style policies the US economy will suffer immensely over the next few decades in my opinion.
For those who would never vote Republican:
How bad a candidate do you think Romney is? I mean, if you had to have a Republican president, is it fair to say he is at least preferable to a lot of the alternatives there might have been?
He isnt as much of a muppet as Bush, for example, is he? He is intelligent, seems to be relatively moderate by his party's standards and should at least be competent. Are there any other factors that people think might make him particularly dangerous - again, like Bush was?
How bad a candidate do you think Romney is? I mean, if you had to have a Republican president, is it fair to say he is at least preferable to a lot of the alternatives there might have been?
He isnt as much of a muppet as Bush, for example, is he? He is intelligent, seems to be relatively moderate by his party's standards and should at least be competent. Are there any other factors that people think might make him particularly dangerous - again, like Bush was?
All I can say is that, counterintuitive as it sounds, when social scientists look at out-party candidates against incumbents, their qualities (beyond competence) and their ups and downs in the campaign just don't seem to make much difference to the result. Look at Kerry - rich, a bit cold, all that Swiftboat stuff that supposedly killed him... in fact he beat his numbers. It's just that George Bush was quite popular.
I think the problem is not so much 'who Romney is' - who the feck really knows? - but what he's tied himself into to placate the base. A hardline foreign policy maybe he can walk back on, citing budgetary reasons...though probably not if it came to Israel/Iran. But repeal of the ACA? The Ryan plan? He's locked into them. And that means essentially dismantling the Welfare State.
Does anyone want to do a house swap at the end of august. Tampa is going to be a nightmare when the GOP roll into town.
Lets hope the Euro holds out until after November 6th then.
With regards to part one, every single alternative in the GOP primaries, including Romney, was competing for the batshit insane GOP primary electorate. The only reason to suspect Romney might not be quite as insane as a Rick Santorum is that he was insincere in his efforts to portray himself as batshit insane.
As for Romney's muppetry vs Bush's, he may have actually studied at Harvard, and pronounces "nuclear" correctly, but his foreign policy in both 2008 and 2012 have seemed to be "Whatever Obama says is bad," with no real consistency otherwise. Also, he described Russia as "our number one geopolitical foe", which made everyone wonder what decade he was living in.
I think Romney'd be another Bush in the sense that, in the end, his team of advisors will be the people deciding foreign policy. Given the sort of advisors he's attracted, I can't feel that's a good thing.
Two responses to my question then. And both suggest to me that what you are saying is things in the US have got to the stage now where the personality is almost irrelevant. There is something fundamentally rotten in the republican party itself.
Rather like Liverpool FC. And if I remember correctly, that is one of your theories, Plech. That Liverpool are so rotten to the core that even when they sign good players or bring in a good manager, it doesnt matter. Something contaminated inside the club is so strong it destroys even the best talents and ensures the club itself continues to be, as someone once so eloquently put it, shit on a stick.
Rather like Liverpool FC. And if I remember correctly, that is one of your theories, Plech. That Liverpool are so rotten to the core that even when they sign good players or bring in a good manager, it doesnt matter. Something contaminated inside the club is so strong it destroys even the best talents and ensures the club itself continues to be, as someone once so eloquently put it, shit on a stick.
The conventions are just one more large joke in the political process. A huge expense for what? One week for each party where they spend the time licking their own backsides. At the most we might have to wait till then to find out who the VP candidate is but they don't need a convention to do that.
The truly bad part at this point is the fact that the networks and news channels will cover these events as if they actually matter. Hours upon hours of coverage and analysis of nothing.
Thank god I live in a small city that will NEVER host either parties convention.
Actually MJS you might look into whether there is any business set up for this sort of thing. Not a swap but you might be able to rent your place to someone in town for the convention while you take a weeks vacation out of town. Where I live we have hosted both the Ryder Cup and US Open and some people actually did rent their houses to people in town for the event, some to golfers some to media members some to just people in town to watch the tourneys. Get to take some Republicans cash from him at a pretty good rate also,
Coming from a former GOP voter, I refuse to vote for that party until they change their platform or murder the tea party. Romney is fake, just another crusader who has a sense of destiny and self-entitlement to be president, and will say whatever it takes to fullfil that self-ordained destiny. I also strongly feel his party will push us towards an Iran or Syria conflict to make all those defense contractors wealthier while crushing the US (and the world's) economy.
In my view, that a scum like Romney, so detached from the common man's plight in the world, is the choice for the GOP is an indictment on that party. No he's not worse than a religious lunatic like Santorum, or a smug cock-biscuit like Gringrich, but he's up there near that level.
I suppose that as long as the Democrats keep the Senate, the concerns aren't too huge. There are issues around the Supreme Court though with the two judges most likely to retire both being liberals. If Romney wins and gets to replace both of them, there could be some fundamental changes.
Actually MJS you might look into whether there is any business set up for this sort of thing. Not a swap but you might be able to rent your place to someone in town for the convention while you take a weeks vacation out of town. Where I live we have hosted both the Ryder Cup and US Open and some people actually did rent their houses to people in town for the event, some to golfers some to media members some to just people in town to watch the tourneys. Get to take some Republicans cash from him at a pretty good rate also,
My house is probably slightly too far away from ground zero, plus I don't fancy renting it out. My big problem is the GOP conference is right in between my house and the office.
Sounds like a good week for a vacation.
Plech, what do you have against George McGovern?
Something that is a bit strange - apparently during McCain's run in 2008, Mitt Romney turned over to him 23 years of tax returns when being vetted for VP, and McCain finally decided on a poorly vetted unknown Sarah Palin. I realize the Republikan's dire straits going into that election considering the state of the economy et al, and McCain was desperately looking to hit a miraculous home run, but it still sounds very suspicious.
I will probably just work form home as mush as possible that week.
I don't think there's anything in Romney's returns that made McCain say "Not this guy". I think it was Romney himself that made McCain say "Not this guy." Romney was a semi-orthodox conservative in an election where McCain had the semi-orthodox conservatives sewn-up. McCain wanted to take the middle back from Obama, and wanted Lieberman, but the Party freaked and refused to allow it.
What's happened in the 4 years since is that Romney became the nominee. After a punishing primary which produced such notable quotes as "Corporations are people, my friend," and "I like to fire people," the Romney campaign recognizes that if the public perceives their guy as an out-of-touch oligarch, he can't win. I'm sure the tax returns show him paying as little in tax as he can possibly manage, to the point where the percentage rate will probably be in single digits, and when you put that with his "tax cuts for the rich" economic plan, it's a potential knockout blow.
As usual, the Romney campaign thinks they can get away with refusing to answer any questions they don't like.
Mitt Romney would never have worked as a Vice Presidential pick for McCain anyway. He needed someone to appeal to the conservative base since he himself was seen a borderline liberal and Romney wasn't perceived very differently.
- Status