Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
July 16, 2012
Admiral Mitt on his boat.....Oh,..whats that?....its sinking?...
" Despite an easily distracted news media and a weekend for the story to cool off, questions about Mitt Romney’s tenure are driving the day again at the start of a new week, and it may only be getting worse for Romney. If you just tuned in, the issue is how long Romney stayed at Bain Capital — he said he left in 1999, but government documents and his own testimony show he stayed on in some capacity until 2002, at which point his campaign claims he “retroactively retired.” Essentially, the campaign is saying that while Romney technically stayed on as CEO and owner for over two years after leaving to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, he had no actual responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the company. This may be entirely true, but why bother staying on at all then?
Former Bain managing director Ed Conard, who worked with Romney at the company and has defended him since, provided an answer. He told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes yesterday that Romney stayed on for three years as CEO after 1999 so he would have more leverage in order to extract as much money as possible from the company while he was walking out the door. For over two years, Conard said, Romney and his partners negotiated how much money Romney would get for leaving the company. He wanted more; they wanted to give him less. Speaking as Romney, Conard explained the candidate’s position at the time: “’I created an incredibly valuable firm that’s making all you guys rich. You owe me.’ That’s the negotiation.” Conard explained that Romney stayed on as CEO “in part, yes, of course” to drive a harder bargain with the company.
Conard made a $1 million contribution to the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, gave the maximum $2,500 to Romney’s primary campaign, and recently became famous for writing a book celebrating the virtue of the ultra wealthy, so it’s unlikely that he would misrepresent the past in order to hurt Romney. Romney’s departure time matters because some of the company’s least flattering moments, including the closure of a steel mill in Kansas City, occurred during those three years, when Romney has insisted he was gone and thus not responsible for Bain’s activities. He also submitted ethics forms saying he was not involved in any way with Bain after 1999.
On one hand, Conard’s version of events clears Romney of the most weighty accusations of misrepresentation; but on the other hand, the alibi is almost as bad as the alleged crime. According to Edward’s story, Romney would have none of the headaches he’s dealing with this week about his convoluted departure timeline had he simply left in 1999 and not been so concerned about squeezing as much money as possible from Bain. The story is reminiscent of the one about when Romney started Bain Capital, when he secured a escape clause for himself that guaranteed he could return to his old job at Bain & Company if the new venture failed, meaning there was essentially zero risk for him personally. From the beginning, Chicago wanted to paint Romney as a real-life Gordon Gekko, the Wall Street anti-hero who declares that “greed is good.” In Conard’s narrative, Romney seems to apply this maxim even to his former partners.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/romneys_bad_bain_allabi/
.
Willard Romney “’I Created An Incredibly Valuable Firm That’s Making All You Guys Rich. YOU OWE ME!’
Admiral Mitt on his boat.....Oh,..whats that?....its sinking?...
" Despite an easily distracted news media and a weekend for the story to cool off, questions about Mitt Romney’s tenure are driving the day again at the start of a new week, and it may only be getting worse for Romney. If you just tuned in, the issue is how long Romney stayed at Bain Capital — he said he left in 1999, but government documents and his own testimony show he stayed on in some capacity until 2002, at which point his campaign claims he “retroactively retired.” Essentially, the campaign is saying that while Romney technically stayed on as CEO and owner for over two years after leaving to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, he had no actual responsibility over the day-to-day operations of the company. This may be entirely true, but why bother staying on at all then?
Former Bain managing director Ed Conard, who worked with Romney at the company and has defended him since, provided an answer. He told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes yesterday that Romney stayed on for three years as CEO after 1999 so he would have more leverage in order to extract as much money as possible from the company while he was walking out the door. For over two years, Conard said, Romney and his partners negotiated how much money Romney would get for leaving the company. He wanted more; they wanted to give him less. Speaking as Romney, Conard explained the candidate’s position at the time: “’I created an incredibly valuable firm that’s making all you guys rich. You owe me.’ That’s the negotiation.” Conard explained that Romney stayed on as CEO “in part, yes, of course” to drive a harder bargain with the company.
Conard made a $1 million contribution to the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, gave the maximum $2,500 to Romney’s primary campaign, and recently became famous for writing a book celebrating the virtue of the ultra wealthy, so it’s unlikely that he would misrepresent the past in order to hurt Romney. Romney’s departure time matters because some of the company’s least flattering moments, including the closure of a steel mill in Kansas City, occurred during those three years, when Romney has insisted he was gone and thus not responsible for Bain’s activities. He also submitted ethics forms saying he was not involved in any way with Bain after 1999.
On one hand, Conard’s version of events clears Romney of the most weighty accusations of misrepresentation; but on the other hand, the alibi is almost as bad as the alleged crime. According to Edward’s story, Romney would have none of the headaches he’s dealing with this week about his convoluted departure timeline had he simply left in 1999 and not been so concerned about squeezing as much money as possible from Bain. The story is reminiscent of the one about when Romney started Bain Capital, when he secured a escape clause for himself that guaranteed he could return to his old job at Bain & Company if the new venture failed, meaning there was essentially zero risk for him personally. From the beginning, Chicago wanted to paint Romney as a real-life Gordon Gekko, the Wall Street anti-hero who declares that “greed is good.” In Conard’s narrative, Romney seems to apply this maxim even to his former partners.
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/16/romneys_bad_bain_allabi/
.
July 16, 2012
" November 2012 will be a cataclysmic showdown between the forces of democracy and the forces of unlimited wealth. If we lose this, the plutocrats will be in charge and will be able to write their own rules to further the interests of Wall Street and the one percent. If we lose this fight, anti-democratic legislation will continue to sweep across the nation, overwhelming the grassroots support and small-dollar contributions of those who dare to fight against overwhelming odds. And I'm not talking about the reelection campaign of Barack Obama. No, this battle to the death between moneyed interests and working people will play out in California in the form of Proposition 32. This measure, proponents say, would ban both corporate and union contributions for most political purposes and make citizens reign supreme. But progressives here have taken to calling it the "special exemptions act."
The first clue that something is seriously wrong with this measure is, simply put, who put it on the ballot. The measure was submitted to the secretary of state's office by Ashlee Titus and Tom Hiltachk, who happen to be of counsel for the law firm that also includes Charles Bell, lead counsel for the California Republican Party. You might ask why the lawyers for the Republican Party would put a measure on the ballot that would theoretically leave small donors as the backbone of political spending in California. It's a good question, until you look at the fine print. Let's start with the first article of the initiative.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this Title, no corporation, labor union, or public employee labor union shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate-controlled committee; or to any other committee, including a political party committee, if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.
Sounds tolerable, right? Ban corporations and unions from making political contributions, and the little guys will have the run of the field. Right? Wrong, for two reasons. First, if the authors of the measure only wanted to see personal contributions accepted, they would have written it that way. They didn't because there are a whole bunch of entities out there that aren't technically corporations. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, LLPs, hedge funds and a whole bunch of other types of businesses do not fall under the definition of a corporation as written in the measure. These businesses will still be able to contribute directly to campaign committees, but labor unions will be barred.
Second, take a look at the last phrase very carefully:
...if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.
So, contributions are barred, but only if they're going to committees that also make contributions. You know what type of committee doesn't make contributions? Super PACs! Yes, the wording of this provision specifically exempts contributions to Super PACs, who will still have free reign, regardless of anything else in the law.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/15/1108363/-California-s-special-exemptions-act-The-biggest-threat-you-haven-t-heard-of
.
California's 'Special Exemptions' Act: The BIGGEST THREAT You Haven't Heard Of
" November 2012 will be a cataclysmic showdown between the forces of democracy and the forces of unlimited wealth. If we lose this, the plutocrats will be in charge and will be able to write their own rules to further the interests of Wall Street and the one percent. If we lose this fight, anti-democratic legislation will continue to sweep across the nation, overwhelming the grassroots support and small-dollar contributions of those who dare to fight against overwhelming odds. And I'm not talking about the reelection campaign of Barack Obama. No, this battle to the death between moneyed interests and working people will play out in California in the form of Proposition 32. This measure, proponents say, would ban both corporate and union contributions for most political purposes and make citizens reign supreme. But progressives here have taken to calling it the "special exemptions act."
The first clue that something is seriously wrong with this measure is, simply put, who put it on the ballot. The measure was submitted to the secretary of state's office by Ashlee Titus and Tom Hiltachk, who happen to be of counsel for the law firm that also includes Charles Bell, lead counsel for the California Republican Party. You might ask why the lawyers for the Republican Party would put a measure on the ballot that would theoretically leave small donors as the backbone of political spending in California. It's a good question, until you look at the fine print. Let's start with the first article of the initiative.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this Title, no corporation, labor union, or public employee labor union shall make a contribution to any candidate, candidate-controlled committee; or to any other committee, including a political party committee, if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.
Sounds tolerable, right? Ban corporations and unions from making political contributions, and the little guys will have the run of the field. Right? Wrong, for two reasons. First, if the authors of the measure only wanted to see personal contributions accepted, they would have written it that way. They didn't because there are a whole bunch of entities out there that aren't technically corporations. Sole proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, LLPs, hedge funds and a whole bunch of other types of businesses do not fall under the definition of a corporation as written in the measure. These businesses will still be able to contribute directly to campaign committees, but labor unions will be barred.
Second, take a look at the last phrase very carefully:
...if such funds will be used to make contributions to any candidate or candidate controlled committee.
So, contributions are barred, but only if they're going to committees that also make contributions. You know what type of committee doesn't make contributions? Super PACs! Yes, the wording of this provision specifically exempts contributions to Super PACs, who will still have free reign, regardless of anything else in the law.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/15/1108363/-California-s-special-exemptions-act-The-biggest-threat-you-haven-t-heard-of
.
July 16, 2012
"....Bob Shaeffer on CBS thinks telling the truth in a campaign ad is an "attack ad" after he has sat there watching the Republicans lie and slander the president. They use billionaires to help buy elections and spread propaganda because without some people believing their lies, they would never get a single vote based on their past failed policies. If you think the Republicans aren't liars, then tell me, how is John McCain's illegitimate black daughter doing?..."
.
Reply To Face The Nation's Bob Shaeffer About ATTACK ADS.
"....Bob Shaeffer on CBS thinks telling the truth in a campaign ad is an "attack ad" after he has sat there watching the Republicans lie and slander the president. They use billionaires to help buy elections and spread propaganda because without some people believing their lies, they would never get a single vote based on their past failed policies. If you think the Republicans aren't liars, then tell me, how is John McCain's illegitimate black daughter doing?..."
.
July 15, 2012
" You know how you can tell an attack ad from Democrats is working? The right wing and our corporate media start telling you to knock it off. CNN's Howard Kurtz gave the viewers of The Situation Room a preview of what we can expect on his show this Sunday and surprise, surprise, it's a big healthy dose of false equivalencies and pretending he's concerned about that nonexistent "liberal media" being seen as carrying water for the Obama campaign.
Sorry Howie, but telling the truth about Bain Capital and actual journalism and asking Romney to let people see his tax returns is not the equivalent of Fox noise running a recording of Rev. Jeremiah Wright in an endless loop. And the only types that are going to be "concerned" about that perception are Villager hacks like yourself, the Romney campaign and the right wing media at Fox, hate talk radio, right wing blogs and a whole bunch of outlets that are going to do their best to give cover to Mitt Romney, as you just did here. " Kurtz also throws out that right-wing canard that President Obama wasn't scrutinized by the press when he ran against Hillary Clinton in the primary last time around. I think Howie's been spending too much time paling around with Sean Hannity, because that's the type of crap we hear on his show night after night on Fox.
Lauren Ashburn, who appeared with Kurtz is exactly right, and it's the Romney campaign's fault for not seeing that this was going to be coming and being better prepared for how to deal with questions about his time at Bain. You know Kurtz is over the top when even Wolf Blitzer is telling him he's surprised by what he's saying and had to point out to him that if you're going to run for President, everything's fair game and Romney's using his business background as his "credential for running and saying he's going to fix the economy," not that it made most of the rest of this segment and Blitzer's comments any less hackish as well.
All of them poo-pooed the Romney's obvious race baiting at the NAACP, calling it a "conspiracy theory." Yeah, that's a "conspiracy theory" just like The Southern Strategy is a conspiracy theory, or in other words, it's not. Republicans have been race baiting to win elections for ages now, whether any of these birds wants to admit it or not.
TRANSCRIPT:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/13/sitroom.01.html
video:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/howard-kurtz-plays-liberal-media-card-mitt
.
Howard Kurtz PLAYS The 'LIBRULE MEDIA' Card for Mitt Romney
" You know how you can tell an attack ad from Democrats is working? The right wing and our corporate media start telling you to knock it off.
CNN's Howard Kurtz gave the viewers of The Situation Room a preview of what we can expect on his show this Sunday and surprise, surprise, it's a big healthy dose of false equivalencies and pretending he's concerned about that nonexistent "liberal media" being seen as carrying water for the Obama campaign.
Sorry Howie, but telling the truth about Bain Capital and actual journalism and asking Romney to let people see his tax returns is not the equivalent of Fox noise running a recording of Rev. Jeremiah Wright in an endless loop. And the only types that are going to be "concerned" about that perception are Villager hacks like yourself,
the Romney campaign and the right wing media at Fox, hate talk radio, right wing blogs and a whole bunch of outlets that are going to do their best to give cover to Mitt Romney, as you just did here. " Kurtz also throws out that right-wing canard that President Obama wasn't scrutinized by the press when he ran against Hillary Clinton in the primary last time around. I think Howie's been spending too much time paling around with Sean Hannity, because that's the type of crap we hear on his show night after night on Fox.
Lauren Ashburn, who appeared with Kurtz is exactly right, and it's the Romney campaign's fault for not seeing that this was going to be coming and being better prepared for how to deal with questions about his time at Bain. You know Kurtz is over the top when even Wolf Blitzer is telling him he's surprised by what he's saying and had to point out to him that if you're going to run for President, everything's fair game and Romney's using his business background as his "credential for running and saying he's going to fix the economy,"
not that it made most of the rest of this segment and Blitzer's comments any less hackish as well.
All of them poo-pooed the Romney's obvious race baiting at the NAACP, calling it a "conspiracy theory." Yeah, that's a "conspiracy theory" just like The Southern Strategy is a conspiracy theory, or in other words, it's not. Republicans have been race baiting to win elections for ages now, whether any of these birds wants to admit it or not.
TRANSCRIPT:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/13/sitroom.01.html
video:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/howard-kurtz-plays-liberal-media-card-mitt
.
July 15, 2012
The presumptive GOP nominee sat down with correspondents from five networks -- CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS and ABC -- in a hastily arranged pushback at the controversy surrounding disputes over his tenure at the head of the private equity firm. In the interviews, he rejected recent reports that contradicted his repeated claims that he left Bain Capital in 1999.
Maddow pointed out that the move was a departure for Romney, whose aversion to the press has been a theme of his campaign. "After two very bad weeks on the campaign trail ... the Mitt Romney campaign did something they have never done with their normally rather interview-shy candidate," Maddow said. She also dinged Romney for not talking to MSNBC -- though, realistically, it would have been a shocker if he did.
"He talked to MS -- well, no, actually, Mitt Romney did not talk to MSNBC," she said. Maddow then noted that Romney had repeated the same message in each of his five interviews. 
She played clips of him saying, "I had no role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999" on multiple networks.
"I will admit that part of me was bummed that I didn't get one of these Mitt Romney interviews when everybody else got one," Maddow said. "But, you know, on the other hand, I realized that all that he would have said was 'I left Bain Capital in 1999,' and I would have said 'Pardon?' and he would have said 'I left Bain Capital in 1999,' and I would have said 'Could I change the subject?'".... 
video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/rachel-maddow-mitt-romney-bain-interviews_n_1673433.html?utm_hp_ref=media
Rachel Maddow MOCKS Mitt Romney's Interview BLITZ
Rachel Maddow lampooned Mitt Romney's Bain Capital interview blitz on her Friday show.The presumptive GOP nominee sat down with correspondents from five networks -- CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS and ABC -- in a hastily arranged pushback at the controversy surrounding disputes over his tenure at the head of the private equity firm. In the interviews, he rejected recent reports that contradicted his repeated claims that he left Bain Capital in 1999.
Maddow pointed out that the move was a departure for Romney, whose aversion to the press has been a theme of his campaign. "After two very bad weeks on the campaign trail ... the Mitt Romney campaign did something they have never done with their normally rather interview-shy candidate," Maddow said. She also dinged Romney for not talking to MSNBC -- though, realistically, it would have been a shocker if he did.
"He talked to MS -- well, no, actually, Mitt Romney did not talk to MSNBC," she said.
Maddow then noted that Romney had repeated the same message in each of his five interviews. She played clips of him saying, "I had no role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999" on multiple networks.
"I will admit that part of me was bummed that I didn't get one of these Mitt Romney interviews when everybody else got one," Maddow said. "But, you know, on the other hand, I realized that all that he would have said was 'I left Bain Capital in 1999,' and I would have said 'Pardon?' and he would have said 'I left Bain Capital in 1999,' and I would have said 'Could I change the subject?'"....
video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/rachel-maddow-mitt-romney-bain-interviews_n_1673433.html?utm_hp_ref=media
July 14, 2012
Obama RESPONDS To Romney Request for APOLOGY
Hey Willard,...Lets not forget your own words...
"Sauce for the GOOSE is sauce for the GANDER" ...Really?..Well here is some sauce for your Goose...
PoliticalWire:
" Mitt Romney asked for an apology yesterday from President Obama on the attacks over Romney's tenure at Bain Capital.
The Obama campaign responds today with a video.
Here's the video:
July 14, 2012
KITCHEN SINK: Outsourcing, Tax Havens, Overseas Accounts... 'Instant Classic'
Obama campaign advisers said the president, during a second straight day in tightly contested Virginia, planned to remind voters on Saturday of the discrepancies between Securities and Exchange Commission filings and Romney's recollection of his role at Boston-based Bain Capital.
Obama was focusing on a state that he won in 2008, a first for a Democratic nominee since 1964, and on an issue that Romney says diverts attention from struggling economy.
A new ad from Obama's campaign repeated the charges that the firm shipped American jobs to China and Mexico; that Romney has personal wealth in investments in Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands; and that as Massachusetts governor, he sent state jobs to India.
"Mitt Romney's not the solution. He's the problem," the ads says as Romney is heard singing "America the Beautiful."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/obama-ad-firms-slams-romn_n_1673112.html
.
OBAMA UNLOADS: BRUTAL NEW AD
KITCHEN SINK: Outsourcing, Tax Havens, Overseas Accounts... 'Instant Classic'
Obama campaign advisers said the president, during a second straight day in tightly contested Virginia, planned to remind voters on Saturday of the discrepancies between Securities and Exchange Commission filings and Romney's recollection of his role at Boston-based Bain Capital.
Obama was focusing on a state that he won in 2008, a first for a Democratic nominee since 1964, and on an issue that Romney says diverts attention from struggling economy.
A new ad from Obama's campaign repeated the charges that the firm shipped American jobs to China and Mexico; that Romney has personal wealth in investments in Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands; and that as Massachusetts governor, he sent state jobs to India.
"Mitt Romney's not the solution. He's the problem," the ads says as Romney is heard singing "America the Beautiful."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/obama-ad-firms-slams-romn_n_1673112.html
.
July 14, 2012
Pardon, pardon, pardon, pardon, pardon, pardon, pardon....
" It was hidden in plain sight as a Bain press release in July 1999. Here's how it described Romney's position at Bain when he says he had no responsibility whatever, despite remaining CEO, Chairman and Sole Owner as far as forms filed with SEC testify:
"...Bain Capital CEO W. Mitt Romney, currently on a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee for the 2002 Games said ..."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/13/1109623/-Bain-Capital-press-release-described-Romney-as-part-time-in-July-1999
So Bain now contradicts Romney. And one of the men mentioned in the press release, Marc Wolpow, described his relationship with Romney when Romney was on a previous part time leave in 1994 when running for Senate (while remaining CEO of Bain):
“...I reported directly to Mitt Romney . . . You can’t be CEO of Bain Capital and say, `I really don’t know what my guys were doing,’” Mr. Wolpow said of Mr. Romney role at the company during his leave...."
So this much is now obvious.
1. Romney didn't quit Bain in 1999 for good, as he claims. He remained the CEO throughout, as SEC files show, and as the Boston Globe reported back in 2002.
2. He stayed active in Bain, but at a much reduced level, the entire time.
3. In any case, everything that occurred at Bain up to 2002 is completely fair game for criticism, since he was the formal CEO at the time and therefore responsible for the whole company. The SEC filings are dispositive. He has been lying about this in order to deflect some very dangerous stories about Bain in that period which shows it is knee deep in outsourcing and off-shoring, and because his signature is on a filing with respect to a company that Bain owned that disposed of aborted babies.
Romney basically said what was the most convenient for his self-interest at every juncture - and finally all the contradictions and changing stories caught up with him. When you have it both ways on policy matters - we'll increase defense spending, lower taxes even further, and cut the debt! - you only look shifty. When you have it both ways on the simple facts about your life, you look like an opportunistic liar.
Campaigns have a way of revealing the truth about people, don't they?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/yet-another-nugget-to-undercut-romneys-story.html
.
Yet ANOTHER CROISSANT NUGGET To UNDERCUT Monsieur Romney's Story
Pardon, pardon, pardon, pardon, pardon, pardon, pardon....
" It was hidden in plain sight as a Bain press release in July 1999. Here's how it described Romney's position at Bain when he says he had no responsibility whatever, despite remaining CEO, Chairman and Sole Owner as far as forms filed with SEC testify:
"...Bain Capital CEO W. Mitt Romney, currently on a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee for the 2002 Games said ..."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/13/1109623/-Bain-Capital-press-release-described-Romney-as-part-time-in-July-1999
So Bain now contradicts Romney. And one of the men mentioned in the press release, Marc Wolpow, described his relationship with Romney when Romney was on a previous part time leave in 1994 when running for Senate (while remaining CEO of Bain):
“...I reported directly to Mitt Romney . . . You can’t be CEO of Bain Capital and say, `I really don’t know what my guys were doing,’” Mr. Wolpow said of Mr. Romney role at the company during his leave...."
So this much is now obvious.
1. Romney didn't quit Bain in 1999 for good, as he claims. He remained the CEO throughout, as SEC files show, and as the Boston Globe reported back in 2002.
2. He stayed active in Bain, but at a much reduced level, the entire time.
3. In any case, everything that occurred at Bain up to 2002 is completely fair game for criticism, since he was the formal CEO at the time and therefore responsible for the whole company. The SEC filings are dispositive. He has been lying about this in order to deflect some very dangerous stories about Bain in that period which shows it is knee deep in outsourcing and off-shoring, and because his signature is on a filing with respect to a company that Bain owned that disposed of aborted babies.
Romney basically said what was the most convenient for his self-interest at every juncture - and finally all the contradictions and changing stories caught up with him. When you have it both ways on policy matters - we'll increase defense spending, lower taxes even further, and cut the debt! - you only look shifty. When you have it both ways on the simple facts about your life, you look like an opportunistic liar.
Campaigns have a way of revealing the truth about people, don't they?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/yet-another-nugget-to-undercut-romneys-story.html
.
July 13, 2012
But I guess thats an easy flip-flop remedy for ' Etch-A-Sketch-Mitt '.
" Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is reportedly now near at the top of Mitt Romney’s VP selection list, according to a report billed as an exclusive from Drudge Report. Not gonna happen, say pro-life advocates — and they cite Romney himself to prove it.
Rice is pro-choice, a fact that immediately disqualifies her from Romney’s list, according to Romney’s own words.
The Susan B. Anthony List — a pro-life advocacy group — sent TPM this clip of Romney at a September 2011 South Carolina candidate forum, where he said:
Moderator: Gov. Romney, will the person you chose as your vice presidential running mate be someone who shares your pro-life and pro-marriage convictions?
Romney: I certainly imagine so, I haven’t made and selections in that regard … [as I look around at the people I would consider] I would expect that they would all be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage … but this is an important enough issue that the person that I would select in that position would share my views on those important issues.
Host: So more than just expectation — would share those views?
Romney: Yes … that person would share my views, yeah.
The SBA List views considers the exchange a promise from Romney not to select a VP who supports abortion rights. Here’s the video (exchange comes at 13:14):
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/condi-rice-pro-choice.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Sorry CONDI, Mitt Already PROMISED To Pick A PRO-LIFE VP
But I guess thats an easy flip-flop remedy for ' Etch-A-Sketch-Mitt '.
" Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is reportedly now near at the top of Mitt Romney’s VP selection list, according to a report billed as an exclusive from Drudge Report. Not gonna happen, say pro-life advocates — and they cite Romney himself to prove it.
Rice is pro-choice, a fact that immediately disqualifies her from Romney’s list, according to Romney’s own words.
The Susan B. Anthony List — a pro-life advocacy group — sent TPM this clip of Romney at a September 2011 South Carolina candidate forum, where he said:
Moderator: Gov. Romney, will the person you chose as your vice presidential running mate be someone who shares your pro-life and pro-marriage convictions?
Romney: I certainly imagine so, I haven’t made and selections in that regard … [as I look around at the people I would consider] I would expect that they would all be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage … but this is an important enough issue that the person that I would select in that position would share my views on those important issues.
Host: So more than just expectation — would share those views?
Romney: Yes … that person would share my views, yeah.
The SBA List views considers the exchange a promise from Romney not to select a VP who supports abortion rights. Here’s the video (exchange comes at 13:14):
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/condi-rice-pro-choice.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
July 13, 2012
"..Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.
Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president..."
.
CENK - When DID Romney LEAVE BAIN?
"..Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.
Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm's "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president..."
.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
