Your Republican majority at work for you:
 |
In Foreign Countries he trusts...  |
And the Hindenburg of Gasbags:
He has a belief in an America...
And finally, on Mitt's SEC problems, Gail Collins of the New York Times explains:
"Romney gave five network television interviews on the subject on Friday. While it was true that a bunch of Securities and Exchange Commission filings submitted into the new millennium described Romney as Bain Capital’s boss, that was a technicality, he told CNN.
Well, actually, he said, “I was the owner of an entity that is filing that information.” Also that there’s a difference between an owner and “a person who’s running an entity.”
It was Romney’s Star Trek moment. They were always talking about entities on Star Trek, and entities were very seldom good news...
The Republicans currently have a symbolic legislative agenda and a presidential candidate who can be in two places at one time, but whom nobody likes.
Other than that, it’s all good. Nobody’s brought up the dog on the car roof for days."
You're so Bain. I bet you think this post is about you...
35 comments:
Yeah, one guy owns the company but another guy runs it...
That never happens!
Weak response, SF.
Here's what it's really about. From Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"We have documentary proof that Romney told the SEC he was CEO of Bain through 2002, and that he drew a salary of more than $100,000for doing that job. So was he telling the truth on television today [Friday] when he insisted that “I left any responsibility whatsoever, any effort, any involvement whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999” - or when the company he solely owned filed with the SEC, and when Bain itself called him the CEO in July 1999, and when he testified under oath in 2002 that he was involved in many business and board meetings of Bain companies in the period in question?
Sullivan: To put it more succinctly: how does this statement,
"[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth... [I] remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation..." [all Bain companies]
Sullivan: "...and this excerpt from a press release from Bain in July 1999:"
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 ...
Sullivan: "jibe with this one..." today:
“I left any responsibility whatsoever, any effort, any involvement whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999 ... I went on to run the Olympics for three years I was there full time after that I came back and ran in Massachusetts for governor. I had no role with regards to Bain Capital after February 1999." --Mitt Romney
Sullivan: "...and this recent statement from Bain itself, declaring Romney had:"
"absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies."
Sullivan: He had "no role with regards to" Bain Capital after February 1999 (a very broad statement) - except for being the CEO, and repeatedly returning to Massachusetts for board meetings of Bain-owned companies, which he "attended by telephone if I could not return".
Romney wants it both ways, but his own attested-to statements show that he cannot. Romney is either lying about the SEC documents or lying about having nothing to do with Bain.
Which is it?
Sullivan added this very good observation at the end of his post:
"I'm getting the feeling that Romney thinks he is above the level of accountability required in a presidential candidate or even in an average ethical businessman. He seems genuinely offended to be directly challenged with facts - which he still won't address or rebut in detail. So he simply huffs and puffs and uses words like "disgusting" for a perfectly valid charge in the big boy world of presidential politics.
This does not seem to me to be like a candidate ready for prime time."
The GOP deal makers have become aware of his self-inflicted wounds on this subject. Romney should come clean about his continued involvement with Bain after 1999.
His attempted cover-up of the reality of his dealings with Bain is worse than his actual actions.
The cover-up is always worse than the crime.
Also, why won't he release more of his tax returns?
Something about that smells too.
So where is this Bain CEO that made all the decisions during the three year period in question?
Since the question has become so important to Romney that he was on all the major channel's (except MSNBC) why doesn't he produce this CEO and let them say they were making all the decisions during that time?
The original question was whether or not he had any involvement with Bain from 199 until the company transferred new ownership, which by the way, should not take 3 years.
Just being listed as legal owner, is involvement, whether or not he made any decisions.
A corporate statement doesn't do it for me, nor should it for the reporters on the story.
I didn't know you had such faith of truth in corporations, to not even question what they say.
We have been lied to by almost all companies from tobacco to bankers, yet, you are convinced they are telling the truth without any proof.
And there is proof out there. Whoever "the decider" was, they would have to sign off on certain papers, that would be public record. That public record, is the SEC, and they have said only Romney's name appears.
I never cared for Romney, and his wealth had nothing to do with it.
There was something about him that always made me question whether he could be trusted.
Perhaps it was intuition or instinct. Not that either of those are trustworthy.
Eventually the full truth will surface. It usually does.
So Shaw, if you and Andrew Sullivan are right, Mitt should be indicted any day for making fraudulent statements to the SEC.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
Silverfiddle, I've never advocated that Mitt be arrested for making false statements. That will never happen, nor is it feasible.
This whole subject is about Mitt saying two opposing things again to suit his political objective.
He wants the American people to think he had nothing to do with Bain's shipping American jobs overseas, or firing Americans by downsizing the work force and pocketing the profits from it. If he wasn't at Bain during that time, he believes he's not responsible for those actions.
And that Shaw is one of many resonse why I won't be voting for Mittens in flip flops.
Now perhaps we should look at GE, Immelt, and Obama's tie in to GE and if Obama gained financially as GE shipped jobs overseas.
I know Shaw. Not the same thing. But. Just saying.
That aside your resonse wa, well, spot on as they say.
Romney told the SEC he was CEO of Bain through 2002, and that he drew a salary of more than $100,000for doing that job. So was he telling the truth on television today [Friday] when he insisted that “I left any responsibility whatsoever, any effort, any involvement whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital
So basically he's saying he was paid $100,000 for not doing anything? Where can I apply for one of those jobs? For a deal like that, I'd even take the trouble to get my SEC filings straight.
On the other hand, if that "actual quote" is real (and this is the second time I've seen it), he must occasionally smoke something a bit stronger than $100 bills -- which might explain the incoherence of his responses on this.
It is a politician being a politician and (of course) his opponents attacking him or her over semantics. It's all fair.
This isn’t a big deal and will blow over.
i saw mitt being interviewed and he looked much better than previous interviews. the media coaching must be sinking in but he'll still be in tough against the master showman.
The master showman. AKA- The Master of Disaster!
RN is talking about Romney: Master of Disaster!
Partisan politics as usual. How tedious! How disappointing! How unproductive!
Why not tell us something of substance that's affirmative about Obama?
Th exchange of slings and arrows from BOTH sides is largely disingenuous. It's just a GAME, and everybody knows it.
Couldn't we hear something CONSTRUCTIVE for a change?
All of this is politically motivated BS anyway -- and you know it, Ma'am. ;-)
Romney is about as squeaky clean as any politician could ever come. His life's an open book.
Obama's background is deplorable and most of his his life remains shrouded in mystery, yet no one -- even most REPUBLICANS -- seem to care.
WHY?
Is it because questioning ANYTHING about Obama automatically gets you branded as a (GASP!) }}}}}}}}}}}}RACIST?{{{{{{{{{{{{
"Horrible! Horrible! Most horrible!"
That's a quote from Hamlet, so that makes it respectable, right?
Cheerio!
~ FreeThinke
PS: Come visit me at http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/?zx=da63e836789862c5
FT: Unethical or illegal (or unpatriotic) conduct by an opposition candidate is fair game. And Romney is far from "squeaky clean". McCain was a decent man even if one disagreed with his politics. Romney seems sleazy and phony right to the core.
And if you're implying that no one dares criticize Obama for fear of being called racist, that's obviously nonsense. He's been more attacked and disrespected than any other President in living memory, so clearly people aren't deterred. Conservative attack him all the time in the comments of this very blog and are rarely accused of racism for it.
Romney is a member, indeed the epitome, of the financial parasite class which is driving our country toward Latin American levels of economic inequality and will turn us into a Third World society if allowed to continue. That's a legitimate issue to raise in an election.
FT, was right about partisan politics.
I am going to remove Romney’s name and insert Obama’s from Shaw’s comment:
“This whole subject is about Obama saying two opposing things again to suit his political objective.”
It sounds the same :-)
“This whole subject is about Obama saying two opposing things again to suit his political objective.”
Okay.
Can you give us an example in this campaign where Obama is saying two opposing things?
This is interesting:
"Pressure was building on Romney from within his own party to be more forthcoming with his finances, a day after he declared he would not release past income tax returns beyond his 2010 tax records and, before the November election, his 2011 taxes
On the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting in Williamsburg, Alabama's Republican governor, Robert Bentley, called on Romney to release all the documents requested of him.
"If you have things to hide, then maybe you're doing things wrong," Bentley said. "I think you ought to be willing to release everything to the American people."
@Shaw, my point was not to criticize the President as much as it was to remind myself and others that he and Romney are politicians and that politicians speak out of both sides of their mouths if given time. I think it is fair to ask the questions your are asking of Romney; but Stephanie Cutter and others in media should have stopped short of the felony discussions.
As far as Obama saying two opposing things, I see you limited me to this campaign; so no, I don't have an example. But if you want to expand the discussion to his Presidency I can list a dozen examples (domestic and international). He's a politician. Of course the list is long.
I call Republicans racists.
Racism in the 21st century is not as overt as it was decades ago. mainly because we have had the progression, to declare those acts illegal.
The attacks on Obama are about his birthright, that he is an illegitimate president.
A little more backhanded than old time racism, but still racism.
Some may have hung Bush in effigy, but they never questioned his birthright.
They want Obama to seem sub-human, a mulatto, and call his wife the "First Wookie."
Doesn't sound like debating issues to me.
"All politicians do it, and both sides are equally bad" is the lazy person's way to avoid the hard work of understanding and confronting what's really happening -- or doing something about it.
They do not all do it to anything like the same degree, and both sides are not equally bad. Not even close.
KP, I did limit it to the campaign because this post concerns what is happening right now.
I have no illusions over the fact that all politicians often say one thing and then do another. They are politicians afterall, and I know Mr. Obama had a rude awakening about keeping promises and achieving goals once he became president.
And should Romney get to the White House, so will he.
The point of my post is that Romney is trying to deflect attention from his leadership and actions at Bain by pretending he had nothing to do with the company.
Infidel, what you wrote is accurate, but many people won't understand.
@Infidel and @Shaw, Solid points, thanks.
@ Shaw, you said... "
I have no illusions over the fact that all politicians often say one thing and then do another. They are politicians afterall, and I know Mr. Obama had a rude awakening about keeping promises and achieving goals once he became president.
And should Romney get to the White House, so will he."
Perhaps the most honest statement I have read in the blogoshere in a long time. It is just unfortunate that Obama chose the wrong promises to try to keep. Just as Romney likely will should he become the POTUS.
So WHEN is the MSM going to START vetting Obama?
FJ, After 5 years of having Mr. Obama in the public sphere, you actually believe he hasn't been thoroughly vetted?
Seriously.
You don't think the Clintons and then the GOP machine haven't gone over with a fine tooth comb everything in Mr. Obama's past with the hope of finding something, anything that they can pin on him or ruin him?
Five years?
Do you really understand how political machines work?
I do think Obama is still being vetted. Recall, Romney was governor, then ran for President and is running for President again and the left (the media in the case of the latest stuff) is still looking and digging up things like a family dog on a car roof and 'he said she said about Bain'. Obama will likely have similar moments this fall. Not that this Bain thing rises much above the dog on the roof incident.
I should of said Romney ran for the nomiation in 2008.
As well, perhaps vetted is the wrong word. More accurately muckraking journalism or negative and distateful PAC adds (from either or both dises) may still have a say in matters. The latter would (will) be more regrettable than a misspelled tattoo.
More diversion that will blow over but at least it stays away from Obama's horrible record. If Bain outsourced jobs during Romney's leave of absence,(Leave of absence (LOA) is a term used to describe a period of time that one is to be away from his/her primary job, while maintaining the status of employee), it was private money instead of the current administration outsourcing jobs with taxpayers money.
Obama is showing his Chicago political roots. Lie and don't back down just because someone proves you wrong. I agree with mayor of Chicago when he says Mitt should quite whining. Tell the truth about the Obama disaster as POTUS and don't back down.
Now it's "retroactive retirement."
So many different explanations.
What does that say?
STEPHANOPOULOS: The campaign has also been pushing very hard for Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns. He says the public has everything they need to know to understand his finances. And we do know that Mitt Romney made a lot of money. We know he paid a relatively low tax rate. What more will the returns tell us that we don't know?
EMANUEL: George, just two points here that I think are really important. First of all, Mitt Romney's own father said you shouldn't release one year. And already he has released -- in my view, he's released one year. Let's take a step on two points...
STEPHANOPOULOS: He says he's going to release his second.
EMANUEL: ... one on -- OK, transparency and what that says. He has released only one year. To the McCain campaign, he released 23 years. And he's telling the American people, I'm not going to give you what I've given John McCain's people in 2008. And when he gave them 23 years, John McCain's people looked at it and said, "Let's go with Sarah Palin." So whatever's in there is far worse than just the first year.
From the "Know Your Fallacies" post Shaw shared with us it sounds like Emanuel served up a false dilemma. But it does make interesting reading.
I wonder if he said that laughing because it is quite witty!
Even the Obamabot who took over managing Bain said Romney was not involved the operational decisions.
It appears that the Obama people are just making this an issue as a diversion and further shows how little they know about business. No wonder that have no idea how businesses create jobs. Their tax the "Rich" and throw money at companies with offshore manufacturing just isn't working. Maybe we should invest in some solar companies to create millions of jobs.
i see skurunner is back whining again, shaw...doesn't have any facts...but can whine a great story...lol
Post a Comment