The Romney File

[madanthonywayne]

Condoleezza Rice for VP?

Romney is narrowing his list of possible VP's, and the word is that former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice is currently the front runner.

 

[quadraphonics]

Romney also has a problem with his statements about his role at Bain Capital. He has claimed that he left Bain in 1999 and was therefore not responsible for the egregious actions of the firm after that date. But Security Exchange Commission filings and his previous public comments say otherwise.

So if we are to believe Romney, he submitted false filings with the SEC. That is a federal felony. If the SEC filings are correct, then Romney has lied to voters about his activities at Bain Capital. So which is it Willard? Are you a liar or a felon or both?

Well, the felony in question itself consists of lieing, so the question should be more like "are you a criminal liar, or just a plain old liar?"

But personally, I'm more looking forward to hearing Romney explain how he was paid a six-figure salary to be CEO and Chairman of the Board and yet did nothing at all and was not responsible for anything... and so we should make him the chief executive of the country, on the basis of his business experience! Nothing out-of-touch or sneeringly privileged about that...

Best case, of course, is that he ends up neck-deep in an SEC fraud trial before November, although somehow I doubt that will come about...

 

[Syzygys]

The more I learn about this rich dude, the less I like him... He is still better than the rest of the reps candidates, but he is so obviously out of touch with reality...

 

[joepistole]

Well, the felony in question itself consists of lieing, so the question should be more like "are you a criminal liar, or just a plain old liar?"

But personally, I'm more looking forward to hearing Romney explain how he was paid a six-figure salary to be CEO and Chairman of the Board and yet did nothing at all and was not responsible for anything... and so we should make him the chief executive of the country, on the basis of his business experience! Nothing out-of-touch or sneeringly privileged about that...

Best case, of course, is that he ends up neck-deep in an SEC fraud trial before November, although somehow I doubt that will come about...

I too look forward to hearing how Romney explains his over six figure salary for doing nothing. I also look forward to a better explanation as to why he has and continues to refuse to release his tax returns prior to 2010. All candidates for POTUS for the last 30 years have released at least 10 years of tax records. It would appear Romney has something to fear in his tax filings. He provided 26 years of tax returns to McCain when he was vetted for the VP position.

So what is it Romney does not want us to know and why?

 

[Tiassa]

Mitt Romney Tries—and Fails—To Style Himself After ... John Kerry?

Mitt Romney Tries—and Fails—To Style Himself After ... John Kerry?

Say what we will about the idea of a rich guy from Massachusetts running for president, but one really does wonder what Mitt Romney is doing trying to ... what, follow in John Kerry's footsteps? Justify himself according to John Kerry's losing presidential bid in 2004?

As Paul Constant notes:

Mitt Romney just can't help from emulating the other ridiculously wealthy, wishy-washy presidential candidate from the state of Massachusetts. First, he steals John Kerry's slogan, and now he says he's following in Kerry's tradition by only releasing two tax returns.​

Wait, wait, wait, what's that? John Kerry's campaign slogan?

Ayuh. Ben Smith made the point in April, 2011:

Mitt Romney's launched his exploratory committee today with a dynamic new slogan: "Believe in America."

If that slogan sounds a little familiar, that's because it was the title of John Kerry's cross-country tour in August of 2004, as CNN reported a two-week, 3,500-mile, coast-to-coast trip, dubbed the 'Believe in America' tour, that will take them to 21 states and 40 cities."​

Well, okay. So that was worth a chuckle.

But Romney is looking to Kerry to get himself out of the tax return issue, except that he's not.

Wait. What? How does that work?

Pema Levy fills in the details:

When the it comes to the contentious topic of Mitt Romney’s tax returns, the Romney campaign has invoked precedent, defending their decision to release just two years worth of returns as the standard set by the campaigns of John McCain and John Kerry. The Romney campaign renewed this argument on Sunday.

In fact, Sen. Kerry (D-MA) had released 20 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 2004 ....

.... While McCain did release two years of returns, Kerry released more. As the Huffington Post and ThinkProgress previously reported, Kerry made it a habit to release his returns to the Massachusetts press during each of his Senate campaigns. The reason Kerry only released a few years worth of returns in 2004 is because his past returns had already been released.​

Jodi Seth, a spokesman for Sen. Kerry, pointed out that the Romney claim was explored and found wanting "months ago". She told Talking Points Memo, "Still, months later they're falling back on this same disproven excuse."

In the first place, maybe a failed presidential bid isn't the best model for a candidate going forward. And, in the second, if one is going to hold up John Kerry as the example, it might help to be accurate.

You know, just maybe?
____________________

Notes:

Constant, Paul. "Mitt Romney Continues to Follow in the Proud Footsteps of John Kerry, Except Not Really". Slog. July 15, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. July 15, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...oud-footsteps-of-john-kerry-except-not-really

Smith, Ben. "Romney slogan was once Kerry's". Politico. April 11, 2011. Politico.com. July 15, 2012. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/Romney_slogan_was_once_Kerrys.html

Levy, Pema. "Romney Campaign Revives Misleading Claim About Kerry’s Tax Returns". Talking Points Memo. July 15, 2012. 2012.TalkingPointsMemo.com. July 15, 2012. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-gillespie-kerry-tax-returns.php

 

[joepistole]

Romney's latest explanation for Bain is that he retroactively retired. You cannot make this stuff up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-romney_n_1674281.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

[Syzygys]

Maybe eventually I will like this guy:

Romney: “I thought becoming rich and famous would make me happy. Boy was I right.” (Tape 78)

 

[quadraphonics]

I also look forward to a better explanation as to why he has and continues to refuse to release his tax returns prior to 2010. All candidates for POTUS for the last 30 years have released at least 10 years of tax records. It would appear Romney has something to fear in his tax filings.

Yeah you have to wonder how bad they look, if taking the kind of heat he's currently getting over them is preferable to airing them.

My guess is that they will read like a how-to list for extremely wealthy, privileged tax avoiders. The conversation will be all about how he pays an effective tax rate of somewhere between "fuck you" and "got mine," which will greatly undermine his whole "I'm down with the middle class and also we should slash taxes on billionaires so they can create jobs" nonsense.

He provided 26 years of tax returns to McCain when he was vetted for the VP position.

And then McCain went and chose Palin. Not to impute too much there, but...

So what is it Romney does not want us to know and why?

Well, to be totally cautious, there is always the possibility of some kind of jujitsu like Obama pulled with the Birthers - let them keep talking about it for a long time, and then pull the rug on the whole thing. If that's your strategy, you'd want to draw it out until close to the election so that your opponent doesn't have time to recover.

Of course, in the Birther case it was a transparently ridiculous complaint and a ridiculous demand in the first place, whereas this is a genuine concern and a normal disclosure for a Presidential nominee. So.... yeah.

 

[youreyes]

so here is suggestion, people at Sciforums are not exactly of high wage class of 100K and above, thus all the resentment of Republicans and their candidates.

 

[quadraphonics]

so here is suggestion, people at Sciforums are not exactly of high wage class of 100K and above,

You don't have any way of knowing that.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The NRA has gone "All In" against Obama:

http://www.firearmsfuture.com/

 

[quadraphonics]

The NRA has gone "All In" against Obama:

So does that mean that if Obama wins, the NRA will be completed depleted as an organization and cease to exist?

Or is this just so much silly hyperbole?

Meanwhile, I'm baffled at the gun-nut paranoia about Obama. I don't see where he's done much of anything when it comes to guns, but these guys talk about him like he's sending the army to sieze everyone's guns. It's making the NRA look unhinged and paranoid.

 

[Grumpy]

madanthonywayne

The NRA has gone "All In" against Obama:

Yet Obama has removed more restrictions on guns than W did in eight years. The NRA has become a clown circus, I used to be a lifetime member, back when they were sane. I dumped my membership during Carter's term. But I kept my guns, you know, just in case the Right Wing Crazies(TM) and their corporate masters try to enforce their "Let them eat cake!" mentality. Guillotines are so passe!

Grumpy

 

[Syzygys]

so here is suggestion, people at Sciforums are not exactly of high wage class of 100K and above, thus all the resentment of Republicans and their candidates.

You do have a point. If I earned 500K, I would also think in the line of "fuck the poor and middle class", just like the Reps do....

 

[spidergoat]

so here is suggestion, people at Sciforums are not exactly of high wage class of 100K and above, thus all the resentment of Republicans and their candidates.

OK, so earning lots of money is the only reason to be a Republican? I agree.

 

[joepistole]

Romney is getting a lot of big money support this year from billionaires. In particular billionaire Sheldon Adelson, casino magnate who is under investigation for potential violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has given millions to Republican causes this year including Mr. Romney.
Adelson has been quoted as saying he is willing to spend up to 100 million dollars this year to elect Republicans. That is a big investment in the Republican Party. One has to question what does Adelson expect to get for his 100 million dollar investment in the Republican Party this year, a new justice department, relaxed regulation and lax regulators?

Adelson and his company are under investigation by the SEC and justice department for possible violation of the Foriegn Corrupt Practices Act. A guilty verdict would have a profound effect on Adelson's personal fortunes.

http://www.propublica.org/article/i...-leading-republican-money-man-sheldon-adelson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson#Ideology

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/U.S.+Probes+Las+Vegas+Sands+over+Bribery+Claims-a01074253091

 

[joepistole]

I think you are absoutely correct.

 

[superstring01]

So does that mean that if Obama wins, the NRA will be completed depleted as an organization and cease to exist?

***BZZZP BZZZP BZZZP BZZZP***

Quad, honey. It's time to wake up.

Quad! Quad! It's a school day.

Boy, you sure were having a nice dream.

What was it about?

Meanwhile, I'm baffled at the gun-nut paranoia about Obama. I don't see where he's done much of anything when it comes to guns, but these guys talk about him like he's sending the army to sieze everyone's guns. It's making the NRA look unhinged and paranoid.

The level of stupidity out there is mind boggling.

My dad is an NRA guy. I visited him over this past weekend for my birthday (yep, I'm 37 now people). I generally don't engage him when he spouts stuff (he sits and watches FOX News all day). He stated at some point, "If Obama wins, they will come for our guns. That's what this new treaty is about."

***me pausing***

"Dad, all international treaties, while considered a part of the Constitution, are not superior to current wording of the Constitution and are subservient to it. So, if the USA signed a treaty that said that there are no more jury trials, then it would be ruled invalid because it runs up against VI Amendment. Also, what has Obama done--specifically--to make it illegal to carry guns."

Baffling how there is this chum machine that keeps people stupid.

~String

 

[quadraphonics]

***BZZZP BZZZP BZZZP BZZZP***

Quad, honey. It's time to wake up.

Quad! Quad! It's a school day.

Boy, you sure were having a nice dream.

What was it about?

LOL I'm actually kind of okay with the NRA, when they aren't in tinfoil-hat mode, throwing red meat to the Glenn Beck crowd. This is because they represent a lot of hunters, and so form the crucial right flank of the preservationist/environmentalist coalition (the Sierra Club types being the left flank). It seems like whenever there's a Democrat in office, they go into wingnut mode. But then when a Republican is in office, they end up pissing off the GOP by siding with the left against the whole big business "let's rape the environment to make a quick buck" shitheads. So overall I want them around, I just wish they could keep a handle on reality whenever a Democrat is in office...

My dad is an NRA guy. I visited him over this past weekend for my birthday (yep, I'm 37 now people). I generally don't engage him when he spouts stuff (he sits and watches FOX News all day). He stated at some point, "If Obama wins, they will come for our guns. That's what this new treaty is about."

***me pausing***

"Dad, all international treaties, while considered a part of the Constitution, are not superior to current wording of the Constitution and are subservient to it. So, if the USA signed a treaty that said that there are no more jury trials, then it would be ruled invalid because it runs up against VI Amendment. Also, what has Obama done--specifically--to make it illegal to carry guns."

Baffling how there is this chum machine that keeps people stupid.

~String

Yeah I was just out in the Midwest for a family reunion, where everybody spends their time avoiding the one uncle who is a Glenn Beck fanatic (he went to the whole Glenn Beck rally in Washington thing, which he describes as a "religious experience" with a straight face, while implying that this somehow prevents "the Left" from being able to undermine it). Anyway essentially everything he said was clearly premised on outright bullshit. Not just mistakes, but outright inversions of reality - obvious lies that were created and circulated for political benefit. Like he kept going on about how Obama has so much more money to spend on the campaign than poor, disenfranchized Romney.

The key to the whole thing - and this is how pretty much all of these quack conspiracy theories work - is that they flatter the audience. They tell them that they're really smart and have the inside track on how things really work, not like those sheeple out there. So then my uncle can go around telling us how we're ignorant and misled for assuming that (for example) Romney has more campaign money than Obama. See, that's just an innuendo promulgated by the liberal mainstream media to make people feel sorry for Obama. The Truth is apparently only available via Glenn Beck's nutcase underground internet radio show or whatever. It's through-the-looking-glass type stuff: self-sealing and inverted.

But it caters to my uncle's self-image as a smart, authoritative person - never mind the fact that he's a retired high school golf coach, and the family members he's addressing are all professionals with graduate degrees. The part I still can't quite account for is how he reconciles his "free-market" rhetoric (lots of "slash spending, people shouldn't depend on the state, it's all about the private sector!" stuff) with the fact of his career (which featured exactly zero days worked in the private sector) and retirement (which relies heavily on exactly the cushy public-sector pension that he argues should be axed). He also seems oblivious to the fact that the people he addresses this to (myself and my siblings and cousins) all have successful private-sector careers - and yet want to pay for a social safety net and national healthcare and so on. If his ideas were enacted, the result would be that me and the other "liberal fool" family members would get more money, which he'd be left to beg us to give him to survive.

 

[Tiassa]

No Way, Really? Limbaugh Claims Batman Conspiracy Against Romney

No Way, Really? Limbaugh Claims Batman Conspiracy Against Romney

At the end of his article for Mother Jones, Adam Serwer notes, "Rush Limbaugh is estimated to have around 15 million listeners. Fifteen million."

One might wonder why that is important.

Okay, the story so far:

This week marks the release of The Dark Knight Rises, the widely anticipated final film in director Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. The villain in the film happens to be a character named Bane. Limbaugh is convinced that the aural similarity between Bane, the Batman villain and Bain, the company founded by Mitt Romney, is no coincidence. In fact, Limbaugh says, it's all part of the plan.

Have you heard, this new movie, the Batman movie—what is it, the Dark Knight Lights Up or something? Whatever the name of it is. That's right, Dark Knight Rises, Lights Up, same thing. Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in the Dark Knight Rises is named Bane. B-A-N-E. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran, and around which there's now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time, the release date's been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental, that the name of the really vicious, fire-breathing, four-eyed, whatever-it-is villain in this movie is named Bane?​

​

The Vengeance of Bane was published in 1993. And here is the point at which we must remind ourselves that Rush Limbaugh doesn't want to be a political commentator, but, rather, just a comedian. You know, like Bill Maher.

What? Wasn't that the counterpunch during the whole Sandra Fluke attack? Why does Bill Maher get to make jokes about Sarah Palin if Rush Limbaugh can't call a college student a slut?

Okay, fine. Rush Limbaugh is not a political commentator. He's a comedian who shouldn't be taken seriously.

Now, somebody explain that to the "dittoheads".
____________________

Notes:

Serwer, Adam. "Limbaugh: New Batman Film Is an Anti-Romney Conspiracy". Mother Jones. July 17, 2012. MotherJones.com. July 17, 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/07/limbaugh-new-batman-film-anti-romney-conspiracy