On July 14 2012 04:31 DannyJ wrote: Choosing anyone closely associated with George Bush and Iraq is a terrible idea. No one wants to see those people anymore. Then again choosing Sarah Palin was an even worse idea so i can see them doing it.
Really? I mean I wouldn't like it but I'm a dirty lib. I'm not voting for Romney anyway. I didn't get the impression that George Bush is now horribly unpopular among the republicans or anything. It might even make the conservatives more excited about a candidate as 'moderate' as Romney.
Associations with the Bush administration wouldn't hurt Romney among conservatives, but might hurt him among moderates in the general election. Just seems like an unwise risk in my opinion... it would either hurt him or be a non-factor (no upside).
On July 14 2012 04:31 DannyJ wrote: Choosing anyone closely associated with George Bush and Iraq is a terrible idea. No one wants to see those people anymore. Then again choosing Sarah Palin was an even worse idea so i can see them doing it.
Really? I mean I wouldn't like it but I'm a dirty lib. I'm not voting for Romney anyway. I didn't get the impression that George Bush is now horribly unpopular among the republicans or anything. It might even make the conservatives more excited about a candidate as 'moderate' as Romney.
Bush is the only living former president who isn't popular as a political speaker for his party.
Is anyone else state-side following this Bain fiasco? It seems to be blowing up over there.
Be interested if you guys had any opinions on it.
Seems like the Democrats have trapped Romney ... either he has to deny that he had any responsibility at Bain after 1999 and admit that, for all intents and purposed, he lied to SEC and collected a salary to boot, or he has to admit that he was involved in Bain up until 2003, and any activity that Bain undertook between 1999 and 2003 is fair game.
From my perspective, if you are the CEO/owner of the business, even if only on paper and as an 'figurehead', you are still responsible for the company's actions. If anything, denying accountability and essentially admitting he was an oblivious, absent figurehead just makes Romney look like a bigger dipshit.
I mean, we hold Obama accountable for the current sate of the economy, despite the unprecedented level of obstruction by the Republican congress, and Bush for the atrocities of the Iraq War, despite being on a golf retreat half-the-time (ba-dump-cha!).
Leaders are supposed to be liable for the decisions and activity of their team, even when they don't know exactly what they are. That's what makes great leaders hard to find, and that's why they make the big bucks. At least in theory :/
On July 14 2012 09:52 Defacer wrote: Is anyone else state-side following this Bain fiasco? It seems to be blowing up over there.
Be interested if you guys had any opinions on it.
Seems like the Democrats have trapped Romney ... either he has to deny that he had any responsibility at Bain after 1999 and admit that, for all intents and purposed, he lied to SEC and collected a salary to boot, or he has to admit that he was involved in Bain up until 2003, and any activity that Bain undertook between 1999 and 2003 is fair game.
From my perspective, if you are the CEO/owner of the business, even if only on paper and as an 'figurehead', you are still responsible for the company's actions. If anything, denying accountability and essentially admitting he was an oblivious, absent figurehead just makes Romney look like a bigger dipshit.
I mean, we hold Obama accountable for the current sate of the economy, despite the unprecedented level of obstruction by the Republican congress, and Bush for the atrocities of the Iraq War, despite being on a golf retreat half-the-time (ba-dump-cha!).
Leaders are supposed to be liable for the decisions and activity of their team, even when they don't know exactly what they are. That's what makes great leaders hard to find, and that's why they make the big bucks. At least in theory :/
I think it should be huge but it won't be. I stand by my statement earlier in this thread that almost nobody understands anything that Bain does. Even if he did unethical things, trying to explain to people exactly what he did and why it is unethical is an exercise in futility. The Romney narrative is that he is a super rich and successful private sector money manager. Changing that narrative will change the election, not elaborating on what is already there.
Romney just comes off as an arrogant rich guy with things to hide. Why not reveal your tax returns? What is there to hide? It's that shady aspect to his wealth that brings pause to many people.
At least with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, or Michael Bloomberg (who are/were all much richer than Romney), you have a good idea where and how they earn their wealth. They also have a better ability to communicate with the common man instead of sounding like some clueless rich guy.
Unfortunately, I don't see how Romney can change that perception.
On July 14 2012 09:52 Defacer wrote: Is anyone else state-side following this Bain fiasco? It seems to be blowing up over there.
Be interested if you guys had any opinions on it.
Seems like the Democrats have trapped Romney ... either he has to deny that he had any responsibility at Bain after 1999 and admit that, for all intents and purposed, he lied to SEC and collected a salary to boot, or he has to admit that he was involved in Bain up until 2003, and any activity that Bain undertook between 1999 and 2003 is fair game.
From my perspective, if you are the CEO/owner of the business, even if only on paper and as an 'figurehead', you are still responsible for the company's actions. If anything, denying accountability and essentially admitting he was an oblivious, absent figurehead just makes Romney look like a bigger dipshit.
I mean, we hold Obama accountable for the current sate of the economy, despite the unprecedented level of obstruction by the Republican congress, and Bush for the atrocities of the Iraq War, despite being on a golf retreat half-the-time (ba-dump-cha!).
Leaders are supposed to be liable for the decisions and activity of their team, even when they don't know exactly what they are. That's what makes great leaders hard to find, and that's why they make the big bucks. At least in theory :/
I think it should be huge but it won't be. I stand by my statement earlier in this thread that almost nobody understands anything that Bain does. Even if he did unethical things, trying to explain to people exactly what he did and why it is unethical is an exercise in futility. The Romney narrative is that he is a super rich and successful private sector money manager. Changing that narrative will change the election, not elaborating on what is already there.
Well, I guess that's why Obama's campaign is pushing this ... obviously there is something about the way Romney built his wealth that alters or reframes the narrative of Romney being simply a successful businessman.
They're either baiting him to release his tax returns or forcing him to be accountable for investments like this:
On July 14 2012 09:52 Defacer wrote: Is anyone else state-side following this Bain fiasco? It seems to be blowing up over there.
Be interested if you guys had any opinions on it.
Seems like the Democrats have trapped Romney ... either he has to deny that he had any responsibility at Bain after 1999 and admit that, for all intents and purposed, he lied to SEC and collected a salary to boot, or he has to admit that he was involved in Bain up until 2003, and any activity that Bain undertook between 1999 and 2003 is fair game.
From my perspective, if you are the CEO/owner of the business, even if only on paper and as an 'figurehead', you are still responsible for the company's actions. If anything, denying accountability and essentially admitting he was an oblivious, absent figurehead just makes Romney look like a bigger dipshit.
I mean, we hold Obama accountable for the current sate of the economy, despite the unprecedented level of obstruction by the Republican congress, and Bush for the atrocities of the Iraq War, despite being on a golf retreat half-the-time (ba-dump-cha!).
Leaders are supposed to be liable for the decisions and activity of their team, even when they don't know exactly what they are. That's what makes great leaders hard to find, and that's why they make the big bucks. At least in theory :/
I think it should be huge but it won't be. I stand by my statement earlier in this thread that almost nobody understands anything that Bain does. Even if he did unethical things, trying to explain to people exactly what he did and why it is unethical is an exercise in futility. The Romney narrative is that he is a super rich and successful private sector money manager. Changing that narrative will change the election, not elaborating on what is already there.
Well, I guess that's why Obama's campaign is pushing this ... obviously there is something about the way Romney built his wealth that alters or reframes the narrative of Romney being simply a successful businessman.
They're either baiting him to release his tax returns or forcing him to be accountable for investments like this:
I see this issue ending up a lot like the swiftboat campaign and the birther/Obama is a Muslim things. The official campaign will push it to try and get documents/tax returns released, but I see it going away leading up to the debates/election. On the other hand, I don't see Independent groups leaving this alone. There is enough in the SEC documents to make the claim that Romney was in charge of Bain from 99-02 even if it was on paper only.
On July 14 2012 09:52 Defacer wrote: Is anyone else state-side following this Bain fiasco? It seems to be blowing up over there.
Be interested if you guys had any opinions on it.
Seems like the Democrats have trapped Romney ... either he has to deny that he had any responsibility at Bain after 1999 and admit that, for all intents and purposed, he lied to SEC and collected a salary to boot, or he has to admit that he was involved in Bain up until 2003, and any activity that Bain undertook between 1999 and 2003 is fair game.
From my perspective, if you are the CEO/owner of the business, even if only on paper and as an 'figurehead', you are still responsible for the company's actions. If anything, denying accountability and essentially admitting he was an oblivious, absent figurehead just makes Romney look like a bigger dipshit.
I mean, we hold Obama accountable for the current sate of the economy, despite the unprecedented level of obstruction by the Republican congress, and Bush for the atrocities of the Iraq War, despite being on a golf retreat half-the-time (ba-dump-cha!).
Leaders are supposed to be liable for the decisions and activity of their team, even when they don't know exactly what they are. That's what makes great leaders hard to find, and that's why they make the big bucks. At least in theory :/
I think it should be huge but it won't be. I stand by my statement earlier in this thread that almost nobody understands anything that Bain does. Even if he did unethical things, trying to explain to people exactly what he did and why it is unethical is an exercise in futility. The Romney narrative is that he is a super rich and successful private sector money manager. Changing that narrative will change the election, not elaborating on what is already there.
Obama can and has been making ads like this one: + Show Spoiler +
. These may not necessarily be aired on TV, but a similar, condensed message has been. An ad like one of those is damning for Romney when presented to a lower middle class worker. Arrogant selfish rich men in finance=bad is a message everyone can understand.
On July 14 2012 11:12 DeltaX wrote: I see this issue ending up a lot like the swiftboat campaign and the birther/Obama is a Muslim things. The official campaign will push it to try and get documents/tax returns released, but I see it going away leading up to the debates/election. On the other hand, I don't see Independent groups leaving this alone. There is enough in the SEC documents to make the claim that Romney was in charge of Bain from 99-02 even if it was on paper only.
Obama released his bitch certificate and Hawaii gave its stamp of approval. Romney never released his taxes.
On July 14 2012 09:52 Defacer wrote: Is anyone else state-side following this Bain fiasco? It seems to be blowing up over there.
Be interested if you guys had any opinions on it.
Seems like the Democrats have trapped Romney ... either he has to deny that he had any responsibility at Bain after 1999 and admit that, for all intents and purposed, he lied to SEC and collected a salary to boot, or he has to admit that he was involved in Bain up until 2003, and any activity that Bain undertook between 1999 and 2003 is fair game.
From my perspective, if you are the CEO/owner of the business, even if only on paper and as an 'figurehead', you are still responsible for the company's actions. If anything, denying accountability and essentially admitting he was an oblivious, absent figurehead just makes Romney look like a bigger dipshit.
I mean, we hold Obama accountable for the current sate of the economy, despite the unprecedented level of obstruction by the Republican congress, and Bush for the atrocities of the Iraq War, despite being on a golf retreat half-the-time (ba-dump-cha!).
Leaders are supposed to be liable for the decisions and activity of their team, even when they don't know exactly what they are. That's what makes great leaders hard to find, and that's why they make the big bucks. At least in theory :/
I think it should be huge but it won't be. I stand by my statement earlier in this thread that almost nobody understands anything that Bain does. Even if he did unethical things, trying to explain to people exactly what he did and why it is unethical is an exercise in futility. The Romney narrative is that he is a super rich and successful private sector money manager. Changing that narrative will change the election, not elaborating on what is already there.
Well, I guess that's why Obama's campaign is pushing this ... obviously there is something about the way Romney built his wealth that alters or reframes the narrative of Romney being simply a successful businessman.
They're either baiting him to release his tax returns or forcing him to be accountable for investments like this:
This whole line of attack is still developing. It will be interesting to see what sticks.
It really depends if he was lying or not. Was he listed as CEO of all Bain Capital or just a fund or two? Right now the reports are saying "some Bain Capital entities" so its pretty unclear as to what the SEC documents are actually saying.
That's what matters - lying or not - investing in a medical waste company has zero to do with anything.
On July 14 2012 09:52 Defacer wrote: Is anyone else state-side following this Bain fiasco? It seems to be blowing up over there.
Be interested if you guys had any opinions on it.
Seems like the Democrats have trapped Romney ... either he has to deny that he had any responsibility at Bain after 1999 and admit that, for all intents and purposed, he lied to SEC and collected a salary to boot, or he has to admit that he was involved in Bain up until 2003, and any activity that Bain undertook between 1999 and 2003 is fair game.
From my perspective, if you are the CEO/owner of the business, even if only on paper and as an 'figurehead', you are still responsible for the company's actions. If anything, denying accountability and essentially admitting he was an oblivious, absent figurehead just makes Romney look like a bigger dipshit.
I mean, we hold Obama accountable for the current sate of the economy, despite the unprecedented level of obstruction by the Republican congress, and Bush for the atrocities of the Iraq War, despite being on a golf retreat half-the-time (ba-dump-cha!).
Leaders are supposed to be liable for the decisions and activity of their team, even when they don't know exactly what they are. That's what makes great leaders hard to find, and that's why they make the big bucks. At least in theory :/
I think it should be huge but it won't be. I stand by my statement earlier in this thread that almost nobody understands anything that Bain does. Even if he did unethical things, trying to explain to people exactly what he did and why it is unethical is an exercise in futility. The Romney narrative is that he is a super rich and successful private sector money manager. Changing that narrative will change the election, not elaborating on what is already there.
Well, I guess that's why Obama's campaign is pushing this ... obviously there is something about the way Romney built his wealth that alters or reframes the narrative of Romney being simply a successful businessman.
They're either baiting him to release his tax returns or forcing him to be accountable for investments like this:
This whole line of attack is still developing. It will be interesting to see what sticks.
It really depends if he was lying or not. Was he listed as CEO of all Bain Capital or just a fund or two? Right now the reports are saying "some Bain Capital entities" so its pretty unclear as to what the SEC documents are actually saying.
That's what matters - lying or not - investing in a medical waste company has zero to do with anything.
We're talking about the same GOP that claims that forcing Christian Hospitals to provide contraception covered by insurance is a form of religious discrimination.
Of course it shouldn't have anything to do with anything, but Romney is running as a pro-Life candidate (another issue he has flipped on, by the way). It's not game-changing, but a solid jab to the chops.
I have my doubts if Romney is going to survive all the mud-slinging to be honest. He hasn't established himself with a program of any sorts, except for not being Obama. Don't think it'll be enough.
The sad thing is that despite all of Romney's flaws people see him as the only alternative to Obama's statism (even tho Romney is not significantly different) so he will continue to be a power house in the elections.
LACONIA, N.H. -- Likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney says he'll only release to the public one more tax return – and not until his accountants complete it.
Romney tells CNN he's complied with the law by filing a financial disclosure statement.
Romney so far has released one complete tax filing, for 2010, along with an estimate for 2011. He filed for an extension for his 2011 tax return.
Democrats are accusing Romney of being secretive and taking advantage of tax loopholes that aren't available to average Americans. The former Massachusetts governor has also come under attack for accounts he has held in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.
Romney's fortune is estimated at $250 million. The bulk of it comes from Bain Capital and the return on investments from the company.
Using legality to judge morality. Sounds like he'd be such a great president!
-_-~~
Personally, I think he realizes that he's dead if he releases the tax returns and is just gonna go "all in" in his method of just not doing that. Seems risky, as I think the left is going to blast that full force until it happens. Should be interesting to see.
EPT
