OT – Who will Romney Pick as VP Candidate?

[briansd1]

Exactly, svelte. That’s why I believe that context is important.

Clinton was backed in a corner and he lied to protect his reputation and his family, because of our ridiculous puritan values.

[scaredyclassic]

i have dealt with a lot of mormons over the years and find them to be good people.

[Hobie]

Svelt: Yeah but, only if you cheat with someone who is much hotter… Arnie, was a smuck… Bill probably had much better, but Monica was looking for some fame…and called game over.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Hobie: I agree re: the disbarment. I was simply making the point that the blowjob wasn’t the big deal: It was the subornation of perjury that was.[/quote]

What about Romney’s filing with the SEC that the was CEO of Bain when he wasn’t? Or was he?[/quote]

Brian: WashPost article exonerating Romney, including citations from the WashPost Fact Checker and Annenberg’s Public Policy Center (FactChecker.org): http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-obama-campaign-shows-its-desperation-in-romney-attack/2012/07/20/gJQAiYCsyW_story.html

This should put Obama’s petty slander to rest (one would hope.)

[Coronita]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Hobie: I agree re: the disbarment. I was simply making the point that the blowjob wasn’t the big deal: It was the subornation of perjury that was.[/quote]

What about Romney’s filing with the SEC that the was CEO of Bain when he wasn’t? Or was he?[/quote]

Brian: WashPost article exonerating Romney, including citations from the WashPost Fact Checker and Annenberg’s Public Policy Center (FactChecker.org): http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-obama-campaign-shows-its-desperation-in-romney-attack/2012/07/20/gJQAiYCsyW_story.html

This should put Obama’s petty slander to rest (one would hope.)[/quote]

No it won’t…..

[briansd1]

Not slander in the least on the part of the Obama campaign.

Romney ran a muti-billion dollar business and that’s good for him. But he lied to the public about his involvement. Either the SEC filings are false (they are not) or Romney lied to the public. If Romney was not in the office, how did he sign the SEC filing?

The WP opinion piece is a kiss-ass excuse for Romney that essentially argues that it takes time to hand over a muti-billion dollar business. I’m sure it takes years to work out a smooth transition. But then Romney should not lie about his involvement with Bain.

I’m not giving him a pass on this because he’s a successful businessman.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1]Not slander in the least on the part of the Obama campaign.

Romney ran a muti-billion dollar business and that’s good for him. But he lied to the public about his involvement. Either the SEC filings are false (they are not) or Romney lied to the public. If Romney was not in the office, how did he sign the SEC filing?

I’m not giving him a pass on this because he’s a successful businessman.[/quote]

I’m going to give obama a pass though, because he failed miserably as an effective leader. that’s why I’m going to vote for him.

Counting on the GOP to turn over house and senate, so we have a bickering, ineffective government…(except on the really important stuff)

[briansd1]

Allan, you claim that the two main political parties are the same, but you’re so biased to the right. And that obiously makes them not the same to your eyes.

You don’t seem to understand that a person would lie about an embarrassing affair with a young intern. But you give a pass to a rich businessman. That only confirms my observation that conservatives are kiss-asses to money and power. Case in point: working-class Whites defending billionaires.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: WashPost article exonerating Romney, including citations from the WashPost Fact Checker and Annenberg’s Public Policy Center (FactChecker.org): http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-obama-campaign-shows-its-desperation-in-romney-attack/2012/07/20/gJQAiYCsyW_story.html

This should put Obama’s petty slander to rest (one would hope.)[/quote]

At the same time (or at least the same day) that Kathleen Parker published that opinion piece, the very same fact checker she cited as exonerating Romney, had this to say:

So we are at an impasse. Because of the ambiguity, there is considerable room for interpretation of known facts. Going forward, unless new evidence emerges, on a case-by-case basis we may withhold the awarding of Pinocchios when the claim rests mostly on the question of when Romney stopped managing Bain Capital.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-bain-a-fact-checker-collection/2012/07/19/gJQAsihcwW_blog.html

[Anonymous]

Yes, the article was a bit inconsistent in it’s presentation of the facts.

As for “exonerating” Romney, it really only exonerated him of the technicalities of committing the felony of misrepresentation to the SEC. It didn’t exonerate him from being generally dishonest about his role at Bain.

So now we know Romney is not a felon. Not really relevant, since nobody really believed that he was.

But a lot of people still believe he’s been telling some fibs about a subject that is material to his track-record as a businessman.

This thing wont go away and will be a key issue all the way till election day.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, you claim that the two main political parties are the same, but you’re so biased to the right. And that obiously makes them not the same to your eyes.

You don’t seem to understand that a person would lie about an embarrassing affair with a young intern. But you give a pass to a rich businessman. That only confirms my observation that conservatives are kiss-asses to money and power. Case in point: working-class Whites defending billionaires.[/quote]

Brian: And here we go again! My point regarding Clinton had NOTHING to do with lying about his relationship with Lewinsky. It did, however, have everything to do with suborning perjury, which is separate and distinct. Who Bill Clinton chooses to get hummers from is between he and Hillary. But, when a sitting president chooses to suborn perjury, well, that’s a very serious charge and very different from what you keep (erroneously) asserting.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Brian: WashPost article exonerating Romney, including citations from the WashPost Fact Checker and Annenberg’s Public Policy Center (FactChecker.org): http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-obama-campaign-shows-its-desperation-in-romney-attack/2012/07/20/gJQAiYCsyW_story.html

This should put Obama’s petty slander to rest (one would hope.)[/quote]

At the same time (or at least the same day) that Kathleen Parker published that opinion piece, the very same fact checker she cited as exonerating Romney, had this to say:

So we are at an impasse. Because of the ambiguity, there is considerable room for interpretation of known facts. Going forward, unless new evidence emerges, on a case-by-case basis we may withhold the awarding of Pinocchios when the claim rests mostly on the question of when Romney stopped managing Bain Capital.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-bain-a-fact-checker-collection/2012/07/19/gJQAsihcwW_blog.html%5B/quote%5D

SK: Thanks for the cite and I did not see that one (only the other Parker article.)

This is clearly campaign fodder and grist for the 24hr news cycle mill. It does not rise to the level of felonious conduct, and, Brian’s assertions notwithstanding, it isn’t a “kiss-ass” piece, in that Annenberg PPC also took issue with the (mis)characterization taking place regarding Romney’s tenure at Bain.

If this is the best that the Obama camp can offer in assailing Romney and his time at Bain (and recent polls indicate that these attacks have enjoyed limited usefulness, which see: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/23/obama_spending_push_brings_little_change_in_race_114872.html), well, it’s gonna be a long slog to November. The fact that Obama is struggling with such a weak GOP contender is not a good sign.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] It does not rise to the level of felonious conduct,
[/quote]

There is no felony yet, because Romney hasn’t claimed that his government filings were false.

But he lied to the public, one way or another; that we know for sure.

Allan, that FactCheck link provided was from July 2, before the Boston Globe article of July 12:

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.”

Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/

Look at the facts, Allan. How do the elections and SEC filings reconcile with Romney’s public statements?

And, yes, Kathleen Parker’s article is a kiss-ass piece with a statement such as “Nine days is hardly enough time to pack a toothbrush, much less push the paperwork necessary to hand over a multibillion-dollar business” that implies that Romney is too important to bother with the truth.

*

With regard to Clinton, you seem to take pleasure to bring him up. I know you fixate on the legal perjury charges.

What bothers me with the prosecution of Clinton is that his detractors pretty much set him up to lie about the affair then prosecuted him for it (although he technically did not lie because no intercourse means no sex). Whatever was left of conservative decency was gone with the persecution of Clinton.

Yes, Clinton committed a legal mistake and paid the price for it. I’m sure that Romney won’t make the same legal mistake. Romney will somehow argue that his filings were legally accurate. But that would make his public pronouncements big fat lies. Whatever happened to Christian values making lying a sin?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SK: Thanks for the cite and I did not see that one (only the other Parker article.)[/quote]

There’s Allan’s “objectivity” – neatly captured in a single sentence.

[Anonymous]

[quote=briansd1]
Look at the facts, Allan. How do the elections and SEC filings reconcile with Romney’s public statements?

And, yes, Kathleen Parker’s article is a kiss-ass piece with a statement such as “Nine days is hardly enough time to pack a toothbrush, much less push the paperwork necessary to hand over a multibillion-dollar business” that implies that Romney is too important to bother with the truth.

*

With regard to Clinton, you seem to take pleasure to bring him up. I know you fixate on the legal perjury charges.

What bothers me with the prosecution of Clinton is that his detractors pretty much set him up to lie about the affair then prosecuted him for it (although he technically did not lie because no intercourse means no sex). Whatever was left of conservative decency was gone with the persecution of Clinton.

Yes, Clinton committed a legal mistake and paid the price for it. I’m sure that Romney won’t make the same legal mistake. Romney will somehow argue that his filings were legally accurate. But that would make his public pronouncements big fat lies. Whatever happened to Christian values making lying a sin?[/quote]

Very well said.

Allan’s “analysis” always comes to the same conclusion: “Obama will lose.” He said it about McCain, he said it about Perry, now he’s saying it about Romney. There is no objectivity, just thinly-veiled wishful thinking.

I actually think Romney would be a competent president, and if I didn’t think it’s likely that he sold his soul to the Republican establishment, I’d seriously consider voting for him.

But what I like doesn’t much matter, except for one vote. Romney’s gonna lose, and his Bain experience and misrepresentation will be a big contributor to the reasons why he will lose. The objective facts support this prediction.

Thanks for the insightful comments, Brian and brace yourself. Allan is probably going to throw a thesaurus at you. It makes him feel smart.

[Author]

Posts