The Official Willard Mitt Romney Thread

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Will Romney Capitulate ?

<font size="6"><center>
Will Romney Capitulate</font size>
</center>



101005_romney_healthcare_ap_605.jpg

<font size="3">Former Governor Mitt Romney has defended the Massachusetts version of
health care reform. AP Photo</font size>


<font size="3">
capitulate

ca·pit·u·late vi \kə-ˈpi-chə-ˌlāt\

  1. <font size="3">archaic: parley, negotiate

  2. <font size="3">to surrender often after negotiation of terms

  3. <font size="3">to cease resisting

  4. <font size="3">to acquiesce

    </font size>


  • <font size="3">The Republican base is lined up against the Democratic health care overhaul, hell bent on reversing, Obamacare.</font size>


  • <font size="3">Mitt Romney has stood by his signature achievement as Massachusetts governor, Romneycare, a comprehensive health care law that served as a model for the national program.</font size>


  • <font size="3">
    Conservatives are increasingly blunt in their advice to Romney: Say you’re sorry. In other words, Capitulate: Surrender; Acquiesce, Cease support of RomneyCare. Say, ‘We tried, and it didn’t work.' OR</font size>

  • <font size="3">Say goodbye Mitt Romney, as the leading Republican challenger in 2012.</font size>

Has stopping “Obamacare” cold become an article of faith on the right ???


</font size>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Will Romney Capitulate ?

<font size="5"><center>
Health care past clings to Mitt Romney</font size></center>



P o l i t i c o
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN
October 5, 2010


Six months ago, as the Republican base lined up against the Democratic health care overhaul, Mitt Romney stood by his signature achievement as Massachusetts governor, a comprehensive health care law that served as a model for the national program.

That was then. Now, stopping “Obamacare” cold has become an article of faith on the right, and Romney is facing the prospect that his health care plan could be his undoing as a presidential contender.


Conservatives, in turn, are increasingly blunt in their advice to Romney: Say you’re sorry.

“I guarantee that, at the top of everyone’s list on how to differentiate your guy from Mitt Romney, the top of the list is health care — until and unless he takes the opportunity to say, ‘We tried, and it didn’t work. The individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare and Romneycare was wrong,’” said Bill Pascoe, a Republican strategist who wrote a post on his blog earlier this year titled “Say Goodbye to Mitt.”

So far, anyway, Romney is showing no signs of backing down. His message is the same today as it was in March, when there was still hope that voters would warm up to the Obama legislation once it passed. Romney blasts the federal law as a takeover of health care, while defending the 2005 Massachusetts version. He argues the two are as different as night and day, despite their common and most reviled feature, the mandate on individuals to purchase insurance.

It’s a two-step that conservatives say they aren’t buying.

“I would advise him to acknowledge he made a mistake,” said L. Brent Bozell, president of the Conservative Victory Committee, who has been critical of Romney in the past for his stance on social issues. “You are defending a sinking ship. Put it this way, I don’t know of any other potential candidate who has as big of a potential single-issue problem as this one.”

The growing push for a Mitt mea culpa bears a striking resemblance to the jam that Hillary Clinton faced during the run-up to the 2008 presidential primary. She voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. The Democratic base hated it and wanted her to acknowledge her mistake. Clinton never did, a refusal that hung over her candidacy.

An apology from Romney, or even an acknowledgement that the Massachusetts law has faults, could play into the knock against him in 2008, that he shifts his positions for political expediency. Back then, he struggled to convince conservative voters that his personal evolution on abortion and gay marriage was genuine.



Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s longtime adviser and spokesman, said the former governor views the Massachusetts health care reforms as a success, a state-level solution that extended coverage to 400,000 people without raising taxes.

“The Massachusetts health care law came up in the 2008 campaign, and if Mitt Romney decides to run again, I’m sure it will be discussed again,” Fehrnstrom said. “Everyone who runs for president is going to have to defend their record, whatever it is.”


The individual insurance mandate, which was once championed by Republicans as a way to encourage personal responsibility, forms the foundation of the health care laws nationally and in Massachusetts. Without it, insurers say they would be unable to guarantee universal coverage. But conservatives argue that such a mandate — tested first in Massachusetts — is unconstitutional.

Romney has defended his embrace of the individual mandate in Massachusetts as a state-based decision that would not work everywhere.

“The biggest problem he has is that he has taken an incredibly important talking point totally off the table,” said John Brabender, a Republican media consultant who advises Pennsylvania’s former Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2012 presidential candidate.

Conservatives are watching — and waiting — for Romney to speak up.

“Given what has happened on the federal level with Obamacare, and the intensity of concern and anger that the health care law caused, it draws attention to what happened in Massachusetts — and the failure in Massachusetts is going to be a huge hurdle to get over to win the support of conservatives,” said Penny Nance, chief executive officer of Concerned Women for America. “To get over that hurdle, he needs to acknowledge that failure.”

Romney is one of a handful of Republican governors who will need to answer for their response to the federal law, at a time when Republican and independent voters seem allergic to anything that hints of even tacit support for Obama’s plan.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels endorsed lawsuits challenging the individual mandate, but they haven’t gone as far as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He signed an executive order in August prohibiting state agencies from seeking grants and other federal monies that are not required by law or approved by his office.

Pawlenty is expected to use the executive order to distinguish himself from others in the Republican primary field, even though his state — along with the 49 others — has received at least some money under the law, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.


“If Gov. Romney comes under criticism, the other governors are going to have to make sure their houses are in order,” said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for Family Research Council Action, the conservative organization’s political action committee.

But McClusky, too, says Romney needs to acknowledge he made some mistakes.


“From everything I have seen, he hasn’t done that,” McClusky said. “He has defended the law and continues to defend it. And there are things in the law that are indefensible. ... I would think it is going to be issue No. 1 in the primaries for anyone who sees him as a challenger.”

Republicans predict the health care law will remain a rallying point through 2012, given that billions of dollars in tax increases will begin to kick into effect over the next two years.

Romney could get a break, if public opinion on the law ticks upward, as Democrats once said it would, and if independent voters begin to view it as a positive.

In 2008, the Massachusetts law fit into his personal narrative as a can-do candidate, one who is skilled at taking on intractable problems – such as health care and the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Despite criticism from his Republican opponents in 2008, Romney still drew applause on the campaign trail when he mentioned the legislative achievement. And at a time when economic issues dominate, Romney’s background as a businessman could prove most important.

“Gov. Romney still has the opportunity to run as Mr. Fix-It,” said Fergus Cullen, former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party. “Economic issues continue to swamp all other issues, and that’s the area of his greatest strength.”

Still, the health care law could cause other problems for Romney — particularly because it was an example of him reaching across the aisle in the heavily Democratic state, something few in the Republican Party are in a mood to do these days.

And there are already signs that it is a distraction, at the very least.

Rick Scott, the Republican nominee for Florida governor who rose to prominence last year fighting the Democratic health care bill, welcomed Romney to the state to campaign for him last week. But Scott was confronted by a camera-wielding writer for the liberal ThinkProgress website who wanted to know whether Scott supported “Romneycare.”

Scott dodged the question: “Well, you know, I was focused on the national debate, so I didn’t really focus on that.”



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43181.html
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Will Romney Capitulate ?

<IFRAME SRC="http://factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Re: Will Romney Capitulate ?

masthead_base.jpg



The Misery of Mitt Romney


romney_bain_nh.JPG


by Jon Perr

March 11, 2011


http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/misery-of-mitt-romney

Ten years ago, George W. Bush was sworn in as America's first MBA President. Now, Mitt Romney wants to be the second. Two years after President Bush completed the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover, Romney the perpetual White House hopeful declared, "I spent my career in the private sector. I know how jobs are created and how jobs are lost." Especially, it turns out, the part about how jobs are lost.
<br>Addressing New Hampshire Republicans Saturday, Governor Romney decried the state of the U.S. economy. "This is the Obama Misery Index, he said, "and it is at a record high. It's going to take more than new rhetoric to put Americans back to work--it's going to take a new president." In a Boston Herald op-ed Tuesday, Mitt regurgitated both his Obama Misery Index and "I know a thing or two about how jobs are created and how they are lost" talking points. At CPAC last month, Romney was clear about who that new president should be:
<blockquote><em>If I decide to run for President, it won't take me two years to wake up to the job crisis threatening America. And I won't be asking Tim Geithner how the economy works-or Larry Summers how to start a business.</em></blockquote>
If Mitt's line sounds familiar, it should. In his latest incarnation, the man Michael Kinsley deemed "the most transparent candidate" is once again campaigning to be America's CEO.

On the stump in Florida three years ago, Romney made the case that his Harvard MBA, his tenure at Bain, his Salt Lake Olympics experience and his stewardship of Massachusetts made him uniquely qualified him to lead during tough economic times. The multimillionaire venture capitalist told Florida voters:
<blockquote><em>"I know how America works because I spent my life in the real economy...I won't need a briefing on how the economy works. I've been there. I know how the economy works."</em></blockquote>
Days earlier, Romney offered the reader's digest version of his resume:
<blockquote><em>"I've spent my life, 25 years...in the world of business. I know why jobs come and go."</em></blockquote>
As his record shows, Mitt Romney is all too familiar with why jobs go - out of state, out of the country or just go altogether.
<br>In 1994, Romney's career as a vulture capitalist boomeranged against him in his Senate race against Ted Kennedy. The tale of SCM, a northern Indiana-based stationery company purchased by Ampad, a firm owned by Romney and a group of investors, came to dominate the campaign. As the New York Times recounted, in that instance in the vulture capitalist label was well-earned in the subsequent crackdown on the workers there:
<blockquote><em>Management has shed 41 of 265 blue-collar jobs, cut wages, tripled some workers' health insurance payments, abolished most of their seniority rights and junked the prior management's union contract, which had two years to run.</em></blockquote>
<br>Romney's record in Massachusetts also loses some its luster upon closer inspection. While his campaign this week boasted of creating 57,600 jobs during Romney's tenure from 2003 to 2007, Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum pointed out that Massachusetts' performance lagged well behind the national average. As Reuters reported:
<blockquote><em>"The state lagged the U.S. average during that period in job creation, economic growth and wage increases.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><br><em>As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years, he [Sum] said. "On every measure you've got, the state was a substantial under-performer."</em></blockquote>
Two weeks ago, the New York Post, surely no friend of Democrats, documented Mitt Romney's career as a vulture capitalist. As John Kosman detailed, Romney didn't merely produce a "spotty jobs record" when he ran Bain Capital. During a time when he retained a controlling stake, his company reaped huge paydays on investments in firms that later went belly up.
<br>For example, the leveraged buyout of medical testing company Dade Behring by Bain and Goldman Sachs in 1994 was followed eight years later by Dade's failure in 2002. But not until Bain Capital had extracted a rich reward:
<blockquote><em>Bain reduced Dade's research and development spending to 6 to 7 percent of sales, while its peers allocated between 10 and 15 percent. Dade in June 1999 used the savings as part of the basis to borrow $421 million. Dade then turned around and used $365 million from the loan to buy shares from its owners, giving them a 4.3 times return on their investment.</em></blockquote>

Bain's slash and burn business model didn't end there. As Kosman explained in the Post:
<blockquote><br><em>Bain in 1988 put $5 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-'90s took it public, collecting $100 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><br><em>Bain in 1992 bought American Pad &amp; Paper (AMPAD), investing $5 million, and collected $100 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><br><em>Bain in 1993 invested $60 million when buying GS Industries, and received $65 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote><em>Bain in 1997 invested $46 million when buying Details, and made $93 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003. </em></blockquote>
Of course, Romney's tenure at Bain also produced some big wins - and job gains - at firms like Staples and Domino's Pizza. But as it turns out, Romney's old employer was also creating jobs in Iran.

That revelation came to light four years ago in the run up to Romney's failed 2008 bid for the Republican nomination. His pathetic 24-hour crusade for disinvestment from Iran lasted just as long as it took the press to uncover Bain's business connections with Tehran.
<br>Following the lead of once and future Israeli Prime Minister (and one-time colleague at Boston Consulting Group) Benjamin Netanyahu, Romney began his grandstanding on Iranian disinvestment by targeting the Democratic-controlled states of New York and Massachusetts. On February 22, 2007, Romney sent letters to then New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton as well as state comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli urging a policy of "strategic disinvestment from companies linked to the Iranian regime."
<br>As it turns out, scrutiny begins at home. As the AP detailed, Romney's former employer (Bain and Co.) and the company he founded (Bain Capital) had links to very recent Iranian business deals. Caught flat-footed by his hypocrisy that took the AP less than a day to uncover, Romney feebly responded that his crusade didn't apply to him:
<blockquote><em>"This is something for now-forward. I wouldn't begin to say that people who, in the past, have been doing business with Iran, are subject to the same scrutiny as that which is going on from a prospective basis."</em></blockquote>

As Chuck Todd and his NBC News colleagues suggested Monday, the "now-forward" Romney 3.0 launched this weekend in New Hampshire looks a lot like the buggy 1.0 version. After his flip-flopping failure as a hard right social conservative in 2008 and comic retreat from his signature achievement on health care, Mitt Romney is returning to his political roots as a proven business leader. Unfortunately for Romney, Americans have already seen this picture and already know how it ends.

Mitt Romney may want to be the Second MBA President. But Americans still haven't recovered from the first one.
<br><strong>UPDATE: </strong> The DNC responded to Romney's latest attack with a catalog of Mitt's dismal record of job creation in Massachusetts and job destruction at Bain. In a nutshell, "Romney's private sector career consisted of profiting off of laying off thousands of workers. Romney's job creation record in Massachusetts was one of the worst in the country."



romney-fired.gif
 
Last edited:

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Thumbsup.gif


source: Think Progress


Late last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Iowa fair-goers during a question-and-answer session about his belief that “corporations are people.” Romney, who earned a reputation in 2008 as a flip-flopper, was loathe to back down from the misstep, doubling down on his comments over the weekend. Other conservatives also rushed to his defense, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), both of whom told ThinkProgress they supported the idea that corporations are people.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who placed second in the Ames Straw Poll over the weekend, took a far different view when speaking with ThinkProgress. Unlike Romney and his own son Rand, Ron Paul argued that corporations are “obviously” not people. “People are individuals,” Paul affirmed. “They’re not groups and they’re not companies.”
KEYES: What did you make of Mitt Romney’s statement that “corporations are people” yesterday?

PAUL: Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.
Watch it:

<CENTER><IFRAME height=260 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ds7-1Nemrng" frameBorder=0 width=400 allowfullscreen></IFRAME></CENTER>

ThinkProgress spoke with a number of people at the state fair about whether they agreed with Romney that corporations are people. Watch their responses here.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Damn Lamarr, you skip over two threads. I figured had to chime in on Ron Paul. Do you disagree?
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson

"This country is owned by a few giant greedy corporations and a few hundred very rich families. They own the politicians, who are put there to give you the illusion you have choice--You don't have a choice."
- George Carlin







id0kkvrJ3.jpg
 
Last edited:

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Ron Paul = no sugar coating, he is off and running, blazing his own trail...
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Mitt Romney Job Creator? LOL, Try Job Outsourcer!

How in the world can this guy even be in the conversation about creating American jobs. He is part of the problem.

source: Politico


The Bain of Mitt Romney’s campaign


110713_romneyfinal_ap_328.jpg
Mitt Romney's work at Bain & Co. ties him to countless controversial decisions. | AP Photo Close


A company that laid off hundreds of employees. A federal “bailout” to rescue a failing bank. Mitt Romney, at the center of it all.

It’s a story line from a tough Democratic ad that was teed up for use against Romney in his 1994 Senate campaign in Massachusetts. The spot, which was provided exclusively to POLITICO, never actually aired. But it’s all but certain that some version of its allegations will surface in the GOP primary or the general election, if Romney makes it that far.

That ad would have been damaging had it appeared when it was produced nearly two decades ago. But it could take on new relevance in a 2012 campaign in which Romney is touting his business career as proof he can lead a national economic turnaround.

In every one of Romney’s campaigns, his time in the private sector — specifically, at the consulting firm Bain & Co. and the investment company Bain Capital — has been a double-edged credential, branding him as a savvy businessman while tying him to countless controversial management decisions.

Romney has served as chief executive at both Bain Capital, which he helped found in the 1980s, and Bain & Co., which launched his career and which he later helped rescue from failure.

When Romney challenged Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1994, it was his connection to those two companies that played a significant role in sinking his campaign as Democrats tied him to plant closings and worker firings.

In 2012, those familiar attacks from his past are likely to take on a new potency: Bain Capital’s involvement in mass layoffs is likely to haunt Romney in a campaign focused on jobs. Other episodes, such as the claims that Romney benefited from a federal bank rescue, could ignite anew.

The never-aired “bailout” ad, shared with POLITICO by one of Kennedy’s advisers, remains an unexploded grenade from that race, underscoring Romney’s vulnerability in the first presidential election fought since the 2008 financial meltdown.

According to former Kennedy advisers, the ad never ran because it turned out to be unnecessary: Kennedy had already broken Romney with a series of ads tying him to layoffs in Indiana.

The commercial — produced for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee by the firm Doak, Shrum, Harris, Carrier, Devine — highlights Romney’s role in turning around Bain & Co. during its financial distress.

“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”

The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.

Romney aides pushed back strongly on the Democratic charge that Bain & Co. received anything like a TARP-style “bailout.” While the FDIC is a government agency, it is funded by deposit insurance payments rather than taxes. The agency agreed to reduce Bain & Co.’s liability to the Bank of New England, but didn’t pump new funds into the flagging firm. Other Bain creditors also took a haircut in order to avert the company’s collapse.

In a broadly worded statement, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul defended the candidate’s record in the private sector and said that at Bain & Co., Romney “helped lead a successful turnaround. At Bain Capital, he helped launch and guide a private equity and financial services firm.”

“Bain Capital invested in many businesses; while not every business was successful, the firm had an excellent overall track record,” Saul said. “These experiences give Mr. Romney the unique skills and capabilities to do what President Obama has failed to do: focus on job creation and turn around our nation’s faltering economy.”

But Tad Devine, the former Kennedy adviser who helped produce the 1994 ad blitz, said spots like the ones Kennedy aired could take their toll again in 2012.

“This was a guy who stepped onto the stage, looked good, sounded good, but his big claim was, ‘I’m a job creator,’” Devine said of Romney’s first run. “We blew it up.”

Romney’s 2012 foes are starting to deploy the same attack lines Kennedy used 17 years ago. When Romney criticized President Barack Obama over last week’s bleak unemployment report, Obama adviser David Axelrod shot back on Twitter: “In business, Romney made a fortune firing American workers. As governor, 47th in job creation.”

Earlier this spring, Republican Donald Trump became the first presidential aspirant to attack Romney’s record in the open, dismissing him as “a funds guy” who would “buy companies, he’d close companies, he’d get rid of the jobs.”

Axelrod and Trump may have overstated the case: Romney made his millions through numerous successful deals, including one that gave rise to Staples, the office supply retail giant. He consistently has downplayed his direct involvement in Bain Capital properties that went under.

What’s more, Romney has been more careful than he was in 1994 about making sweeping claims about his job creation record. That year, Romney claimed credit for creating 10,000 jobs. Now, he’s far more cautious, speaking about his business record in general terms and acknowledging that it has its blemishes.

“My work led me to become deeply involved in helping other businesses,” Romney said in his June 2 announcement speech. “Sometimes I was successful and helped create jobs, other times, I was not.”

But even a handful of persuasive data points from his career at Bain and Bain Capital could be enough to tarnish Romney’s credibility on the economy. And the data is there: In 1992, Bain Capital purchased American Pad and Paper, which subsequently laid off 250 workers at an Indiana plant and rehired some after slashing their wages and retirement benefits.

The Ampad affair became the core of Kennedy’s 1994 ads against Romney. Kennedy’s team went out to Indiana and came back with footage of angry workers expressing frustration with Romney, with one saying on camera: “If he’s created jobs, I wish he could create some here, you know, instead of taking them away.”

“They were so powerful in their own words. The Romney campaign accused us of having scripted them, and we could truthfully say we hadn’t,” said Bob Shrum, Devine’s former business partner and another Kennedy adviser. “Romney running as the candidate who created jobs was over.”

Strategists in both parties say that a 1994-level assault is coming Romney’s way if he makes it to the general election, no matter what precautions he takes.

“There’s no question that should Mitt Romney become the nominee of the party, there’s going to be a line of attack opened up on him that’s not dissimilar to that Ted Kennedy used in their Senate battle,” said Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain’s 2008 general election campaign. Still, he predicted that the public would view Romney as a “credible and effective spokesman for economic growth.”

Said Schmidt: “The effectiveness of the attacks is likely to be diminished because of the severity of the crisis we’re in.”

Greg Mueller, the conservative public relations man and former Pat Buchanan adviser, argued that the offensive against Romney was well under way: “They’re trying to hit him on Bain, companies that Bain had under their umbrella, where people lost their jobs.”

“Those things are already coming out. They’re already starting to pick away at his credentials, as an entrepreneur,” he continued. “If you don’t get out there and get on offense a little bit, you will be defined by the other side and things will slip away.”

Ampad is just one area of vulnerability. In 1993, Bain Capital bought the company GST Steel, which later filed for bankruptcy protection and closed a steel plant in Kansas City, and a string of smaller companies also ran into trouble after being acquired by Bain Capital.

There’s also a larger — and less well scrutinized — web of corporate relationships associated with Bain and Bain Capital. Romney would be open to attacks on Bain Capital’s deals with foreign companies and his own involvement in corporate boards.

In one instance, Romney sat on the board of a medical supply company, Damon Corp., which later paid $119 million in penalties for billing unnecessary blood tests to Medicare during the period of Romney’s involvement.

Romney’s opponents in both parties have already begun preparing files on his Bain years, raising the prospect that a drip-drip of opposition research could sap Romney over the course of a long campaign.

“The Romney people are going to have to say he helped the economy and Bain Capital invested in startups and created jobs. He’s going to want to talk about Staples,” said former Mike Huckabee campaign manager Chip Saltsman. “His opponents are going to want to talk about the ones where he came in and bought everything and sold everything.”

For now, Devine suggested that Romney was doing a decent job preparing himself to make the argument that “there were winners and losers in the economic sphere that he was in, but for the most part there were gains, and the gains outweigh the losses.”

“I think Romney and the people around him have learned the lesson of ’94, which is you don’t want to lead with your chin,” Devine said. “If you overstate your record on job creation, and you try to get everybody to believe that everything in business was great, you pay a price for that.”
 
Last edited:

domex

International
International Member
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

 

BrainChild09

Potential Star
Registered
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Ron Paul is of course right, corporations are not people. I wouldn't call this a "break" from Mitt Romney. This has always been Ron Paul's position, people are individuals & only individuals have rights. There is no such thing as "group rights" & we shouldn't devise policies that try to enforce so-called group rights. When it comes to his stance on the issues plaguing this country, Ron Paul has little in common with Mitt Romney or any of the mainstream Republican politicians.
 

BrainChild09

Potential Star
Registered
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Thumbsup.gif


source: Think Progress


Late last week, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) told Iowa fair-goers during a question-and-answer session about his belief that “corporations are people.” Romney, who earned a reputation in 2008 as a flip-flopper, was loathe to back down from the misstep, doubling down on his comments over the weekend. Other conservatives also rushed to his defense, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), both of whom told ThinkProgress they supported the idea that corporations are people.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who placed second in the Ames Straw Poll over the weekend, took a far different view when speaking with ThinkProgress. Unlike Romney and his own son Rand, Ron Paul argued that corporations are “obviously” not people. “People are individuals,” Paul affirmed. “They’re not groups and they’re not companies.”
KEYES: What did you make of Mitt Romney’s statement that “corporations are people” yesterday?

PAUL: Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.
Watch it:

<CENTER><IFRAME height=260 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ds7-1Nemrng" frameBorder=0 width=400 allowfullscreen></IFRAME></CENTER>

ThinkProgress spoke with a number of people at the state fair about whether they agreed with Romney that corporations are people. Watch their responses here.

Now I actually went back in order to get the context of Romney's statements; something I should have done to begin with. Romney was talking about not taxing people more in order to solve the federal debt issue & some hecklers responded that the government should tax corporations more. To this, Romney responded that "corporations are people my friend", that is to say that when you tax corporations you are in fact taxing people since only people can pay taxes. We just had another thread talking about this but just like the hecklers in this instance, some members of the board didn't dispute the logic but just ignored it more or less.


<iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qQ8w4ZBXUbo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Some of the media apparently chose to use this one snippet of a statement, "corporations are people..." & try to distort the message Romney was conveying by completely divorcing it from the context in which it was said. Ron Paul's answer to those words alone wasn't in response to what Romney was saying. Paul was addressing the false notion that groups have rights when it is in truth only individuals who can have rights. Romney was talking about the fact when you supposedly tax a corporation, the reality is that you are taxing people. They were talking about two totally different things.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Some of the media apparently chose to use this one snippet of a statement, "corporations are people..." & try to distort the message Romney was conveying by completely divorcing it from the context in which it was said. Ron Paul's answer to those words alone wasn't in response to what Romney was saying. Paul was addressing the false notion that groups have rights when it is in truth only individuals who can have rights. Romney was talking about the fact when you supposedly tax a corporation, the reality is that you are taxing people. They were talking about two totally different things.

I won't presume to know what "some of the media apparently chose to" do nor will I speak here as to what Romney, Paul, or individuals purport to mean when discussing the notion of the "corporate person." I agree with your insight, however, that some of the speakers may be talking about different things -- and I would go so far as to say that the politicians are using these terms most advantageously and confusingly to suit their purposes. Openly and obviously a corporation is not and can never be a person as we know the human form to be. On the other hand, corporations can be, and are, persons for some purposes by legal definition, i.e., for the purpose of taxation.

Now, whether or not corporate taxation is merely the taxation of individuals (as I believe you hold) and whether corporate taxation policy is reasonable is another story, entirely. You raised some of these issues in another thread but it tailed-off.

But, wouldn't you agree that in order to determine the affect, if any, of corporate taxation upon individuals one would have to first analyze "taxable income for a corporations" against the backdrop of the costs of production, tax exemptions and allowable tax deductions before any conclusions could be drawn in that regard ???
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Now I actually went back in order to get the context of Romney's statements; something I should have done to begin with. Romney was talking about not taxing people more in order to solve the federal debt issue & some hecklers responded that the government should tax corporations more. To this, Romney responded that "corporations are people my friend", that is to say that when you tax corporations you are in fact taxing people since only people can pay taxes. We just had another thread talking about this but just like the hecklers in this instance, some members of the board didn't dispute the logic but just ignored it more or less.


<IFRAME height=345 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qQ8w4ZBXUbo" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>


Some of the media apparently chose to use this one snippet of a statement, "corporations are people..." & try to distort the message Romney was conveying by completely divorcing it from the context in which it was said. Ron Paul's answer to those words alone wasn't in response to what Romney was saying. Paul was addressing the false notion that groups have rights when it is in truth only individuals who can have rights. Romney was talking about the fact when you supposedly tax a corporation, the reality is that you are taxing people. They were talking about two totally different things.



Corporations are NOT people. Corporations are a GOVERNMENT chartered organization with MORE rights than people. People die off. Corporations can live for hundreds of years. People are citizens of countries that must adhere to sovereign laws. Corporations have no such loyalties.


Somewhere you dare not go! When Is a Corporation Like a Freed Slave?
 

Cruise

Star
Registered
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Corporations are NOT people. Corporations are a GOVERNMENT chartered organization with MORE rights than people. People die off. Corporations can live for hundreds of years. People are citizens of countries that must adhere to sovereign laws. Corporations have no such loyalties.


Somewhere you dare not go! When Is a Corporation Like a Freed Slave?

After reading the quote in context, it is still stupid... BUT,

I understand what he means when saying corporations are people.

A group is an abstract concept. You cannot touch the group. You can touch a person. A person lives or dies. A group transcends life and death.

A group can be defined as anyting more than one person. So, a corporation can be considered a formal, legal, definition of a group.

Having said that, the law goes further, and says a corporation is a person.

No matter how you look at it, that is some stupid shit!
 

BrainChild09

Potential Star
Registered
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

After reading the quote in context, it is still stupid... BUT,

I understand what he means when saying corporations are people.

A group is an abstract concept. You cannot touch the group. You can touch a person. A person lives or dies. A group transcends life and death.

A group can be defined as anyting more than one person. So, a corporation can be considered a formal, legal, definition of a group.

Having said that, the law goes further, and says a corporation is a person.

No matter how you look at it, that is some stupid shit!

All of your comments about individuals vs. groups is correct, however it doesn't fall at all in the context of the exchange being made between Romney and the hecklers. His comment that corporations are people was his direct response to the hecklers who yelled "tax corporations" after he said he doesn't think we should raise taxes on people. You taking issue with the law saying that a corporation is a "person" and the legal rights it draws from this definition is a whole different issue from what Romney & the hecklers were talking about.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

After reading the quote in context, it is still stupid... BUT,

I understand what he means when saying corporations are people.

A group is an abstract concept. You cannot touch the group. You can touch a person. A person lives or dies. A group transcends life and death.

A group can be defined as anyting more than one person. So, a corporation can be considered a formal, legal, definition of a group.

Having said that, the law goes further, and says a corporation is a person.

No matter how you look at it, that is some stupid shit!

I knew at some point we would find some type of agreement.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

All of your comments about individuals vs. groups is correct, however it doesn't fall at all in the context of the exchange being made between Romney and the hecklers. His comment that corporations are people was his direct response to the hecklers who yelled "tax corporations" after he said he doesn't think we should raise taxes on people. You taking issue with the law saying that a corporation is a "person" and the legal rights it draws from this definition is a whole different issue from what Romney & the hecklers were talking about.


Romney was employing political dodge ball, playing fast and furious with the facts. Corporations are a collection of people that are GOVERNMENT chartered organizations, with MORE rights than an individual persons. Corporations are NOT (natural) people. People die off. Corporations can live for hundreds of years. People are citizens of countries that must adhere to sovereign laws. Corporations have no such loyalties. Talk about special rights! This is how corporations hijacked the 14th amendment and claimed they have the same rights as former slaves. Ironically, who has fucked former slaves and their descendants more than any institution in world history? Corporations.

Corporate rights are not in the Constitution. Interestingly those right leaning, corporate, conservatives that are quick to spout strict Constitutionalism would be wrong to claim this is in our founding.

Somewhere you dare not go! When Is a Corporation Like a Freed Slave?
 

BrainChild09

Potential Star
Registered
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

Romney was employing political dodge ball, playing fast and furious with the facts. Corporations are a collection of people that are GOVERNMENT chartered organizations, with MORE rights than an individual persons. Corporations are NOT (natural) people. People die off. Corporations can live for hundreds of years. People are citizens of countries that must adhere to sovereign laws. Corporations have no such loyalties. Talk about special rights! This is how corporations hijacked the 14th amendment and claimed they have the same rights as former slaves. Ironically, who has fucked former slaves and their descendants more than any institution in world history? Corporations.

Corporate rights are not in the Constitution. Interestingly those right leaning, corporate, conservatives that are quick to spout strict Constitutionalism would be wrong to claim this is in our founding.

Somewhere you dare not go! When Is a Corporation Like a Freed Slave?

I see you went back & edited your comment significantly from earlier yesterday (it can still be seen in Cruise's response to it) but that's all good ;). You still left in the "somewhere you dare not go!" comment which was strange to say the least. I just read the article from that thread.

It was an interesting article the whole concept of "corporate personhood", it's meaning, implications, & consequences merit study & debate. I will seek to learn more about it. I certainly don't know enough now to say where I fall on most of the issues involving "corporate personhood." I am definitely opposed to corporatism, which is what this country has practiced for decades at least & what is supported by the political leaders of both major parties.

That said, how does the whole debate over "corporate personhood" & the "rights" that corporations exercise relate to whether or not the corporate tax effects human beings? They're two completely different issues. Did you watch the entire clip? Romney was talking about taxing people when he made that statement right? The hecklers were talking about taxing when he made that statement right? They were not discussing rights. Do you dispute this? Are you saying that they weren't talking specifically about taxes?
 

BrainChild09

Potential Star
Registered
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

I won't presume to know what "some of the media apparently chose to" do nor will I speak here as to what Romney, Paul, or individuals purport to mean when discussing the notion of the "corporate person." I agree with your insight, however, that some of the speakers may be talking about different things -- and I would go so far as to say that the politicians are using these terms most advantageously and confusingly to suit their purposes. Openly and obviously a corporation is not and can never be a person as we know the human form to be. On the other hand, corporations can be, and are, persons for some purposes by legal definition, i.e., for the purpose of taxation.

Now, whether or not corporate taxation is merely the taxation of individuals (as I believe you hold) and whether corporate taxation policy is reasonable is another story, entirely. You raised some of these issues in another thread but it tailed-off.

But, wouldn't you agree that in order to determine the affect, if any, of corporate taxation upon individuals one would have to first analyze "taxable income for a corporations" against the backdrop of the costs of production, tax exemptions and allowable tax deductions before any conclusions could be drawn in that regard ???

Yea the other thread trailed off, we'll pick up here I guess. The statement you make here, "wouldn't you agree that in order to determine the effect, IF ANY, of corporate taxation upon individuals..." is mind boggling. I remember your last response in the other thread pretty well & you talk about the corporate tax being on profits which is true. But you seem to suggest that because its on profits, then the tax cannot effect wages & other things. This is incorrect because if the company were able to keep more of their profit that would be more money available to the company to pay to current employees, hire more employees, buy resources, or distribute to shareholders. I don't see why you need a detailed study to understand this. If I own a company & my company produces 5 shoes at a total cost of $50 & my company sells those 5 shoes for a total of $500, my company made a $450 profit. If my company is not taxed at all, then I as owner of the company do one or more of the things I named above with that profit. Every one of those things involves money going to people. It doesn't matter if I'm the sole owner of the company or if there are multiple owners. Now if the government taxes the company's profit at 10% then my company only has $405 available to do those things. Is this not a fact? Is there not less money available to be distributed to one or more of the people associated with the company in the ways I described? If the company took advantage of tax deductions of any sort yet ended up having less than the $450 profit it earned, then does it not have less money to do these things; things which all involve money going to a human being(s)?

Academic studies if you still need them:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24960.html

http://www.aei.org/docLib/SpatialTaxCompetitionandDomesticWages.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7503/2006-09.pdf
 

Gunner

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

I would love to see him debate Obama. Bold statement.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

I see you went back & edited your comment significantly from earlier yesterday (it can still be seen in Cruise's response to it) but that's all good ;). You still left in the "somewhere you dare not go!" comment which was strange to say the least. I just read the article from that thread.

It was an interesting article the whole concept of "corporate personhood", it's meaning, implications, & consequences merit study & debate. I will seek to learn more about it. I certainly don't know enough now to say where I fall on most of the issues involving "corporate personhood." I am definitely opposed to corporatism, which is what this country has practiced for decades at least & what is supported by the political leaders of both major parties.

That said, how does the whole debate over "corporate personhood" & the "rights" that corporations exercise relate to whether or not the corporate tax effects human beings? They're two completely different issues. Did you watch the entire clip? Romney was talking about taxing people when he made that statement right? The hecklers were talking about taxing when he made that statement right? They were not discussing rights. Do you dispute this? Are you saying that they weren't talking specifically about taxes?


I posted a comment then deleted it moments later. Nothing edited. Getting back to the thread. First off, they were not hecklers. Hecklers would have disrupted the entire proceedings preventing anyone from asking questions. Much like the tea baggers did during last summer's town halls.

The questioners were merely asking a presidential candidate questions on his stance on issues. Romney parsed the person's question. Taking his response literally, groups of people have more rights than individuals. A republican such as Romney would bristle at affirmative action. Pointing out the preferential treatment of a group over the individual, yet he bases is economic foundation on organizations of people being able to seize individuals properties for example.

Secondly, he did not answer the question about Social Security. You, like he, are trying to argue over a point not intended by the questioner.

What is clear is that Romney stated he will not raise taxes. His justification apparently being that taxing a corporation is the same as taxing and individual.

I still don't know what he would do to make Social Security secure without gutting it, which was the original question.

My assumption is that he would gut Social Security, turn over that massive tranche of money to Wall Street, leaving it vulnerable to the credit default swaps, derivatives and lord knows what other gambling schemes commonly known as the free market and make the already over compensated criminals even fatter.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney: ‘People Are Individuals…Not Companies’

I would love to see him debate Obama. Bold statement.

Me too!


<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oELBgu07ujI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>​
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Mitt Romney Says He Wants Someone Like Dick Cheney For Vice-President

source: Addicting Info


Yesterday during a speech in Sun Lakes, Arizona, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romneyz said that if he is elected President, he’d like a Vice-President who is a lot like former Vice-President Dick Cheney.

“I was watching C-SPAN and I saw Vice-President Dick Cheney, and he was being asked questions about a whole host of issues…following 9/11, the affairs in various countries in the world, and I listened to him speak and I said whether you agree with him or disagree with him, this is a man of wisdom and judgment, and he could have been President of the United States. That’s the kind of person I’d like to have. A person of wisdom and judgment.”

Romney is pretty much saying that he wants a war criminal for his Vice-President. He also apparently wants a puppet master to run the show. Because that’s exactly what Dick Cheneyz was during his time as Vice-President during the Bush Administration. Cheney supports torture, was instrumental in pushing for the unnecessary and costly war in Iraq, thinks we should start more wars, outed a CIA operative, and engaged in rampant cronyism throughout the eight years he held the office. And Cheney was arguably the most powerful Vice-President in American history. So powerful in fact, that Cheney was often called the REAL President.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a war mongering puppet master to be the Vice-President. I don’t want someone pulling the strings of the President behind the scenes. And I also do not want a war criminal to be a heart beat away from being the Commander in Chief. But that apparently is what Romney wants.

Do we really want another Dick Cheney in the White House?
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Mitt Romney Says He Wants Someone Like Dick Cheney For Vice-President

Damn T.O. You sure know how to f*ck up a morning. :(
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Re: Mitt Romney Job Creator? LOL, Try Job Outsourcer!


Fifty-three percent of self-identified Republicans back an increase in taxes on households making more than $250,000, a sentiment at odds with their party


<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"></hr>


Romney is nothing more than a corporatist tool. He is totally embedded and is a staunch supporter of more money for the top 1%. Like all corporate controlled RepubliKlan candidates his position is FUCK Opinion polls, we elites have the divine right to control you dumb rabble. Poor white republiklan voters, and white suburban voters who aspirationally see themselves as part of the 1%, even though if they lost their jobs they are 3 months away from financial ruin; - if they vote for Romney they will once again be slicing their throats.

jbkfsUQnF86KgG.jpg


Now the three guys you see above only pay a tax rate of 15%. Last year Mr. Paulson made $4,000,000,000 ($4 Billion) and Mr. Schwarzman made $400,000,000 ($400 Million) and Mr. Romney made $39,000,000 ($39 Million)

When it was suggested to Schwarzman, head of the private equity firm Blackstone Group,that his 15% tax rate be raised to a rate comparable to his chauffeur 35% he said "raising the taxes on his hedge fund earnings from 15% to 35% is like Hitler invading Poland." Schwarzman's Blackstone Group has been a principal beneficiary of the Wall Street bailout including lucrative contracts with the Treasury Department to manage numerous new financial rescue programs. Paulson responded to the threat of higher taxes on his $4,000,000,000 ($4 Billion) by funneling millions of dollars to Boehner & Cantor. Such enormous campaign donations are now legal thanks to the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling. Mr. Romney argues that raising his taxes to the same level a New York City Fireman pays is "class warfare" because "corporations are people", and by-the-way Romney says "I am middle class". Yes he actually said that!

In other words for these mother fuckers Schwarzman & Paulson & Romney it's all about them, greed is good - the virtue of selfishness is paramount. Fuck everyone else. Fuck the USA, 'I can get on my private jet and fly anywhere on earth'.



When does the greed stop??

jbsn9H9yRxI0Gy.jpg


New York City Firemen Earn $99,104 after 5 years on the job.

Link explaining NY Firemen pay & benefits -http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml

So we wind up with a situation where the New York City Firemen pays a higher tax rate than Schwarzman, Paulson and Romney.

 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Re: Mitt Romney Job Creator? LOL, Try Job Outsourcer!

jbd7KpDQQegMYJ.jpg

Romney celebrates "Making-Cheddar" rap-style with his other Bain Capital partners



Just saw this over at politico.com
Romney ran against the late senator Ted Kennedy in 1994 for US Senator of Massachusetts in 1994. Kennedy defeated him by 20 percent. The campaign commercials Kennedy used to obliterate Romney are illustrative of the way a progressive Democratic politician takes out a corporate controlled RepubliKlan like Romney. Watch the commercials, they are amazing…..because?........I don’t think many Democratic politicians of 2011 including Barack Obama would run such direct factual commercials…………they are afraid. The facts contained in the commercial about Romney’s business practices are unchanged today (2011). If he is the RepubliKlan 2012 candidate for president, will the Democratic party hit him as hard as Senator Kennedy did in 1994? I doubt it.


<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1048948763001&playerID=19407224001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdQtJLv7zbMPiBGChHKnGYSG&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1048948763001&playerID=19407224001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdQtJLv7zbMPiBGChHKnGYSG&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

iboXUPPhnYDRQD.jpg
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Re: Mitt Romney Job Creator? LOL, Try Job Outsourcer!


The Romney Rule: 14 Percent Tax Rate For Multi-Millionaires


 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
source: Daily Kos

Another Mitt Romney flip-flop: Now he's a global warming denier and wants to drill, baby, drill


Whoops, he did it again: In June, Mitt Romney said he believed humans contributed to global warming and that we needed to reduce carbon pollution. Yesterday, he changed his position, saying "we don't know" what causes global warming but that it would be a mistake for America to reduce carbon pollution.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uWw8bNPFI9g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Video transcript:

ROMNEY IN JUNE: I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world’s getting warmer. I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer. And number two, I believe that humans contribute to that.
ROMNEY IN OCTOBER: My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.

ROMNEY IN JUNE: I believe that humans contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you’re seeing.

ROMNEY IN OCTOBER: My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward [...] let’s aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power. [...] We have massive energy resources. Let’s grant the permits to let the drillers start drilling.
 

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
Re: Mitt Romney Job Creator? LOL, Try Job Outsourcer!


........I don’t think many Democratic politicians of 2011 including Barack Obama would run such direct factual commercials…………they are afraid....

<hr noshade color="#0000FF" size="4"></hr>


The Democratic politicians may be afraid (I don't know why??) to run direct Romney attack ads.....but due to the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling, just as the RepubliKlans are using non-official party affiliated groups to run millions of dollars of anti Obama ads through, fact based progressive groups can do the same. Due to Citizens United we could see more than $3,000,000,000 ($3 Billion) dollars spent during the 2012 election cycle.






iboXUPPhnYDRQD.jpg
 
Last edited:

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor
iNepI3sPO9OmY.gif
jbpqHTjRC9jXqj.jpg


Romney’s perpetual equivocations about what his genuine positions are on the issues rabid RepubliKlan primary voters deem as sacrosanct, have in-my-view doomed his candidacy to a comic strip “Max Headroom” equivalency. He is the flim-flam man, an automaton, the 2011 face of inauthenticity.









 
Top