Mitt Romney, liar.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure what you think it did say, but it's unfortunate (in my opinion) that the D.C. US District Court of Appeals chose to interpret it the way they did.

I think it said this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
[ETA: Sorry--that was the syllabus. Here is the opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html[/quote]

And the Supreme Court is higher than the District Court.

 

[BenBurch]

"The Obama campaign people keep on wanting more and more and more, more things for their opposition research to pick through and make a mountain out of."

Romney just openly admitted that those tax returns contain information that could be used against him.

Remind me what Romney's degree is in? Please tell me he was never a lawyer.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Meanwhile, back to the topic (which is not Citizens United), Politifact weighs in:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../were-romneys-companies-pioneers-outsourcing/

My only criticism of their article is that as a late-comer to the party, they should have treated the entire story rather than focusing on just narrow claims. But that's what they ordinarily do.

On the topic that is the primary source of this thread, they seem to agree that Romney lied to the American people, saying:

Looking at all the evidence made public so far, we do not think Romney was actively involved in the day-to-day management of Bain after 1999. But it doesn’t mean his influence disappeared after he left.
<snip>
In that light, the exact month that Romney stepped away from Bain makes little difference. When Modus Media closed that plant in California in 2000, it was making the kind of move Romney and Bain expected when they first got behind it. The particular decision was not known, but the general nature of the decision was, the experts we spoke with said.

Matthew Rice, Chief Inve:stment Officer for DiMeo Schneider and Associates, a Chicago-based investment consulting firm, says he doesn’t see how Romney can divorce himself from the strategies that made Bain profitable.

On the topic of outsourcing, the specific version of the claim it takes issue with is that the companies involved were "pioneers in outsourcing". Instead, the article says they were just following a trend already well in place:

We find little evidence that thpioneerse particular firms were "pioneers in outsourcing." The Obama campaign took the word from the Washington Post but used it as its own. Outsourcing was well established by the early 1990s, and firms were applying it in a variety of industrial areas. The Bain companies were among that group.

So pretty much they only disagree with portraying them as "pioneers".

 

[A'isha]

Remind me what Romney's degree is in? Please tell me he was never a lawyer.

According to Wikipedia, a BA in English from BYU, and a joint JD/MBA from Harvard. In addition, it says he passed the Bar in Michigan, but never actually worked as a practicing lawyer.

 

[BenBurch]

According to Wikipedia, a BA in English from BYU, and a joint JD/MBA from Harvard. In addition, it says he passed the Bar in Michigan, but never actually worked as a practicing lawyer.

Wow, that's disappointing coming from a Harvard JD. He glibly stipulated that his returns are material. A good prosecutor would have torn him to shreds.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wouldn't make much of this quote. He was alluding to the aphorism, "Making a mountain out of a molehill", so at most he has conceded that "molehills" exist. A molehill is by definition something of no significance.

I do think he's done the political calculation (correctly) that whatever is in his older returns would be significantly more damaging than his continuing to refuse to release them. But I don't think he slipped up and made any big admission with this remark.
______
Speaking of his financial disclosures, apparently, he neglected to disclose the Bermuda company on several forms, and there is some evidence that he was being intentionally deceptive to hide the potential tax shelter: there is Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors, Ltd., the Bermuda corporation wholly owned by Romney and Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors LLC, a Delaware based limited liability corp that Romney apparently "mistakenly" named when he meant to name the Bermuda corp. (The mistake was corrected in amended documents this year.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ats-say-mitt-romney-failed-disclose-offshore/

And his ultimate defense is that everything was placed in the supposedly "blind" trust that his own campaign now admits does not satisfy the requirements of a blind trust for purposes of the federal office holder disclosure requirements.

 

[mhaze]

Meanwhile, back to the topic (which is not Citizens United), Politifact weighs in:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../were-romneys-companies-pioneers-outsourcing/

My only criticism of their article is that as a late-comer to the party, they should have treated the entire story rather than focusing on just narrow claims. But that's what they ordinarily do.

On the topic that is the primary source of this thread, they seem to agree that Romney lied to the American people, saying:



On the topic of outsourcing, the specific version of the claim it takes issue with is that the companies involved were "pioneers in outsourcing". Instead, the article says they were just following a trend already well in place:



So pretty much they only disagree with portraying them as "pioneers".

Matthew Rice, Chief Inve:stment Officer for DiMeo Schneider and Associates, a Chicago-based investment consulting firm, says he doesn’t see how Romney can divorce himself from the strategies that made Bain profitable.

Yessir! By this logic the POTUS cannot distance himself from the hundreds of murders in Fast and Furious.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rules 0 & 12.

 

[Dymanic]

And the Supreme Court is higher than the District Court.

The FEC rulings were a response to the District Court's ruling, which in turn was significantly influenced by the Supreme Court ruling -- so I believe I'll stand by what I said about the extent of the implications of the Citizens United decision.

I also do not agree that it is in no way related to the topic of this thread. Discussions do go more smoothly when everything is just nice and simple and tidy, but like Einstein said: things should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Romney's bid for the Presidency is the closest thing we've seen so far to a corporation running for that office. At the very least, his status as the poster boy for corporate success is the central pillar of his campaign, and super PACs are the driving force. Uncharted waters, I tell ya.

 

[BenBurch]

Mitt Romney’s unsolvable Bain problem

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-bain-problem/2012/07/16/gJQADzFkoW_blog.html

<SNIP>

Because of the the complex nature of Romney’s finances — and his on again, off again relationship with Bain — there is no simple way for him to put it in his rearview mirror.

Romney’s campaign seems to be trying a dual-tracking strategy to change the subject: stoking talk about the possibility of an early VP pick — perhaps as early as this week — and trying to re-take the offensive by hitting Obama for alleged political cronyism.

Neither are a bad approach. But with the Obama campaign showing no signs of letting up on the Bain issue neither will likely work. Romney is doing all he can do to make this Bain discussion go away but the complexity at the heart of his retirement ensures that it’s not a problem he can readily solve. His best bet now is to hope that it’s washed away in a few news cycles by the next hot storyline.

 

[BenBurch]

I am reminded about an old story about LBJ.

LBJ called his campaign chair in one day and told him that he wanted the rumor spread that his opponent had sex with farm animals.

His campaign chair objected that there was no way at all to prove that and that as far as he knew, it wasn't true.

"That's all true," said LBJ, "I just want to hear the bastard deny it."

 

[A'isha]

I am reminded about an old story about LBJ.

LBJ called his campaign chair in one day and told him that he wanted the rumor spread that his opponent had sex with farm animals.

His campaign chair objected that there was no way at all to prove that and that as far as he knew, it wasn't true.

"That's all true," said LBJ, "I just want to hear the bastard deny it."

Mission accomplished.

"We wanted to get to the issue at hand, which is the economy and jobs ... but there were questions that Governor Romney wanted to address to make sure people understood that he's not a felon," [Mitt Romney adviser Ed] Gillespie said.

 

[tyr_13]

Not inconsistent with his platform at all, only in your mind.

I love it when posters claim to by physic! But that still doesn't make it the argument that Romney, or his campaign, is making.

I'm also for keeping jobs here, and growing job opportunities in the USA. But I know that some industries have moved offshore for good reasons and will continue to. That's little different than saying we need to farm, but let's farm in that gently rolling valley with lush grass instead of the rocky hillside.

Romney could put on his big-boy pants and argue just that. He could defend the decision that Bain made as sound ones and make the specific cases as why he agrees with them, or why he disagrees with them. He's not doing that. He's trying to distance himself from the choices the public views as negative while claiming credit for the ones the public might view as positive.

I think what's hard for guys like you to accept is that we will add jobs. We'll just add them in the fracking fields and not the greenie fantasy energy field. So guys like you, who advocate clamping down on the pipeline, limiting offshore drilling, putting regulatory hurdles in the way of all drilling....aren't you anti-jobs?

Ad-hom and tu quoque. My views on those issues not only don't match what you've speculated, they are irrelevant.

I know this doesn't fit with the narrative, of course. But isn't that a problem? The narrative needs to be at least slightly grounded in reality.

The narrative does, which is why I'm criticizing yours.

 

[tyr_13]

Matthew Rice, Chief Inve:stment Officer for DiMeo Schneider and Associates, a Chicago-based investment consulting firm, says he doesn’t see how Romney can divorce himself from the strategies that made Bain profitable.

Yessir! By this logic the POTUS cannot distance himself from the hundreds of murders in Fast and Furious.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for quote of modded post.

Obama instituted the policies like Fast and Furious? Policies like that made the US successful? Nope. That's some epic flailing.

 

[mhaze]

Obama instituted the policies like Fast and Furious? Policies like that made the US successful? Nope. That's some epic flailing.

Right. I don't believe that either. Just pointing out what you get when I apply your logic re your opponents to...YOUR tribal leaders.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[mhaze]

Mission accomplished.

Good, we are making progress here. First, admit you are just a lying propagandist. Then move forward to try and perfect your lying propaganda.

 

[BenBurch]

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/romneys-deeper-and-deeper-hole.html

<SNIP>

... It's a pathetic double standard argument from a suddenly pathetic and panicking campaign. The only way he can dig out of this hole - yes, Bill Kristol is right - is to release 12 years of tax returns just as his father did. Until he does, the Obama campaign has every right to double and triple their insistent criticism of Romney's Bain record. And there will be more and more blood in the water.

 

[BenBurch]

Bill Kristol: Romney ‘crazy’ not to release tax returns

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/15/bill-kristol-romney-crazy-not-to-release-tax-returns/

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Sunday called on presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to follow in his father’s footsteps and release more than just one or two years of tax returns.

“He should release the tax returns tomorrow,” the neoconservative pundit told Fox News’ Brit Hume. “It’s crazy. You’ve got to release six, eight, ten years back tax returns.”

“Take the hit for a day or two,” Kristol recommended. “He has to give a big speech in defense of capitalism, and that will elevate, I think, this race above this tactical back in forth, which I do think he’s on the margin of losing.”

<SNIP>

 

[Ziggurat]

No. There is a long history of precedent for corporate personhood

So as I suspected, you really don't know what you're talking about.

Citizens United had nothing to do with corporate personhood.

That's the trouble with learning from experience: sometimes the test comes first, and the lesson afterward.

The test has been going on for over two hundred years. As I pointed out, and which you have failed to grasp, the situation post-Citizens United is the same as it was prior to 2003.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Matthew Rice, Chief Inve:stment Officer for DiMeo Schneider and Associates, a Chicago-based investment consulting firm, says he doesn’t see how Romney can divorce himself from the strategies that made Bain profitable.

Yessir! By this logic the POTUS cannot distance himself from the hundreds of murders in Fast and Furious.

Wrong thread.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The FEC rulings were a response to the District Court's ruling, which in turn was significantly influenced by the Supreme Court ruling -- so I believe I'll stand by what I said about the extent of the implications of the Citizens United decision.

I don't follow how any of this defends your characterization of the Citizens United decision. (And I note that now you're talking about something else--"the extent of the implications" of it.)

I was careful to note which point I was siding with Zig on. It was strictly on this:

<snip> the Citizens United ruling confers upon corporations a new and enhanced legal stature by declaring them to be the equal of human beings under the First Amendment free speech clause.

The Citizens United decision made no such declaration and said nothing at all about corporate personhood.

Again, I proffer the decision itself as a better indicator of what the decision said than whatever it is you're offering. (FWIW, you've yet to cite a District case, so I'm not even sure what it is you're referring to anyway. I had assumed you were talking about the lower court decision in the Citizens United case that was in part reversed by the Supreme Court decision.)

Since you think any of this is germane to the topic of the thread (I don't), I'll address your earlier question. Citizens United overturned only part of McCain-Feingold (or the BCRA), so no, the decision did not return us to the legal status before McCain-Feingold was passed.

Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibited—and still does prohibit—corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified federal elections. 2 U. S. C. §441b (2000 ed.); see McConnell, supra, at 204, and n. 87; Federal Election Comm’n v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc. , 479 U. S. 238, 249 (1986) (MCFL) . BCRA §203 amended §441b to prohibit any “electioneering communication” as well. 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2006 ed.)

Declaring section 441b to be unconstitutional does not repeal the entire McCain-Feingold Act, so in 2012 we have a completely different set of campaign finance laws than we did prior to Citizens United and prior to passing McCain-Feingold.

But nullifying a section of McCain-Feingold does not create new law in itself. I don't see how one can argue that striking down a portion of McCain-Feingold is responsible for the possibility of the existence of SuperPacs (that didn't exist before the passage of McCain-Feingold).