• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mitt Romney, liar.

FactCheck.org seems to feel the title was more symbolic than anything:
None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said.
Click to expand...
Still, one wonders how much of a defense "I was in charge by title only" can be?

Not to mention Romney has tried to claim responsibility for jobs created by Bain in the same time frame:

He also claimed that he created 100,000 jobs at Bain Capital — a claim we found lacked support because it took credit for jobs added by companies long after Romney had left the Bain.
Click to expand...

He's trying to have it both ways and really needs to pick one side or the other of the fence.
 
Meh. If one can lay the blame for a bad economy at Bushes feet years after he left office because of the framework that he left behind (and rightly so IMO) then I'd say that Romney can do the same type thing and take credit for any jobs created by the businesses that he bought and saved by buying them and overseeing their restructuring into profitable enterprises for a few years after he left too. After all, if those businesses had just gone the way of bankruptcy because he didn't buy them in the first place then those jobs never would've been there at all. Good for the goose, good for the gander and all that.

Of course if someone wanted to lay the blame of the current economy at Obamas feet then I guess they could justifiably criticize Romney for his claims as well but for some reason I don't see very many people going out of their way to do that...
 
The testimony Romney prefers to forget

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...3-the-testimony-romney-prefers-to-forget?lite

<SNIP>

So, on the one hand, Romney said he was in Utah "full time," was gone from Bain, and no role with Bain operations "in any way." On the other hand, Romney also said he wasn't in Utah "full time," and he remained actively involved in Bain investments after his alleged departure.

Politico reported overnight that the Romney campaign, when asked if Romney attended meetings and/or had contact with Bain between 1999 and 2002, "declined" to answer.

Oops.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
Romney’s Bain Deceit: A Possible Game Changer

http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/13/romneys-bain-work-years

<SNIP>

Here’s what Romney swore to, according to Open Secrets, a website that catalogs official documents:

Mitt Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011: Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

Romney’s signature appears on the line that states: “I certify that statements I have made on this form and all attached schedules are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.” Making false statements to the federal government is a serious crime (under 18 USC 1001) carrying possible fines and up to five years in federal prison.

What this tale poses for voters is a Hobson’s choice: Either Romney and Bain filed false SEC statements, which is a felony, or his campaign has been lying.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. There’s no putting it back.

<SNIP>
Click to expand...
 
Dymanic said:
It looks like FactCheck is primarily focused on its own reputation at this point.
Click to expand...
I can be as guilty as anyone of falling into the argument from authority fallacy when it comes to sites like FactCheck or Snopes. They have a very good track record when it comes to objective analysis. That doesn't mean that they are infallible.

The FactCheck articles on this topic does seem to have a defensive tone that I don't normally detect in their stuff. It could just be that they are getting tired of answering the same question over and over again. In other words:
Us: Did Romney lie?
FC: *looks* No.
Us: Are you sure?
FC: Yes, we're sure.
Us: Really?
FC: Yes.
Us: Really really?
FC:Yes!
Us: Did you look at this document?
FC: Ugh! YES!
Us: What about this one?
FC: *looks* No, but it doesn't change anything.
Us: Are you really really sure?
FC: YES! Stop asking!
​

(At least, that's how I envision it. Maybe I've just been spending too much time with my 3 year old.)

On the other hand, maybe they're just digging their heels in.
 
Oh lord.

So anything negative about Obama can now be spun as, "He wasn't technically in charge of making this or that decision" and all is good. I like equality.
 
Stolen from a comment on TPM about Romney just releasing his tax returns like all the other candidates do...

Remember, John McCain's campaign saw 23 years of Mitt Romney's tax returns... and then they decided that Sarah Palin was a better choice for VP than Romney. What does that tell us about what is inside Romney's returns?
Click to expand...

Ouch. Stomping his feet isn't going to help him here. He has to explain his finances if he wants to run for President. That's just how it goes.
 
Robrob said:
FactCheck.org seems to feel the title was more symbolic than anything:

None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what they base that assessment on anyway.

From one of the filings (dated Feb. 13, 2001): "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital."

Also the fact that he got six-figure income during that time (that's a lot of non-symbolic pay!), and that several other people in positions to know acknowledge his active role in the company in that time period.

Sounds like converging lines of evidence pointing to the conclusion that he did in fact maintain an active leadership role in the company during the time period in question.
 
Upchurch said:
I can be as guilty as anyone of falling into the argument from authority fallacy when it comes to sites like FactCheck or Snopes. They have a very good track record when it comes to objective analysis. That doesn't mean that they are infallible.
Click to expand...

Me too. The more I read, the more I think they got this one wrong.
 
Monketey Ghost said:
So anything negative about Obama can now be spun as, "He wasn't technically in charge of making this or that decision" and all is good. I like equality.
Click to expand...

There's nothing negative about Obama in this story. There's some pretty credible allegations that will put Romney in a very negative light.

Your attempt at a tu quoque is particularly weak since you're only arm waving about "anything negative" about Obama. The general principle you're trying to derive isn't valid.

There is a specific challenge to specific things Romney said (in a sworn affidavit to the SEC) that don't line up well with reality. Did Obama mislead the American people about his position in the business that he had been proffering as his primary qualification for the office of POTUS? If not, you don't even have a tu quoque.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
There's nothing negative about Obama in this story. There's some pretty credible allegations that will put Romney in a very negative light.

Your attempt at a tu quoque is particularly weak since you're only arm waving about "anything negative" about Obama. The general principle you're trying to derive isn't valid.

There is a specific challenge to specific things Romney said (in a sworn affidavit to the SEC) that don't line up well with reality. Did Obama mislead the American people about his position in the business that he had been proffering as his primary qualification for the office of POTUS? If not, you don't even have a tu quoque.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand. I meant that Team O can use this same "reasoning": whatever the GOP points to and says, "Terrible decision, Obama", it can now be countered by the same means.

If it's ok to be in control but not responsible, why not re-elect the President we have?
 
Unabogie said:
Stolen from a comment on TPM about Romney just releasing his tax returns like all the other candidates do...

Remember, John McCain's campaign saw 23 years of Mitt Romney's tax returns... and then they decided that Sarah Palin was a better choice for VP than Romney. What does that tell us about what is inside Romney's returns?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a better source for this. Is it true?

It sounds to me like a joke based on an inference conjecture. (Sort of like, one would think McCain had access to Romney's financial info before considering him as a running mate--assuming he did indeed even consider Romney for a running mate).

ETA: And a pretty poor conjecture, IMO. McCain obviously hadn't done his homework on Palin, so why would we assume he did so on Romney?
 
Last edited:
Monketey Ghost said:
You misunderstand. I meant that Team O can use this same "reasoning": whatever the GOP points to and says, "Terrible decision, Obama", it can now be countered by the same means.

If it's ok to be in control but not responsible, why not re-elect the President we have?
Click to expand...

Oh--you're trying to have Obama use the same lame "out" that Romney is using. I wouldn't recommend it. I don't think it's going to be successful.

I would just challenge the lame "out" directly at Romney. Does Romney think it's okay to hold the office but claim you're not "the decider"?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'd like to see a better source for this. Is it true?

It sounds to me like a joke based on an inference conjecture. (Sort of like, one would think McCain had access to Romney's financial info before considering him as a running mate--assuming he did indeed even consider Romney for a running mate).

ETA: And a pretty poor conjecture, IMO. McCain obviously hadn't done his homework on Palin, so why would we assume he did so on Romney?
Click to expand...


Yep, it's true.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-...ns-romney-spokeswoman-andrea-saul-romney-camp

The volume of tax returns requested by the Obama campaign is unusually large. Messina noted Monday that Romney submitted 23 years of tax returns to McCain in 2008, when the former Massachusetts governor was being considered as a running mate, and said there is “no reason why he would give John McCain 23 years and the American people only two.”
Click to expand...
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I'd like to see a better source for this. Is it true?

It sounds to me like a joke based on an inference conjecture. (Sort of like, one would think McCain had access to Romney's financial info before considering him as a running mate--assuming he did indeed even consider Romney for a running mate).

ETA: And a pretty poor conjecture, IMO. McCain obviously hadn't done his homework on Palin, so why would we assume he did so on Romney?
Click to expand...

I'd like to second that request - it'd be nice to know that McCain put a little more thought into choosing his running mate (and thus inflicting that creature on everybody) than, "hey, they have a darky, let's choose a broad."
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Oh--you're trying to have Obama use the same lame "out" that Romney is using. I wouldn't recommend it. I don't think it's going to be successful.

I would just challenge the lame "out" directly at Romney. Does Romney think it's okay to hold the office but claim you're not "the decider"?
Click to expand...


This in-charge-but-not-in-charge crap makes me imagine a Thurston Howell Presidency: "I was in charge but out of the country/otherwise engaged/making a sandwich when that retrospectively bad decision was made".
 
I'm wondering what middle class Americans will think of him drawing $100 000 salary for not doing anything, as he asserts he didn't?

Can I get $100K for not working for Bain?
 
Unabogie said:
Yep, it's true.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-...ns-romney-spokeswoman-andrea-saul-romney-camp
Click to expand...

I'm still skeptical. This is the Boston Globe indirectly quoting an Obama campaign spokesperson. Why would an Obama campaign spokesperson be a good source for this information?

I'm not claiming it's false, just reserving judgement until I hear it from a source that I would expect to know (such as McCain or a McCain campaign spokesperson).

[ETA: And it sounds like there was a typo in the lead in sentence to that bit. Shouldn't it have said "The volume of tax returns requested by the Obama campaign is not unusually large"? Then the 23 years of returns McCain allegedly got would stand in contrast.]
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
I'm wondering what middle class Americans will think of him drawing $100 000 salary for not doing anything, as he asserts he didn't?

Can I get $100K for not working for Bain?
Click to expand...

I guess it means that $100K is purely symbolic for someone as wealthy as Romney!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom