wwwhunter, I agree that Cutter was out of line mentioning felony as a possible explanation for suggesting he bore no responsibility for any actions Bain took after he left it in 1999.
Of course, this does leave Romney in the curious position of claiming credit for the 100,000 jobs that were supposedly created at Bain during the same time period that he denies having any involvement in Bain's actions.
source: the same articles you referenced.
Scindapsus glad that we can agree that this line of attack is out of line! Romney lead Bain for years before 1999 and I am sure he can claim some job creation from that.
From what I have read Bain was very successful at turning companies around and keeping them from going out of business. They did not save all of them but most.
Ah, but given your distaste for dishonest campaigning, what do you think of Romney claiming credit for the jobs created by Bain (and the numerous other investors involved) when most of those jobs were apparently created long after he says he bore no responsibility for whatever Bain did?
The whole "felony" statement was deeply disappointing, but mainly because it signals a willingness to stoop to the depths that have long characterized Romney's approach.
"‘Obamacare’ puts the federal government between you and your doctor."
Claimed that Dow decided to build a plant in Saudi Arabia rather than Oklahoma because of environmental regulations.
"Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt."
Obamacare "means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep."
Obama is "ending Medicare as we know it."
President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America."
President Obama "gave a speech the other day at his State of the Union address. He didn't even mention the deficit or the debt, even as the world is reeling, watching what's happening in Europe, recognizing that, unless we change course, we will face that as well and, yet, he has nothing to say about it."
"Only one president has ever cut Medicare for seniors in this country . . . Barack Obama."
"Today there are more men and women out of work in America than there are people working in Canada."
"Actually, we didn't just slow the rate of growth of our government, we actually cut it."
Obama hasn't been his only target. Some Republican primary goodies:
"I was pretty proud of being the only guy on the stage that ever had a job in the private sector."
Re: John McCain: "I don't describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don't call it amnesty."
I should also point out that you're attributing statements made by campaign operatives to Obama himself, which is not entirely fair (not entirely unfair, either, to be sure!), whereas the examples I provided are all direct quotes from Romney himself. There is a difference between guilt by association and guilt. Again, though, I agree that Obama's campaign folks were wrong to even allude to the possibility of a felony without pretty compelling evidence!
"Now, my understanding is that Mr. Romney attested to the SEC, multiple times, that he was the chairman, CEO and president of Bain Capital, and I think most Americans figure if you are the chairman, CEO and president of a company that you are responsible for what that company does." - President Obama in response to a question of why his campaign said that Romney may have committed a felony.
That is hardly setting the record stait from HIS Campaign's statement is it?
Hmm, don't let your blind hatred of Obama cause you to stoop too low! Here is the exact question that Obama answered with the quote you used:
SCOTT THUMAN, WJLA-TV: "What about Bain Capital? It's a big issue for the past 24 hours right now. Mitt Romney's campaign says he left in '99, yours says it's 2000, there's a significant difference, is he being dishonest with the American public?"
In no way is this a question of "why his campaign said that Romney may have committed a felony." Wouldn't you agree?
Here's another interesting Romney quote relevant to the current dustup:
"I hope for America’s sake that he knows that a Chief Executive can’t vote 'present.' He can’t let others run the show."
Well let me see if I can answer some of these charges of yours scindapsus
"‘Obamacare’ puts the federal government between you and your doctor." - The law sets up a panel to keep Medicare spending in check. The 15-member panel is called the Independent Payment Advisory Board and starting in 2020, it can recommend changes in reimbursement rates and other cost-saving measures. - while this may seem to be a good thing according to my doctor this could lead to him no longer seeing Medicare patients as the last round of cuts under Bush made it almost impossible for him to maintain a profitable practice seeing a large number of Medicare patients
Claimed that Dow decided to build a plant in Saudi Arabia rather than Oklahoma because of environmental regulations. - I have no idea if this is true or not maybe Romney spoke with Dow and they told him so.
"Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt." - According to a George Mason University Study it does: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/fil...
Obamacare "means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep." - Businesses with more the 50 employees will be required to offer health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a $2000 penality per worker. My company like countless others is self insured which mean they are already paying more than $2000 per worker in health cost. So this means it will be more profitable for a company to drop health insurance on it’s workers and pay the fine. This pushes the responsibility for the Individual Mandate to the worker and thus fulfills the prophecy you mention.
Obama is "ending Medicare as we know it." - see answer to quote #1
here are some more answers
President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America." - In France he apologized to Europe “In America, there‘s a failure to appreciate Europe‘s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been time where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” - In Al Arabiya he said “We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record as you say, America was not born a colonial power, and the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.” - I have several other examples but I don’t feel like typing that much
President Obama "gave a speech the other day at his State of the Union address. He didn't even mention the deficit or the debt, even as the world is reeling, watching what's happening in Europe, recognizing that, unless we change course, we will face that as well and, yet, he has nothing to say about it." - Obviously Romney was wrong here cause I looked it up and Obama mentioned the deficit 4 times and the debt twice, I wonder did you find where he kept repeating this mistake even after he was proven wrong. Oh I know according to the Washington times Romney’s campaign acknowledged that the President did mention the items but gave the American People no clear plan to back up his rhetoric. - personally I think as the debt and deficit are to two of the most pressing problems I would have liked to hear a little more on what we were going to do about it than 26 total words in a hour long speech.
"Only one president has ever cut Medicare for seniors in this country . . . Barack Obama." - see answer to quote #1
"Today there are more men and women out of work in America than there are people working in Canada." - I don’t know when Mr. Romney made this comment but as of the first quarter in 2012 the total employment in Canada according to their government is approximately 18 million and the US Govt. says unemployment in the US is approximately 13 million so as of today this is wrong based on the government statistics however many alternative employment agencies such as SGS put the number at closer to 22 million in the US due to discouraged and underemployed workers. So if Romney was looking at this data he may have been speaking correctly.
"Actually, we didn't just slow the rate of growth of our government, we actually cut it." - I don’t really have a context for this one so I will just have to go with your assertion that this is somehow a lie.
Re: 1 and 4. Jeez, kind of a stretch, and not at all what Romney's inferring, don't you think?
Re: 1: The law specifically prevents the panel from even suggesting reductions in either benefits or eligibility, and even if they recommended it, Congress doesn't have to follow the panel’s recommendations.
Re: 2: There's the rub; no one involved on the Dow side, the Oklahoma side, the Saudi side, supports this statement whatsoever.
Re: 3: Even if you take the report, written by a "computational quantum chemist" as being completely correct, and all the other reports on the subject as being completely without merit, then Romney's still being dishonest. According to your own report, "the ACA is expected to add at least $340 billion and as much as $530 billion to federal deficits." No way to get trillions (plural) out of this.
Re: 4: If cost-saving measures would end Medicare as we know it (which, again, is a false claim to make against "Obamacare"), then what's the beef with ending Medicare as we know it? This makes it sound like Medicare as we know it is a disaster anyways.
Re, Re 1 and 4: I am not Mr. Romney and unlike Ms. Cutter I do not speak on his behalf. I am giving you my opinion based on what I know. I think that if the Affordable Care Act caused great doctors like mine (once again my opinion) to stop seeing Medicare patients it will be a change of monumental proportions don't you.?
Re, Re 1: The law says they can not recommend reduction in benefits but that does not mean the price paid to the provider can not be reduced it only means that if a blood test is currently a covered benefit it will remain a covered benefit.
Re, Re 3: the exact quote you gave me is: “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt” - note it says to the debt and deficit. According to this report it will add $530 Billion to the deficit and an additional $1.15 trillion in spending (hence national debt.) Other studies are out their that have come to similar conclusions such as the Holtz-Eakin study that concludes “that employers could gain the enormous savings from dropping the coverage and just paying the $2,000 penalty, while giving their employees a net pay raise because of these enormous subsidies, for all workers making roughly $60,000 per year or less. That means it would make sense for employers to drop their coverage for 43 million additional workers who would then receive the subsidies at taxpayer expense for obtaining their insurance through the exchanges. That alone would triple the $450 billion in estimated costs for the health insurance subsidies of Obamacare under the first 6 full years, adding nearly a trillion dollars to the costs and deficits of Obamacare during that time alone.” or the McKinsey & Company study that says “a radical restructuring of employer-sponsored heath benefits.” It found that “30% of employers will definitely or probably stop offering” employer health coverage after Obamacare is implemented, and “among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50%.” Which the Wall Street Journal concluded would equal up to $2 trillion dollars added to the deficit.
Re, Re 4: Once again I believe from conversations with my own doctor that Medicare could be fundamentally changed by this law.
BTW Scindapsus I do like some provisions of the Affordable Heath Care Act just not all of them and not the cost. I am in favor of Repeal and Replace with something more sensible.
Wow Scindapsus I will have to give you props on this one. You turned Obama's lie, excuse me Obama’s Campaign Manager’s lie back onto Romney masterfully and poor hunter fell right into your bait and switch tactic. Scindapsus is the man! Obviously two wrongs does make a right!
I’ll bet if I search the web enough I can find a few campaign half truth’s uttered by our Commander and Chief as well.
hunter, not going to get into all this back and forth on ACA and Bain Capital - there's enough lies , half-truths, and innuendoes going around to tar both sides.
But, as to apologizing, you wrote, "President Obama "went around the world and apologized for America." - In France he apologized to Europe “In America, there‘s a failure to appreciate Europe‘s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been time (sic) where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” - In Al Arabiya he said “We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record as you say, America was not born a colonial power, and the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.” -
I don't see apology, I see statements of fact. America, in foreign policy, has been dismissive of Europe - until now when suddenly the financial situation there impacts us and we realize, "Hey, maybe there is something to this global economy!" And as to the Muslim statement you included, America has not been perfect and only fools would assert that we have. And we are not a colonial power, which Obama plainly stated. I fail to see how you could in any way consider these apologies. And we do need to treat Muslim societies with the same respect we accord others.
I think that if you searched hard enough you could find that both candidates have told a few deceptive or exaggerated things along the way. And from what I have read you can also find enough "facts & studies" to back up what both wwwhunter and scindipsus are debating.
What you have to ask yourself is "Are you better off now than four years ago and for me the answer is NO. Will a President Romney make it better, I believe so. Will if re-elected President Obama make it better? I don't believe so based on his first four years in office. I will vote Hope & Change this year. I will Vote Romney!
Hey, guys. In case you hadn't noticed, it is one of my "buttons" when someone basically takes the position that 'XXXXX is disgusting -- but only when the other side does it.' Thus, unlike wwwhunter, who's been bending over backwards to come up with scenarios in which Romney's statements might not in fact have been intentionally false statements, I'm actually MORE pissed off when liberals resort to dishonesty to sway public opinion, like when Obama ran an ad saying that Romney would deny gay couples the right to adopt a child, which clearly contradicts Romney's statements on the subject.
As far as I can tell, though, Cutter's statement wasn't even a lie; it was strongly inappropriate, but it wasn't a lie.* Again, remember that Romney has claimed credit for supposed Bain-created jobs during that same time that he now denies having any involvement in company activities. He's also made it clear that his view is that there's no such thing as a CEO in name only: "I hope for America’s sake that he knows that a Chief Executive can’t vote 'present.' He can’t let others run the show." All of these statements can't simultaneously be true! But I'll repeat for a fourth time that it was a stupid and wrong thing for the Obama camp to bring up the notion that a felony may have been committed!
*Now it may be that I'm not seeing the intentionally false part of her statement; if so, feel free to spell it out for me!
I feel like it was a lie not because they made it up but because they (the Obama camp) knew that it was normal practice to file with the SEC as CEO during a sale of a company until that sale was finalized. This is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts in order to vilify Romney. A new low for this campaign season for sure.
According to the story on CNN I watched they said that while Romney was still the principle owner of Bain during the time that Cutter claimed he mislead the SEC he was not in fact running the company. Bain was an investment of his so like any investment that does well I suppose he could take pride in what it had accomplished. If Romney was not calling the shots he really shouldn't get the blame or the credit except to be able to say hey I started that company and look what it did.
Owning shares of the company is not the same as making management decisions. I own a large amount of Wal-Mart Stock so by that logic I can be blamed or credited for Wal-Mart using child labor in Cambodia to make it’s cloths. Did I say hey use that factory over there that exploits children? No I didn’t cause I don’t manage the company I just benefit from my investment in it. On the flip side I can say something like this, I am quite proud of my investment in Wal-Mart, the nations largest private employer. Wal-Mart given more people the opportunity to provide for themselves and their families than any other company.
On the SEC filings in question, Bain listed Romney as sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President through 2002. I would say that it is not unreasonable to state that owning shares of the company is not the same as being sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President. And if you've held those positions for 15 years, it's not unreasonable to doubt that your influence suddenly zeroed out the day you leave while keeping all titles and salary.
Check out Forbes' analysis (link below) of this question (I assume Forbes' anti-Obama slant makes it, er, "objective" enough for you to not dismiss out of hand). They conclude that Romney probably wouldn't be convicted of a crime, but they seem to think that there were aspects of all this that was not "normal practice." I also like the last sentence: "But if he is as good as he claims, Romney would never invest in a company whose CEO – in title only — collected an executive salary but spent almost every waking hour doing a completely different job."
The bottom line is that the Obama team claims may ultimately prove incorrect, but the situation they describe is not so plainly at odds with the data that it's fair to call them lies.
From the CNN story I reference in my blog: "Pagliuca, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2010, told CNN: "Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."
In explaining the SEC documents filed in 2000 and 2001, Pagliuca said, "Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."
Another Bain Democrat who did not want to be identified by name said Romney had no role after taking the Olympics post
MYB: Romney's Bain record under fire
Adviser defends attacks against Romney
Vanity Fair: Romney's $$$ in 'gray area' "Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. He was just gone. And it happened very suddenly. ... After that, he was not on calls or writing memos. He was gone."
Really guys you had nothing better to do on a beautiful Saturday than sit in front of a computer and argue about this?
All I'm saying is that it is not unreasonable to question this situation, even if ultimately no laws or even rules were broken. Can you name another person who's quit a job as CEO and President, yet retains those titles, remains the only shareholder, and continues to pull an executive salary for the next three years?
Well, I guess I'm also saying that it seems dishonest to claim credit for creating jobs at a company at the same time that he claims he had nothing to do with that company's activities. And he also previously made it clear that it would be completely wrong to do what he now said he did at Bain: "I hope for America’s sake that he [Obama] knows that a Chief Executive can’t vote 'present.' He can’t let others run the show."
And I guess as I mentioned before, double standards really bug me. You describe Obama's response to a situation that does not seem crystal clear as a disgusting lie, a new low, etc. In contrast, you seem to have no concerns whatsoever about statements Romney has made about past events that readily accessible evidence (text and videos of speeches, historical budget and employment data, resumes of opponents, his own advertisements, etc.) show to be obviously and ridiculously false.
I've actually been very busy today, both inside and outside. This has really been the least fun part of my day, but sometimes the sloppily over-the-top, libelous rants (e.g., "Obama - Liar and Chief") just get to me.
Scindapsus ok I will give you that hunter's title "Liar and Chief" is a bit over the top. His Blog is spot on.
I don't believe that Obama alluding to Mitt Romney having committed a felony is in the same league as Mitt Romney stating his opinions on Obamacare or Mr. Obama's apologies.
This dirty line of attack needs to stop from the Obama camp.
Dirty line of attack? Heavens forbid! Y'all ever hear the term "manufactured outrage"?
If Romney misrepresented his position at Bain to the SEC, would that in fact be a felony? (for, what, the fifth time, let me repeat that I don't think Cutter should have used this argument!).
What if Romney says things he clearly doesn't believe simply to win over dubious conservatives? Any problem with that?
What about statements statements Romney has made about past events that readily accessible evidence (text and videos of speeches, historical budget and employment data, resumes of opponents, his own advertisements, etc.) show to be obviously and ridiculously false?
Hey, here's a fun fact: do you know why there's been so much attention paid to Romney's time at Bain? Because Obama's superPAC decided their original plan, to paint Romney as an economic extremist, wouldn't get any traction with the public. Why did they decide this? They told focus groups that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan while also advocating additional tax cuts for the wealthiest, but the people simply refused to believe that any politician would take such a position!
Here is an article that MAY explain the fuss where us everyday folks can understand.
What a Tangled Web
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Yes Scindapsus this is a dirty line of attack. I have been following the election with some interest and feel both sides could tone it down. Having said that most presidential elections are full of mud slinging from both sides. The difference here is that this story came out during the primary and was debunked by every major news organization and by reputable fact checkers like factcheck.org and still the Obama campaign wants to suggest Mitt Romney committed a felony for God sake!
flowmaster, your timeline confuses me. The factcheck story you provided came out after Cutter's remark on July 12, and their earliest one (about outsourcing) came out on June 29. This is hardly ancient, settled history. Since half the stories (granted, the half you probably ignore!) aren't as sure as you are about what happened, it's not unreasonable to continue to discuss this until it's sorted out, right? Ironically, it was factcheck that first tossed out the idea that Romney would have committed a felony by misrepresenting his role at Bain. Now, if Obama's folks are continuing to talk about felonies (which you imply by using the present tense) after the story had been settled, that would be pretty dirty, but I don't think I've heard them use the term "felony" after Cutter's initial remark. Have you?
In fact, when she was asked later about the felony comment, she refused to use the word again, and in fact said "“We’re not suggesting Romney committed a crime here,” which by right wing standards should count as a liberal apology!
Let me see Scindapsus, the Obama Campaign makes the argument that Romney is still managing Bain after 1999 and runs ads calling him a liar and later a possible criminal. Factcheck.org says "FactCheck to Obama Camp: Your Complaint is All Wet" and you still want to site factcheck.org as your evidence that the Obama team is right to say these things! It is you Scindapsus that is ignoring the facts here.
"Let me see Scindapsus,"... Well, I can let you see, but I can't force you to see! It is you watchpig who is ignoring the facts.
Fact: I never said Obama was right to say that Romney might have committed a felony; at least five times I've said I don't think they should have done so!
Fact: While trying to figure out when factcheck got involved in this (since flowmaster implied it was ancient history), I happened to see that factcheck made the observation that if Romney did these things he'd be committing a felony before Cutter did. That's all I said about that.
Not at all Scindapsus I am merely making the observation that you are a hypocrite. Tough to see from your perspective but easy to see from mine.
My father once said "Opions are like a**holes; we all got one" so I guess mine is what the Obama campaign did is wrong. When the Romney campaign calls Obama a felon I will denounce that as well. It appears to be the opinion of some here that two wrongs make a right so I will agree to disagree with them.
Sounds like you got me, watchpig! So how'd you do it? By redefining the word ("hypocrite (n.): someone who does not share your opinion")? Or by reading my words so as to change, no, reverse their meaning? Like wwwhunter interpreting my words "I never said Obama was right to say that Romney might have committed a felony; at least five times I've said I don't think they should have done so!" and still be able to miraculously conclude that "It appears to be the opinion of some here that two wrongs make a right so I will agree to disagree with them"! Let me fix your interpretation, by the way: "It is the opinion of one here that two wrongs are both wrong, but ignoring your guy's while professing righteous indignation about the other guy's is also wrong!"
Hypocrite (n): Scindapsus
example: A person who who pretends to have certain beliefs, attitudes or feelings when they really do not.
Wow, watchpig, and you're psychic no less! That's obviously a useful skill, since it frees you up from having to read someone's arguments to know what they really think! You seem to be overdue for a tuneup, but, man, I'm jealous!