"hair rape"? And you wonder why no one takes this shit seriously?

If somebody pinned you down and gave you an unwanted hair cut while you cried for help it probably would seem more serious to you.

You just described most kids' first haircut.

This is the second thread that you cried about the story. Methinks you are taking it seriously...

GOP strategist: Romney’s factual poor job creation record a ‘misleading number’
By Andrew Jones
Monday, June 4, 2012 14:44 EDT Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon21 Topics: Alice Stewart ♦ mitt romney ♦ romney

Former Bachmann and Santorum campaign press secretary Alice Stewart conceded Monday morning that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had a less than sterling job creation record during his time as Massachusetts governor.

In an segment on MSNBC Live, Stewart initially claimed the fact of Massachusetts ranking 47th out of 50th in job creation during Romney’s one term tenure was dubious information filtered out from the current White House staff.

“That’s a misleading number you’re putting out there that was put out by the Obama campaign,” Stewart said.


The Republican figure’s comments sparked host Thomas Roberts to aggressively question Stewart’s inaccurate statement.

“How’s that a misleading number when it’s the actual fact of where the states ranked when Governor Romney left office?” he asked. “How is that misleading?”

“It’s misleading facts put up by a desperate campaign,” Stewart replied.

“Was it 47th or not?” Roberts shot back. “Was it 47th or not? Was it 47th or not? Was it 47th or not?”

“He took it from 50th to 47th,” Stewart conceded, which is also untrue since Romney inherited office while Massachusetts ranked 36th in nation job creation.

...

that's when you wrap a prostitute's hair on your wee wee and jack off, without her consent, right?

Wow really? A candidate that blames the sitting president and makes vague promises?

Yeah I know they all do that to some degree. Mitt however seems to be setting a record. The article compares Mitt to W when he ran in 2000 for example.

Actually more Americans than not also give W the credit for our current economy.

I also don't blame GOP'ers for not caring if Mitt is lacking substance...

Romney’s offshore wealth deeply hidden: report
By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, July 3, 2012 20:41 EDT Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon61 Topics: President Barack Obama ♦ President Obama ♦ romney

WASHINGTON — Much of White House hopeful Mitt Romney’s fortune lies well-hidden in a network of opaque offshore investments including some $30 million in the Cayman Islands, Vanity Fair reported Tuesday.

Romney has amassed vast wealth — estimated to be as high as $250 million — since founding private equity firm Bain Capital in 1984, and he consistently says his successful business experience is what puts him in better position than President Barack Obama for turning around the sluggish US economy.

But while his campaign insists Romney has not exploited the offshore havens to avoid paying necessary US taxes, the difficulty in tracking the overseas transactions and holdings raises questions about the candidate’s finances in the heat of a campaign.


The report detailed how Romney continues to have personal interests in at least 12 of the 138 funds organized by Bain in the Caymans, where such investments are hidden behind confidentiality disclaimers, making an assessment of Romney’s true wealth virtually impossible.

He also holds a Swiss bank account — with $3 million in it, according to 2010 tax returns — and other interests in tax havens such as Bermuda, according to the report in the August issue of the magazine.

Romney’s tax rate has been a particular point of contention. In 2010 he reported income of $21.7 million, mostly from investments, and paid just over $3 million in taxes, a paltry rate of just 13.9 percent, far lower than the rate for most middle-income Americans.

Most of Romney’s money is earned in investments, which are taxed at just 15 percent, compared to the 35 percent he would pay on wages.

Many of those investments are offshore, with 55 pages of Romney’s 2010 tax return devoted to his transactions with foreign entities, according to Vanity Fair.

...

Interesting how personal wealth wasn't an issue at all when Al Gore and John Kerry were candidates.

...

Romney stayed longer at Bain
Firm’s 2002 filings identify him as CEO, though he said he left in 1999
Nine SEC filings submitted by four different business entities after February 1999 describe Romney as Bain boss. (David L. Ryan/Globe Staff file 1993)
By Callum Borchers and Christopher Rowland
Globe Correspondent Globe Staff / July 12, 2012

Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

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

The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

...

Are you saying you or say G-man never talked about Kerry or his wife's wealth? Perhaps this would be a good time for you to list what should be off the table in the vetting process. You can make two lists. One for conservatives and one for liberals if that makes it easier for you.

boston.com

...I just saw John Sununu discuss this. At the time in question, Romney was fully occupied managing the 2002 Winter Olympics....

Are you saying you or say G-man never talked about Kerry or his wife's wealth?

Romney's going to win and win big. Independents won't fall for that shit again.

...Last month, Romney held an eight point advantage on who can best improve the economy; now Obama holds a six point advantage. Among independents, there’s also been a big swing.

In June, Romney led Obama by 23 points, 54-31, among independents on the economy. That lead has dwindled down to four points; Romney now leads among them on the issue by 43-39.

And this is even more interesting: The swing on the economy has been bigger in the dozen battleground states than it has been nationally, though the difference is within the margin of error.
...

Mitt Romney's Own 2002 Testimony Undermines Bain Departure Claim
Posted: 07/12/2012 6:54 pm Updated: 07/13/2012 8:51 am

Politics News . WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's repeated claim that he played no part in executive decision-making related to Bain Capital after 1999 is false, according to Romney's own testimony in June 2002, in which he admitted to sitting on the board of the LifeLike Co., a dollmaker that was a Bain investment during the period.

Romney has consistently insisted that he was too busy organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics to take part in Bain business between 1999 and that event. But in the testimony, which was provided to The Huffington Post, Romney noted that he regularly traveled back to Massachusetts. "[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth," he said.

Romney's sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.

...

Kristol: Romney 'crazy' not to release tax returns
7Comments (12) By MANU RAJU | 7/15/12 10:01 AM EDT Bill Kristol and the Obama campaign agree on something: Mitt Romney should immediately release his tax returns.

"He should release the tax returns tomorrow. It's crazy," Kristol said on "Fox News Sunday." "You gotta release six, eight, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two."

The conservative commentator said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee then should give a speech on Thursday calling for a "serious" debate with President Barack Obama on capitalism, allowing the campaign to turn the page and put the focus back on the president's record.

Romney has only released his 2010 tax returns and estimated returns for last year, but he has refused to release additional documents even though it's been common practice for candidates to do so, prompting scathing criticism from the Obama campaign.

People from his own party would normally be helping defend Romney against this stuff at this point. This is a case of at least some in the GOP thinking Romney is blowing it and feel it's either say something or watch him lose.

Did Mitt Romney pay any federal taxes at all in 2009?
Posted by Ezra Klein on July 17, 2012 at 2:50 pm

On the issue of Mitt Romney’s tax returns, my colleague George Will put it simply: “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

The question is what could be in them that would be so damaging to the Romney campaign. Right now, the most popular theory is that Romney simply didn’t pay any federal taxes at all in 2009. As Joshua Green wrote, ” It’s possible that he suffered a large enough capital loss that, carried forward and coupled with his various offshore tax havens, he wound up paying no U.S. federal taxes at all in 2009.”


My guess is the person who spends the most time wondering why Mitt Romney didn't clean up his taxes in 2008 is...Mitt Romney. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

But the tax experts I’ve spoken to are skeptical. “Romney had a $4.8 million capital loss carryover coming into 2010,” says Edward Kleinbard, a professor of tax law at the University of Southern California. “So that means no capital gain income in 2009. If you look on the first page [of his 2010 tax return], though, he had lots of ordinary income (interest mostly), and dividends, which are taxed at the same rate as capital gains but which cannot be sheltered from tax by capital losses. So presumably he had some positive income tax in 2009.”

Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, agrees. “It’s unlikely that his taxable income was zero or even close enough to zero that his credits would zero out his tax liability completely,” he says.

But Daniel Shaviro, a tax professor at New York University, isn’t so sure. “I think there’s an excellent chance that [Romney] didn’t pay any taxes in 2008 or 2009,” he says. But to get from a small federal tax liability to no federal tax liability, Romney would have needed to engage in incredibly aggressive tax planning. Shaviro mentions picking loser investments to get some benefits from “loss harvesting,” unusual tax shelters, and a bevy of other stuff that, frankly, I don’t totally understand.

The overriding question, though, is why would Romney do any of this. As Shaviro says, “If you were running for president and in his position, wouldn’t you think of telling your transaction people not to take you down too low in 2008 and 2009?”

...

I think way too much attention is given to one inflammatory remark by Sununu, while ignoring how Sununu destroyed Andrea Mitchell, and the liberal media focus on Romney's tax returns, which is in truth a non-issue.
Even factcheck.org and rthe Washington post have given the Obama smear campaign on Romney's alleged outsourcing four Pinnochios, for Obama's levels of distortion and complete fabrication.

Do you even know how many years John McCain released of tax returns before the 2008 election?
TWO.

It's a non-issue. Romney has been campaigning for president since 2007. And has probably been planning to run for president since at least 2005. Does anyone really believe he has allowed anything dirty or questionable in his finances during these 8 years, knowing the level of scrutiny it could potentially have? Of course not.

That said, I think Romney should release the info, so that even in the worst scensrio, it will be old news by the time of the election.

The Sununu that the media and other liberal slanderers don't want you to see:

As I've said before if there was nothing for Romney to hide he would have released them already. My guess is he probably didn't do anything outright illegal but what is legal and what is moral and ethical can be very different things.

Obama's birth certificate and Romney's tax returns are not a valid comparison. Obama released his birth certificate before he was elected.

... Plenty of douches wouldn't accept it but it was still proven.
...

No he didn't. You can't even get a driver's license with that shit.

Nice try though.

Obama's birth certificate and Romney's tax returns are not a valid comparison...

As someone who is reasonably able to discuss the idea that elements within in the government was behind the single most important event in our lifetimes so far (9/11),

the idea that Obama, the Dems, the FEC, and even John McCain (to an extent) went to great lengths (even losing) to allow someone not American to run and assume the presidency of the United States doesn't stretch credulity...it breaks it.

I have never had my short form birth certificate denied as being unacceptable for anything.

CLAIM: As distinguished from a "long-form" Certificate of Live Birth, the "short-form" Certification of Live Birth issued by Hawaii and posted online by the Obama campaign isn't a "real" or "valid" birth certificate.

EXAMPLE:
Personal message from a reader dated Oct. 28, 2008:
[T]he Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated his eligibility (per the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have his name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America. However, contrary to what the few media outlets who are giving this outrageous claim any attention at all have concurred, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate". What they supplied was actually a "Certificate of Live Birth." There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certificate of Live Birth." Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't.
STATUS: FALSE. According to both the Hawaii state government website and a June 6, 2009 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth is the only kind of birth record now issued by the state (original records are stored electronically), so the distinction between "short-form" and "long-form" is moot. When a citizen of Hawaii requests a certified copy of his or her birth certificate from the state, a Certification of Live Birth — what people are calling the "short-form," and what Obama released to the public — is what they get. According to Hawaii Health Department spokesperson Janice Okubo, a COLB contains "all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate."

.....Where did I say Obama isn't a citizen? I was making a point about his reluctance to put an issue to bed by flashing his papers the same way people say Romney should. Or are you cool with the tune, "if [he/she] has nothing to hide, then prove it" for any given accusation?

MEM is trying to argue that simply because Obama provided one document that-that negates the demand for another--as if the principle behind that and Romney's case was truly any different.

4 Pinocchios for Obama’s newest anti-Romney ad



Posted by Glenn Kessler
6:00 AM ET, 06/21/2012
TheWashingtonPost

[youtube video]
“Running for governor, Mitt Romney campaigned as a job creator. But as a corporate raider, he shipped jobs to China and Mexico. As governor, he did the same thing: Outsourcing state jobs to India.”

— Voiceover of new Barack Obama campaign ad


The Obama campaign apparently loves to ding former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with the charge of “outsourcing.” On several occasions, we have faulted the campaign for its claims, apparently to little avail.

Now, all of the claims have been combined in one 30-second ad, with the added incendiary charge that Romney was a “corporate raider.” Let’s look anew at this material.


The Facts


The phrase “corporate raider” has a particular meaning in the world of finance. Here’s the definition on Investopedia:


“An investor who buys a large number of shares in a corporation whose assets appear to be undervalued. The large share purchase would give the corporate raider significant voting rights, which could then be used to push changes in the company’s leadership and management. This would increase share value and thus generate a massive return for the raider.”

In other words, this is generally an adversarial stance, in which an investor sees an undervalued asset and forces management to spin off assets, take the company private or break it up.

In a previous life, The Fact Checker covered renowned corporate raiders such as Carl Icahn and his ilk. We also have closely studied Bain Capital and can find no examples that come close to this situation; its deals were done in close association with management. Indeed, Bain generally held onto its investments for four or five years, in contrast to the quick bust-em-ups of real corporate raiders. So calling Romney a “corporate raider” is a real stretch.

So how does the Obama campaign justify this phrase? It cites a single Reuters story from last August, about a campaign stop in New Hampshire, written by a stringer. Buried in the article is a reference to Romney as a “former corporate raider.”

“Reuters typically refers to Romney as a ‘former private equity executive’ or something along those lines,” said Ros Krasny, the Boston bureau chief. “Of the hundreds of times we have referenced Romney over the past year or more, honestly, that example from [the stringer] must have just slipped through the net — 10 months ago.”

A better source for Romney’s behavior as an investor might be someone who actually worked on Wall Street, such as former Obama auto czar Steven Rattner. “Bain Capital is not now, nor has it ever been, some kind of Gordon Gekko-like, fire-breathing corporate raider that slashed and burned companies, immolating jobs wherever they appear in its path,” Rattner wrote in Politico this year.

Regarding the outsourcing claims, we have frowned on these before. The Obama campaign rests its case on three examples of Bain-controlled companies sending jobs overseas. But only one of the examples — involving Holson Burns Group — took place when Romney was actively managing Bain Capital.

Regarding the other claims, concerning Canadian electronics maker SMTC Manufacturing and customer service firm Modus Media, the Obama campaign tries to take advantage of a gray area in which Romney had stepped down from Bain — to manage the Salt Lake City Olympics — but had not sold his shares in the firm. We had previously given the Obama campaign Three Pinocchios for such tactics.

The Modus Media case is also not an example of shipping jobs overseas. The company closed one plant in California and transferred the jobs to North Carolina, Washington and Utah. At the same time, it opened an unrelated plant in Mexico. The Obama campaign once trumpeted the fact that we had dinged a conservative Super PAC for making the same leap in logic.

The claim that Romney outsourced jobs as governor is equally overblown.

This concerns Romney’s veto of a bill that would have prohibited Massachusetts from contracting with companies that outsourced the state’s work to other countries. Lawmakers were especially concerned about a $160,000-a-month contract with Citigroup to operate a system of electronic food-stamp cards that included a customer phone service center in India.

Both the liberal editorial page of the Boston Globe and conservative editorial page of the Boston Herald urged Romney to veto the amendment, saying it would cost the state money. Romney agreed, saying the measure did not protect state jobs — the call center might have moved from India to another state — but “had the potential of costing our citizens a lot more money.” The Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature did not override his veto, even though it overturned 117 others, suggesting that there was little real support for the measure.

When the food-stamp contract expired, the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance insisted that those jobs be returned to the United States. But they ended up in a call center based in Utah — just as Romney had predicted.

As we mentioned, we recounted this ancient Massachusetts history before, giving the campaign Two Pinocchios. So we were very surprised that the Obama campaign cited that critical Fact Checker column as a source for the ad in its back-up materials.

The ad also cites as a source a Boston Globe article from last month that merely reports on an earlier ad making similar charges. That’s highly circular reasoning — and is not fair play.

Upon hearing this ad was under consideration for a tough rating, the Obama campaign supplied reams of additional SEC documents regarding Romney’s ownership in Bain after he left for the Olympics, most of which we had examined previously when we first looked at this question. The campaign also supplied SEC documents showing that two of these companies, Modus and SMTC, as well as one called Stream International (a predecessor of Modus), earned money in part by helping other companies subcontract work overseas. Some of this business predated Romney’s departure from Bain, but thus far it seems a slim case for this particular ad.

“Romney can’t run from his record. At Bain and in Massachusetts, he had the chance to keep jobs in America and sent them overseas instead,” said Kara Carscaden, deputy press secretary for the Obama campaign. “Even while he was at the Olympics, Romney owned and profited from Bain, continues to profit from it today and cannot ignore what Bain did during that time. Whether it’s outsourcing public jobs to India or shipping private ones to Mexico and China, Romney’s record is clear.”




The Pinocchio Test


The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of “corporate raider” to its examples of alleged outsourcing. Simply repeating the same debunked claims won’t make them any more correct.


[awarded: ] Four Pinocchios

M E M really shouldn't have brought up Factcheck sites...

4 Pinocchios for an unproven Romney claim of ‘crony capitalism’
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:02 AM ET, 07/18/2012 TheWashingtonPost
Text Size Print E-mail Reprints Share: More > Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Reddit StumbleUpon Digg Delicious top: -5px;">Google +1
“I am ashamed to say that we’re seeing our president hand out money to the businesses of campaign contributors, when he gave money, $500 million in loans to a company called Fisker that makes high end electric cars, and they make the cars now in Finland. That is wrong and it’s got to stop. That kind of crony capitalism does not create jobs and it does not create jobs here.”

— Mitt Romney, Irwin, Pa., July 17, 2012

Hoping to turn attention away from questions about his departure from Bain Capital a decade ago, Mitt Romney this week has sought to focus attention on what he calls President Obama’s “crony capitalism.” We have dealt with this charge before, but this week it seems the Romney campaign has upped the ante, trying to make a connection between the president’s contributors and the president’s policies.

We will deal with some of these claims in more detail at a later date, but today we will look at the question of Fisker Automotive. This case keeps coming up, and it really feels like whack-a-mole. Romney now has raised the stakes by asserting a connection between the loan and campaign contributors. And his campaign was sufficiently proud of his statement that it e-mailed it to reporters.



The Facts


Fisker has developed a luxury plug-in electric sedan called the Karma that retails for $108,000, currently manufactured in Finland. It hopes to develop a $50,000 sedan named the Atlantic that would be manufactured in Delaware.

Earlier this week, Romney aides held a briefing for reporters. Senior adviser Ed Gillespie singled out John Doerr, a wealthy venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers who was instrumental in funding Netscape, Amazon, Google and other Internet companies.

“You know you have John Doerr who raised a lot of money for President Obama, you know, got appointed to an economic recovery advisory board,” Gillespie said. “And, then, his firm had a big investment in Fisker Automotive which got over half a billion dollars in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy, which did not result in jobs being created in America, but actually jobs being created overseas in Finland, but Kleiner Perkins did quite well.”

Gillespie appears to be suggesting that because Doerr raised money for Obama, he was rewarded with a big loan for a company in which his firm invested. But the logic is more the political equivalent of bank shot in pool — and the ball doesn’t quite get in the pocker.

First of all, the Kleiner partner mostly closely associated with the Fisker investment is Ray Lane, who features the Fisker logo on his Kleiner Web page. There’s even a YouTube clip of him getting into his Karma sedan.


The contributions database at OpenSecrets.org shows that Lane contributes to some Democrats but mostly Republicans — and he gave money to Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain in 2008, not Barack Obama or other Democrats running for president. He also contributed to George W. Bush in 2003 and Bob Dole in 1995. (However, he has praised the Obama administration for its willingness to back alternative energy ventures, saying it would be “silly” to think an automobile company could be created without government help.)

And speaking of Kleiner, a regular contributor to Romney and a $100,000 contributor to Romney’s SuperPAC Restore Our Future is Meg Whitman, the database shows. Whitman, now chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, was a strategic advisor to Kleiner in 2011.

UPDATE: Doerr was not absent from the issue. We should have noted that Doerr is listed on Kleiner’s “Greentech” team, that he testified before Congress in January, 2009, on investing in green technology as a strategy for economic recovery, and Time magazine reported that Obama relied on advice from Doerr and and other green-energy advocates, just as the Bush administration relied on advice from representatives of the oil, natural-gas and coal industries.

Meanwhile, the actual announcement of Kleiner’s investment took place before Obama became president. Here’s part of an Associated Press account, under the headline “E-car startups try to compete with major companies”:

Fisker raised more than $90 million in venture capital in 2008, the company said. Its investors include top venture capital firms such as California-based Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, of which former Vice President Al Gore is a partner, and Palo Alto Investors.
Tesla [a rival auto company] has raised at least $165 million since 2006, according to estimates by analysts, and its top investors include Musk, former eBay Inc. President Jeffrey Skoll, and Google Inc.’s founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Tesla announced $40 million in financing in November to expand its powertrain venture and continue development.
Both are seeking significant funding from the Energy Department’s $25 billion loan program to develop advanced vehicles. The outgoing Bush administration has not yet announced any awards.
In other words, Kleiner raised venture capital for Fisker before Obama became president. Moreover, Fisker had applied for a loan under the Bush administration.

The loan was approved by the Obama administration, but unlike the situation with Solyndra that we have previously detailed, Fisker received its loan under the original Bush program. The announcement details how the first part of the loan, $169 million, would be used to work “with primarily U.S. suppliers to complete the company’s first vehicle, the Fisker Karma.” The second part of the loan, $359.36 million, will be used for “the manufacture of a plug-in hybrid in the U.S.”

Fisker spokesman Roger Ormisher said the Energy Department knew from the beginning that the Karma cars would be produced in Finland, by a contract manufacturer, with about 50 percent of the value of the car sourced from American suppliers. He said the entire loan has been used for design and engineering work in the United States, and the actual production in Finland was paid for by private investors.

Still, as The Washington Post has documented, Fisker is a troubled company. The General Accounting Office has also raised questions about the Energy Department’s ability to manage the loans.

But, contrary to Romney’s suggestion, Fisker has not received $500 million because much of the second tranche of its loan was suspended by the Energy Department after the company missed deadlines. Ormisher said the company has drawn down $193 million of the $529 million loan, but has raised $1 billion from private investors. He said that accountants and the Energy Department had independently verified that all of the government loan money was spent in the United States. He also said the company intends to pay back the loan with interest, and is in negotiations with the Energy Department for the suspension of the remaining monies to be lifted.

The loan suspension did result in a couple dozen layoffs at what is hoped to be a Delaware manufacturing plant. But about 1,000 Karmas have been sold, Ormisher said, resulting in $100 million in revenue. He said at least 500 jobs had been created in the United States as a result of the Energy Department loan.

The Romney campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Romney’s misleading history of tax returns issued by presidential contenders
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 07/17/2012 TheWashingtonPost
Text Size Print E-mail Reprints Share: More > Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Reddit StumbleUpon Digg Delicious top: -5px;">Google +1

(Evan Vucci/AP - AP)
“John McCain ran for president and released two years of tax returns. John Kerry ran for president; you know, his wife, who has hundreds of millions of dollars, she never released her tax returns. Somehow this wasn’t an issue.”

— Mitt Romney, on Fox News, July 16, 2012

“It's standard for the last Republican nominee, the last Democratic nominee.”

— Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie, on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” July 15, 2012, answering a question on why Romney will release only two years of tax returns.

In trying to fend off demands — from both Democrats and even some Republicans — that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney release more than two years of tax returns, his campaign has sought to claim that releasing two years of tax returns is normal. (Romney so far has released his 2010 return and an estimate for his 2011 return.)

Is that really the case? Let’s check out Gillespie’s claim, presumably about McCain and President Obama, and Romney’s claim that the tax returns of Teresa Heinz Kerry were “not an issue.”




The Facts


The Tax History Project run by TaxAnalysts has a fascinating Web page with the tax returns of presidents and presidential candidates, dating all the way back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. McCain, it is correct, released two years of tax returns, but Obama released seven years of tax returns.

Looking over the years at Obama’s returns, one can see how he suddenly became a wealthy man in 2005 from sales of his reissued memoir. In that year, he earned more than $1 million in income from book sales.

So Gillespie is simply wrong to claim that it is standard for the “last Democratic nominee.” (The Romney campaign did not respond to a request for comment.)

In fact, McCain is really the exception. John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, Bill Clinton in 1992 and Michael Dukakis in 1988 all released many years of tax returns when they ran for president against the incumbent, either at the time or because they had routinely released tax returns while in public office. (There was no incumbent in 2000.) Dole, in fact, released tax returns for a whopping 30 years.

Of course, Romney’s father, George Romney, is famous for having released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968, saying “one year could be a fluke.” As BuzzFeed showed, he paid an effective tax rate of 50 percent — those were days before the Reagan tax cuts.

And what of Kerry’s wife? Romney must have missed the controversy, largely fanned by Republicans, about her tax returns, in which they darkly suggested that she was secretly funding her husband’s presidential campaign. (She inherited the Heinz fortune from her late husband, and it was worth at least $500 million.)

A quick check of the clips shows that it was rather big issue, so much so that she eventually made public the first two pages of her 2003 return.

That was not enough for Republicans, who wanted an even broader look. Amusingly, we see that the Wall Street Journal editorial page complained that, with an effective tax rate of 12.4 percent, “she is paying a lower average rate than nearly all middle-class taxpayers paid in 2001” — similar to the line that the Obama campaign has been using about Romney’s tax rate.

Romney, in his Senate race against Ted Kennedy in 1994, demanded that Kennedy release his tax returns, and Kennedy refused. In his 2002 race for governor, Romney cited Kennedy’s refusal, quoting him as saying, “I value my privacy.” Romney added: “I think he was right and I was wrong.” He never released his tax returns in that campaign.

However, Romney did provide the McCain campaign with 23 years’ worth of tax returns as part of the vetting process for being considered for vice president. Those returns were not released publicly. The Romney tax returns for the years 2008 and 2009, which he has not released or shared with others, would reflect his earnings during the depths of the recent economic crisis.




The Pinocchio Test


McCain did release two years of tax returns, but the Romney campaign is being misleading with its suggestions that releasing two years of tax returns is some sort of standard for presidential contenders. Two years is actually the exception — only one challenger out of the last seven presidential nominees has released just two years of returns.

Moreover, Romney is wrong to suggest that releasing the tax returns of Kerry’s wife “wasn’t an issue” in the 2004 campaign. It was a big issue, because Republicans made it one.


Three Pinocchios

4 Pinocchios for Romney’s claim on an Obama health care pledge
Posted by Glenn Kessler at 06:00 AM ET, 07/03/2012 TheWashingtonPost
Text Size Print E-mail Reprints Share: More > Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Reddit StumbleUpon Digg Delicious top: -5px;">Google +1

(mittromney.com) “Promise: President Obama promised to lower annual health insurance premiums by $2,500…Result: Annual health insurance premiums have increased by $2,393....Gap: health premium costs are $4,893 higher per family than President Obama promised.”

— new Facebook/Twitter post by the Romney campaign

Promises made during the heat of an election campaign sometimes come back to haunt politicians.

The campaign of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is trying to nail President Obama for making an iffy promise during the 2008 campaign — that premiums will be $2,500 lower under his health care plan. Instead, the Romney campaign argues in an effort to create a viral Facebook post, the swing has gone $4,893 the other way.

The Romney graphic is false on several levels, though Obama certainly left himself open to scrutiny with imprecise language in the 2008 campaign. Let’s take a look.


The Facts


The Romney campaign cites a statement from a 2007 speech by Obama, but it’s a pledge that was repeated often: “When I am president, we will have universal health care in this country by the end of my first term in office. It's a plan that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by $2,500 a year.”


This particular quote is not very clear on when the savings would be realized, but in another speech, in 2008, Obama suggested it would be at the end of his first term — though to be fair, it is not clear if he is talking about the savings or enacting a new health care law:

“In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year. And we'll do it by investing in disease prevention, not just disease management; by investing in a paperless health care system to reduce administrative costs; and by covering every single American and making sure that they can take their health care with them if they lose their job. We'll also reduce costs for business and their workers by picking up the tab for some of the most expensive illnesses. And we won't do all this twenty years from now, or ten years from now. We'll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.”
The details of this number were further explained in an Obama campaign memo:



“Combining all of these effects — from improved health IT [information technology], better disease management, reduced insurance overhead, reinsurance, and reduced uncompensated care — under our “best-guess” assumptions, we estimate that businesses will save $140 billion annually in insurance premiums. The typical family will save $2500 per year.”

But note that Obama’s pledge came with an asterisk: He was not saying premiums would fall by that amount, as the Romney graphic asserts, but that costs would be that much lower than anticipated. In other words, if premiums were expected to rise by $5,000, they would only rise by $2,500 — that’s what Obama’s pledge meant, even if he was not too clear about it.

Michael Dobbs, our predecessor as The Fact Checker, awarded Obama Two Pinocchios for the pledge, saying it was based on shaky assumptions (such as a Rand Corp. study that was criticized by the Congressional Budget Office) and there was no guarantee that any savings would be passed on to consumers. Our colleagues at FactCheck.org also thought Obama’s pledge was highly dubious.

Of course, once Obama became president, the health care proposal he advocated as a candidate was significantly changed, even to the point of accepting the individual mandate that he had so criticized when Hillary Rodham Clinton promoted it. But the White House more or less stuck to the idea that costs would not rise as quickly as previously estimated — except that it would result in $2,000 in savings by 2019. (Recall also that the health care law will not be implemented until 2014, making a first-term pledge problematic.)

Now, let’s look at what the Romney campaign has done with the pledge. First, it assumes that Obama was saying that premiums would actually decline by $2,500, rather than decline from a projected increase. Then, it takes the 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey estimate (Exhibit 1.11) and subtracts the cost of a 2008 family premium ($12,680) from the cost of a 2011 premium ($15,073). Viola, an increase of $2,393—and a promise gap of $4,893.

The Romney campaign’s math is nonsensical. First of all, the Kaiser survey is conducted from January to May each year, so starting with the 2008 date makes little sense, since that is still George W. Bush’s term. Then the health care law was not passed until 2010, so the first year in which any impact could be seen from the law was in 2011.

But, as the Kaiser report notes, most of the provisions of the new law will not take effect in 2014. Thus far, other provisions, such as providing coverage for adult children up to age 26, appear to have had a modest impact on premiums--perhaps 1 to 2 percentage points. (The White House disputes even that effect.) Still, the full effect on premiums — including any possible savings — will not be seen until the law is completely implemented.

We had previously given the Republican National Committee Three Pinocchios for an ad that had focused on the single data point — the increase in premiums from 2010 to 2011 — and blamed all of the increase on the health care law. Now the Romney campaign has quadrupled the same error in an effort to claim that “health premium costs are $4,893 higher per family than President Obama promised.”


The Pinocchio Test


Obama in 2008 made a foolish, dubious pledge about health care premiums. As we have noted, he will have to answer to Americans if his law fails to live up to that promise by 2019 or if people feel misled by his lawyerly wording. He was warned when he got Two Pinocchios back in 2008.

But two wrongs don’t make a right. The Romney campaign has twisted the meaning of that pledge, and then blamed a partially implemented, one-year-old law for three years of premium increases, in order to concoct an absurd claim.

I can see why you would think that.

‘Anglo-Saxon’ comment hangs over Romney in Britain
By Agence France-Presse
Wednesday, July 25, 2012 17:33 EDT Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon20 Topics: mitt romney ♦ romney

WASHINGTON — The start of Mitt Romney’s foreign tour was overshadowed Wednesday by a reported remark by an aide that President Barack Obama doesn’t understand the “Anglo-Saxon heritage” shared by Britain and the United States.

The Republican White House hopeful’s campaign scrambled to deny that one of its operatives had told a British newspaper that Romney, unlike Obama, understands the “Anglo-Saxon heritage” underpinning the so-called special relationship with Britain.

In the context of previous jibes that the Democratic incumbent, the United States’ first black leader, does not understand American values and business practice, the latest alleged comments were seen as racially charged.


But Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Hennenberg said in a statement that the British report was mistaken.

“It’s not true,” she said. “If anyone said that, they weren’t reflecting the views of governor Romney or anyone inside the campaign.”

British newspaper The Daily Telegraph said it had interviewed two Romney advisers who said their man would be better than President Barack Obama at reinforcing the special bond between the United States and Britain.

“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” an unnamed adviser told the Telegraph. “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have.”

...

Rolling with the G-Man on this one. We can talk about the successive waves of other European and non-European cultures into the USA. That's fine and dandy. It still doesn't change the fact that we started off as 13 fucking English colonies and that much of our customs and ideas on the government are deeply steeped in that heritage. Fuck, you aren't even guaranteed a trial by jury of your peers in freaking France!

There's a difference though from talking about a shared Anglo-Saxon heritage between two countries and saying Obama doesn't understand that heritage. Why would Obama as a fellow American understand that heritage any less than Romney?

Because he's a retard.

“We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere,” said Cameron, which was interpreted as a reference to Salt Lake City and Utah.

Romney follows up ‘Anglo-Saxon’ gaffe by disparaging Olympic readiness
By David Ferguson
Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:31 EDT Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon111 Topics: London ♦ Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ♦ mitt romney

Republican presidential hopeful and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) is frantically trying to walk back disparaging comments he made about London’s readiness to host the Olympics, and for casting doubt on Britain’s willingness to “come together and celebrate the Olympic moment,” according to the Agence France Presse.

Mending this gaffe comes just days after Romney faced sharp criticism for a remark an anonymous foreign policy adviser made to reporter John Swaine of the Telegraph. The aide reportedly said that a Romney administration would restore “Anglo-Saxon” values to the special relationship enjoyed by the U.S. and the U.K., a statement that struck many as overtly racist.

It was in an interview in London with NBC’s Brian Williams that Romney said that he found stories he was hearing about London’t readiness for the Olympic Games “disconcerting.”


“It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out,” he said of the games and the lapses in security that have surrounded them, “There are a few things that were disconcerting. The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials — that obviously is not something which is encouraging.”

He also questioned British people’s willingness to embrace the Games.

“Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment?” he asked. “That’s something which we only find out once the Games actually begin.”

The candidate has spent Thursday on damage-control, trying to minimize long-term impact to his campaign.

In a meeting with Labour Party leader Ed Miliband that Romney began to try to walk back his statements, saying that “(i)t is impossible for absolutely no mistakes to occur” in something as large and complicated as the Olympic Games.

“Of course there will be errors from time to time,” he said, “but those are all overshadowed by the extraordinary demonstrations of courage, character and determination by the athletes.”


The BBC has pointed out that Romney appeared to not know Miliband’s name, instead calling him “Mr. Leader.”

Vice President Joe Biden has criticized Romney’s remarks. “Despite his promises that politics stops at the water’s edge, Gov. Romney’s wheels hadn’t even touched down in London before his advisers were reportedly playing politics with international diplomacy,” Biden said in a statement.

“The comments reported this morning are a disturbing start to a trip designed to demonstrate Gov. Romney’s readiness to represent the United States on the world’s stage … This assertion is beneath a presidential campaign.”

Romney will leave the U.K. later this week to continue his trip in Poland and Israel.

UPDATE: British Prime Minister David Cameron has responded to Romney’s comments, saying in a press conference, “You’re going to see beyond doubt that Britain can deliver.”

Cameron hit back at Romney, saying that perhaps the Utah Winter Olympics were easier to assemble, given that they were not being staged in a metropolis like London.

“We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.”

Cameron went on to say, “I think we will show the whole world not just that we come together as a United Kingdom but also we’re extremely good at welcoming people from across the world. I will obviously make those points to Mitt Romney. I look forward to meeting him.”

UPDATE 2: Romney gaffed again when he told reporters outside the residence of Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron that he had just met with the head of Britain’s top secret MI6, an organization so cloaked in mystery that it is rarely even acknowledged in public. It is highly unusual that anyone from MI6 would meet with an agent of a foreign government, particularly one who is not yet elected to the office for which he is campaigning.

The Telegraph quotes Patrick Mercer MP, a former chairman of the House of Commons’s intelligence and security sub-committee, as saying, “It is very unusual. The head of MI6’s time is extremely precious. I wonder if this does not set a strange precedent where other leaders of other oppositions will also want similar briefings.”

Guardian blogger Tom McCarthy wrote, “For our American readership, this isn’t like bragging you just met David Petraeus. The British take on the national secret intelligence service comes with an extra-heavy dollop of the whole secret thing. The very existence of the MI6 was not officially acknowledged until 1994.”

McCarthy continued, “Good luck, Romney handlers: this is only stop No. 1 on a three-stop international tour. What will he say in Jerusalem?”

What, indeed?

I dunno, they're calling Romney "Mitt the Twit" across the pond. Not sure if I would be so quick to speak for them.

It's still miles above sending a bust of Winston Churchill (a gift from the British government) back to the British embassy with intended hostility and insult

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.

Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”

This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...ston-churchill

The Telegraph

As Telegraph readers will recall, one of the earliest actions of the Obama presidency when it came to office in 2009 was to return a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the British Embassy, an extraordinary move considering the huge admiration for the wartime leader on both sides of the Atlantic. Tim Shipman, The Sunday Telegraph’s Washington correspondent at the time (now Deputy Political Editor at The Daily Mail), was the first to break the story:

• A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back. The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure. But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

The decision to return the bust naturally sparked outrage at home and abroad, and has caused considerable embarrassment over the years for the Obama administration. This week the White House has stumbled again over the Churchill bust issue (hat tip Keith Koffler at the terrific White House Dossier blog.)

In response to an article by Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer published on Friday, which highlighted the decision to return the bust, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tried to rubbish The Post piece, issuing a statement on Saturday that the bust was, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still in the White House:

• Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.
  
  Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”
  
  This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room. News outlets have debunked this claim time and again. First, back in 2010 the National Journal reported that “the Churchill bust was relocated to a prominent spot in the residence to make room for Abraham Lincoln, a figure from whom the first African-American occupant of the Oval Office might well draw inspiration in difficult times.”
  
  And just in case anyone forgot, just last year the AP reported that President Obama “replaced the Oval Office fixture with a bust of one of his American heroes, President Abraham Lincoln, and moved the Churchill bust to the White House residence.”
  
  In case these news reports are not enough for Mr. Krauthammer and others, here’s a picture of the President showing off the Churchill bust to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House residence in 2010. Hopefully this clears things up a bit and prevents folks from making this ridiculous claim again.

The British Embassy in Washington, however, was quick to correct Pfeiffer’s remarks, its spokesman telling ABC’s Jake Tapper:

• The bust of Sir Winston Churchill, by Sir Jacob Epstein, was lent to the George W. Bush administration from the U.K.’s government art collection, for the duration of the presidency. When that administration came to an end so did the loan; the bust now resides in the British Ambassador’s Residence in Washington D.C. The White House collection has its own Epstein bust of Churchill, which President Obama showed to Prime Minister Cameron when he visited the White House in March.

Mr. Pfeiffer was subsequently forced to publish an embarrassing, though still defiant, mea culpa in the form of an ”update”, acknowledging that the bust of Churchill loaned to the White House by the British government had indeed been removed from the Oval Office by the Obama administration:

• Since my post on the fact that the bust of Winston Churchill has remained on display in the White House, despite assertions to the contrary, I have received a bunch of questions — so let me provide some additional info. The White House has had a bust of Winston Churchill since the 1960’s. At the start of the Bush administration Prime Minister Blair lent President Bush a bust that matched the one in the White House, which was being worked on at the time and was later returned to the residence.
  
  The version lent by Prime Minister Blair was displayed by President Bush until the end of his Presidency. On January 20, 2009 — Inauguration Day — all of the art lent specifically for President Bush’s Oval Office was removed by the curator’s office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency. The original Churchill bust remained on display in the residence. The idea put forward by Charles Krauthammer and others that President Obama returned the Churchill bust or refused to display the bust because of antipathy towards the British is completely false and an urban legend that continues to circulate to this day.

The White House clearly owes Charles Krauthammer, one of America’s sharpest and most well-informed columnists, an apology. Mr. Krauthammer thoroughly researches his articles, and is meticulously careful with his facts. And as for the Churchill bust itself it would be wonderful to see it eventually back in the Oval Office (with the good graces of the British government) in recognition of the great wartime prime minister, and the enduring importance and vital role of the US-UK Special Relationship.

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure. But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure. But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: "Thanks, but no thanks."

There's a difference though from talking about a shared Anglo-Saxon heritage between two countries and saying Obama doesn't understand that heritage. Why would Obama as a fellow American understand that heritage any less than Romney? After the Sununu comment it does look like Romney is going there.

White House wants Romney to explain Israel remarks
By Agence France-Presse
Monday, July 30, 2012 19:58 EDT Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon69 Topics: republican presidential hopeful mitt romney ♦ the White House ♦ white house

WASHINGTON — The White House called Monday on Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney to explain recent remarks including his apparent endorsement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a position that counters US policy.

Romney, in the midst of a three-nation tour, gave a speech Sunday in Jerusalem where he hailed the city as “the capital of Israel,” in apparent support of a position held by the Jewish state but never accepted by the global community.

The comment was swiftly rejected by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat as “unacceptable” and “harmful to American interests in our region.”


But after Romney made fresh controversial statements Monday to donors in Jerusalem including suggesting Israeli “culture” helped explain the country’s economic success — a position Erakat denounced as “racist” — President Barack Obama’s office urged Romney to clarify his comments.

“One of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage, particularly when you’re traveling to such a sensitive part of the world, is that your comments are very closely scrutinized for meaning, for nuance, for motivation,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said about the Monday remarks.

The comments have left some people “scratching their heads a little bit,” Earnest told reporters at the daily White House briefing. “But I would leave it to governor Romney to further explain what he meant and what he intended when he said that.”

Earnest said Romney’s position on Jerusalem, the eastern half of which Palestinians claim as the capital of a promised future state, runs counter to longstanding US policy.

“It’s the view of this administration that the capital is something that should be determined in final status negotiations between the parties,” Earnest said.

“If Mr. Romney disagrees with that position, he’s also disagreeing with the position that was taken by presidents like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.”

White House wants Romney to explain Israel remarks

...At the Jerusalem fundraiser, Romney offered additional ammunition for his critics when he pointed out the general good health of the Israeli people and their ability to keep medical costs down. Noting that healthcare spending in Israel is 8% of GDP compared with 18% in the U.S., he said, "We have to find ways, not just to provide healthcare to more people, but to find ways to find and manage our healthcare costs."

Israel, however, has a national healthcare system, with some similarities to the President Obama-backed U.S. healthcare plan Romney has vowed to repeal. (The Obama plan was based on the Massachusetts plan Romney approved as governor.)

...

Romney aide to reporters: ‘Kiss my *ss; this is a holy site’
By David Edwards
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:46 EDT Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon122 Topics: presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney ♦ Reporters ♦ Rick Gorka

A Romney aide frustrated by questions about a series of gaffes the former Massachusetts governor made while Britain, Israel and Poland exploded on Monday and told reporters to “shove it.”

During a visit to a memorial to Pope John Paul II in Poland, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney ignored questions from reporters about his overseas gaffes and his suggestion that Israelis were culturally superior to Palestinians, but traveling press secretary Rick Gorka responded with rage.

“This is a holy site for the Polish people,” Gorka said. “Show some respect.”


“We haven’t had another chance to ask some questions,” the reporter explained.

“Kiss my ass; this is a holy site for the Polish people,” Gorka shot back, adding, “Shove it.”

The aide later called two of the reporters to apologize, according to Politico.

“It was inappropriate,” Gorka admitted.

So in your mind Romney didn't actually say what the press reported but made it up?

BTW you left out that Walesa's union doesn't endorse Romney. Since he's firmly anti-union it's odd that Walesa would.

As mentioned before, as soon as George W. Bush had to take on Islam, ...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-1-2012/you--harry-reid--are-terrible

Bush called Islam a religion of peace after 9/11 so when you say "take on" perhaps you should clarify what you mean.

"Islam is Peace" Says President
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.



View the President's Remarks
Listen to the President's Remarks

3:12 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We've just had a -- wide-ranging discussions on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks. And so were Muslims all across the world. Both Americans and Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslims in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens.

These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it's important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Koran, itself: In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil. For that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race -- out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads. And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.

Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That's not the America I know. That's not the America I value.

I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

This is a great country. It's a great country because we share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They're outraged, they're sad. They love America just as much as I do.

I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by. And may God bless us all.

Study: Romney tax plan would shift burden toward poor
By Charles Riley @CNNMoney August 1, 2012: 2:01 PM ET

A new study indicates that Mitt Romney's tax plan would shift the tax burden to the middle and lower classes.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney's tax plan would provide large tax cuts to the very wealthy, while increasing the tax burden on the lower and middle classes, according to a study released Wednesday.

The report -- produced by researchers at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center -- illustrates just how difficult it would be to recoup government revenue lost under Romney's plan.


The presumptive Republican presidential nominee's tax plan calls for 20% cuts to today's Bush-era income tax rates. He would also eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Those tax cuts would lead to a sharp decline in government revenue. Yet Romney insists he will make up the difference in-part by limiting deductions, exemptions and credits currently available to top-level income earners.

Romney refuses to say which tax breaks he plans to eliminate -- but the Tax Policy Center report indicates the plan would force the tax burden to shift toward lower and middle-class Americans.


"A revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed ... would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers," the report concludes.


According to the study, the Romney tax cuts would produce a $360 billion revenue loss in 2015, and offsetting that would require a reduction of 65% of all available tax expenditures.

Such popular tax breaks include deductions for mortgage interest and state income taxes, the exclusion from income of employer-paid health insurance and lower tax rates on capital gains.

"Such a reduction by itself would be unprecedented, and would require deep reductions in many popular tax benefits," the report said.



And because most tax breaks go to the poor and middle class, "maintaining revenue neutrality mathematically necessitates a shift in the tax burden of at least $86 billion away from high-income taxpayers and onto lower- and middle-income taxpayers."

The end result is that individuals who make less than $200,000 would actually have to pay $500 more, on average, in taxes -- a 1.2% decrease in after-tax income, the study found.

Meanwhile, the after-tax income of individuals who make more than $1 million would increase by 4.1%.

...

As mentioned before, as soon as George W. Bush had to take on Islam, my wife fell in love with the religion on a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory. Later, when it was revealed her messiah BHO was born and raised a Muslim, that cemented her love for the Muslim faith.

As such, she is completely, and perhaps willfully, blind to the fact that Islam is at least, and probably more, intolerant than the worst backwoods bible thumper.

I agree that the Israel comments were calculated. Romney wants some of those Jewish votes and would say about anything to get them. When you start talking about one group being more culturally superior than another and the hand of providence playing a part, that doesn't strike me as good statemanship.

And by "say about anything", you mean Romney would actually stand by Israel. .....

This country already does stand by Israel.

Romney is just pandering to try to get votes and ended up insulting people.

Half the population doesn't like liberals.

I don't agree with that. I don't think even you believe that. Don't like and don't agree are not the same thing buddy.

I think I have a better understanding of what the political Left is about than most people

Romney campaign: Don't 'read too much' into slipping polls
By Justin Sink - 08/10/12 12:03 PM ET
Mitt Romney's presidential campaign said Friday it isn't worried about a series of national polls that shows the presumptive Republican nominee slipping significantly behind President Obama.

A senior adviser to Romney's campaign, briefing reporters in Boston about the candidate's upcoming bus tour, said Team Romney wasn't concerned about new surveys from CNN, Fox News and Reuters that show Romney between seven and nine points behind the president.



"It's the middle of summer, it’s the doldrums. It’s the Olympics. There has not been any national news that would push these numbers from -3 to -9," the adviser said, according to Buzzfeed.


The polls have shown significant movement for Obama among independents, while Romney's unfavorability rating has continued to climb. In the Fox News poll, more viewed Romney in a negative light than a positive one, while Obama had a net 14-point favorability advantage.

But the Romney aide said the polls were likely anomalies, and that recent campaign hiccups — like an international trip plagued by embarrassing moments — were not likely responsible.

"The impact of the European trip is negligible," the adviser said. "You’ve got to have something precipitate that sort of sea change, and we haven’t."

Book Description
Publication Date: January 8, 2008


“Fascists,” “Brownshirts,” “jackbooted stormtroopers”—such are the insults typically hurled at conservatives by their liberal opponents. Calling someone a fascist is the fastest way to shut them up, defining their views as beyond the political pale. But who are the real fascists in our midst?

Liberal Fascism offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism.

Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist.

Do these striking parallels mean that today’s liberals are genocidal maniacs, intent on conquering the world and imposing a new racial order? Not at all. Yet it is hard to deny that modern progressivism and classical fascism shared the same intellectual roots. We often forget, for example, that Mussolini and Hitler had many admirers in the United States. W.E.B. Du Bois was inspired by Hitler's Germany, and Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song. Many fascist tenets were espoused by American progressives like John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson, and FDR incorporated fascist policies in the New Deal.

VP announcement comes as Romney’s poll numbers slip

Posted by
CNN's Ashley Killough
(CNN) - As Mitt Romney prepares to unveil his running mate pick Saturday morning, recent polls show President Barack Obama has expanded his margin over the presumptive GOP nominee.

According to a CNN/ORC International survey released Thursday, 52% of registered voters say they would support the president, while 45% are backing Romney.

In the same survey last month, Obama held a three-point margin over Romney, 49%- 46%, a difference that fell within the survey's sampling error.

The results are in line with three other surveys released in the last two days. CNN's Poll of Polls, which averages the most recent results, indicates Obama is ahead with 49% support, followed by Romney at 43%.

Romney has also been struggling to improve his popularity among voters in recent weeks, with polls showing that the Republican candidate's unfavorability ratings are on the rise.

His unfavorability rating jumped from 42% last month to 48% now. Meanwhile, the president's 56%-42% favorable-unfavorable rating changed little during the same time period, according to the new CNN/ORC International poll.

...

cnn.com

I wonder if Romney is hoping the VP thing will give him a bounce or at least change the subject?

What do you consider evil crap? Looking at the letters you linked too I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I don't see any of them call Romney evil.

ohmigodprometheus!!

You gotta admit: posting the same thing in thread after thread in an effort to get WB's goat is pretty Prometheish.

Mitt Romney: 'Victims' comment not elegantly stated
Originally published: September 17, 2012 10:38 PM
Updated: September 18, 2012 5:49 AM
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Key swing states in 2012 WASHINGTON - Republican Mitt Romney is trying to head off a new distraction for his campaign after a video surfaced showing him telling wealthy donors that 47 percent of all Americans "believe they are victims" entitled to help from the government that permeates their lives.

At an impromptu news conference Monday, Romney offered no apologies, conceding the comments were not "elegantly stated" and were spoken "off the cuff." The Republican presidential nominee said the remarks showed a contrast between President Barack Obama's "government-centered society" and his belief in a "free-market approach."

"Of course, I want to help all Americans, all Americans, have a bright and prosperous future," Romney told reporters.

Obama's campaign pounced on the video, which was obtained by the magazine Mother Jones and released only hours after Romney's campaign outlined a new strategy to try to rejuvenate a struggling campaign. The video's emergence came as advisers to the former Massachusetts governor tried to reassure party leaders and donors about Romney's strategy amid concerns that the race could be slipping away.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney is shown saying in the video of a May 17 fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

Romney said in the video that his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

In a 7-minute news conference with reporters before a fundraiser near Los Angeles, Romney did not dispute the authenticity of the hidden-camera footage, but he called for the release of the full video, instead of just the clips posted online. He sought to clarify his remarks but did not apologize when a reporter asked if he was concerned that he may have offended people.

"It's not elegantly stated, let me put it that way. I was speaking off the cuff in response to a question. And I'm sure I could state it more clearly in a more effective way than I did in a setting like that," Romney said.

About 46 percent of Americans owed no federal income tax in 2011, although many of them paid other forms of taxes. More than 16 million elderly Americans avoid federal income taxes solely because of tax breaks that apply only to seniors, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The video was the latest headache for Romney's campaign, which has tried to focus attention on a weak economic recovery and make the case that the Republican's business background would help spur the economy. In recent weeks, it has dealt with the fallout from Clint Eastwood's rambling conversation with a chair at the Republican convention and Romney's omission of the war in Afghanistan or thanks to the troops in his primetime convention speech.

The eruption of violence in Egypt and Libya last week prompted Romney to issue a statement assailing the Obama administration before it was known that an American ambassador and three other U.S. citizens had died in Libya, a move that generated criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.

...

Eh,it's no better/worse than when Obama made his recorded comments at a fundraiser about people that cling to their guns and religion. These are comments that are made to those that share the same opinion/view as the person speaking. No more,no less in my opinion. Much ado about nothing.

So we have in 2012 two presidential candidates who—when they thought they were speaking privately to their fellow 1 percenters—have shown contempt for fellow Americans.

Here's Barack Obama, on April 6, 2008, in San Francisco:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

It's worth recalling that Obama was speaking about Democrats who were voting in the primary for Hillary Clinton. So Obama seems to have contempt not just for the Republicans who oppose him, but for millions of Americans who ended up voting for him in November 2008.

And here's Mitt Romney, on May 17, 2012, in Boca Raton:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what….These are people who pay no income tax.... [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

It's worth recalling that a good chunk of the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes are Romney supporters—especially of course seniors (who might well "believe they are entitled to heath care," a position Romney agrees with), as well as many lower-income Americans (including men and women serving in the military) who think conservative policies are better for the country even if they're not getting a tax cut under the Romney plan. So Romney seems to have contempt not just for the Democrats who oppose him, but for tens of millions who intend to vote for him.

It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that Romney's comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant.

Indeed: Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country?

That is a good point. However, whereas the media did their level best to cover up the Obama remarks, they're pulling an all out offensive against Romney.

They've completely dropped all pretext of being anything but appendages of the DNC.

That.

Romney isn't fit to be President after revealling how he felt about half the country. Don't blame the media because they're reporting what the fool said. It makes you sound like one of those victims.

Romney Taking Hits in Republican Party as Polls Show Obama Edge
By Lisa Lerer and Julie Hirschfeld Davis - Sep 20, 2012 6:08 AM CT

Republican Mitt Romney is being hit with criticism in his own party over the tone and direction of the election campaign with a narrowing window of time to regroup.

Even as Romney tried to transform his latest stumble into an attack on President Barack Obama, a series of national polls showed the incumbent's lead growing, leaving some Republicans anxious about his prospects, uncomfortable with the management of his campaign and impatient for him to turn the contest around.

“He’s had two narratives over the last week and a half: one that says, ‘Is he compassionate?’; the other that says, ‘Is he competent?’,” Matthew Dowd, a Bloomberg analyst and former strategist for President George W. Bush, said on Bloomberg Television. “Both of those have created this opportunity for the president to reinforce a lead that he was already gaining.”

Less than 50 days before Election Day and less than two weeks before the first of three debates against Obama, Romney is still working to get his campaign back on track after the Sept. 17 release of a secretly recorded video of his remarks to donors in which he described 47 percent of Americans as government- dependent “victims” who don’t pay taxes and won’t vote for him
...

There's been criticism from republican's about Romney's awful 9/11 attack & his 47% remarks. I can repost them if you missed seeing them but I'm guessing you're aware of them but just don't want to acknowledge that it's not just one side saying this stuff about Romney.

Since Romney in his own words let us know how he really felt about almost half the country I think you're going to have to ramp things up with the anti-Obama propaganda WB. Many republicans might be able to hold their nose and vote Romney but I would be really surprised if he can get beyond that.

You can't prove to me what Romney said is wrong, because it isn't.
Romney stated a fact, that close to 50% of the nation is not paying taxes, and is re4ceiving benefits from the government.
And Romney, unquestionably correctly, states that it is very difficult to get these people to vote for him, and he should focus his election strategy on those who pay taxes and/or own businesses.

You try to spin that as somehow untrue or wrong. But those are the pure and simple facts.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney is shown saying in the video of a May 17 fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla. "There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."

Romney said in the video that his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

I'm sick of people saying "at least you have a job" when there are lots of families sitting on their asses collecting welfare and food stamps while living in government subsidized housing nicer and cheaper than my crappy townhouse while I stress over paying my bills every month. Where exactly is my incentive to work and continue contributing to this?

Please vote for the president who can improve the dollar's going rate against the philippine peso. Because everytime the dollar rate goes down, my wage gets smaller.

I'm sick of people saying "at least you have a job" when there are lots of families sitting on their asses collecting welfare and food stamps while living in government subsidized housing nicer and cheaper than my crappy townhouse while I stress over paying my bills every month. Where exactly is my incentive to work and continue contributing to this?

Well speaking for myself, I'm glad I have a job. Maybe it's different where you live but I don't think welfare here is all that great. It might be enough for some to squeek by but I don't know anybody who's tempted to quit their jobs for it.

Keep in mind Romney wasn't just speaking about those on welfare either. If you didn't pay federal taxes he was including you with the welfare people.

What's seventeen days of defending it between Mitt and nearly half the nation? Water under the bridge. That's what. Apparently. Maybe. Probably not.

I'm kinda interested in how those that defended the comments for him feel about being thrown under the bus as heartless, though.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The real Mitt Romney only his wealthiest contributors get to see until he was secretly taped...

The Company Romney Keeps
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: October 26, 2012 Comment

Damon Winter/The New York Times
Charles M. Blow

If that is true, what does the company Mitt Romney keeps say about him?

This week Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama again, as he did in 2008. That apparently set John Sununu, a co-chairman of the Romney campaign, on edge. Powell’s endorsement couldn’t possibly be the product of purposeful deliberation over the candidates’ policies. In Sununu’s world of racial reductionism, Powell’s endorsement had a more base explanation: it was a black thing.

On Thursday, Sununu said on CNN:“When you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that’s an endorsement based on issues or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama.” He continued: “I think when you have somebody of your own race that you’re proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.”

Talk about damning with faint praise. In other words, Sununu was basically saying that he was applauding Powell’s inability to see past the color of his own eyelids.

Sununu is the same man who said that the president performed poorly in the first debate because “he’s lazy and disengaged.” He is also the same man who said of the president in July, “I wish this president would learn how to be an American.”

Could Sununu be unaware that many would register such comments as coded racism? Or was that the intent?

To understand Sununu, it is important to understand his political history.

For starters, he is no stranger to racism controversies. When George H.W. Bush selected him as chief of staff in 1988, The New York Times reported:

“Mr. Sununu’s selection was shadowed by concern among some key Jewish leaders. The 49-year-old New Hampshire Governor, whose father is Lebanese and who takes pride in his Arab ancestry, was the only governor to refuse to sign a June 1987 statement denouncing a 1975 United Nations resolution that equated Zionism with racism.”

But that wasn’t his undoing. It was his actions. In 1991, Sununu became enmeshed in a scandal over using government planes for personal trips.

After the embarrassment of the incident, Bush ordered Sununu to clear all future flights in advance. What happened later you must read for yourself, and it is best stated by Time Magazine in a July 1, 1991, article:

“If Sununu hadn’t exactly been grounded, he had certainly been sent to his room. But Bush underestimated the depth of Sununu’s ethical obtuseness and his zeal at finding a way around the rules. Like a rebellious adolescent, Sununu sneaked down the stairs, grabbed the car keys and slipped out of the White House. After all, the old man had only said, ‘Don’t take the plane.’ He didn’t say anything about the car.”


“Overcome by a sudden urge two weeks ago to buy rare stamps, Sununu ordered the driver of his government-paid limousine to drive him 225 miles to New York City. He spent the day — and nearly $5,000 — at an auction room at Christie’s. Then he dismissed the driver, who motored back to Washington with no passengers. Sununu returned on a private jet owned by Beneficial Corp.”

By the end of 1991, amid sagging poll numbers, Bush began to see Sununu as a drag and unceremoniously relieved him of his post. As The Times reported then, Sununu was made to plead for his job before he was pushed out anyway:

“Mr. Sununu and the White House portrayed the departure as voluntary. But it followed meetings in which Mr. Bush listened to Mr. Sununu’s arguments that he should stay on and then decided to follow the advice of top-level Republicans who urged the removal of his chief of staff.”

R. W. Apple Jr. wrote in The Times after the move that Bush’s “indirectly soliciting and then promptly accepting” Sununu’s resignation had made it abundantly clear what actually happened.

Sununu has apologized, somewhat, for his racial attack of Powell’s motives. But what should we make of all this?

We have a very racially divided electorate. As The Washington Post reported Thursday, “Obama has a deficit of 23 percentage points, trailing Republican Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among whites, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll.”

The report pointed out that nearly 80 percent of nonwhites support Obama, while 91 percent of Romney’s supporters are white.

I worry that Sununu’s statements intentionally go beyond recognizing racial disparities and seek to exploit them.

What does that say about Romney, and what does it say about his campaign’s tactics?

Remember: A man is known by the company he keeps.