The Romney campaign has truly awful timing. After weeks of the Obama campaign undermining Mitt Romney's standing with ads attacking the Republican's controversial private-sector background, Romney punched back hard this morning with a new ad that effectively (and ironically) accuses the president of being a big liar.
The strategy was simple: the whole day was supposed to be about Romney's claim that the president is the lyingest liar who's ever lied. Instead, the ad was released the same day as a new Boston Globe bombshell that catches Romney lying about his Bain background.
As we discussed yesterday, reporting from Mother Jones and TPM got this ball rolling, but it's the Globe piece that's being billed as "a potential game changer."
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.
Perhaps the most brutal element of the article comes towards the end: an unnamed Romney campaign official acknowledged that Romney's claims "do not square with common sense" given the SEC filings. Ouch.
To put it mildly, this has the potential to do some very serious damage to Romney's candidacy.
For one thing, there's the question of which of Romney's contradictory answers is the truth. When the editors of FactCheck.org initially took Romney's claims at face value to reject Democratic criticisms, they said the candidate must be telling the truth about his Bain departure date, because if he didn't really leave until 2002, then "Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999."
FactCheck.org meant that to be proof that Romney's claims were true. Now that there's ample evidence to the contrary, it's worth considering that whole "guilty of a federal felony" question again.
But even if we put that aside, the underlying point is why Romney wants people to believe he left Bain earlier than the apparent, documented date. On this, there's no great mystery: Romney doesn't want to be on the hook for a series of controversial Bain investments, layoffs, and bankruptcies that Bain oversaw after February 1999.
In other words, Romney isn't just accused of lying about a superficial clerical matter; he's accused of lying to avoid responsibility for his business' actions on his watch.
The Romney defense is that he was technically Bain's chief after February 1999, but he wasn't really involved with the company anymore. He was, as the New York Times described it the other day, "an absentee owner" who "left day-to-day management" to others.
But all of the new details make this defense hard to believe. This week's reporting suggests Romney was actively involved with running Bain Capital and overseeing its operations well after the point at which he claims to have departed from the firm.
What's more, we're looking at a larger story that's starting to snowball. Romney is now burdened by unexplained offshore finances, hidden tax returns, dubious disclosures, controversial investments, unanswered questions about his individual retirement account that somehow ended up with more than $100 million, and claims about his business that contradict SEC filings.
At some point, the Republican presidential candidate is probably going to have to come clean, answer questions from someone other than Fox, and set the record straight. If Romney's smart, he'll do this sooner, rather than later.
Leave a Comment:
It's too bad that the truth is so damaging to Romney - that probably means it will get less play than if it were a lie - a la swiftboating. Then again, there's all that research showing that the truth really doesn't matter to those who avidly support their "team."
The only thing Republicans and teabaggers care about is that Romney is white.
Yeah, but Romney needs more than just his "team" to win. The Republican base was always going to vote for him (though enthusiasm has some effect on turnout), but the real fight is over the uncommitted voters, and this isn't going to play well with them.
I just Hope Mitt Romney does Not Get Elected As President Of The United States.
http://whateverworks4you.blogspot.com/2012/07/i-hope-mitt-romney-does-not-get-elected.html
SEC filings, offshore accounts, dummy corporations- in his wife's name, no less! Smoking gun or arcane and awfully, awfully boring stuff?
Unless Obama (or Joe Biden!) can distill this down to bumper sticker size, I fear the latter. Americans don't do nuance. Or, apparently attempt critcal thinking on their own. . .
The media will present this only as "he said / she said." The Dems either have to go full-bore on this, or it won't hit home with people.
Biden is the best weapon Obama has to combat Romney's lies. The VP is plain spoken and can connect with average voters, particularly that group of blue collar workers that Obama's numbers are bad. Watch Biden run on this material all the way up to the debates when he brings the hammer down on Romney.
I hope you're right. Dems should use an Etch-A-Sketch in their campaign adds; just keep shaking it over and over.
Ed Schultz covered another interesting article yesterday about romney and his off-shore tax haven loving donors and what it's costing us all. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
Here's a little taste...
"Offshore tax havens are as damaging to the federal government and American taxpayers are they are lucrative for the culprits. They deprive the government of as much as $100 billion per year in tax revenue, according to one study by the US Public Interest Research Group, which means it costs the average taxpayer $434 per year."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/168810/romneys-donors-share-his-love-offshore-tax-havens
Here is the Bumper Sticker:
Who Is Romney Lying To;
The SEC or The American Voter?
Here is the Bumper Sticker:
Who Is Romney Lying To;
The SEC, Mass. (sworn to run for Gov.) or The American Voter?
Oops, too long.
How about "Romney Lied to America"?
When is Factcheck.org going to correct or retract?
Come to think of it, have we ever seen any of these "fact checkers' give an unequivocal retraction and or correction?
Let's call "factcheckers" what the are, OpEd writers.
Obama's Outsourcer Overreach - Factcheck 7-2-12
FactCheck to Obama Camp: Your Complaint is All Wet
Everybody should contact FactCheck. I have:
http://factcheck.org/about/contact-us/
No need to be nice, either. They've already essentially called the Obama campaign liars twice on this.
I don't think the Obama campaign should be the ones to present the Globe piece to a federal prosecutor, but someone darn well better, just to satisfy Factcheckers.org.
Actually, I'm thinking right now it'd be kind of cool if the Obama Administration and the DOJ went right at the basturd with all guns blazing. Republicans in Congress have let nothing get in their way of an all-out assault against the Administration, using the most transparent, fake, specious issues and logic to give their Useful Idiots talking points.
If Romney really is guilty, CRUCIFY that phony dickweed in front of the world. No mercy. You know that's exactly what they'd do. Let Republicans know what happens when you behave like complete a$$es for 12 going-on 35 years.
From the HUGE egos over at Factcheck.org:
FactCheck.org: 'Little new' in Globe story
Shorter FactCheck:
"Our Guy is pure as the driven snow, and butter wouldn't melt in his mouth!
and, yes, to DisgustedWithItAlll: Eric Holder needs to do his job!
"FactCheck's" response is almost beyond parody. I suppose someone has to have video of Rmoney signing off on various post 1999 Bain actions now. No matter that he served in official capacities SOLELY. Just take his word -- hell, make it up -- that he was really just "absentee" in all his official capacities and that's good enough.
Talk about trashing your own credibility. Way to go, FactCheck! Gettin' it done!!
Romney's Republican. Facts checked, sucka's.
I read somewhere this morning that Romney has opened himself up to potential lawsuits from investors that may have relied on the SEC filings that listed him as the active manager (even though he now claims he wasn't actively managing anymore).
That's almost too good to be true. His only way to defend against such suits is to admit he lied on his SEC filings. Now he may actually have a legal right to take the Fifth!
"For tax purposes Mr. Romney, did your 2000 income tax return list you as an
"Active or Passive" participant in Bain Capital?
This issue is not dependent upon FactCheck's assessment/opinions of how active Romney was, it's THE BOX HE CHECKED on his 2000 individual tax return. If he was a "Passive" participant, his tax treatment and benefits would be very different from the more beneficial tax treatments afforded an "Active" participant.
I can't imagine Romney giving up the tax $$$ benefits of being an "Active"
participant while he takes a leave of absence to manage the Olympics. That is
probably why he signed the SEC document in 2001 for tax year 2000. Clear up the
matter, Romney release your tax returns.
Factchecker just ran a stake through their heart today by doubling down when accepting Romney's claim at face value that he only had a passive role at Bain after February 1999. That is not fact checking, that is rubber stamping. Let Romney show his tax returns for they will clear this issue up because he had to declare whether his role was active or passive. Not only did Romney get paid for "carry", he received $100,000 in salary for 2000 and 2001. That is passive?
My letter with the subject line RomneyGate:
Now that it has been demonstrably proven that W. Mitt Romney lied about when he ended his tenure as the head of Bain Capital, I wonder if FactCheck.org will be revising its initial assessment.
If not, what proof would you need to make the correction?
Since you issued a blistering rebut to the Obama people, I am curious as to how you will remedy this error.
Please advise.
they probably will or already have Romney lies about all he did and tries to get everyone to believe it wake up fools OBAMA 2012
It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. How do I know?
Consider this: Jack Abramoff has his own radio show and Mike Tyson is on Broadway. People have short attention spans. They are like the dog in "Up." By November, 8 out of 10 people won't remember what Bain is - they'll be too busy chasing the latest squirrel.
Agreed. This will be a non-story, for good or bad by November. If this is what the Democrats want to use as a key "negative ad" then I think they should just go with ads highlighting what Obama has done. I am tired of the whole negative ad "ritual" that has gone on in every election for decades. It is stupid and in my opinion an ad highlighting what policies a candidate will do if elected works much better - although personally I do not vote for someone based on a TV ad or a lawn sign.
Skip ... I'll bet that wouldn't be your reaction if the Democratic nominee did something like this. We've seen how those who run the Republican spin machine turns molehills into Everests. Either Romney lied to the SEC or he's been lying about his connection to Bain in order to deflect investigations.
mpguy,
My response would be exactly the same. Trying to dig up dirt on your opponent - which may or may not be completely true or consequential is getting old. Both sides do it and have done it for years. The bottom line is all candidates running for any office should just focus on the issues while campaigning and stop trying to win by demonizing your opponent. IF Romney or Obama or any other candidate running for any office commits crimes, I would imagine that they would sooner or later get arrested/indicted and just plain ousted from the campaign. My guess is this article is probably mostly true, but I don't think any felony occured. So if it turns out he was still in charge of Bain capital for a few more years, what does that really mean? Bain capital is/was a legitmate business and while some people may not like Bain's business practices, it is not illegal and in my opinion will not change any one's vote.
Skip, is there a threshold for "consequential?"
How about murder? Rape? Drug or gun running? Kiddie porn?
I understand that merely economic crimes such as running a Madoff-styl Ponzi scheme are just technicalities and the way finance works these days.
Sort of like the Wall Street high-rollers who have been prosecuted for their fun and games in 2007 and 2008? Oh, wait.
It's a good thing for your emotional comfort that lying on official SEC filings isn't a felony, isn't it?
Lying to the IRS is certainly a felony. Is Mitt guilty of tax evasion, as opposedf to avoidance? We need to see Mitt's 1999-2003 tax returns to see how he reported that trivial $100K he received in 2001 and 2002 that was "separate from investment earnings." With regular taxpayers, IRS has never been shy about prosecuting. (Of course, the uber-rich and powerful are another story.)
It's time for Romney to release at least 15 years of tax returns. The nominee of a party that calls for the other party's nominee to release college transcripts and birth certificates in the name of "transparency" has a duty to do at least this much.
Skip ... Bain is a legitimate business, and Romney wants to run on his record there as a "job creator" and "financial genius." He needs to be transparent about his activities on behalf of the firm so that people can judge that record. He hasn't much else to run on.
Come on D.C., we are not talking about someone running for President that is a rapist or muderer. IF anyone commits a felony - anyone, then fry them. These types of stories about his work at a legimate private company are not felonies. Now if it turns our he did commit a felony then hes gone. And as I stated earlier, if there was any sort of criminal activity, I would think that some agency would have already been investigating and then arresting and indicting. It seems that you and others are already convinced that what was done was a crime. Not much different from the folks that think Obama is a felon because he lied about being born in America. Not a lot of facts to back it up, but the birthers have already passed judgement. IF he commited a crime, then arrest Mr. Romney. I have no problem with that. It just seems that it should have happened by now if it is true:
because if he didn't really leave until 2002, then "Romney would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999." (not sure what the quotes mean...maybe from the author of the article's assumption?)
Now if he is only guilty of not telling the truth that he was still in charge of Bain capital, I am not sure what criminal code that falls under. You may not like what he and his company did, but the business is/was a legitimate business even if some people don't like it.
And mpguy I would hope that if what he did is a felony per the IRS, that they would persue this before the election. I am not a fan of Romney OR Bain Capital, but if nothing is shown to be criminal, I don't think harping on this is really going to matter come November. Hopefully most intelligent independent voters will make an informed choice - since people that are for Romney or Obama will not change their vote on this topic.
Neither Tyson nor Abramoff were running for President, claiming to be virtuous national leadership material. This won't be dead by November, unless he has a perfectly legal and plausible explanation that resonates with the voters. Even a technically valid legal defense can highlight how out of touch and deceitful he is.
@skip hoffman - you're missing the point. Romney's sole stated qualification for President is his super-awesome patriotic leadership of Bain Capital, and all the all-American job creating wonders he engaged in there while working so much harder and smarter than you and me. This isn't the same as digging up some random mistress from 30 years ago. It goes to the heart of Romney's stated case for why he should be President of the United States. No one's actually thinking he might truly be prosecuted - the point is that, because it was potentially politically embarrassing for him to have been tied to some of the layoffs and outsourcing going on at Bain from '99 to '02, he told the voting public he was completely absentee during that time. That now appears likely not to have been the case. All politicians stretch the truth, but this is Exhibit 5,268 in the "but Mitt Romney is in a category all his own" case file. He cannot be trusted, yet again. But this also is another straw on the back of his "I'm a genius businessman and only I can save the American economy" camel.
MCA1,
You state:
Romney's sole stated qualification for President is his super-awesome patriotic leadership of Bain Capital
He also was Governor of Massachusetts. But we'll ignore that omission. As for the layoffs, yes venture capital firms sometimes invest in companies that fail - like many businesses - but they also have successes with business that thrive and maybe even hire more people. I do not have all the data from Bain Capital but I do think they did have some firms succeed. Maybe your right, some of this may be "potentially politically embarrassing", but this article/post and some of the comments are amping this up to a felony - which I have not seen/heard enough to think it is. As I have stated before, I think this, along with many "conspiracies" about our President is just a side show. We should be looking at what the two leading candidates for the all important office of President will do policy wise if elected and not try to out do each other with "dirt" on the opponent. At the end of the day most of the mud that was slung amounts to nothing.
By all means let's look at robme's experience:
Gov. of Massachusetts:
Robme's Bain capital experience:
But hey, there is nothing here that is a crime! Robme is a great dude and will be a great President!
Except:
But hey, robme will make a great President! Except:
But hey, no dirt digging please! Because it is not important to know the truth!
Robme/Christie 2012
Donna,
You forgot to end with your usual /sarcasm.off/ :)
Don't need to do it this time, skippy.
The truth is a b*tch. Even someone like you should be able to recognize when he is full of bs.
Consider yourself served. :)
You left one out.
Ok Donna, thanks for serving me (haven't heard that in a while). All you state is pretty much spot on...which is why I am voting third party. I don't know why you think that I am for Romney (I even posted above that I do no care for him - I am not a fan of Romney OR Bain Capital - from 4.6 above) or that I am a Republican.
My point still stands (see 4.1 above). Unless there is valid proof that a felony occured, this will be forgotten by most of the voters and in my opinion, the Democrats and Obama's campaign staffers should concentrate on his (Obama'a) accomplishments going foward rather that this type of mud-slinging. I just don't think it is a very effective way to get people to NOT vote for someone.
You're welcome, skippy.
And good luck with that third party thingy.
And the "no proof of a felony" argument is still bull.
Hey Skip. This isn't mudslinging. Here's the definition of mudslinging:
"an attempt to discredit one's competitor, opponent, etc.,
by malicious or scandalous attacks."
Now, if there was no question at all about Romney's past at Bain, and Obama's team was just kicking up dirt because of the lack of tax returns, you might be able to say it's "mudslinging". That's just not the case here. Romney's past is truly blurry, and truly at question. He, all on his own, by making contradictory statements for conflicting time periods, brought his history with Bain into question. He claimed he was gone in 1999, but also listed Bain as his place of employment after that date. No one is saying anything he hasn't said himself, and failed to clarify with tax returns.
"Mudslinging" is truly dirty politics. It's one step away from political "slander" or "libel" (depending on if the slinging is spoken or written), and it's NOT a term you should sling around without understanding it better. The ONLY person behaving poorly here is Romney.
of course, Willard is lying.
it's all he does
That's what his religion taught him. If you can't tell the truth, then make it up.
Probably only the tip of the iceberg! To try to prove his innocence, he's going to have to release those tax returns. But maybe this is what he's trying to hide.
Steve, a serious question. What is it in the way this campaign has gone so far that makes you think this is true? Is that why you added the "probably?"
Honestly, I fully expect that this report isn't going to make the slightest difference to Factcheck.org. They'll look at it, do a verbal triple back flip reverse twist into an advanced yoga position that puts their heads between their legs and back above their C-5 and proclaim that they, the Objective Gods of Olympian Objective and Detached Absolute Truth are still correct and that partisan and biased liar running for office is still a fudger just like that other one.
And with that support in hand, Romney will do what he always does. Just stand there and lie in our faces, serene in the knowledge that ABC, CBS, CNN, and the NBC Nighty News side of your employer have completely crumpled beneath the weight of his mendacity and will just robotically givehis lies equal dignity with the truth in "Republicans say, but Democrats say" narrative form.
He cares nothing about what people on MSNBC or pecky newspaper reporters say about him because the votes of anyone who gets their news from those sources are either already gotten or completely ungettable.
Sadly, I have to agree. Reporting in the NYT, the Globe, MSNBC and similar places seems never to reach the ears of the masses, because the Wall Street oligarchs have such a tight lock on the major networks. I'll be genuinely shocked if this story ever gets more than a brief comment on a single night from Diane Sawyer or Brian Williams.
Oh, the next time a Romney surrogate appears on MTP, I'm sure David Gregory will serve this issue up in a way that looks like a hard-hitting gotcha question but makes underlying assumptions or omits details or context that turn the question into favorable ground for Romney.
Because when you're paid six or seven million dollars a year to be a vapid slow pitcher posing as a hard hitting reporter, understanding what kinds of things people who don't make six or seven million dollars a year might find important is kind of elusive.
Understanding what keeps the guests coming ("access"), on the other hand, is an essential skill.
Aaaaand, right on schedule, both Kessler and factcheck.org have posted their self-justifying explanations that since no one has proved that Romney was actually running a company he told the SEC he was "sole shareholder, chairman of the board, CEO, and president" in a filing made under penalty of perjury is no evidence he was running the company.
Nope. Raises not even the slightest shadow of a doubt on the question for either of them.
And for those who are utterly ignorant of corporate law--which evidently includes both "fact checkers," let me see if I can explain this simply.
I can can be "chairman of the board" of a company whose stock I own entirely and just blow off my fiduciary duty of oversight of the people I'm paying to run it for me. It's not like the shareholders are going to sue me for breaching the duty. I can be the "president" of a company and not actually have much to do with running it. Every corporation has to have someone called the "president" on its filing papers with the state, and that person can be the chief executive, or he or she can be a useless, golf-playing figurehead whose signature is printed on stock stock certificates. It can be a title or an actual job description, like "executive producer" in the movie titles.
But no corporation is required to name someone to be CEO. Because no law requires a corporation to have someone called "chief executive officer," the fact that you identify someone as CEO has meaning. By representing to the SEC that it has a CEO, a company is representing that that person is, in fact the head person in charge of managing the company and executing its policies.
Hard to say whether our "fact checkers" are just too egotistical to admit they were wrong, corrupt, or outright imbeciles incapable of even asking themselves how it could be that a company with billions of dollars in assets could be running without the slightest involvement of its sole shareholder, chairman of the board, president AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER(!!!!!!!!). Not that those things are mutually exclusive.
Steve-458256 ,,,,, it is right up there with romney claiming his accountants are in charge of his taxes and portfolio , so if there are any laws being broken , you can send themto jail , while romney gets the checks , as has been suggested , this is one reason mits taxes will not be released , and the liberal msm will give the gop a pass of course , if obama had tried to pull this , mccain would be pres
Consider the possibility that a chronic liar made an honest mistake......... Ok, now you can laugh.
well now. robme step in a pile of Mitt. LOL that and this
EXCLUSIVE: Romney Invested Millions in Chinese Firm That Profited on US Outsourcing
The GOP candidate decries China poaching US jobs. But at Bain he held a large stake in a Chinese company that did just that.
—By David Corn
| Wed Jul. 11, 2012 8:10 PM PD
NPR even reported on this story this morning, giving credit to the Boston Globe. Those of us who read TPM (Josh Marshall) and MoJo (yeah David Corn) knew who had really done the research.
Just like, one should not watch CNN or Fox for news, but MSNBC instead ~ especially if it is breaking news that requires reading past page 2.
At some point, the Republican presidential candidate is probably going to have to come clean, answer questions from someone other than Fox, and set the record straight. If Romney's smart, he'll do this sooner, rather than later.
And tomorrow, the sun will rise in the west. I'm just sure of it!
Romney will never come clean, and all those scummy confederate pigs who were cheering yesterday about how he "stuck it" to the NAACP will continue to support him. And the otherwise-unemployables of the "media" will only come around when there's more blood in the water for them to feed on.
I wish to hell I thought otherwise about this.
Totally agree! Romney is a blatant liar and most of the media ignore it. Real journalism has become too hard a row to hoe for so much of the media.
In the interest of lightening Mr. Benen's workload, I'd like to suggest that every Friday he devote a post to all the true statements Romney has made that week.
And speaking of Romney, Joe Biden is right now mopping the floor with his blow-dried head.
So basically turn his column into a post-it-note for Fridays?
Mitt said he woke up today
Mitt said he got dressed
Mitt said he consumed some protein like breakfast substance
hell he could stay home on fridays then cause Mitt cant speak the truth think its a Mormon thing
OK so MY question is: WHICH Mitt is LYING? The one from 1999 (when he WANTS us to believe he stepped down and is not responsible for the actions of Bain) or the Mitt that was still a 'managing director' in 2002 on his SEC filings? I would LOVE to see the tax returns from THAT 4 year period...this is another 'I'm rubber, he's glue'...OBAMA is LYING because I'M such a liar!!!
LOL, maybe Romney is a multiple personality.
To put it mildly, this has the potential to do some very serious damage to Romney's candidacy.
No sorry
Rubber glue in 3....2...1
They have enough SuperPac money to bury the truth .
When I see it as a lead story on the nightly NOOZE as opposed to a 15 second clip maybe I will consider it as a possibility .
You know it will be like this:
Obama campaign says Romney lying about time at Bain
Republicans deny this claim...
End of story See... that's how Fair and Balanced works
I think you are overlooking something very important: nobody likes Mitt Romney. Nobody. If he went broke, his own wife and kids would drop him in an instant.
Once the real journalists like David Corn have done all the hard work, all the jerkoffs, even jerkoffs like Mark Halperin, will be all over Romney like jackals on a dead antelope.
Only if it looks like a story that won't die of neglect.
I think it would be most lovely for Diane Rehm to have David Corn back on her show, but without any of the rabid right wingers who won't let him finish a sentence. The man has done a real service for the country.
Is there a point where Romney's nomination is in jeopardy?
convention in Florida? doubtful. how about 6 November 2012?
at the convention when pauls people start to act up.
it should be some fun times.
I was wondering about that myself. I'm sure it's only a pipe dream, but I can't deny that as soon as I finished reading this story I had a few blisshful moments thinking about how wonderful it would be if, at this point in the game, the Republicans had to scramble for a new nominee.
The idea makes me want to put all my money in popcorn futures. A nomination battle between Romney and Ron Paul, while the convention center is surrounded by pistol-packin' teabaggers? I'll use my popcorn futures profits to buy the film rights.
^Popcorn futures, lolz!
No, Mr. Freddie.
Santorum is waiting in the wings, burning a copy of Roe V. Wade to amuse himself.
A certain disgraced House Speaker would love to continue his book tour from the Oval Office.
And the progenitor of Rand Paul hasn't left the campaign trail yet.
Which of these lovely individuals would you like to fill in the vacuum of Mitt's leaving?
Any one of them would be fine, because none of them are remotely electable. Romney has always been the only one that is any real threat.
(And by the way, it's Ms. Freddie. Freddie is short for Winifred.)
My apologies, Ms. Freddie.
I will give you the latter two, but not Santorum. Mitt got the jump on him because Rick wasn't as honest at first about the depth of his conservative rabidity. Had Santorum been more courageous out of the gate in expressing his true willingness to embrace Biblical literalism, he'd be our candidate today, not "that mormon". I was vastly relieved when he ceded because he is a dangerous man.
Where Mitt is an utter puppet of wealth and will be controlled by those who've controlled our presidents before (the enemy we know) Santorum holds his fearful irrationality close to heart and would have proven to be much harder to sway in matters of religion over wealth. His campaign was the seed of an enemy we wouldn't have known.
Makes me wonder if the Paul people are rummaging through SEC filings as we speak, or maybe even in the Caymans trying to "find the money."
Let a jury of his peers decide.
I can see it now:
The SEC filings state that Romney was
"sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president." but Romney says that he himself didn't actually run anything.
Who was running things then? Was it the night watchman? The cleaning lady? Professor Plum in the library?
So Romney's excuse is now "its a Rich person's thing" you just don't understand, you peasant.
"Just because I own something and get paid more than twice your salary for those years doesn't mean I ran anything."
The only question is, should he be prosecuted before the convention, or after?
I vote for after...about a day after all of the ballots are printed and it's too late for the Repubs to mount a significant campaign for anyone else in Mitt's place.
I think we all knew this guys is a bad candidate, regardless of policy or ideology. He is just not a good candidate. No real positions, contradicitions of previous positions, lousy surrogates...BUT REALLY? Is he so unware of his political self that he didn't think anyone would look into the SEC filings of his company?? If this hits him politically (which I sure hope it does), it's not undeserved. He earned this political hit.
And he was the "best" they have.
Just makes me wonder, who do the Republicans have that WOULD have been a good candidate? Someone solid and conceivably electable like Dole, or even McCain 1.0. Hindsight being 20-20 and all...I just can't think of ANYONE on their side they could have gone with, that wasn't either too old, or too tin-foil-hat. Gov. Tony Soprano of NJ?
What is the statute of limitations for the felony of lying on an SEC filing?
Oooooh.....good question. Less than 10 years, I would imagine.
The Republican don't care if Romney is a liar. They never have. What make anyone thing it is going to matter now? The man has been lying since the beginning. And no one seems to care except everybody that isn't Republican! Or in politics.
Wouldn't it be utterly fantastic if Romney were "guilty of a federal felony?" Hahahahahahahahahahahaha..
Lyin for the Lord couldn't get any better!
He probably is guilty, but who's going to prosecute?
Those courageous Democrats? Not likely.
Guys like Romney, Rove, Cheney, et al., get away with it. Sad, but true.
Well they should, and they should make it clear they don't care what it looks like. Do Republicans what it looks like on their witch hunts of Holder? on Obama? They ought to bring all the force they can on that piece of shhit. Just crush his balls.
I'm sick of Democrats taking this garbage from piss-in-their-pants idiots. The Republican beast just needs to be killed at the very next chance. KILLED. No mercy.
Worse: the SEC. I think that the last time they actually prosecuted anyone was Enron -- after it all came apart.
Next to the nuclear football, Obama's biggest weapon is the Justice department. Unlikely that he will use either one.
Having the Justice Department investigate (and, potentially, prosecute) this would be a great response to the phony investigations done by Issa and his little buddies in the House.
Holder: "OK, guys. You had your fun. Now, you want to see what a major league investigation looks like. Well, here it is."
Wouldn't you feel better if there was a reason?
Look, Romney probably personally created a hundred thousand jobs -- for accountants and lawyers helping him to evade taxes.
Do it! Do it! Do it! (Hate to go all college beer bong on it but WTH! BTW, I've only seen college in the movies!)
LOL