Prison.

Memory Isn't There Today (MITT) can't recall anything he did in business. Therefore MITT is running on its record of, what exactly?

He's running on a record of flip-flops and magical underpants.

Oh, if only there was a Mass. Pol. with Thinking Shorts to lend to MITT until the election. But unfortunately, if Scott gives those up he knows that Rachel will scare him Brown pants in no time.

Ah, the text below Shannon O'Brien misspelled her name, and also says she lost to Romney in 2004. That Governor's race in Massachusetts was in 2002, not 2004.

Friday the 13th gremlins messing with the text?

Edit: Ah, I see someone's now fixed it. :-)

What percentage of the vote are Democrats at various gov't levels likely to lose from voter suppression if nothing is done to counteract the new laws?

I lived in Massachusetts when he ran for and became governor and when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that keeping gays from marrying was unconstitutional. (YAY!)

Seems the only thing MR doesn't flip on, is his response to not getting his way. Within minutes of the SJC's ruling, he was on the air, blatantly badmouthing them and their ruling and promising to have it over-turned by Constitutional Amendment.

Flash forward to Obama's Health Care initiative and within minutes of the announcement, he is vowing to dismantle it as his first order of business "when" he becomes President. (This from the man who directed the state mandate for every citizen of Massachusetts to have health insurance or have your state refunds penalized.)

Thank God he's just as impotent now as he was then.

If he wasn't so insipid, he might be scarier. As it is, I'm glad he's running. Practically makes Obama a shoe-in...Just sayin'

no shoe-in yet.

It is not the "OWNERSHIP" of the Bain companies that is important. I can own every share of a corp. and NOT have a thing to do with running it. BUT, being CEO, Managing Director, and President of any of those corporations IS important. Each is a separate important corporate position that indicates your DIRECT involvement and RESPONSIBILITY for the acts of that corporation. Quit emphasizing the "ownership" aspect or you cannot prove your point. It is the positions of control that matter. Please clear this up before "they who are them" distort your position.

blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/07/hearing_officers_decision_on_n.html

Same Diane Derzis in Alabama courtroom today trying to re-open a clinic shutdown by the health department due to patient safety problems???? Maybe the folks in Mississippi are onto something. Just saying.

Either Romney lied about being responsible for the acts of Bain through 2002 due to his various responsibility laden offices as CEO, President and Directing Manager, or he lied to the SEC, the State of Massachusetts and his investors. It is either or. There is no shirking responsibility while claiming the vestiges of the offices he has claimed. By the way, running the Olympics and running Bain at the same time is far, far easier than running the United States government. He says he couldn't do both. Is he really fit for office?

Jamie Dimon is president, chairman of the board and CEO of JPMorgan. When it lost about $4.5 billion, he was the one whose neck was on the line, not the junior traders who actually placed the trades that lost the money.

At Bain and all its subsidiaries, Mitt was the president, chairman of the board and CEO through at least mid-2002. SEC papers that document Bain's stake in the merger of Fresh Samantha with Odwalla irrefutably prove that. So if he's really "not involved," why did he keep those titles? I practice a fair amount of corporate law, and I know it's pretty easy to resign as president and CEO, give those titles to the guy or gal whose neck I want on the line and still retain my sole shareholder and chairman status.

Unless I had a giant ego and I wanted all the glory . . . . . or unless the reality is that I wanted to still set policy, say a policy of not looking back to see if the LBOs my company had done were causing social harm greater than my investment or conscience could bear -- o wait, that infers existence of a conscience . . . .

Hey Rachel... Can you drop a quarter on Obama and let him know its about TIME , that he starts talking about what his PLANS are for the next four years should he be re-elected ?..

I mean this Bain Capital Mitt Romney "retro" scrutinizing is all good , but the american people want to hear whats in store for the future and the Economy of the United States in the next four years , I've had enough of what Mitt Romney did or did not do or is currently doing or is thinking about doing at Bain Capital !...

OBAMA needs to START talking about what his plans are for getting this economy growing again in his second TERM in office or he will NOT get a SECOND term in office !.

Rachel, not cool to do a cutesy beginning to a story about people being assassinated. I adore you, Rachel, but that was not cool.

I CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF ME FIGURE OUT WHY MSNBC DID NOT GET AN INTERVIEW ALSO..............but I think I might be pretty damn sure why. I love you all and I feel everything but at least I have my brain right now!!!!!

Rachel and Shannon both missed what might be an even bigger problem for Mitt. They keep saying he made $100,000 from Bain in a year subsequent to 1999, but actually the form Romney signed says " more than $100,000". Those forms all are divided into large categories like "$50,000 to $100,000". If "more than $100,000" turns out to be the highest possible answer, than Mitt's Bain income that year may have been millions, all for "doing nothing". The only way to find out is his tax return for that year,another reason it must be released.

A political party that attempts to remove a voting right, that is targeting a selective part of its people, a party the seeks to end a free choice over a persons body and can not tolerate the equal rights of free choice in a persons life and is desiring all to submit to its will, a party that views a free market as a business right to do as it pleases regardless of its affects upon not only a market but its entire population.

This political party that wishes a religion to be involved as a force of moral order over an entire people no matter that its founding idealism is to separate a religion from its government that allows its people to believe in a religion or to not belief in one, a political party that views parts of its population as being less equal and therefore will not allow a right give to all others for those unequal types, a political party that will never tax its wealthy but will tell its less wealthy to pay more is a political party that needs to be reminded that America is not a dictatorship.

America is not a nation made up of one religion, religion is a personal belief the nation was founded upon being inclusive and is not an exclusive totalitarianism that is completely intolerant of its peoples differing beliefs.

A political party exampling this sort of behavior needs to be taught the lessons of what a democracy means and voted completely out of office.

You can always vote later for this political party once it has learned its lesson, but it must not be allowed to continue its Un-American behavior.

We the people means its people rule, it does not mean its wealthy rule, nor does it mean its poor rule, it does not mean a religion rules it means its people may believe in a religion or not believe in a religion.
It does not mean a free market is free to do anything it pleases with no responsibly for the harm it may cause.

It means a market must be responsible for what it was given the freedom to do.

It means its people compromise to find a solution, it does not mean it will never compromise and rule by dictatorship.

It means all must be given at least a chance to be wealthy a chance to be religious or not religious a civil right means a civil justice for its entire people; it does not mean your civil right must never be given to anyone else.

Mitts defense of not outsourcing at Bain, is Mitt Romney was outsourcing the Olympics.

I've just watched Face The Nation from Sunday.

I understand that the MSM wants to be seen as neutral, but when people go on the these shows and make claims, would it be unfair if the MSM host would simply ask" what are your facts to support this claim". It has nothing to do which side you're on. It just has to do with this statements, where are your facts, what is your logic, your where is your analysis,

I understand that wild charges make good TeeVee. But, don't you need to supply facts, logic and analysis?

To me, that's the obvious follow up question. Ask both sides. Let's see how this plays out.

OK, you want me to correct my previous post. Fine, I will.

"your where is your

"your where is your analysis" becomes "where is your analysis"

Let's let news media hold both sides to the fire, and not let their claims go with no challenge.

Since I'm talking to Rachael, I'll put her up first at bat.

I feel like Jon Stewart on Crossfire, when I ask, what the hell are you people doing here?

If your guest makes a claim, why not ask them how did you get there? What are your facts, what is your logic, what is your analysis?

Is that unfair if you ask both sides the same set of questions?

Well, I guess it won't make good Tee Vee. But it might make a better republic.

"Knock, knock".
"Who's there?".
"Mitt Romney".
"Mitt Romney who?"
"Exactly".

Mitt Romney is running on his acumen for job creation and the benefit of cutting taxes on the so-called " job creators". Isn't full financial disclosure to his benefit? He can show the country all the jobs he created from the extra money he received through the Bush tax cuts and put an end to the nasty rumors that he merely shoveled that money into offshore accounts.#THE-WORTHER-MOVEMENT