I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 13:45:26

mozartpc27 wrote:The GOP might consider taking a turn to the left, at least in terms of policies that attract minority voters, after this election. Otherwise, look out (and this is from a right-leaning web site):

http://www.absoluterights.com/absolute- ... ning-blue/

Well, the guy was actually a state party chair looking for more money from the national party, not looking to really change any policy positions of the Republican party. He's more or less reading from the gospel according to Rove. (Perhaps the most misunderstood character in recent American politics.)

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 15:23:34

MITT ROMNEY PROFITED FROM ABORTIONS!!!

[Reveal] Spoiler:

You have to look past the sensationalist part... Romney's (Sankaty LLC) investment in a company (Stericycle) known for drawing ire from pro-life groups "for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics"...

... for the actual crux (SEC filings, documents, etc.)... when did Mitt actually leave Bain?

The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also call into question the account of Romney's exit from Bain that the company and the Romney campaign have provided.

by **jamiethekiller** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 15:31:31

can't let morals get in the way of a good buck

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:06:14

Or facts get in the way of a PiP post

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:16:15

jerseyhoya wrote:Or facts get in the way of a PiP post

The difficulty Mitt faces is there are so many, many facts. And let's face it, neither you, nor I, nor anyone but mitt could clarify them all, really.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:19:49

That's true

He's doing interviews with all the networks tonight so we'll see what his explanation ends up being

Also I guess this is the campaign's ad on it. I kind of like it, though they can probably Obama on this stuff even harder.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:22:17

I don't think the average person is going to understand the context.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:27:42

jerseyhoya wrote:Or facts get in the way of a PiP post

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:37:38

jerseyhoya wrote:That's true

He's doing interviews with all the networks tonight so we'll see what his explanation ends up being

Also I guess this is the campaign's ad on it. I kind of like it...

Mitt Romney has nothing, other than "I'm not the incumbent". That ad objects to the President pointing out that he - Romney - has nothing. But Romney responds with...nothing.

Face it, Jerz, if you were invited to run this self-absorbed amateur's campaign, you'd probably take a pass. He's been running a decade now, and hasn't gotten any better at it. In July he's running neck-and-neck with - and felt by some to be losing ground to - a guy who arguably should lose as badly as Hoover lost to FDR. He's good at plenty of things; he's just not good at this.

by **pacino** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 16:49:35

He's running to give money away to welfare queens on wall street and k street. Hard to run on that so you have to start using the modern-day southern strategy.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 17:24:59

mozartpc27 wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:jerseyhoya reporting that Condi will not be the pick because she's pro choice

Not only that, but from what I've heard/read/psychically divined, she doesn't want the gig.

Condi would be a terrible choice, even if she wanted the gig and were as pro-life as pro-life can be. People aren't sure if they like Barack Obama or not, but they're damn sure Bush and his team are to blame for all of this. Hell, it's part of Romeny's stump speech to concede that point.

IMO, if Condi were the VP nominee, Obama should start working on his concession speech. She's one of the few (if not only) non-negative from Dubyatime and people will divorce her from that, the base will fall in line and overlook stuff like her pro-choice stance. And a lot of non-basers pick their horse on non policy/platform/philosophy/agenda stuff (appeal, likeability, et al) because they don't follow politics much. Prez elections ultimately end up being a popularity contest and Condi would be a major dose of appeal and likeability for the ticket. I'll go ahead and say what a lot of people won't say or admit... seeing the dems' African-American and raising a woman would be a winning hand for Mittens.

But supposedly, Rice doesn't want a VP gig. Says she's content with her current life (professor) and being a VP would suck. Perhaps it's just a deflection/misdirection/whatever. But she says she don't wanna.

by **The Nightman Cometh** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 17:31:14

Put me in the camp who think that the role of VP in a presidential race is generally overstated.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 19:03:42

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Put me in the camp who think that the role of VP in a presidential race is generally overstated.

Usually yeah, mostly because the VP picks typically fall in the bland "meh" category... someone that won't cause harm who's only electoral college attribute is what state their from. But it's hard to argue that Palin didn't harm McCain in '08. Sure, she was picked to be a demographic asset instead of the typical insignificant "meh" kind of safe pick, and that ultimately backfired when she proved herself a kook... an annoying kook (you betcha). Granted, McCain shifting from his "maverick" persona hurt, but Palin being an assette instead of an asset hurt to the point of costing votes.

An African-American woman* on a major party presidential ticket would be a huge deal to a lot of people (a negative for a few of those people but a positive for most of 'em) and get a lot of play on the 24hr news cycle. Consequently getting votes from segments that lean Obama, the AA vote and womens' vote. And some '08 Obama voters that are disappointed he wasn't the rainbow pooping unicorn of utter awesomeness they thought he'd be.

But I think it's moot because Rice says she doesn't wanna.

* of course she can't be batshit crazy or see Russia from her house

by **dajafi** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 19:17:43

Rice was a much better Secretary of State than I thought she'd be; she was basically a Bush 41 type of official, in a role suited to her considerable talents (as NSA was not). But I have to believe she's uninterested in and unskilled at electoral politics. My guess is Mittens is floating this for the same reason he was willing to speak at the NAACP: to stroke moderate suburban Republicans who are fine with him but don't want to affiliate with the nutz.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 19:18:07

While I know it's beyond the realm of reality with absolutely 0% chance of happening, I have to admit there is a tiny sliver of my warped mind hoping Mitten's surprise pick is Santorum just so I can dust off this old 'shop I had forgotten about...

by **Youseff** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 19:40:43

No way Rubio touches this disaster with a ten foot pole. He's probably the next President after Obama. I hope it's Christie so he's exposed on a national stage for the hypocritical, unprofessional blowhard that he is.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 22:02:15

Jan Crawford, CBS: But you were the sole owner? I mean, how should we be thinking about this? What was your role? You were the sole owner until 2002?

Romney: I was the owner of a, of the general partnership but there were investors which included pension funds and various entities of all kinds that owned the, if you will, the investments of the firm. But I was the owner of an entity which was a management entity. That entity was one which I had ownership of until the time of the retirement program was put in place. But I had no responsibility whatsoever after February of '99 for the management or ownership - management, rather, of Bain Capital.

by **Werthless** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 22:51:24

Can someone explain to me in straight terms what Romney is being accused of with respect to Bain? I don't follow talk radio/political commentary on tv, so I'm confused about why the timing of when he stopped working there is important, or how the ownership structure may affect his President-worthiness. Or is this one of these "birther" issues that perpetuates forever just to get the base riled up, ala "We have many 'concerns' about his time at Bain... what is he hiding? Why won't he release his long-form tax return from 1999?"

by **jamiethekiller** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 23:06:36

think its just the birther tactic but i don't know or give a shit

by **drsmooth** » Fri Jul 13, 2012 23:47:53

Werthless wrote:Can someone explain to me in straight terms what Romney is being accused of with respect to Bain? I don't follow talk radio/political commentary on tv, so I'm confused about why the timing of when he stopped working there is important, or how the ownership structure may affect his President-worthiness. Or is this one of these "birther" issues that perpetuates forever just to get the base riled up, ala "We have many 'concerns' about his time at Bain... what is he hiding? Why won't he release his long-form tax return from 1999?"

Romney wants to be President of the United States. His business successes are his principal claim to being well-suited to the job. He's satisfied that merely saying so should be good enough to persuade enough voters to vote for him that he wins the office. Unfortunately too many people would like to know more about how that would work. More unfortunately, they want specific examples from his years of toil at the place where he achieved so many of those successes. Even more unfortunately, they've asked for clearer explanation of some ambiguous patches about the nature of his leadership roles during that period of time.

You know how would-be employers fret so about those curious resume gaps.

Mitt's struggling to resolve them adequately.

Supposedly his tightly controlled appearances with each of the network 'news' organs earlier today was to have cleared the matter up. I like that, while he expressed "disgust" and dismay at how low the incumbent's campaign has stooped in its comments on the emerging reportorial accounts, and demanded an apology for Team Obama questioning his record, he did not indicate any inclination to clear the fetid air by sharing with a breathless public what the fuck was actually up during the period in question.

Archived

I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread

Re: I hope you RECALL that this is the POLITICS thread