It seems as if the ' inevitable' campaign of Willard Romney has hit a snag. You know what happens when 'inevitable' campaigns come up against serious challenges, don't you? They don't seem to have a plan 'B'.
Willard has been running for President for a good five years, and he doesn't have a scintilla of genuine political skill. He doesn't know how to play a room. He doesn't know how to get the room behind him. Nobody's gonna cut someone for Willard. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if Willard's checks didn't clear, nobody would know his name.
Willard's entire campaign for President is based upon this:
This country needs a CEO to lead it to better economic times.
Condescendingly, Willard says that the President is a ' nice guy, but he's in over his head'. I kid you not. So, of course, it's up to Willard to show the President how it's done.
Willard knows nothing about foreign policy, and everytime he opens his mouth about it, he looks like a clown. WHO is Willard's foreign policy team? ALL the folks that lied us into Iraq. THAT is who's giving Willard foreign policy advice.
So, since he has nothing with regards to foreign policy, his entire campaign is based upon ECONOMIC POLICY.
He has nothing else, and quite frankly, I don't think that's a strong position for Willard.
Because, he's run away from his time as Governor of Massachusetts. It doesn't even come up in the conversation about why he should be President.
So, he put forth his time as a businessman as the reason he should be President.
GOOD.
That means BAIN.
Let's make this clear. The point of his work at Bain wasn't to create jobs; it was to get money back for the investors. If jobs were created, then that was a by-product, but it wasn't Willard's focus at Bain. The focus was making money; nothing wrong with making money, per se, but you can't base a Presidential campaign upon something that didn't happen. This is the era of Youtube; the internet. And, in each of the companies that went bankrupt because of Bain's Vulture Capitalism, there are plenty of workers to tell their stories; of lost pensions, and destroyed financial lives, all the while, even as the company went BANKRUPT, Willard and his minions made MILLIONS.
People aren't against capitalism in this country. All but the furthest left of the left-wingers, is against capitalism in America. But, there's a difference in an entrepreneur who invents something, brings a product to market that had never happened, creates the better mousetrap, per se, and builds a business that way. That is the traditional way I think most Americans think of capitalism. What Willard is, and the ilk like him, were people who never produced anything, other than schemes of how to invent ways to make money, even if it wound up destroying otherwise productive companies. There's a reason why someone like Warren Buffet doesn't deal with people who do what Willard and Bain did; he knows the difference between traditional capitalism, and the VULTURE capitalism that Willard and Bain practiced.
Rachel Maddow did a good segment on Willard, Bain, his inevitability, and if the economy improves, there IS NO REASON TO VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And, so, if Willard is basing his entire campaign on his time as a businessman....EVERYTHING at Bain is par for the course. We have Newt to thank for bringing Bain into focus - on DEMOCRATIC PARTY TERMS.
There are those that think that this be ' old hat' by the time of the general election. I am not among them. The Republican stance of trying to rally the troops by saying that attacking Bain is attacking capitalism itself - hogwash. Attacking Bain is attacking VULTURE capitalism, and if the GOP wants to keep themselves tethered to Willard, so be it for them.
The second part of this is has to do with Willard's tax returns.
I'll use Steve Benen at Washington Monthly to chart Willard's course on tax returns:
About a month ago, Mitt Romney was asked whether he’d release his tax returns. He said, “I doubt it,” adding, “I don’t intend to.”
Eight days later, Romney said he’d “consider” releasing his tax returns, but the disclosure would only come after he’s elected to the White House.
Earlier this week, Romney said he’s “not opposed” to disclosure, “if” there’s been a “tradition.” He added he’ll “keep that open” around “the April time period.”
Last night, Romney said he’ll “probably” release his tax returns. Asked about previous years, he said, “Maybe.”
And that led to a new position this morning on Fox News.
“I’ll release those on April 15.”
For those keeping score at home, that’s five different positions on disclosure in just four weeks.
Also note, when Romney addressed the subject this morning, he said he doesn’t want to “give the Democrats a nice little present of having multiple releases.”
I’m not sure why Republicans should find this reassuring: if Romney’s tax returns include “presents” for Democrats, why should GOP primary voters spend the next three months voting for him?
The one on spot question that John King actually got right with regards to Willard in the debate was about tax returns.
Willard's father released 12 YEARS of tax returns, because, as he put it
" One year could be manipulated."
Ain't that the truth. I said from the get go, when Willard so ' graciously' decided that he would release the 2011 Return, and that he was taxed somewhere around 15%, that it had to be a lie.
This is another question that came to me about Willard and his tax returns.
Willard has been running for President since 2007.
2007.
What was supposed to happen if he had beat John McCain for the 2008 Nomination?
Did he think he wasn't going to release any returns then?
And, since he has been running since 2007 - without a break in between...
WHY wouldn't he have 2007 - present tax returns ready for publication?
Did he really, during this time, not believe that he was going to release those returns?
Is he really arrogant enough to think that he would be able to get away with the bulls--- move of ONLY releasing the 2011 return?
REALLY?
And, what's in those tax returns?
Here are a couple of clips from Lawrence O'Donnell on this subject. This expert makes a good point; he wants to see the ones from 1984-99, when Romney ran Bain. He also brings up the subject of offshore accounts.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
The offshore accounts is important, because once again I go back to Willard's attack on President Obama. Andrew Sullivan has repeatedly made the point that, at the core of Romney's attacks on the President, it is the message of the President being ' the other' - not really American. He's really the only person in the press that brings up this point about Willard.
Well, who is more American...the President out trying to create American jobs, and INSOURCE American jobs, and keeps his money IN AMERICA, or the other candidate, who got rich while he destroyed American companies, sent American Jobs overseas, didn't pay a decent share of taxes, AND doesn't believe enough in America to KEEP HIS MONEY IN AMERICA.
THAT is what I think is in those tax returns. Willard isn't paying near 15%......NOWHERE near 15%. AND, he's got a bunch of accounts OVERSEAS. So, he's running for President of a country that he doesn't want to be pay taxes to, and can't be bothered to invest his own money in.....
This is Willard to the core.
From the comments at The Obama Diary:
Kari Hope (@TyJuanOn)
January 22, 2012 at 5:13 pm
5 things to know about Mitten’s tax returns:
1. Mitt’s got millions invested in the Cayman Islands
“Although it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, Mitt Romney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven.” – ABC News
2. Mitt pays a tax rate lower than most middle-class Americans
Even though Mitt’s worth as much as $250 million, “Republican candidate Mitt Romney believes his effective tax rate—the share of his income he pays in federal taxes—is around 15%, or, as he put it, “probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything…” – Christian Science Monitor
3. Under Mitt’s own tax plan, he’d pay half of what he’d pay otherwise
“Under his plan, Romney in 2013 would see his taxes cut by nearly half of what they would be if you use current law as a baseline.” – Washington Post
4. Mitt jokes he’s “unemployed,” but he’s still making millions a year off investments
“In what would be the final deal of his private equity career, he negotiated a retirement agreement with his former partners that has paid him a share of Bain’s profits ever since, bringing the Romney family millions of dollars in income each year and bolstering the fortune that has helped finance Mr. Romney’s political aspirations.” – New York Times
5. Mitt made over $300,000 in speaking fees last year—but called it “not that much”
“He also said he had earned ‘a little bit of income’ from his book, which he donated to charity, and ‘speakers’ fees from time to time, but not very much.’ Romney earned almost $375,000 in speaking fees from Feb. 26, 2010, to Feb. 20, 2011, according to his personal financial disclosure.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment