Support NeoGAF

[kehs]

Old, but new to me:

The Romney campaign in a nutshell.

The internet has not been kinda to Mittens.

---

"We needed someone of Romney's stature to run the Olympics, because it would have been an embarrassment..."

They're really holding that Olympic string really hard.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Romney campaign continues to make things that much better:


Video at Think Progress

This is just genius, you can just go back in time to change what happened!

Etch-a-Sketch!

 

[Tamanon]

The funny thing about all the talk of his Olympics work is that people are probably hard-pressed to even remember anything about how those were run. Especially after China raised the bar.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I've never subscribed to the "11th dimensional chess" strategy that Obama fanatics tend to credit him with regardless of outcomes, but this Bain stuff strikes me as a good example of it. Romney's entire basis for running is hinged on his business experience, specifically at Bain. Yet right now he is completely disavowing aspects of his Bain experience, using nuanced explanations to absolve himself of every bad thing the company did when he was CEO, president, and chairmen. His argument may in fact be right: I don't believe he had much of a role from 99-02, and instead was looking ahead to running for governor of MA. But by running away from his record, he is making his record look bad.

By running away from that 99-02 period he's legitimizing the perception that Bain was doing something wrong/bad during that period. And if he feels they were doing something bad and did not want to associate himself with them at the time, why was he receiving a $100,000 salary during that period? It's just such a stupid exercise in cowardice, and a trap he willingly stepped into.

The perception is already set: Bain participated in off shoring, out sourcing, and restructuring companies - and Romney was their president, CEO, and chairmen. And if he's dishonest about this, what else is he dishonest about? His tax evading? It's an ugly picture

 

[The Technomancer]

I've never subscribed to the "11th dimensional chess" strategy that Obama fanatics tend to credit him with regardless of outcomes, but this Bain stuff strikes me as a good example of it.

Yeah, Obama's campaign isn't as godly as some people make it out to be, but when they strike they strike hard

 

[kehs]

I've never subscribed to the "11th dimensional chess" strategy that Obama fanatics tend to credit him with regardless of outcomes, but this Bain stuff strikes me as a good example of it.

The campaign team is filled with young people that know how to access and distribute "digital records". They aren't just stumbling across this stuff. They've been sitting on it, just waiting to pounce. It could have been Gingrich, or Santorum, or just about anyone else and the dirt would have come out and stuck just the same.

Just like detective-gaf.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Some of these are kinda meh, but some of these are right on point:

Wow. Respect for Forbes +1.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I've never subscribed to the "11th dimensional chess" strategy that Obama fanatics tend to credit him with regardless of outcomes, but this Bain stuff strikes me as a good example of it. Romney's entire basis for running is hinged on his business experience, specifically at Bain. Yet right now he is completely disavowing aspects of his Bain experience, using nuanced explanations to absolve himself of every bad thing the company did when he was CEO, president, and chairmen. His argument may in fact be right: I don't believe he had much of a role from 99-02, and instead was looking ahead to running for governor of MA. But by running away from his record, he is making his record look bad.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/how-romney-walked-into-a-bain-trap

I don't know really what Obama campaign did or had any part in these stories.

I do know, they have now for 2 successive dismal job reports made the conversation about Romney and Bain instead of Obama and the economy.

 

[Stinkles]

I've never subscribed to the "11th dimensional chess" strategy that Obama fanatics tend to credit him with regardless of outcomes, but this Bain stuff strikes me as a good example of it. Romney's entire basis for running is hinged on his business experience, specifically at Bain. Yet right now he is completely disavowing aspects of his Bain experience, using nuanced explanations to absolve himself of every bad thing the company did when he was CEO, president, and chairmen. His argument may in fact be right: I don't believe he had much of a role from 99-02, and instead was looking ahead to running for governor of MA. But by running away from his record, he is making his record look bad.

By running away from that 99-02 period he's legitimizing the perception that Bain was doing something wrong/bad during that period. And if he feels they were doing something bad and did not want to associate himself with them at the time, why was he receiving a $100,000 salary during that period? It's just such a stupid exercise in cowardice, and a trap he willingly stepped into.

The perception is already set: Bain participated in off shoring, out sourcing, and restructuring companies - and Romney was their president, CEO, and chairmen. And if he's dishonest about this, what else is he dishonest about? His tax evading? It's an ugly picture

I wonder if he's actually tone-deaf enough to suggest $100,000 is a mere stipend. and hardly constitutes a salary. He might just be stupid enough to do that if cornered - and in his mind it's an accurate characterization. He makes that much on interest on a single account.

 

[Clevinger]

I just saw this from those interviews he did:

We asked Romney if he felt he was being “swift-boated,” a reference to the Republican attacks on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s war record in 2004.

“Boy, I hadn’t heard that term but I’ll give it some thought,” Romney said initially to the question.

It reminds me of Palin who also lied about small details she really had no reason to lie about. It's so weird.

 

[Oblivion]

"Retroactively resigned"? The fuck? I'm probably not reading that right, and I just got up from a hangover, but what the hell does that mean?

 

[kehs]

"Retroactively resigned"? The fuck? I'm probably not reading that right, and I just got up from a hangover, but what the hell does that mean?

Kinda how PD will be retroactively not kidding if Romney does win.

 

[Byakuya769]

"Retroactively resigned"? The fuck? I'm probably not reading that right, and I just got up from a hangover, but what the hell does that mean?

Let me help.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

"Retroactively resigned"? The fuck? I'm probably not reading that right, and I just got up from a hangover, but what the hell does that mean?

Retcon.

 

[Suikoguy]

Kinda how PD will be retroactively not kidding if Romney does win.

wow, just wow.
If I could award bonus points for this post, I would.

 

[Amir0x]

Kinda how PD will be retroactively not kidding if Romney does win.

lol

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Someone made an ad about Romney giving McCain 23 years of tax returns and then him choosing Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_EiRFB00gLM

 

[Aaron Strife]

I just saw this from those interviews he did:



It reminds me of Palin who also lied about small details she really had no reason to lie about. It's so weird.

It becomes a knee-jerk response.

 

[Amir0x]

Someone made an ad about Romney giving McCain 23 years of tax returns and then him choosing Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_EiRFB00gLM

haha that ad is so fucked up.

 

[Black Mamba]

"retroactive retired" means he took a leave of absence in 1999 with the intent to return but in 2002 opted to not come back and thus retire.

Since he left in 1999, they mean he officially retired in 2002 but he had been retired (as in not working) since 1999.

Which by all accounts is mostly what happened. Unfortunately for Mitt, he still kept up to date from 1999-2002 but wants to deny that he did that all of a sudden. And there's evidence from his own mouth of it.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Someone made an ad about Romney giving McCain 23 years of tax returns and then him choosing Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_EiRFB00gLM

That's pretty good. Not quite as amazing as "Firms", but good.

 

[dabig2]

Someone made an ad about Romney giving McCain 23 years of tax returns and then him choosing Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_EiRFB00gLM

This is why I reallllly want to know what's in those tax records. Is there any doubt that those tax records were the sole reason McCain and his staff took Rombot off their list? I mean, his governorship in Massachusetts wasn't politically toxic during that time as it is now, so it couldn't be that. Makes you wonder....

Also, I wonder how long it takes Obama and co. to complete the trifecta and go after the Olympics. Romney already wants us to forget about his governorship of Massachusetts. I'm not even going to go into Bain. The last big thing he's known for, and his most proud, nationalistic achievement, is the 2002 Winter Olympics.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Someone made an ad about Romney giving McCain 23 years of tax returns and then him choosing Palin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_EiRFB00gLM

Pretty sloppy ad but the basic premise is good. Democrats should be repeating that basic line constantly; it may not be accurate, but it's a damn fine soundbyte and puts Romney on the defensive while trivializing him. The McCain folks still aren't fans of Romney, I wouldn't be surprised if they leaked something about the taxes soon.

 

[Stinkles]

I just saw this from those interviews he did:



It reminds me of Palin who also lied about small details she really had no reason to lie about. It's so weird.

Why wouldn't the interviewer call him on that? If Romney had literally never heard that term, he's not qualified to be an adult, never mind run for office. What a fucking liar.

 

[Kosmo]

Rand Paul Editorial: Moderates are the problem in Washington

Contrary to the conventional "wisdom," moderates are often the problem in Washington. Often these moderates represent what is wrong with both parties, not because of what they do or don't believe in, but because of how they will tend to "compromise."

Democrats champion expanded social welfare spending over defense spending. Republicans champion tax cuts and limited social spending and blank checks for the military.

Moderates support all of the spending. Instead of being moderate, these middle-of-the-roaders actually have embraced an extreme of fiscal irresponsibility by voting for the wish-list spending of both parties. By refusing to stand up to any spending, they have been the core of the problem in Washington.

So don't believe what you hear from most talking heads: Bipartisanship and moderate influences are the defining characteristic of the Congresses and administrations that ran up our $15 trillion debt.

Does this mean we shouldn't attempt to find compromise or attempt to reach across the aisle? Absolutely not, we should seek to work together, but let's not create some Pollyanna myth that moderates who vote for all spending programs are the answer. In fact, the compromise that is necessary is exactly the opposite.

We need to compromise and restrain both domestic and military spending.

You can work across the aisle and still not forsake one's principles. For example, I have worked with Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Tom Udall of New Mexico on issues such as speeding up the end of the Afghanistan war and in defeating encroachments on Internet freedom (SOPA).

I put a legislative hold on a pipeline regulation bill because it grandfathered in the old pipelines, precisely the pipelines that had led to fatal accidents. I took abuse in the media for this hold, abuse that no "moderate" would likely have withstood, but in the end, Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Dianne Feinstein of California and Barbara Boxer of California compromised with me to get rid of the exemption for older pipelines and within weeks the new testing detected a deadly weakness in a pipeline that had already killed eight people.

Can't really say he's wrong.

 

[RustyNails]

It means that in 2002, he resigned in 1999.

Duh.

I wonder how my employer would react if i told him i quit 3 years ago, and i want a severance package

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

Rand Paul Editorial: Moderates are the problem in Washington






Can't really say he's wrong.

Of course you can't.

 

[XMonkey]

Rand Paul is a moron.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bain2002.pdf

posted? Document says Romney was a managing member of Bain Capital Investors from a 2002 filing.

Add another document to the pile of evidence contradicting Mitt Romney's continued insistence that he ended his active role with Bain Capital in early 1999, part of his long-running effort to avoid responsibility for the company's activity, related to outsourcing and bankruptcies, during the years that followed.

A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/15/mitt-romney-bain-capital_n_1674209.html

Oh, mittens.


Also, this made me lol:

 

[Amir0x]

way old Black mamba, but still hilarious

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

"retroactive retired" means he took a leave of absence in 1999 with the intent to return but in 2002 opted to not come back and thus retire.

Since he left in 1999, they mean he officially retired in 2002 but he had been retired (as in not working) since 1999.

Which by all accounts is mostly what happened. Unfortunately for Mitt, he still kept up to date from 1999-2002 but wants to deny that he did that all of a sudden. And there's evidence from his own mouth of it.

That there is his major fuck up in all of this.

All he really has to say is that he was involved with Bain to the extent that he fulfilled the minimum requirements to contest MA state elections, but not involved to the extent that he was deciding firm positions.

Now, while I really did like the Obama campaign Firms ad, I think it's a disgusting use of the public's perception of private equity. Yes, the Romney campaign has been fucked up, but I expect more from the democrats. Take the following quotes for example:

In business, Mitt Romney's firms shipped jobs to Mexico. And China.

Okay. How is that a bad thing? His job was to help businesses become more efficient.

As Governor, Romney outsources jobs to India

And what's the context of this quote? Well Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, vetoed a bill that would have prohibited Massachusetts from prohibiting free-market companies that use overseas call centers from doing business with the state. Are we going to shit on him for doing something intelligent?

He had millions in a Swiss bank account...Tax havens like Bermuda...And the Cayman Islands.

Not going to argue against that. Unfortunately it's not illegal, but it's pretty lame.

Nevertheless, it's a putrid ad.

 

[TacticalFox88]

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-claims-pollution-is-good-for-the-emviroment. Holy shit.

 

[pigeon]

Okay. How is that a bad thing? His job was to help businesses become more efficient.

The last five years stand as a testament to the problem with making business more "efficient" at all costs.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

The last five years stand as a testament to the problem with making business more "efficient" at all costs.

Sure. But outsourcing jobs is hardly a problem.

It's taking a page out of the Tea Party slogans of "Dere taking aur jerbs!"
An intelligent way of turning the argument back on Romney, but I fear for any one who is actually persuaded by such bullshit.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Okay. How is that a bad thing? His job was to help businesses become more efficient

Mitt is basically running on the premise that his work at Bain is proof that he knows how to create jobs and better the economy. The truth is, he know how to make businesses run more efficiently, but those two things are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Mitt is basically running on the premise that his work at Bain is proof that he knows how to create jobs and better the economy. The truth is, he know how to make businesses run more efficiently, but those two things are not necessarily the same thing.

Except that that's not what the ad is getting at.

It ends with 'Mitt Romney's not the solution. He's the problem'.

So this is what they constitute as a problem? Dumbing the campaign to this level is disgusting.

 

[The Technomancer]

Sure. But outsourcing jobs is hardly a problem.

Define "a problem". Its not a problem for the businesses. I'm sure there are plenty of people who were laid off who consider it a serious problem, and they're going to be voting.

Except that that's not what the ad is getting at.

It ends with 'Mitt Romney's not the solution. He's the problem'.

So this is what they constitute as a problem? Dumbing the campaign to this level is disgusting.

Mitt Romney is deeply entrenched in a system that prioritizes maximizing profit for a certain small segment of the population at the expense of the rest by finding more ways to be more "efficient". I'd call that a problem.

 

[GaimeGuy]

That there is his major fuck up in all of this.

All he really has to say is that he was involved with Bain to the extent that he fulfilled the minimum requirements to contest MA state elections, but not involved to the extent that he was deciding firm positions.

Now, while I really did like the Obama campaign Firms ad, I think it's a disgusting use of the public's perception of private equity. Yes, the Romney campaign has been fucked up, but I expect more from the democrats. Take the following quotes for example:



Okay. How is that a bad thing? His job was to help businesses become more efficient.



And what's the context of this quote? Well Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts, vetoed a bill that would have prohibited Massachusetts from prohibiting free-market companies that use overseas call centers from doing business with the state. Are we going to shit on him for doing some intelligent?



Not going to argue against that. Unfortunately it's not illegal, but it's pretty lame.

Nevertheless, it's a putrid ad.

So your argument is "Shit may be unethical, but hey, that's what business is all about!"

Fuck that. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is free from criticism. Does Romney have so little dignity he would wreck the lives of his fellow Americans and deprive them of their source of income in the name of stuffing his fat wallet even further? Is that what you're defending?

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Define "a problem". Its not a problem for the businesses. I'm sure there are plenty of people who were laid off who consider it a serious problem, and they're going to be voting.

Are we really going to blame Romney for the dynamics of the global economy? That's ridiculous. The American economy is healthier because it can move back-office jobs to developing countries, while becoming more competitive internationally, and thus growing to allow for higher levels of skilled employment.

People may have been affected by this shift, but to place that anger on Romney is low and it's dirty.

So your argument is "Shit may be unethical, but hey, that's what business is all about!"

Fuck that. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is free from criticism. Does Romney have so little dignity he would wreck the lives of his fellow Americans and deprive them of their source of income in the name of stuffing his fat wallet even further? Is that what you're defending?

There is absolutely nothing unethical about moving jobs to developing countries. You use language like 'wreck the lives of...' and 'deprive them of their source of income...' because it suits your narrative. On the flip side, one could argue that to stop that would be to deprive developing economies from actually realizing their potential in the global market and keeping them in the 'third world' so to speak.

From an economic perspective, no government should hinder such exchanges. Forcefully keeping jobs in the country makes your industries uncompetitive and slow to adapt. It's simply bad policy, unless it can be justified otherwise.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The "problem" being referenced in that ad is a lack of any sense of social responsibility or ethics in conducting business. That has resulted in American companies and american businessmen using their executive power to better themselves at the expense of the people who are worst off, earning huge bonuses by making the people who work under them sacrifice their personal lives to work overtime, and making American workers jobless so that they can use slave wages in India, instead.

American companies have no ethics anymore, they onl ycare about making money. It didn't always be the case, and it doesn't need to be.

 

[GaimeGuy]

There is absolutely nothing unethical about moving jobs to developing countries. You use language like 'wreck the lives of...' and 'deprive them of their source of income...' because it suits your narrative. On the flip side, one could argue that to stop that would be to deprive developing economies from actually realizing their potential in global market and keeping them in the 'third world' so to speak.

There is no need to do one at the expense of the other. You can employ people in other countries if there is insufficient labor domestically to provide for your needs. You can expand your company into other markets

This shit with american companies firing their american call center workers and replacing them with workers in India being paid slave wages so they can improve their bottom line is not "capitalism at work." It's unethical, greedly, slimeball businesses treating people as commodities, without any regard for their feelings, or any attachments to their communities.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Rahm is better as an attack dog than CoS
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rahm-ema...turns-and-decided-palin-would-be-a-better-vp/

Perhaps the best argument I've seen on Bain, taxes, and why it matters for tax reform

 

[Wilsongt]

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-claims-pollution-is-good-for-the-emviroment. Holy shit.

Someone needs to post that comic about the media running away with an idea and screwing it up. The cancer one.

 

[RDreamer]

I don't think it's referencing ethics. The problem is just that America is losing jobs, and that leads to our situation. I think the ad is just sayin do you think a guy whose background is doing that stuff will be best to try and think of a solution to it? Romney and people that do those things are the problem. That's not an ethics problem. I don't blame him for it. But I don't trust that he'll fix it, mostly because he hasn't said that. If he came out and said look yeah I did those things, and so I know why the incentive is there. I'll work to end those incentives. But he isnt. Obama wants to end those incentives. Romney doesn't care.

 

[Clevinger]

There is no need to do one at the expense of the other. You can employ people in other countries if there is insufficient labor domestically to provide for your needs. You can expand your company into other markets

This shit with american companies firing their american call center workers and replacing them with workers in India being paid slave wages so they can improve their bottom line is not "capitalism at work." It's unethical, greedly, slimeball businesses treating people as commodities, without any regard for their feelings, or any attachments to their communities.

It is capitalism at work. But we've never (or not for a long time, anyway) been a 100% capitalist country; we put lots of regulations in place so that people like Mitt can't completely fuck over the little people, only mostly.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I don't think it's referencing ethics. The problem is just that America is losing jobs, and that leads to our situation. I think the ad is just sayin do you think a guy whose background is doing that stuff will be best to try and think of a solution to it? Romney and people that do those things are the problem. That's not an ethics problem. I don't blame him for it. But I don't trust that he'll fix it, mostly because he hasn't said that. If he came out and said look yeah I did those things, and so I know why the incentive is there. I'll work to end those incentives. But he isnt. Obama wants to end those incentives. Romney doesn't care.

But that's exactly the point. Romney doesn't care. That's the problem.

If companies and executives cared more about what they were providing to their customers,their employees, and society at large, this kind of stuff wouldn't happen. Banks wouldn't wrecklessly overleverage themselves because of the risk it presents to their affiliated parties. Outsourcing and laying people off to become more "efficient" wouldn't be thrown around so freely by companies already making lots of money

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Except that that's not what the ad is getting at.

It ends with 'Mitt Romney's not the solution. He's the problem'.

So this is what they constitute as a problem? Dumbing the campaign to this level is disgusting.

You are blaming Obama for dumbing the campaign? Were you asleep for the last 4 years?

 

[werks]

Are we really going to blame Romney for the dynamics of the global economy? That's ridiculous. The American economy is healthier because it can move back-office jobs to developing countries, while becoming more competitive internationally, and thus growing to allow for higher levels of skilled employment.

People may have been affected by this shift, but to place that anger on Romney is low and it's dirty.



There is absolutely nothing unethical about moving jobs to developing countries. You use language like 'wreck the lives of...' and 'deprive them of their source of income...' because it suits your narrative. On the flip side, one could argue that to stop that would be to deprive developing economies from actually realizing their potential in the global market and keeping them in the 'third world' so to speak.

From an economic perspective, no government should hinder such exchanges. Forcefully keeping jobs in the country makes your industries uncompetitive and slow to adapt. It's simply bad policy, unless it can be justified otherwise.

Look, for the last 3 years I heard this bullshit about "job creators" from the GOP. Democrats aren't the ones who called capitalists & corporations "job creators." The GOP defined them as "job creators" & by default when they outsource and kill jobs, they are doing something wrong. Again, not my definition, but the GOPs.

 

[werks]

“The president’s latest bad idea is to raise taxes on families, job creators and small businesses,” Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said Monday in a statement dismissing Obama’s new plan for a one-year extension to the Bush-era tax cuts on families making less than $250,000 a year.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/romney-job-creators-bush-tax-cuts.php

There you go. But I bet you had no issues with the job creator rhetoric when it came to defending tax cuts for the wealthy. We are just asking Romney to be held to the "job creator" standard.

 

[dramatis]

Except that that's not what the ad is getting at.

It ends with 'Mitt Romney's not the solution. He's the problem'.

So this is what they constitute as a problem? Dumbing the campaign to this level is disgusting.

I'm curious to know, is this the first time you've followed an election this closely? Of course, in a magical world, politics would be fought by Marquess of Queensbury rules and everything would be rainbows. But just as you say businesses should be more efficient, politics should actually be a little more dirty.

I'm not saying there are no boundaries, but what you're calling "disgusting" is actually a strength on the part of the campaign, because it means they have the cunning and daring to do something you wouldn't have the stomach to do (I bet if you were in their situation, however, you would).

Politics is life's arena. Calling it disgusting is just a pretense of being above it when in actuality the people who dare to do these things are exactly the politicians who stand above you.

It is also inherently hypocritical to say that businesses should have no restraints in order to help 'third world countries' reach their fullest economic potential, and then turn around and blast campaigns for being 'putrid'. I'd argue that there is no one path to 'fullest economic potential' and it doesn't have to involve the exploitation of labor that you agree with. Costs and benefits are not always as clear cut as numbers make them out to be.