Not only that -- this is a guy who gets caught brazenly lying about opponents, and when called out to apologize or withdraw the comments, shamelessly says he won't do so because he doesn't care, all that matters is getting "50.1%".
In addition to his many other character flaws, he's a whiny hypocrite. And yes, people are paying attention.
This guy is just vile. I think it speaks volumes as to how many of his former opponents, etc have either refused to endorse him entirely or have done so with obvious reluctance. Nobody can stand him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ively/2012/07/15/gJQARXknmW_blog.html?hpid=z1“He took a leave of absence and, in fact, Candy, he ended up not going back at all and retired retroactively to February of 1999 as a result,” Gillespie said.
I'll dig up some polling later showing the difference in the levels of support people have for the two candidates. It is striking. Nearly everyone voting for Romney is really voting against Obama. He has pathetically low positive support.
"It was not until 2002 that Romney finalized a severance agreement with Bain, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999."
"The 2002 gubernatorial campaign, which Romney won, marked a major pivot in the narrative about his tenure at Bain Capital. From that time on, Romney, now the presumptive GOP nominee for president, began to describe Feb. 11, 1999 — the day he was named chief executive of the Salt Lake City Olympics organizing committee — as the date on which he abdicated all control over Bain Capital and its business operations.
But until his run for governor — and even before that campaign was underway in earnest, when he needed to prove sustained connections to Massachusetts in order to ward off a ballot challenge — Romney had characterized his departure from Bain Capital more as a “leave of absence” in which he would be a “part-timer,” and not as an absolute separation from the thriving business he built and solely owned.
It was not until 2002 that Romney finalized a severance agreement with Bain, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999.
...
On the day after Romney took over the Winter Olympics, the Boston Herald reported that “Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions.”
On July 19, 1999, a news release about the resignation of two Bain Capital managing directors describes Romney as CEO and “currently on a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee.”
Romney is quoted in the release from Regan Communications of Boston as saying, “While we will miss them, we wish them well and look forward to working with them as they build their firm,” language that suggests he was still involved in Bain personnel matters.
A Harvard Business School bulletin from October 1999 reported that "Romney is currently on leave as CEO of Bain Capital” and not that he had “retired” from Bain. In a November 2000 interview with the Globe, Romney’s wife, Ann, said he had been forced to lessen, but not end entirely, his involvement with Bain Capital.
It was not until August 2001 that Romney announced he would not return to full-time management of Bain Capital at the conclusion of the Olympics.
Until then, Romney planned to pick up where he left off, just as he had after two previous leaves of absence — one from 1991 to 1992 to save Bain and Company from near-bankruptcy and another from late 1993 to 1994 to run for US Senate.
“When I left my employer in Massachusetts in February of 1999 to accept the Olympic assignment,” Romney testified before the state Ballot Law Commission on June 17, 2002, “I left on the basis of a leave of absence, indicating that I, by virtue of that title, would return at the end of the Olympics to my employment at Bain Capital, but subsequently decided not to do so and entered into a departure agreement with my former partners.”
...
Romney also testified that “there were a number of social trips and business trips that brought [him] back to Massachusetts, board meetings” while he was running the Olympics. He added that he remained on the boards of several companies, including the Lifelike Co., in which Bain Capital held a stake until 2001.
Romney’s lawyer at the hearing said that Romney’s work in the private sector continued unbroken while he ran the Olympics.
“He succeeded in that three-year period in restoring confidence in the Olympic Games, closing that disastrous deficit and staging one of the most successful Olympic Games ever to occur on US soil,” said Peter L. Ebb from Ropes & Gray.
“Now while all that was going on, very much in the public eye, what happened to his private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And the answer is they continued unabated just as they had.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...s_continuing_ties_to_bain_after_1999/?page=1/
All Mitt has to do in ads in response...
Can't run on own record so diverse/blame/switch to different topics.
Interesting article from traditionally Republican "Forbes" that asks some tough questions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker...e-can-go-away/
Right, because nobody knows the unemployment rate is 8.2%.
Sorry, but that's not all he has to do. He's been doing it for six months. Even Republicans are saying it is not enough.
People don't just want to be reminded that things aren't great. They want to be convinced that Romney can do better. And he can't make that case.
Laughing... someone is not running on his record, alright, but it's Romney. The only credentials he has for even being a candidate are his business record and his governorship. And he's running away from both as fast as he can.
All we hear from Obama team is that was Bush/Republicans/Congress fault.
Funny how none of them say anything about that promise Obama made on NBC TV, the unemployment since 01-2009 all the way until now, and how Obama should man up and keep his one term promise because he should be held accountable (his very own words).
Wait, we got it. Those were not his words, those were the evil words from Bush/Republicans/Congress.
LOL. As someone else said:
Mitt Romney: "I did not have fiduciary relations with that corporation"
No, that is not "all we hear", though that is partially true.
Actually those weren't the words from Bush or the Republicans. They weren't words from anyone at all -- they are just yet more lies and bullshit from right-wingers.
Obama never promised that he would not run for a second term. He said that people would hold him accountable if he didn't turn things around in three years.
First, that was in February 2009, when the economy was in a tailspin. It no longer is. He *has* turned things around. We're not all the way there yet, but things are much improved.
Second, he is running for reelection and people do have the ability to hold him accountable. But that means they have to have an alternative they find preferable. The scumbag Romney isn't it.
And I do find it amusing that you insist that Obama be held accountable for everything, but Romney be held accountable for nothing.
Can you provide a clip or two that Obama admit what he said on NBC TV was a big mistake and he should own up for what he said? I could not find it.
I saw the clip on NBC myself. Obama said he would be held accountable and it would be a one term proposal. You can be nitty picky that he never said he would not run for 2nd term. I NEVER said he said he would not run for 2nd term.
Where did I say anything about Mitt not be hold accountable?
Oh, you said "things are much improved". Like how "the private sector is doing fine"from Obama?
Heh, even bill kristol says Romney is crazy to not release his tax returns:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/polit...-crazy-not-to-release-tax-returns-128958.html
He's got something to hide.
I never said any such clip existed. Why would it? I have no idea if Obama considers it a mistake or not. Where are you getting this crap from?
You said he should "keep his one term promise". He made no "one term promise". He said that people would have the chance to express their views on him in four years. And they do.
It's implied in you jumping into a thread about Romney and trying to change the subject to Obama.
If you don't think things are much improved from February 2009, you are utterly clueless.
First of all, all the polls I read show the #1 issue for the voters is THE ECONOMY. Not about Mitt's wealth or the sky is blue or whatever. It's a fact, it is about the economy and jobs. Period.
He said it would be "one term proposition". Here you go, let the readers decide = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRAMdUNo2Cg
So now "its' implied". Just what I thought because I never said such a thing.
Now back to your regular scheduled programming, more insults and name callings.
First of all, all the polls I read show the #1 issue for the voters is THE ECONOMY. Not about Mitt's wealth or the sky is blue or whatever. It's a fact, it is about the economy and jobs. Period.
He said it would be "one term proposition". Here you go, let the readers decide = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRAMdUNo2Cg
So now "its' implied". Just what I thought because I never said such a thing.
So, you're trying to change the subject again. How surprising.
Why exactly would any rational person believe Mitt Romney is going to fix the economy when he can't even manage a presidential campaign without making himself look like a complete fool?
Yes, I watched it an hour ago. It doesn't contain any "promise". You lied.
And yet you're still changing the subject and still refusing to comment on whether or not Romney should take responsibility for what his company did while he was its sole owner, president and CEO. Gee, I wonder why that is.