Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
And now to make things even more hilarious, MR wants an apology from the president for calling him out for lying. Wow. This isn't "swift boating" Mitt, as the story supposes. Swift boating him would be running commercials about how Mormons didn't let blacks into the church until, what? 1977 or something. Those commercials could also mention how the church counts Albert Einstein as an official posthumous member. That would be swift boating. This is just calling him out for possibly lying to the SEC, which every candidate would do in that situation.
Fact check. People of color have always been allowed to be members of the LDS church. It wasn't until the 70s that they were allowed to hold the priesthood. Don't ask me to explain the reasoning there- I don't understand the logic there. But I'd hate for people to think Mitt (or other Mormons for that matter) were racist. As much as I would hate to think Obama was a indonesian born Muslim. ;-)
–
I'm actually aware of the difference. I was talking about the tactic in campaigns that's become known as "Swift Boating", whereby you repeat something that isn't true--but could be--and anyway has nothing to do with the issues at hand in order to cultivate a negative view of your opponent. Such as in 2000 (before the term was invented, but great example) when W had robocalls in SC asking voters if it would change their opinion of McCain if they knew he had a black baby. He doesn't; he has a Vietnamese child, not that it should matter what race his children are. But the point is that if you're a Machiavellian, what are the consequences? None. I'm not advocating that philosophy, but I'm just trying to point out the difference between running commercials bringing up a legit point (i.e. did Romney lie on an SEC filing?), and what a hypothetical one might look like that could actually be called something like "Swift Boating".
thenewgreen · 4516 days ago · link ·
Did you watch the video? He's pretty slick, composed and by the time most people finish watching it they'll be thinking to themselves, "yeah, that Obama should apologize" and his ads really are "beneath the presidency". -Is this unprecedented territory to accuse a sitting president of actions beneath his office for something so seemingly benign and ubiquitous as "negative campaign ads"?
Anyways, Mitt is slick and I think BO has a tough road ahead of him. It's going to be a close one imo.
–
I am one of the few people who truly doesn't think its going to be close. As unpopular as the President is, Romney hasn't a clue how to not shoot himself in the foot. Wait until the real campaigning starts after the conventions. That's when the private money will start attacking Mitt for all of his offshore millions. At least that's what I would do. My message would be: What is more unpatriotic that hiding money so you don't have to pay taxes on it?
–
thenewgreen · 4516 days ago · link ·
Being an indonesian born muslim.
I kid, I kid. Unless things dramatically improve by Nov, it's going to be about Jobs and if I were Romney I would essentially say, "hey, I want all of you to be so successful that having a tax shelter is something that you have to consider". Because the truth is, not many people as wealthy as him wouldn't consider it.
–
I'm not saying I blame him for exploiting loopholes. He's far form the only wealthy American to do so. I'm saying if I were a political strategist I would hammer that point into the ground. This guy wants to be President, the most important steward of the national welfare, and hiding your money certainly isn't in the best interest of the national welfare. They should make that point simple and repetitive.
–
Blackspeare · 4516 days ago · link ·
But Romney did nothing illegal----blame the regulations and the tax code!
–
thenewgreen · 4513 days ago · link ·
It's legal in parts of the country to pay someone for sex. Does that mean you would do it (don't answer, rhetorical question)? Point being, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. The GOP is about to nominate someone for the Presidency that admittedly uses offshore tax shelters to avoid paying taxes on money earned in the US. How does that sit with you?
JakobVirgil · 4515 days ago · link ·
If your morality is based on legality you don't have any.
–
–
–
Blackspeare · 4513 days ago · link ·
When someone post a profound reply that makes me think about my values it blows my mind and all I want to do is have some fun!----your apology is accepted ;-))
I think that Romney's "punished for success" line will run out of steam. Even if it somewhat deflects the matter at hand, it also reminds people that he is extremely wealthy when most voters are not.
I agree with b_b. If I were a Dem strategist, I'd keep hammering him for hiding money offshore.
–
Blackspeare · 4513 days ago · link ·
What about those 1040's that show he paid no tax????
–
He is definitely between a rock and a hard place vis-a-vis his returns. Either he can release them and have people dismayed at how little money he gave the gov't as a percentage of what a mind-blowing sum he hauled in. Or he can keep them secret and let all of us speculate about how little he paid the the gov't. Its ironic that his dad set the gold standard for how many years of returns a politician should release when running for office. I believe it was 12. My guess is that his accounting is borderline illegal and his calculation says that it is better to let the world think you're a criminal than for the world to know you're a criminal.
–
thenewgreen · 4499 days ago · link ·
- My guess is that his accounting is borderline illegal and his calculation says that it is better to let the world think you're a criminal than for the world to know you're a criminal.
–
Blackspeare · 4499 days ago · link ·
The tax code in the USA is unbelievably complicated. When first introduced it was a small simple tax on total income and even then some very famous people left the USA rather than pay it among them Charlie Chaplin. But as the economy grew, the federal income tax became became a vehicle to grow business, purchase homes, encourage investment, and became mired with loopholes as Congress played to each of their constituency. Eventually the tax code will have to be changed even though they are many sacred cows hidden in the myriad of pages.
thenewgreen · 4516 days ago · link ·
I just don't think the point resonates as much as you seem to. When I hear it I think to myself, was it illegal? No? Then did it save him money? Yes? Would I do it then? Probably? Okay then.
If I were the Obama campaign I would hammer away at ads with Mitt saying one thing when he was previously running then him flip flopping now and ask "doesn't a president need convictions"? There is so much film on Romney from the gazillion times he's run for office that this would be easy and a slam dunk. But I would sprinkle some bain/tax shelter in there too. But for me its close to a non issue. I actually respect how successful the dude was. It's not my thing, but then neither is golf and I'm still shocked by how good Tiger Woods is. The guy knows business/finance.... I should be turned off by this?
–
Maybe you aren't turned off by it, but you don't think the average blue collar worker will be? "You work 50 hours/week for your $50k per year and pay 25% tax on all of it, and this guy only pays 17% on the part that the government knows about. The rest he hides in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands so their companies and governments can make money on it. Oh and by the way, he made that money by closing factories in the US." Who cares if its 100% accurate or if most people would also tax shelter their millions if given the opportunity? Run that in a union hall and at your average unemployment office and see how pissed the people get, maybe with a backdrop of him cheerfully bantering about his wife's several Cadillacs. I think it would be an effective strategy to get already left leaning people to come out and vote, many of whom did not in 2010. Playing the flip-flop angle doesn't sell to me, because he flip-flopped away from the President's position on most issues. Conservative people who care about social issue will think that at least he's saying the right thing now, and he's the best they have. Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage and it seems to be working for him.
–
thenewgreen · 4516 days ago · link ·
I don't know, many of those workers would likely hope to someday be in that spot. I think one can't underestimate a persons ability to projectively empathize. Someday, when I'm wealthy I'll get where he's coming from. You're assuming that the electorate votes for those that align most closely with where they currently are or with those that will help them in their current situation the most. They don't. If they did, the poor would never vote GOP and the poor whites do vote GOP all the friggin time.
I know that this quote is all over Hubski but its appropriate here: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -Steinbeck
–
Well fortunately for BO, he pretty much only has to focus on the rust belt, where this message will resonate strongest. MR could flip Florida, Colorado, Virginia, NC and Iowa from 08 and still lose. Here is a refresher of the 08 results. Difficult to see which of the other blue states will go the other way.
–
thenewgreen · 4516 days ago · link ·
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada all appear to be up for grabs as well, according the the NYTimes