Originally posted by phantomjack
With comments that the President made today regarding the Romney-Bain Capital-SEC Filings that are under intense attack by the White House, I think
that Romney might be in political trouble.
“My understanding is that Mr. Romney attested to the SEC, multiple times, that he was the chairman, CEO and president of Bain Capital and I think
most Americans figure if you are the chairman, CEO and president of a company that you are responsible for what that company does,” Obama said.
Obama told Scott Thuman of WJLA, the ABC affiliate in the Washington, D.C., area, that Romney “absolutely” must answer questions about his tenure
at Bain and whether it continued past 1999 — when Romney has said in the past he left — to 2002, as Securities and Exchange Commission documents
Read more: www.politico.com...
To me, those are some pretty HEAVY words coming from a seemingly confident POTUS. I do not think that Obama would put his political neck out there
like that unless he and the Democratic machine have something more than what Mitt Romney might be hiding.
I personally felt that Romney was clean on the SEC filing where he is listed as CEO during years he claims he was working 24/7 for the Olympics.
In my professional life and experience, I can tell you that Romney is probably clean, just based on what I have read in the SEC filing myself.
But Obama shocked me today....strong words....without some sort of proof?
This might begin to get very exciting, very soon.
What say you my ATS Friends?
I think there was plenty of proof. Documents filed with the SEC in 2002 listed Romney as, and I quote, "sole stockholder, chairman of the board,
chief executive officer and president."
But he had NOTHING
to do with Bain after 1999? That's what he says: "There is absolutely no evidence that I had any role whatsoever in the
management of Bain Capital after February 1999,"
So, uh, somebody obviously forged
these documents and put his name on them?
I guess. He's demanding an apology from the Obama campaign, which is a classic, long-standing right wing tactic: the best defense is a good
offense. Make as though you're a victim, make as though charges against you are outrageous. Finally, although this hasn't happened yet, make the
charge that the allegations against you "demonstrate how desperate" the other candidate is. It's a good strategy, at least in America. Many
people are more influenced by attitude and emotion, as opposed to facts and logic.
However, as we get deeper and deeper into the election (I wish these things didn't last so long -- they're painful and damaging to the USA, IMO) we
are, in fact, seeing a Romney who is trying to hide his past. I think he'd be better off, and would stand a better chance of winning, if he was just
"out" about everything. Americans respect a guy who is clever about money, and he obviously is. If I were him, I wouldn't worry about giving the
Obama campaign "ammunition" because trying to hide stuff is giving them the best ammunition possible.
That having been said, in the interest of disclosure, I do prefer Obama, because right now I believe the right is more driven by hysteria and