As the Obama campaign and the media continue to press Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns, and to suggest--without a shred of evidence--that he is a “felon,” it is worth noting how much critical information Barack Obama has withheld from view--both as a candidate in 2008, and during his term in office.
10. State senate papers. In the 2008 primary, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for not releasing papers from her eight years time as First Lady--but failed to produce any papers from his eight years in Springfield. “They could have been thrown out,” he said.
9. Academic transcripts. His supposed academic brilliance was a major selling point, but Obama (by his own admission) was a mediocre student. His GPA at Occidental was a B-plus at best, and his entering class at Columbia was weak.
4. The real White House guest list. Touting its transparency, the Obama White House released its guest logs--but kept many visits secret, and moved meetings with lobbyists off-site. It also refused to confirm the identities of visitors like Bertha Lewis of ACORN.
In addition to the above, Obama and his campaign have lied about many facts about his past--his membership in the New Party; his extensive connections with ACORN; and his continued relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, among other examples. Obama’s own memoir is filled with fabrications. And now he is lying about his opponent’s honorable record in business. He--and the media--have no shame.
Stick to your Guns Romney. Play his game. You'll do just fine. Anything you release won't win you any votes from the Left/Democrats anyway. Let them whine away.
And you are going to vote for this guy...for
acting just like Obama (in your opinion)??? Justice Department spokeswoman Gina Talamona said reducing backlogs within the department remains a significant challenge: “The complexities of these requests, the number of offices that must be searched, the number of consultations that must be made, and the level of review that must be undertaken prior to responding to the request are all beyond the control of the agency.”
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Well it's nice for you to admit that Romney has something to hide.
And I love it really...you are encouraging Romney to do what you supposedly hate about Obama.
That seems a bit odd...don't ya think???
This isn't going away for Romney...Republicans are calling on him to release his taxes...this will follow him all the way through to November. And the longer he waits, the worse it looks. If he tries to release only his tax rates from those years and not his entire tax returns...then that just makes it more suspicious that he is hiding something in those returns.
I absolutely love that you guys are comparing Obama's college transcripts to Romney's tax returns.
The administration has embarked on an unprecedented wave of prosecutions of whistleblowers and alleged leakers — an effort many journalists believe is aimed at blocking national security-related stories.
Originally posted by jam321
As for the FOIA, there was already a backlog prior to Obama taking office.
As far as Romney sticking to his guns; if these are the issues he is going to target, he is only going to shoot himself in the foot. Obama was elected in 2008 and everybody was already aware or didn't care about many of the 10 things you pointed out.
The only ones who care are Republicans and one would think that by now Romney would have already acquired their votes.
Maybe the people reaping the benefits of his welfare state, but the average working class citizen certainly does care.
It's also a little hypocritical to campaign on transparency and then blast Romney about his tax returns in an attempt to cover up his lack of transparency and his administrations shortcomings.
The real sad thing is that people are either stupid or just have real short memories and Obama will most likely end up getting re-elected.
Just because you are of the same political party as this man you don't care about his lying and corruption. I think that really hurts your credibility.
Heres five they didn't know about from the list: 8. Book proposal 4. The real White House guest list. 3. FOIA requests 2. Health reform negotiations. 1. Fast and Furious documents
Originally posted by jibeho
Obama could also disclose a full list of his 2008 donors but still hasn't. How many hundreds of millions$ came from foreign sources?? Back then McCain released a full disclosure of his donors and Obama still remains mum.
I have come to assume that your posts are always lies...you never let me down.
6. Small-dollar donors. In 2008, the McCain campaign released the names of donors who had contributed less than $200, though it was not required to do so. But the Obama campaign refused, amidst accusations it had accepted illegal foreign contributions.
Shame on meCalling Barack Obama the "greatest fundraiser in presidential political history," John McCain campaign manager Rick Davis urged the Democratic nominee to identify his small donors.
During a morning call with reporters, Davis said Obama has made transparency a cornerstone of his White House bid and that disclosing the identity of all of his donors should be tantamount to his message.
"From our perspective a little bit of sunshine, a little bit of transparency will go a long way on this issue," he said. "They're being kept secret by the Obama campaign for no good reason."
Obama's team announced yesterday that the Democrat raised a record $150M in September. The FEC does not require candidates to release the names of individuals who give less than $200. But Davis suggested there's no way to be sure Obama is not receiving small-dollar donations from abroad. And he said the Republican National Committee is creating a database for all party donors; gifts will be logged and available for public review within 24 hours of their receipt.
"What we are trying to do is include the broadest possible transparency," Davis said.
"The question remains -- Why, with the technology he has in his hands and the demands on transparency that he is so well known for, doesn't he do the same thing?" he added of Obama.
Okay, so why support one over another? Why not just not vote then?
So why do you not put weight on these significant lies and corruption Obama has done? The fact that you are willing to overlook it because hes your guy is what hurts your credibility.
(On a side note, I truly hope you are supporting Obama as a lesser of two evils and you don't actually think Obama is a good candidate, it won't change anything but to think that Obama has done well seems impossible at tjis point)
Whistle blowers being arrested, innocents dying and covering up an investigation, etc. all from the supposed "most transparent administration", all of this seems important to me.
I have no interest in which one of these two puppets will actually win the election. The reason that this sham of a two party system is allowed to continue is because of a mentality like you have shown: All the choices are corrupt, but i'll chose one and overlook their corruption.
Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Indigo5
I have come to assume that your posts are always lies...you never let me down.
Really?? You know what they say about people who ASSUME?? Name calling?? Wow.
Clearly you failed to read the full list cited in the original OP article
#6
6. Small-dollar donors. In 2008, the McCain campaign released the names of donors who had contributed less than $200, though it was not required to do so. But the Obama campaign refused, amidst accusations it had accepted illegal foreign contributions.
Care to discuss?
"When President, then candidate, Obama was asked to disclose some of his donors because there was suspicion of their being the foreign source of money into his campaign, they refused to do it."
FALSE
Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor … who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.
Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.
Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.
The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.
Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)
Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)
Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.
