Romney Might Be In TROUBLE

Hey Gang,

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 suggest.


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?

Fu.ny how if your company fails and you are ceo it is your responsibility, but if you are president and the economy fails it is bush's fault. Hopefully this makes romney unelectable and the republicans nominate ron paul, if they really want to beat obama.

reply to post by filosophia


I think the economy was failing way before Obama. My problem with him is that he made all these promises to catch us before we hit the ground, and in that he has failed....

But you analogy still made me smile....

reply to post by phantomjack


There's even more coming out. 2003 reports. This is why he hides those tax reports. We need to look at them. The truth about his true motives are in those tax reports. After November, we will never have this chance again.

This man is dangerous.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by phantomjack

 

There's even more coming out. 2003 reports. This is why he hides those tax reports. We need to look at them. The truth about his true motives are in those tax reports. After November, we will never have this chance again.

This man is dangerous.

Well, I hate to mention it skepticconwatcher, but I tend to lean right. So lets agree to disagree on which candidate is better if thats ok?

But I do agree with you. He should show his tax returns. If there is something bad in those, i.e. unfavorable for Romney, I think that would pretty much destroy my respect for both sides of the isle.

But as for the tax returns, well, one could easily say that Obama should release his college transcripts, right?

I do think, though, that this could be a huge game changer in November.

reply to post by phantomjack


I agree 100%, he is in huge trouble, and right before there convention.

His name appears on SEC paperwork he was the boss, now he needs to release his tax returns, but I doubt that happens.

reply to post by phantomjack


By how I am reading the Drudge Coverage, I think you are absolutely right but I'm not sure it's Romney with a problem.

If Obama is RIGHT..and there is fire where he's pointing at smoke......only he's seeing in my opinion.......then Romney's cooked and BEFORE the convention..please please..if this must happen, BEFORE please. There is still an option available now.

If Obama is WRONG..and Mr. Secrecy himself is complaining about Romney for a pure fishing expedition, then I think the language has moved this to a point of cornered fighting and Obama is just toast.

It all depends....is there really something big to find ?

reply to post by skepticconwatcher


Though I went back and re-read your post and found something that I would like to ask. What did you mean by this:

After November, we will never have this chance again.

Who is "we" and what is the "chance?" Just a sincere question...no desire to get into a political debate, but just curious.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by phantomjack

 

By how I am reading the Drudge Coverage, I think you are absolutely right but I'm not sure it's Romney with a problem.

If Obama is RIGHT..and there is fire where he's pointing at smoke......only he's seeing in my opinion.......then Romney's cooked and BEFORE the convention..please please..if this must happen, BEFORE please. There is still an option available now.

If Obama is WRONG..and Mr. Secrecy himself is complaining about Romney for a pure fishing expedition, then I think the language has moved this to a point of cornered fighting and Obama is just toast.

It all depends....is there really something big to find ?

Very good point Wrabbit.

You know, at times, its like we are living some sort of "Truman Show" and all these things are playing out right in front of our eyes.

Just look at how an election in 2012 has changed since the 1940's and 50's. Can you imagine a Reagan / Carter election with thus much mudslinging?

The Rhetoric is really screwed up.

I would respect them both more if they would just run a clean campaign and stop the one-up-manship, IMHO.

I said from the very beginning that Romney would quit or get in trouble before enduring the enbarassment of losing to Paul and his delegates, Paul is going to win this one way or another.! AND THATS THAT!...........................bye the way, Obama is stupid for bringing this out before the nomination,,Obama can beat Romney more easily than Paul...

reply to post by phantomjack

Here's the problem for Romney, either he lied publicly recently when he made statements saying he no longer had any business with Bain after that certain point, something he said because Bain was engaging in a lot of outsourcing of jobs in those years to Mexico and China, or he lied to the SEC and in a deposition/under oath, I believe, when the company filings said he was CEO and sole owner of the company.

So either he lied then, which could have criminal repercussions, or he's lying now and being totally disingenuous to the American public while trying to gain the highest office in the land. The Obama campaign caught him in a lie, it's just not clear which lie it is, that's why they are hammering it home. It's a huge gift horse for them, because frankly Romney was enormously stupid to be caught in an outright lie like this. Also, it plays to the Obama campaign's story because it's a lie about big, rich, corporate, evil business dealings, the kind of thing most Americans are completely fed up with. So, not only is it a lie, it's a lie that makes Romney look doubly bad because it's all about shady business stuff.

Somewhere out there............












Ron Paul is grinning from ear to ear.

reply to post by phantomjack


Just a thought here... if this blows up (like really blows up) and Romney withdraws from the race, would that mean Ron Paul would be the nominee since he's the only one left?

Bain story is not a big deal. Media will do their best to push it, but it won't stick with the American people struggling in the Obama economy.

If you want to read more about this, with links, try this www.abovetopsecret.com... I think what persuaded me was that The Washington Post, a liberal paper, ran it through their fact checker who said that this was old non-news. The question had been explored by a Massachusetts election board in 2002, which found nothing wrong. There were other reasons cited as to why there were no grounds for charges.

Not surprisingly, there has been a huge uproar, so The Post took another look at it. They came to the same conclusion and gave the charge three out of four Pinocchios. . This is not what you want to build an anti-Romney campaign on.

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Just a thought here... if this blows up (like really blows up) and Romney withdraws from the race, would that mean Ron Paul would be the nominee since he's the only one left?

Wow you Ron Paul people are past pathetic.

Very sad.

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Just a thought here... if this blows up (like really blows up) and Romney withdraws from the race, would that mean Ron Paul would be the nominee since he's the only one left?

Wow you Ron Paul people are past pathetic.

Very sad.

Wow you anti-Paul people are past pathetic.

I never said anything about being pro-Ron Paul. I was asking what the conclusion would be if Mitt Romney backed out. I think that's a pretty neutral question.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by phantomjack

 

Just a thought here... if this blows up (like really blows up) and Romney withdraws from the race, would that mean Ron Paul would be the nominee since he's the only one left?

Wow you Ron Paul people are past pathetic.

Very sad.

Wow you anti-Paul people are past pathetic.

I never said anything about being pro-Ron Paul. I was asking what the conclusion would be if Mitt Romney backed out. I think that's a pretty neutral question.

edit on 13-7-2012 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)

Santorum and Gingrich are as much in the race as Ron Paul is. All 3 have only suspended campaigns.

All you did was put evil ideas in the heads of Ron Paul fans. Most are not mentally stable, very delusional, no telling what they will do once their cult leader fades away for good.

reply to post by Carseller4


Nah, racist Romney backers are sad.

CJ

Why is it that President Obama and all of the Liberal Talk Shows spend so much time bashing Romney and so little time touting this administration's successes and what has been done to improve America and the lifestyle of its citizens.

Wouldn't it be more effective to remind people of what you've done for them than to constantly criticize the opposition? In fact, if American's are indeed better off under Obama, there's no need for him to do anything but continue on course and be rewarded in November.

On the other hand, if President Obama hasn't done much to make this country and Americans better off, it would be more prudent for him to explain what he'll do differently in a second term.

Oh well, I guess even with our illogical politics, we're better off than Syria and 99% of the rest of the world, eh?

-cwm