Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mitt Romney presents one enormous problem for Barack Obama’s campaign: No divorce records. That’s why the media are so hot to get their hands on Romney’s tax records for the past 25 years. They need something to “pick through, distort and lie about” — as the Republican candidate says.
Obama’s usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.
Democrats aren’t going to find any personal dirt on the clean-cut Mormon, so they need complicated tax filings going back decades in order to create the illusion of scandal out of boring financial records.
Romney has already released his 2010 tax return and is about to release his 2011 return. After all the huffing and puffing by the media demanding those returns, the follow-up story vanished remarkably quickly when the only thing the return showed was that Romney pays millions of dollars in taxes and gives a lot of money to charity.
Let’s take a romp down memory lane and review the typical Obama campaign strategy. Obama became a U.S. senator only by virtue of David Axelrod’s former employer, the Chicago Tribune, ripping open the sealed divorce records of Obama’s two principal opponents.
One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull’s second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.
(snip)
(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)
I agree the tax return thing is irrelevant to the election and it's sad the media made a big deal out of it. But don't act as if Republicans didn't bring up irrelevant things, most of it false, about Obama. In 2010 14% of people believed Obama "may be the antichrist."
I agree the tax return thing is irrelevant to the election and it's sad the media made a big deal out of it. But don't act as if Republicans didn't bring up irrelevant things, most of it false, about Obama. [MOD CUT/off topic]
Back to the subject:
When the Obama campaign finds that there are no salacious records to dig up about Romney, and no women they can dig up to make accusations, what WILL they do? Especially if the American people keep ignoring their screeching about Romney's taxes?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 08-02-2012 at 11:09 AM..
Reason: edited quoted post and reply
Hmmmmmm.....another candidate, Ron Paul has neither had affairs nor divorce either.
The Obama campaign will continue to assert attacks on Capitalism and individual liberty in an effort to claim that the government can do it better. All the while the Obama campaign will attempt to divert attention from the current economy, jobless/unemployment rates, endless pre-emptive war actions, tax-amaggedon starting Jan 1, 2013, the increased costs of Obamacare, the $ Trillion/yr. deficits by this administration, over-reach of Executive powers via DREAM amnesty, stealing from Medicare to underwrite Obamacare, Operation Fast & Furious, leaks from the highest levels endangering our national security, etc..., etc..., etc... .
Unlike the jet setting Obama-Romney, candidate Ron Paul addresses the problems of the day via the manipulation of our economy via the FED's policies and attempting to make actions of The FED more transparent to the American people, and, speaking out against the act of war via the imposition of sanctions on Iran and how Americans cannot pay for the wars we have much less start another one.
At the end of the campaign most Americans will vote for the liar they think will win because they want to be on the winning team. Americans don't want to elect a candidate willing to tell them the hard truth and one who walks the walk rather than talking the talk. They'd rather be lied to and then pretend to be shocked later when the candidate "evolves" or "flip flops" on promises and positions.
And so to the dustpan of history another great nation falls. All because most of the populous would rather "feel good" about impossible promises made by plastic candidates in empty suits with Pepsident smiles and rhetoric more sleek than an oil slick than to hear the truth and face it head on with courage knowing the hardships ahead will indeed save the country and liberty for the next generations.
Nah...if you go back and listen to the speech, it's very clear that he believes we ought to give credit to government for an and all success.
I've heard the speech.
The speech was very valid and completely correct.
The one statment taken out of context was poorly stated, I will admit, but in context with everything else, makes sense. We're a sum of everyone around us, who helped to build us into who we are today, who helps to get us where we are, and who helps us continue to be succesful. THat's what the speech was meant to say.
When he said "You didn't build that", he was referring to the roads and bridges. Could he have been clearer? Sure. But the people who skewed that knew exactly what he meant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
