New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Under the Table Selection of Mitt Romney

degsme

Council Member
Bull..this wasn't a blanket statement of fact or policy. It was an exchange between Romney and a OWS heckler when discussing taxation.
And Romney of course could have responded "the shareholders are the ones who pay the taxes"... OR ... "the customers are the ones who pay the taxes" (dubious and contestible claims both but that's a different issue).

Instead Romney's line of thinking was to equate corporations and people. And just because a corporation has humans working for it does not make corporate taxation taxation on those people. And the notion of Corporations as "legal persons" for purposes of taxation is a core aspect of why they are taxed, and it is also an arguement used in Citizens United.

And Romney's mindset comes from this perspective.

As for what Romney said just prior to that? He said that one way to deal with entitlement funding was "to raise taxes on people".

Romney was interrupted with a shout "Corporations"

to which Romney replied "Corporations are people my friend"

and somebody else then replied "No they are not

and Romney's response was "Of course they are, Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

And first off that's not true. Because corporations hold all manner of assets including ficticious ones that can never be cashed or passed on to people.
For this line of reasoning to hold true, you have to equate in your mind that corporate profits are the same as individual profits, and that just is not true.
 

degsme

Council Member
Well yes, but I prefer Romney simply because I figure he really does have the best chance to beat Obama. On the other hand I perfectly understand why many conservatives prefer a different candidate and think that someone like Newt would have a better chance of beating Obama.

[Shrug] After all, they may be correct.
Not the only reason Romney has a better chance of beating Obama is precisely BECAUSE he isn't AS conservative as the rest of the field

and the reason Romney does not have a chance of beating Obama is precisely BECAUSE he IS Conservative.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
Washington state selects delegates through caucuses rather than through a primary and ALWAYS HAS - both on the Republican side and on the Democratic side. There was no "rules change" manufactured by the DNC. My experience in Washington state was very much like middleview's in Colorado. I was for Obama. People identified themselves openly and voted publicly. I knew which of my neighbors was for Hillary. I knew which of my neighbors was for Edwards. And I knew which of my neighbors were for Obama. The majority were for Obama. The turnout was also much larger than for previous caucuses. My personal experience with the caucuses does not jibe with Cicero's speculative conspiracy theories or his attempt to apply his historical knowledge to the circumstances of 2008 and 2012. I find the cases made by Sodak and Corrupt Buddha (who are not Obama supporters by any stretch of the imagination) to be more plausible and more in line with my own experiences.)

In Texas we have a bifurcated system where 2/3 of the delegates are selected in the primary and 1/3 are selected in the precinct caucuses. Hillary won the primary 52-48 as I recall,but Obama had way more caucus attendees and they were way better organized. With his delegates won the caucus,he actually won more delegates in Texas even though Hillary won the popular vote. I caucused for Hillary. We had 4 precincts caucusing simultaneously in one elementary school cafeteria. The turnout overwhelmed the local precinct chairs. One lady who caucused for Obama in one of the other precincts was very knowledgeable and helpful. Hillary won the caucus in my precict but the Obama supporter from the other precinct was much more helpful explaining the process to us than my own precinct chairman. I thanked her for it afterwards. For me the whole Dem campaign was much less adversarial after that.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
Do you know Romney's position on Citizens United?

What was he talking about?

Taxation.

In specific the tactic of raising taxes on corporations which will, indeed, affect people too. Because corporations are made up of.... people.

What you suggest is that Romney, in this statement, would like to confer all the rights and benefits of citizenship on corporations. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You're either being disingenuous, dishonest or ignorant.

Which is it?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
If the corporation pays dividends then those dividends may well be paid to people other than citizens of this country who do not pay US taxes inspite of the fact that they are earning income from the US, even though those dividends are earned using the resources paid for by our taxes....
 

degsme

Council Member
Washington state selects delegates through caucuses rather than through a primary and ALWAYS HAS - both on the Republican side and on the Democratic side. There was no "rules change" manufactured by the DNC.
No not true. In 1988, both Dems and GOP selected delegates via caucuses. But because by the time WA's caucusses rolled around both delegates had been selected, many anti-republicans (myself included) went to the GOP caucuses and voted for Pat Robertson.

Meanwhile we have had an actual primary since 1935, but the parties until 1992 did not take the Primary into consideration for nomination because the fear was that cross balloting would distort the result. But the '88 caucus showed that the caucus system was vulnerable. So over the next decade the two parties basically switched back to the Primary system. Which in 1996 lead to the nomination of Elaine Craswell - an ultra conservative (though not by current POTUS candidates standards) GOP candidate for governor. This was because the Dems had to choose between Norm Rice, Gary Locke or Jay Inslee and we didn't care which one because all were strong solid candidates.

This of course infuriated the GOP who then sued to block cross voting. The Secty of state tried to solve this by modifying the open primary to require that you vote EITHER the GOP ballot of the DEM ballot and not mix and match as had been done in 1996

but in 2000 again King Cty Dems basically used the primary to cross vote so the GOP sued again. and in 2003 got the Blanket PRimary thrown out. WA appealed and passed a law that would default to "pick a primary to vote in" (GOP or DEM) and the GOP opted not to use Primary voting for its 2004 selection anyway.

Meanwhil in 2004 a Ballot Initiative passes that makes the WA Primaries a Top Two Primary system. GOP this time with concurrance of the DEMS sues and LOSES.
 

imreallyperplexed

Council Member
A couple of comments.

First, vis a vis 1988, I think that you meant "candidates" rather than "delegates" when you wrote "both delegates had been selected." I did not participate in the caususes that year.

Second, on your second point I do stand corrected. I do remember voting for Paul Tsongas in 1992 and Bill Bradley in 2000 (rather than attending a caucus). However, I did support Howard Dean in a 2004 caucus and Obama in the 2008 caucus. I also know that Republicans ran things a little differently. (So caucuses had been reinstated by 2004 in the Democratic Party. It was a choice of the state party rather than the DNC.)

Third, you are correct about the complications of primaries for statewide elections. That is very complicated. This website covers the complications pretty well.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/timeline/time5.htm

I am not sure what you are talking about vis a vis the post-1988 era. I did participate in the 1992 Democratic caucus (and supported

No not true. In 1988, both Dems and GOP selected delegates via caucuses. But because by the time WA's caucusses rolled around both delegates had been selected, many anti-republicans (myself included) went to the GOP caucuses and voted for Pat Robertson.

Meanwhile we have had an actual primary since 1935, but the parties until 1992 did not take the Primary into consideration for nomination because the fear was that cross balloting would distort the result. But the '88 caucus showed that the caucus system was vulnerable. So over the next decade the two parties basically switched back to the Primary system. Which in 1996 lead to the nomination of Elaine Craswell - an ultra conservative (though not by current POTUS candidates standards) GOP candidate for governor. This was because the Dems had to choose between Norm Rice, Gary Locke or Jay Inslee and we didn't care which one because all were strong solid candidates.

This of course infuriated the GOP who then sued to block cross voting. The Secty of state tried to solve this by modifying the open primary to require that you vote EITHER the GOP ballot of the DEM ballot and not mix and match as had been done in 1996

but in 2000 again King Cty Dems basically used the primary to cross vote so the GOP sued again. and in 2003 got the Blanket PRimary thrown out. WA appealed and passed a law that would default to "pick a primary to vote in" (GOP or DEM) and the GOP opted not to use Primary voting for its 2004 selection anyway.

Meanwhil in 2004 a Ballot Initiative passes that makes the WA Primaries a Top Two Primary system. GOP this time with concurrance of the DEMS sues and LOSES.
 

degsme

Council Member
A couple of comments.

First, vis a vis 1988, I think that you meant "candidates" rather than "delegates" when you wrote "both delegates had been selected." I did not participate in the caususes that year.

Second, on your second point I do stand corrected. I do remember voting for Paul Tsongas in 1992 and Bill Bradley in 2000 (rather than attending a caucus). However, I did support Howard Dean in a 2004 caucus and Obama in the 2008 caucus. I also know that Republicans ran things a little differently. (So caucuses had been reinstated by 2004 in the Democratic Party. It was a choice of the state party rather than the DNC.)

Third, you are correct about the complications of primaries for statewide elections. That is very complicated. This website covers the complications pretty well.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/timeline/time5.htm

I am not sure what you are talking about vis a vis the post-1988 era. I did participate in the 1992 Democratic caucus (and supported
So in 1992 the GOP used the primary and the Dems used the Caucus to select their delegates... (correct on your correction).
 

stockmann

Council Member
I am spring-boarding from the observation of one of our better thinkers on this board and am starting with the quotation segment below sans attribution. This is to remove the personality hot button trigger factor from the topic. Let's try to discuss the issue for once rather than get into fire-fights over personality issues.



Okay, since I am certain that the DNC selected Barack Obama to become the Democratic party's nominee back in 2008 and used everything at its disposal -- including slime ball tactics coordinated with the mainstream media -- to make it happen I can hardly proclaim that the RNC wouldn't do the same thing where their obvious and strong preference for Mitt Romney is concerned including cutting behind the scenes deals with Fox News and at least some conservative talk radio hosts. So let's assume that the RNC also went as far as subtly sabotaging the campaign efforts of Romney's challengers to ensure that the 'correct' nominee would advance against Barack Obama.

But why does the RNC think that Romeny -- rather than say Newt Gingrich -- has the right stuff to defeat Obama? I think that they are adhering to the principle that 'it takes a thief to catch a thief.'

What is Mitt Romney but the nearest thing they have to a Party moderate with just enough ties to the Republican Party leadership to know that if he deviates too far from generic conservatism as president then the GOP leadership will make his life a living hell? Granted Obama is not remotely a moderate but he plays one on television.

That's eerily similar to why the DNC selected Obama over Hillary Clinton. They knew that they could control and steer Obama in the direction they thought they wanted whereas they knew that they could not control and steer Hillary Clinton -- not with Bill Clinton serving as her back stop. Similarly the RNC knows that Romney can be controlled whereas Newt Gingrich would almost certainly not only go his way but go hard Right. The GOP leadership pretends to be conservative but most of them really are not. They are CINOs [Conservative In Name Only].

But still, why do they believe that Mitt can beat Obama? Like against like. Mitt comes across as being reasonably mellow in personality with just enough of a hard edge to let it surface when necessary, and it is the ideological Center of the nation that usually votes a candidate into the Oval Office. Centrists like moderates, which is why Obama has pretended to be a moderate.

Newt on the other hand is nothing but hard edges and he tends to talk before he thinks [there he, rather than Mitt, is similar to Obama]. Like Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich tends to make similar statements amounting to the rightwing version of "Bitter over their guns and religion." Perhaps something like, "Liberals want to tax producers to give to slackers." Something like that. Romney wouldn't make such tactical speaking errors . . . or at least not nearly as often.

In politics, the truth doesn't matter. It's all in how you package your lies and for Centrists, Mitt packages better than Newt. At least in the opinion of the RNC.

So why should it matter if the candidate is controlled enough? It matters for two primary reasons, because the GOP leadership is very much aware that the mainstream media is again supporting Barack Obama for this election cycle and that whereas Obama is given what essentially amounts to a free press pass for all of his and Joe Biden's brain to mouth errors the GOP nominee and his eventual vice presidential pick will not be given any such press pass.

Every error that issues from his lips or from the lips of his vp selection will be used by the in-the-tank-for-Obama mainstream media to pound him and the GOP leadership to their knees and impress upon independents and swing voters that he's too emotionally or intellectually unstable to be president and that they really do not want to trust the control of the legislative branch to republicans.

This isn't just about winning back the presidency, but gaining complete control of the legislative branch as well. The RNC figures that Gingrich -- or any of the other contestants -- would alienate those critical independents and Centrists and swing voters because [lets return to Newt] Gingrich IS NOT RONALD REAGAN. He doesn't have the Charisma of a Reagan nor the mastery of communications necessary to MAKE voters overlook either his past or the inevitable and major political gaffs that are going to trip from his mouth and which the MSM is going to pounce upon in order to help out Obama.

So aside from figuring that they can more easily control Romney after he wins the election, the RNC figures that Romney is far less likely to make the sort of campaign mistakes that will GIVE Obama the win.

So is the RNC correct? Well considering that prior to the final collapse of the economy McCain and Sarah Palin were actually polling better than Obama and Biden . . . it damn well worked in 2008 to go with what essentially was a middle of the road moderate; because for all that McCain self-identifies as a conservative he really is a moderate.

The GOP leadership is cynically playing the odds. They may be right and they may be wrong. But what about the ethical or moral considerations of Right and Wrong themselves? While having the party leadership pre-select THEIR candidate and then manipulate what media outlets they can influence to damage the campaigns of his opponents is anything but an adherence to democratic principles, it is political tradition in this nation on both the Left and the Right.

Time and again the Powers the Be try doing precisely this and all too often manage it. Sometimes it turns out okay and sometimes you end up with a [to flip to some glaring Leftwing examples] Jimmy Carter or a Barack Obama in office rather then the qualified candidate with a bloody damn clue.

So there you have it. Doubtless I left out some important things and got some things wrong, but it's my current best effort to analyze what's happening before our eyes . . . and that's good enough for me.
Well no one can say you are not consistent (and can well express yourself.)

1. In 2008, if there was a DNC cabal struggling for blood against the Clinton cabal, place your bets on the Clinton cabal.
Hillary was the candidate designate in waiting. An Unknown, and seemingly unknowable force in the person of Obama
came forth to attract voters who rejected the fix for Hillary; rejected the same-ol'/same ol'; rejected the weasling on her vote for the resolution supporting the invasion of Iraq;
2. If the RNC fixed the results for a Manchurian Candidate - Romney, why would they not fix it for the most connected politico to GOP interests, Gingrich?
3. If the dissafection with Gingrich is because of his lack of charisma, viz. Reagan, how do you dismiss Gingrich as the most visible, eloquent -and leader - of the GOP Revolution of 1994? What charisma did he possess then that fails him now?

The ascendance of Gingrich was mugged and derailed by GOP interests who were colleagues, and fellow party members who could not stomach Gingrich's less desireable qualities.
 
Top