Hello:

So, you LIKE 'em?

excon

Not really . But there was soft money before McCain-Feingold ,there was soft money during McCain-Feingold ,and there is soft money after McCain-Feingold.

I would like the candidates to own up to the message of course . But even that deniability is rich in American tradition.
The founders frequently pretended to be above the fray while their anonymous surrogates viciously attacked their opponents in the "media " of the day.

So it doesn't surprise or concern me that this type of campaiging is going on .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So it doesn't suprise or concern me that this type of campaiging is going on .

---

Hello again, tom:

So, you don't think our democracy is up for bid? Hmmmph..

excon

As opposed to what ? The press deciding it ? ABC is deciding on the eve of the SC primary to air an interview with Newt's ex.. . this would be the same ABC that held onto info they knew about the Edwards marriage throughout the campaign. This is the same press that tried to fabricate evidence that Bush got into the Air Guard through some kind of favoritism .

No , I think candidates should have the resources and ability to defend themselves ,and to shed light on their opponents.

These Super Pacs at least let you know which side they are on . During McCain Feingold ,they had to shallowly hide their endorsement by making it an issue advocacy ad. I don't miss the robocalls from some so called domestic violence organization asking me to tell a candidate to stop beating his wife .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

as opposed to what ? The press deciding it ? ABC is deciding on the eve of the SC primary to air an interview with Newt's ex. ..

---

Hello again, tom:

Hmmmmm... Before the people choose their nominee, SHOULDN'T they KNOW that Newt is a swinger? Or should they be pissed off at ABC for telling them about it??

Me?? I'd choose to KNOW stuff instead of NOT knowing... But, you're right about those South Carolinian's.. I'm sure they prefer ignorance.

excon

Shouldn't they know the VP nominee was cheating on his wife who was suffering from cancer and that he had a love child with his mistress ? Why did the press hold onto that ?

I think all information should be revealed . Don't you ? Maybe if they knew about Jack Kennedy...

I don't understand how you can be in favor of sunshine and at the same time be opposed to organizations that have done a better job than the press at providing that sunshine .

Look ; I agree with the court's almost unanamous opinion in 'Citizen's United' that these Pacs should disclose their donors .

Quote:

---

With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable …[C]itizens can see whether elected officials are 'in the pocket' of so-called moneyed interests …and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.

---

But I have no problem with the role they are playing .

I have no problem with the info of Romney's activities at Bain (which the Super Pacs helped reveal) . What I have a problem with is... why it is so hard for him to defend himself and the explain why the country needs companies like Bain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

why it is so hard for him to defend himself and the explain why the country needs companies like Bain?

---

Hello again, tom:

I'm a capitalist. By it's very nature, capitalism cleanses the marketplace... But, I'm a LIBERAL capitalist. All that means is that I pay attention to the people in addition to the bottom line. You know employers like me. We're the kind where our employees work themselves to the bone for NOTHING during the lean times, because they KNOW I'll take care of them during GOOD times. And, I do. That's not the way Romney practices capitalism.

And, that's only ONE reason Romney won't justify his time at Bain...

He's got some real splaining to do about the Cayman Islands... There's only ONE reason to open an account in the Caymans... Only one and it's to AVOID taxes... Now, while I SUPPORT legal tax avoidance, I wouldn't think a person who took advantage of it would EVER run for president...

Poor Mitt.

excon

I'll wait for his explain . I don't see anything wrong with it except the perception that gets invented about it .

He can easily explain it ;as even the ABC article recognizes(once you actually read more than the
1st couple paragraphs) .

Quote:

---

Romney campaign officials and those at Bain Capital tell ABC News that the purpose of setting up those accounts in the Cayman Islands is to help attract money from foreign investors, and that the accounts provide no tax advantage to American investors like Romney. Romney, the campaign said, has paid all U.S. taxes on income derived from those investments.

“The tax consequences to the Romneys are the very same whether the fund is domiciled here or another country,” a campaign official said in response to questions. …

Bain officials called the decision to locate some funds offshore routine, and a benefit only to foreign investors who do not want to be subjected to U.S. taxes.

---

Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands - ABC News

Now back to the question of the press shaping the campaign.. would love to see the exposes about John Kerry's finances during the 2004 campaign. He had much more money than Romney . Maybe they are only concerned with the wealthy who are self made ;as opposed to those who marry into it.

Speaking of Mittens .I don't know who is advising him over releasing his taxes ;but that person should be fired .
I see no purpose of this stonewalling if he has already announced he'd release them at some future date.
The more he waits ,the bigger the non-issue will become .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The more he waits ,the bigger the non-issue will become .

---

Hello again, tom:

It sure makes you think there's something to hide, or that he's working feverishly to fix up his returns.

excon

What he needs is the debate ability of Newt . I'm sure there is absolutely nothing wrong with them.

The rumor I'm hearing is that his people are concerned about the amt of donations that went to LDS . Big deal !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

... But, I'm a LIBERAL capitalist. All that means is that I pay attention to the people in addition to the bottom line. You know employers like me. We're the kind where our employees work themselves to the bone for NOTHING during the lean times, because they KNOW I'll take care of them during GOOD times.

excon

---

What kind of business are you and your employees engaged in, Excon? Specifically. And how many do you have working for you?

Btw, separate topic - I thought Gingrich's blasting of that CNN guy last night was the best 5 minutes I've seen so far in the primaries. I suspect most of the nation felt the same way. As a lead-off question, it was completely inappropriate. Newt did good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

What kind of business are you and your employees engaged in, Excon? Specifically.

I thought Gingrich's blasting of that CNN guy last night was the best 5 minutes I've seen so far in the primaries. I suspect most of the nation felt the same way. As a lead-off question, it was completely inappropriate. Newt did good.

---

Hello Athos:

What kind of business I run, specifically, is not for public consumption.

In terms of Newt and the question posed to him, when a candidate decides that moralizing about personal conduct is as important as public policy, he makes himself vulnerable to the worst charges of hypocrisy.

Today, campaigning for president, Newt is still trying to tell Americans how to run their lives. He supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He accuses Mitt Romney of being insufficiently anti-abortion, even pointing out that Romney expanded access to abortion pills. He lectures black people about valuing jobs and children in housing projects for lacking a work ethic.

He's a blatant hypocrite, and that IS the nations business. The question was absolutely appropriate.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Athos:

What kind of business I run, specifically, is not for public consumption.

In terms of Newt and the question posed to him, when a candidate decides that moralizing about personal conduct is as important as public policy, he makes himself vulnerable to the worst charges of hypocrisy.

Today, campaigning for president, Newt is still trying to tell Americans how to run their lives. He supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He accuses Mitt Romney of being insufficiently anti-abortion, even pointing out that Romney expanded access to abortion pills. He lectures black people about valuing jobs and children in housing projects for lacking a work ethic.

He's a blatant hypocrite, and that IS the nations business. The question was absolutely appropriate.

excon

---

Ok re your business. I only inquired because I notice you've frequently mentioned your business in these posts. But, OK.

As for the rest, I couldn't disagree more. A disgruntled ex-wife accusing him of wanting an "open" marriage (which he vehemently denied) has absolutely nothing to do with the issues facing the country. And this comes out the day before the primary? Gee, what a coincidence!

Whatever Newt is or isn't, this was dirty pool - at its dirtiest. Possibly the issue may have been germane at some later time in the debate depending on context, but to open with it was disgraceful. Or, as Gingrich said, "despicable". He was right.

From what I can determine following the media today, not a single person has approved of the timing of the question - Republican OR Democrat.

It's a new low.

I thought an 'open marriage ' as a Presidential issue was decided in the 1990s .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I thought an 'open marriage ' as a Presidential issue was decided in the 1990s .

---

??

Certainly did not disqualify the Clintons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

certainly did not disqualify the Clintons

---

The Clintons did not have an "open" marriage. He was simply a slob who used his power position to take advantage of a young woman.

As anyone (a male) who has ever been in a position of power over females - even something so plebeian as a supervisor - the temptation is always there.

Women gravitate to power, even in its smallest forms. It's the greatest aphrodisiac, as someone said (Kissinger?).

If Newt had Mitts money, he would be bombing the hell out of him already, he doesn't, so he yells no negative ads. Give me a break! He was better prepared on deflecting tough questions and getting applause while Romney can't even give you a smooth answer about his name, let alone his taxes. Newt is the slicker politician, and would be truly dangerous with Romneys bucks.

I doubt the lying, cheating, b@st@rd will get the female vote though, no matter how well he deflects the blame. But the candidate of the one percent will eventually put the newtster in his proper place of another also ran candidate. You can't beat the money, and the money is behind Mitt!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If Newt had Mitts money, he would be bombing the hell out of him already, he doesn't, so he yells no negative ads. Give me a break! He was better prepared on deflecting tough questions and getting applause while Romney can't even give you a smooth answer about his name, let alone his taxes. Newt is the slicker politician, and would be truly dangerous with Romneys bucks.

I doubt the lying, cheating, b@st@rd will get the female vote though, no matter how well he deflects the blame. But the candidate of the one percent will eventually put the newtster in his proper place of another also ran candidate. You can't beat the money, and the money is behind Mitt!!!

---

You're right. The women I know can't stand Newt. Hate is too kind a word.