Mitt Romney into flip-flop mode

[carloslebaron]

I dont see a basis in fact for your claim that Obama is getting us out of the ditch Bush dug. Seems to me he just took the shovel from Bush, and kept right on'a diggin'.

No we are seeing job growth. It would have been faster had the republicans not blocked the transportation bill.

Here is some additional information for you.

"Friday morning, I sent a letter to Mitt Romney's campaign manager, asking that Romney release just five years of tax returns. And I made a commitment that, if he does, this campaign would not demand more.

You should add your name. Here's why:

Right now, our opponent is proposing a $2,000 tax increase on middle-class families with kids in order to pay for tax breaks for millionaires like him.

He's asking Americans to put him in charge of their taxes, while refusing to come clean about his own.

This isn't going away because voters deserve better, and everyone but the Romney campaign seems to recognize that.

Call for Mitt Romney to join President Obama in this basic and traditional act of transparency: Add your name.

Romney's refusal to release his returns is raising more questions than he's been willing to answer.

According to the one full year of returns he has released, Romney paid 13.9% in taxes on his income. Thursday, he said he went back and looked, and has never paid less than 13% over the last 10 years.

Now we're asking him to put his money where his mouth is.

It is absolutely relevant for us to ask how much a presidential candidate paid in taxes, if he sheltered his money or tried to get out of paying taxes at all, why he started -- and continues to own -- a corporation offshore in Bermuda, why he keeps his finances offshore in the Cayman Islands, and why he opened a Swiss bank account.

In refusing to be transparent about it, he's not only breaking the trust he's asking voters to place in him, but also three decades of precedent that began with his own father's presidential campaign in 1968.

This issue isn't going away, and for good reason. Tell Romney to follow 30 years of precedent and release his tax returns:

http://my.barackobama.com/Release-the-Returns

Thanks,

Messina

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

I am against the re-election of president Obama because he is a dishonest man, and is taking our society to the lowest level of decency.

However, I must admit that Mitt Romney traveled to UK and Israel to distract the attention over his tax returns, this is to say, "buying time" about this issue.

Yes, it appears that Mitt Romney is holding to show his tax returns, but I can't say about the reasons, even when for many they are very "obvious".

I must ask you my dear Jim Messina, a simple question, that is about a promise made by candidate Obama in 2008, that "every American will enjoy the same Health Insurance that Congressmen already have..." and so far, the insurance promised by Obama for people who never had one, or for the low income families, is not even half of the services that Congressmen enjoy in their health insurance.

Let me tell you this, Obama is a complete failure, he didn't reach the goals he promised for Americans. I won't vote for a loser like him, because there is no excuse for him to make a job half way. And please don't say that he at least did something, because anyone who is a loser as a president can do the same....half way jobs...

Yes, Mitt Romney is not showing his tax returns, but eventually he will do it anyway...I want you to show me that every American "eventually" will enjoy the same health insurance benefits as Congressmen do...before the term of this administration ends...by October at last... only then, president Obama might be considered as worthy to be re-elected...

[telcoman]

Here is your answer as to why Obama was unable to get us out of the mess that Bush left us in

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-mcconnel ... ical-goal/

As soon as Obama agreed to do a few things republicans wanted they united against him

[AppleBonker]

mess that Bush left us in

[themadscientist]

So the logic is a sitting president is not responsible for what occurs during his administration. Then blame Clinton for what you don't like about Bush's presidency.

[IBCoupe]

I prefer to go back one term. You can blame Clinton for 9/11, and I'll blame Bush for worldwide economic collapse. Fair?

[stebo0728]

I prefer to go back one term. You can blame Clinton for 9/11, and I'll blame Bush for worldwide economic collapse. Fair?

Actually, since the habit is to hang out economic turmoil on bipartisan wars instead of on FM&FM where it belongs, then if you want to blame Clinton for 9/11, then he takes the blame for the resulting wars as well, thereby getting the blame for the economic collapse in the package deal.

[IBCoupe]

Because Clinton is responsible for President Bush's foreign policy?

And I don't even think the wars are blamed for the economic turmoil - they're blamed for the budget crisis.

[stebo0728]

Because Clinton is responsible for President Bush's foreign policy?

And I don't even think the wars are blamed for the economic turmoil - they're blamed for the budget crisis.

Hey, Im just extrapolating your own logic. I dont subscribe to that notion myself. But yes, if you want to blame Clinton for 9/11, would the 2 wars have still occurred had there been no 9/11? Iraq perhaps, since it was sort of a side issue, but had we not already been on a war footing, would we still have started the Iraq campaign?

[IBCoupe]

You're not extrapolating my own logic. You're trying to pin actual, conscious policy choices on a President that didn't make them. What if President Bush weren't President? You and I can speculate for hours about how a President Gore would have responded to 9/11, but ultimately we're talking about a response he would have made to something he didn't have control over. It's the distinction between things you do and don't have control over. Going to war was a choice. Being attacked was not. The recession taking its most drastic turns before President Obama was inaugurated? I think you'd have to be a special kind of partisan to have trouble placing that in its proper column.

Try harder, Stebo.

[themadscientist]

f*** it, let's blame Nixon. I don't think anyone would defend him.

[IBCoupe]

I'd defend Nixon, 'cause it sounds like a challenge.

[themadscientist]

Dude, you got game; I'd tap out!

ironically, though, even though I didn't intend it, the way he and Kissenger instituted the petrodollar scheme, all presidents that followed regardless of party have had to deal with the resulting entanglement with the middle east.