US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Romney ‘Fact-Checking’ Scandal

This is a discussion on The Romney ‘Fact-Checking’ Scandal within the Politics forums, part of the US Discussion category; By Robert Parry Exclusive: Mitt Romney cites “independent fact-checkers” to spare him from having to explain exactly what he did with Bain Capital after February ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics

Politics Discuss government policies and candidates...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 10:50 PM
Lakhota's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31132
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Native America
Posts: 24,328
Thanks: 4,839
Thanked 6,383 Times in 4,497 Posts
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
The Romney ‘Fact-Checking’ Scandal

Quote:
By Robert Parry

Exclusive: Mitt Romney cites “independent fact-checkers” to spare him from having to explain exactly what he did with Bain Capital after February 1999. But those “fact-checkers” are acting less like impartial journalists and more like argumentative lawyers covering Romney’s political flanks, writes Robert Parry.

Self-styled “independent fact-checkers” at the Annenberg Center and the neoconservative-dominated Washington Post have positioned themselves as ardent defenders of Mitt Romney’s claims that his Bain Capital tenure ended in 1999 despite questions raised by contradictory information submitted by Romney himself.

Indeed, the behavior of these “fact-checkers” is rapidly becoming the journalism scandal of Campaign 2012 as the likes of Brooks Jackson at Annenberg’s FactCheck.org and the Post’s Glenn Kessler act more as querulous lawyers protecting Romney than as journalists seeking the actual facts surrounding Romney’s curious business narrative.

Much as the Post’s Ceci Connolly and the New York Times’ Katharine Seeyle engaged in aggressive – and dishonest – journalism to portray Vice President Al Gore as a serial liar during Campaign 2000, Jackson and Kessler are performing a similar role in portraying President Barack Obama and his campaign officials as liars now. [For the history, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Al Gore v. the Media” or Neck Deep.]

Yet, despite the pro-Romney protectiveness from Jackson and Kessler, the questions raised by the Obama campaign and a number of journalists about Romney’s dubious claims are clearly legitimate. These questions about whether Romney completely divorced himself from his venture capital firm when he rushed off in February 1999 to head the Winter Olympics stem, in large part, from public disclosures that Bain Capital filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For instance, one summary of Bain investments via Bain Capital Fund VI, dated Feb. 13, 2001, lists Romney as “the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital.”

Yet, in his presidential campaign disclosure form in 2011, Romney declared that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way” after leaving Boston for Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Olympics job on Feb. 11, 1999. Jackson and Kessler treat Romney’s bald assertion as fact despite the conflicting evidence.

There are also logical questions that any journalist worth his or her salt would ask: “Mr. Romney, does your claim mean you had no contact with your former Bain associates by telephone, e-mail or in person in that time frame? Did you really build a Chinese Wall between yourself and your company?”

Common sense would tell you that Romney did have conversations with his long-time subordinates. There was no legal reason not to, and he was involved enough to sign some of the SEC forms listing him as the person in charge. (Only later, after it became clear that Bain-related plant closings and job outsourcing after February 1999 were a political liability, did Romney start insisting that his separation had been total.)

If Romney now confirms that he had some contacts with Bain executives, the next questions would be when, what, why and with whom. Are there e-mail messages or memos that could be examined? So, instead of offering those kinds of details, he cites the work of these “independent fact-checkers” to shield him from the inquiries.
Much More: The Romney ‘Fact-Checking’ Scandal | Consortiumnews
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 10:52 PM
Moonglow's Avatar
liberal soldier
Member #30820
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: sw mizzouri
Posts: 24,051
Thanks: 2,038
Thanked 5,156 Times in 3,829 Posts
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 4489
Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute
Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute Moonglow has a reputation beyond repute
How can you be CEO and not be part of companies operations?
if he really wanted to cover his ass, he could of filed as a sub chapter "S" owner status.
__________________
To live is to suffer~Fritz Lang-Film Director


Love, peace and harmony is sorely lacking in humans around the world.

Last edited by Moonglow; 07-17-2012 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 11:04 PM
Registered User
Member #35234
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,907
Thanks: 1,416
Thanked 2,197 Times in 1,546 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 721
GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet
GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet
And Consortium News is supposed to be an impartial source??

From the 'About', Robert Perry, editor and author of your 'story'...

Quote:
We have written extensively about the U.S. media imbalance, tilted by a well-funded right-wing media machine. Indeed, a founding idea of our Web site was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, reporting that truly operated without fear or favor.

Regrettably, the distortion of information remains a grave problem with millions of Americans brainwashed by the waves of disinformation coming from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the hordes of other right-wing media outlets – distortions often reinforced by the careerist mainstream press.

Because of this media dynamic, many average Americans have bought into a propaganda frame that seeks fewer regulations on powerful corporations, lower taxes on the wealthy, tighter restrictions on unions, and fewer programs to help working Americans with problems ranging from educating their children to caring for the elderly.
Wow, he managed to get almost EVERY DNC talking point into just 3 sentences. Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
__________________
Armed guards at school are a good thing if you're rich and famous, but God forbid we provide that same security for the masses.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 11:05 PM
The Infidel's Avatar
EVIL CONSERVATIVE
Member #23533
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AMERITOPIA
Posts: 17,253
Thanks: 14,243
Thanked 5,460 Times in 3,909 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3197
The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute
The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute The Infidel has a reputation beyond repute
You stupid "taxers" Guests cannot see images in the messages. Please register to forum by clicking here to see images.
__________________
......


..


......
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 11:28 PM
Registered User
Member #37101
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,893
Thanks: 904
Thanked 2,515 Times in 1,739 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1402
tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court
tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court tjvh could be on the Supreme Court
Quote:
By Robert Parry

Exclusive: Mitt Romney cites “independent fact-checkers” to spare him from having to explain exactly what he did with Bain Capital after February 1999. But those “fact-checkers” are acting less like impartial journalists and more like argumentative lawyers covering Romney’s political flanks, writes Robert Parry.

Self-styled “independent fact-checkers” at the Annenberg Center and the neoconservative-dominated Washington Post have positioned themselves as ardent defenders of Mitt Romney’s claims that his Bain Capital tenure ended in 1999 despite questions raised by contradictory information submitted by Romney himself.

Indeed, the behavior of these “fact-checkers” is rapidly becoming the journalism scandal of Campaign 2012 as the likes of Brooks Jackson at Annenberg’s FactCheck.org and the Post’s Glenn Kessler act more as querulous lawyers protecting Romney than as journalists seeking the actual facts surrounding Romney’s curious business narrative.

Much as the Post’s Ceci Connolly and the New York Times’ Katharine Seeyle engaged in aggressive – and dishonest – journalism to portray Vice President Al Gore as a serial liar during Campaign 2000, Jackson and Kessler are performing a similar role in portraying President Barack Obama and his campaign officials as liars now. [For the history, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Al Gore v. the Media” or Neck Deep.]

Yet, despite the pro-Romney protectiveness from Jackson and Kessler, the questions raised by the Obama campaign and a number of journalists about Romney’s dubious claims are clearly legitimate. These questions about whether Romney completely divorced himself from his venture capital firm when he rushed off in February 1999 to head the Winter Olympics stem, in large part, from public disclosures that Bain Capital filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For instance, one summary of Bain investments via Bain Capital Fund VI, dated Feb. 13, 2001, lists Romney as “the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital.”

Yet, in his presidential campaign disclosure form in 2011, Romney declared that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way” after leaving Boston for Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Olympics job on Feb. 11, 1999. Jackson and Kessler treat Romney’s bald assertion as fact despite the conflicting evidence.

There are also logical questions that any journalist worth his or her salt would ask: “Mr. Romney, does your claim mean you had no contact with your former Bain associates by telephone, e-mail or in person in that time frame? Did you really build a Chinese Wall between yourself and your company?”

Common sense would tell you that Romney did have conversations with his long-time subordinates. There was no legal reason not to, and he was involved enough to sign some of the SEC forms listing him as the person in charge. (Only later, after it became clear that Bain-related plant closings and job outsourcing after February 1999 were a political liability, did Romney start insisting that his separation had been total.)

If Romney now confirms that he had some contacts with Bain executives, the next questions would be when, what, why and with whom. Are there e-mail messages or memos that could be examined? So, instead of offering those kinds of details, he cites the work of these “independent fact-checkers” to shield him from the inquiries.
Much More: The Romney ‘Fact-Checking’ Scandal | Consortiumnews
Do you ever have an original thought or is linking to other people's intellectual property all you have to offer?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 11:35 PM
Lakhota's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31132
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Native America
Posts: 24,328
Thanks: 4,839
Thanked 6,383 Times in 4,497 Posts
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quote:
By Robert Parry

Exclusive: Mitt Romney cites “independent fact-checkers” to spare him from having to explain exactly what he did with Bain Capital after February 1999. But those “fact-checkers” are acting less like impartial journalists and more like argumentative lawyers covering Romney’s political flanks, writes Robert Parry.

Self-styled “independent fact-checkers” at the Annenberg Center and the neoconservative-dominated Washington Post have positioned themselves as ardent defenders of Mitt Romney’s claims that his Bain Capital tenure ended in 1999 despite questions raised by contradictory information submitted by Romney himself.

Indeed, the behavior of these “fact-checkers” is rapidly becoming the journalism scandal of Campaign 2012 as the likes of Brooks Jackson at Annenberg’s FactCheck.org and the Post’s Glenn Kessler act more as querulous lawyers protecting Romney than as journalists seeking the actual facts surrounding Romney’s curious business narrative.

Much as the Post’s Ceci Connolly and the New York Times’ Katharine Seeyle engaged in aggressive – and dishonest – journalism to portray Vice President Al Gore as a serial liar during Campaign 2000, Jackson and Kessler are performing a similar role in portraying President Barack Obama and his campaign officials as liars now. [For the history, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Al Gore v. the Media” or Neck Deep.]

Yet, despite the pro-Romney protectiveness from Jackson and Kessler, the questions raised by the Obama campaign and a number of journalists about Romney’s dubious claims are clearly legitimate. These questions about whether Romney completely divorced himself from his venture capital firm when he rushed off in February 1999 to head the Winter Olympics stem, in large part, from public disclosures that Bain Capital filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For instance, one summary of Bain investments via Bain Capital Fund VI, dated Feb. 13, 2001, lists Romney as “the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital.”

Yet, in his presidential campaign disclosure form in 2011, Romney declared that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way” after leaving Boston for Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Olympics job on Feb. 11, 1999. Jackson and Kessler treat Romney’s bald assertion as fact despite the conflicting evidence.

There are also logical questions that any journalist worth his or her salt would ask: “Mr. Romney, does your claim mean you had no contact with your former Bain associates by telephone, e-mail or in person in that time frame? Did you really build a Chinese Wall between yourself and your company?”

Common sense would tell you that Romney did have conversations with his long-time subordinates. There was no legal reason not to, and he was involved enough to sign some of the SEC forms listing him as the person in charge. (Only later, after it became clear that Bain-related plant closings and job outsourcing after February 1999 were a political liability, did Romney start insisting that his separation had been total.)

If Romney now confirms that he had some contacts with Bain executives, the next questions would be when, what, why and with whom. Are there e-mail messages or memos that could be examined? So, instead of offering those kinds of details, he cites the work of these “independent fact-checkers” to shield him from the inquiries.
Much More: The Romney ‘Fact-Checking’ Scandal | Consortiumnews
Do you ever have an original thought or is linking to other people's intellectual property all you have to offer?
You mean do I just make **** up without any thought and reasoning? Sometimes...
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 11:45 PM
Si modo's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20811
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St. Eligius
Posts: 39,197
Thanks: 6,535
Thanked 11,532 Times in 8,017 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 5295
Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote:
By Robert Parry

Exclusive: Mitt Romney cites “independent fact-checkers” to spare him from having to explain exactly what he did with Bain Capital after February 1999. But those “fact-checkers” are acting less like impartial journalists and more like argumentative lawyers covering Romney’s political flanks, writes Robert Parry.

Self-styled “independent fact-checkers” at the Annenberg Center and the neoconservative-dominated Washington Post have positioned themselves as ardent defenders of Mitt Romney’s claims that his Bain Capital tenure ended in 1999 despite questions raised by contradictory information submitted by Romney himself.

Indeed, the behavior of these “fact-checkers” is rapidly becoming the journalism scandal of Campaign 2012 as the likes of Brooks Jackson at Annenberg’s FactCheck.org and the Post’s Glenn Kessler act more as querulous lawyers protecting Romney than as journalists seeking the actual facts surrounding Romney’s curious business narrative.

Much as the Post’s Ceci Connolly and the New York Times’ Katharine Seeyle engaged in aggressive – and dishonest – journalism to portray Vice President Al Gore as a serial liar during Campaign 2000, Jackson and Kessler are performing a similar role in portraying President Barack Obama and his campaign officials as liars now. [For the history, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Al Gore v. the Media” or Neck Deep.]

Yet, despite the pro-Romney protectiveness from Jackson and Kessler, the questions raised by the Obama campaign and a number of journalists about Romney’s dubious claims are clearly legitimate. These questions about whether Romney completely divorced himself from his venture capital firm when he rushed off in February 1999 to head the Winter Olympics stem, in large part, from public disclosures that Bain Capital filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For instance, one summary of Bain investments via Bain Capital Fund VI, dated Feb. 13, 2001, lists Romney as “the sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain Capital and thus is the controlling person of Bain Capital.”

Yet, in his presidential campaign disclosure form in 2011, Romney declared that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way” after leaving Boston for Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Olympics job on Feb. 11, 1999. Jackson and Kessler treat Romney’s bald assertion as fact despite the conflicting evidence.

There are also logical questions that any journalist worth his or her salt would ask: “Mr. Romney, does your claim mean you had no contact with your former Bain associates by telephone, e-mail or in person in that time frame? Did you really build a Chinese Wall between yourself and your company?”

Common sense would tell you that Romney did have conversations with his long-time subordinates. There was no legal reason not to, and he was involved enough to sign some of the SEC forms listing him as the person in charge. (Only later, after it became clear that Bain-related plant closings and job outsourcing after February 1999 were a political liability, did Romney start insisting that his separation had been total.)

If Romney now confirms that he had some contacts with Bain executives, the next questions would be when, what, why and with whom. Are there e-mail messages or memos that could be examined? So, instead of offering those kinds of details, he cites the work of these “independent fact-checkers” to shield him from the inquiries.
Much More: The Romney ‘Fact-Checking’ Scandal | Consortiumnews
Do you ever have an original thought or is linking to other people's intellectual property all you have to offer?
No. Lakhota never thinks for itself.
__________________
"It was ****ing corrupt. Embarrassing some of the stuff I learned about. I failed to lead and should have been more involved" .... a bus driver
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 11:48 PM
Lakhota's Avatar
Registered User
Member #31132
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Native America
Posts: 24,328
Thanks: 4,839
Thanked 6,383 Times in 4,497 Posts
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Getting under wingnut skin makes my day...
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 11:51 PM
Si modo's Avatar
Registered User
Member #20811
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: St. Eligius
Posts: 39,197
Thanks: 6,535
Thanked 11,532 Times in 8,017 Posts
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 5295
Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow Si modo is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Getting under wingnut skin makes my day...
That is no surprise at all. It's your intellectual speed.
__________________
"It was ****ing corrupt. Embarrassing some of the stuff I learned about. I failed to lead and should have been more involved" .... a bus driver
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 11:52 PM
Registered User
Member #35234
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,907
Thanks: 1,416
Thanked 2,197 Times in 1,546 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 721
GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet
GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet GuyPinestra is faster than a speeding bullet
Getting under wingnut skin makes my day...
Why not, you have the mindset of a parasite, chigger or tick?
__________________
Armed guards at school are a good thing if you're rich and famous, but God forbid we provide that same security for the masses.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Politics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:30 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.