Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Romney’s emerging secrecy problem

    Romney’s emerging secrecy problem

    Mitt Romney has an emerging secrecy problem.  For someone whose primary claim to the nomination is that he has nothing to hide, he sure acts like he has something to hide.

    First, there was the cleansing of Massachusetts state records from his time as Governor, including the purchase by 11 Romney aides of their hard drives upon leaving office and the purging of state computers.  None of this apparently was illegal, but it certainly raised questions about why Romney went to such lengths.

    Next, Romney declared that if nominated he would break with tradition and refuse to release his income tax returns, raising a number of questions as to what was on the returns that he would not want public, and playing right into the hands of the Obama campaign:

    “Why does Governor Romney feel like he can play by a different set of rules?” said  Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign. “What is it that he doesn’t want the American people to see? Governor Romney, who has favored secrecy over openness time after time, should live up to the same standard of disclosure his father and others set.”

    Next, there was Romney’s refusal to release the names of bundlers playing right into the hands of The Washington Post editorial board:

    Mr. Romney — breaking with the practice of previous Republican presidential candidates, including George W. Bush and John McCain — has refused to release the identities of his bundlers, the well-connected fundraisers who help the campaign haul in stacks of checks adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Romney is under no legal obligation to reveal his bundlers, other than the relative handful who are also registered lobbyists.

    As important as the state records, tax returns and bundler information are, there was an unnoticed report in The Telegraph which revealed an almost bizarre effort by the Romney campaign to conceal even mundane aspects of Romney’s narrative.  Part of that narrative is of a time spent in relative poverty while a missionary in France.

    When the Telegraph investigated, they not only discovered that Romney did not exactly live the poor life, but also that Romney aides had been there before them, instructing at least one of the people who was with Romney in France not to talk, Mitt Romney’s life as a poor Mormon missionary in France questioned (emphasis mine):

    Although he spent time in other French cities, for most of 1968, Mr Romney  lived in the Mission Home, a 19th century neoclassical building in the French capital’s chic 16th arrondissement. “It was a house built by and for   rich people,” said Richard Anderson, the son of the mission president at the time of Mr Romney’s stay. “I would describe it as a palace”.

    Tearful as he described the house, Mr Anderson, 70, of Kaysville, Utah, said  Romney aides had asked him not to speak publicly about their time together there.

    That the Romney campaign had anticipated questions about Romney’s missionary narrative and already reached out to a witness asking him not to talk about it publicly is troubling.  Frankly, it’s the type of preemptive silencing of witnesses I would have expected of the Obama campaign regarding Obama’s college days.

    Reaching out to witnesses and asking them not to talk about a candidate’s past is one of those details which makes one wonder why someone who has nothing to hide is acting like he has something to hide.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    TeaPartyPatriot4ever | December 27, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    The Truth about Romney

    Romney is a pathetic weasel of a man, who couldn’t stand up and fight, to save his pathetic disgusting crony liberal Republican RINO hypocrite life.  He reminds me of these kids who are afraid to stand and fight, so they would throw rocks, call names from afar, then runaway when chased after..  That’s exactly how Romney behaves.. He’s spineless political coward, on top of being a crony capitalist liberal Republican Party RINO lying hypocrite elitist, who like most of the standard liberal Republican Party elitists, neither have any respect for the mass populace called the people, except as the voting electorate, and the U.S. Constitution, and it’s principles of individual freedom and liberty, for which the founding fathers created this great nation and document.

    Romney’s great character is standing on a fence, so he can turn on a dime, like a wind directional finder, whenever a position needs to be flip-flopped on, for political convenience, and his infamous crony capitalism, in his claims of job creation, and especially his liberal forced mandated State Socialized Medicine healthcare system, aka, Romneycare, the model for Obamacare, as his e-mail records as Gov. of Mass., would have proven his guilt, until he had them all deleted.

    Romney’s signature accomplishment is Romneycare, the forced mandated State Socialized Medicine healthcare system, that Obama used to set up Obamacare with, for which we now have to wait til the U.S. Supreme Court strikes it down, or we have to completely repeal it legislatively, when the new Republican President takes over in Jan 2013. And thus is the question, how can, or would we trust Romney to repeal a system for which he set up in Mass, and refuses to say was bad, and is bankrupting the State, with State Tax payer govt subsidies to the healthcare providers, hospitals, insurance companies, and so on, all the while providing substandard and inferior healthcare, to it’s State residents because of it..

    This on top of all the other corny capitalist gimmicks, that Romney screwed around with in his State of Mass, which is why he had all of his Gov’s office e-mails deleted before he left office, as well as deny anyone access to his records. And now of course, he refuses to release his tax returns records, what else is new with this weasel of a political coward, called Mitt Romney..


    Romney’s Cronyism Problem is Emblematic of Contemporary Politics
    by Benjamin Domenech Published: 7:12 PM 12/16/2011, The Daily Caller-Managing Editor, Health Care News


    “Cronyism.” That word has been thrown around a great deal in the Republican primary battle. It’s bad when it’s done to lure companies to locate in a particular state, or to reward a political ally, but it’s worse when it’s used to increase government intrusion into people’s lives.

    That’s what happened when former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney pressed to get support for his health care reform, the widely acknowledged model for Obamacare.

    The back story here is little known, but very damning. According to a 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation, at the time of Romneycare’s passage the two largest safety-net hospital systems in Massachusetts — Boston Medical Center (BMC) and Cambridge Health Alliance (CHA) — had “become dependent on direct subsidies” and were concerned that, even accounting for the significant rate increases allowed under the new law, a shift to Medicaid managed care would hurt their bottom lines.

    So to get his signature health care law passed, Romney and his allies agreed to a host of annual payments — including “MCO supplemental payments,” “disproportionate share hospital” payments and special “hospital supplemental payments,” targeted exclusively for the two systems.

    At the last minute, more than $540 million in so-called “Section 122 payments” were inserted into the law, designed to supply BMC and CHA with an even bigger financial cushion over the next three years. In practice, these funds — which included federal, state and local taxpayer money — served as direct subsidies for the two providers’ expansions.

    According to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the designers of Romney’s law and one of the experts who consulted with the White House on Obamacare, “The federal government was essentially supplementing the expansion of these inner city hospitals.” When some lawmakers suggested cutting back on the amounts, provider officials complained about all the great programs they’d have to shut down — such as BMC’s “food pantry.”

    The irony is that the corporate cronyism it took to get Romney’s law passed proved its financial undoing, at least in the short term. As it turned out, the cost of these subsidies made the difference for Romneycare’s dubious financial stability.

    Facing higher than expected enrollment, the Section 122 payments forced Massachusetts to prioritize more money for the required earmarks to BMC and CHA — money that might otherwise have been used to cover costs of patient care. According to the Heritage Foundation, in 2008 “Section 122 payments come to $180 million, while Commonwealth Care overruns are $153 million. … In effect, the state was subsidizing institutions, not patients.”


    dunce1239 | December 28, 2011 at 2:00 am

    On candidate secrecy, i can not fault them because of so called opposition research it seems that any thing you release can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend