My Opinion | When Stephani Cutter used the word "felony" in talking about Mitt Rmoney . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . the tenor of the entire campaign, on both sides, may have just experienced a paradigm shift.

(Note: I truly believe Rmoney is capable of a felony of the type alleged by Cutter. I believe he is sufficiently soulless and sufficiently entitled to think he would get away with it and no one would find out, or if they did find out, they would overlook it in him because he's special.)

If the presidential campaign suddenly becomes "grand jury-like" in investigating Rmoney's legal transgressions, his business dealings, and his lack of ethics, with allegation after allegation coming out in drip-drip-drip fashion, we are in for a fun time.

On the other hand, if Cutter's allegations are successfully discredited or even blunted, by the right wing, we could see a shift in support - from Obama to Rmoney.

What we shall see are two spin machines working overtime. One is taking a big risk (Team Obama) while the other is fighting for basic survival. This has the potential to be the Stanley'sSuperWorldSeriesBowl of politics.

The Rmoney camp needs to be very careful about admitting any damned thing, all the while playing Let'sMisdirect like their lives depend on it. Because they do.

Team Obama has to be careful, too. They cannot allege crimes that are too arcane to be *easily* distilled into *easily understandable* sound bites. If this sounds too technical and too arcane, it becomes easier to deflect and harder to keep people (the moron contingent of the American electorate) interested. I can honestly see this being the biggest obstacle to running successfully with the Mitt's a Crook meme. But the other risk is that they been seen as bullies. Rest assured that will be alleged by Rmoney's people. If TeamObama is otherwise successful, the "bully" charge simply won't stick.

In any case, if the race for president is a debate about one guy being a crook, that's quite a low point for American politics.

[malaise]

1. Team Obama has the facts - no risks here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002940521#post5

Watch that Jennifer Granholm video

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/13/516139/morning-briefing-economists-see-promising-signs-of-improvement/

[Stinky The Clown]

5. Nothing is risk free

The right wing owns the media and has an uncanny ability to shape public perception.

I disagree that this is risk-free.

I *do* think they can be successful in showing him to be a crook. If they play it right.

[librechik]

14. yes unfortunately when you are playing against people who don't believe in reality

(except the reality Hannity invents) facts are a poor persuader. They have been told too often that liberals lie and have never checked out the evidence.

But facts and sweet reality is all we have, and that will convince many.

Still, once you have swallowed the KoolAid, Republicans always look like archangels and Democrats always look like slime eating demons, no matter how much reality proves them to be correct.

[Curtland1015]

2. The sad thing is, I don't think Romney thought...

...he could "get away with it".

I think he probably honestly thought he did nothing wrong. Though that's probably true of most super rich a$$holes. They think the rules don't apply to them.

[rufus dog]

3. Do you think it is big risk?

It was basically a callout to release the tax returns.

Best case for Romney is he paid 14% like on the one he did release and the conversation is about how the rich pay 14 to 15%.

Most likely, seeing that he has off shore tax havens, is that he paid little or no taxes on a huge portion of his investments and that will piss off everyone except for the base. Think about how he has 100 million plus in a 401k, we know the big number, we know to get that amount at the max contribution level it would require a 21,000 percent return, so we know he used some loop hole (at best) to funnel additional cash into a tax deferred account. Then the Republicans want to reduce taxes further on rich so what would happen is that he would never touch this money, when he dies it transfers to his kids with no tax ever being paid. Again, the average Joe who is scrapping along is going to be pissed off about the different set of rules.

[democrat_patriot]

6. So the response to Mitt's "Obama is changing the subject of the failed economy..."

Obama needs to counter with "Name 1 thing you would do to help the poor and middle class, because your proposed tax hike for them won't help."

"Stop hiding you taxes and your plans for America."

[Xyzse]

4. True enough, however

I need to get more informed about the law.
Since morally and ethically his behavior may be wrong, but is it illegal? I don't know yet. Can someone clarify that for me? I've read quite a few articles on this but haven't really grasped the illegality of it yet.

[XemaSab]

7. One facet of it is that if he said he was CEO and he wasn't, that would be misleading investors

For example, if you put your money in a company because you thought that Oprah Winfrey was CEO, but it was really Jerry Sandusky who was CEO, would you not feel misled?

[siligut]

8. Falsifying information on SEC filings is a felony.

So Romney's team is arguing semantics.

[Xyzse]

9. Thanks.

Was actually trying to find the law that states that. At least this gives me a bit more of a starting point.

[Atman]

10. Why is it "irresponsible" for the Obama campaign to point out a possible felony?

I don't get it. Romney appears to have LIED. Not just lied, but committed a felony in his filings to the SEC. Why is this off limits? Listening to the Romney campaign shill on the news right now, all she can do is say "Obama needs to talk about jobs for the American people!" Yeah? He can't do both? He can't ask why Mitch McConnell and John Boehner won't advance a jobs bill, AND point out that Romney is a fraud at the same time? Really?

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Whoa, whoa, whoa there, Hoss! What are you saying?

Where did I say it was "irresponsible" (yet you put it in your thread title for all to see, as if it were true)?

Everything you say about Rmoney is true. He does, indeed, appear to have lied. The OP says that. Not in the same words, but it says that.

Where does the OP say it is off limits? The OP advises optical/atmospheric caution. The OP does NOT say this is off limits. In fact, the OP says it could be fun to watch. My only caution is to not get too deep into the weeds in how they describe this in their public statements. They need to keep this realy simple so all the simple people can understand it.

"Mitt Rmoney is a crook" would be a good statement. I dislike Cutter. I thoroughly enjoyed her use of the word "felony."

I don't get how your last few lines relate to the OP, so I don't know how to respond to your final "Really?"



None of my questions to you were rhetorical.

Now . . . .do you have an actual point?

[Atman]

12. Wow, Stinky! Chill, my friend!

My sub-line question WAS rhetorical, not questioning your post. Relax...breathe...count to ten...



.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Okay . . . .

. . . . I've been dealing with one of the DU sects that will argue that water is dusty dry just for the sake of arguing it . . . .