Oh yes. His criminal record:
According to what Romney told the Boston Globe in 1994, he had taken his family off to Wayland, Mass.'s Lake Cochituate, about an hour outside Boston, for a summer excursion. As Romney prepared to put his family boat into the water, a park officer told Romney not to launch because his license appeared to have been painted over. The officer told Romney if he put his boat into the water he would face a $50 fine.And since Mitt figured it was an awfully inconvenient time for him to follow the law, for Pete's sake, he decided to just go ahead and break it and pay whatever silly little fines would be imposed. And then accuse the police offer who arrested him for disorderly conduct of "false arrest." And then threaten to sue. And then demand to have the records sealed. And then claim it was all some silly misunderstanding because the charges were dropped and he was released without even having to pay bail, and thus he was fully exonerated, so there.
Romney felt that his license was still visible and decided to ignore the order from the officer and pay the fine."I figured I was at the state park with my kids. My five kids were in the car wondering why we weren't going out in the boat, so I said I'd launch and pay the fine," Romney said in 1994.
Except, as in every other instance, when it comes to Mitt Romney, that might not exactly be the whole story. Because look what Blue Mass Group found:
A police log report, published in the Natick Sun newspaper in 1981 and obtained by Blue Mass Group, calls into question a portion of Mitt Romney's account of his arrest in 1981. When news of the arrest emerged during Romney's 1994 Senate race, Romney told the Boston Globe that he was released after his arrest without having to post bail, but the police log suggests that that may not be true.So now we've got one set of unsealed, available-to-the-public records that seem to contradict what Romney insists is in those sealed-per-Mitt's-request, not-available-to-the-public records. Huh.The police log also says that Romney was charged with operating an unregistered motorboat. Previously, the only offense Romney was known to have been charged with was disorderly conduct.
Well, maybe after Mitt releases his tax records, he can unseal his criminal record so we can try to get to the bottom of what appears to be yet another Mitt Romney lie.
###
Just when you thought this guy couldn't be a bigger asshole, he manages to squeeze out an asteroid-sized turd:
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), the Senate candidate that drew criticism in August after making the inaccurate claim that the victims of "legitimate rape" can avoid pregnancy, also believes it's fair for employers to pay women less than men.
"I believe in free enterprise. I don't think the government should be telling people what you pay and what you don't pay," Akin said at a town hall meeting on Thursday. The comment came in response to a question about Akin's decision to vote against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which has made it it easier for women to challenge unequal pay.
"I think it's about freedom," Akin added. "If somebody wants to hire somebody and they agree on a salary, that's fine, however it wants to work. So, the government sticking its nose into all kinds of things has gotten us into huge trouble."
###
Fraud scandal ends GOP registration effort
###
I love — LOVE — this smackdown ruling delivered by Missouri Judge Carol Jackson to a Catholic business owner who claimed the Obama Administration's birth-control mandate violated his rights.
The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [an employer's health] plan, subsidize someone else's participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs' religion. . . . [Federal religious freedom law] is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one's religion forbids, or forbids action one's religion requires; it is not a means to force one's religious practices upon others. [It] does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one's money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one's own. . .
We do enjoy freedom from religion in this country as well.
###
###
Religious right to sue CA over "pray away the gay" ban - CNN rightfully called out these bigots who claim they can "cure" gays. (And if it's a "choice," why does it need a cure?)
###
Fox News was filled with humor on Sunday.
Much has been made of the Paul Ryan interview with Bad-seed Wallace. It had some moments. Like when Zombie-eyes explained how he had no time to explain his plan or when he admitted that tax cuts for the rich were his most important goal.
Good times, but I laughed out loud when the Fox News panel discussed the coming debate, especially when Liz Marlantes of the Christian Science Monitor said this:
But I think Romney could win this debate with one genuinely good human moment, which is something that people have been hungering to see from him throughout this entire campaign. If he could have one moment where he gives voters the sense that he is throwing the talking points out the window and telling them, what he really believes—and it doesn't matter what the issue is. I just think, you know, he should connect with voters in some way that, that would actually, probably get him a win.
So, all Mittens needs to do is have ONE human moment to win the debate. That is a low bar. And yet, I just don't see him stepping over it. Do you?
####
If there was one Supreme Court judge you wouldn't want to praise in liberal Massachusetts while you're running for reelection, Tony "The Fixer" Scalia would probably be the one. That's the thing about debates: Sometimes people really do snap under the pressure and say some dumb things, and Scott Brown just proved it in last night's debate:
Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren covered her face as the crowd booed her challenger, Republican Scott Brown. Brown had just hailed Justice Antonin Scalia as his "model" Supreme Court justice, and Warren was already using the opportunity to pounce.
During a contentious second Massachusetts Senate debate, Brown went through a wild swing of opinions when moderator David Gregory asked him his "model" justice.
"Let me see, here. That's a great question," Brown said. "I think Justice Scalia is a very good judge."
The crowd at the debate immediately booed, and Warren began to cover up her face, perhaps realizing her challenger's mistake.That Brown's first answer was Scalia was shocking, because Scalia is widely considered among the top two most conservative justices on the bench.
Brown, meanwhile, has become popular in Democratic-heavy Massachusetts by becoming a largely Independent member of Congress.
Brown fumbled for words and quickly threw out almost every single justice currently on the bench.
"Justice Kennedy is obviously very good, and Justice Roberts, Justice Sotomayor, they're all very qualified people there," Brown said.
Warren shook her head, noting that Brown had just endorsed Sotomayor, who some see as the most liberal member of the bench.
In a follow-up, Gregory pointed out that Scalia and Sotomayor have very different viewpoints on the bench. "That's the beauty of being an independent, David," Brown said."If you had to pick one?" Gregory said."I don't need to pick one," Brown said. "We have plenty of justices up there, and I'm proud of the ones we have."
###
Saturday Afternoon Post: Here's a round-up of the main Romney/Ryan lies of September.
###
George Will: Obama Is Winning Because He's Black | Washington Post columnist George Will suggested in his Tuesday column that President Obama was only ahead in the polls because he's African-American. After dismissing Obama's record as being obviously "in shambles," Will suggested that Americans were supporting him only because they didn't want to see a black president fail, writing that "the nation, which is generally reluctant to declare a president a failure — thereby admitting that it made a mistake in choosing him — seems especially reluctant not to give up on the first African American president. If so, the 2012 election speaks well of the nation's heart, if not its head." Credible academic estimates suggest Obama lost a net 3 to 5 percent of the national vote in 2008 as a consequence of his race.
Loser.
###
###
New York Attorney General Sues JP Morgan Chase Over Alleged Mortgage-Backed Securities Fraud
###
No comments:
Post a Comment