Mysterious company dissolves after giving $1 million to pro-Romne

[Texsox]

We know they all (will) do it.

 

Linked

Did someone create a company for the sole purpose of giving to a political action committee trying to boost Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign?

That's what it looks like. As The Ticket reported earlier this week, three firms gave $1 million apiece to Restore Our Future, a conservative "super PAC" planning to spend millions to help Romney's White House bid.

One of those companies was W. Spann LLC, a mysterious New York-based company that apparently closed up shop last month shortly after its contribution to the pro-Romney PAC. As NBC News's Michael Isikoff reports, the company was formed in March by Boston estate tax lawyer Cameron Casey and listed a midtown Manhattan address where the landlord says there's no record of the firm being a tenant.

 

Free speech ain't free.

[The Sir]

I wish this "scandal" would sink this guy. If Romney (a RINO jackass who thinks his kids didn't have to join the military because their service to their country was campaigning for him) or Palin (I refuse to see my country represented by this much of a dips***) gets the nomination, I will write Benjamin Netanyahu/Allen West on the ballot. I s*** you not.

[Balta1701]

First of all, posted in the Dem thread nearly a week ago.

 

Secondly, the guy who did this has come forward and admitted he's one of Romney's former partners at Bain capital. So, clearly the law needs changed to block this, but that's the end of this story.

[Texsox]

Wouldn't allowing unlimited contributions help the economy? Let's allow as much spending as a candidate can raise. That's an economic stimulus.

[BigSqwert]

Wouldn't allowing unlimited contributions help the economy?

 

How so? What effect will that money have on jobs or the economy?

[Texsox]

How so? What effect will that money have on jobs or the economy?

 

Helps out newspapers and other media outlets. Provide campaign jobs like secretaries, blog writers, canvases, advance people of various talents, consultants.

[Reddy]

I wish this "scandal" would sink this guy. If Romney (a RINO jackass who thinks his kids didn't have to join the military because their service to their country was campaigning for him) or Palin (I refuse to see my country represented by this much of a dips***) gets the nomination, I will write Benjamin Netanyahu/Allen West on the ballot. I s*** you not.

you really don't want this guy sunk - honestly.

 

if a republican has to win the presidency, Romney's the least bad of the bunch. at least he's not pure evil and clinically retarded like the other options.

[southsider2k5]

you really don't want this guy sunk - honestly.

 

if a republican has to win the presidency, Romney's the least bad of the bunch. at least he's not pure evil and clinically retarded like the other options.

 

He is also the most spineless of the bunch. I literally have no idea what the guy actually stands for, well other than himself.

[Reddy]

He is also the most spineless of the bunch. I literally have no idea what the guy actually stands for, well other than himself.

that's BECAUSE he stands for actual republican values, as opposed to the absurdity that is the right these days. He's left of bachmann/palin/huckabee/perry/etc/etc, but not because he's liberal - but because the national perception of the republican party has shifted SO FAR to the right in the last few years. He's struggling between what he ACTUALLY supports, and what he knows he needs to become to get elected - just the way McCain did. Unfortunately, McCain jumped the shark and took the plunge. Without his water wings.

[southsider2k5]

that's BECAUSE he stands for actual republican values, as opposed to the absurdity that is the right these days. He's left of bachmann/palin/huckabee/perry/etc/etc, but not because he's liberal - but because the national perception of the republican party has shifted SO FAR to the right in the last few years. He's struggling between what he ACTUALLY supports, and what he knows he needs to become to get elected - just the way McCain did. Unfortunately, McCain jumped the shark and took the plunge. Without his water wings.

 

Yep. Which means I have no idea what he actually stands for and what he is saying to get elected. McCain at least had a very moderate voting record to stand on. Romney has been all over the place.

[Balta1701]

Yep. Which means I have no idea what he actually stands for and what he is saying to get elected. McCain at least had a very moderate voting record to stand on. Romney has been all over the place.

Romney has a moderate record of governing in Mass to stand on, and he's been as all over the place as McCain in trying to campaign for higher office.

[southsider2k5]

Romney has a moderate record of governing in Mass to stand on, and he's been as all over the place as McCain in trying to campaign for higher office.

 

Mitt Romney is the Republicans version of John Edwards. He stands for nothing and everything all at once.

[Balta1701]

Mitt Romney is the Republicans version of John Edwards. He stands for nothing and everything all at once.

Here's where we're running into differences. McCain's switchovers were lightswitches. In 2000 he was a "Maverick", voted against the tax cuts, etc., that persona seemed to give him the best shot to compete for the presidency. Then by 2004, he needed to play to the base that didn't trust him, so he lightswitched the other way and on everything except notably torture, he was as far right as you could get. He's pretty much stayed that way...on then off.

 

Romney says we need to take care of carbon pollution and then 2 weeks later says carbon isn't a pollutant.

 

McCain's changeover was complete and total. Romney's happens every time he gets called on something. Which is a bigger changeup?

[southsider2k5]

Here's where we're running into differences. McCain's switchovers were lightswitches. In 2000 he was a "Maverick", voted against the tax cuts, etc., that persona seemed to give him the best shot to compete for the presidency. Then by 2004, he needed to play to the base that didn't trust him, so he lightswitched the other way and on everything except notably torture, he was as far right as you could get. He's pretty much stayed that way...on then off.

 

Romney says we need to take care of carbon pollution and then 2 weeks later says carbon isn't a pollutant.

 

McCain's changeover was complete and total. Romney's happens every time he gets called on something. Which is a bigger changeup?

 

Romney's is easy for me. McCain was the same guy until he ran for President and feared losing the future Tea Party group of his party. Romney doesn't have any kind of record close to McCains of being predictable and reliable for issues. After the election McCain has pretty much gone back to where he started, which tells me he probably would have governed towards the center after he got elected.

[Balta1701]

Romney's is easy for me. McCain was the same guy until he ran for President and feared losing the future Tea Party group of his party. Romney doesn't have any kind of record close to McCains of being predictable and reliable for issues. After the election McCain has pretty much gone back to where he started, which tells me he probably would have governed towards the center after he got elected.

You and I have watched 2 incredibly different John McCain's.

[southsider2k5]

You and I have watched 2 incredibly different John McCain's.

 

That makes me feel much better about how I view John McCain.

[Reddy]

Mitt Romney is the Republicans version of John Edwards. He stands for nothing and everything all at once.

oh no you di-int.

[The Sir]

you really don't want this guy sunk - honestly.

 

if a republican has to win the presidency, Romney's the least bad of the bunch. at least he's not pure evil and clinically retarded like the other options.

 

Thanks for trying so arrogantly to tell me what to think, but I don't take my marching orders from the likes of you. I'm smart enough to form my own opinions.

 

Fact is, I do want Romney sunk. He doesn't seem able to hold any stance at all. I will never vote for someone who changes their views to increase popularity. It's idiotic pandering. And I don't vote centrist. I vote right wing. You think the Republican Party has gone too far right because you are obviously a liberal who leans left and you fear a strong ultra-right party, but I personally think it's not right enough. The Tea Party is working on that, but there's still more to be done.

 

You dislike the Tea Party because you find it extreme. That's fine. Go vote against it. But it must not be so extreme since its message resonates with so many Americans. And is Obama really anything less than the left's version of the TP? He's as ideologically tied to the left as we are to the right.

 

You support Romney because you figure he's the only Republican who could win and not tear down this moronic leftist infrastructure that the Dems have been so busy creating. Yet I want a candidate who promises to do exactly that.

 

 

[Balta1701]

And is Obama really anything less than the left's version of the TP? He's as ideologically tied to the left as we are to the right.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's where we're running into differences. McCain's switchovers were lightswitches. In 2000 he was a "Maverick", voted against the tax cuts, etc., that persona seemed to give him the best shot to compete for the presidency. Then by 2004, he needed to play to the base that didn't trust him, so he lightswitched the other way and on everything except notably torture, he was as far right as you could get. He's pretty much stayed that way...on then off.

 

Romney says we need to take care of carbon pollution and then 2 weeks later says carbon isn't a pollutant.

 

McCain's changeover was complete and total. Romney's happens every time he gets called on something. Which is a bigger changeup?

 

This exact same scenario happened with Obama. On and off. Not ok with a debt limit increase, now all for it. Not ok with continuing Gitmo. Still in operation. Not ok with keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still there for the forseeable future. Not ok with unilateral military action. Oops, we have Libya.

 

They're politicians. They're all a bunch of lying sacks of s***. To argue one is better than another or different than another is a fools errand.

[StrangeSox]

 

[Balta1701]

This exact same scenario happened with Obama. On and off. Not ok with a debt limit increase, now all for it. Not ok with continuing Gitmo. Still in operation. Not ok with keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still there for the forseeable future. Not ok with unilateral military action. Oops, we have Libya.

 

They're politicians. They're all a bunch of lying sacks of s***. To argue one is better than another or different than another is a fools errand.

To be fair...the changes for Obama happened "When he got into office." On the debt limit, its really easy for a minority party member to make a protest vote as long as the thing is going to pass. Not ok with Gitmo...but Congress has blocked the White House from doing anything with that.

 

And you're simply inaccurate on one detail...he ran on a policy of increasing troops in Afghanistan, not on pulling out. He ran on a platform of removing combat troops from Iraq, and at least for now we're on schedule...although the DOD seems to be pushing back hard on that lately.

[The Sir]

To be fair...the changes for Obama happened "When he got into office."

 

Sounds like someone who said what he had to say to be appealing and then either would not or could not keep the promises. If it's the first one, he's a liar. If it's the second, he's a guy in over his head.

[Balta1701]

Sounds like someone who said what he had to say to be appealing and then either would not or could not keep the promises. If it's the first one, he's a liar. If it's the second, he's a guy in over his head.

Or, there is such thing as a "Congress".

[southsider2k5]

Sounds like someone who said what he had to say to be appealing and then either would not or could not keep the promises. If it's the first one, he's a liar. If it's the second, he's a guy in over his head.

 

Or a burst of tolerance know as "not a Republican".