No, you are not supposed to be outraged at his wealth. When did anyone say that. Let me guess, it was implied, and Rush Limbaugh or his ilk pointed this out to you.
Yes, Democrats are selling to independents that Romney was born with a silver spoon, his business practices running a PE are not the type that help create jobs, he has offshore bank accounts and funds, and pays taxes as a meager effective rate.
No one claimed that he has made his money unfairly or that you should be "outraged" by his wealth. Republicans and conservative "news" stations and commentators frame the "democrats" position that way so that you, a die hard conservative, are more likely to vote, donate, and consume programming.
Political ads are not designed for people who already know how they are going to vote.
Kerry and Romney have more in common than just the scopes of their investment portfolios. They both have the dubious distinction of sucking even more than the suck-ass presidents they're running against.
No, you are not supposed to be outraged at his wealth. When did anyone say that. Let me guess, it was implied, and Rush Limbaugh or his ilk pointed this out to you.
I don't listen to Rush, nice try. It's the liberal networks like MSNBC who are fixated with Romney's wealth. That's funny, they were silent about Kerry's wealth in 2004 which was the point of my thread that you apparently missed.
Yes, Democrats are selling to independents that Romney was born with a silver spoon, his business practices running a PE are not the type that help create jobs, he has offshore bank accounts and funds, and pays taxes as a meager effective rate.
You just completely contradicted yourself, do you realize that?
Speaking of offshore accounts and funds, did you mean Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?
I'm sure Rachael Maddow will be pointing this out on her next show.
Quote:
No one claimed that he has made his money unfairly or that you should be "outraged" by his wealth. Republicans and conservative "news" stations and commentators frame the "democrats" position that way so that you, a die hard conservative, are more likely to vote, donate, and consume programming.
Wait what? It's the Republicans that want me to believe that the liberals want me to be outraged by Romney's wealth? Seriously? Wow I'm dizzy from your spin.
I also find it funny that you think I'm a die hard conservative when I'm in fact a registered Libertarian.
Regardless I just posted links from MSNBC refuting your silliness.
The year was 2004 and the candidate Sen. John Kerry. But the major networks gave Kerry’s great wealth nowhere near the attention that they have given to Gov. Mitt Romney’s millions in 2012.
From January to April 2004, the ABC and CBS evening news shows only mentioned Kerry’s wealth once each. And NBC didn’t mention Kerry’s finances or his wife’s wealth at all. Those same three networks have discussed Romney’s wealth a total of 27 times during the same time period in 2012. That’s more than 13 times more than the coverage given Kerry’s wealth (27 stories to 2 stories).
In 2012, NBC News anchor Brian Williams described Mitt Romney’s wealth as “unimaginable,” the product of “vast investments after a successful career in business, much of it spent buying and selling companies,” during the Jan. 24, edition of “Nightly News.” In the first four months of 2004, NBC didn’t even note Kerry’s far more substantial wealth.
According to Forbes estimates from 2004, Kerry himself was worth about $240 million. Teresa Heinz Kerry, his wife, was heir to the Heinz empire and worth anywhere from $500 million to $1 billion more. Romney’s estimated net worth is $250 million – or one third to one-fifth the wealth Kerry and his wife had at the time.
If you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy of the left on Romney's wealth, you are clearly too partisan to be objective in this election.
There is a huge difference between investing in a foreign company and keeping your money off shore. There is a huge difference between the 2004 election and the 2012 election.
My issue is not partisanship. I think people that pay attention to political ads are imbeciles, not partisans. The point of them is to, over time, create an impression of a candidate. The D's are painting Romney as a rich, out-of-touch, corporate raider - slash and burn, candidate. Who cares.
I completely ignore the ads, as I am indifferent and personally could not care less if Romney and/or Obama swim in Scrooge McDuck money pits. Those are not issues relevant to an election.
I like the job Romney did with the 2002 Olympics.
Why would Democrats highlight Kerry's wealth? Did they highlight Clinton's drug use? Why not, they highlighted Bush's. Expecting either party to consistently apply the same attack standards to their candidate as opposed to their opponents is silly.
Where Scarborough complained that the NYT never described Kerry's home, despite describing Romney's home in their Homes section. Turns out, the NYT did a front page Sunday edition report 4 weeks before the 2004 election.
Oh dear me, George Soros is considered a war criminal by most of the governments in East Asia for his engineering their currency collapses in the mid 1990's. When you talk about backers with enormous wealth it's really some beauty contest, ain't it?
Why would Democrats highlight Kerry's wealth? Did they highlight Clinton's drug use? Why not, they highlighted Bush's. Expecting either party to consistently apply the same attack standards to their candidate as opposed to their opponents is silly.
I'm not saying they should've highlighted Kerry's wealth, that would of course be counterproductive to them, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of them attacking Romney's wealth when their candidate in 2004 was considerably richer.
I must say I'm surprised (and impressed) that the NYT published that, thanks for the link. Nonetheless, take a look at the link I posted showing the vast difference in coverage by the networks of Romney's wealth vs Kerry's.
I'm not saying they should've highlighted Kerry's wealth, that would of course be counterproductive to them, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of them attacking Romney's wealth when their candidate in 2004 was considerably richer.
I must say I'm surprised (and impressed) that the NYT published that, thanks for the link. Nonetheless, take a look at the link I posted showing the vast difference in coverage by the networks of Romney's wealth vs Kerry's.
JRS - after debating Conrad about voter ID laws, it is a breath of fresh air to see someone reasonable. In 2004, being rich wasn't as big of a deal. I think the D's are just trying to paint Romney with the George HW Bush supermarket scanner brush - out of touch. It's not hypocritical, just annoying politics.
Also, according to wikipedia, "Kerry's financial disclosure form for 2002 put his personal assets in the range of $409,000 to $1.8 million, with additional assets held jointly by Kerry and his wife in the range of $300,000 to $600,000." The rest of the money is his wife's and he is not entitled to any of it. It does say he is the beneficiary of Forbes trusts and I do not know why that would not show up on his financial statements unless he is only entitled to the income from the trust and not the corpus.
In current dollars, George Washington was worth, mostly through his wife, about $715 million dollars. With few exceptions US Presidents were wealthy men. The press is acting like Romney's situation is either extraordinary or criminal. As if Ed Shultz on MSNBC is hoping the next US President is a subway conductor.
JRS - after debating Conrad about voter ID laws, it is a breath of fresh air to see someone reasonable. In 2004, being rich wasn't as big of a deal. I think the D's are just trying to paint Romney with the George HW Bush supermarket scanner brush - out of touch. It's not hypocritical, just annoying politics.
Also, according to wikipedia, "Kerry's financial disclosure form for 2002 put his personal assets in the range of $409,000 to $1.8 million, with additional assets held jointly by Kerry and his wife in the range of $300,000 to $600,000." The rest of the money is his wife's and he is not entitled to any of it. It does say he is the beneficiary of Forbes trusts and I do not know why that would not show up on his financial statements unless he is only entitled to the income from the trust and not the corpus.
Oh dear me, George Soros is considered a war criminal by most of the governments in East Asia for his engineering their currency collapses in the mid 1990's. When you talk about backers with enormous wealth it's really some beauty contest, ain't it?
No, no, no... It's the Koch Brothers with which we're supposed to be concerned.
4Likes
Hypocrisy 
