Already, Hints Of Gloria Allred's October Surprise For Romney Don't Make Sense

According to several online sources, Gloria Allred will use a messy divorce settlement, going back to 1986, as proof that Mitt Romney lied under oath.  This divorce centers around a Romney friend and Staples founder, Tom Stemberg, and his wife of the time, Maureen.  By Maureen's account, Romney testified that Staples stock was "overvalued" and further told the court that "I didn't place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company's future."  As a result of that, Maureen (and, I guess, now, Allred) has become bitter over the fact that Romney cheated her out of a significant amounts of alimony money because Staples has done so well.

But, here's the thing.  Staples had just opened the doors on its very first store in 1986; the same year as the divorce.  It was a fledgling company with a very uncertain future. More importantly, in 1986, Staples was privately held.  There was no stock to be valued or "overvalued", as Maureen claims.  So, its very doubtful that an astute businessman like Mitt Romney would have made such a statement.

In 1986, Romney's company, Bain Capital, ponied up $4.5 million to get Staples, as Stemberg's dream,  off the drawing board.  But, in 1986 Bain, itself, was struggling to get a footing because it had already picked so many losers.  In fact Wikipedia puts it this way:

"The Bain Capital team was initially reluctant to invest its capital. By 1985, things were going poorly enough that Romney considered closing the operation, returning investors' money back to them, and having the partners go back to their old positions. The partners saw weak spots in so many potential deals that by 1986, very few had been done."

So, in essence, a lot of what Romney and Bain were doing in 1985 and 1986 were a bunch of business crap shoots.  So, it's no wonder that Romney would have been extremely negative in his 1991 court testimony  -- looking backwards to 1986 -- he would have said the outlook on Staples was negative -- if in fact he even did testify to what Maureen is now claiming; over a quarter of a century later.

One last thing.  Staples became a publicly traded corporation in 1989.  By the end of 1990, the price of  its stock had fallen almost 30% from its initial offering price; meaning that the investment community wasn't too sure of the company's future.  So, Romney's initial appraisal of the company was true when you look at  how the stock traded in its first year or so on the stock market.  However, in 1991, the stock took off and, yes Romney's company, Bain, and Stemdberg were able to cash in.  But, remember, this was 6 years after the official divorce proceedings.

The problem, for Romney, is that a lot of people know that Staples is a very successful company.  So, if they hear that he understated that fact in court to cheat Maureen out of money, they are going to be outraged; especially woman.  Unfortunately, there isn't going to be a lot of time to get the above facts out to counter Allred's tactic here.  She knows this; and, that fact is simply disgraceful.

References:

--- TMZ:  Mitt Romney Allegedly LIED in Court To Screw Over Friend's Wife: http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/24/mitt-romney-tom-stemberg-staples-lied-perjury-divorce-case-maureen/

--- Wikipedia: Staples, Inc.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staples_Inc.

--- Wikipedia: Bain Capital: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bain_Capital

Maybe Obama Should Have Used Bain Capital?

With every passing month, we learn of another Obama-funded green-energy company going belly up. This last time, it was the solar panel company Amonix which closed its doors only 14 months after getting taxpayer subsidies.   With Obama's lousy track record on funding green companies, it's obvious he and his people lack the skills to pick winners.  Maybe the President should have consulted with a company who's job it is to successfully fund upstart and struggling businesses?  You know.  Like Bain Capital.  The company that Romney started and the one that Obama attacks constantly.

Obama Broadly Paints Romney As An Overseas Outsourcer

In a revamp of a previous campaign tactic, Barack Obama has decided to try and turn America against Romney because he outsourced jobs while he was the head of Bain Capital, and as the Governor of Massachusetts.

Politifact has already debunked the Massachusetts claim by calling it a half-truth.  But, I think, given the facts, they're being overly lenient with Obama.  When Romney became its Governor, the State of Massachusetts had already contracted with Citigroup to process debit cards in support of the state's food stamp program.  In setting up customer service support for the program, Citigroup created a call center in India.  This was not unique.  At the time, 43 of our 50 states were involved in outsourcing certain services overseas.  But, let's be clear, neither Romney nor the State of Massachusetts outsourced the jobs to India; the contractor, Citigroup, did. Where the Obama campaign thinks they have Romney on the hook for outsourcing, is in regard to his 2005 veto of a bill that would forbid any state contractors from outsourcing.  Romney did it because the State budget couldn't afford premium, U.S.-only contracts; resulting in millions of extra taxpayer expenses. To anyone's knowledge, no jobs were actually outsourced since the Romney veto. And, the India call center?  It was shutdown in a new contract with jobs outsourced (from Mass.) to Utah.

Now, it is true that some companies that Bain was involved with while Romney was the chief did outsource jobs to both China and India.   But, so did most all of the Fortune 500 companies of this nation.  In fact, Obama's General Motors makes its Chevy Camaro in Canada and the GMC Sierra in Mexico.  And, oh yes,  Obama handed the American Chrysler Corporation over to the Italian company, Fiat. How long do you think it will be before Fiat starts making the most of the Chrysler parts (or, cars) in Italy?

On the Bain/Romney outsourcing, Obama and his surrogates should really back off.  That's because several of Obama's stimulus programs used products and parts that were made in China; and, consequently, created Chinese jobs.  Take, for example, a $2 billion program in the Obama stimulus package to build enough wind farms to support 2.4 million American homes.  The wind turbines, themselves, weren't built here.  Instead, they were built in China; creating 6000 Chinese jobs.  In the U.S., only about a couple of hundred jobs were created in installing all those Chinese-built wind turbines.   So, in essence, Obama, too, is an outsourcer!

The wind turbine story can be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/wind-power-equal-job-power/story?id=9759949#.T-oX8fWDpkg

Bill Clinton: Obama's Antagonist From Within

Obama and the Democrats must be wildly shaking their heads lately, over remarks made by Bill Clinton.  It just seems like Clinton is on a one-man quest to undermine every campaign strategy that Obama has conjured up.

For days, the Obama campaign had tried to make Romney look like a job killer for his leadership of Bain Capital.  And, as part of that leadership, team Obama was trying to convince the voters that Romney was not qualified to be president.  Well, in one fell swoop, Clinton shot those arguments down with the following two comments: "I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say this [Bain Capital] is bad work. This is good work...[and]...The man [Romney] who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold [for president]."

Then, just a couple of days ago, Clinton said that we should extend all the Bush Tax Cuts.  This after Obama has spent months trying to convince Americans that the Bush tax cuts for the rich should be left to expire.

These aren't just forgetful lapses by Clinton.  After all, Clinton is one of the most political savvy people in America today.  I think, in an odd way, Clinton is actually trying to push Obama into campaigning in a different direction.  I think he's trying to tell him to drop the Bain Capital and "unqualified" arguments that Romney can't be president.  At the same time, I think he feels that the attacks on the rich are not strategically wise.

Or, I could be dead wrong and Clinton is actually trying to shoot down Obama's reelection chance in retaliation for his treatment of Hillary in the lead-up to the 2008 primaries.

Obama's Stupidity On Profits

Ever since Barack Obama took office, he's been at war over corporate profits.  In 2009, he attacked corporations, Wall Street, and banks for putting profits ahead of jobs.   In 2011, he gave a speech before the Chamber of Commerce where he said businesses must share their profits with the workers.  In other words -- like he once told Joe the Plumber -- "spread the wealth around". Now, in the last two weeks, he has attacked Romney and Bain Capital for "maximizing profits".

Only a socialist would be so negative on companies making money. Really, can Obama be that dumb about business?

Look at it this way.  If the first McDonalds wasn't profitable, there wouldn't have been a second McDonalds.   But thanks to profitability, there now are over 33,500 McDonalds worldwide; employing nearly a half million workers.  The bottom line is that profits allow companies to expand and expansion means jobs. If companies simply gave all the profits away to the employees, there wouldn't be any money left for expansion. Just two weeks ago, Hewlett Packard announced that they were laying off 27,000 workers.  The company didn't make that announcement because profits are rising.

The President just doesn't get it.  Jobs follow profits.  Not the other way around.  Unlike the President, Romney definitely understands this. Today, in America, we have a jobs problem and, obviously, we have a President who is totally clueless as to how to fix that problem.

The Hypocrisy of Obama's Latest Attack On Romney and Bain Capitol

As of today,  Barack Obama's reelection campaign released this new ad attacking Mitt Romney's stewardship of Bain Capital:



But what this ad and the idiots that appear in it don't seem to understand is that Bain Capital was involved in the business of fixing broken companies.  Companies that were broken because they had too many people and/or too many unprofitable or marginally profitable products and services.  Those companies were broken long before Bain got involved. So, if those people lost their jobs it was because the original management of the company that hired them was at fault due to bad management.

Though, I guess, the height of hypocrisy comes from Obama, himself, on this one.  The fact is that what Bain Capital did is no different than what the President's people had to do with the "broken" General Motors.  Like Bain Capitol,  Obama took a controlling interest in General Motors by infusing $56 billion in cash.  But, unlike Bain's takeover of companies, Obama used taxpayer money -- not private capital -- to fund the takeover. Then, to make the company profitable again, people had to lose their jobs and some benefits.  The Saturn and Pontiac Divisions were shuttered and employees were just let go.  Losers like Saab, Opel, Vauxhall, and Humvee were sold off with their worker's ultimate fate in question. Hundreds of dealerships were shut down; and, as a result, lots of people lost their jobs.  Former suppliers to Pontiac and Saturn lost contracts and, in the process, some either laid people off or, perhaps, went out of business all together. 

I'm sure that if Romney wants to stoop to Obama's level, he could just as easily run a similar ad with former, disgruntled, General Motors workers or Dealers.

Update: Even Obama's former Car Czar who orchestrated the GM Bailout calls this Obama attack ad "unfair".  (Click here to see video from Morning Joe program).

Newt Gingrich: Mr. Backtracker

Obviously, Newt Gingrich wants to be President. But, do we want a President who constantly makes decisions or speaks out against something and, then, days or weeks later has to backtrack on his statements?

This is a consistent problem with Gingrich. He did it when he made the video commercial with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change. He also had to backtrack on his criticism of Paul Ryan's budget proposal by labeling it "right-wing social engineering". Then, there was the denial that he was for the individual mandate for health care. He also had to backtrack on his calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist. And, the list goes on and on. From comments he made about Egypt to his blundering statements about abortion. Now, in his latest retreat, he is walking backwards on his attack of Romney's association with Bain Capital.

It's one thing to make mistakes when talking about domestic issues. But, do we really want this man meeting with world leaders and making statements that weren't well thought out?