Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 <a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/12/12703193-a-bain-capital-game-changer?lite" target="_blank">http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.co...ger?lite</a> Apparently, while trying to defend himself from Obama and Democrat's attacks about his finances, Mitt Romney now faces some serious scrutiny about his Bain Capital tenure. The Boston Globe just ran an piece that says Romney was actually still owner, chairman of the board, sole stockholder, and president of Bain Capital well after his stated 1999 departure. A full 3 years later. According to tax records he was all of this still in 2002. So, he really has some explaining to do. I'm going to go off on a little tangent here though, because it got me wondering about a scenario. What would happen if this blew up so much that he had to withdraw his bid for the presidency? Since we're so close, would they just let one of the "runners up" take over? Has this happened in the past? I mean what would have happened if John Edwards ended up as the Democratic nominee and then his big scandal broke? I'm not saying this will happen with Romney, it's just that this could be a really big game-changing deal for him and it got me thinking.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 And yes, I know I linked to Rachel Maddow, so, I'll also link to the Boston Globe article to make it more...fair? <a href="http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2012/07/11/government-documents-indicate-mitt-romney-continued-bain-after-date-when-says-left/IpfKYWjnrsel4pvCFbsUTI/story.html" target="_blank">http://bostonglobe.com/news/po...ory.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I've wondered that sometimes myself - it's a fun theoretical. (And I read a book by Jeff Greenfield once about the even more momentous theoretical of what would happen if the president-elect were to die before the electoral college officially voted him in - which doesn't happen till the December of the election year, if you didn't know. Would the winning VP candidate take over? The second place finisher in the presidential race? Should it go to the House, like it does if there's no electoral college winner? The Constitution doesn't really spell it out.) Anyway, for this theoretical, it would matter a lot whether he had to withdraw before the convention or after. If before, the convention could presumably choose an alternate nominee amongst themselves, the way conventions used to do it before the primary system. If after, it would be a lot trickier. Just getting on the ballot in a lot of states would probably be closed to anyone else after September, I'm guessing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan He's not going to want to answer to this, that's for sure. He'll call it a "distraction" and so forth for as long as possible, but eventually he's going to have to release more tax records. He's stalling that as long as possible, because I bet it won't be very appealing to most Americans when the truth comes out.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The GOP doesn't have problems with liars or even felons. Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy are heroes to them.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Stepping down after the nomination would make a great book. I doubt this goes that far but if it did maybe it would compel Governorn Christie to give it a go which would make for a much more interesting race in my opinion.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper That goodness the liars and felons are limited to one party so it is easy to identify them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Both parties have them. You can identify which party they came from by if they get their own TV show afterwards (like North and Liddy).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Hookers, schmookers. Ya' gotta subvert the Constitution to have an interesting show.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 For sure he's not going to want to answer this, but he's going to have to. I know he's made sure to distance himself from Bain, and used the 1999 date to excuse himself from the more controversial actions of the company. He doesn't want to be linked to that stuff...but tax records say he was. Worst case, and Rachel's blog pointed this out, is that it's a felony if it's proven he lied. So, that's really something you would want to clear up, right? The thing I don't get is the mentality of hiding this information that's available to the public. We talked about this in the other topic about his CEO mentality. But, it's the same here. How did he not think public tax records saying he was still at Bain as of 2002 would NOT come back to bite him in the butt? I could understand if there was stuff that was more obscure, like his offshore financial holdings, that are a bit harder to prove. But, this is a bit more clear. How did he think he would not have to answer to this at some point? Is it the disconnect of corporate thinking? Lie to yourself enough and you'll believe it?
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Oh, and people keep wanting Chris Christie to run...good luck with that. It would probably turn out about as successfully as Rudy Giulliani's run.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 I'll have to look up that book, Dabob, it sounds interesting. I would imagine in that case, it would be chaos since it would be difficult to decide who would become president if it's not specified.
Originally Posted By dshyates I will refrain from making any jokes regarding Chris Christie running. But the thought makes me winded.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The Electoral College doesn't really have to follow the popular vote. Most states have laws or party pledges that require the elector to vote along with the popular vote, though 257 electors are not bound by the results of the popular election. In those laws that have a legal requirement to vote along with the popular vote I'm not sure if a violation would result in that elector being removed and his or her vote nullified, or if the elector can vote his or her conscience and pay the fine or legal penalty for violating the law. States that bind their electors to the popular vote can probably pass a resolution to allow the elector to change the vote, or the state's Attorney General can decide not to charge the electors with violating the law. There is no constitutional requirement that the states hold any popular vote for the presidency at all. The President is supposed to represent the states assembled in Congress, not the individual citizens of those states. That is why he is elected by the electors sent by the states to the Electoral College and not through a direct vote.
Originally Posted By ecdc Back to the OP, so far, this one isn't going away. It's impossible to know in these campaigns what'll stick and what'll be major cable news, then vanish the next day. Nearly everything is the latter (remember Obama's private sector "fine" gaffe?), but now media beyond cable news is latching into this, breathing new life into it. As well they should, since it's a big deal.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder There's sort of a precedent for a candidate stepiing down before. In 1972, George McGovern had Thomas Eagleton as his running mate and then mental health issues surfaced about him, forcing them to put Sargent Shriver on the ticket and many Dems declined. The DNC ratified the pick. If Romney similarly went down in flames like Eagleton did, the RNC would likely select someone, probably some whacko.
