View Full Version : Romeny had something to hide?
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1097582
Apparently his staff went to great lengths to eliminate as much documentation of the administration as possible, including staff buying their computer hard drives, and the state breaking its lease for the computers his staff used and getting a lease for new ones at the end of his term, costing the state money.
It'll be interesting to see what the Reuters FOIA request turns up regarding what paper records Romney had requested to be destroyed.
iris lily
12-6-11, 10:34am
I agree that it will be interesting to see how no stone will be left unturned by Mainstream Media once Romney gets the nomination.
Can you imagine if each person's life underwent the extreme scrutiny that any political candidate undergoes. My goodness, what could they find about me that could be misinterpreted or twisted to suit an agenda. This is an 'orange' comment so neither red nor blue bias.
It seems one must be a masochistic egotist to stand for election, doesn't it?
Personally, I'd like to see more investigative journalism, rather than less. There's plenty of skulduggery afoot that never sees the light of day, I'm pretty sure. More Woodward and Bernstein, fewer puff pieces, say I!
It would be interesting to see if any other departing governors did a little "scrubbing" before leaving office. The article said it was unprecedented in Massachusetts, but didn't mention anything about the standard practice in Illinois, Texas, Arkansas, California, etc. I can think of a lot of reasons to purge non-essential or politically sensitive information and not all of them have sinister overtones or are designed to protect a single (future) candidate for higher office.
Mark Twain said, "Why waste your money looking up your family tree, just go into politics and your opponents will do it for you."
Leaders bounce ideas off each other, plan, debate, etc. via emails - any of those taken out of content could easily be misused. Just like Mitt supposably did with a quote from Obama's speech!
It seemed like a smart move to me after seeing the media demand Sarah Palin's emails from her time as Governor. They went after her as soon as she was selected as a running mate.
If it was not fobidden by state law, which it wasn't, and I didn't have the opportunity to have every record of my personal life sealed and hidden from public view, I'd have done the same thing as a Republican candidate.
A major embarrassment for Romney has been that Romneycare is working. Go figure.
Other than that I don't remember him being around much.
A major embarrassment for Romney has been that Romneycare is working. Go figure.
Other than that I don't remember him being around much.
I know!! Why in the world is this man running from one of the most successful programs he help put in place? He should be crowing about it What does this say about the voters on the right? What does this say about what the so called 'best and brightest' on the right think of the voters? Just because people on the left want this (too), it's suddenly toxic! Even though it's successful. Even though it works! Even though it was a republican who did it first! Here's the difference between the left and the right. The left doesn't care who thought of it first, they are just glad someone did it and more are trying to do it on a bigger scale because they can see the benefits to all citizens, not just those on the left. The right, if they even get a hint that those on the left like an idea, well, that just makes it poison, and no good at all. Suddenly they are against it, even if they were for it before. They are so twisted up in their partisan crap they will deny a successful idea from a republican just because democrats want it too.
"Nope, no apple pie in this house. Never had it, never will. Sure, we bake apple pies but never touch the stuff! And motherhood is pretty suspect as well!"
It seemed like a smart move to me after seeing the media demand Sarah Palin's emails from her time as Governor. They went after her as soon as she was selected as a running mate.
If it was not fobidden by state law, which it wasn't, and I didn't have the opportunity to have every record of my personal life sealed and hidden from public view, I'd have done the same thing as a Republican candidate.
But if a democrat did it? What would you say then Alan? Cause not only do the right want to dig as far back as grade school, if they don't' find anything they make stuff up! (birther, Kenya, can't read and write)
But if a democrat did it? What would you say then Alan?
I'm not familiar with any Democrats who've been subjected to the kind of scrutiny I mentioned in my post, so, I'm not able to answer that question. I do know that the Palin email thing was unprecedented.
I'm not familiar with any Democrats who've been subjected to the kind of scrutiny I mentioned in my post, so, I'm not able to answer that question. I do know that the Palin email thing was unprecedented.
Ferraro was.
Ferraro was.
That's an interesting point, but I don't think it's quite the same. Geraldine Ferraro did garner quite a bit of media interest as the first woman Vice Presidential candidate, and she was vetted pretty thoroughly in the press due to some discrepancies in her financial disclosures. But I don't remember her having to provide all of her personal correspondance covering her previous government service, nor do I remember any lawsuits by GOP operatives designed to discredit her. I think all that came later, in 2008 to be exact when the media and Democratic operatives tried to destroy her credibility.
Maybe I missed something.
It seemed like a smart move to me after seeing the media demand Sarah Palin's emails from her time as Governor. They went after her as soon as she was selected as a running mate.
If it was not fobidden by state law, which it wasn't, and I didn't have the opportunity to have every record of my personal life sealed and hidden from public view, I'd have done the same thing as a Republican candidate.
Personally I wouldn't, and don't, do anything in my work email that I'd feel the need to hide. And as a governor he shouldn't be dealing with issues of a top secret nature that need to remain hidden. After all, it's not as though governors are heavily involved in foreign policy issues and whatnot. Certainly if they were, via communications with DHS or whatnot regarding specific security concerns involving Massachusetts, those communications should have been treated with care from the moment they happened and could be redacted at this point.
Also, I'd be just as upset with a Democrat doing the same thing. There are way too many backroom deals that happen in politics on both sides and sunlight is the best disinfectant for them.
And while you're right that the state law was vague on the topic and may not have been violated to the letter of the law, the article noted that the relevant laws have not been updated to deal with the way people communicate today. With that in mind a morally upright person would've attempted to follow the spirit of the law saving email communications at the same standard that paper communications would be subject to, at least in my opinion. Just because something's not specifically illegal doesn't make it the right thing to do.
With that in mind a morally upright person would've attempted to follow the spirit of the law saving email communications at the same standard that paper communications would be subject to, at least in my opinion. Just because something's not specifically illegal doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Under Mass law, the Governors office is specifically exempt from electronic records keeping requirements so I'm not sure what "spirit of the law" you mean. The State Supreme Court has even ruled on the subject and declared:
"Were we to conclude that the public records law included the records ..., a
conflict could arise between the legislation and the executive order which could
impair the Governor’s ability to exercise his constitutional responsibility"
According to Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/02/mitt-romney/romney-says-he-followed-law-and-precedent-taking-h/), if the Romney administration had turned over their electronic records at the end of his last term, his would have been the first administration to do so in the history of, well, electronic communications. The only difference I can see between this outgoing administration and each preceding one, back to at least Dukakis, is that the others simply re-imaged their computers (effectively deleting everything on them) rather than replace them.
I think this is much ado about nothing.
Under Mass law, the Governors office is specifically exempt from electronic records keeping requirements so I'm not sure what "spirit of the law" you mean. The State Supreme Court has even ruled on the subject and declared:
According to Politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/02/mitt-romney/romney-says-he-followed-law-and-precedent-taking-h/), if the Romney administration had turned over their electronic records at the end of his last term, his would have been the first administration to do so in the history of, well, electronic communications. The only difference I can see between this outgoing administration and each preceding one, back to at least Dukakis, is that the others simply re-imaged their computers (effectively deleting everything on them) rather than replace them.
I think this is much ado about nothing.
Actually what I get from all that is that it's much ado about something, but no one bothered to make any ado about all the doodoo that every previous administration did at its end, presumably because the heads of those administrations weren't in a position where they would potentially become the most powerful man in the world so no one gave a crap.
Like I said, he may not have violated the law but I still don't understand why a governor needs a whole lot of secrecy, and certainly not when he's leaving office unless he has something to hide. If he's doing crap that his constituents wouldn't agree with if they were aware of it then he shouldn't be doing it. And until someone can explain to me what sort of super duper top secret sensitive issues a governor routinely deals with I'll continue to hold that view.
What I find annoying is that he spent more of the Massachusetts' folks money for new "leased" computers when they should have just bought new ones that could be wiped clean after each new governor. Why lease a computer? That is so stupid. So not only did they lease the computers from the previous time, they also got out of the lease agreement and went into a brand new one! Wasteful money. That is the "hidden" fact. Right there, staring us in the face.
If Romney has anything to hide, he may be hiding it from his own political party base!
How refreshing to see a thread about Romney who's truly a viable candidate and his actual public office record and what he has done while there vs. all the other junk we've had to wade through so far with the other candidates!
Re: Palin emails... a little joke my hubby tells me came to mind....
Anytime I say to DH, "You're reading my mind."
He invariably responds, "I love reading comic books!"
What I find annoying is that he spent more of the Massachusetts' folks money for new "leased" computers when they should have just bought new ones that could be wiped clean after each new governor. Why lease a computer? That is so stupid. So not only did they lease the computers from the previous time, they also got out of the lease agreement and went into a brand new one! Wasteful money. That is the "hidden" fact. Right there, staring us in the face.
I don't know the terms of the lease in Massachusetts, but leasing is a common practice in business. Some leases include maintenance or other support, upgrades, software, peripherals, etc. that offset what initially appears to be a higher cost compared to simply purchasing the equipment. Without all the facts it is impossible to know if Mr. Romney and crew cost the Commonwealth money or entered into a deal that ultimately upgraded equipment and saved money.
"I'm not familiar with any Democrats who've been subjected to the kind of scrutiny I mentioned in my post..."
Really? There was a whole cottage industry around trying to prove the Clintons were drug runners and serial killers.
"I'm not familiar with any Democrats who've been subjected to the kind of scrutiny I mentioned in my post..."
Really? There was a whole cottage industry around trying to prove the Clintons were drug runners and serial killers.
And they are still trying to 'prove' that Obama is some kind of Kenyan illegal alien who really can't put two sentences together without a teleprompter.
"I'm not familiar with any Democrats who've been subjected to the kind of scrutiny I mentioned in my post..."
Really? There was a whole cottage industry around trying to prove the Clintons were drug runners and serial killers.
And they are still trying to 'prove' that Obama is some kind of Kenyan illegal alien who really can't put two sentences together without a teleprompter.
If the best you've got is conspiracy theories against nearly 30 separate lawsuits (since dismissed) and a forced document dump so massive that members of the general public had to be enlisted to help read through it, all without finding anything of substance, I'll stick with my original statement.
:thankyou:for trying though. :laff:
Who are you talking about Alan? Cain? Romney? palin? Palin had problems with the state. It wasn't liburals, but the state. She quit over it, remember? Or maybe she just couldn't hack being the governor of a state of a couple hundred thousand people.
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/04/20/nyt-investigates-obama-family-life-indonesia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plw5h_u21-E
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=98546
http://www.akdart.com/obama22.html
http://theobamafile.com/BarackObama.htm
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/tag/barry-soetoro/
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/rep-bobby-rush-wants-investigation-into-hospital-program-michelle-obama-helped-start/
and their 'investigation ' of Michelle Obama
http://theobamafile.com/ObamaWife.htm
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/28/republicans-want-fbi-investigation-of-bill-clinton-white-house/
And of course, the republican road show that tried to impeach a sitting president for a BJ! Really? You don't consider that 'investigation' to the ridiculous?
these are just a few. Republican live to 'investigate' democratic politicians to come up with all sorts of phony charges. That's all they have left anymore, really. Kind of sad, isn't it.
Two words for ya Peggy regarding the vast majority of your examples: False equivalency!
As for the impeachment proceedings, I can only suggest you do a little research as it had less to do with BJ's and more to do with perjury and obstruction of justice relating to sexual harrassment charges involving multiple parties. If all you remember is Lewinsky, you could use a primer.
I think archiving rules in some states have not caught up to the fact that most official records these days are electronic vs. paper. And that business is conducted via e-mail vs. letters sent through the mail. This may trigger a review of state laws on this issue.
Ironically here in AZ we have a very good open records law for government agencies. Of course, it's regularly flouted by the likes of Sheriff Joe, but our judiciary has been pretty steadfast at enforcing it.
Two words for ya Peggy regarding the vast majority of your examples: False equivalency!
As for the impeachment proceedings, I can only suggest you do a little research as it had less to do with BJ's and more to do with perjury and obstruction of justice relating to sexual harrassment charges involving multiple parties. If all you remember is Lewinsky, you could use a primer.
You're right Alan. It is false equivalency in that The investigations of Palin were real where as this crap from the right was totally made up. The Clinton dog and pony show was totally about the usual republican investigate, obstruct, try everything to trip up the democratic president. They're doing it now. You can spin it however you want but we all know exactly what it was about. Ironic wasn't it that their chief obstructionist, Newt, was tossed out by his own party for ethics violations...ewww..awakward..
I guess that's all past history now, and forgotten, since he is now their latest golden boy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.