Site Meter

Thursday, July 12, 2012

I Like Glenn Kessler

And I wonder when he will admit that he was wrong and Obama was right.

My comment

I like you and I have appreciated this column. As a supporter I urge you to admit that you were wrong before you destroy your career. This is supposed to be a fact checking column. I quote from the column "seems". You just can't base a column on that word. You are supposed to tell us what is true not what "seems" true.

You are totally utterly wrong. Romney is listed in official SEC documents not only as a shareholder but as Chief EXECUTIVE officer. That is a managerial position. I quote from TPM (which you really should check before writing anything for your sake)

"Romney said he left any managerial role at Bain Capital behind in February 1999, delegating all voting shares of stock to 26 managing directors and leaving day-to-day operations to focus on running the Olympics. But subsequent SEC filings list him as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.” A 2001 SEC filing first reported by TPM lists his “principal occupation” as “Managing Director of Bain Capital, Inc.” and the Boston Globe reviewed additional filings containing similar claims."

Either the Obama campaigns claim which you false are correct or Romney filed a false claim with the SEC.

The Boston Globe did add a bit to TPM and Corn at The Nation
"a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney's state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain "executive" in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings. Romney listed at least $100,000 in pay for services from Bain in 2000 and 2001 in a Massachusetts disclosure form. "

That is not capital income. That is payment for managing. Again either you are wrong or he is guilty of a false official claim.

But enough about Romney. We need to talk about Kessler. You wrote "We’re considering whether to once again take a deeper look at this, " Why why why did you write this public column (or post I don't know) before completing that consideration ? Why did you consider not taking another look at it in spite of new information but not consider refraining from writing about it without taking another look at it ?

It is not possible to be omniscient. No one's beliefs always correspond to reality. But people who care about facts have to understand this and be willing to admit that new information contradicts their old beliefs.

No comments: