This week, readers sent us more letters about Mitt Romney and Bain Capital and the federal health care law. There were some letters of encouragement, too.
In the FactCheck Mailbag, we feature some of the email we receive. Readers can send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org. Letters may be edited for length.
Romney, Bain Capital and Outsourcing, Continued
I applaud what your site is trying to do, but distorting the facts in your recent article in response to the president’s letter ["FactCheck to Obama Camp: Your Complaint is All Wet," July 2] is simply irresponsible.
Yes, you did present facts, but when you read between the lines, you have to understand that Romney may have removed himself from the day-to-day operations of the company, but he was still an owner and is therefore fully responsible for any action the company takes, period. There is no disputing that by splitting hairs. And it’s typical of Romney’s behavior as the so-called governor of Massachusetts (I wish people would quit referring to him that way).
Really? You’re going to rely on an obscure technical definition of “corporate raider” to say that Romney wasn’t one?
If he made millions while leaving the companies vulnerable to bankruptcy … well, maybe calling him a “corporate raider” is reasonable.
Also, if he was the owner of Bain Capital when those things happened, I think he can be reasonably held responsible.
Walnut Creek, Calif.
Hogwash. You can play the semantics game as much as you want to, but the plain fact is that Romney was a major stockholder and beneficiary of the activities of Bain Capital. He was fully aware of their actions in moving jobs overseas. He did not divest himself of his stock, and continued to financially profit from those actions. Why don’t you say that in your fact checks?
Health Coverage for Young Americans
First, thank you for what you do.
When you analyze the impact [of the health care law] on young adults, particularly the language of “helping 6 million young Americans ["Romney, Obama Uphold Health Care Falsehoods," June 28],” you focus on coverage versus no coverage. You omit the following consideration: My college-student daughter had only coverage through her student services when this provision went into effect. Adding her to our policy greatly increased the range of affordable, covered care available to her.
If the claim was that 6 million young, UNCOVERED Americans got coverage, your analysis would be spot on. But under 26-year-olds who got much better coverage were helped. Just a hair split, but perhaps a fat hair.
I have been a subscriber to FactCheck for many years, and I find that while in the past your “facts” were sincere and well researched, unfortunately that seems to have changed. Many of your “facts” regarding Obama are inconclusive and not well thought out. Even though Romney has a severe case of “mind changing” and complete distortions, I find very few “fact-checking” items, or at least far fewer reported. I am so sorry that an organization that I have always depended upon, and respected, seems to have skewed their “facts” as to favor one candidate over the other.
New York, N.Y.
Words of Encouragement
FactCheck – I am delighted that at least Obama’s campaign is monitoring and responding to your missives ["FactCheck to Obama Camp: Your Complaint is All Wet," July 2]. Clearly, the watchdog can bite. BRAVO!
New York, N.Y.
I read a few letters. Many that questioned some of your articles had no more than an “I find it hard to believe” attached to their argument. It appears that some are incapable of anything but black and white partisanship. Tell them something they don’t want to hear, and it has just got to be wrong.
Keep doing the best you can guys. We independents have enough sense to sort it out ourselves.