Trying To Make Sense Of The Boston Globe’s Romney/Bain Capital Story
A new report on Mitt Romney's tenure at Bain Capital seems to be much ado about nothing.
The big campaign story of the day, sitting at the top of Memeorandum for most of the day so far, is the report in today’s Boston Globe which purports to establish that. contrary to his previous comments and statements he’s made in disclosure forms, Mitt Romney remained in control of Bain Capital well after 1999:
Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.
Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”
Also, 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.
The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.
(…)
Bain Capital and the campaign for the presumptive GOP nominee have suggested the SEC filings that show Romney as the man in charge during those additional three years have little meaning, and are the result of legal technicalities. The campaign declined to comment on the record. It pointed to a footnote in Romney’s most recent financial disclosure form, filed June 1 as a presidential candidate.
“Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way,” according to the footnote. Romney made the same assertion on a financial disclosure form in 2007, during his first run for president.
According to a statement issued by Bain Wednesday, “Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital in February 1999. He has had no involvement in the management or investment activities of Bain Capital, or with any of its portfolio companies, since that time.”
Evidence emerged last week in reports by Mother Jones that Romney had maintained an ongoing leadership role at Bain beyond February 1999. Citing SEC documents, the magazine said Romney had played a role in Bain investments “until at least the end of 1999” and that a 2001 document listed him as a member of the “management committee” of Bain funds. Talking Points Memo reported this week on additional SEC filings listing Romney’s position with Bain in July 2000 and February 2001.
A former SEC commissioner told the Globe that the SEC documents listing Romney as Bain’s chief executive between 1999 and 2002 cannot be dismissed so easily.
“You can’t say statements filed with the SEC are meaningless. This is a fact in an SEC filing,” said Roberta S. Karmel, now a professor at Brooklyn Law School.
“It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say he was technically in charge on paper but he had nothing to do with Bain’s operations,” Karmel continued. “Was he getting paid? He’s the sole stockholder. Are you telling me he owned the company but had no say in its investments?”
Of course, the SEC documents don’t necessarily tell us anything about the day-to-day operations of Bain from February 1999 onward, and Factcheck.Org has conducted its own investigation of this issue after the Obama campaign challenged its assertion that Romney was not involved in Bain during the “outsourcing” era, That investigation concluded that Romney ceased having any operation control over Bain from the time he left to go run the Salt Lake City Olympics:
In summary, the letter states there are “at least 63 filings with that agency after March 1, 1999 that list various Bain entities and describe them as ‘wholly owned by W. Mitt Romney.'” That’s true, but not relevant.
We have never disputed that Romney remained the owner of Bain while he was running the Olympics committee. The issue always has been, who was running Bain? Nothing in the SEC documents contradicts what Romney has certified as true.
On that point, the Obama campaign cites snippets of a few news clippings to make a case that Romney was still a part-time manager of Bain after he left to run the Olympics. But a close reading shows these news accounts don’t contradict Romney either.
For example, the Obama letter quotes from a Boston Herald story (“Romney looks to restore Olympic Pride”) that cites a partial quote from Romney saying that he intended to stay on at Bain as a part-timer. Here’s the quote in a fuller context.
Boston Herald, Feb. 12, 1999: Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions. But he will leave running day-to-day operations to Bain’s executive committee.
First, the Obama campaign simply ignores Romney’s stated intent to “leave running day-to-day operations” to others. And in any case, Romney’s statement that he would remain a “part-timer” is merely a statement of intent, issued just as he was leaving for the Olympics job and before he knew how much time it would consume. It is not evidence of what actually happened.
And as to what happened later, the evidence is clear. According to an Associated Press story that ran just two months later, Romney quickly discovered that he was working 16-hour days on the Olympics, leaving no time for Bain (or even his own wedding anniversary).
The AP story goes on to say that Romney “immersed himself in books on sports management” and “has answered about two dozen e-mails and letters a day, spent a quarter of his time dealing with the media, and juggled meeting requests from city officials, board members and business owners.”
It also quotes an accountant friend who was assisting Romney, Bob White, as saying “Right now he’s doing two, maybe three full-time jobs” running the Olympics. Romney’s wife, Ann, is quoted as saying that her husband had been working 112 hours a week at first, causing her to move to Salt Lake City to be with him. Since her arrival, she said, he had cut his Olympics work to 84 hours a week.
The Obama campaign’s letter says a reporter learned in a 2000 interview with Ann Romney that her husband was “dividing his time between running Bain and running the Olympics,” but in fact those words don’t appear in the news clip it cites.
The Nov. 11, 2000 Boston Globe story (which we read in full via Nexis) paraphrases Ann Romney this way: “The [Olympics] project is running smoothly now, though still requiring so much of Mitt Romney’s time that he has had to lessen his involvement with Bain Capital, his investment firm.” And he did indeed “lessen” his involvement, giving up all management control according to what he has certified repeatedly. The Globe story goes on to quote Ann Romney as saying the couple is still living in Salt Lake City and that “[w]e’re still coming home [to Boston] for Thanksgiving.” Nowhere is she quoted as saying he has spent any time managing Bain.
Asked for comment today, Factcheck said that there was “little new” in the Boston Globe report and nothing in there that would change the conclusion there reached back on July 2nd when they first examined this issue. Indeed, it would appear that Factcheck and the Globe were largely looking at the same documents, so it’s interesting that they came to completely different conclusions. Or, to be more appropriate, it seems fairly clear that the Globe is jumping to conclusions not necessarily supported by the documentary evidence. As I noted above, the SEC documents don’t necessarily say anything about what Romney’s role actually was in Bain’s day-to-day operations, if any, and the fact that he spent the better part of 1999 and 2000 in Salt Lake City dealing with the Olympics argues strongly against the idea that he was intimately involved with the operations of a business whose headquarters were located some 2000 miles east.
Also jumping to conclusions would be the Obama campaign, which said this morning in a conference call that Romney was guilty of a felony for making false disclosures on federal forms. However, that seems to be a wild leap of the imagination as well since, again, we don’t know what Romney’s involvement in Bain was after February 1999 based on documents alone and both Romney and Bain have said that he ended operation involvement in the company after 1999. So far, there doesn’t seem to me to be any conclusive evidence that contradicts those assertions.
The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler also doesn’t find much in the Globe report that’s very convincing:
The story seems to hinge on a quote from a former Securities and Exchange Commission member, which would have more credibility if the Globe had disclosed she was a regular contributor to Democrats. (Interestingly, “The Real Romney,” a book on the former Massachusetts governor, by Boston Globe reporters, states clearly that he left Bain when he went to run the Olympics and details the turmoil that ensued when he suddenly quit, nearly breaking up the partnership)
We’re considering whether to once again take a deeper look at this, though it really feels like Groundhog Day again. There appears to be some confusion about how partnerships are structured and managed, or what SEC documents mean. (Just because you are listed as an owner of shares does not mean you have a managerial role.)
To accept some of the claims, one would have to believe that Romney, with the advice of his lawyers, lied on government documents and committed a criminal offense. Moreover, you would have to assume he willingly gave up his share to a few years of retirement earnings — potentially worth millions of dollars — so he could say his retirement started in 1999.
Kessler also notes that Fortune is reporting today that it has obtained offering documents for Bain funds that were created after February 1999. None of those documents list Romney as one of the people involved in fund management or decision making. The contents of those offering documents are strictly regulated by the SEC and incorrect descriptions of fund management would have been considered a serious violation of the rules by Bain. So either Romney was still “in charge” at Bain when these fund offerings were made, or Bain knowingly violated SEC rules to conceal a fact that there would be no rational reason to conceal. As Fortune put it, “the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain — which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm.”
So, based on the available evidence it doesn’t seem to me that the Globe story proves much of anything in terms of either an actual crime, or a misrepresentation by Romney. However, I tend to agree with Andrew Sullivan that, politically, that doesn’t necessarily matter, and that continued focus on this story is not in Romney’s best interests:
It’s another day when the focus is on his vast wealth, rather than on Obama’s economic record; and even the best case in defense of Romney must argue that he got paid at least $100,000 a year for doing nothing. A lot of Americans may wonder how that can happen, how the rules they live by simply don’t apply to people with Romney’s massive wealth.
It’s certainly true that any news cycle where everyone is focusing on, and the campaign is forced to respond to, stories like this one is not a good one for Romney. Whether it will matter in the end is hard to tell. After all, the real purpose of the Bain attacks is to reinforce the idea that Romney is disconnected from average Americans because of his wealth. However, a new Gallup poll says that the vast majority of voters, some 75%, say that a candidate’s wealth is not relevant to their voting decisions, and I have to think that even that 25% who says that it is may be exaggerating slightly. If you say you’re not voting for Romney because he’s rich, the chances are that there are other reasons you’re not voting for Mitt Romney, the wealth itself likely wasn’t a deal breaker. Nonetheless, the Obama campaign and its surrogates are likely to keep pushing this line as long they think it’s working.
Back in January when Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry began attacking Romney’s record at Bain with rhetoric that made them sound more like Democrats than Republicans, I said this:
All of this is a difficult political argument to make, of course. It’s far easier to empathize with the workers featured in the video embedded above than to wrap ones brain around the idea of creative destruction and accept the fact that progress often means temporary loss. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean that politicians should pander to mindless populism just to advance their own careers. I’m no Romney fan, but on balance I think these attacks based on his tenure at Bain are mostly ridiculous nonsense and its unfortunate that his opponents have chosen to take up the banner of mindless populism.
That’s pretty much where we are now, I think, mindless populism combined with exaggeration and the assumption of facts that haven’t been proven. In other words, politics as usual.
so the sole owner of a firm is not responsible for its actions —- interestign theory even if the principal in this case delegated all of his power to his agents….
In a corporation, ownership and control are two different things. Always have been, always will be.
Bottom-line: Romney wasn’t actively managing Bain after leaving for Olympics BUT he was still owner, Chairman of Board, CEO and President and had the authority to do anything he wanted.
In his public comments, he screwed up by overstating the situation. All he had to say was that he wasn’t actively participating in day-to-day operations – something that had the virtue of being true. Instead, he had to claim that he “had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure.” If he held the positions that were listed with the SEC, he overstated the truth.
Further Bain paid him $100,000 a year in compensation. If he wasn’t involved at all, what was that for?
Finally, it should be pointed out that the question Factcheck.org is addressing is different from my analysis. They are addressing the Obama campaign’s assertion that tries to link the outsourcing of Bain-invested companies to Romney. IMO, that claim is indeed an overstretch because Romney wasn’t actively involved in making those decisions. That doesn’t change the reality that romney’s statement wasn’t accurate however. He didn’t fully leave Bain until 2002 when he decided to run for Gov.
@Doug Mataconis: True but he was Chairman of Board, CEO and President – all positions that REQUIRE exercising oversight and control.
I think that most Americans are not uncomfortable with wealth and weathly people. However, the way that wealth was obtained is of concern to anybody. The issue was, and still is, the way in which Bain Capital worked. In my mind, it didn’t build a business but was instead a form of parasitic capitalism growing fat on the body of a legitimate business. Sometimes the business live, sometimes it died. Regardless, the tick got fat.
Gets to the heart of the matter with respect to Romney’s involvement in Bain since the late 1990’s, don’t you think?
Also jumping to conclusions would be the Obama campaign, which said this morning in a conference call that Romney was guilty of a felony for making false disclosures on federal forms.
Bullshit, Doug. You shouldn’t lie and link directly to the truth. It’s just sloppy.
And one of those thing is actually true. Romney either lied to the SEC (doubtful) or he lied to the public (highly likely). That’s what the Obama campaign said.
Anyway, I wish I could get paid six figures a year for a job I didn’t do.
@Doug Mataconis: These documents also list him as president, CEO, and chairman.
@David Anderson:
The reason for Doug Mataconis’ seeming obtuseness on this issue is that he and James Joyner are part of the so called “rational voice” of an incresingly radical Republican party. As such it is incumbent upon them to mainline extremist republican talking points and muddy the water on negative republican stories.
———
A simple question for Doug and the other non-believers:
Did Bain’s SEC filings for 2000, 2001 and 2002 list Mitt Romney as their CEO and Chaiman of the Board?
– If yes, then the story is true and Mitt Romney has lied to the American people and committed several felonies.
– If no, then Bain has lied and its compliance department will be in serious trouble.
@Doug Mataconis:
Explain how sole ownership can ever have anything less than delegated control?
The wierdness of this story is why Romney ever claimed “leaving” in that scenario. When I heard of Bain I assumed he was one of a few general partners and that when he left, he left it to them.
“Leaving” while both owning the whole thing and maintaining official control on SEC filings is crazy. SEC docs are serious.
@Loviatar:
First, I don’t even consider myself a Republican.
Second, your assertions ignore the possibility that Romney was not actively managing the company even while retaining the titles since he was, indeed, the sole owner of the firm. There may be something here, but these documents don’t really prove much of anything, and the documents that Fortune uncovered suggest strongly that Romney was not involved in the active management of the company.
Find some more evidence and we’ll see, I’m just going by an incredibly weak, and recycled, story in the Globe.
To me the most shocking part of this story is that the Boston Globe still is being published, but that aside it would be worthwhile for the Globe’s editors to take courses on corporate governance, executive compensation and Securities Exchange Act compliance; they might then actually learn something useful.
@Loviatar: Since the answer appears to be yes, why won’t the administration arrest Romney?
@john personna:
If it was a delegated control situation, which seems plausible, then Romney didn’t legally misrepresent anything.
@mantis:
Exactly. Maybe Romney started out naming 1999 as his year of delegation, but his campaign nade too much of him “having left” and now he’s called out.
DM:
From the article:
—-
DM:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec
@Doug Mataconis:
So what? They often overlap, but then again, that observation wouldn’t fit your narrative.
@Doug Mataconis:
You’re simply carrying water at this point – how did “absolutely no rinvolvemrnt in management or investment activities” become “no active day to day participation”?
@Doug Mataconis: I’m not sure that is correct, Doug. An owner can delegate control but I don’t think that, legally, a Chairman of the Board, CEO and President can. I know in healthcare there are very specific legal obligations in terms of oversight that the Board, and its Chairman, must exercise. I’d be surprised if there were no such requirements for an entity that is required to make SEC filings.
@Doug Mataconis:
Doug, if I ever tell the SEC that I’m CEO, I won’t tell you different. Not until I actually name a CEO, retaining my role as Chairman.
That is the dotted i, crossed t, way to delegate.
If I file as CEO, I’m ready to answer the SEC as CEO and have not “left.”
@Tsar Nicholas: I’ve taken all those courses, and have substantial experience in those areas. What is your point?
@mantis:
The problem Romney has is that he definitely wants to distance himself from Bain – he needs to avoid the discussion that often he made millions through leveraged acquisitions, stripping out assets and laying off workers, yet present himself as a successful businessman who understands middle class concerns. He’s on thin ice and he knows it.
It’s almost analogous to his stance vi-a-vis his own program – RomneyCare. He can’t directly or indirectly say that it is a failure, and yet he has to (indirectly) run against it to get elected. More thin ice.
No wonder he seems to be a phony. He’s probably playing it (running against himself) politically about as well as anyone could.
@PD Shaw: Because the most plausible scenario has Romney mis-stating his legal role at the time now, not in the contemporaneous SEC filings. Unless Romney (or someone else with personal knowledge) swears under oath that the SEC filings were fraudulent, he isn’t going to be charged.
@Doug Mataconis:
“In a corporation, ownership and control are two different things. Always have been, always will be.”
I don’t think anyone is disputing that, but as owner are you not ultimately responsible? Do you not see a distinction?
@Doug Mataconis:
As the poet James Whitcomb Riley said “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”
So, you can call yourself part of the Great High Holy Profonticator party for all I care, when you spout Republican talking points, donate to Republican causes and repeatedly vote Republican, you know what you’re a Republican.
——————-
See you are a Republican you just described their new age version of capitalism; get paid copious amounts of money while lying to the american people and making false claims on goverment documentation.
Loviatar,
Please, tell me which Republicans I’ve donated to.
BTW, perfect “Etch-A-Sketch moment” or what?
@Doug Mataconis: You know the law, but you don’t know corporate governance. As others have pointed out, Romney is listed as: Owner, Sole Shareholder, Chairman, CEO, and President. Those last few titles have explicit legal and fiduciary responsibilities that cannot be delegated. Even if he locked himself in Michael Jackson’s hermetic chamber from 1999-2004, he’s still listed in Bain’s SEC filings as holding all of those titles and he is solely and personally responsible for what the company did regardless of who he left in the corner office. Period.
The unavoidable fact is that either his SEC filings or his FEC filings are perjured statements. There is no way to reconcile them – there is no way both documents can be truthful.
@Doug Mataconis:
You are correct, I should not have written “donate to”, instead I should have written:
When you spout Republican talking points, support Republican causes and repeatedly vote Republican, you know what you’re a Republican.”
@SKI: I think the more plausible scenario is that Romney’s relationship to Bain is based upon the operating agreement which nobody has seen. A key complaint about LLCs has always been lack of transparency regarding ownership and management. And since LLCs are state specific, federal law is often incapable of helping.
@mantis: Anyway, I wish I could get paid six figures a year for a job I didn’t do.
Get elected to the Senate, then run for president. You can collect your Senate salary while never showing up.
Hey, it worked for Kerry and Obama…
The details about this matter less than the meta-message, to wit: Romney is a rich out of touch guy. And that message is working.
So, Doug, since he was the CEO (head of management), Chairman (head of the board of directors), and sole owner during those years, are you suggesting that he abdicated his fiduciary responsibility to himself as both principal *and* agent by being completely out of the loop for three years?
@Doug Mataconis: Loviatar,
Please, tell me which Republicans I’ve donated to.
Doug, why the hell are you engaging the trolls and playing along with the ad hominem diversions?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself?
@mantis:
I would support paying the entire House Republican delegation their annual salaries to NOT appear whenever Congress is in session. It would be a small price to pay for good governance.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Because it’s good for ratings and generates significant income – why else?
@Doug Mataconis: “First, I don’t even consider myself a Republican”
And I don’t consider my eyesight to be bad. And yet, if I don’t wear my glasses, I walk into walls.
Self-knowledge is such a difficult thing…
Why did he take a $100,000 salary from an entity he owned? Did he derive some sort of tax advantage?
1. If he worked for the $100,000, then he lied on his FEC. Any work he did was certain to be managerial, and thus contradicts his FEC filing.
2. If he didn’t work, but claimed $100,000 in salary in order to obtain a beneficial tax status, then he committed a fraud by claiming income earned through work that was in reality a withdrawal of retained earnings.
3. Alternatively, maybe he just took a $100,000 salary for no good reason. Doubtful.
So why did he take the salary?
Romney needs to release complete financial records going back at least to 99 and let the sunshine remove the stink surrounding Bain, swiss bank accounts, and these other overseas entities of his.
@PD Shaw: I guess I’m not sure if we’re talking about Bain Capital, Bain & Co., a coproration, an incorporated partnership, an LLC.
@rudderpedals:
And of course it would change no minds at all.
@Gromitt Gunn: So, Doug, since he was the CEO (head of management), Chairman (head of the board of directors), and sole owner during those years, are you suggesting that he abdicated his fiduciary responsibility to himself as both principal *and* agent by being completely out of the loop for three years?
Pretty much, yeah.
Romney left active involvement in Bain with almost no notice — see the above reference to how Bain nearly collapsed when he left. He threw himself 100% into the Olympics, trusting his partners and associates to hold things together. Then, after the Olympics, he saw that they were doing fine and oriented himself towards running for governor in Massachusetts. He never returned to Bain, but he didn’t make his departure official until 2002.
Funny how so many of the people who find this endlessly fascinating are utterly apathetic about the Fast & Furious coverup… or Obama’s investment record into green jobs with OUR money… or Obama’s legislative record from Illinois… or Obama’s involvement with Jeremiah Wright’s church… or a host of others I could cite.
@PD Shaw:” I guess I’m not sure if we’re talking about Bain Capital, Bain & Co., a coproration, an incorporated partnership, an LLC. ”
Or, according to one of Josh Marshal’s links, are we talking about an LLP.
What’s virtually never mentioned is that Mitt has a problem even if he really and truly left Bain in 2/99. Why? I explained why a couple of months ago, here.
It doesn’t. How come no one anywhere (that I can find) has noticed this problem?
@bk: Well, just for shits and giggles, and because right now I’m truly bored, the points of that comment, albeit obvious in nature, can be summarized as follows:
(1) Corporate board members can and often do have no management role whatsoever with the corporation (their primary roles are to appoint officers); (2) even the Chairman of a company’s board of directors can have no operational control whatsoever (does Sumner Redstone run CBS? Obviously not.); (3) there can be and often are major differences between a company’s CEO and the same company’s COO, the latter of whom even when the CEO is present can and often does run the company’s entire operations; (4) a person can be the controlling or even the sole shareholder of a corporation and have nothing whatsoever to do with that company’s operations; that’s neither unusual nor controversial; (5) CEOs remain CEOs unless they retire, resign or are replaced, and that can be and often is merely in title; (6) CEOs can be and often are paid by a corporation for doing absolutely nothing or next to absolutely nothing, whether we’re talking about deferred compensation or even non-deferred compensation; (6) when a corporation files its required SEC statements it’s mandatory that it list all major shareholders and all of its officers, etc., but in that respect neither the corporation nor its managers are making any representation whatsoever of who exercises operational control over the enterprise.
Romney decided to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. Obviously that’s a finite assignment. It’s not as if a 2002 Olympiad could last forever. He didn’t retire or resign his titles with Bain. He wasn’t replaced. He didn’t sell off all of his shares. For obvious reasons.
The company’s SEC filings in and around that time period merely stated what they were required to state: that Romney remained the company’s sole shareholder, CEO and Board Chairman. That doesn’t mean, however, he had anything whatsoever to do with the operations of the company.
If there were minutes of a Board meeting to the contrary that would be a different story. If there were minutes of a senior management meeting to the contrary that also would be a different story. Unless and until such items are presented, however, both the song and the story remain the same: much ado about nothing.
@al-Ameda: It might not change any minds but I’d still like to know what’s up with all of these entities. Include the operating agreements PD mentioned for all of the llcs
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Given that all of this has been widely reported on, how could it be that :
What Fast & Furious coverup? You just know that there is one, right?
Nobody knows about the very public record of the green loan to Solyndra?
Nobody knows about Obama’s (very public) legislative record in Illinois?
Nobody knows about Obama’s involvement in Rev Wright’s Church?
@PD Shaw:
That last point is a rather important one really. There are several Bain entities and Romney’s involvement in each was different. the BG story does not make clear which entity they are referring to.
There may be something here, but the guys at the Globe have not made their case
I think Kevin Drum’s take is about right:
“it doesn’t matter. SEC documents show that he was CEO and owner of the firm between 1999 and 2002. In a political context, there’s just no way to weasel your way around that, and Romney is going to look increasingly weaselly if he tries. Your average Joe sees a multi-gazillionaire trying to claim that he was only technically CEO and isn’t reponsible for what happened during his technical CEO-ship. That’s like a Mafia don taking the Fifth. It’s not going to fly, especially from a guy who’s constantly yammering away about personal reponsibility and accountability.”
If the Boston Globe is correct here, why is the Obama-appointed SEC chairman silent? Shouldn’t we be hearing calls for an investigation?
@Dean:
If the Boston Globe is correct here
Correct about what? Direct quotes preferred.
So they were simply misleading their clients by claiming an involvement by the principle that did not, in fact, exist?
So he made his millions, and then moved on when he lost interest in Bain without adequately preparing the company for his departure, leaving chaos in his wake.
Well hell, we should absolutely put this guy in charge of the country…
@Loviatar:
Personally, I approve of people donating to a third party candidate who, most likely, will siphon more votes from the Republican than the Democrat.
Also, there’s a James Joyner in Florida who’s a big fan of Obama.
@Doug Mataconis:
Rand Paul is a Republican.
Allahpundit at Hot Air has a fascinating question about this: what would Romney gain by deception in this case? How would he benefit by lying in one way or another?
The simpler explanation AP offers makes a lot more sense: it was an indefinite leave of absence. Romney left for what was, by definition, a temporary position with the Olympics. He kept his options open should he later choose to return, but absented himself from the day-to-day operations. Then, later, after the Olympics had worn down and he started planning his run for governor, he made the leave of absence permanent.
Kind of like how Obama didn’t resign from the Senate to run for president, except Obama didn’t delegate his responsibilities — he just blew them off. Oh, and he kept taking his paycheck for not doing his job.
@anjin-san: So he made his millions, and then moved on when he lost interest in Bain without adequately preparing the company for his departure, leaving chaos in his wake.
Well hell, we should absolutely put this guy in charge of the country…
Yup. Except nope, you’re just making shit up.
Romney answered an emergency plea from the Olympic Committee and immediately started working 112-hour weeks to save the Salt Lake games. He trusted his partners and associates to keep things going in his absence. And, after some rocky starts, he did.
112 hours… how many rounds of golf is that?
@Doug Mataconis: I think the SEC filings only take you so far with these kinds of questions, the Globe didn’t appear to look at any of the business filings in Massachusetts.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Allahpundit at Hot Air has a fascinating question about this: what would Romney gain by deception in this case? How would he benefit by lying in one way or another?
Most of us have long since given up trying to explain why Romney feels the need to lie about virtually everything. Maybe he has his reasons, or maybe it’s pathological. Either way, he does it.
The simpler explanation AP offers makes a lot more sense: it was an indefinite leave of absence.
With a very generous paycheck! We should all be so lucky…
Why did he take a salary, nimrod?
Kind of like how Obama didn’t resign from the Senate to run for president, except Obama didn’t delegate his responsibilities — he just blew them off. Oh, and he kept taking his paycheck for not doing his job.
Was there a specific vote you feel Senator Obama should have been there for but wasn’t? Please provide details.
from your won post dipwad:
He “trusted his partners” who, according to you, led the company to the brink of collapse. In other words, he left his company in the lurch, it nearly failed, and others were left to clean up the mess.
Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Will lawyers avenge you if you make a fool of yourself?
@Doug Mataconis:
Good Job.
– Muddied the waters on a negative Republican story: check
– Distracted the commenters with points that don’t have any connection with the main story: check
– Gave a platform for the more idiotic ditto heads to spout their non-sensical talking points: check
– Did all this with an increasingly dimminshed reputation: check
.
Once again we knew we could count on you for your contributions in kind.
– RNC
@Jenos Idanian #13:
That Meme would be a lot more effective, if, you know… HIS OPPONENT WASN’T ALSO A SENATOR AND DOING THE SAME THING. And btw, McCain missed 64% of votes in the 110th Congress compared to Obama’s 46%.
Or if all Republican Presidential Candidates who were sitting Senators at the time gave up their seats when they ran for office — though to give credit where it was due, Dole did give up his seat, but only after he had won the nomination.
So as usual, lots of bluster, but little substance when you actually stop and think.
@Jenos Idanian #13: There are people on this site I disagree with. And there are people on this site who are trolls. And there are people on this site who are just plain nuts. But nobody takes the cake for being as bone-stupid as you, Jenos.
This entire round of shenanigans started because people stared to notice that Bain is simply not in the business of “job creation” – they’re just a bunch of vulture capitalists that buy any random company that looks likely, leverage it to the hilt at any bank that’ll sign a loan, strip it of every asset, and then leave it to go tits-up with all the debt. That’s all well and good in US Capitalism, but in the early 2000s, they started getting into the idea of outsourcing the jobs in their “victim companies” overseas first, reaping even more profit for themselves while actively damaging the job market here in the US. That doesn’t play as well with the NASCAR crowd, so Romney started waving around papers saying he stopped being an “active player” in Bain back in 1999. Except, according to Bain’s own SEC filings from the early 2000s, he didn’t.
That’s what he gains: the ability to say, if only for a single news cycle, that Bain didn’t do un-Amurrican things like outsource until after he left. Except that the entire load is all lies. And apparently illegal as well, since these conflicting documents are all legally-signed federal filings.
@mantis: Guess the owner should have considered why they paid Romney.
Oh, yeah, Romney was the owner. Never mind.
Personally, I was delighted Obama missed so many votes. He did less harm that way. But then again, I wasn’t a constituent of his who was short-changed on my representation.
And “Nimrod?” Are you calling me a legendary hunter, or a British anti-submarine plane? Or something else? Either way, I’ll take it as a compliment.
He’s sure not coming across as a “buck stops here” kind of guy, kind of CEO, kind of Chairman, kind of owner.
Proud much?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
It’s a lot of hours in a week for attendants to be manning the Romney Car Elevator in La Jolla. But then again, he’s a job creator.
@al-Ameda: Odd how you’re more concerned with how Romney spends his own money than how Obama’s spending ours. Just how is
hisour Green Jobs portfolio doing, anyway?If this story doesn’t check out, don’t expect any apologies or regrets from the Obama campaign. The Globe, maybe…
Fact is, Bain is a liability for Romney now. He can only approach the subject from a defensive crouch, which is not the role that he wanted for his business experience. We were supposed to talk about how many jobs he created, not how many jobs he did (or didn’t) outsource.
Once again, advantage to the incumbent.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Wow, so much territory to cover:
(1) I have no problem with a candidate who purports to understand middle class concerns and chooses to install a car elevator in one of his many homes – that’s his choice.
(2) So, you begrudge the president his 112 hours of golf, but you had no problem with the _____ hours that George W Bush spent clearing brush down at Crawford?
(3) Private Sector Jobs? As you know, more private sector jobs have been created during Obama’s first 3 years than were created during Bush’s first 3 years (and for Obama, this was following the worst crash since the Depression.)
@Herb:
He’s defending his story of leaving, of all things. I couldn’t see Drew or Jan doing that. They would have doubled down and defended the firm they owned and chaired.
“It wasn’t me”
Seriously? Where did that even come from?
@Herb:
Well, if the news had been broken in an Obama press release, rather than several newspapers, magazines, and websites, I might. But hey, the RNC never apologizes when Fox News screws up, so what do you want?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Perhaps because this is a thread explicitly about Romney’s business dealings, rather than Obama’s budget? Your fifth-grade debate club skills are simply not sufficient to derail the conversation.
Folks may not believe this, but there was a time when “dropping everything to answer the nation’s call” was considered a good thing. And saving the Olympics? Kind of important.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Well, on this particular issue, Mr. Romney could be just a kind of a fvckup, you know.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Mitt was instrumental in getting the the feds to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the Salt Lake City Olympic games. I doubt that he would have been so interested if the games were not in Utah. His influence enabled him to set-aside his credentials as a fiscal hawk and get Uncle Sugar to greatly subsidize the games.
@sam: Yeah, built a hugely successful company, then left to save the Olympics. What a total F-up he is. God help us if he wins the election.
He shoulda dumped both to become a “community organizer” or something.
@al-Ameda: The Games were about to fail. Romney came in. The Games happened.
It’s called an “achievement.” Outside of the Left, it’s considered a good thing.
He never said he wasn’t president & CEO; he said he wasn’t involved in management, ie, he delegated management.
According to WaPo’s Fact Checker (which AGAIN debunked this smear), “millions of dollars of attack ad by the Obama campaign hang in the balance” of this Globe retread getting some (more) traction. Of course the Globe wants to do all it can to get Obama reelected, so it is doing his campaign bidding.
It’s a shame stuff like this isn’t considered a campaign contribution rather than just (stale and much debunked) “news”. But this is the press we have, not the press we wish we had.
Hey, wasn’t there a post here recently about how the nuze bizz has fallen in public esteem? This sort of thing couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that could it?
Nah!
@Jenos Idanian #13:
That’s not the key. The key question is why Romney didn’t want to “own” Bain after 1999, even though he owned it?
What made Bain embarrassing from his perspective?
jenos:
I guess that must be why Mitt and his five sons all have zero military service.
Doug,
What is “mindless populism”?
@john personna: Tell me, which of these terms don’t you understand?
“Indefinite leave of absence”
“Temporary position”
“Emergency”
Here’s how things might have played out:
“Hey, Mitt, we desperately need your help. We need you to drop everything and come save the 2002 Olympics.”
“No problem. Just let me resign my job here to sign up for this temporary gig that evaporates in February 2002. I have to make sure I burn all my bridges behind me for this guaranteed temp gig.”
“You sure you don’t want to just take a leave of absence so you can go back at some point?”
“Can’t take that chance. 13 years from now, a bunch of liberal asshats with absolutely no clue how the world works might try to spin this to hurt me.”
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Doesn’t take a whole lot to push your buttons, does it?
For the record, I don’t really think the man’s a fvckup at all. A stiff, for sure, but not a fvckup. I think he is extremely calculating when it comes to his business affairs. And I wouldn’t be surprised if his maintaining, at least on paper, his positions at Bain have a lot to do with navigating the tax code. Perhaps this part of the reason he is loath to release his tax returns. Perhaps they show some major league shenannies, perfectly legal shenannies, to be sure, grounded in his SEC filings for those years. Perfectly legal, but perfectly poison, politically speaking.
@jukeboxgrad: As I alluded to in a different thread, that puts him in the same company as FDR, Clinton, Obama, Biden…
@sam: Doesn’t take a whole lot to push your buttons, does it?
Nope. Just lying and creating your own reality does a pretty good job at it.
So, how about Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate, anyway?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You’ve got more buttons than I realized.
@sam:
Or the fact that Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, right?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
I’d say that the Federal Government caused the Games to happen.
Game, set, match–Jenos Idanian #13
Yeah, built a hugely successful company, then left it in a shambles
to save the Olympicsto get federal $$$ for his home state and advance his political ambitions.FTFY
Cheney’s five deferments make perfect sense now…
jenos:
Wrong, because none of those people supported the Vietnam war. Mitt did.
The problem is not avoiding military service. The problem is avoiding military service while beating a drum for someone else to do it. That’s what he did then, and it’s what he’s still doing now. Classic chickenhawk.
So Romney wasn’t in charge of sucking companies dry and outsourcing them… he just made money off it.
Good luck with that explanation.
@Septimius: “Game, set, match–Jenos Idanian #13”
The losers of the world have a new king.
@sam:
And some of them are not connected to the source of power.
So Romney was in charge but he wasn’t in charge.
And the etch-a-sketch metaphor is meaningless.
Right.
The basic problem is not complicated, although a lot of people are trying really hard to muddy the waters.
doug:
They have said something stronger than that. At least twice, Mitt personally signed official forms containing this statement:
He attached his signature to that statement on 8/12/11 (pdf, p. 27), and then he did it again on 6/1/12 (pdf, p. 18; this link is erroneously labeled “2011” even though the document contents show the proper date is 2012).
The key word there is “retired.” Here’s what word means: ‘leave one’s job and cease to work.’ The problem is that subsequent to 2/11/99, Bain filed multiple SEC documents listing Mitt as “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.” One example is here (pdf, p. 24).
Is it possible to be “retired” from a company while also being Chairman, CEO and President of that company? No, it’s not, unless you have a magic dictionary where words are elastic and take on any meaning you wish. This basic, glaring contradiction has not been explained by Mitt, FactCheck, Kessler, or anyone else.
What do we learn from this? That telling the truth on official documents is not a high priority for Mitt. So why should we believe anything he said on the one tax return he released?
The effort Doug makes in defending someone he supports and doesn’t support is dizzying.
@Septimius:
Intercepted!
Doug,
As, an Attorney, do you think Romney was responsible for actions of Bain while SEC documents said he was responsible? Or do you think he wasn’t responsible because he claims not to be responsible in spite of legal documents stating explicitly that he was responsible?
Seriously.
@C. Clavin: I’m not Doug — I’m not even an attorney — but I’d say that yes, he would have been legally responsible for any wrongdoings. Good thing they weren’t doing anything illegal.
But from a practical standpoint, he was, by all accounts, totally absent from Bain for those three years. He wasn’t even “phoning it in.”
However, if you wanna play that game, let’s dust off the old Harry Truman quote about where bucks stop and say that Obama is completely liable for Fast & Furious, as it happened while he was Chief Executive and carried out by people under his authority. Especially since he’s now claiming Executive Privilege, which carries the connotation that he was personally involved in the matter.
That sound fair to you?
Actually…and I can see how a second rate attorney would miss this…but the only fact established is that Romney was in charge of Bain. Remind me not to hire an attorney from George Mason.
Jenos is breaking out the Jordana Brewster fantasies again.
@jukeboxgrad: The “chickenhawk” argument is a tool for the weak-minded, to be used against the weaker-minded.
If an argument is valid, then it is valid. Who makes the argument is irrelevant. The only people to whom it matters are those who want to personalize all arguments, who are insecure about their own positions and abilities that they instead seek to discredit and silence the opponent, hoping they’ll take the argument with them.
Sadly, it occasionally works. But I’ve learned that when such arguments arise, it almost always means that the person making the personal attack is too lazy or too incompetent to make a valid argument (sometimes both), and assumes that their opponent will not see the fake argument for the admission of inadequacy that it is.
I’ve fallen for it way too many times in the past, and I’m sure I will many more times in the future. But not this time.
Romney did absolutely nothing wrong in this case, and actually did the right thing.
But if you wanna bring up Romney’s non-service… that’s ancient history. Hell, that’s from around the time when Obama’s mentor William Ayers was planning mass murders, and we’ve been told repeatedly that that was so long ago, it doesn’t count. Just like how it doesn’t count that it was about that time that Obama was eating dog and attending a madrassa (Muslim school).
Shorter Jenos….
Fast and furious and Ayers and, and , and, oh yeah…SEC Documents are meaningless she Jenos and Doug deem them meaningless.
Sigh.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Interesting how you left out Romney’s prep school hazing and bullying of a gay student, why?
@C. Clavin: No, Cliff, the SEC documents are NOT worthless. They just don’t mean what you desperately wish they did.
@al-Ameda: Because I knew I could count on at least one of you to mention this incident — which happened at about the same time Obama was eating dog, and reoccurred about as many times.
Unlike Ayers’ planned bombings, which were a definite pattern.
Romney says he left.
Legal documents say he didn’t.
If he did leave he lied on legal documents.
If he didn’t leave…he didn’t leave.
This is a pretty clear cut case.
jenos:
I can’t find the part of your comment where you explain how someone can be “retired” from a company while also being Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of that company. You must have a magic GOP dictionary.
The documents which describe him as Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President actually mean that he wasn’t those things?
Wrong. The non-service of his sons while he makes warlike noises about Iran are both current events. Like I said, he’s a classic chickenhawk. He doesn’t mind promoting wars that will be fought by someone else’s kid.
@C. Clavin: Romney LEFT. He was spending 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, on the Olympics. He eventually cut it back to 12 hours a day. He had ZERO time to be involved in Bain’s day-to-day operations.
He kept his name there so he had the option of going back. After 3 years, he realized he had other ambitions and made it formal.
This is as much of an issue as Obama’s dog-eating. But with less entertainment potential.
But I hear he really understands how the economy works!!!
So Jenos…you are saying he lied on SEC documents?
jenos:
He was the sole owner of the company. Therefore he always had “the option of going back” if that’s what he wanted, and he had no need to make phony claims about jobs he was doing that were actually being done by someone else.
Bain told the SEC he was Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President. If he wasn’t actually doing those jobs, then this statement to the SEC was fraudulent.
@jukeboxgrad: I can’t find the part of your comment where you explain how someone can be “retired” from a company while also being Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of that company. You must have a magic GOP dictionary.
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you. You have to put a modicum of honest effort into it — and I have no faith in that happening. But for the readers…
Romney, when he got the call about the Olympics, effectively took an “indefinite leave of absence.” He completely gave up any and all involvement in Bain’s day to day operations, but left the door open for a possible return. After 3 years away, he decided he was going to go into politics and made it official. So the “official” date of his departure was 2002.
But he’d been, for all intents and purposes, gone since 1999. So for him to say he “left” Bain at that point is also accurate — from a practical, if not legalistic, sense.
We all know divorced people. They often consider the marriage “over” when they decide to divorce. But legally, it isn’t over until the decree is final. “When did the marriage end” depends on what you mean by “ends.”
Romney effectively ended his relationship with Bain in 1999. He didn’t make it legally binding, however, until 2002. Arguing as if that has any great significance is like arguing about “natural” versus “natural born” citizenship and how that applies to Obama’s presidency.
@jukeboxgrad: Man, I wish you’d been this meticulous about Tim Geithner’s tax issues. That would’ve been something.
The SEC doesn’t give a rat’s ass if the guy with the titles actually does his job or not. They care if the company follows the laws. If it doesn’t, they’re going after the guy with the titles, and “I didn’t actually do it” is not an acceptable defense.
Romney held the titles, delegated the work, everything kept going fine and legal until he decided to move on.
Learn from his example and do a little “moving on” yourself.
Here’s a challenge for the (apparently hypothetical only) people interested in actually discussing this topic: what benefit would Romney gain in “lying” about this at the time that would actually come close to outweighing the risks? Say what you want about Romney, he’s not crazy reckless.
So far the only explanation anyone’s offered is “he’s a liar, so he lies.” That’s about as feeble as it gets.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Interesting, substitute “Obama” for “Romney” and you actually have a worthwhile observation concerning Obama, and of the irrational vilification of him by conservatives.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
And of course Obama was helping Ayers to plan these bombings, all the while Romney was hazing gay students at a prep school.
jenos:
Except that’s not what he said in the forms I cited. He said this:
“Retired” and “indefinite leave of absence” don’t mean the same thing. You need to deal with the words Mitt actually said, not words that came straight from your imagination. You’re doing something you do routinely: putting quote marks around words that aren’t actually a quote.
Then it was fraudulent to describe him as Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, because a person doing those jobs would not be “completely” free of “any and all involvement” in “day to day operations.” Maybe mostly, but not “completely.”
And he didn’t just tell us “he completely gave up any and all involvement in Bain’s day to day operations.” He told us he was “retired,” which is a stronger statement, and grossly incongruent with the claim that he was Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.
If he didn’t officially depart until 2002, then it was fraudulent for him to claim that he “retired” in 1999.
If he was truly “gone,” then it was fraudulent to claim that he was Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President. Except in the world of the magic GOP dictionary, one cannot be doing those jobs while also not be doing those jobs.
Next up you might as well tell us about the meaning of “is.”
Yes, and we also know there are people who pretend to be divorced before they are actually divorced. This is what Mitt did when he said he was “retired” while he still continued to be Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.
Now you’ve really gone off the deep end, because he hasn’t even attempted to deny that he continued to be the owner, which is definitely an important “relationship.”
The SEC gives “a rat’s ass” if they’re being told the truth. If Mitt had actually “retired” in 1999 (which is what he said later), that means what SEC was told in 2001-2002 (that he was Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President) was fraudulent.
You can’t be pregnant while being not pregnant, and you can’t be “retired” while also being Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.
I don’t think he was lying “at the time.” He said he was Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President because he was.
@C. Clavin: Actually, Cliffie, it’s worse than that. There are SEC legal docs saying he didn’t leave. But there are FEC docs saying he did. One of those two sets of documents constitutes a felony; I’m just not sure if it can only be a felony on Mitt’s part or if at least one of those filings could be blamed on the Bain “corporate entity”, which would then be liable for the civil and criminal penalties…
Oh, wait – Mitt is listed as the sole shareholder, Chairman, CEO, and President of that “corporate entity” – so he’s got some very prickly federal investigations to answer to no matter which lie he told!
@Jenos Idanian #13: He’s not crazy reckless, he’s just not morally capable of taking a stand in front of a crowd. Regardless of what sort of man he is deep down inside, he has _never_ taken a moral or political stand that he has not willfully reneged on the moment he was in front of a different crowd. He simply has no spine.
If Romney were a VP contender undergoing vetting, he would have been thrown under the bus and dragged halfway across the state over this. Talk of Bain will dominate many news cycles, and may grow longer legs, as it appears he may have lied in this matter AND left a high profile paper trail.
Now the question is was this a trap set by the Obama campaign, or did Romney simply blunder into the pit?
Information showing that Mitt didn’t really leave Bain in 1999 has been around for a long time. In January, McCain’s 2008 oppo file on Mitt was found and put on the web (pdf). See p. 160-161:
So it’s not just that his name appears in official documents filed with the SEC. It’s that he personally signed some of these documents. This point is clear in the earlier Globe reporting from 2003, but the new Globe article doesn’t really mention this, and I haven’t seen this mentioned by any of the many people currently discussing this.
And it’s helpful to notice that Mitt has been telling this lie for a long time. He said “I left Bain long before the events.” If you “left,” why are you still signing official documents?
The Democrats and the OTB drones will keep citing sources like Mother Jones, Huffington Post, and Talking Points Memo to support their claim that they’re right, while the Republicans and Mitt Romney will rebut with sources like Fortune, Politifact and the Washington Post fact checker who support their claim that the Democrats and the OTB drones are wrong.
I think the general public will be able to decide on that basis which side is slinging slanderous bullshit in a desperate effort to salvage their failing electoral campaign.
@legion: He’s not crazy reckless, he’s just not morally capable of taking a stand in front of a crowd.
True dat. If he was, he’d do something like go before the NAACP and slam ObamaCare, knowing he’d get roundly booed.
Oh, that’s right, he did that. Just this week. Guess he’s “morally capable” after all.
Got any more myths I can bust for you?
@jukeboxgrad: Once again, you act as if you’re a lawyer in a coutroom, cross-examining a hostile witness. Sorry, Counselor, I’m perfectly free to tell you to get stuffed.
You’re using legalistic arguments, while I’m talking reality.
Fact: Romney stopped “working” at Bain in 1999 — by all accounts, he was “hands-off” within two weeks of getting the call from the Olympics.
Fact: Romney channeled every bit of his time, energy, and focus into the Olympics, sparing nothing for Bain.
Fact: Romney’s departure was so complete that Bain found itself struggling to get by without him.
Fact: Romney knew the Olympics gig was, by definition, temporary. Not only did he know that it would end in 2012, he also knew that if he didn’t succeed, it could end a lot sooner.
Fact: after the Olympics, Romney considered his options: go back to Bain, or find a new course.
Fact: Romney chose to go into politics, and then formally severed his ties with Bain.
So, in retrospect, the average person (not a thoroughly anal-retentive lawyer/lawyer wannabe with a hyperpartisan streak 3.7 miles wide and an inverse proportion of common sense to quasi-legal cunning — not that I have anyone in mind), Romney effectively retired from Bain in 1999 — because that was the last time he actually worked there.
Really, I’m impressed you’re taking up this argument. I thought defending convicted terrorist and perjurer Bret Kimberlin from those mean old right-wingers who keep harassing him by mentioning that he’s a convicted terrorist and perjurer on the internets would take up all of your time.
See, here’s the thing. I could buy the “on leave to run the Olympics” argument if he’d divested himself of the president and chief executive officer jobs because those roles run the company. But to hold onto all three – chairman, pres and ceo – but have delegated all daily authority? How does that work?
Because most people will read these articles and probably not understand all the nuances but will come away with a feeling that when you’re in the top ranks of the financial sector the normal rules don’t seem to apply – you can be the pres/ceo, but apparently can be away for years without doing the job. And being ceo means you are running the company on a day-to-day basis. As if their bosses could pull that off without serious, perhaps mortal, damage to the companies they work for.
And it may well be true that all this is not illegal – but many people might come away thinking, it should be. (And I don’t believe that Romney would even dream of fibbing to the SEC. They’re not known for their tolerant sense of humor or indulgence of fibbers.)
I think Romney was doing what he did when he left Bain to set up Bain Capital, and he made a deal with his boss that if it didn’t work out he’d get his old position back and get the bonuses he’d have been due if he’d stayed. A solid gold parachute. He hung onto the job titles because if the Olympics thing turned out to be harder or impossible to do, after a few months he could go back to Bain and pass it all off as just some volunteer time to help out.
I want to see the day that Mitt Romney actually takes a financial risk that might impact him personally.
@DRS: I think Romney was doing what he did when he left Bain to set up Bain Capital, and he made a deal with his boss that if it didn’t work out he’d get his old position back and get the bonuses he’d have been due if he’d stayed. A solid gold parachute. He hung onto the job titles because if the Olympics thing turned out to be harder or impossible to do, after a few months he could go back to Bain and pass it all off as just some volunteer time to help out.
I want to see the day that Mitt Romney actually takes a financial risk that might impact him personally.
Why? Why is Romney’s caution and self-preservation and careful planning a bad thing?
I’m not being cynical here. Seriously — your scenario (which sounds plausible) indicates that Romney is smart, covers his bases, plans carefully, and anticipates good and bad outcomes. That, to me, is a good thing.
buzz:
The sources that count are the SEC papers that Mitt signed for Bain after he had supposedly “retired.”
All those ‘fact checkers’ painted themselves into a corner by accepting at face value Mitt’s claim that he had left Bain in 1999, even though they should have known better. Why should they have known better? Because the Globe had already reported in 2003 that Mitt was still signing SEC papers for Bain even after he supposedly wasn’t there anymore.
jenos:
Signing SEC papers for Bain definitely counts as “working.”
If he was “hands-off” then he must have signed those papers with his toes.
Signing SEC papers for Bain is not “nothing.” And if he did “nothing for Bain” then he lied to the SEC when he told them he was Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President. Those are not “nothing.”
I think “Bain found itself struggling” because it had a Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President who was trying to do those jobs by telephone.
Right. Which is why he didn’t give up his existing jobs of Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain.
He didn’t need to “go back to Bain” because he had never left.
He is still receiving income from Bain, so he has still not “severed his ties with Bain.”
If he had “effectively retired from Bain in 1999” then he should not have been signing SEC papers for Bain after that date, and he should not have been describing himself to the SEC as Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.
Signing SEC papers for Bain in 2001-2002 counts as “actually worked.”
We already know you’re eager to change the subject. You don’t have to keep proving it over and over again.
Recap: The Romney campaign took a stupid and craven path when asked about Bain’s actions in 2000-2002. They should have faced it straight on, saying Bain was a great company, doing great things. Instead they blinked, and said “Romney left in 1999, it wasn’t him.”
That cowardly response was wrong in so many ways. It didn’t support what they really believe (or are supposed to) about companies acting in a free market. And of course, it was always a fib. Romney was (as noted above) “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” of Bain at the time.
Now Romney has to back and fill. He either has to defend 2000-2002 Bain actions as his own, or he has to double down on the whinge and say that, while he was “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” he didn’t actually know what was going on.
BTW, every commenter here who defends the dodge, that “it wasn’t really him,” is caught in the same contradiction.
You are saying Bain did something, 2000-2002, that you can’t be proud of, that he shouldn’t be proud of.
@jukeboxgrad: Signing SEC papers for Bain definitely counts as “working.”
This is where you prove you simply can’t — or won’t — apply common sense and think like a normal person.
The normal person sees what you cite and says “once a year or so, they FedExed him a stack of papers and he signed them? That ain’t working!” Especially since he was putting 84-112 hours a week on another project.
You, though, see those signatures and say “this PROVES that Romney was really working there! And he probably stole my strawberries!”
@Jenos Idanian #13:
I really hope that if you got a box of papers, and signed them, you’d have the balls to say you were in charge.
Yo, Jenos and (your Charlie McCarthy, Septimus), what think you of this?
An Age-Old Ruse
Now, I’m absolutely certain that he knows nothing about what goes on with Tagg’s fund, absolutely nothing…
Oh, and the fact that “some of it has been invested in offshore accounts of a sort never held by any previous presidential contender” is apparently having an effect on the Olympics .
@sam:
I think that’s kind of a distraction. Not least because Mitt can throw $10M in the street and not miss it. Sure, let the kid manage it. No big deal.
@john personna: Here, an actual lawyer explains it in simple terms — not a wannabe like juke.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Not really sure you want to venture in Queegland given the loonies on your side.
@john personna:
Nah, it goes to his assertion that blind trusts are a ruse, or were when he tried to club Ted Kennedy. Now, of course, things are different.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
The problem with that lawyer’s defense is that he goes for “it wasn’t him.”
The “defense” does not defend Bain, private capital, free markets, or any conservative world-view. It runs away from all that.
Come on, you’ve got to see it. When you cay “you can’t blame Romney for Bain” you are acknowledging that Bain did something bad. That is a hugely wrong strategy.
I’m telling you that you should be saying “Damn right Romney was in charge, the buck stopped with him, and Bain was a great company.”
@sam:
I think Blind Trusts are pretty … leaky, to mix metaphors.
The $10M isn’t enough to matter though, and in fact, it doesn’t show high confidence in the kid.
@john personna:
What he doesn’t see, I think, is the strategy the Obama folks are pursuing. Michael Steele sees it. He calls it the “Death by a thousand cuts” strategy. A picture is being built up of Romney as a sharp operator: A man of immense wealth bending the tax code to increase that immense wealth. Of a man engaging in secretive financial manipulations and fighting fiercely to keep the results of those manipulations from the public eye. I just heard Joe Scarborough (!) say that he thinks Romney is stonewalling the release of his tax returns because some of them will show that Romney paid no taxes for some years while showing a, to say the least, sizable income for those years. Folks will begin to ask, “What is he hiding?” And more he stonewalls, the more persistent the questioning will become.
@john personna: Actually the lawyer makes a lot of the points you just made.
Except for the “I’m In charge” part, which wasn’t true, as Romney wasn’t running things at that point in time.
@sam:
From what I understand, at a certain strata of wealth, capital losses and gains are abstract things that someone who is normal rich or upper middle class does not have real contact with. So it goes with leaving one’s job–Romney could have left Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics yet he also swas given money, attended board meetings of other companies acquired by Bain, signed documents and was listed as President. He worked there and he didn’t work there. He had nothing to do with what they did and yet he knew what was going on.
This is what’s so obvious about the campaign against Romney. They’re taking who he is, a super wealthy man in 2012, and exposing what exactly the super wealthy live like.
@sam:
I can see the tax angle having some potential. I suspect some corners were cut with foreign accounts.
The weird thing for me is that there is so much less there with the Bain 2000-2002 criticisms, and yet they were handled so badly. Henry Blodget says that the Romney campaign was ducking from investments in Stericycle, and didn’t want to explain any restructuring that cost jobs.
The defenses to those should have been easy. “Stericycle was a full-service medical waste company, assisting hospitals, but certainly not directing their operations.” “Some jobs were lost, but sometimes hard decisions have to be made.” “No one likes to reduce workers, but sometimes market forces leave no other choice.”
Five minutes of strength would have saved so much …
@rodney dill:
I missed that, but I think the lawyer lies with “most definitive answer”.
See Henry Bloget.
Yeah, well, death by a thousand cuts:
Romney Testified He Maintained Business Ties During Olympics
Cuts being self-inflicted.
@Modulo Myself:
Good so far …
… and there was your disconnect. You just said that attended meetings. You know that he retained titles and signed papers.
And so this whole “nothing to do with” is a bridge too far.
@john personna: Also, even if signing a box of papers wasn’t “working”, and even if it meant that Romney wasn’t doing day-to-day operations, it still means that Romney knew what was going on and was not ignorant of what Bain was doing. And that he personally profits by the actions of all those Bain operations.
On those tax returns:
Growing Republican Chorus Pushes Romney To Release Tax Returns
Steele puts it best: “If there’s nothing there, there’s no ‘there’ there, don’t create a there,’” Steele said.
@john personna:
Oh, I agree. The manipulation didn’t work as planned. But the point is that this is a guy who goes around legally manipulating categories of ‘there’ and ‘not there’. When normal people quit jobs, they actually seem to leave them.
Let’s look at it from the viewpoint of the average voter. To the the average voter- to the law- the owner and CEO of a company is responsible for the acts of the company. THE END.
That means that all the tap dancing by Romney defenders looks to the average voter as well- tap dancing. If Romney wants to now argue that the acts of Bain pre and post 1999 were all good, well he can make that case. What he can’t do now is argue that he deserves the credit for the good pre 1999 stuff while avoiding blame for the adopts 1999 stuff. That dodge is gone.
@sam: What I see is the blatant amorality of the strategy. “Yes, this is a dishonest attack, but the important thing here is how poorly he handles it!”
@Jenos Idanian #13:
What do the letters “C E O” stand for?
You can never get away from that. You can say that while he was Chief Executive Officer the delegated day-to-day operations, but you can never say that he was not Chief Executive Officer.
You certainly not say it was a “smear” to remind people that he was Chief Executive Officer.
You know what a Chief Executive Officer does, and is responsible for, right?
Again, in terms of stand-up things Romney could have said:
“While I was CEO I did delegate day-to-day operations, and those met my expectations. Mr. X did a fine job, making effective business decisions.”
He wouldn’t say:
“I don’t know what Mr. X was up to, who is he anyway?”
@john personna: …and I think the lawyer tells the exact truth with “most definitive answer.”
I do find it amusing that some of the commenters are continuing on this vein, with the same drooling mindless determination that ‘truthers’ and ‘birthers’ are usually accused of, ignoring the explanations from the fact checking organizations (even those that are usually accused of being pro-liberal) I guess now we’re gonna have a bunch of ‘bainers’
I’m certain that everyone here is set in the ‘facts’ they are willing to accept on this subject and no statements contrary are going to change anyone’s mind here at OTB.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Are you that fvcking stupid? This ain’t beanbag, you know. And as for “dishonest”, go look up petitio principii.
@rodney dill:
No. Just no. The shoe is on the other foot.
You know, I read a newspaper article yesterday that inverted things as well. It said that “technically” Romney was not in charge at Bain in 2000. No, that is not what “technically” means. The SEC documents describe what is technically the truth.
You can’t deny that technical truth, you can only argue that despite it, despite all the titles, Romney was not “actively” leading the company. You can say he delegated actions.
That is very different. One is responsibility (the responsibilities that come with being chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president) and the other is role (active day-to-day management).
The lack of day to day management does not remove the responsibility, not when you are filing on the bottom line with that responsibility to the SEC.
@rodney dill:
Tell me honestly, put yourself back a year. If you were “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” would you say that’d you’d “left” or “retired?”
Would you actually have said that, while filing SEC documents as CEO and president?
Or would you wait until you were at least just “sole stockholder” and “chairman of the board”, having installed some other “chief executive officer” and “president”?
Ye Gods!
Rodney says this is like the truther or birther thing and it is!
The SEC documents are there, just like the birth certificate, and the right cannot believe them, because they don’t say what they want them to.
Jenos,
So your defense of Romney boils down to he was handed a bunch of papers to sign, which if they were incorrect constituted a felony, and he was too busy to actually read what was in them, but signed them anyway, rather than appointing an acting CEO to sign them. Yeah, that’s the guy I want running the country. A model of “caution and self-preservation and careful planning”.
@john personna: Based on my last comment, I’m not going to argue with the Bainers. But, they should feel free to contact and change the minds of the organizations reference here. (Washington Post, Factcheck.org, Fortune Magazine) and try to convince them there is merit to the Boston Globe piece. They could also try to change the mind of the lawyer Jenos linked. If these sources change their opinion, I’ll revisit my thinking on the issue.
@rodney dill:
Ha. One Boehner is plenty….thank ya very much.
In 1999, Romney had a choice to make: stay with Bain, or leave and try to save the 2002 Winter Olympics. He chose the Olympics, and — after some very rough spots — both organizations eventually prospered and succeeded.
In that moment, Romney made a harder choice than Obama did at any point in his life prior to January 20, 2009 — and Romney made the right choice.
@john personna: Heh, Yes the SEC documents are there. They just don’t mean what the Bainer left wants them to mean. But don’t believe me, just go the links that explain that the SEC documents don’t really indicate who was actually running things at that the time.
@Herb: One bainer would be more than enough, but here we have a plethora.
(good pun)
@rodney dill:
Two things. First, yes the SEC document are the only official record and they show Romney as officially in charge. Second, what is your “what the Bainer left wants them to mean” fantasy?
Are you afraid that Romney knew about the Stericycle investment, and are you afraid to wear that?
Are you afraid that Romney knew (shocking!) that some of these companies reduced workers?
WTF man? As I keep saying, these are things the right should stand foursquare and own. If you do that, there is nothing to run from!
I don’t know why it’s hard to get, Rodney. If you believe in private capital and Bain, then the threat from “bainers” falls away.
It only works if you yourself cannot defend private capital and Bain.
@john personna: All interesting points, I’m not even familiar with the Stericycle investment. I’ve just been commenting on the erroneous Boston Globe piece and the subsequent Bainer Frenzy. If you want resolution or response to any of your points I suggest you refer to this comment and try to convince those sources you are correct. Then I will consider your case.
@Moosebreath: I said he signed papers. That much is self-evident.
I don’t know where you got the idea that he never read them, just signed them automatically. I think you’re confusing this with the questionnaire that Obama signed that said he supported banning all handguns. Or, maybe, Eric Holder saying he never read the memos sent to him regarding Fast and Furious.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
I love it. The “Well, you guys…” defense. BTW, did you miss my Friday, July 13, 2012 at 08:42?
Jenos, I started an IRA about 18 years ago and contributed the maximum amount every year and yet I still don’t have a million dollars. In fact, I don’t even have 100 thousand dollars. What am I doing wrong?
@rodney dill:
I’m not disputing stuff like this, rodney:
I’m saying that Romney, and the conservatives, lose that way too.
It means that Bain did something bad, something Romney had to disavow.
Think, just think, how different it would be if it said “Romney, while having no day-to-day operational input at Bain, was responsible and approved their actions.”
@john personna: The threat of the Bainers is the same as the threat of the Truthers and the Birthers. A group that is trying to change peoples minds base on a false reality. It has nothing to do with what I think of private capital or Bain.
@Scott O:
It’s been a rough twenty years. That’s something they don’t tell you in most investment books or pitches. The average over the last 50 or 75 years may look good, but it may not be the market returns you get during your prime working years.
@rodney dill:
Slow down and think about it. If that’s true, you are dodging ghosts. If Bain 2000-2002 did nothing wrong, then “Romney was in charge” should illicit “yeah, whatever.”
This is a petard of your (Romney’s) own choosing.
Maybe that’s why it’s kind of funny from the center perspective. If I can defend Bain, without raising a sweat, what’s going on here? Why couldn’t Mitt? Why did he dodge responsibility? Why did anyone on the right help him?
Let’s repeat the high road:
“Damn straight, Bain was my company, and did great things.”
Let’s repeat the worst possible response:
“Well, I was sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president .. but it was the other greedy capitalists who you should blame.”
@john personna:
It doesn’t actually mean they did something bad, though that is the way the Bainers will try to paint it. Romney has not reason to endorse, or make any statement, on any decisions made during this time period. The lawyer, also said, “But Bain Capital is and always has been a fine firm with which Romney is rightly proud to be associated. In my view, slimy attacks from the likes of Obama shouldn’t deter Romney from talking sense to the American people about the economy..” I agree with this, but as the left continues to paint all successful businessmen as bad, (Yes, some are.) I can understand Romney’s choice to minimize his comments on Bain, especially during the time he was not in charge.
Yes, I know you will continue to purport the Bainer line that the SEC documents and other such evidence show he was in charge, but you can’t convince me until you convince the more reliable sources, that I’ve accepted, that they are wrong.
“yes the SEC document are the only official record”
No, business organizations are formed at the state level where the official records are kept. SEC filings are secondary evidence based upon different legal requirements and functions.
“they show Romney as officially in charge”
No, they don’t,. That’s not the purpose of SEC disclosures.
Someone needs to take the SEC docments as a lead back to the official documents, but they haven’t done so, either because they are lazy, ignorant or deceptive.
Did Jenos really type:
I can’t stop laughing.
The self-awareness is staggering.
Romney ran Bain, but he didn’t really “run” Bain.
I really think this issue is just more of Romney wanting to have it both ways and getting called out on it and not knowing how to respond because, as a spoiled little frat boy, he’s never really been called out in it before…not really.
In the end it is this limitless malleability that is the problem and the danger of a Romney Presidency. People who eager and anxious to be all things at once are easily corrupted. Their only rudder is their un-bounded ambition. And the powerful can steer Romney’s weakness in any direction they want. A man like Romney under the influence of Citizens United Money? You might as well vote for the Koch Brothers or Adelson or Simmons…because Mitt Romney will be powerless to stand up to them.
This thread is a summation of how Obama got elected in 2008:
You can’t challenge the accomplishments of a man who has none.
@rodney dill:
That is completely nuts, that the Republican party would cave to “all successful businessmen are bad,” while running successful businessman for President. He should be their dream candidate.
And where it really indicts Romney, is that he couldn’t do it. He couldn’t be true to himself.
@john personna: You want me to slow down, I formulate one response, to find you’ve pumped out 3-4 new comments 😉
I certainly don’t think Bain did anything wrong, other than be successful. (Though I’m probably not at familiar with anything they’ve done) Given the Occupy movement and other political trends that certainly doesn’t make them popular.
@john personna: I guess Romney started his at least a decade before I started mine. That probably explains much of the difference between the amount in his account and mine. If only I had started sooner.
@PD Shaw:
The SEC wants to know who to come to talk to if anything goes wrong, right?
And Romney signed those forms as that person.
I’ve said several times that I understand that doesn’t make him day-to-day manager. It just makes him responsible, to the SEC.
“…but as the left continues to paint all successful businessmen as bad…”
No one is saying businessmen are bad. But being a businessman has no bearing on your ability to be President. And if you are claiming that it does then your record as a businessman should be critically examined.
Obama:
@PD Shaw:
BTW, if Romney had just one or two of those titles and signature lines, and not the full set, from sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, down to president, THEN it would make more sense that it was just some dumb form.
GM is alive and bin Laden is dead.
Next stupid comment…
@Jenos Idanian #13:
No, this thread is a master’s course, conducted by you, in arm-waving.
@john personna:
You’ll have to show me where the Republican party caved to this. ( I think you’re being overly dramatic)
I just pointed out that one Democrat tactic is to paint successful businessmen (presumably more so when they’re Republican) and you turn it around that the Republican party as caved to this. You seem to have a predisposition to inverting the meaning of things.
@rodney dill:
Why do you think we are at 190 comments?
It’s because the right doesn’t want Romney to own Bain, 2000-2002.
(You can’t make this stuff up! Right to left: “you can’t say Romney knew what Bain was up to!“)
(Or even funnier: “It is a ‘bainer plot’ that Romney was any way responsible for Bain, 2000-2002”)
@john personna:
Because you think repeating the same thing over and over again makes it true.
Also you’ll need to show me which commenter in this pool of 190 comments represents the Republican party. (not just a commenter that is a Republican)
FTFY
I know there are a lot of diversions in this conversation but the debate remains: Romney’s claim to the Presidency is that he is a successful businessman, know how the economy works, and knows how to create jobs. Folks are examining that record and debating whether that the record supports his claims. The debate over private equity firms and their overall impact on the economy and job creation is a necessary one. The collorary debate is way the financial system is built: does it favor the wealthy and the connected or does it support all Americans. Those are the big debates. This smaller debate is over Romney’s credibility and his record. If he is to gain any ground on the larger debate, he has to resolve the smaller one.
… and actually pretty close to the truth.
@sam: No, this thread is a master’s course, conducted by you, in arm-waving.
I’m trying to visualize you in a “Master’s Course” in anything.
It’s not happening.
But it has been remarkably educational on how to persuade leftist sheep that nothing is not only Something, but EVERYTHING!!!!!!!111!!!! Very educational, indeed.
@rodney dill:
Dude, it isn’t just one title. It isn’t just one paper position. It was sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, down to president.
Back at you. You just claimed that someone can have all those positions without “any” responsibility.
@rodney dill: It all hinges on which definition of “responsible” you invoke.
“Responsible” as in, “legally liable for any wrongdoings?” Yup.
“Responsible,” as in “actually made the decisions himself on a day-to-day basis?” Nope.
It’s to the liberals’ advantage to get all simple-minded and insist that there is only one definition, and only one answer. Or, at least, they think it is to their advantage to argue that they’re such idiots.
Seriously rodney, you are arguing a crazy position.
It is crazy that the one man who was sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president was without “any responsibility.”
I don’t see any reason to believe that Romney was running Bain after he took the Olympics gig.
I also don’t see any reason to believe that Romney was not very much aware of what those running Bain in his absence were doing there, as it was his company and he held the top titles. He knew what Bain was doing, and he profited from it. If he doesn’t want to take responsibility for Bain’s activities from 1999-2002, he should have fired the guys running the show at that time. But the fact is he put them in charge, and left them in charge, and made a boatload of money from what they did there. The idea that he was unaware of what they were doing is absurd.
@mantis: I also don’t see any reason to believe that Romney was not very much aware of what those running Bain in his absence were doing there, as it was his company and he held the top titles.
I’m sure he kept up on things in all his copious free time, when he was putting in 12-16 hour days at the Olympics. Because he’s SuperMormon! Sleep is for the weak! He’ll rest when he’s dead!
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Tell us, 13, what he was doing at the board meetings he says he flew back to Boston to attend while he was rescuing the Olympics? Was he there just as a gofer, bringing in the Starbucks and bagels?
@Jenos Idanian #13: I think you responded to the wrong person. I wasn’t invoking the use of the word “Responsible” in anyway that I can tell.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So why are you afraid to let Bain, 2000-2002, stick to Romney?
What aren’t you proud of?
If you are worried that companies, only pursuing profits for their shareholders, may damage the US economy and cut US jobs .. aren’t you yielding the foundation of unregulated free market capitalism?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
I understand you believe some fairy tale about Romney’s work for the Olympics, in which he was locked in a room with no communication for 24 hours a day while furiously tooling away at the Olympic Games machine until it was fixed and that for three years he knew nothing about what was going on at the company he founded, built, and was still president, CEO, and sole stockholder of, but some of us have functioning brains in our heads and know that’s bullshit.
@john personna:
Yes, yes, I know in your mind you think you’re right and all the other sources I cited are wrong. Now to convince me, you just need to convince them. They counter the points you keep trying to make.
Now if Rush Limbaugh were my only source (he isn’t even one of them, though I can guess how he’d weigh in on the issue), then you might be able to disregard it. You haven’t said anything that successfully counters points made by the Lawyer and the other sources.
But just keep calling a crazy position, someone will believe it.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
“I don’t know where you got the idea that he never read them, just signed them automatically.”
From you, of course. You’re the one who said:
“Fact: Romney stopped “working” at Bain in 1999 — by all accounts, he was “hands-off” within two weeks of getting the call from the Olympics.
Fact: Romney channeled every bit of his time, energy, and focus into the Olympics, sparing nothing for Bain.”
Or was someone else posting under your name?
@john personna: I think Jenos answered the responsibility question pretty well. I just don’t know why he responded to me.
If Romney truly had nothing whatsoever to do with Bain after 1999, yet continued to get a salary from them, that’s a great example of how the wealthy “rig the game” in their favor. The only other folks I know who can get away with taking years long leaves of abscence like that are…wait for it…TENURED COLLEGE PROFESSORS! I await the outpouting of conservative support for that aspect of higher education.
Mike
I propose two definitions of what a “Bainer” is, neither very flattering.
The first is for the Obama supporters who are dangerously close to embracing various conspiracy theories regarding Mitt’s tenure at Bain.
And, on the other side of the aisle, those who think the way Romney ran Bain gives him the proper amount of street cred to ascend to the office of POTUS.
@rodney dill: No, I was responding to you — elaborating and reinforcing what you said. I should have remembered that around here, one only “responds” hostilely. Sorry for the confusion.
@rodney dill:
None of the links you posted argued the position you did. When I wrote:
You replied:
Maybe Jenos is out that far, but he’s about the only other one. No one sane is arguing that Romney was not in “any way responsible” for the company for which he was chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.
Take an aspirin. Take go to sleep.
@rodney dill:
LOL rodney. You normally give Jenos some distance. That in itself should be warning to you.
@mantis:
BTW, at that link I think mantis divided the issue pretty well:
That is sane. Saying that he was not “in any way responsible” is insane.
@Jenos Idanian #13: It wasn’t the lack of hostility that threw me off, just the lack of context. (at least from my view)
@Jenos Idanian #13: ““Responsible” as in, “legally liable for any wrongdoings?” Yup. “Responsible,” as in “actually made the decisions himself on a day-to-day basis?” Nope.”
So your new argument is that Romney chose to accept full legal liability for actions over which he had no control and of which he had absolutely no knowledge? And that even though he had chosen to take full legal liability he made no effort to discover exactly what was going on in his name?
And you think this makes him MORE qualified to be president?
@john personna:
Who’s making this argument? Maybe you should get some sleep.
I said I was in line the the sources that negated the Boston Globe piece, and offered commenters here to option of convincing them they’re (the sources) wrong.
If Romney lied then I guess there will be felony charges forthcoming. I guess that could prove you’re right. I’m not holding by breath.
@rodney dill:
You said “actually pretty close to the truth” right here.
Mitt’s story doesn’t add up
Good read.
@rodney dill:
Apparently you are coming around to the second weak position. You are going back to the mainline conservative defense that Romney was not in day-to-day control of Bain, and so can be excused.
That mainline defense acknowledges that chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president are all strong positions with strong responsibilities.
That mainline defense says that if Bain made misdeeds, they were below Romney’s radar.
To which I always ask, “what misdeeds, what are you ashamed of,” and off we go again, saying it wasn’t really about Romney so it doesn’t matter, and whatever went wrong, the president, CEO, chairman of the board, and owner can be separated from it.
Mitt Romney’s Own 2002 Testimony Undermines Bain Departure Claim
So…was he lying then, or is he lying now?
@Michael:
It’s Romney, so the most likely answer is c, all of the above.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Let me make sure I get this right…
Romney’s primary rationale for being elected is that he’s an excellent business manager, and that is what we need in the White House.
Yet per your narrative, he’s got a proven track record of failure at a) succession planning, b) delegation, c) corporate governance and d) fidicuiary responsibility.
And that’s the positive spin…
@john personna:
You are absolutely correct. You stated it would be a Bainer plot to say Romney was in any way responsible and I said it was pretty close to the truth (that this would be funny as a Bainer plot)
Please play again.
Clearly, he does not. I asked Jenos about his business experience a while back, and he declined to answer. It’s pretty easy to see why.
@john personna:
(Caution: Bainer wording ‘weak position’ used here)
I’m not arguing the point by point with Bainers as I’ve stated before. You don’t need to convince me. You need to convince the fact checker orgs, etc… that found no merit in the Globe piece.
You haven’t said anything that refutes what they’ve already responded to, so you can’t convince me.
(Anyway work calls, I won’t be able to check back for a few hours to see what else you concoct)
@rodney dill:
That doesn’t make sense to me, particularly with your high-five to Jenos, but whatever.
We are back to distancing Mitt from the company for which he was “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”
You now, normally having all four of those positions would be considered “iron control.” That is until the wingnuts have at it.
@rodney dill:
LOL, you are saying you still thing there is wiggle room?
That someone can have the big four (sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president) and still deny involvement?
That’s funny enough to prolong.
What this all stems from is modern conservatism’s dogma that capitalism is all wine and roses. Traditional conservative thinking understands capitalism as being a fairly rough business but one that usually works out for the best in the end and while there are certain negative aspects of it, they must be tolerated because those things help enable the positive results. Modern conservatism seems to hold that capitalism is literaly perfect and never produces any results that are even slightly bad in any way, with all evidence to the contrary to be ignored and/or avoided.
Mike
230 and counting and not a single mind changed. Now that is a day well spent.
@rodney dill: “You need to convince the fact checker orgs, etc… that found no merit in the Globe piece.”
Just for future reference, let’s remember that rodney dill is hereby accepting that all the “fact checkers” he has listed in this thread are infailable and no one can ever legitimately dispute any of their conclusions. He is making an explicit appeal to authority, which can only be done if one accepts that authority as being determinative. So, everything these “fact checkers” every say about Romney and his campaign rhetoric must be accepted without question because rodney dill said so.
Mike
Bottomiline, Romney is reduced to the Sergeant Schultz defense of his role at Bain after 1999, “I know nothing, nothing.”
Well, that and arguing about what the meaning of “is” is…
Reports this morning state Romney testified in Mass (in support of his claim to residency in Mass) that he was involved in business meetings post-99. Coupled with an annual 6 digit salariy for these executive meetings you’d have to be remarkably credulous to buy the “retired” trope.
@ John Personna…
This is of critical import to Republicans…and Republicans masquerading as Libertarians… because if Romney was in charge of Bain during those years then he was in charge when Bain invested in and made tens of millions of dollars from a company that disposed of aborted fetuses…Stericycle. And if that is true then the collective heads of the Republican party must explode immediately.
Thus you have 239 comments and counting with Jenos claiming to know EXACTLY what was going on in the corporate structure of Bain a dozen or so years ago. How exactly he/she/it gleaned that information from the safety of his/her/it’s mothers basement while chomping on cheetos and wearing a onsey…I do not know.
maybe it’s spelled “onesy”?
I’m not sure.
Jenos…check the tag…does it have the correct spelling?
@rodney dill:
“I won’t be able to check back for a few hours to see what else you concoct“
Some 242 comments on this thread. I started to read them. But the diatribes were all looping and sounding the same. So, in scrolling down to the bottom, came upon your’s with the word ‘concoct,’ which aptly describes the contrived sway of the conversations here. It sure goes to show how hope and change has morphed into character assassination and a very twisted campaign strategy.
@rudderpedals:
And as Steve Kornacki writes in the story I linked to in my previous post, in 1999 there weren’t any political opportunities for Romney in Massachusetts, instead he had his eyes on the Governorship in Utah in 2004.
Does anyone believe that Romney would retire from Bain and then, post Olympics, run a 2+ year campaign for the Governorship in Utah, that may have open up in 2004?
@C. Clavin:
Right, but to be fair, Stericycle picked up all bio-hazard waste, right? It wasn’t like they were choosing or preferring fetuses. And .. picking up and disposing bio-hazard waste is good for us all, our health and welfare.
If they faced a conservative who tried to grind them on Stericycle they should have said “we are safely disposing of hospital waste, if you want to stop what’s in that waste, talk to the hospitals and doctors. That’s not our business or our call.”
No guts all around.
@jan:
Honestly Jan, if you were “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” of a company, I think you would have had more guts.
I think you would have stood up and defended that company, and not put it off on your subordinates.