Talk Elections

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/12/government_documents_indicate_mitt_romney_continued_at_bain_after_date_when_he_says_he_left/

I love how this story can't be found anywhere on RealClearPolitics, as of 11:30 AM EST. As if we needed any more proof that those guys were a bunch of Republican hacks!

Other than the Boston Globe, it's crickets from the mainstream media.

That's because it's inaccurate.

The Media is also ignoring David Corn's latest piece about how Romney invested in a Chinese firm that took American jobs.

I have the feeling that Romney getting obscenely wealthy by investing in hundreds of companies is equivalent to senators becoming "experienced" by casting thousands of votes. It creates quite a paper trail.

Isn't it a felony to lie in federal filings?

Good grief, it sounds like Romney might get indicted!

It is.

WaPo, CNN Finance, and FactCheck.org say nope:

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-exit/?iid=SF_F_River

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-and-his-departure-from-bain/2012/07/12/gJQAASzUfW_blog.html

http://factcheck.org/2012/07/factcheck-to-obama-camp-your-complaint-is-all-wet/

Umm, no it doesn't.

Romney's defense in his campaign for president: Yes I was president but I had no idea what was going on and I'm not responsible for it.

Sorry to break your bubble but Mittens himself says yes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html)

Mitt Romney's repeated claim that he played no part in executive decision-making related to Bain Capital after 1999 is false, according to Romney's own testimony in June 2002, in which he admitted to sitting on the board of the LifeLike Co., a dollmaker that was a Bain investment during the period.

Romney has consistently insisted that he was too busy organizing the 2002 Winter Olympics to take part in Bain business between 1999 and that event. But in the testimony, which was provided to The Huffington Post, Romney noted that he regularly traveled back to Massachusetts. "[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth," he said.

Romney's sworn testimony was given as part of a hearing to determine whether he had sufficient residency status in Massachusetts to run for governor.

Romney testified that he "remained on the board of the Staples Corporation and Marriott International, the LifeLike Corporation" at the time.

Yet in the Aug. 12, 2011, federal disclosure form filed as part of his presidential bid, he said, "Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. 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."

After reading the article and the posts in this thread I fail to see any contradiction except those manufactured by hostile partisans by means of intentionally misinterpreting the statements in order to create a non-existent controversy.

I'm confused.

Such was the defense of Warren G. Harding and George W. Bush.

We are beginning to see what a poor President Mitt Romney would be.

Back in January I would have never thought it possible.

You might not, but it's not exactly hard to see holes in the story. It's not like Romney hasn't had this end-goal in mind, so it shows a sloppiness.

I heard a GOP strategist talking earlier in the week, and he made a very good point. Romney's problem isn't the 10/10 knockout blow... it's the numerous 2-3/10 hits that start to add up, Bermuda/tax returns/the wife's dressage pony... etc etc.. it's not even a case of whether it's real or not - it's the perception. The perception isn't about Romney being successful in business and that haven't made him rich... that's not in question, the issue is the out of touch and looking like he's hiding something.

The Romney response to this Democratic line is NOT WORKING, saying that Romney won't apologise for success... is basically an answer to a question no one has asked. I know Romney wants to avoid detail, but unless they address those fundamental character questions about him, they're going to have a hard time, and the issue of Bain needs to be handled head-on.

The nerve of republicans to complain about this after what they did to John Kerry is infuriating...

Oh, heaven forbid double-standards and hypocrisy in the midst of an election! Avast! Avast!

You guys are showing your complete ignorance of private enterprise, the law, and a well vetted part of Mitt Romney’s career — his tenure at Bain Capital.

1) It is well established that Mitt Romney left Bain to go salvage the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.
2) It is also well established that his name remained on some SEC documents. This stems from winding down his partnership interest in Bain Capital. It is a quirk in the law. It has been well vetted.  
3) FactCheck.org, the Washington Post, and CNN Finance slap down Team Obama’s hyperbole.
4) Complete lack of sense.  In order to take you seriously we would have to accept that Romney was both working 24/7 saving the Olympics in Salt Lake City AND running an incredibly important Capitol Firm in Boston simultaneously.  If this is true, If he is capable of this, he would be no doubt the greatest president of all time.  ...wait you think this made up crap is a negative??? You don't make sense even if we take you seriously.  

SEC records don't lie and on top of that Romney himself testified that he still had ties to the
company

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-departure_n_1669006.html

I don't know if Romney is guilty or not, but I'm willing to go along with it if it means he won't be the GOP nominee!

Two Wall Street puppets and crony capitalists running against each other is at least one too many.  The Democrats are sure to nominate one, so that leaves the GOP as the only party that could give Americans a chance to vote for someone who despises Big Business as much as he or she despises Big Labor and Big Government.

So I'm pulling all the way for this scandal to topple Romney before the convention!

Maybe you missed the bold underlined sentence, so I'll reiterate it a few times:

winding down his partnership interest in Bain Capital
winding down his partnership interest in Bain Capital
winding down his partnership interest in Bain Capital
winding down his partnership interest in Bain Capital

Man leaves company to save Olympic games and... 
 ...winds down his partnership interest in the company (Bain Capital). 
Understand you can do that without running the company! 

Tony Resco buys Obama a house = nothing to see here
Romney saves the Olympics and winds down his partnership in a company in order to do so = scandal!! LOL.   

Take it down a notch. I posted Romney's own words, which were in testimony he gave to prove Massachusetts residency in order to stand for Governor. Now, if he wasn't connected to Bain then, he lied under oath then and if he was connected to Bain, then he's stretching the truth now. Either way, it appears he has honesty issues.

That either/or is ludicrous.  Maybe you don't understand what "winding down his partnership interest in Bain Capital" means.  Maybe it didn't occur to you that you can go out of town on business for an extended period of time (saving the Olympics, fighting in a war, etc) without surrendering your residency OR perhaps you need to take it down a notch and think for 5 minutes.     

I'm not trying to get into a back and forth, I just think there is more to all of this than Romney is saying.

I'm not either. 


...like what ??   He's Superman or something? 

Winding down for 3 years? Seriously?

He left for the Olympics, He probably considered returning to BAIN after the Olympics.  That was likely the plan.  He was in no Rush to liquidate his partnership in a firm he was returning to.  Instead he ran for Governor.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugYXei2xVlk&feature=player_embedded

More information

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/mitt-romney-bain-sec_n_1671819.html

It's not impossible undecided voters will have enough appreciation for nuance to see Romney as not culpable for Bain's actions despite being president and CEO in SEC filings and personally testifying that he was returning and attending Bain meetings as much as he could.  But it seems doubtful they could grasp that idea and simultaneously be so simple-minded as to hold the incumbent accountable for the bad economy without considering the GOP has been blocking his last jobs plan for over a year.

I think this quote from Obama sums it all up nicely:

Well, here's what I know, we were just talking about responsibility and as president of the United States, it's pretty clear to me that I'm responsible for folks who are working in the federal government and you know, Harry Truman said the buck stops with you."

"Now, my understanding is that Mr. Romney attested to the SEC, multiple times, that he was the chairman, CEO and president of Bain Capital and I think most Americans figure if you are the chairman, CEO and president of a company that you are responsible for what that company does."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/13/obama_says_romney_needs_to_answer_bain_questions.html

Perhaps Mitt Romney was indeed, as he says, Chairman, CEO and President of a company in which he was also the sole stockholder, and yet played no role in any of the decisions that company made. Perhaps he even signed a bunch of documents relating to deals that company made during that time, but did not read those documents, and did not express an opinion on the business matters they contained. I'm actually prepared to believe he's telling the truth about all of it.
But it's a messy story, and it's awkward, and a little embarassing, to say that you were president, chairman, CEO and sole stockholder, but took no interest in what the company did. And arguing about what his role at Bain Capital was between 1999-2002 virtually concedes what was supposed to be the bigger argument, which was that what the company was up to during that time wasn't good for American workers.
It also combines badly with his continuing refusal to share tax returns going back further than 2010. And, all in all, keeps him on the defensive.

Well, it's pretty obvious that Romney is not telling the whole truth, or at the very least witholding information. But I'm not yet prepared to believe that Romney is outright lying or attempting a cover up.

But in the end this is good for Obama, or at least bad for Romney. For the most part, Obama's record as president has been more transparent than Romney's while at Bain Capital. Wheher you like or dislike the president, you can pretty easily point to things he did or didn't do during his four years in office to back it up. Romney doesn't have that luxury. It appears that his tenure at Bain is still shrouded in uncertainty and that allows people to create their own narrative, whether it's true or false.

I encourage all of you to watch "Bogeyman: The Lee Atwater Story" which focuses heavily on the 1988 election. The Bush campaign hurled allegations at Dukakis forcing him to constantly defend himself, and in the end, if you're constantly explaining yourself it looks like you're in the wrong. To me it looks like the same thing is happening to Romney.

Mitt is like an NFL RB, eventually those hits began to add up.........

So let me get this straight: Romney is saying now to the American people "vote me because I was a do-nothing CEO"?

The sheer unwillingness from some to see as any kind of problem for Romney is mind-boggling. Once you start having to play with the semantics of a situation, you know you're playing from a defensive position, and not a strong one.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the semantics don't matter. The semantics prove that Obama is deceitful.

Misdirection is an old campaign tactic, and that's what's going on here.  Of course it temporarily helps Obama, that's why he and his campaign are doing it.  It often works, too.  There is just one catch.  Almost all misdirection is based on bs.  If you do it too much, it can backfire and ruin your own place.  We'll see what happens here.

I know some won't like this, but this tactic by the Obama campaign gets a thumbs down from me.  Maybe it will effect some voters in a close election.  But, personally, even if the allegations are in the strictest sense "true," I don't give a damn.  So what if Romney was still the CEO of Bain into 2001 or whatever and signed, as he would have had to, some papers authorizing the company's investments?  If it's meant to peg Romney as an outsourcer, all Romney has to do is point back to U.S. trade deals that have been made in the past three years.  Show me a politician who doesn't really support outsourcing and I'll show you a politician that doesn't get either major party's nomination.  If it's meant to focus on one investment that might turn off social conservatives enough to stay home on election day, I really, really doubt that will work this year.

I always get a little sick watching these kinds of fights, common and predictable  as they are.  National elections are opportunities to have national conversations about how best to solve the country's problems.  But, very often, the winners are the ones who can most successfully drown out that conversation by constructing a distorted picture of their opponent.  It's a crappy precedent, and I don't like it when anybody uses it.  Boo.      

I know ThinkProgess is a bit of a liberal shill, but here's an article from there wherein it's pointed out that Romney contradicted himself (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/13/516951/romney-interview-directly-contradicts-his-previous-statements-about-bain-tenure/) in regards to Bain.

The thing is, that Romney seems to feel that his service as governor of Massachusetts is a liability -- he certainly treats it as such. Instead, he leans very heavily on his experience with Bain Capital for the argument that he'd make a good president. That being the case, it's hardly surprising if his behavior there comes under a lot of scrutiny.

This is the most ridiculous mini-controversial ever. But it is another week where Obama's campaign has successfully kept Romney on the defensive and when you are on the defensive you are not winning, so another weekly news cycle goes to Obama.

So far the Obama campaign has shown itself more adept and nimble. I guess this is why Rupert Murdoch says Romney's team is going to lose him the election

The problem is that Romney is running on a campaign based on being a "job creator" at Bain & Capital while at the same time emphasizing very tough talk on trade and outsourcing for a Republican. He can't tow these lines when there's ample evidence to the contrary that a. his experience at Bain netted few jobs and was, for the most part, very shady b. he participated in outsourcing himself. Romney's campaign is dishonest to the core and it doesn't pain me to see Obama paint it as such.

What is your opinion of the controversy surrounding Romney's personal finances? While it is more of the same and focuses on ad hominem attacks that are unrelated to the policy dilemmas, at the very least it brings up the unfairness of our tax system (and income inequality) to light for the average voter.

More Obama lies to divert attention away from the fact he hasn't a clue on how to deal with the miserable state of America's economy.

Just ask John King and David Gergen.

()

DeadFlag and ajb,

I think I'm just articulating my own aesthetic preference about campaigning.  There is ample evidence that ad hominem attacks in politics can work successfully, especially when they enable you to paint a picture of the other guy for the voters.  The inherent danger in it is that it can backfire.  And it tends to backfire either when it's overplayed or in elections that are primarily about the economy.  Bush 41 tried to paint a picture of Clinton based on silly stuff too, but the economy, though it had already begun a slow recovery, still sucked and Bush got booted out of the White House anyway.  I found Bush 41's tactics against Dukakis and 43's against Kerry fairly odious, but they did work.  I think maybe that makes Democrats a little too eager to use them also, since it feels like just deserts or like a Democrat for once has a pair enough to go that route.  

I think creating these kinds of subtexts in campaigns, on either side, doesn't do any favors for the country or the POTUS trying to govern it after the election is over.  If Romney wins, it's on the basis of the supposedly crappy national government intruding too much on free markets and hampering our recovery--but if he wins, we still need a sensible national health care reform policy, sensible ways for government to aid in the recovery process through education reform and targeted stimulus and effective regulation to keep an eye on financing shenanigans and so forth.  Now, if Obama wins this way, it's on the basis of the fact that we shouldn't trust investors or big business--but if he wins, we still need investment and economic growth to create jobs and more needed government revenue and so forth.  Success is based on the right kind of interdependence between government and the private sector, and everyone keeps rhetorically pushing for just one handle on the motorcycle.  So, when either guy wins and then has to revert to governing mode and make recourse to things they have denounced in the campaign, everybody thinks they're turncoats and they have less leverage to make deals and so on.  I care about governing more than campaigning.  Some say that you can't govern if you don't win--which is true.  But at the same time, the way you win can limit how you can govern too.

I disagree with those who are saying this is a non-issue. When Team Obama says, "Romeny is either a liar or a felon" and Team Romeny's response is, "It's complicated" I don't think that's good for Romney's position with independent voters. Rightly or wrongly, charges like that need to be rebutted clearly and fairly swiftly to keep them from becoming stuck in potential voters' minds.

If Romney does not come out with a strong and straightforward account of his time at Bain Capital in the near future, I think he's in danger of being swift-boated with it.

The hacks seem to be multiplying across the Fruited Plain like rabbits in Australia.

It is a huge issue. The question is whether Mitt Romney was more predator or humanitarian.

Fair enough. But I think Romney also failed on this issue, then. His decision to respond to questions about outsourcing and Bain's business activities between 1999-2002 with the claim that he wasn't involved in those decisions, which was not only a tactical error, but a failed opportunity for him to make the economic case he must believe in, that deals like these are just part of capitalism doing its job, and that in the aggregate the American economy is better off for being regulated in such a way that these deals are possible, even if certain individuals lose their jobs.
That's an intellectually consistent, if politically risky, case. But instead, Romney chose to distance himself from his own company's business activities -- a choice which not only looks awkward given the SEC filings, but which also cedes the entire discussion of economic principles to the Democrats.
Overall, the arguments in favor of (relatively) unfettered capitalism take the form of acknowledging that some people will get hurt, but that the social benefits outweigh the social costs. But I find that, rather than make this case, Republican politicians increasingly deny that there are social costs at all, and respond to questions about those costs by shouting about how Democrats hate freedom and are jealous of the rich.

The quote that Obama was stretching for, before he fell on his rhetorical face again, was "The buck stops here".  And it wasn't famous because Harry Truman said it.  It was the wording of a sign on the dead white Klansman's desk.

()

Frankly, I'll bet dollars to donuts that Obama doesn't know what "the buck" means in that adage.

As for the political effect of it, we can tell the Romney Campaign thinks the story is damaging based on the way they uncharacteristically scrambled a slew of interviews in response to it.  I'll say it again.  Voters have a range of levels of attentiveness and sophistication.  The fact that Romney was the president and CEO, contradicting his own claims, while Bain got in bed with outsourcing pioneers is going to hurt him.  It's obvious.  There may be a segment of undecided voters (a minority probably) who are able to make distinction between Romney's being CEO of Bain and in total control of Bain, but that level of sophistication will simultaneously allow them to see the distinction between being President with a hostile congress and being in full control of economic policy.  And Romney's case looks worse.  Even setting aside the fact that Romney was the co-founder and CEO of Bain, there's no reason to believe he was unaware or had any objection to what Bain was doing from 1999-2002.  What about it seems even slightly inconsistent with his philosophy and approach to business?  On the other hand, because of divided government, there are elements of economic policy diametrically opposed to Obama's views.  But I don't know most voters view that kind of nuance.