Documents reveal Romney stayed longer at Bain Capital

[Invisible Obama]

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.

[AmericanNation]

I'm not trying to get into a back and forth,

I'm not either. 

I just think there is more to all of this than Romney is saying.

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

[Zioneer]

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.     

Winding down for 3 years? Seriously?

[AmericanNation]

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.      

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.  

[netzero19]

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

[Invisible Obama]

More information

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

SEC files include at least six instances of Romney signing documents after February 1999, proving -- unless the signatures were forged -- that his claim to not have "been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way" is wrong.

Most of the documents reference Romney as the "reporting person." Most of the filings were first reported by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, although he noted them in an opinion column otherwise dedicated to demonstrating that Kessler was correct weeks ago when he wrote that Romney had parted ways with Bain in 1999.

For instance, in April 1999, Romney signed documents related to a Bain deal with Pirod Holdings.

In November of that year, his signature appears on documents connected to a deal with Stericycle.

In January 2000, he signed paperwork for a deal with VMM Merger Corp.

His John Hancock appears on ChipPAC Inc. documents in February 2001.

That same month, Romney's signature can be found on paperwork connected to a Bain deal with Integrated Circuit Systems Inc.

In February 2000, he signed documents related to a deal with Wesley Jessen Visioncare Inc.

In 2002, the Boston Globe quoted Bain employee Marc Wolpow saying, "I reported directly to Mitt Romney ... You can’t be CEO of Bain Capital and say, 'I really don’t know what my guys were doing.'"

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

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.

[ajb]

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.

[cope1989]

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.

[Yank2133]

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

[Landslide Lyndon]

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

[Secretary Polnut]

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.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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

[anvi]

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.      

[Zioneer]

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 in regards to Bain.

[ajb]

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.      

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.

[Likely Voter]

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

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

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.      

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.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

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.

[realisticidealist]

[anvi]

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.

[Runeghost]

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.

[Torie]

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

[pbrower2a]

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

[ajb]

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.

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.