Documents reveal Romney stayed longer at Bain Capital

[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.

[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.

[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.