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.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. 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….

  2. In a corporation, ownership and control are two different things. Always have been, always will be.

  3. SKI says:

    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.

  4. SKI says:

    @Doug Mataconis: True but he was Chairman of Board, CEO and President – all positions that REQUIRE exercising oversight and control.

  5. Scott says:

    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.

  6. al-Ameda says:

    “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?”

    Gets to the heart of the matter with respect to Romney’s involvement in Bain since the late 1990’s, don’t you think?

  7. mantis says:

    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.

    Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investment,” Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter asserted.

    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.

  8. Craigo says:

    @Doug Mataconis: These documents also list him as president, CEO, and chairman.

  9. Loviatar says:

    @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.

  10. john personna says:

    @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.

  11. @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.

  12. Tsar Nicholas says:

    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.

  13. PD Shaw says:

    @Loviatar: Since the answer appears to be yes, why won’t the administration arrest Romney?

  14. @john personna:

    If it was a delegated control situation, which seems plausible, then Romney didn’t legally misrepresent anything.

  15. john personna says:

    @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.

  16. Jeremy R says:

    DM:

    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.

    From the article:

    “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony, or he was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the American people to avoid responsibility for some of the consequences of his investment,” Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter asserted.

    “If he’s legally responsible for everything that happened inside those Bain deals, seems to me that he’s also politically responsible for the consequences of those deals in terms of people losing their jobs, losing their pensions and their health care, and American jobs being shipped overseas,” she said.

    —-

    DM:

    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.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec

    In November 1999, Bain Capital and Madison Dearborn Partners, a Chicago-based private equity firm, filed with the SEC a Schedule 13D, which lists owners of publicly traded companies, noting that they had jointly purchased $75 million worth of shares in Stericycle, a fast-growing player in the medical-waste industry. (That April, Stericycle had announced plans to buy the medical-waste businesses of Browning Ferris Industries and Allied Waste Industries.) The SEC filing lists assorted Bain-related entities that were part of the deal, including Bain Capital (BCI), Bain Capital Partners VI (BCP VI), Sankaty High Yield Asset Investors (a Bermuda-based Bain affiliate), and Brookside Capital Investors (a Bain offshoot). And it notes that Romney was the “sole shareholder, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of BCI, BCP VI Inc., Brookside Inc. and Sankaty Ltd.”

    The document also states that Romney “may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power with respect to” 2,116,588 shares of common stock in Stericycle “in his capacity as sole shareholder” of the Bain entities that invested in the company. That was about 11 percent of the outstanding shares of common stock. (The whole $75 million investment won Bain, Romney, and their partners 22.64 percent of the firm’s stock—the largest bloc among the firm’s owners.) The original copy of the filing was signed by Romney.

    Another SEC document filed November 30, 1999, by Stericycle also names Romney as an individual who holds “voting and dispositive power” with respect to the stock owned by Bain.

  17. bk says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    In a corporation, ownership and control are two different things. Always have been, always will be.

    So what? They often overlap, but then again, that observation wouldn’t fit your narrative.

  18. Craigo says:

    @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”?

  19. SKI says:

    @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.

  20. john personna says:

    @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.”

  21. bk says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: I’ve taken all those courses, and have substantial experience in those areas. What is your point?

  22. al-Ameda says:

    @mantis:

    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.

    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.

  23. SKI says:

    @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.

  24. slothrop says:

    @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?

  25. Loviatar says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    First, I don’t even consider myself a Republican.

    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.

    ——————-

    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,

    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.

  26. Loviatar,

    Please, tell me which Republicans I’ve donated to.

  27. john personna says:

    BTW, perfect “Etch-A-Sketch moment” or what?

  28. legion says:

    @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.

  29. Loviatar says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Please, tell me which Republicans I’ve donated to.

    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.”

  30. PD Shaw says:

    @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.

  31. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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…

  32. Jay_Dubbs says:

    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.

  33. Gromitt Gunn says:

    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?

  34. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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?

  35. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself?

  36. al-Ameda says:

    @mantis:

    Anyway, I wish I could get paid six figures a year for a job I didn’t do.

    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.

  37. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Doug, why the hell are you engaging the trolls and playing along with the ad hominem diversions?

    Because it’s good for ratings and generates significant income – why else?

  38. wr says:

    @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…

  39. Nick says:

    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?

  40. rudderpedals says:

    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.

  41. PD Shaw says:

    @PD Shaw: I guess I’m not sure if we’re talking about Bain Capital, Bain & Co., a coproration, an incorporated partnership, an LLC.

  42. al-Ameda says:

    @rudderpedals:

    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.

    And of course it would change no minds at all.

  43. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  44. PD Shaw says:

    @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.

  45. jukeboxgrad says:

    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.

    Mitt wants to take credit for job gains that occurred long after he was involved, but doesn’t want to be held responsible for job losses that occurred after he was directly involved. How does that make sense?

    It doesn’t. How come no one anywhere (that I can find) has noticed this problem?

  46. Tsar Nicholas says:

    @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.

  47. rudderpedals says:

    @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

  48. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    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.

    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?

  49. @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

  50. Moosebreath says:

    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.”

  51. Dean says:

    If the Boston Globe is correct here, why is the Obama-appointed SEC chairman silent? Shouldn’t we be hearing calls for an investigation?

  52. mantis says:

    @Dean:

    If the Boston Globe is correct here

    Correct about what? Direct quotes preferred.

  53. anjin-san says:

    ignore the possibility that Romney was not actively managing the company even while retaining the titles

    So they were simply misleading their clients by claiming an involvement by the principle that did not, in fact, exist?

  54. anjin-san says:

    Romney left active involvement in Bain with almost no notice — see the above reference to how Bain nearly collapsed when he left.

    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…

  55. PJ says:

    @Loviatar:

    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.

    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.

  56. PJ says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Please, tell me which Republicans I’ve donated to.

    Rand Paul is a Republican.

  57. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    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.

  58. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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?

  59. PD Shaw says:

    @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.

  60. mantis says:

    @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.

  61. anjin-san says:

    from your won post dipwad:

    Bain nearly collapsed when he left.

    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?

  62. Loviatar says:

    @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

  63. mattb says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    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.

    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.

  64. legion says:

    @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.

    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?

    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.

  65. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  66. john personna says:

    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?

  67. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    112 hours… how many rounds of golf is that?

    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.

  68. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: Odd how you’re more concerned with how Romney spends his own money than how Obama’s spending ours. Just how is his our Green Jobs portfolio doing, anyway?

  69. Herb says:

    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.

  70. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    @al-Ameda: Odd how you’re more concerned with how Romney spends his own money than how Obama’s spending ours. Just how is his our Green Jobs portfolio doing, anyway?

    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.)

  71. john personna says:

    @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?

  72. legion says:

    @Herb:

    If this story doesn’t check out, don’t expect any apologies or regrets from the Obama campaign.

    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?

  73. legion says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Odd how you’re more concerned with how Romney spends his own money than how Obama’s spending ours.

    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.

  74. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    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.

  75. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Allahpundit at Hot Air has a fascinating question about this: what would Romney gain by deception in this case?

    Well, on this particular issue, Mr. Romney could be just a kind of a fvckup, you know.

  76. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    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.

    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.

  77. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  78. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  79. jpe says:

    If yes, then the story is true and Mitt Romney has lied to the American people and committed several felonies.

    He never said he wasn’t president & CEO; he said he wasn’t involved in management, ie, he delegated management.

  80. paladin says:

    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!

  81. john personna says:

    @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?

  82. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    there was a time when “dropping everything to answer the nation’s call” was considered a good thing

    I guess that must be why Mitt and his five sons all have zero military service.

  83. Kathy Kattenburg says:

    Doug,

    What is “mindless populism”?

  84. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.”

  85. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    @sam: Yeah, built a hugely successful company, then left to save the Olympics. What a total F-up he is.

    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.

  86. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: As I alluded to in a different thread, that puts him in the same company as FDR, Clinton, Obama, Biden…

  87. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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?

  88. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    You’ve got more buttons than I realized.

  89. al-Ameda says:

    @sam:

    So, how about Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate, anyway?

    Or the fact that Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, right?

  90. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    @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.

    I’d say that the Federal Government caused the Games to happen.

  91. Septimius says:

    “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.”

    Game, set, match–Jenos Idanian #13

  92. anjin-san says:

    Yeah, built a hugely successful company, then left it in a shambles to save the Olympics to get federal $$$ for his home state and advance his political ambitions.

    FTFY

  93. anjin-san says:

    there was a time when “dropping everything to answer the nation’s call” was considered a good thing

    Cheney’s five deferments make perfect sense now…

  94. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    that puts him in the same company as FDR, Clinton, Obama, Biden

    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.

  95. Console says:

    So Romney wasn’t in charge of sucking companies dry and outsourcing them… he just made money off it.

    Good luck with that explanation.

  96. wr says:

    @Septimius: “Game, set, match–Jenos Idanian #13”

    The losers of the world have a new king.

  97. Kathy Kattenburg says:

    @sam:

    And some of them are not connected to the source of power.

  98. C. Clavin says:

    So Romney was in charge but he wasn’t in charge.
    And the etch-a-sketch metaphor is meaningless.
    Right.

  99. jukeboxgrad says:

    The basic problem is not complicated, although a lot of people are trying really hard to muddy the waters.

    doug:

    both Romney and Bain have said that he ended operation involvement in the company after 1999

    They have said something stronger than that. At least twice, Mitt personally signed official forms containing this statement:

    Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999

    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?

  100. C. Clavin says:

    The effort Doug makes in defending someone he supports and doesn’t support is dizzying.

  101. rodney dill says:

    @Septimius:

    “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.”

    Game, set, match–Jenos Idanian #13

    Intercepted!

  102. C. Clavin says:

    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.

  103. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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?

  104. C. Clavin says:

    “…mindless populism combined with exaggeration and the assumption of facts that haven’t been proven…”

    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.

  105. C. Clavin says:

    Jenos is breaking out the Jordana Brewster fantasies again.

  106. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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).

  107. C. Clavin says:

    Shorter Jenos….
    Fast and furious and Ayers and, and , and, oh yeah…SEC Documents are meaningless she Jenos and Doug deem them meaningless.
    Sigh.

  108. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    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).

    Interesting how you left out Romney’s prep school hazing and bullying of a gay student, why?

  109. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @C. Clavin: No, Cliff, the SEC documents are NOT worthless. They just don’t mean what you desperately wish they did.

  110. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  111. C. Clavin says:

    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.

  112. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    Romney did absolutely nothing wrong in this case, and actually did the right thing.

    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 SEC documents are NOT worthless. They just don’t mean what you desperately wish they did

    The documents which describe him as Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President actually mean that he wasn’t those things?

    if you wanna bring up Romney’s non-service… that’s ancient history

    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.

  113. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  114. C. Clavin says:

    But I hear he really understands how the economy works!!!

  115. C. Clavin says:

    So Jenos…you are saying he lied on SEC documents?

  116. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    He kept his name there so he had the option of going back.

    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.

  117. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  118. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  119. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    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.

  120. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    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.

    Interesting, substitute “Obama” for “Romney” and you actually have a worthwhile observation concerning Obama, and of the irrational vilification of him by conservatives.

  121. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Unlike Ayers’ planned bombings, which were a definite pattern.

    And of course Obama was helping Ayers to plan these bombings, all the while Romney was hazing gay students at a prep school.

  122. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    Romney, when he got the call about the Olympics, effectively took an “indefinite leave of absence.”

    Except that’s not what he said in the forms I cited. He said this:

    Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999

    “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.

    He completely gave up any and all involvement in Bain’s day to day operations

    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.

    So the “official” date of his departure was 2002.

    If he didn’t officially depart until 2002, then it was fraudulent for him to claim that he “retired” in 1999.

    But he’d been, for all intents and purposes, gone since 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.

    So for him to say he “left” Bain at that point is also accurate — from a practical, if not legalistic, sense.

    Next up you might as well tell us about the meaning of “is.”

    We all know divorced people.

    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.

    Romney effectively ended his relationship with Bain in 1999.

    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 doesn’t give a rat’s ass if the guy with the titles actually does his job or not.

    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.

    what benefit would Romney gain in “lying” about this at the time

    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.

  123. legion says:

    @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!

  124. legion says:

    @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.

  125. anjin-san says:

    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?

  126. jukeboxgrad says:

    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:

    Romney And His Bain Capital Partners Turned Huge Profit Before Exiting DDi Position As Price Crashed … Romney Spokesman Claimed He Had “No Knowledge” Of Bain-DDi Dealings. “Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman claimed the governor had ‘no knowledge’ of the deal, and noted Romney left Bain in 1999.” … Romney Signed SEC Documents For DDi Sale And Retained Interest In Three Bain Funds Involved In DDi Transaction. “Romney had gone to Salt Lake City in early 1999 to run the Winter Olympics. But he signed the SEC’s necessary documents for Bain when his company – and he as an individual shareholder – sold their stakes in DDi in the fall of 2000 and in the winter and spring of 2001. SEC records indicate that Romney remained well into 2001 as a general partner in three of the four Bain funds that are involved in the DDi transactions.” (Frank Phillips, “Romney Investment Surfaces In Probe,” The Boston Globe, 8/19/03)

    Romney Listed On SEC Records As Bain Capital “General Partner” In 2000-01 When DDi Sales Went Through. “Records filed at the SEC show Romney signed insider trading forms on behalf of Bain’s venture capital funds, as general partner, when the funds sold the DDi holdings in 2000 and 2001.…” (Frank Phillips, “Bain Capital Deal Sparks Concerns,” The Boston Globe, 8/20/03)

    … ‘I left Bain long before the events,’ Romney said in his first, but brief, public comments about DDi Corp. …” (Frank Phillips, “Romney Says Profit Unknown In DDi Sale,” The Boston Globe, 8/21/03)

    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?

  127. Buzz Buzz says:

    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.

  128. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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?

  129. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  130. DRS says:

    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.

  131. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  132. jukeboxgrad says:

    buzz:

    The Democrats and the OTB drones will keep citing sources like Mother Jones, Huffington Post, and Talking Points Memo to support their claim

    The sources that count are the SEC papers that Mitt signed for Bain after he had supposedly “retired.”

    Romney will rebut with sources like Fortune, Politifact and the Washington Post fact checker

    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.

  133. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    Romney stopped “working” at Bain in 1999

    Signing SEC papers for Bain definitely counts as “working.”

    he was “hands-off” within two weeks of getting the call from the Olympics

    If he was “hands-off” then he must have signed those papers with his toes.

    Romney channeled every bit of his time, energy, and focus into the Olympics, sparing nothing for Bain.

    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.”

    Romney’s departure was so complete that Bain found itself struggling to get by without him.

    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.

    Romney knew the Olympics gig was, by definition, temporary.

    Right. Which is why he didn’t give up his existing jobs of Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of Bain.

    after the Olympics, Romney considered his options: go back to Bain, or find a new course.

    He didn’t need to “go back to Bain” because he had never left.

    Romney chose to go into politics, and then formally severed his ties with Bain

    He is still receiving income from Bain, so he has still not “severed his ties with Bain.”

    Romney effectively retired from Bain in 1999

    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.

    because that was the last time he actually worked there

    Signing SEC papers for Bain in 2001-2002 counts as “actually worked.”

    Kimberlin

    We already know you’re eager to change the subject. You don’t have to keep proving it over and over again.

  134. 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.

  135. 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.

  136. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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!”

  137. @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.

  138. sam says:

    Yo, Jenos and (your Charlie McCarthy, Septimus), what think you of this?

    An Age-Old Ruse

    That’s the way Mitt Romney, back in 1994, described putting one’s assets in a so-called blind trust. But it’s 2012, and the ruse looks pretty serviceable.

    Never mind that Mitt Romney has an estimated net worth as high as $250 million, or that some of it has been invested in offshore accounts of a sort never held by any previous presidential contender. He assures us that his assets are held in a “blind trust” over which he exerts no control.

    But just how blind are such trusts, anyway? In Romney’s case, apparently not quite blinkered enough to keep his trustee—who is also his personal lawyer and longtime friend Bradford Malt—from investing more than $10 million of Romney’s money in an investment fund managed by Romney’s son Tagg.

    In 1994, when he was running for the Senate against Ted Kennedy, Romney attacked Kennedy for disclaiming any responsibility for his investments, declaring at one point: “The blind trust is an age-old ruse.” He takes a different tack today, but even his own spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, has acknowledged that if he’s elected, he’ll move his wealth into a new, stricter blind trust, governed by federal rules.

    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 .

  139. @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.

  140. Jenos Idanian #13 says:
  141. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And he probably stole my strawberries!

    Not really sure you want to venture in Queegland given the loonies on your side.

  142. sam says:

    @john personna:

    I think that’s kind of a distraction.

    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.

  143. @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.”

  144. @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.

  145. sam says:

    @john personna:

    Come on, you’ve got to see it.

    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.

  146. rodney dill says:

    @john personna: Actually the lawyer makes a lot of the points you just made.

    Still, I wish that the Romney campaign would expand its defense of Romney’s Bain connection. It is understandable that the campaign responded to Obama’s false advertising with the simplest, most definitive answer: Romney had nothing to do with the events that were the subject of Obama’s ads. But much more could be said; and, after all, Romney did own Bain for a time after 1999, even if the partnership group was in the process of buying him out. I would like to see the Romney campaign take on more directly Obama’s ridiculous claims about “outsourcing”–which the AP apparently doesn’t understand any better than Barack Obama does–”shipping jobs overseas,” and so on. Maybe the American people are hopelessly ignorant; that is the Obama campaign’s working assumption. But Bain Capital is and always has been a fine firm with which Romney is rightly proud to be associated.

    Except for the “I’m In charge” part, which wasn’t true, as Romney wasn’t running things at that point in time.

  147. Modulo Myself says:

    @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.

  148. @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 …

  149. @rodney dill:

    I missed that, but I think the lawyer lies with “most definitive answer”.

    See Henry Bloget.

    As “Chairman, CEO, and President” of Bain, he damn well would have remained responsible for these decisions. In which case, saying he had “left” and implying that he had no involvement or responsibility whatsoever is highly misleading.

    The CEO of a car company may not have input into the decision of what specific cars the company makes or where it makes them (though he or she obviously could if s/he wanted), but this CEO is unequivocally responsible for these decisions.

    Similarly, if Romney was CEO of Bain at the time it made the Stericycle decision, as well as the company layoffs and other unpleasant facts that Candidate Romney would like to disown, he certainly was responsible for these decisions.

    So, enough with walking a fine line rhetorically.

  150. sam says:

    Yeah, well, death by a thousand cuts:

    Romney Testified He Maintained Business Ties During Olympics

    Mitt Romney testified to Massachusetts officials in 2002 that he maintained business ties during his Olympics work, undermining his argument that he had no connection to Bain Capital or related companies after 1999. Notably, his campaign has refused to deny whether or not he ever held meetings with Bain during his time in Salt Lake City.

    Romney, who at the time was trying to convince the state Ballot Law Commission that he should be allowed to run for office in Massachusetts despite living in Utah the last three years, did not directly address his work with Bain Capital. But, in testimony obtained by the Huffington Post, Romney said that he returned home for “a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth.”

    Romney noted that he remained an active member of the board at Staples, where Bain was an early investor and a company Romney frequently cites on the trail, and LifeLike, a toy company where Bain was heavily invested at the time.

    A spokesman for the Romney campaign declined to answer questions from Politico regarding whether Romney attended any meetings in person or phone with Bain during his Olympic leave, saying only that he had no “active role.”

    Cuts being self-inflicted.

  151. @Modulo Myself:

    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.

    Good so far …

    He had nothing to do with what they did and yet he knew what was going on.

    … 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.

  152. Scott says:

    @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.

  153. sam says:

    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.

  154. Modulo Myself says:

    @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.

  155. Stonetools says:

    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.

  156. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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!”

  157. @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?

  158. 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?”

  159. rodney dill says:

    @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.

  160. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    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!”

    Are you that fvcking stupid? This ain’t beanbag, you know. And as for “dishonest”, go look up petitio principii.

  161. @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.

  162. @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”?

  163. 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.

  164. Moosebreath says:

    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”.

  165. rodney dill says:

    @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.

  166. Herb says:

    @rodney dill:

    “I guess now we’re gonna have a bunch of ‘bainers’”

    Ha. One Boehner is plenty….thank ya very much.

  167. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    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.

  168. rodney dill says:

    @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.

  169. rodney dill says:

    @Herb: One bainer would be more than enough, but here we have a plethora.

    (good pun)

  170. @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!

  171. 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.

  172. rodney dill says:

    @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.

  173. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  174. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    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.

    I love it. The “Well, you guys…” defense. BTW, did you miss my Friday, July 13, 2012 at 08:42?

  175. Scott O says:

    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?

  176. @rodney dill:

    I’m not disputing stuff like this, rodney:

    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.”

    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.”

  177. rodney dill says:

    @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.

  178. @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.

  179. @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?

  180. Let’s repeat the high road:

    “Damn straight, Bain was my company, and did great things.”

  181. 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.”

  182. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    It means that Bain did something bad, something Romney had to disavow.

    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.

  183. PD Shaw says:

    “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.

  184. C. Clavin says:

    Did Jenos really type:

    “…while I’m talking reality…”

    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.

  185. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    This thread is a summation of how Obama got elected in 2008:

    You can’t challenge the accomplishments of a man who has none.

  186. @rodney dill:

    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.

    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.

  187. rodney dill says:

    @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.

  188. Scott O says:

    @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.

  189. @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.

  190. C. Clavin says:

    “…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:

    “…the point I’ve made there in the past is, if you’re a head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money. It’s not to create jobs. It’s not even to create a successful business – it’s to make sure that you’re maximizing returns for your investor. Now that’s appropriate. That’s part of the American way. That’s part of the system. But that doesn’t necessarily make you qualified to think about the economy as a whole, because as president, my job is to think about the workers. My job is to think about communities, where jobs have been outsourced…”

  191. @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.

  192. C. Clavin says:

    “…You can’t challenge the accomplishments of a man who has none…”

    GM is alive and bin Laden is dead.
    Next stupid comment…

  193. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    This thread is a summation of how Obama got elected in 2008:

    You can’t challenge the accomplishments of a man who has none.

    No, this thread is a master’s course, conducted by you, in arm-waving.

  194. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    That is completely nuts, that the Republican party would cave to “all successful businessmen are bad,”

    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.

  195. @rodney dill:

    You’ll have to show me where the Republican party caved to this.

    Why do you think we are at 190 comments?

    It’s because the right doesn’t want Romney to own Bain, 2000-2002.

  196. (You can’t make this stuff up! Right to left: “you can’t say Romney knew what Bain was up to!“)

  197. (Or even funnier: “It is a ‘bainer plot’ that Romney was any way responsible for Bain, 2000-2002”)

  198. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    Why do you think we are at 190 comments?

    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)

    It’s because the right doesn’t want Romney to own what the Bainers will tell the general electorate what Bain, 2000-2002 means.

    FTFY

  199. Scott says:

    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.

  200. rodney dill says:

    (Or even funnier: “It is a ‘bainer plot’ that Romney was any way responsible for Bain, 2000-2002″)

    … and actually pretty close to the truth.

  201. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  202. @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.

  203. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  204. 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.”

  205. mantis says:

    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.

  206. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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!

  207. sam says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    “Responsible,” as in “actually made the decisions himself on a day-to-day basis?” Nope.

    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?

  208. rodney dill says:

    @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.

  209. @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?

  210. mantis says:

    @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.

  211. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    you are arguing a crazy position.

    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.

  212. Moosebreath says:

    @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?

  213. rodney dill says:

    @john personna: I think Jenos answered the responsibility question pretty well. I just don’t know why he responded to me.

  214. MBunge says:

    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

  215. Herb says:

    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.

  216. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  217. @rodney dill:

    None of the links you posted argued the position you did. When I wrote:

    (Or even funnier: “It is a ‘bainer plot’ that Romney was any way responsible for Bain, 2000-2002″)

    You replied:

    … and actually pretty close to the truth.

    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.

  218. @rodney dill:

    LOL rodney. You normally give Jenos some distance. That in itself should be warning to you.

  219. @mantis:

    BTW, at that link I think mantis divided the issue pretty well:

    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.

    That is sane. Saying that he was not “in any way responsible” is insane.

  220. rodney dill says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: It wasn’t the lack of hostility that threw me off, just the lack of context. (at least from my view)

  221. wr says:

    @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?

  222. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    Romney was not in “any way responsible”

    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.

  223. @rodney dill:

    You said “actually pretty close to the truth” right here.

  224. PJ says:

    Mitt’s story doesn’t add up

    When Romney agreed in early 1999 to run the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, there was no reason for him to think he’d jump right back into politics when the games were over – and every reason for him to assume he’d return to his private equity work. In fact, by 1999 he’d already taken two similar leaves of absence, one to run Bain and Company in 1991 and 1992 and another when he campaigned for the U.S. Senate from November 1993 to November 1994. After each of those leaves, he came right back to Bain Capital.

    Romney now argues that February 1999 should be considered his exit date from Bain, and that he ceased to have any input into the company’s activities after that point. But it’s important to remember the circumstances under which he first made that claim.

    Good read.

  225. @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.

  226. Michael says:

    Mitt Romney’s Own 2002 Testimony Undermines Bain Departure Claim

    WASHINGTON — 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.”

    So…was he lying then, or is he lying now?

  227. PJ says:

    @Michael:

    So…was he lying then, or is he lying now?

    It’s Romney, so the most likely answer is c, all of the above.

  228. Gromitt Gunn says:

    @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…

  229. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    You said “actually pretty close to the truth” right here.

    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.

  230. anjin-san says:

    You know what a Chief Executive Officer does, and is responsible for, right?

    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.

  231. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    Apparently you are coming around to the second weak position

    (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)

  232. @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.

  233. @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.

  234. MBunge says:

    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

  235. OzarkHillbilly says:

    230 and counting and not a single mind changed. Now that is a day well spent.

  236. MBunge says:

    @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

  237. al-Ameda says:

    Bottomiline, Romney is reduced to the Sergeant Schultz defense of his role at Bain after 1999, “I know nothing, nothing.”

  238. anjin-san says:

    “I know nothing, nothing.”

    Well, that and arguing about what the meaning of “is” is…

  239. rudderpedals says:

    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.

  240. C. Clavin says:

    @ John Personna…

    “…So why are you afraid to let Bain, 2000-2002, stick to Romney?”

    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.

  241. C. Clavin says:

    maybe it’s spelled “onesy”?
    I’m not sure.

  242. C. Clavin says:

    Jenos…check the tag…does it have the correct spelling?

  243. jan says:

    @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.

  244. PJ says:

    @rudderpedals:

    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.

    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?

  245. john personna says:

    @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.

  246. john personna says:

    @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.

  247. MBunge says:

    @jan: “It sure goes to show how hope and change has morphed into character assassination and a very twisted campaign strategy.”

    You can only respect people who play hardball when they don’t whine about you doing the same. The offended response from rightwingers when the other side plays politics is a sign of profound immaturity.

    Mike

  248. wr says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: “230 and counting and not a single mind changed.”

    Why limit it to 230? Has any discussion in any comment forum anywhere on the internet ever changed a single mind?

  249. john personna says:

    @wr:

    We might suspect some of the drop-outs to have moderated their stance. I think that’s they way it works. It goes from arguing strenuously, to arguing more calmly, to keeping quiet. What we shouldn’t expect is for someone to flip and argue firmly the opposite position in any near-future thread. In a year or two, maybe 😉

    I think we all change, but slowly.

  250. Raoul says:

    This is as bad as it gets- Romney wants us to believe he didn’t do anything for 100K a year- talking about getting free stuff- and this is the most charitable explanation! No wonder Bain Capital imploded his prior federal campaigns. Well done elephants.

  251. jan says:

    Barak Obama words spoken at the Denver ’08 Democratic Convention:

    “If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. Make a big election about small things.

    These are prescient observations that are certainly applicable to Obama’s own current run for reelection to the presidency — especially the part about dwelling on small things during a big election.

  252. C. Clavin says:

    “…show how hope and change has morphed into character assassination and a very twisted campaign strategy…”

    In the best case possible Romney maintained technical and legal control of Bain while delegating his duties…ipso facto giving approval to, and profiting handsomely from,a company that outsourced jobs and disposed of aborted fetuses …but stating those facts is charachter assassination???
    WTF planet are you from?
    Romney wants to have it both ways…he wants to reap huge benefits from the activities of this company…and at the same time be totally immune from the activities of this company.
    People like Jan and Jenos and Doug want him to have it both ways. And because they have no real way to argue facts…they resort to claims of “charachter assassination”…which is the intellectual equivilant of the “class warfare” or “uncertainty” memes.

  253. C. Clavin says:

    “…dwelling on small things during a big election…”

    How is outsourcing jobs and devastating entire communities a small thing???
    Jesus-god you are dumb.

  254. C. Clavin says:

    @ John Personna…
    Hey…I don’t care what Stericycle did…but I’m also not a Republican bent on controling the reproductive organs of all American women.

  255. anjin-san says:

    Make a big election about small things.

    Character is actually a big thing. Folks are waiting for Romney to show some. As in the “haircutting” incident, Romney is waffling, evading, and generally trying to have it both ways.

  256. al-Ameda says:

    @jan:

    It sure goes to show how hope and change has morphed into character assassination and a very twisted campaign strategy.

    This sort of looks like a self-inflicted CEO wound to me. If Romney cannot explain this one then …. oh, nevermind, he can always blame the SEC for his Bain filing.

  257. wr says:

    @jan: Well, once every attempt to refute the charges against Romney have been shot down, I guess the only thing left to do is tsk-tsk sadly about how mean it was to bring them up in the first place.

  258. al-Ameda says:

    @jan:

    These are prescient observations that are certainly applicable to Obama’s own current run for reelection to the presidency — especially the part about dwelling on small things during a big election.

    Small things like: Was Romney, in his role at Bain, a ‘job creator’ or a very successful predatory investor who made hundreds of millions of dollars by leveraging the acquisition of companies, stripping away assets, and laying off American workers?

  259. Tsar Nicholas says:

    OMG, there are well over 250 comments on this non-story of a story. Yikes.

    In any event, one of the greatest ironies of the Globe’s story — in the vein of a tragic farce — is that the Globe’s editors and reporters are so loopy they would not be able even to grasp the irony of a hit piece that directly pertains to corporate governance and related issues.

    The Globe is owned by the New York Times Co. The Sulzberger family for generations has owned a vast controlling stake of the New York Times Co.’s shares. Do the dolts over at the Globe actually believe that “Pinch” Sulzberger, the Chairman of the Times Co., has any day-to-day control over the operations of their newspaper? I mean, come on, earth to the Globe: Being a corporate board chairman does not mean that you sit around running the details of the operation. Cluestick, anyone?

    Concerning the money issue, that might be the biggest farce of all. The New York Times Co. like any major corporation pays out mondo dollars every year in deferred compensation to its senior executives. It’s standard operating procedure for any major corporation. Also, if the CEO of New York Times Co. were tapped for some high-profile gig (oh, say, running an entire Olympiad) not only would the Times Co. continue paying that person they’d do so in a heartbeat. Why wouldn’t they? That sort of thing brings in publicity and goodwill for any company, whether they’re selling newspapers or flipping turnarounds.

    This really is a joke of a story. At a certain level it reminds me of when the Globe and pretty much every other liberal newsrag out there was banging the drum for the Democrats’ union card check legislation, literally at the same time the New York Times Co. publicly announced that it would shutter the Globe and put it out of business unless the Globe’s unionized employees took massive pay and benefits cuts. Again, liberals are so loopy they couldn’t even grasp the irony. The same holds true for this Bain Capital nonsense.

  260. al-Ameda says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    230 and counting and not a single mind changed. Now that is a day well spent.

    We ARE opened-minded here at OTB.

  261. MBunge says:

    @jan: “especially the part about dwelling on small things during a big election.”

    One of the BIG reasons for our current mess is America’s business elite.
    Romney’s claim to be one of those elite is his BIG reason why he should be President.
    What’s SMALL is trying to claim that Romney should be held accountable for the actions of his own company.

    Mike

  262. anjin-san says:

    Shorter Jan

    “Romney has made Bain a centerpiece of his campaign, but it’s mean to take a hard look at what actually happened there. Oh, that and liberals suck.”

  263. jan says:

    This whole Bain attack has been exploited to the point where the lie cannot be fully undone, which was the calculation of the Obama team. But, to people around here a lie is only a lie when someone other than their guy is behind it.

    CNN report debunks latest false attack from Obama campaign

  264. MBunge says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: “Do the dolts over at the Globe actually believe that “Pinch” Sulzberger, the Chairman of the Times Co., has any day-to-day control over the operations of their newspaper?”

    And if the NYT ran a series of fake stories about Romney being a serial goat molester, are you arguing it would be wrong to hold Sulzberger accountable for that? Even if he was using his position as Times Co. Chairman as his main qualification to run for U.S. Senate?

    Mike

  265. Moosebreath says:

    TN,

    “Do the dolts over at the Globe actually believe that “Pinch” Sulzberger, the Chairman of the Times Co., has any day-to-day control over the operations of their newspaper?”

    I am sure he has a major role in issues like whether the Globe would buy another paper, whether it would close its printing press and move it to another part of the country, and whether massive company-wide layoffs would occur. You know, the sorts of things that Republicans have been denying Romney had any role in for companies Bain owned in the 1999-2002 time period.

  266. Modulo Myself says:

    @jan:

    You understand that he testified under oath that he took a leave of absence from Bain with the intention of returning:

    When I left my employer in Massachusetts in February of 1999 to accept the Olympic assignment, I left on the basis of a leave of absence, indicating that I, by virtue of that title, would return at the end of the Olympics to my employment at Bain Capital, but subsequently decided not to do so and entered into a departure agreement with my former partners.

    So one question is what was his relationship with Bain during the period in which he planned on returning? Other than still being listed as President and CEO, etc? Are we to believe that in the period he intended to return he had no contact with Bain? And why has he claimed subsequently that he retired?

    These aren’t really hard questions to answer for a guy who is running for President.

  267. jan says:

    Partisan debate dealing with differences in ideology or political perspective is one thing. It actually helps to at least clarify another’s ideas, even if you disagree with them. But, when you mix in hypocrisy, dishonesty, and double standards, when analyzing the rights and wrongs of a tactic, then credibility is lost. Obama has thrown a sucker punch and you’re simply going along with it. So much for seeking truth, huh.

  268. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    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!”

    It’s not working a lot, but it’s still working, and it’s enough to prove that he lied when he said he had already “retired” from Bain (a claim he made twice, in writing, on official documents). If he had really retired, and was no longer in charge, then someone else would have signed those papers. Those papers were signed by him because he was in charge.

    Here, an actual lawyer explains it

    You’re citing Hinderaker, who is a fool and a liar (link). Citing him is a good way of letting everyone know that you are the same.

    By the way, Hinderaker makes no attempt to explain why Mitt said he “retired” from Bain on 2/11/99. Like everyone else defending Mitt, he glosses over this problem.

    “Responsible,” as in “actually made the decisions himself on a day-to-day basis?” Nope.

    This is the same straw-man argument that a lot of other people are using (including Doug and Hinderaker). No one is saying that Mitt “actually made the decisions himself on a day-to-day basis.” That’s not the problem. The problem is that he said he was “retired,” and that was a lie. And the problem is that he was in charge, and was responsible for what the company did, and was profiting from what the company did, even if he didn’t “actually [make] the decisions himself on a day-to-day basis.”

  269. jukeboxgrad says:

    dill:

    they should feel free to contact and change the minds of the organizations reference here. (Washington Post, Factcheck.org, Fortune Magazine)

    Show us where those sources, or anyone else, explains how it was accurate for Mitt to say he had “retired” from Bain even though he continued to tell the SEC he was Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.

    It’s important to notice that Kessler (WP), in most of his posts, and Primack (Fortune) don’t even mention the key statement signed (twice) by Mitt (“Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999”). And FactCheck mentions it, but does not address the contradiction. Ignoring this key statement he made is a big clue that these ‘fact-checkers’ are missing the boat.

    They could also try to change the mind of the lawyer Jenos linked.

    Hinderaker is someone else who ignores this key statement Mitt made.

    You haven’t said anything that successfully counters points made by the Lawyer

    It’s hysterical that you keep referencing Hinderaker “the Lawyer,” as if he’s some kind of Saint, when in fact he is a fool, and a liar, and he makes no attempt to address Mitt’s key statement which I cited.

    you can’t convince me until you convince the more reliable sources, that I’ve accepted, that they are wrong

    You’ve outsourced your thinking. You are ignoring the fact that they are all ignoring the key statement Mitt made.

    They counter the points you keep trying to make.

    Uh, no. None of them have addressed Mitt’s key statement that I cited.

    the SEC documents don’t really indicate who was actually running things at that the time

    “The SEC documents” say that Mitt was Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President. If that’s true, that means Mitt “was actually running things at that the time.” If it’s not true, then Mitt and Bain made false statements to the SEC. Choose your poison.

    I know you will continue to purport the Bainer line that the SEC documents and other such evidence show he was in charge

    By definition, a person who is sole owner, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President is “in charge.” You can claim otherwise only if you have a magic dictionary.

    I’ve just been commenting on the erroneous Boston Globe piece

    What are the errors?

    A group that is trying to change peoples minds base on a false reality.

    The “false reality” is all yours. You want to believe that Mitt wasn’t Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President post-1999, even though he told SEC he was.

  270. jukeboxgrad says:

    pd shaw:

    No, they [the SEC documents] don’t [show Romney as officially in charge]

    You cited a FactCheck article which says this:

    None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said.

    That statement is false. “The SEC filings” do indeed “show that Romney was” something other than just “a passive, absentee owner.” Consider these two things:

    A) passive, absentee owner
    B) sole owner, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President

    FactCheck is pretending that A and B mean the same thing. Trouble is, they don’t. “The SEC filings” say B, not A. Notice that the words in B don’t even appear in the FactCheck article you cited. They are conveniently ignoring the most important text in “the SEC filings.”

    Most of the various ‘fact-check’ articles completely ignore these words:

    Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President

    And these words:

    Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999

    Even though those two sets of words are at the very heart of the matter, as I explained above.

  271. Modulo Myself says:

    @jan:

    No–a punch was thrown by Obama and now the GOP is flailing and diving and gesticulating stiffly in pious directions because they have no idea how to mount a defense.

  272. jukeboxgrad says:

    jan:

    CNN report debunks latest false attack from Obama campaign

    The spin in that report is contradicted by what Mitt said in 2002. That problem is explained here. I see Modulo Myself has also explained the problem.

  273. anjin-san says:

    CNN report debunks latest false attack from Obama campaign

    Jan sweetie, I hate to break it to you, but having one of Romney’s close friends and business associates back his version of events does not “debunk” anything. It means one of his friends went to bat for him, and little else.

    I note you don’t mention that three of the four current/former Bain executives contacted by CNN declined to go on the record regarding this issue. You would think they would be chomping at the bit for a chance to set the record straight.

    Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than cutting and pasting a headline from YouTube that tells you what you want to hear.

  274. Scott says:

    Can’t believe this thread is still going. At least Doug gets the day off. Well-played!

  275. C. Clavin says:

    “…One of the BIG reasons for our current mess is America’s business elite.
    Romney’s claim to be one of those elite is his BIG reason why he should be President…”

    MBunge gets right at why this thread has taken on a life of it’s own.
    Republicans are willing to give Business a pass on anything. They can lie and cheat and steal and Republicans don’t care…and will in fact defend them as Jenos and Jan are doing her. Enron, BP, BofA, Morgan Stanley…the list is long. Republicans will stand in line to bail out the Banks that are to big to fail…Boehner cried with joy…and protect them from regulations meant to prevent it from happening again…but fail repeatedly to bail out the middle-class.
    Democrats try to rein in this behavior and are called socialists and class warfare wagers and charachter assassins.
    It’s overly simplistic….but really it’s the 1% versus the 99%. Which is not to say Jan is part of the 1%. She’s just not smart enough to recognize her own best interests. Which is to say Republicans are not concerned with the best interests of the nation…only the 1%.

  276. Rob in CT says:

    Owner, Sole Shareholder, Chairman, CEO, President and $100k in salary (which, admittedly, is chump change for Mitt), but not responsible for anything the company did.

    Hah.

    Hah-hah.

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

  277. mantis says:

    @jan:

    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.

    Shorter Jan: I didn’t really read the comments, but I know they’re false. O’Bummer Alinsky!!!!!11!!

    It is rather amusing that people like Jan and Jenos, who have been whining for three years now that “Obama Wasn’t Vetted!” and demand every detail of his life from birth certificates to kindergarten records to photos of high school girlfriends, are now extremely upset that anyone dare look at Romney’s campaign’s number one selling point: his business experience. That’s just beyond the pale, it is. How dare you ask questions about our excellent Galtian overlord Mitt Romney! He has made a lot of money, so everything he’s ever done is right and good and should not be questioned by anyone. Did he make that money as a private equity vampire, sucking money out of companies and tossing their desiccated corpses away or shipping their jobs overseas? It’s unfair to ask. Also it’s a terrible distraction from the real issue: Jeremiah Wright.

  278. C. Clavin says:

    @ Rob…
    I get paid 6 figures for doing absolutely nothing…don’t you???

  279. Rob in CT says:

    JP has been on it in this thread. The proper response all along was this:

    Yes, it was my company. I did take some time to work on the Olympics (insert slightly less ball-washing version that Jenos’ of that experience here), but I remained XYZ and sat in board meetings, while many of my responsibilities were delegated. I’m proud of what we accomplished at Bain.

    Step 2: Somebody complains about Stericycle.

    Response: medical waste disposal is an honorable job that needs doing. Want to stop abortion? Ban abortion. Stericycle will still make lots of money disposing of other medical waste (which I expect is where they make the vast majority of their money now).

    But nooooo. That’s not what went down. You’ve got the classic Yes! No! Well, ummm… hey, that’s so mean of you to bring up! You slimy leftist! LOOK OVER HERE!

  280. Modulo Myself says:

    Uh-oh…Romney is giving interviews to every network this evening. The only sure thing is that barring a mid-air nervous breakdown, Doug Mataconis will conclude that we can put this nonsense to rest.

  281. Rob in CT says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Indeed.

    I suspect that’s another conversation the Romney campaign doesn’t want to have.

    “Oh, I really wasn’t doing anything at Bain at the time.”
    “So they paid you $100k/yr for… what, exactly.”
    “Well, um.. er… “

  282. mantis says:

    As I was saying…

    Asked during a press conference here whether he thought Romney’s experience at Bain should be part of his “record,” (Virginia Gov. Bob) McDonnell shook his head and said “No. No.”

    So we shouldn’t ask about Bain, we shouldn’t ask about Mass-Care (RomneyCare), we shouldn’t ask about the details of his policy proposals, and we shouldn’t ask about his taxes.

    What can we ask about? Romney’s hair?

  283. C. Clavin says:

    I seriously wish Jan and Jenos would try to imagine a world in which Obama claimed to be not responsible for a Company his name was on, that he drew a six figure salary from, and that outsourced jobs and devestated entire communities and disposed of aborted fetuses . Would it be no big deal then? Would his quest for innoculation from any of that companies activities be acceptable to them?
    Of course not. And exactly.
    Thats’ why it is hard to take people like Jan and Jenos seriously. It’s all Ayers and Jermiah Wright and Fast and Furious and Birth Certficates all the time. But when you examine a Republicans central claim to the Presidency…it’s out of bounds. Charachter assassination.

  284. Modulo Myself says:

    @mantis:

    His hair? Incorporated in Delaware, and serving as administrator of Romney’s blind trust.

  285. al-Ameda says:

    None of this would be on radar if Romney wasn’t so determined to distance himself from his own words and his own actions. 8 years ago the GOP let John Kerry run against John Kerry and it worked – Kerry defeated Kerry.
    Obama, it seems, is well advised to let Romney run against Romney.

  286. anjin-san says:

    I am thinking that the average American who is struggling to find a job, stay current on the bills, not lose the house, or, God forbid, send the kids to a decent school would be kind of curious about the six figure salary Romney got for allegedly doing nothing at Bain and having no knowledge or responsibility for what went on there. (aside of course, from cashing checks)

  287. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @C. Clavin: I seriously wish Jan and Jenos would try to imagine a world in which Obama claimed to be not responsible for a Company his name was on, that he drew a six figure salary from, and that outsourced jobs and devestated entire communities and disposed of aborted fetuses . Would it be no big deal then?

    We have those already. It’s called “Organizing For America” (alias barackobama.com), the Obama campaign, and the Obama administration.

  288. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: How remarkable. You resort to arguing from authority, but have no actual authoritative credentials to back them up. You denounce HInderacker without actually addressing his points. Your main credential is “apologist for convicted perjurer and terrorist.”

    I really think I pegged you — you’re a lawyer wannabe with delusions of adequacy.

  289. anjin-san says:

    You resort to arguing from authority, but have no actual authoritative credentials to back them up.

    LOL – This is coming from someone who claims to have in depth knowledge of Romney’s activities and schedule of over a decade ago, right down to minutia – were you Romney’s admin back then? Can you show us credible sources?

    You are an idiot studying to be a moron (and making no progress)

  290. anjin-san says:

    Quick Jenos – throw out F&F and Solyndra. Kenya! Eating Dog! Wright!

    Then you will have exhausted your bag of tricks and the rest of us can get back to discussing what Romney knew about the Bain led outsourcing and when he knew it…

  291. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: In-depth knowledge? Nope, just read the articles linked above. Several sources say Romney started out at the Olympics working 16-hour days, 7 days a week, until he cut it back to 12 hours.

    Rodney had it right — there’s no reasoning with “Bainers.”

  292. anjin-san says:

    I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

    Robert A. Heinlein

    Guess the Mittster never heard that one…

  293. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    So, you accept the premise that Romney, as CEO, was not legally responsible for the decisions made by Bain’s senior management?

    Remember Nixon’s accepting the responsibility, but not the blame – with respect to Watergate? Today, in Mitt’s case, as CEO, he probably would accept neither the responsibility nor the blame.

  294. C. Clavin says:

    Somebody above mentioned hair…are we really going to elect a 65 year old man that dyes his hair? I mean…I know that’s shallow…but then so is dying your hair.

  295. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @al-Ameda: So, you accept the premise that Romney, as CEO, was not legally responsible for the decisions made by Bain’s senior management?

    Time for some cutting and pasting.

    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.

  296. anjin-san says:

    What Jenos is trying to tell us is that he does not understand the role of a CEO, he does not know what “arguing from authority” means, nor does he know what “responsible” means. No real surprises here.

    Say Jenos, a while back I asked you about your actual business experience. You quickly vanished from that thread. So I ask again, what is your actual experience in the business world?

  297. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: None of your goddamned business. Your point in raising it is to personalize the argument, to make it about me and not what I say. Homey don’t play that game.

    Yes, I was a little sloppy. Juke comes in out of nowhere and makes these grand pronouncements and assertions and almost never backs them up. He has no clue how to have a discussion; he swoops in and plays “cross examiner,” then disappears.

    The only exception was the time on Patterico when he essentially was an apologist for Bret Kimberlin, convicted terrorist and perjurer.

    When I start asserting some kind of credentials or special knowledge, then you can challenge my qualifications. But I don’t do that, and won’t do that.

    As far as “responsible” goes, it has multiple definitions. In Romney’s case, one applies, one doesn’t. Are you really going to pretend to be so stupid that you don’t recognize that? Sorry, I’d only accept that from wr, who really is that stupid. You… you’re smarter than that. You’ve shown it.

  298. slimslowslider says:

    Another Juke humiliation of Jenos… must be Friday.

  299. anjin-san says:

    None of your goddamned business.

    I think you have answered the question 🙂 You don’t seem to have a clear idea of what a CEO does, or what it means to be a C level officer. If you do have any experience in corporate America, it is probably as a worker bee.

    You are the one who raised a nonsense point about me blaming everything on “evil corporations” in a recent thread, so I outlined my business experience. That you are unwilling to do the same, and that you in fact become hostile when asked is quite telling.

    I am not interested in making it “about you.” But you just took someone to task for “arguing from authority” without real authority. We are talking about Romney’s business life – you as usaual, appear to be talking out of you hat.

  300. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “Are you really going to pretend to be so stupid that you don’t recognize that? Sorry, I’d only accept that from wr, who really is that stupid.”

    In other words, Jenos can’t figure out a way to spin the fact that his argument has him claiming that a smart businessman would accept complete legal liability for everything a company does for years and never once inquire what they were doing or how they were doing it. And that this is somehow a qualification for the presidency.

    He can’t figure out how to escape the web of complete idiocy he’s spun around himself by his standard set of self-refuting arguments, so as always when he’s made a total fool of himself he calls me stupid.

    And oh, how it does sting…

  301. MBunge says:

    @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.”

    If he’s legally responsible, how can it possibly be at all inappropriate to hold him politically responsible? This is why the argument keeps going round and round because halfwits like you keep trying to square a circle. john personna has got it right. Defending Bain itself is a far stronger position than this mealy-mouthed, weasely BS about how it’s unfair to blame Romney for the actions of a company where he was Chairman, CEO and President when that company that is at the core of the very thing he claims makes him qualified to be President of the U.S.

    Mike

  302. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @anjin-san: Here’s my secret credential: I can read. I actually read and remembered the articles cited.

    Give it a whirl some time.

  303. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @MBunge: Here, let me spell it out for you:

    Was Romney responsible for the decisions? Yes, especially if anything had gone wrong legally or financially.

    Was Romney responsible for making the decisions? No. He didn’t actually make the decisions, others did.

    He stood by the actions of those for whom he was responsible. He did not actually make the decisions, but accepted the responsibility for them legally.

  304. anjin-san says:

    Here’s my secret credential: I can read.

    A proud accomplishment indeed. I still remember taking my first A on a reading test home to my mother. In the first grade. Probably the last time I bragged about knowing how to read.

    And yes, we all remember you carrying on about how Romney had saved a man from drowning. You read about it.

    Of course, the man was wearing a life vest, and was not, in fact drowning, nor was he in danger of drowning.

    So you point seems to be you can read, but you struggle with actual reading comprehension. Got it.

  305. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Now, for a textbook example of how to dodge responsibility, look at Holder and Obama with Fast and Furious. Holder’s constantly had to redefine his excuses as each becomes “inoperative,” with the best one being he doesn’t actually read the memos his top people send him.

  306. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @MBunge: Defending Bain itself is a far stronger position…

    Again, proving my point: you pretty much admit the attack is bogus, but you continue to back it. Because more important than the dishonest attack is how it is responded to, and by whom.

  307. Modulo Myself says:

    From a Bain press release:

    Bain Capital CEO W. Mitt Romney, currently on a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee for the 2002 Games said…

    Part time means that his brain and conscience were in Utah, while his hand was paid 100K a year to sign shit.

  308. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Nope, just read the articles linked above. Several sources say Romney started out at the Olympics working 16-hour days, 7 days a week, until he cut it back to 12 hours.

    I can find one source. An Associated Press interview with Romney that only referred to the first two months he worked on the Olympics. What are the other sources?

  309. mantis says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    He stood by the actions of those for whom he was responsible.

    He is quite clearly doing the opposite.

  310. mattb says:

    @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.”

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    He stood by the actions of those for whom he was responsible. He did not actually make the decisions, but accepted the responsibility for them legally.

    So, under this model, Romney is *legally responsible* for outsourcing jobs, the entire medical waste thing, and a few of the accounts of corporate raiding. Further, according to your logic he stands by all of those decisions (not to mention profited off of them).

    So claiming that stuff happened *after* he left Bain doesn’t really work. Romney in this model is Bain and Bain is Romney.

    BTW, this is in keeping with all of your logic tying F&F to Obama. Of if legal responsibility doesn’t equate responsibility, doesn’t that undercut everything you’ve posted about Obama being “responsible” for F&F?

    It would be nice if you could actually be intellectually consistent for once.

  311. rodney dill says:

    @MBunge:

    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.

    So basically you’re just a common liar. Well liar, I think most of us already know that. Of course you can try to show me where I made the acceptance you claim, liar. But you won’t find it, liar.

  312. MBunge says:

    @rodney dill: “So basically you’re just a common liar.”

    Dude, you can’t make repeated appeals to authority and not get called on it.

    Mike

  313. MBunge says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “Was Romney responsible for the decisions? Yes”

    Then what is wrong with holding him politically accountable for those decisions?

    Mike

  314. rodney dill says:

    @MBunge, liar: I did defer to several post’s I’d referenced in the context of bantering back and forth with johnny personna. You could have called be on it as Juke did, (I’ll respond to him later) but you did not. You instead made up a lie. I did not, as you in your lie claimed, accept that sites I referenced were infallable or always correct. So your statement is a lie, making you a liar.

  315. MBunge says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: “Again, proving my point: you pretty much admit the attack is bogus”

    I take it back. You’re not a halfwit. You’re more like a 1/16th wit. I’m simply restating that john persona is correct that, from a rhetorical and political standpoint, you’re better off challenging the claims that Bain has done something wrong rather than admit the wrongs but then twist yourself into knots trying to pretend Romney has no responsibility for them.

    Mike

  316. MBunge says:

    @rodney dill: “I did not, as you in your lie claimed, accept that sites I referenced were infallable or always correct.”

    An appeal to authority ALWAYS assumes the integrity and trustworthiness of the authority to which you are appealing. If the judgment or analysis of the sites you reference are not deserving of respect and deference, why are you bringing them up?

    Jiminy H. Christmas, go back to school and take some remedial classes in logic and rhetoric.

    Mike

  317. @jan:

    This whole Bain attack has been exploited to the point where the lie cannot be fully undone, which was the calculation of the Obama team. But, to people around here a lie is only a lie when someone other than their guy is behind it.

    Actually there was a sad clip on TV this morning, Rick Perry, talking about the difference between “venture capitalism and vulture capitalism.”

    The sad thing is that Republican ate their own on this, and Romney first came up with the “left in 1999 stuff” in response to them. That was bizarre.

  318. steve says:

    When I took a short leave from running my corporation, I kept track of what was going on. It really does not take much time. I suspect Mitt had access to email. I dont find it credible that the people running the place in his stead would not have called or emailed to run stuff past him. That is not how people work.

    Steve

  319. Herb says:

    This thread reminds me of Peckinpah’s Wild Bunch. No, not the end shoot-out. The first one, where L.Q. Jones and Strother Martin argue about who shot who in the back.
    Strother Martin: “Liar! Black liar.”
    L.Q. Jones: “You shouldn’t talk like that to me.”
    Strother Martin swallows his pride. “I’m sorry……help me get his boots.”

  320. “There’s a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism,” Perry told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity Tuesday night. “Venture capitalism we like. Vulture capitalism, no. And the fact of the matter is that he’s going to have to face up to this at some time or another, and South Carolina is as good a place to draw that line in the sand as any.”

    The correct answer to that was to ask Rick “are you sure you are running in the right primary?”

  321. mattb says:

    The larger issue — and the ultimate problem that Romney has with this — is that supportive partisans don’t seem to get the overall optics. For the general population, who is paying attention, there’s a lot in this that will not read well.

    The question is how many people are paying attention outside of the chattering classes and those of us who hang out on political blogs.

    BTW, to be fair, lets be clear that the optics on this are as bad as the optics on Fast and Furious, and largely for the same reasons.

  322. jan says:

    Taking a break from trivial pursuit political nitpicking….

    Where’s any serious discussion about some of those bigger issues plaguing our country! Hey what about that unemployment under Obama? Or, let’s analyze the sluggish economy. Why isn’t Harry Reid bringing various job’s bills to the floor that have been passed by the House — one by 400 votes? Or, why doesn’t the Senate vote on Obama’s new tax bill, extending the cuts for under $250,000 households, while letting them lapse for everyone else? There are three arms of government. The dems have the executive branch, half of the Congress (the Senate), and a pretty even hand in the Judicial one (considering how the ACA ruling was decided). So, why is Obama deferring our economical problems to only the R’s? Did the D’s all leave for an extended vacation? Why is Obama messing with welfare reform, undoing some of Clinton’s work?

    Why have the ranks of the long-term unemployed soared under the current president, along with applications for disability benefits, food stamps, a higher poverty rate?

    Why long term unemployment has doubled under President Obama.

    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, back in January 2009 when Barack Obama was sworn in, there were 2.6 million people unemployed for more than 6 months. By June 2012, the ranks of the long-term jobless soared more than 100 percent to 5.3 million.

    President Obama has promoted long-term unemployment by adopting policies that make it harder and more expensive for employers to hire people. He has relentlessly pushed for higher taxes, higher energy costs, compulsory unionism and, of course, Obamacare. One doesn’t need a Harvard degree to figure out that when government makes hiring more difficult and expensive, there’s likely to be less of it.

    These are questions real people, not political junkies or hacks, want answered. Quibbling endlessly about Bain, Romney’s wealth, a person’s business success, class or race warfare are merely cutesy political distractions meant to be divisive, taking people’s eyes and minds off of Obama’s pitiful economic/leadership record for the past 3 1/2 years.

  323. @jan:

    It is an interesting dynamic, and one neither party wants to talk about. When Bain(*) does business with China, they are taking advantage of free trade agreements signed by Bill Clinton.

    Odd bedfellows, eh?

    * – Join the Greater China team

    I’m afraid both parties have weak jobs stories. Deregulation cannot make up for low Chinese wages, and there isn’t enough useful work insulating homes or building high speed rail.

  324. (I hope you don’t think it’s a strong story to say “deregulate and allow companies like Bain (2000-2002) the opportunity to seek profit without constraint!”)

  325. al-Ameda says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    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.

    First, I do not think it’s to Romney’s advantage to argue that he’s an idiot, that he was a CEO and is not responsible for decisions made at Bain.

    Second, It is getting to be ridiculous how reflexively Romney runs away from his statements and actions, it’s nearly at parody levels. He is becoming 2012’s John Kerry.

  326. anjin-san says:

    Quibbling endlessly about Bain, Romney’s wealth, a person’s business success, class or race warfare are merely cutesy political distractions meant to be divisive,

    Romney is running, in large part, on his record at Bain. He is trumpeting himself as a job creator, based on his record as a (highly) successful businessman. How is it “divisive” to examine his record? To question why he is running away from the record of the company at a time when he was still the CEO (among other things)?

    And tell me Jan, do you think “average people” care what a senior fellow at the Cato Institute thinks?

  327. al-Ameda says:

    @jan:

    taking people’s eyes and minds off of Obama’s pitiful economic/leadership record for the past 3 1/2 years.

    Oh please …

    As you know, the 2008 crash of the financial and housing markets caused the loss of about $14 Trillion in wealth and income from our economy, and to no one’s surprise (except conservatives), 3 years later we’re still dealing with fallout of that catastrophe, and as we now see much of Europe is still greatly affected by the near collapse of the financial and housing markets too.

    It should come as no surprise to anyone who seriously analyzes what has transpired in the 3+ years since the crash, that we’re fortunate to be experiencing private sector job growth and an anemic recovery. The public sector is still shedding jobs and that has nothing to do with Obama, it has everything to do with the collapse of the housing markets which caused losses in property tax revenues to cities and states that will not be recovered for at least a decade.

  328. anjin-san says:

    @ Jan

    WSJ reported this week that the housing bust is over, and the housing market is now recovering. I am sure you agree the credit goes to Obama, since you blame him for unemployment issues in the same time frame.

  329. anjin-san says:

    @ Jan

    You sound stressed – put some Getz on, you will feel better. The Bain fiasco has been hard on conservatives, we know…

    http://www.amazon.com/Apasionado-Stan-Getz/dp/B000002GIW

  330. C. Clavin says:

    So Mitt went on the offensive tonight…interviews with everyone…and said little more than I refuse to accept responsibity for the benefits I gained…and no more tax returns.
    I think this is the week he lost the race.
    JP explained how to answer the questions. Romney failed. Can’t see how he recovers now.

  331. Cycloptichorn says:

    @jan:

    Hey what about that unemployment under Obama? Or, let’s analyze the sluggish economy.

    Oh, right, because we haven’t spent ANY time analyzing that stuff for the past several years.

    C’mon. You act as if this hasn’t been the constant topic of conversation for a long time. It has. Don’t get pissy when another topic that’s not as favorable to your candidate comes to the fore for a bit.

    Or, why doesn’t the Senate vote on Obama’s new tax bill, extending the cuts for under $250,000 households, while letting them lapse for everyone else?

    Perhaps because McConnell blocked his Unanimous Consent request to do so earlier this week? Maybe you missed that part somehow. Couldn’t you have looked that up before commenting, though?

  332. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    You resort to arguing from authority, but have no actual authoritative credentials to back them up.

    Where am I “arguing from authority?” I did not do that. I said that you cited Hinderaker, even though he’s a fool and a liar. And I showed proof that he is a fool and a liar. And I also pointed out that he ignored Mitt’s key statement which I cited. And of course you have also ignored it.

    You denounce HInderacker without actually addressing his points.

    What “points?” Hinderaker never explains how it makes sense to believe that someone who was described as “sole shareholder, sole director, chief executive officer and president” wasn’t running the company. The entire pro-Mitt argument from you, Hinderaker and Mitt himself is based entirely on the wacky idea that those words have no meaning.

    Juke comes in out of nowhere and makes these grand pronouncements and assertions and almost never backs them up.

    What did I say that I didn’t back up?

    He stood by the actions of those for whom he was responsible.

    Uh, no (as mantis has pointed out). Instead of standing up and taking responsibility for various questionable things Bain did during that period, he’s claiming that he had nothing to do with it, so therefore it was someone else’s fault. Even though he was the boss. As John has explained so patiently, this is a great example of Mitt showing that he is a coward, not a leader.

  333. jukeboxgrad says:

    modulo:

    From a Bain press release:

    Bain Capital CEO W. Mitt Romney, currently on a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee for the 2002 Games said…

    Yup. The key words there are “part-time.” And this is consistent with what was reported at the time:

    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. (Greg Gatlin, “Romney Looks To Restore Olympic Pride,” The Boston Herald, 2/12/99)

    There are those same words again: “part-timer.” So this is what both Mitt and Bain said at the time: that he would continue to do some work for Bain. And we know what this work included: signing official documents. Mitt and his defenders are excited about Kessler; notice what Kessler admitted:

    we have identified at least six filings that Romney did sign during this period: a April 13, 1999 13D filing by Pirod Holdings regarding an investment in Rohn Industries; a Jan. 3, 2000 13D filing by VMM Merger Corp. regarding an investment in VDI MultiMedia; a Feb. 14, 2000 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund IV regarding Wesley Jessen Visioncare; a Feb. 13, 2001 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding Integrated Circuit Systems; a Feb. 14, 2001 13G filing by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding ChipPAC; and a November 12, 1999 13G filing (first reported by Mother Jones) by Bain Capital Fund VI regarding Stericycle.

    So Mitt said he would keep doing certain things for Bain, and Kessler and many others have pointed out clear, documentary evidence that he did keep doing certain things for Bain. But notice what Mitt said today:

    I had no role with regards to Bain Capital after February 1999.

    How is signing multiple official documents “no role?” Calling that “no role” is a plain lie. And telling the SEC he was “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” if he really had “no role” is also a plain lie. It is not possible to be “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” while also having “no role.” So either he lied to the SEC or he lied to us.

  334. jukeboxgrad says:

    I want to emphasize the timing of this:

    Bain Capital CEO W. Mitt Romney, currently on a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee for the 2002 Games said…

    That’s from a press release issued by Bain in 7/99. Today Mitt said this:

    I had no role with regards to Bain Capital after February 1999.

    If that’s true, why did the press release five months later describe his leave as “part-time?” And why did it call him “CEO?”

  335. steve says:

    “President Obama has promoted long-term unemployment by adopting policies that make it harder and more expensive for employers to hire people. He has relentlessly pushed for higher taxes, higher energy costs, compulsory unionism ”

    What would those policies be? I am hiring again, and cannot figure out what it is that will make it more difficult. Which higher taxes? What did he do to raise energy costs? What new compulsory unionization policies do we have?

    Steve

  336. anjin-san says:

    I had no role with regards to Bain Capital after February 1999.

    That is sounding a bit like a flat out lie…

  337. C. Clavin says:

    Can any of the Romney supporters…Jan, Jenos, Doug, Tsar…explain why jobs created after Romney count to his benefit, but jobs outsourced after he left don’t count?
    Yeah…that’s what I thought.

  338. C. Clavin says:

    Romney did nothing tonight to slow down the bleeding.
    This conversation is not going away.
    I predict 400 comments.

  339. James in LA says:

    Romney’s network interview statements directly contradict both his own past statements, and the paper trail, while calling on the President to apologize. He also says, no more tax returns, though 2011 will be released “when completed.”

    The awkward-O-meter then spiked.
    C. Clavin, I see your 400 quatloos, and raise you another 100!

    I think the question everyone would like answered is, where can I get a job where I don’t have that job but get paid $100k per year not to do it?

    The lies are going to doom him because his handlers cannot possibly know enough to contain it all.

    “Who owns factcheck.org” may be another question soon asked….

  340. KansasMom says:
  341. rodney dill says:

    @MBunge, liar: Dude this whole appeal to authority thing is just part of your lie, and I don’t buy into it. I referenced one WaPo link that contained their analysis, FactCheck’s analysis and Fortune Magazine’s analysis of the Globe piece and offer commenters to convince them that there analysis of the Globe piece was wrong. Your lie says this means I think they’re infallable and can never be wrong. I do think that those three and the link Jenos found by the lawyer got it right in this case, but you’re just making shit up, again.

  342. KansasMom says:

    @rodney dill: And Weigel? He sources all kinds of things that dispute Hindrocket and Kessler. Maybe you need to go convince him if you expect us to take you seriously.

  343. rodney dill says:

    @KansasMom: Weigel? His column yesterday didn’t really raise anything not already addressed.

  344. KansasMom says:

    @rodney dill: Maybe you should read his latest entry then, linked to above. If you aren’t too busy running caption contests that is. He’s no AssRocket (aka The Lawyer) but his sources seem solid.

  345. KansasMom says:
  346. Jeff says:

    The FactCheck article is a joke. It “proves” that Romney was telling the truth by assuming that Romney was telling the truth, and handwaves away his wife’s statement by claiming that when she said that when she said that he was having to cut back on his involvement with Bain 21 months later she was referring to events that occurred 21 months earlier, with no justification for making this assumption. And it dismisses Romney’s statement that he would be a “part-timer” at Bain by saying that Romney was simply mistaken when he said that he still be working at Bain, again without providing a justification for dismissing the statement.

  347. Scott O says:

    I’m going to apply for the position of CEO of Bain Capital. Since no duties are required I’m sure I can handle it. I don’t even have to give up my current job.

  348. jan says:

    Eric Erickson is now comparing the leftist ‘Bainers’ to the right’s ‘Birthers.’ It’s a rich comparison, and holds the same kind of insanity that each extremist side has in it’s efforts to squeeze as much hype as they can out of one dead subject:

    The Bainers will not take any answer that does not show Romney to be a liar or felon in the same way Birthers will take no answer other than one that shows Barack Obama is not an American citizen. In fact, pointing this out on twitter today I was barraged from both sides that Obama has still never shown his real birth certificate and Mitt Romney has still not shown his tax returns.

    The Bainers will become as insufferable as the Birthers. The only difference is that the Bainers’ insufferable stupidity is at the heart of the Obama campaign while the Romney campaign has worked hard to not be tied to Birthers.

    You guys have really distinguished yourself today in this thread as being made of the same clothe as the people you make fun of — the wacky far, far right!

  349. anjin-san says:

    @ Jan

    You are really willing to admit in public that you let Eric Erickson do your thinking for you? Wow. Well, I guess that is no surprise coming from someone who thinks “Bainers” is wicked clever.

    Conservatives should try and avoid being clever – they are just no good at it 🙂

  350. anjin-san says:

    the Romney campaign has worked hard to not be tied to Birthers.

    That explains Mitt’s lip prints on Trumps ass…

  351. jukeboxgrad says:

    jan:

    the Romney campaign has worked hard to not be tied to Birthers

    This is complete bullshit. Trump is a leading birther and Mitt was happy to leap into bed with him. As anjin-san has mentioned.

    You guys have really distinguished yourself today in this thread as being made of the same clothe as the people you make fun of — the wacky far, far right!

    Earth to Jan:

    47% Of Republicans Are Birthers

    Link. And now we know why Mitt and Trump are soulmates: because Mitt can’t afford to alienate half the GOP.

    Yes, roughly half the GOP consists of “the wacky far, far right.” I’m glad you’re finally catching on.

  352. jukeboxgrad says:

    dill:

    I do think that those three and the link Jenos found by the lawyer got it right in this case

    On 2/14/01, Mitt signed an SEC filing in which he described himself as the “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” of Bain (and this isn’t the only example, but it’s sufficient). His signature was placed below this statement (pdf, see pp. 24, 30, 32):

    After reasonable inquiry and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the undersigned certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.

    On the other hand, this is what Mitt said yesterday:

    I had no role with regards to Bain Capital after February 1999.

    If it’s true that Mitt had “no role with regards to Bain Capital after February 1999,” then he was not telling the truth when he described himself to the SEC as the “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” of Bain, two years after he supposedly left Bain. So did Mitt lie to the SEC, or did he lie to us?

    I looked at “those three and the link Jenos found by the lawyer,” and none of those people address this problem. Are you going to? Is anyone going to? Because this is the whole story, in a nutshell.

    And since some people are confused about the felony aspect of this: lying to the federal government is a felony.

  353. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: And since some people are confused about the felony aspect of this: lying to the federal government is a felony.

    Unless you’re Bill Clinton. Or Charlie Rangel. Or Tim Geithner. Or Eric Holder.

    Your “high horse” is a spavined donkey.

  354. C. Clavin says:

    @ Jenos…
    I guess you forgot Clinton was impeached.
    Double-Standard much?

  355. C. Clavin says:

    Jan is quoting Erik Erickson?
    It’s always fun to see who she’s getting her thinking from.

  356. @jan: @jukeboxgrad:

    If there are any “Bainers,” it’s people waiting for the “long-form” SEC filing, hoping it will say something different.

    Again, ‘Birthers’ were denying the fact of the document before them. Who is doing that now?

    Again, it would be different if Romney and his defenders just said he had a reduced role, and was not making day-to-day decisions, but he isn’t making that reasonable claim. He goes full-on. Romney said again yesterday that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain Capital after February 1999.

    Think about who is being nuts here? How does “no role whatsoever” square with “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president?”

  357. Nikki says:

    Obama produced his birth certificate to smackdown the birthers. We “Bainers” await with bated breath Mitt’s release of his tax returns and the resultant “smackdown.”

  358. C. Clavin says:

    @ JP….
    That level of logic…well…Jan is going to have to wait and see what Erik Erickson tells her to think about that.

  359. rodney dill says:

    @juke

    His signature was placed below this statement (pdf, see pp. 24, 30, 32):

    After reasonable inquiry and to the best of our knowledge and belief, the undersigned certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.

    On the other hand, this is what Mitt said yesterday:

    I had no role with regards to Bain Capital after February 1999.

    I don’t believe there has been any question his name appears as CEO, etc… on the SEC documents.

    But Factcheck and WaPo/Fact-Checker have come to other conclusions.

    But we see little new in any of these SEC filings, and a University of Pennsylvania Law School professor we spoke to sees no basis for the Obama campaign’s claim that Romney committed a felony.

    None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article:

    (factcheck)

    Meanwhile, the weight of evidence suggests that Romney did in fact end active management of Bain in 1999. He stated that in a federal disclosure form he signed, under threat of criminal penalties. He said he was a “former employee” in a state disclosure form. A state commission concluded 10 years ago that he did, indeed, leave Bain in 1999. Investors in Bain funds were told he was not part of the management team.

    WaPo/Fact Checker

  360. @C. Clavin:

    We have this quote above, but I didn’t realize it was actual testimony:

    “When I left my employer in Massachusetts in February of 1999 to accept the Olympic assignment,” Romney testified before the state Ballot Law Commission on June 17, 2002, “I left on the basis of a leave of absence, indicating that I, by virtue of that title, would return at the end of the Olympics to my employment at Bain Capital, but subsequently decided not to do so and entered into a departure agreement with my former partners.”

    That from a Boston.Com article that also states:

    It was not until 2002 that Romney finalized a severance agreement with Bain, a 10-year deal with undisclosed terms that was retroactive to 1999.

    Basically, his supporters are letting Romney be fully “retroactive.”

    For the rest of us it might have shades of Etch-A-Sketch.

  361. rodney dill says:

    @KansasMom: Sorry, nothing new there in the second Weigel column either.

  362. Folderol & Ephemera says:

    Romney said this on ABC on 7/13/12: “I left any responsibility whatsoever, any effort, any involvement whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999.”

    How can this square with his legally documented role as “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President,” as well as the various meetings he attended and documents he signed, none of which have been disputed by Romney?

    “[A]ny responsibility whatsoever, any effort, any involvement whatsoever” sounds pretty damned definitive — so is it a question of what “management” means? Or what the exact legal definition of “Bain Capital” is? Otherwise, I don’t see how anyone can say he isn’t being truthful about “any effort, any involvement whatsoever.”

    Seriously, help me out here Romney defenders. I’m not talking about whether he’s a “felon” for potentially making false claims on his SEC or FEC filings, or the political consequences, or whatever. Just a straight up explanation of how his outright denial of any involvement “whatsoever” with the “management” of “Bain Capital” could be justified as technically true.

  363. @Folderol & Ephemera:

    I think the honest among us would say something like:

    “I largely left Bain in 1999, retaining titles but not taking an active role. I fully exited in 2002 when I signed a everance agreement. That agreement was written retroactive to 1999, to coincide with my reduced role.”

    It’s this stonewalling, that it was all over in 1999, that is hurting him.

  364. C. Clavin says:

    @ JP…
    Of course its Etch-a-Sketch. Of course his supporters want him to be retro-actively immune from what his company did. Because if he isn’t in ovulated from his actions you get this:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/obama-ad-firms-slams-romn_n_1673112.html

  365. Folderol & Ephemera says:

    @john personna:

    Yes, if he had said he had “largely” (or “mostly,” or “primarily,” or even “virtually”) ended his “responsibility” or “involvement” or what-have-you, he would be technically telling the truth, and I wouldn’t have this problem.

    But he keeps making unqualified, definitive statements: he didn’t have “any involvement whatsoever,” or he had “left any role at Bain Capital,” or he had “no role with regards to Bain Capital.” How is this true if he retained both ownership and legal responsibility? Even if he just signed the paperwork, how is that “no role” “whatsoever”?

    Is it just a matter of what “involvement” and “management” mean, practically speaking? So even if he retained technical, de jure control over the company, he’s simply claiming that he had no connection de facto (even if he was receiving a six-figure salary)?

    It’s like what the definition of “is” is all over again, except about security filings instead of [redacted].

  366. C. Clavin says:

    Spelling correct changed innoculated to ovulate.
    Too funny.
    For all his whining and begging for an apology he probably does ovulate.

  367. @C. Clavin:

    I thought that was creative wording 😉

  368. rodney dill says:

    @john personna:

    creative wording 😉

    It was funny anyway.

  369. Since we’re closing in on 375 comments here, I just figured I’d mention that I wrote a new post on this topic this morning.

    Update: Wrong link. Here’s the correct one.

  370. jukeboxgrad says:

    Doug, wrong link. Your new post is here.

  371. Gah. Copy/paste fail.

  372. jukeboxgrad says:

    dill:

    But Factcheck and WaPo/Fact-Checker have come to other conclusions.

    The problem is that nothing they said (either in the text you cited or in other text they have posted) addresses the basic contradiction: how is it possible to have “no role” while also being “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President?” And how is the concept of “no role” congruent with the reality that Mitt signed multiple official documents? When are they going to answer these questions? When are you going to answer these questions?

    And I already pointed out that FactCheck made a false claim. They said this:

    None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time

    When the filings describe Mitt as “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President,” that is not a description of “a passive, absentee owner,” unless you completely ignore the meaning of the words involved.

    And I have already pointed out to you that the FactCheck article making this claim (“… passive, absentee owner …”) fails to even mention the relevant words (“Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President”). Maybe it’s because those words prove that the claim is false.

  373. Drew says:

    I’ve been playing some golf. So when I saw an almost 400 long thread I said “what the hell?”

    I’m a partner in a private equity firm. There may be others here with perceived insights as to how it really works, but I suspect I’m the only one who really knows. This whole thing is ridiculous, and a poor reflection on the commenters.

    Doug has it correct. Governance and economics are different. It is not uncommon for departing partners to retain equity stakes but to not be involved in governance, and most specifically on the investment committee, which is where the action usually is.

    You guys need to WTFU. I’m seeing desperation.

  374. jukeboxgrad says:

    It is not uncommon for departing partners to retain equity stakes but to not be involved in governance

    Yesterday Mitt said he had “no role with regards to Bain Capital after February 1999.” He also signed forms describing himself to the SEC as the “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” of Bain, two years after he supposedly left Bain. I can’t find the part of your comment where you explain how this is not a contradiction.

    I also hope you’ll explain how it makes sense for Mitt to claim that he had “no responsibility whatsoever” for what the company did even though he was the sole owner.

  375. rodney dill says:

    @juke: Well then you see something in it totally different than I do. I still agree with it as it stands. I never expected to change the minds of those that were either pro-Obama or against Romney to begin with.

  376. jukeboxgrad says:

    I still agree with it as it stands.

    In other words, you think it’s possible to be “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” of Bain while also having “no role” at Bain. Thanks for clearing that up.

  377. rodney dill says:

    In other words, you think it’s possible to be “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” of Bain while also having “no role” at Bain. Thanks for clearing that up.

    You didn’t see those conclusions in the links? I did.

  378. rodney dill says:

    The part about lying to the SEC is absurd, since the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker (Romney delegated such responsibilities, as is his right).

    I guess you missed excerpts like this. You must not read too thoroughly.
    Yes, I know you disagree with it, but its still there. They didn’t set out to prove it to your satisfaction, just to show fact checking to their satisfaction.

  379. jukeboxgrad says:

    Where in “the links” is an explanation of how it is possible to be “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” of Bain while also having “no role” at Bain? I think I’ve already asked you this question. What I’ve also already done is point out to you that you are citing articles which don’t even mention these words. Which is a pretty good way of knowing that they can’t possibly address the question I’m raising. So I don’t know why you keep pretending that they answer the question.

    the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker

    I already addressed this nonsense. Yes, “the SEC doesn’t require an owner to be the operational decision-maker,” but they do require that statements made to them are truthful. Mitt told them he was “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.” Was that statement truthful, or not?

  380. An Interested Party says:

    I’m seeing desperation.

    Oh? You must have been near a TV while you were playing golf, observing all the twists and turns Romney was taking as he tried to explain himself…

  381. rodney dill says:

    @jukeboxgrad: You don’t agree with it — tough — get over it.
    The various links I read answered the question for me, that he could have his names on the documents during the transition period and not be involved operationally. I really don’t care whether it meets your criteria or not. It met several organizations criteria and apparently a Mass. state investigation/review. I never set out to answer your questions. I stated I agree with the findings of these various fact checker links I referenced. If more evidence surfaces I may change my mind, but I’m not going to change it just because of the analysis of others that are biased against Romney from the start.

  382. jukeboxgrad says:

    You don’t agree with it

    It’s not about whether or not I “agree” with something. It’s that they haven’t even tried to answer the question I asked, and neither have you.

    he could have his names on the documents during the transition period and not be involved operationally

    Your entire approach to this situation relies on you pretending he said something other than what he actually said. You’re trying to minimize what he said. He didn’t just deny being involved “operationally” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). He denied being involved at all. He said he had “no role.” One more time, the question you persistently ignore: how is possible to be “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” while having “no role?”

    I stated I agree with the findings of these various fact checker links I referenced.

    You decided to agree with those findings even though they fail to address the most serious problems with what he said. Like you, they ignore those problems.

    just because of the analysis of others

    If you don’t like my analysis you should present an alternate analysis. But you have no such analysis, and neither do your sources. As I have mentioned several times, they completely ignore the statements I have cited.

    You have a clever way of dealing with a difficult situation: ignore the most difficult statements.

  383. rodney dill says:

    I don’t agree with your analysis, and I don’t offer my own, I said something like that somewhere about 200 comments ago when I said I wasn’t going to argue with ‘bainers.’ I said I deferred to the determination made by the fact checking organizations as I agreed with their analysis. I never said it and answered any or all of your questions on the matter, but it answered mine, and I still do not have any concern over it.

    You are seeing what you want to see in this, and are trying to set some criteria where you can ‘win’ the argument. I can’t win, as I’ve chosen to defer to the links I used. I could’ve just repeated their talking point as they stated their determination better than I ever could’ve, but you wouldn’t be satisfied with that anyway. I have no reason to present an alternative analysis.

    You even have your own slant on what you want the most ‘serious’ problem you have with this to be. The most serious problem I would think would be if Romney committed a felony or not. I’m satisfied that the record shows he didn’t. (or at least no reason to believe he did)

  384. jukeboxgrad says:

    it answered mine, and I still do not have any concern over it

    You do not “have any concern over it” because you’re choosing to ignore the statements Mitt made contradicting himself. Of course you’re free to do so but you shouldn’t be surprised when the result is that no one takes you seriously.

    The most serious problem I would think would be if Romney committed a felony or not. I’m satisfied that the record shows he didn’t.

    There is no doubt that a felony was committed, because statements Mitt made to SEC contradict statements he made to FEC. But this is no problem for you, since all you have to do is maintain your current position of ignoring all inconvenient facts.

  385. rodney dill says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Heh, well you certainly are free to your beliefs about how I choose to comment and what I choose to comment on. I certainly can determine for myself my views on your tactics. Sometimes I may even mention that to you. If you’re sold out on this being a felony then your agenda is laid out for you. As I thing I said to john personna, I patiently await the felony charges that will show you’re correct.

  386. jukeboxgrad says:

    well you certainly are free to your beliefs about how I choose to comment and what I choose to comment on.

    My “beliefs” in this regard are based on reality. I’m noticing certain things Mitt said and I’m also noticing how you have gone to great lengths to avoid noticing those things. Ignoring inconvenient facts is a perfect description of your position.

    I patiently await the felony charges that will show you’re correct.

    I patiently await your explanation for how Mitt’s statements to SEC are not contradicted by his statements to FEC. These are just more inconvenient facts you are working hard to ignore.

    I didn’t say it’s a felony that will be prosecuted. I said it’s a felony. On what planet is absence of prosecution proof that no crime was committed? I have a feeling you exercise that peculiar logic only when it produces a result that’s convenient for you. Likewise, I think the great faith you have expressed in certain ‘fact-checkers’ is also a matter of momentary convenience.

  387. jukeboxgrad says:

    And I’ll review the basic felony facts, in case anyone is still confused about that. This is what Mitt said to FEC: “Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999.” But subsequent to 2/11/99, Mitt signed SEC documents listing Mitt as “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President.” (Direct links to the relevant documents are in my comment here.)

    It’s not possible to be “retired” from a company while also being Chairman, CEO and President of that company, which means that Mitt either lied to SEC or lied to FEC. Lying to the federal government is a felony.

    This is aside from lying to us.

    We already knew that Mitt was an accomplished liar, but now we know that he has told felony-level lies on official documents.

  388. rodney dill says:

    It strikes me that FactCheck, Wapo, etc… all made the determination that there wasn’t evidence Mitt committed a felony all without the criteria that is all important to you. Is strikes me that they must hold this criteria as superfluous to that determination.

    You’re just repeating points that the links I’ve read and agree with addressed. I know you disagree with that and you want someone to try to answer to your criteria so you can just call them wrong and again call Mitt a felon. I’m not going to do that as I said, repeatedly. I’m not playing by your rules or desires, I’m stating I agree with the determination made by the sources I identified.

    No, I believe you can commit a felony and not be prosecuted, but given that several sources, that I’ve read and agree with say he didn’t commit a felony, and ones with a pro-Obama bias are saying he did commit a felony. Bringing charges would certainly say the gov’t seriously thought he’d committed a felony. That would certainly bring credence to your claims.

    I have a feeling you exercise that peculiar logic only when it produces a result that’s convenient for you.

    Heh, that sounds like a good description of the logic employed by most blog commenters.(I don’t mean that as a particular slam against you, it sound profoundly universal)

    I did look into the orgs. and FactCheck.org as far as I can determine is certainly not considered as friendly to conservatives. Which is somewhat comforting to me that they are probably less biased in this case. But I believe them because I read through what they said and the associated links, not just because of blind faith in what they say.

  389. jukeboxgrad says:

    It strikes me that FactCheck, Wapo, etc… all made the determination that there wasn’t evidence Mitt committed a felony

    Are you able to think for yourself and figure out whether or not their “determination” actually makes sense? I guess not. Instead you’re choosing to blindly accept their conclusion. I’m pretty sure you don’t do this when they reach conclusions you don’t like.

    I have already pointed out the key problem with their analysis, and I notice you haven’t lifted a finger to address that problem. Let us know when you’re finally ready to do so.

    Is strikes me that they must hold this criteria as superfluous to that determination.

    It strikes me that they are ignoring certain crucial facts, just like you.

    You’re just repeating points that the links I’ve read and agree with addressed.

    No, they have not addressed this problem. As I have already explained (in the comment I just linked, and elsewhere), most of the articles you’re talking about don’t even mention the relevant words, let alone address them. If they do mention those words and address them, show us where.

    I believe them because I read through what they said and the associated links, not just because of blind faith in what they say.

    If you “read through what they said” then you should be able to show us where they mention and address Mitt’s statements that I have cited. I’ll be waiting patiently.

    I believe you can commit a felony and not be prosecuted

    Good. That means you’re admitting that your earlier argument (“I patiently await the felony charges that will show you’re correct”) was specious.

    Bringing charges would certainly say the gov’t seriously thought he’d committed a felony. That would certainly bring credence to your claims.

    You’re hysterical. So if Obama’s DOJ decided to charge Mitt with a felony, that would convince you that he committed a felony? For some strange reason I don’t believe you.

  390. rodney dill says:

    @juke, I have thought for myself, which is why I came to conclusion I did. I understand your side, I just don’t concur with it.

    then you should be able to show us where they mention and address Mitt’s statements that I have cited.

    Heh, I never said they met your criteria. I said they made their determination and that I agree with it. You keep trying to set the hurdles they have to meet. It doesn’t work that way.

    that would convince you that he committed a felony?

    I didn’t say it would convince me. so you are right on that point. (He could be charged and later found innocent). I said it would lend credence to your claims.

    and Yes, the ‘waiting felony charges’ was more a jab or akin to poking a stick in a hornets nest, but would definitely consider the felony claim more seriously if there had been or would be some charge. I don’t expect that will happen, and I couldn’t imagine the problems that would cause our political process.

    Whatever you say, or I believe, or the factcheckers believe, its probably moot anyway. We’ll find out this week and through the election what damage this will cause to the Romney campaign..

  391. jukeboxgrad says:

    I have thought for myself, which is why I came to conclusion I did.

    Your idea of thinking for yourself consists of making false claims that you then refuse to explain or defend. You said those sources addressed the problem I described here. Where did they do that?

    You have no answer, so instead you’re waving your arms around and pretending you didn’t hear the question. That’s a good way of making it clear that you have no actual answer.

  392. The Crafty Trilobite says:

    In some ways, the most disturbing part of this mess is the situation described by Factcheck:

    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.

    Do we really want a President who cannot keep his commitment to help run one major enterprise because he gets overly involved in another? Especially when the first one involves fiduciary responsibilities and the second is basically running a big party?

  393. rodney dill says:

    Your idea of thinking for yourself consists of making false claims that you then refuse to explain or defend

    I think you’re making a false claim yourself there. Which claim are you talking about? This One?. Were I claimed the links answered the question (of Mitt being guilty of a felony, or lying) for me. It did answer the question for me. I am the only judge of what answers a question for me. So what is false about that? It’s going to slow down this process considerably if I have to check up on your veracity every time you try to quote me.

    You said those sources addressed the problem I described here.

    Another falsehood, as I did not say that.
    First that link (your link) was a response to someone else, not that that matters. Second, I never claimed to answer your questions to your satisfaction. In fact I’ve specifically stated that I don’t care whether it meets your criteria or not. You still think you are setting the context for this dialog, for my response. You aren’t, get over it.

    That’s a good way of making it clear that you have no actual answer.

    I think I’ve made it quite clear several times that I have no actual answer for you.

    Heh, I’m hand waving? Look who’s waving back.

  394. jukeboxgrad says:

    Which claim are you talking about?

    You said this: “They counter the points you keep trying to make.” Even though no one has addressed what I said here.

    Another falsehood, as I did not say that.

    You didn’t say those sources addressed the problem I described here? Then it must have been some other dill who said “they counter the points you keep trying to make.”

    It’s about time you finally showed us where anyone ‘counters’ what I said here.

    You should also take a look at where you said this:

    You didn’t see those conclusions in the links? I did.

    You’re saying that your sources reached the ‘conclusion’ that it’s possible to be “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” of Bain while also having “no role” at Bain. Really? Where exactly did they say that? I know that they didn’t, because most of the articles you’re talking about avoid even mentioning those relevant words.

    that link (your link) was a response to someone else, not that that matters.

    You’re right about “not that that matters.” So why are you bringing it up? You said “they counter the points you keep trying to make.” Did you mean only points I make in comments directly addressed to you?

    I never claimed to answer your questions to your satisfaction.

    You said “they counter the points you keep trying to make.” That claim is false, unless you can show us where they actually countered the actual point I have referenced. But I know you won’t do that, because I have repeatedly challenged you to do that, and all you’ve done in response is wave your arms around.

    I think I’ve made it quite clear several times that I have no actual answer for you.

    You have no actual answer for anyone who wants to take into account everything Mitt said. Your entire approach to this situation is based on ignoring his statements that don’t fit your narrative. And that’s also what your sources are doing.

  395. Pmorgan says:

    I was the Founder and President of Bain, the sole and only 100% shareholder, Chairman of the Board, and Chief Executive Officer. I got paid millions from the Bain and its investments, and still get paid millions from the Bain and its investments, and my role at Bain shows how great a businessman and job creator I was…but I am not responsible for anything bad they did…and by the way even though I gave 23 years of tax returns to McCain when I wanted to be his Vice President and my father made public 12 years of tax returns when he ran for President…I will only release 1 year to the public and I will not comment on the hundreds of millions I have stashed in overseas tax havens..and I will not comment on the millions the lobby group I founded in 2007, the Private Equity Council, spent to kill the legislation sponsored by Republican Chuck Grassley from Iowa to close the tax loopholes I used and still use to only pay 15% tax on the over $43 Million I make per year as a “retiree.”

    The nerve of you to even ask such questions or to even doubt me…Now shut up and elect me President.

    Signed Mitt Romney to the American people.

    P.S. “Corporations are people and the poor need to pay more taxes, and I will end the health insurance mandate in Obamacare although it was based on the health insurance mandate I put in place as Governor of Massachusetts and that I have spoken and written proudly in favor of as part of the solution to the healthcare problems of America.

  396. rodney dill says:

    Even though no one has addressed what I said here.

    …and you go on to refer to the same link three times. Its one link to your own comment, saying it like ‘Betelgeuse, Betelgeuse, Betelguese” doesn’t give it any more authority. One more time, I never tried to address your criteria in the way you wanted me to. I’ve said that a number of times.

    The sources, I concur with reached their conclusion without your analysis. If you can’t see it or disagree with it, that’s not my problem.

    You said “they counter the points you keep trying to make.” That claim is false, unless you can show us where they actually countered the actual point I have referenced.

    Yes, I did say that (“they counter the points you keep trying to make.”). I said it on response to something john personna said. You refer to that quote several times as though I said it in response to anything you ever said. At best you’re being disingenous, at worst, intentionally deceptive. You are not even trying to be correct. You are the one that has been specious.

    show us where they actually countered the actual point I have referenced. But I know you won’t do that, because I have repeatedly challenged you to do that,

    I actually told you I’m not doing that. That was my starting position, and I’ve stuck to it. You’ve been going ahead ignoring what I’ve said and acting as though I’m the one arguing the point. I’m not. The sources I referred to did, and I concur with their conclusions, the way they stated them, not the way you say they must state them. No arm waving was required.

    Your entire approach to this situation is based on ignoring his statements that don’t fit your narrative.

    No, my approach is to concur with the sources I listed, and let their conclusion speak for me. I’m just ignoring the criteria and rules for this discussion that your are trying to set for me. You’re pretty much following that same tactic.

    I think I’ve made it quite clear several times that I have no actual answer for you. At least you agree with me on that.

  397. jukeboxgrad says:

    you go on to refer to the same link three times

    That’s because you seem to have trouble locating that material.

    I never tried to address your criteria in the way you wanted me to.

    That’s not the problem. The problem is that you said this:

    They counter the points you keep trying to make.

    This claim is false. I’m still waiting for you to show us where they “counter” what I said here. You can’t show us that, because your claim is false.

    One more time, here’s the problem, in a nutshell. Mitt said he was “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” during a period when he also said he had “no role” at Bain, after he had supposedly “retired.” Unless you decide all those words have no meaning, that’s not possible. It’s a contradiction in terms.

    Your sources don’t address this problem. Here’s one way we know: they mostly don’t even mention those words. And it’s not even possible for them to have mentioned all those words, because all the articles you cited were written before Mitt made his comment about “no role.” In other words, they are not keeping up, and neither are you.

    The narrative presented by you and your sources makes perfect sense as long as you ignore various inconvenient things Mitt has said. That’s what you’re doing. Of course you’re free to do so, but it’s also a good reason for no one to take you seriously.

    Yes, I did say that (“they counter the points you keep trying to make.”). I said it on response to something john personna said.

    This alibi is worthless, because he has made essentially the same “points” that I made.

    Also, you didn’t just make that claim “on response to something john personna said.” You also made that claim in a comment you wrote responding directly to me. You said this:

    You’re just repeating points that the links I’ve read and agree with addressed.

    There you claimed that your “links … addressed” what I said (not just what John said). No, they didn’t. This claim is false. You should either substantiate it or withdraw it. If you continue to do neither, you’re a liar.

    You refer to that quote several times as though I said it in response to anything you ever said.

    Because you said essentially the same thing directly to me. I guess you forgot. Now you’ve been reminded.

    I’m just ignoring the criteria and rules for this discussion that your are trying to set for me.

    What you’re “ignoring” are all of Mitt’s statements that you find inconvenient. And your sources are doing the same thing. You’re also “ignoring” your false claim: that your sources “addressed” his statements that I cited, even though they hardly even mention those statements. Your refusal to withdraw this false claim makes it look like an intentional lie.

  398. rodney dill says:

    @juke

    That’s because you seem to have trouble locating that material.”

    I have no trouble finding your ‘material’ I just choose not to respond to it, as I said here. Sorry, I’m not playing your game.

    That’s not the problem. The problem is that you said this:

    No, that’s not the problem, the problem I’m addressing is as I stated here.

    This claim is false. I’m still waiting for you to show us where they “counter” what I said here.

    No, your claim is not false, (Didn’t I say to check here?). Your purporting my response to someone else as a response to you is false.

    One more time, here’s the problem, in a nutshell…

    …and one more time, you are not defining the criteria that resolves for me, what the sources I referred to, is correct or not. You probably should check here.

    he has made essentially the same “points” that I made

    Essentially, or somewhat, or kinda sorta. Pick what ever weasely word you want, but you tried to make it look that that exact phrase was in response to what you said,

    another falsehood. The burden is on you to establish that the context at that point, in my response to JP, is the same. When I’m satisified you’ve met that

    criteria, then we can come back to this point again.You’ll have a lot a work ahead of you to establish that.

    Interesting that you should bring this

    comment up.

    I said in that same comment, This.

    It strikes me that FactCheck, Wapo, etc… all made the determination that there wasn’t evidence Mitt committed a felony all without the criteria that is all

    important to you. Is strikes me that they must hold this criteria as superfluous to that determination.

    and This

    I know you disagree with that and you want someone to try to answer to your criteria so you can just call them wrong and again call Mitt a felon. I’m not going

    to do that as I said, repeatedly. I’m not playing by your rules or desires, I’m stating I agree with the determination made by the sources I identified.

    And

    you try to twist one sentence to come to mean something else than what I said here.

    I also said here.

    I don’t agree with your analysis, and I don’t offer my own, I said something like that somewhere about 200 comments ago when I said I wasn’t going to argue
    with ‘bainers.’ I said I deferred to the determination made by the fact checking organizations as I agreed with their analysis. I never said it and answered any or all of
    your questions on the matter, but it answered mine, and I still do not have any concern over it.

    and I also said at a different here.

    You don’t agree with it — tough — get over it.
    The various links I read answered the question for me, that he could have his names on the documents during the transition period and not be involved operationally.
    I really don’t care whether it meets your criteria or not.

    You said…

    Because you said essentially the same thing directly to me. I guess you forgot. Now you’ve been reminded.

    Except it’s not even close to being “essentially” the same thing. I know. I talk to the person that said it. You have reminded me how much you distort the truth to try to
    establish your own reality as to what I’m saying. I have no false claim to withdraw, but I am capturing your pattern of your trying to purport falsehoods, should I or
    anyone else need it for future reference.

  399. jukeboxgrad says:

    I have no trouble finding your ‘material’ I just choose not to respond to it

    The problem is not just that you didn’t respond to it. The problem is that you said your sources addressed it, even though they didn’t.

    Your purporting my response to someone else as a response to you is false.

    You said this:

    You’re just repeating points that the links I’ve read and agree with addressed.

    That was not a “response to someone else.” It was a response to me.

    you tried to make it look that that exact phrase was in response to what you said

    You said something to John and you said the same thing to me. The latter is what I just cited. It’s not my fault you have trouble remembering what you said.

    I have no false claim to withdraw

    You said this:

    You’re just repeating points that the links I’ve read and agree with addressed.

    You’re claiming that your sources have “addressed” all the “points” I made. Really? Then you should show us where they explain how it’s possible to be “Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President” of Bain while also having “no role” at Bain. They have not addressed this problem (although Gillespie muttered something about a retroactive retirement, which amounts to an unintentional joke about time travel). Your claim that they have done is false.

  400. rodney dill says:

    …again you’re just repeating yourself, adding nothing to the discussion.

    You’re claiming that your sources have “addressed” all the “points” I made

    As far as any of “your” “points”. I repeatedly said we’re not using your criteria to establish anything. I said I didn’t care what criteria you were using, and I said the issues I’ve talked about and discussed by the links I used were resolved for me. You have failed the burden, on you, to establish that what I said to John applies to anything you said, or was even close to being in the same context. You need to start again here. and re-read until you gain enlightenment.

  401. jukeboxgrad says:

    You have failed the burden, on you, to establish that what I said to John applies to anything you said

    You are still pretending that this:

    You’re just repeating points that the links I’ve read and agree with addressed.

    Is something you “said to John.” Really? Then either you have exceptionally poor reading comprehension, or you’re willing to tell a brazen lie. Which is it?

    You have a lot of practice evading fair questions, so I guess you’re going to evade this one too. Are you really claiming that those words of yours that I just cited are words you “said to John?”