I’m going to be generous to Mitt Romney today. But first some context.
As his primary opponents predicted earlier this year, Mitt’s Bain Capitol record is coming back to bite him in the assets. The latest (which probably isn’t really the latest in the few minutes it takes me to write this post) comes from The Boston Globe:
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.
Here’s the generous part: Mitt’s account may be correct! It very well may be that he left Bain for Salt Lake City, and psychologically detached from Bain, leaving all of the management in the hands of his trusted partners.
I can imagine a departing speech, perhaps held on a yacht in Boston Harbor:
I’ve got an Olympic-sized corruption scandal and fiscal problems to deal with in SLC. So, I’m taking a leave. I’ll have nothing more to do with running Bain through the end of the Olympics. I leave it to you, my trusted friends, to maximize shareholder profits. (And as the only shareholder, I demand it! [forced laugh.]) If you make the shareholder fabulously wealthy, you will be generously rewarded when I move on to my post-Olympic project…. So for now, you have the helm.
(Exit stage right.)
And maybe Mitt lived up to this ideal. There is even some evidence consistent with this account. In some sense, then he shouldn’t be held accountable for decisions made during his leave. Right?
The political problem for Mitt is that, as Kevin Drum points out, the whole thing just looks icky. Denying responsibility for big decisions while at the same time being listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” on multiple SEC filings, makes Mitt look like he is dodging responsibility.
It feels weaselly. Apparently…the buck doesn’t stop with Mitt. (It’s spirited away to a Swiss Bank Account.)
Furthermore, pulling down a salary (even a paltry $100,000) while on leave makes it seem like he was either actively doing something for the company, or skimming without justification.
Either one may be true without tying Mitt to actual decisions (or knowledge of) embarrassing investments and politically damaging layoffs. But, either way, it still looks bad, and people will have to be excused for feeling misled by Mitt.
But here is the deal. I think this Bain thing has left Mitt in a precarious position…and with a much bigger problem.
The problem is that any evidence of decision making at Bain during his leave will make a liar out of Mitt. The evidence so far is good for Mitt. And thousands and thousands of pages of additional documentation may well be released. But proof doesn’t come from negative evidence, so uncertainty will linger.
The flip side is that it will take but one memo, one recording of an invited speech, one email, a telephone recording, or maybe even a handful of disgruntled ex-employees with some personal notes (remember the Veterans who “served with” John Kerry?) to provide a solitary example of Mitt making a major decision for Bain during his leave…and Mitt’s credibility will be decimated.
And worst of all for Mitt, there is a huge incentive to be the first news organization to find it.
The race is on!
Yes, Romney was the sole stockholder and CEO at Baine. But it was only a portion of Bain money at risk in those businesses which were outsourced/closed/sold. Most of the money came from private investors, the “super investors” who are so rich the SEC specifically excludes them from many of it’s requirements under the general class of “private offerings”. It was to those clients whome Baine/Romney, were accountable.
But it’s so closely a symbiotic relationship that the clients and Baine/Romney are virtually indistinguishable. And those relationships continued through the Salt Lake City Olympics, when Romney tapped many of those same folks to make a tax-deductable charitable contribution to bail out the Olympics (along with federal taxpayer funds). And it’s continued to this day, as those same investors keep handing over money to support Romney in what is perhaps the biggest potential payoff of their lifetimes – preserving the interests of the ultra-wealthy through Romney, as President.
Of course, if anybody believes that Romney was really “divorced” from the operations of Baine Capital when he said he was, probably believed that the former V.P. Dick Cheney didn’t have any idea of how much of Haliburtan’s shares were continued to be held in the “blind trust”, while he was influencing U.S. policy and out-sourcing to defense contractors like Haliburtan.
I wonder if Romney will get caught up in the “bankers, hookers, and blow” scandal?
Look, all Romney and his buddies in our bloated finical sector figured out how to do was game the system. It’s not about hating on wealthy people. Americans freaking love wealthy people: Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, T. Boone Pickens, Larry Ellis, Americans freaking love these guys. With good reason too, they did cool stuff. But, all Romney did was game the system.
And all he’s doing in his run for the White House is trying to game the system again. That’s why you can’t get a straight answer out of him.
So will the ÜBER moral cereal clownservative and the religious fanatic puddypussy abandon Mittens for being THE lying asshole that he truly is?
This oughta be good.
@ 1
I guess the Bain/Romney relationship is so indistinguishable that Bain felt no need to list Romney as a leader in their documents after Romney’s departure, then:
UPDATE: Fortune obtained the offering documents for a Bain Capital Fund circulating in June 2000, as well as a fund in 2001. None of the documents show that Romney was listed as being among the “key investment professionals.” 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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html
If you’re spending time perusing the Globe piece, don’t forget to keep these little gems in mind (also from WaPo):
But now the Boston Globe has raised the issue again. 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)
Why does all of this matter? ’cause Obama got nuttin’ else if this story goes away. People might start talking about, oh, I don’t know…….
The economy, maybe.
I’ve worked for the same company for 24 years now, I think I will know when they either fire me, lay me off, or I quit, or I retire. Why wasn’t it this easy for Mitt?
@ 3
While you’re at it, Michael, perhaps you might begin wondering when Romney began beating his wife.
You have just as much evidence for his involvment in each.
Consider:
1. Bain was a small firm. To move markets, one needs some heft. Barclays has heft, Bain did/does not.
2. The LIBOR thing, while seedy to us on the outside, was pretty much how business was done. Geithner knew about it when he was running the NY Fed (2007). Geithner did nothing about it. It’s how things were done. I don’t blame Geithner. Although imagine how it would play in the media if Geithner were a Republican.
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.
Rmoney, could you please remind us all about free stuff?
“But I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from the government, tell them to go vote for the other guy—more free stuff. But don’t forget nothing is really free.”
Did Rmoney, the Owner of Bain Capital, really give $400,000 in free stuff to Rmoney, the executive of Bain Capital?
Yeah, today we understand 2 things.
1) Why McCain, who reviewed Rmoney’s tax returns, did not choose Rmoney as his running mate.
2) Why Rmoney refuses to do what his old man did and release those returns.
Hey Republicans, it is not too late to nominate one of the other GOP stars of 2012. SANTORUM!
@5
The “quote” you allege is suspicious due to the quoter’s political leanings is not suspicious at all. Everything in that quote was from SEC filings made by Bain. SEC filings have no political bias. Next time try harder, skip the talking points, you’ll look smarter.
@8
Also recall that Romney gave the McCain campaign *23* years worth of tax returns. Then ask yourself why McCain didn’t choose him.
@ 9 Wasn’t my allegation. It was out of the WaPo.
@ 10 I’m sure there was at least one reason McCain didn’t choose Romney. Which state would Romney deliver? MI? Nope. MA? Nope.
Romney and McCain did not get along well.
McCain was looking to shake things up and another milquetoast white guy doesn’t do that. It probably also cut out Pawlenty, BTW.
Correlation does not equal causation. Nice try.
You have no sense of mischief, humor, or fun.
Doesn’t have a thing to do with anything. Romney made is millions not by doing anything admirable, helpful, or cool, but by gaming the system. That’s why he’s on 3 sides of every issue and you can’t even get an accurate quit date for him leaving Bain. That’s why he’s had a hell of a time getting people to trust him.
A big part of the reason we’re in the mess we’re now in is do to the Bush admin not regulating the finical services sector for about 8 years and the media had little to say about it for about 7 of those years. Once it blew-up in everyone’s face they had no choice but to talk about it.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I can’t stand Geithner or Holder and I think they’re continuing the Bush era policies of letting criminals walk. I think the Obama admin will continue to let people walk until we embarrass the hell out of them and have people yelling in the streets. A president Romney would be even worse.
Sorry, Mitt Romney, You Can’t Be Chairman, CEO, And President Of A Company And Not Be Responsible For What It Does…
I love how the libs attack Romney’s past…Oh like Owebammma’s past is so prestine……..
I mean really!
Wild speculation alert!
Given what we know to be fact about Willard (That he “inadvertently” claimed Utah as his primary residence for tax purposes but affirmed to Massachusetts that it was a mistake and of course he lived there and was eligible to run for Governor. That he lists his son’s basement as his voting residence and votes in Massachusetts. That he owns a large home, and seems to reside in it, in no income tax having New Hampshire.) it seems that Willard is less than diligent about his residence, taxation, disclosure status.
I suspect that his unreleased tax returns claim no-tax New Hampshire as his residence. But if that’s the case, how is he a Massachusetts voter? Since voter registration is a primary step in establishing residency for taxation, if what I suspect about New Hampshire is true and the voter registration issue is 100% verified fact, Willard is a felon.
Either through tax fraud by claiming New Hampshire as residency while keeping voter registration in a different state, or….wait for it…VOTER FRAUD for voting repeatedly in a state that is not listed as his residence with the IRS.
Again, this is pure speculation on my part.
@16
So, what you’re saying, in a nut shell, is that Willard’s gaming the system.
[Deleted — off topic, see HA Comment Policy]
[Deleted — off topic, see HA Comment Policy]
This Is The Most Disastrous Poll Ever For Mitt Romney
Communism verses America. Even JFK had the sense to recognize and fight Communism.
@21
You keep using that word….I do not think it means what you think it means.
@21
Communism?
That’s what you’re worried about? Communism?
Good lord. You are clearly a moron.
@19
Wonderful quote, I believe by Krugman.
@19
Actually, Krugman refers here, and that quote is this:
@24
Wait, s*** I see on Reddit has sources?
Hey yd, what is more Christian than this:
I love this cartoon, accompanying the Wikipedia article.
Capitalism is seriously flawed, as evinced by a moral cripple like Mitt Romney thriving by it.
[Deleted — off topic, see HA Comment Policy]
Ummm…folks, take your book reviews to an open thread please.
“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.”
“Earned” isn’t the right word for a financial rapist.
We now know Rmoney lied about when he stopped raping workers, shareholders, customers, and creditors.
Does this guy rape little kids, too?
Serial Conservative @ 5,
Again, you disappoint me.
It appears you did not actually read (or read but failed to comprehend) my post. I am getting at something much subtler about the position Romney is in now.
“I guess the Bain/Romney relationship is so indistinguishable that Bain felt no need to list Romney as a leader in their documents after Romney’s departure, then:”
Did you notice that I actually cited the Fortune documents…twice?
Sheesh… Your first grade “analyses” (really, little more than “reactions”) give me no incentive to engage you at all. PLEASE…use your brain!
@3 The most disgraceful story of all is that no bankers have gone to jail. They still have their mansions and Porsches, and their low, low tax rates. Who says crime doesn’t pay?
Hmmm… “Romney’s Bain Years: New Evidence, Same Conclusion”
Will this entry get rejected from HA…?
FactCheck! Watch the leftist loons go apeshit now!
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
@ 33
I felt that the two places in which you pasted the text, rather than just embedding a link, were not favorable to Romney, and since a lot of people tend to just skim the front-page thread text and only selectively click links in long posts, that the embedded links weren’t enough, at least not enough for me.
I chose to highlight text that was descriptive of the evidence you are emphasizing that you did provide. Now it’s on a page that all the commenters will read. Sue me.
You seem to believe that this will continue to be a problem for Romney, as the media gleefully sort through documents looking for some tangible reason to ask Romney when he stopped beating his wife.
You are not alone. Yesterday one of Obama’s campaign dolts alleged that Romney may have committed a felony. Today WaPo gave it three Pinocchios.
But the story lives on, because the alternative is discussing, um…….
The economy.
The Bain thing is a little thing. What did Obama say about little things and how small-minded politicians use them, only four years ago?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Darryl, in the 2002 MA gubernatorial election the Dems tried to paint Romney as a guy who had moved to Utah and had abandoned his MA job. Now they’re claiming the opposite. Wouldn’t be the first time something like that happened in MA. Recall the MA state law change to keep Romney from appointing a US Senator, followed by a change back to the old way so that Patrick could appoint a US Senator.
Your thread most accurately could have been one in which you emphasized that Romney wasn’t actively involved even if he maintained ownership of the Bain businesses. If you mention it in an embedded link in a post that otherwise (at least to me) seemingly conveys something essentially different, why do you have a problem with my choice to emphasize the pro-Romney aspect of the topic?
I’ll admit I don’t read every thing in every thread and I don’t click every link before commenting. Steve caught me in an error recently for something I didn’t read, and I acknowledged his point.
In this case, I made a deliberate decision to front-page specifics that you only provided in embedded form.
I am sorry if that disappointed you.
No, the story lives on because it resonates.
People respond to narrative, to stories – they want their reactions to make sense, to hang together in a framework that seems consistent. The thing is – Romney comes across as an asshole. There are endless examples of him having absolutely no social skills in public places, interacting with normal people; he comes across as alien, stiff, condescending; he says things like, “I like to fire people,” and “Who let the dogs out?” Cringe-worthy stuff, over and over.
The thing is, the stories about the Swiss bank accounts, and now the Bain story – which one? Left in 1999, 2002? When? – they’re all pretty indefensible – they make sense.
They fit into an easy narrative in which Mitt is an entitled, inherited rich kid who got richer by fucking people over. Easy, and repellent, and congruent with the public persona he emits.
Many/most people don’t want to dig deep into facts, alas. I think such digging would make Mitt even more toxic, but for the ordinary passive consumer of news stories, this one fits together, and Mitt reminds them of the guy who fired them (I think that’s a Huckabee paraphrase, said about Mitt).
As Howard Fineman said, the Mitt campaign took a two day mini-story and turned it into a three-week disaster. Add political malpractice to his negatives. Ouch.
@ 40
Competent asshole
or
Cool, sexy dude and admittedly great orator wholly unprepared for the task.
You’d choose one, I’d choose the other.
What is it about cool
http://horsesass.org/?p=44632#comment-1165731
that makes intelligent people dismiss the requirement for competence?
This isn’t American Idol, peeps.
@ 40
Many/most people don’t want to dig deep into facts, alas.
Agreed. It’s why I @ 39 put the Fortune stuff that defends Romney front-page in this thread.
You make some good points, Lib Sci. I just am less interested in narrative and more interested in performance.
Gotta admit – you are good at message discipline. That’s the attack you guys want to be making, for sure.
The young black guy is in over his head. It’s slick, alright. Undertones of affirmative action – gasp. Stroking the wingnut id. Sly, making the racist attack without the racism – Atwater would be so proud.
And spare me the complaint that any attack on Obama is racist – no one has asserted that, despite your protests. However, this whole ‘incompetent’ and ‘in over his head’ narrative is exactly that – provoking middle-aged white peoples’ underlying, latent and not-so-latent resentment and racism.
The last part is true, we know without doubt. Competent, though? At what? Making a boatload of money when you start out with only a lot? Gaming the system, moving money around, sucking the life out of companies, simply because you can? I’ve seen nothing that leads me to think that Mitt would be a good President of the US.
Could you enlighten me on that? My question still stands – and you seem to be flirting with it here – give me an affirmative argument for a Romney presidency.
Hey, if Rmoney wasn’t reeealllly the CEO of Bain Capital from 99 to 02 while he collected a salary of at least $100,000 per year, who was the Acting CEO?
Blah Blah Blah Blah
Let’s talk about obummers abysmal economic record and the fact he increased the deficit by $6 Trillion in 4 years when he promised he would cut it in half. It’s now $16 TRILLION and rising. Obummer promised to get it down to $5 TRILLION>
Now lets talk about the unemployment. Despite cooking the books with temporary employment numbers, it’s still horrible.
lets talk about obummers Private work experience which is NONE. he is clueless and instead nitpicks Romney. what a joke. come Nov., undecideds will break decidedly for romney because obummer will be all out of bullshit except for the ignorant bastards who treat him like a rock star and refunse to look at his actual results.
RomneyBain invested in Chinese outsourcing specialist in 1998 – when he was unambiguously in charge.
Things are getting uglier and uglier for Mitt.
This is not a distraction from the economy at all – these stories get to the essential nature of how one views the economy, and the larger society – is the economy a plaything of the people who’ve gamed it so well that they enjoy disproportionate control? Are we all to be worker drones, at the mercy of the Mitt Romneys of the world? Do we all toil away so Mitt can have 4 or 6 or 8 mansions and $250 Million and the rest of us get to worry about living paycheck-to-paycheck?
The big question is, if Mitt implodes irreversibly over this, who will they replace him with at the Republican convention? Christie? Jeb? Condi? Ron (or Rand) Paul?
That will be an interesting convention!
@ 43
Cut out the allegations of racism, Lib Sci. You demean your own argument.
You’ll perhaps recall that people on the left found Sarah Palin unqualified to be VP. Was that because she was a woman? No. It probably had to do with a thin resume’. Her time spent with Couric didn’t help matters much.
Dan Quayle similarly was felt to be unqualified at 42.
So when someone with a thin resume aspires for the top or second-top job, there will be mentions of qualification or lack thereof.
Race has nothing to do with it and you’re a leftist shill for pulling that stunt. An asshole for doing it as well.
How many years of tax returns should the Rmoney team vetting potential VP candidates ask for?
a) 2011 only?
b) 2010 & 2011 only?
c) None?
@ 48
They should ask for all, not just the past two years. How they handle what they get, I suppose, might depend on the candidate. If it were Condi Rice, and if she had the assets one might expect of a public servant, would they care how things looked on her 2000 1040?
If it were, say, Santorum, I’d want it all.
No, that wasn’t a statement of support for Santorum. I’d want to know how he earned his income after leaving the Senate, and I’d like to know his wife’s complete financial history.
Serial Conservative,
“I felt that the two places in which you pasted the text, rather than just embedding a link, were not favorable to Romney…”
I guess that’s all I needed to know. You didn’t even read the post, because I only quoted one block of text.
You are, apparently not interested in serious dialog here.
You’re a fucking fake.
“and since a lot of people tend to just skim the front-page thread…”
Yes…apparently.
“I chose to highlight text that was descriptive of the evidence you are emphasizing that you did provide. Now it’s on a page that all the commenters will read. Sue me.”
No I won’t sue you, but I will ignore you.
“You seem to believe that this will continue to be a problem for Romney, as the media gleefully sort through documents looking for some tangible reason to ask Romney when he stopped beating his wife.”
No…that does not correctly characterize my thesis.
“You are not alone. Yesterday one of Obama’s campaign dolts alleged that Romney may have committed a felony. Today WaPo gave it three Pinocchios.”
My thesis when nowhere near that direction…quite the oppose, in fact.
“But the story lives on, because the alternative is discussing, um…….
The economy.”
And if wishes were horses, Wingnuts could ride….
“The Bain thing is a little thing.”
I’m sure that assertion comforts you….
“Darryl, in the 2002 MA gubernatorial election the Dems tried to paint Romney as a guy who had moved to Utah and had abandoned his MA job. Now they’re claiming the opposite.”
No…the two situations are not symmetrical. You are thinking like a simpleton.
“Wouldn’t be the first time something like that happened in MA. Recall the MA state law change to keep Romney from appointing a US Senator, followed by a change back to the old way so that Patrick could appoint a US Senator.”
This seems the have no relevance to the issue that I was discussion. You seem to have some type of attention deficit disorder. Or, perhaps, this is an intentional strategy of jumping around to distantly related topics when you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
“Your thread most accurately could have been one in which you emphasized that Romney wasn’t actively involved even if he maintained ownership of the Bain businesses.”
Ummm…you mean like when I stated:
“If you mention it in an embedded link in a post that otherwise (at least to me) seemingly conveys something essentially different,”
That’s because you didn’t read the post, dumbass.
“why do you have a problem with my choice to emphasize the pro-Romney aspect of the topic?”
Because I had hopes that you were a serious person here, and that you might contribute to genuine, intelligent, back-and-forth.
You disappoint me.
“I’ll admit I don’t read every thing in every thread and I don’t click every link before commenting.”
Every thread? You mean every post? That’s good to know that I need not pay attention to your drivel, as it is likely to be under-informed.
If you want to debate something in the future, try to let me know…
“Steve caught me in an error recently for something I didn’t read, and I acknowledged his point.”
That’s nice.
“In this case, I made a deliberate decision to front-page specifics that you only provided in embedded form.”
My issue isn’t about the “specifics” you posted. Rather the fact that you were reacting to an entirely different post than the one I wrote.
“I am sorry if that disappointed you.”
Thanks.
But here is my question. If you are spending a non-trivial few minutes a day posting in a comment thread of a liberal blog, why don’t you actually read the posts, and provide genuine, thought out, counterarguments? Why not point out the flaws in my arguments, rather that respond to the fictitious argument you imagined in your head? At least that way you actually have a chance of changing an opinion or shaping the debate.
Otherwise, if you are just here to spew unintelligent blather, you will end up like Puddybud…someone that nobody takes seriously or pays attention to. People will play with you only to provoke and make you look foolish. (And given that you are sometimes prone to uncritical parroting of right-wing talking points, that will become increasingly easy to do.)
So…if it isn’t for actual, opinion-shaping debate, what is the draw for you to be here? What do you hope to get out of it? Accomplish?
@49,
Every American can view President Obama’s and Vice President Biden’s tax returns for the years 2000 – 2011.
McCain was given 23 years of Rmoney’s tax returns in 2008.
What is Willard M. Rmoney hiding?
If Romney vetted himself, his tax returns would KO shot at White House
@ 50
You are, apparently not interested in serious dialog here.
Untrue. Disappointing you feel that way about me.
Your supposed generosity to Romney is not. You grudgingly acknowledge that Fortune has a strong point. And still, you’re fully willing to disregard any and all supportive evidence if you ever come across a single item, tangible or otherwise, that contradicts all else.
The flip side is that it will take but one memo, one recording of an invited speech, one email, a telephone recording, or maybe even a handful of disgruntled ex-employees with some personal notes (remember the Veterans who “served with” John Kerry?) to provide a solitary example of Mitt making a major decision for Bain during his leave…and Mitt’s credibility will be decimated.
And worst of all for Mitt, there is a huge incentive to be the first news organization to find it.
The race is on!
Nice. The exclamation point was a particularly telling touch.
@ 50
You must have revised @ 50. I missed about three paragraphs at the end.
If all I do is hang with like-minded people, I become further entrenched in my ideology and more closed-minded. I cannot imagine how awful Drinking Liberally must be if it’s populated by a bunch of liberals coming up with the latest distortion of Romney’s name or some variation on a description of the opposition as Rethuglicans. Who keeps you from believing your own bullshit?
So I hang here, because I want something different and something local. I make fun of Rujax, RR, and now, Gman. I learn a few things here and there and I have doubts in some places of my side of the political spectrum where previously there were no doubts because of things people here have said. You guys keep me from believing my own bullshit. Except the idiots who end up reinforcing that, yup, I was right.
I particularly like the poll-related stuff. I think I am perhaps most useful there.
You seem to want me to be something I either am not or am not yet prepared to be.
I think you and I have different perspectives on how to view information. You might discount 99.9% of a pro-Romney data trail if you can find 0.1% that says Romney isn’t being truthful, while I’d believe the 99.9% and chalk up the other 0.1% that might show Romney had hands-on involvement to an assumption that since it WAS his money still in the firm, every so often he had to make a decision that affected it. One CAN turn over a business to others, although it isn’t hard to imagine that every so often one might need to re-engage on the most consequential of matters. How one views that is a matter of perspective. It doesn’t have to be bias.
I don’t think that my perception, or misperception, of this current thread warranted your attack on me. But this is private property and it’s your private property. So, fire away.
I do have a day job. Gotta get to it.
Thank you for doing this. Smartest guy in the room is Michael. Pick on him for a change.
Serial Conservative,
“Your supposed generosity to Romney is not. You grudgingly acknowledge that Fortune has a strong point.”
Grudgingly???? There was nothing judgmental in that at all. The point that “proof doesn’t come from negative evidence, so uncertainty will linger” isn’t a judgement…that’s just a fact.
“And still, you’re fully willing to disregard any and all supportive evidence if you ever come across a single item”
I was not taking a stance on the issue, really. In other words, I was pointing out a predicament, and one that arises even if Mitt was entirely hands-off.
“Nice. The exclamation point was a particularly telling touch.”
WTF?!? That was commentary about the media, not Mitt.
I suppose a thread entitled ‘Obama’s Precarious Position’ might be a little too much to ask for, but if I were to construct one I might start with this:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155.....gging.aspx
I might move on to what the educated young adult population has in store for it, maybe something like this:
NALP: Starting Salary for Law Grads Plunges 35% in Two Years
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax.....ting-.html
Yeah…the cereal clownservative is furiously trying to deflect the Raw-Money scandals.
Not even a good try…I like the Condi for veep tack better. The motherfucker is TOAST.
Hah.
Serial Conservative.
“You must have revised @ 50. I missed about three paragraphs at the end.”
I did…sorry.
“If all I do is hang with like-minded people, I become further entrenched in my ideology and more closed-minded. I cannot imagine how awful Drinking Liberally must be if it’s populated by a bunch of liberals coming up with the latest distortion of Romney’s name or some variation on a description of the opposition as Rethuglicans.”
If that is what went on, it might be dreadful. But your description doesn’t characterize the Seattle Chapter of DL.
“Who keeps you from believing your own bullshit?”
It helps not to feed on bullshit in the first place….
“So I hang here, because I want something different and something local. I make fun of Rujax, RR, and now, Gman. I learn a few things here and there and I have doubts in some places of my side of the political spectrum where previously there were no doubts because of things people here have said. You guys keep me from believing my own bullshit. Except the idiots who end up reinforcing that, yup, I was right.”
Fair enough. All I would request is that in non-open threads that you be honest and seriously analytical. (Not a demand…just what I think would lead to a fun, healthy debate.)
“You seem to want me to be something I either am not or am not yet prepared to be.”
Well…I see someone who sometimes engages in discussion (sometimes even with good points :-) and other times dumps uncritical propaganda. “Picking on” you is just my way of nudging you to the former….
“I think you and I have different perspectives on how to view information. You might discount 99.9% of a pro-Romney data trail if you can find 0.1% that says Romney isn’t being truthful, while I’d believe the 99.9% and chalk up the other 0.1% that might show Romney had hands-on involvement to an assumption that since it WAS his money still in the firm, every so often he had to make a decision that affected it. One CAN turn over a business to others, although it isn’t hard to imagine that every so often one might need to re-engage on the most consequential of matters. How one views that is a matter of perspective. It doesn’t have to be bias.”
I largely agree with you here. I was making the point about the predicament that has arisen without judging Romney. That is, I think it is entirely possible Romeny was hands off. But the debate has evolved in a way (again, not claiming it is Romney’s fault) that the press is incentivzed (by market forces of “being the first”) to find a scrap of evidence that falsifies Romney’s “hands off” claim.
You could imagine, for example, someone coming forward with a tape of Romney giving a speech before the Provo Chamber of Commerce in 2000 (total hypothetical example here) where he mentions a recent conversation with his partners at Bain on how to best stimulate small business growth in Utah. That single tape would be devastating–even if totally unfairly, since it may have been a one-time interaction that had nothing to do with any other transactions that have been flagged as politically “objectionable” in the same period.
“I don’t think that my perception, or misperception, of this current thread warranted your attack on me. But this is private property and it’s your private property. So, fire away.”
Actually…being “my private property” isn’t relevant. Folks are free to “attack” anyone (as long as they stay within the bounds of the comment policy.)
“Thank you for doing this. Smartest guy in the room is Michael. Pick on him for a change.”
Thanks…I’ll consider it.
Hey Darryl –
Since you’re on this thread … I have offered to bet Cereal $1000 even money that Obama will be re-elected. His posts seem to indicate that he will take the bet without outright saying so. My main misgiving about this is that taking bets with someone you only know anonymously thru a msg board is generally a really stupid idea. SO … can you put us in touch privately. You are the only one on this board with the power to do so I believe.
Thanks.
@ 58
Game on, girlfriend.
Who’s Cereal?
Serial Conservative,
“I suppose a thread entitled ‘Obama’s Precarious Position’ might be a little too much to ask for, but if I were to construct one I might start with this”
You began this comment as, apparently, on topic. But the rest of the comment is off topic and BELONGS IN AN OPEN THREAD.
You might have seriously discussed a parallel vulnerabilities that Obama has. Instead you dumped bullshit trivia that you picked up from the right-wing echo chamber.
In the future, when you are mining those sources, try to remind yourself that your forthcoming comment probably doesn’t contribute to a serious ongoing conversation. And leave it in an open thread.
I did not watch the video, but:
CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999
http://hotair.com/archives/201.....t-in-1999/
I read this a day or two ago, I think. Only nine days elapsed from the time Romney’s name first surfaced in association with a SLC rescue and the announcement of his departure from Bain to run SLC Games. It really caught the businesses by surprise.
Which of the HAers do I recall referring to Romney’s position running the SLC games largely as a ‘fundraiser’? I can’t remember. I think it would be good for a laugh or three.
McDermott is talking about this on the Ed show right now…he BUSTED UP laughing when Ed brought up the Wasilla Snowbilly’s suggestion that Condi should be VP. Priceless.
It’s you…you supercilious fuck.
@ 60
Does it matter where I pick up a Gallup.com item? I wonder how many of those numerous links in the Open Threads you picked up from ‘left-wing echo chambers’.
BTW the @61 CNN video mention also was from a right-wing echo chamber site. The CNN item is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/.....?hpt=hp_c1
But first, is there anything other than the SEC filings to suggest a hands-on Romney role at Bain post-February 1999?
No is the word from four sources who communicated with CNN on Thursday — all of whom have firsthand knowledge of Bain’s operations at the time in question. Three of the four are Democrats, and two of the four are active Obama supporters in Campaign 2012.
All four told me Romney is telling the truth.
Only one, Bain Managing Director Steve Pagliuca, would talk on the record. The others spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing either Bain’s low-key culture or the desire not to anger friends in the Obama campaign.
Pagliuca, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2010, told CNN: “Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has 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.”
In explaining the SEC documents filed in 2000 and 2001, Pagliuca said, “Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period.”
Another Bain Democrat who did not want to be identified by name said Romney had no role after taking the Olympics post
“Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. He was just gone. And it happened very suddenly. … After that, he was not on calls or writing memos. He was gone.”
That paste was a little long and possibly a violation of HA policy. I’d ask a little leeway because it goes directly to the heart of the thread topic.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....the-screws
http://thepage.time.com/2012/0.....z20WAdazJc
Ruh Roh….
…Raw-Money’s lost Mark Halperin.
Not to late for Ron Paul!!!!
Go Ron! Go Ron!!
Rael @ 58,
I cannot give you Serial Conservative’s contact information, but I forwarded yours to him. It is up to him to reply or not.
http://www.americablog.com/201.....y-was.html
Really?
Do the cereal clownservative and the puddypussy think this is ok?
Serial Conservative,
“Does it matter where I pick up a Gallup.com item? I wonder how many of those numerous links in the Open Threads you picked up from ‘left-wing echo chambers’.”
Not at all…I was referring to the source of the meme…not the media source.
So…it appears I am correct. The race is on!
@ 65
I like Halperin.
It’s hard not to like a guy willing to call Obama a ‘dick’ on camera.
Rujax, when I said that, did it make you think of your Obama kneepads?
@ 58, 66
Got it.
Need a week to reply – lotta stuff going – but we’re on.
No asshole…it just reminds me what an asshole you are.
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....58098.html
Yeah…the asshole cereal clownservative thinks Halperin is a “stand-up guy” for calling the President of the United States a “dick” on national TV.
When did that happen to C+Augustus ANYTIME between 2000-2008?
What would the right-wing noise machine have done had that happened?
Why wasn’t Halperin FIRED?
The cereal clownservative is a fucking racist like the rest of ’em. There’s a Black Man in the White House and these assholes can’t abide that.
Plain and simple.
The sideshows continue. Undecided Americans without jobs could give a shit about Bain Capital. If Romney picks Condi Rice as his V-P, it’s a monstrous gamechanger. Can’t wait for the racist left to rain down attacks on her. She is a brilliant conservative. Joe Biden looks like a complete doufus compared to Condi.
And oh yeah…Condi is truly Black and a woman.
Good luck with that choice assholes.
Obummer has outspent Romney 3-1 in the swing states and moved the needle close to zero. I suspect Romney is saving his warchest and will unleash it when he names Condi Rice his VP. Or Marco Rubio. I think Condi is the best choice.
Joe Biden is a complete f***ing idiot. Everything is a joke to him. His IQ is less than 1/2 Condi’s. The debates will be stunning to show the contrast.
And Obummer will be forced to debate and so will Biden because he must move a lot of undecideds as he cannot get out of the 46-48 Approval.
It’s the economy and confidence in leadership.
Obummer has had training wheels on for 4 years and has been a complete failure.
Biden is just plain dumb..an embarrassment.
Get ready assholes.
Let’s talk about Jamie Dimon..the guy obama has drooled all over and personally invested in.
The losses are now double again…$4.4 Billion.
Now Dimon is getting lots of heat. Watch obummer throw him under the bus!
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs.....21322.html
Wow, rujaxoff the failed musican and broom sweeping shop steward sure is pissy today.
Good to know rujaxof is still occupying the bottom rung. Of the ha ladder.
How much you wanna bet rujaxoff doesn’t talk so tough in person?
Sorry einstein…raw-money already promised a pro-life veep.
Game changer…never.
PS…Bain has legs. raw-money’s in trouble and he knows it. Why else would he be going on ALL THREE NETWORKS tonight.
Go peddle your papers somewhere else, sonny.
Yeah…I sure wouldn’t want to take on a fucking scab-wannabe high-school football hero like the emperor max-minidick (aka kaiser bun the first).
Why would I want to have ANYTHING to do with that dickless wonder?
re 76: “How much you wanna bet rujaxoff doesn’t talk so tough in person?”
Anyone who has ever sustained a swift, sharp blow to a vital area would not suggest such things. I think you should stop the thinly veiled aggression.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”. TR
http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....s-got-this
Great pictures.
Puddy quoted a Pennsylvania law professer @ # 35 in favor of Romney, and declared that settled the issue.
Of course, there are as many political positions as there are law professers (more than the general electorate).
And President Obama is an ex-professer of law, himself. The legal community clearly doesn’t speak with one voice. If you don’t believe me, just attend any hearing where lawyers are pesent.
Heck, I don’t know if Romney violated any laws with respect to voting and tax returns. I’d have to look at more evidence. Shouldn’t we all see more evidence? The Romney camp doesn’t want us to see more, that’s for sure.
@ 77
Actually, it’s Condi Rice who has legs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....tml?nav=E8
Why would I want to have ANYTHING to do with that dickless wonder?
I take it, then, Rujax, that you prefer dick?
@78
Sorry rujaxoff, football asnt my sport of choice…but your post says a lot about you…gee, did you get picked on much? Maybe your mouth got you in a lot of trouble…
Run along chump…..
@84
Lol…..a dick in his mouth is probably the only thing that shuts him up
No, I prefer pussy. Like you, for example.
Lol…rujaxoff is talking tough again..
Do you also talk tough when your out breaking church windows?
You might prefer pussy,but I doubt pussy prefers you.
Okay, this thread has definately run it’s course. More to the point, however, is the Romney thinks he can hold out on releasing his tax returns until public interest has been diverted elswhere. What can we do to keep the heat on Romney on this issue, all through the campaign?
Brad DeLong hits pay dirt again
So, champions of business and the FREE market, defenders against Kenyan Komunizm … please identify some other examples of “chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” who have no responsibilities whatsoever.
We patiently wait and will enjoy the crickets of summer.
Shows how much rhpee6033 pays attention. Factcheck.org was the source. And we have it on a good source rhpee6033 is a moron!
Factcheck.org… still agrees that Romney was long gone! Stericycle is a NON ISSUE except to Obummer liars!
And who is “untruly” black I wonder??
These right wing dopes reveal themselves eventually. They can’t help themselves.
Mitt Romney’s Own 2002 Testimony Undermines Bain Departure Claim
Somehow those idiot amateurs rumming raw-money’s campaign need to stop the bleeding.
At this rate he won’t make it out of the convention.
Axelrod is playing the raw-money dopes for the chumps they are. Real competent, those clowns. HAH!
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.