Werthless wrote:Can someone explain to me in straight terms what Romney is being accused of with respect to Bain? I don't follow talk radio/political commentary on tv, so I'm confused about why the timing of when he stopped working there is important, or how the ownership structure may affect his President-worthiness. Or is this one of these "birther" issues that perpetuates forever just to get the base riled up, ala "We have many 'concerns' about his time at Bain... what is he hiding? Why won't he release his long-form tax return from 1999?"

I think you probably have a pretty good idea already. If not factcheck.org spells things out pretty clearly (while defending Romney). It's just really the odd sort of political dance that makes it confusing. Romney (and his supporters) seemed to wish to portray his years at Bain as capitalism at its finest, and maybe they were right. But they (Bain) did some politically unpalatable things, so it's not surprising Romney wants to disassociate himself from these actions and the Obama campaign wants to tie him to them.

I don't really think it's like the birther issue issue. It's just a matter of appealing to those who sneer at the the term "venture capitalist" versus those who sneer at the term "community organizer". It's all just fun and games right now, I don't think any significant portion of the electorate falls into either of these camps, and certainly none of those that do are at all likely to cross boundaries.

Swish has the gist of it, but the reason 1999-2001 matters specifically is the worst Bain investments politically (outsourcing wise, and the abortion fetus thing PiP posted on the previous page) started while Romney was on his leave of absence but before he stepped down officially as CEO/President of the company. So if he is culpable for those investments, then it's the best evidence the campaign can muster that he's really a heartless bastard with no morals. The vast preponderance of evidence is that he was gone by then, but there's enough layers to it that it's muddled enough that questions can be asked. Romney might be a felon!

If roles were reversed it would be a sign that Republicans would stoop to any level to win an election.

Essentially, as I understand, the political issue is "who did Mitt lie to, the SEC or the voters?" The basic jist...

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in February 2001, Bain Capital listed Romney as the company’s sole shareholder, sole director, chief executive officer and president, and that Mitt's principal occupation was as Bain’s managing director. Romney’s camp has repeatedly said he had nothing to do with the company’s operations after February 1999, that he left to work solely on the Salt Lake City Winter Olympic committee. The 1999-2001 period is when Bain oversaw investments that either sent jobs overseas or filed for bankruptcy (ie, plenty o' American job losses). His involvement at this time could be politically harmful to his "job creating" claim.

Romney stated in federal disclosure forms for that 1999-2001 timeframe that he was not active in Bain Capital (the opposite of what's claimed in the SEC documents). If he misrepresented his role at Bain on the SEC documents, that may constitute a federal crime. Whether it does or not, you'd have to ask someone familliar with those kind of criminal codes. All I know is SEC filings are signed "under threat of federal prosecution". If he misrepresented his role at Bain on the federal disclosure forms, he lied to protect his political image.

Quotes from the Obama camp regarding this... "This is serious business". "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 investments. If the latter is true, it’s a real character and trust issue." It's as if Camp Obama is calling out Mittens, daring him to answer the question "Who did you lie to? The SEC or the American people?"

But to JH's) point, it could be a case of him officially/legally being Chairman and Managing Directot (for SEC reporting purposes) but in practice actually taking a leave to head the Olympic effort. We have something somewhat analogous at my employer. Employees are granted 6 month leaves to work for charitable organizations, yet they stay on the payroll, maintain their title, etc., but have no contact with us during the leave. If he thought he might return to Bain, formally relinquishing roles would have been over complicated and unnecessary.

cshort wrote:But to JH's) point, it could be a case of him officially/legally being Chairman and Managing Directot (for SEC reporting purposes) but in practice actually taking a leave to head the Olympic effort. We have something somewhat analogous at my employer. Employees are granted 6 month leaves to work for charitable organizations, yet they stay on the payroll, maintain their title, etc., but have no contact with us during the leave. If he thought he might return to Bain, formally relinquishing roles would have been over complicated and unnecessary.

your analogy would be apt if the employee "on leave" is the guy who started the whole damn company. The person who basically owns it.

Mitt's a successful business owner. For all intents and purposes, that's his claim, beyond his age and birthplace, to special qualification to be President (it sure as hell isn't his sense of humor).

He has trouble - real, complicated, 2 & 1/2 somersaults with a half-twist, in pike position, degree of difficulty - explaining the 'specialness' of "qualification". If he can't do that - if he can't connect those special dots, make clear with tangible examples drawn from his own, you know, special experiences, how his business success makes him the tippy-top choice to be president of the country, for the people who have to affirm him as their choice for the office - however in heaven is he going to be good at the job? If you were interviewing for a job, and the person across the desk asked you to clear up a period of a couple 3 confusing years you've noted there on your resume, would you expect that if you blithely attempted to change the topic rather than answer the question that you'd actually get the job?

If the chief talent that propelled you to your business success was lying, I'm fine with that. Show me you're actually good at it.

cshort wrote:But to JH's) point, it could be a case of him officially/legally being Chairman and Managing Directot (for SEC reporting purposes) but in practice actually taking a leave to head the Olympic effort. We have something somewhat analogous at my employer. Employees are granted 6 month leaves to work for charitable organizations, yet they stay on the payroll, maintain their title, etc., but have no contact with us during the leave. If he thought he might return to Bain, formally relinquishing roles would have been over complicated and unnecessary.

If that was really what was going on, why hasn't he come out and SAID that?

Swiggers wrote:

cshort wrote:But to JH's) point, it could be a case of him officially/legally being Chairman and Managing Directot (for SEC reporting purposes) but in practice actually taking a leave to head the Olympic effort. We have something somewhat analogous at my employer. Employees are granted 6 month leaves to work for charitable organizations, yet they stay on the payroll, maintain their title, etc., but have no contact with us during the leave. If he thought he might return to Bain, formally relinquishing roles would have been over complicated and unnecessary.

If that was really what was going on, why hasn't he come out and SAID that?

He has

jerseyhoya wrote:

Swiggers wrote:

cshort wrote:But to JH's) point, it could be a case of him officially/legally being Chairman and Managing Directot (for SEC reporting purposes) but in practice actually taking a leave to head the Olympic effort. We have something somewhat analogous at my employer. Employees are granted 6 month leaves to work for charitable organizations, yet they stay on the payroll, maintain their title, etc., but have no contact with us during the leave. If he thought he might return to Bain, formally relinquishing roles would have been over complicated and unnecessary.

If that was really what was going on, why hasn't he come out and SAID that?

He has

Not very coherently.

This really is like the '04 campaIgn, except that I think in Kerry's case with the Vietnam stuff he didn't know how to tell a favorable story, and in Romney's case with Bain the story itself, in all its detaIls, is not very favorable. That he and his investors made a shit ton of money is great for them, but pretty clearly meaningless or negative for the rest of us.

Like I said upthread, I seriously doubt Romney did anything illegal or even unusual. It's just that usually when someone dedicated his career to the full-throttle pursuit of maximum profit, everyone else be damned, he doesn't then turn around and try to get elected President. Likewise with exploiting every last loophole in the tax code.

What Mitt's dealing with now are the consequences of how he spent the 25 years of his life before becoming a full-time politician. That he's trying to simultaneously run on that record and hide from it is obviously problematic.

jerseyhoya wrote:Swish has the gist of it, but the reason 1999-2001 matters specifically is the worst Bain investments politically (outsourcing wise, and the abortion fetus thing PiP posted on the previous page) started while Romney was on his leave of absence but before he stepped down officially as CEO/President of the company. So if he is culpable for those investments, then it's the best evidence the campaign can muster that he's really a heartless bastard with no morals. The vast preponderance of evidence is that he was gone by then, but there's enough layers to it that it's muddled enough that questions can be asked. Romney might be a felon!

If roles were reversed it would be a sign that Republicans would stoop to any level to win an election.

How is questioning his business practices and professional history "stooping to any level?"

If no one questioned it, romney could and would just cherry pick stuff from his bain days. At least this is better than the dog story

The assertion 'he's either lying or a felon' is a rough one given it doesn't appear that either is true. They're getting pretty widely panned by the fact checking groups, but are pressing on because it's been effective. Everyone from his time at Bain (even prominent Democrats) seem to be in agreement with his story that he left in February 1999, which is a big difference between this go around and the Swift Boat stuff. In 2002, the Massachusetts Democratic Party tried to get Romney thrown off the ballot because they said he had been living in Utah and not working for Bain for the previous three years. In 2012, the national Democratic Party is arguing in the opposite direction.

I'm pretty amoral when it comes to campaigns, and this seems to be a pretty good strategy despite the lack of there there. It's a tough charge for Romney to answer in a soundbite, because as drsmooth keeps noting, it's complicated and not something normal people can relate to.

romney came back for board meetings as late as 2002. kinda settles it.

Steve Kornacki sums up the issue for Romney:

When the Boston Globe reported yesterday that Mitt Romney continued to be listed as Bain Capital’s president, CEO, chairman and sole shareholder on SEC documents long after he claims to have left the company, Bain responded with this explanation:

“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,”

The problem with this: Romney himself provided a different – and more sensible – explanation when he appeared before the Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission in 2002:

“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, I use that in the colloquial sense, not legal sense, but my former partners,”

What Romney said a decade ago makes a lot more sense than what he and Bain are saying now.

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.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/13/why_mitt’s_story_doesnt_add_up/

Again, this sort of opportunistic shading isn't uncommon or objectionable in the corporate world. But it's new and unsettling in presidential candidates, and in this case it's being sold, poorly, by a guy who (to his credit?) isn't a very convincing liar. Is there any doubt Bill Clinton, in Romney's loafers, would have been able to make this a virtue?

pacino wrote:romney came back for board meetings as late as 2002. kinda settles it.

Link?

that was his defense when he was trying to state he was a Mass resident back in 2002/2003.

or he got 100k a year to do nothing? not sure which is better to lie about

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:romney came back for board meetings as late as 2002. kinda settles it.

Link?

Here you go

Lifelike and Staples were Bain acquisitions. To repeat: Romney said he attended board meetings of Bain companies in a period in which Bain says he had "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies." And this was under oath:

I returned for most of those meetings. Others I attended by telephone if I could not return.

So now the story is the following: Romney legally declared himself the "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" in a period when his company says he had "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies." But during that period, he attended board meetings of Bain companies and made several business trips back to Boston.

Yes, he could quibble over "board meetings of Bain companies" versus "Bain board meetings." And as a Democrat, I really hope he does.

well, when i'm the sole owner and ceo of a company, i dont like to have anything to do with the decisions of it.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:romney came back for board meetings as late as 2002. kinda settles it.

Link?

Here you go

Lifelike and Staples were Bain acquisitions. To repeat: Romney said he attended board meetings of Bain companies in a period in which Bain says he had "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies." And this was under oath:

I returned for most of those meetings. Others I attended by telephone if I could not return.

So now the story is the following: Romney legally declared himself the "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" in a period when his company says he had "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies." But during that period, he attended board meetings of Bain companies and made several business trips back to Boston.

Yes, he could quibble over "board meetings of Bain companies" versus "Bain board meetings." And as a Democrat, I really hope he does.

Categorical denials are really dumb, but that came from Bain and not Romney.

Romney has maintained he had nothing to do with the day to day running of Bain either in making management or investment decisions after he left in early 1999. Because he wants no part of a few of the companies Bain decided to invest in during the period when he was still attached to the firm but not really there. He's not handling the attacks well as they haven't figured out a way to explain what happened in one or two sentences. So he and the campaign are flailing around with half explanations and whining rather than putting the issue to bed when if first came up. That doesn't detract from the fact that the attacks themselves are basically full of shit.

I agree that their tactical response hasn't been as good as it could be, but I don't think you can put this all on tactics. Isn't it possible, even likely, that Mitt is contorting and tip-toeing because there are things to contort and tiptoe around?

You seem to be arguing that his attachment to Bain post-1999 was name-only and therefore he shouldn't be tarred by association with anything the company did from 1999-2002. Maybe so, but for one thing, they paid him a yearly sum that, while barely registering for him, is a lot more than most Americans make in a year, and for another, he seems to have at least kept enough of a hand in, with joining board meetings and signing off on stuff, that if he'd returned to Bain post-Olympics, he would have been sufficiently up on the business to be effective upon his return.

Yet again, this is the responsible course of conduct for someone in his circumstance at that time and not unusual or icky for that culture. But it's weird for politicians and not easy to explain, because there's really no way to make it sound anything but selfish and opportunistic.

Mitt is 1st and foremost an owner. What's not to like about being an owner? Ownership is integral to capitalism. Ownership should be cool. Romney makes it smell to high heaven. Nice work, Mitt!