Slog
News & ArtsFriday, July 13, 2012
2012 Romney's Bain Problems Continue
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Yesterday's Boston Globe report that Mitt Romney was listed as “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” of Bain Capital from 1999 to 2002 continues to reverberate through the news. If it's true, it means that Romney lied repeatedly about having no responsibility for Bain's outsourcing, their investments in a company that discards aborted fetuses, and much more. If it's false, it means that Bain (and possibly Romney) committed fraud on quite a few SEC filings. Bain's response to the report was half-hearted and didn't solve anything.
Here's a Boston Globe story about the fallout. The Romney campaign has asked the Globe for a correction, but they haven't actually disputed any of the facts in the original article. Here's Business Insider explaining that Romney's current explanation of this is bullshit. Here's an Obama campaign ad explaining the situation in clear language:
In the meantime, more reports listing Romney as the head of Bain during the 1999-2002 gap are popping up all the time. And Salon and Talking Points Memo both note that when Romney was running for governor of Massachusetts, he was promoting his ties to Bain during that gap as a way to prove that he maintained Massachusetts citizenship while he was in Utah helping with the Winter Olympics.
Mitt Romney is going to have to face questions about this before too long. The story is spinning out of control.
2
If he wasn't CEO, then why did he sign the six offerings during that time? His signature is on the paper. If he was CEO, he perjured himself. He's guilty of a felony either way -- especially hilarious given the Republican mania for making sure no felon ever ever ever gets to vote again.
3
Unfortunately, nothing's going to happen, not to the presidential nominee of one of the two major political parties. Romney could probably pee on the side of the Washington Monument and nothing would happen.
4
I just kind of wish that had all come out closer to November.
I have very little faith in the memories or attention spans of my fellow countrymen.
But still, pretty awesome. At least it proves that he is, and has always been, a lying sack of shit.
I have very little faith in the memories or attention spans of my fellow countrymen.
But still, pretty awesome. At least it proves that he is, and has always been, a lying sack of shit.
5
This isn't good for Romney, but I don't see the story spinning out of control. What we've learned from all this is that Romney is a slimy bastard who tells people what they want to hear even if it isn't so. I think we already knew that about him.
7
Don't ya just hate those kind of slippery political scandals that just refuse to go away....
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/…
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/…
9
Still, I'm waiting for the part when the Mittbot grinds to a halt and smoke pours out of its ears.
10
While I'm fascinated about this as a story, I think the GOP spin machine has already succeeded in creating enough fog around this that it's not going to really hurt Romney or help Obama, simply play out as part of the overall anti-Bain narrative. I am looking forward to Obama challenging Romney on some of his vague issues around policy, his Bain record, etc. in the debates, but I don't really think this will be a good issue to delve into in that setting, since these days stories like this become a "he said, she said", no matter what the facts. Only real thing that might change that is if someone (maybe the SEC) is willing to step up and actually investigate and/or issue some sort of definitive report that lays out a clear timeline, showing specific things Romney did for Bain that led to loss of jobs, etc. (It can't simply be a news organization or media outlet, unfortunately, because another success of the right wing has been to create the perception of bias around any critical media stories. And some have already done this, to some degree, with very little resonance.) Otherwise, his supporters can continue to say he either wasn't at Bain, or that any suggestion he was involved with outsourcing or closing plants is speculation.
12
@4 Bain, Bain...hmmm, isn't that the villain from the Batman movie? Romney 2012!
(I know, I know it's an obvious joke but accurate I think.)
(I know, I know it's an obvious joke but accurate I think.)
13
Fact Check has a different opinion about what's going on: http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romneys-bai…
Regardless of what is really going on I hope the story sticks around long enough to make Romney have to directly address the controversy, which he won't do and it will make him look even shadier.
Regardless of what is really going on I hope the story sticks around long enough to make Romney have to directly address the controversy, which he won't do and it will make him look even shadier.
14
the Vanity Fair article is just as damaging - but even if the low-information flibberdigibbets hear this stuff, can they pay attention long enough to understand it? the fact that this crap is legal IS THE PROBLEM.
15
Right… Because perjury, plagiarism and lies all disqualify you from holding elected office? Let’s ask Vice President Biden. He plagiarized his way through law school (earning himself an F for a course when he turned in 5 pages of someone else’s work as his own), Plagiarized his speeches (stealing from JFK and RFK, Hubert Humphrey and, perhaps most famously, British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock) and told lies about how he happened to plagiarize Kinnock (lying about he got the tape of the speech) and whopping lies about his educational background: "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship” (he didn’t); he graduated in the top half of his law-school class (he didn’t) and that he had earned three undergraduate degrees, when in fact he had earned one.
Yet all is forgiven… Right?
(Let’s not even think about the fact that Clinton proved, once and for all, that you can not only perjure yourself, but do it to intentionally subvert a Grand Jury, and get away with it. Or that Obama is pulling whole pages out of Nixon’s “Executive Privilege” play book and wrapping himself up inside them as we speak.)
But by all means, let’s assume that this “changes everything”. Who wants to place the first bet on what day the SEC will indict Romney? How about who the Republican Party will nominate in his place? I’ll take those bets…
Yet all is forgiven… Right?
(Let’s not even think about the fact that Clinton proved, once and for all, that you can not only perjure yourself, but do it to intentionally subvert a Grand Jury, and get away with it. Or that Obama is pulling whole pages out of Nixon’s “Executive Privilege” play book and wrapping himself up inside them as we speak.)
But by all means, let’s assume that this “changes everything”. Who wants to place the first bet on what day the SEC will indict Romney? How about who the Republican Party will nominate in his place? I’ll take those bets…
16
It's pretty clear that after February 1999 Mr. Romney no longer actively participated in the management of Bain Capital. The question, then, is what is the significance of his retention of the various titles he held there.
Apparently, the titles don't have much significance. What's important isn't if he held the titles or the shares; what's importain is whether he did the work, and it's pretty clear that he didn't do the work.
Today that would be a bigger deal that it was in 2000 or 2001. Today, and since July 29, 2002, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, it isn't possible to be an absentee CEO.
Apparently, the titles don't have much significance. What's important isn't if he held the titles or the shares; what's importain is whether he did the work, and it's pretty clear that he didn't do the work.
Today that would be a bigger deal that it was in 2000 or 2001. Today, and since July 29, 2002, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley, it isn't possible to be an absentee CEO.
17
@15 All this proves is Mitt's privileged background has made him a lazy businessman. Equally so as a politician. Considering that's his selling point, he's failing pretty hard.
He has done well for himself, he is a good businessman in that sense. But this country needs someone who can promote growth for all. His track record shows he's good at amassing wealth for himself, that really isn't any different than most politicians currently holding office.
He has done well for himself, he is a good businessman in that sense. But this country needs someone who can promote growth for all. His track record shows he's good at amassing wealth for himself, that really isn't any different than most politicians currently holding office.
18
@ 15, why don't you ever explain why Romney's actions are okay? (No, you didn't do that yesterday - not when asked to show your work, you didn't.)
It's always "LOOK OVER THERE!" No thank you. I'm looking right at Romney, because whatever dishonest thing you're trying to point out is a false equivalency. You're trying to cancel out Romney's wrong with someone else's. But that's not how it works.
So defend Romney. If you can.
It's always "LOOK OVER THERE!" No thank you. I'm looking right at Romney, because whatever dishonest thing you're trying to point out is a false equivalency. You're trying to cancel out Romney's wrong with someone else's. But that's not how it works.
So defend Romney. If you can.
19
@18
Because while I am not convinced that they are “okay”, and I have yet to hear any compelling and convincing explanation of why they are not “okay” I am convinced that they are less awful than the collective actions of the current administration which I am convinced are appalling. I see a pragmatic choice between two parties, neither of which are perfect, but one of which is much much more deeply misguided and morally repulsive than the other. I look at the two options, and where I may be less than excited by Romney, I am revolted by Obama. You’re going to have to come up with more than 6 questionable SEC filings to change my opinion. I won’t be lured into a game of defending better against best when best is not an option, only bad and better and we already have bad.
Because while I am not convinced that they are “okay”, and I have yet to hear any compelling and convincing explanation of why they are not “okay” I am convinced that they are less awful than the collective actions of the current administration which I am convinced are appalling. I see a pragmatic choice between two parties, neither of which are perfect, but one of which is much much more deeply misguided and morally repulsive than the other. I look at the two options, and where I may be less than excited by Romney, I am revolted by Obama. You’re going to have to come up with more than 6 questionable SEC filings to change my opinion. I won’t be lured into a game of defending better against best when best is not an option, only bad and better and we already have bad.
20
@18 Probably what happened is that Romney was still involved w/ stuff at Bain from 1999 - 2002, but less so than he had been in the past. So he was, more or less, telling the truth when he said he left Bain in 1999 and also not lying on the SEC filings.
21
@19 but as a self described libertarian aren't you worried about how socially conservative the GOP has become? Fiscally, I doubt Rmoney would be all that different than Obama.
I'm just wondering how pragmatic voting for the least pragmatic party is.
I'm just wondering how pragmatic voting for the least pragmatic party is.
22
@ 19, you're like an evangelical who won't accept evolution, or a birther who won't accept the birth certificate. Your conclusions are NOT because the argument isn't compelling.
Read the Business Insider link.
@ 20, you read the Business Insider link as well. It shows clearly why Romney can't have it both ways.
Read the Business Insider link.
@ 20, you read the Business Insider link as well. It shows clearly why Romney can't have it both ways.
23
@22 the two pro-Rmoney fellas basically just don't like Obama. That's all we'll ever get from them. It'd be nice if they just said that rather than meekly propping up a weak candidate.
As a said earlier, even if it's not a crime to do with Mitt did, it shows a pretty amazing lack of forethought, which is key to being a good businessman, which has been the whole reason for his electability.
As a said earlier, even if it's not a crime to do with Mitt did, it shows a pretty amazing lack of forethought, which is key to being a good businessman, which has been the whole reason for his electability.
24
@23 I'm not likely to vote for Romney, but if I believed that President Mittens would take the country in the right direction I wouldn't not vote for the guy just because of a little fib about when he left Bain Capital. Is there a politician alive, or a human being for that matter, who doesn't stretch the truth from time to time?
25
@24 I wasn't talking about you. But I agree if I thought he'd take the country in the right direction, I could easily ignore this little misstep. However, I don't believe he will. Even moreso the GOP. From what I've seen so far from him as been a willingness to go back to the Bush years, with bloated military spending and an inability to balance the budget.
Obama hadn't fixed the economy overnight, not sure anyone could have. I highly doubt Rmoney could either. But I think a more embolded GOP could be a real clusterfuck considering the public sector is where the economy is hitting a wall.
Obama hadn't fixed the economy overnight, not sure anyone could have. I highly doubt Rmoney could either. But I think a more embolded GOP could be a real clusterfuck considering the public sector is where the economy is hitting a wall.
26
@19 - What appalling actions of the current administration do you think Romney will reverse? Do you think he will reverse Obama's oversteps of executive power, or do you think he will use those as a precedent so he can continue to do exactly the same thing? That seems like a no-brainer to me.
The primary policy that Romney talks about reversing is the ACA. If you think trying to newly insure 30 million people is "appalling," then you may just be a sociopath.
Of course, if you don't have insurance due to a pre-existing condition - or because you are living near the poverty line - and you STILL oppose the ACA, then I'll listen to your complaints about it. Otherwise, fuck off.
The primary policy that Romney talks about reversing is the ACA. If you think trying to newly insure 30 million people is "appalling," then you may just be a sociopath.
Of course, if you don't have insurance due to a pre-existing condition - or because you are living near the poverty line - and you STILL oppose the ACA, then I'll listen to your complaints about it. Otherwise, fuck off.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Puggle: Love It or Shove It by Grant Brissey
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (27) RSS