CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 12, 2012 07:49 PM UTC

Mitt Romney: Busted?

  • 119 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: The Boston Globe responds to the Romney camp’s correction request:

We received your request late this afternoon for a correction regarding this morning’s Globe story. Having carefully reviewed that request, we see no basis for publishing a correction. The Globe story was entirely accurate.

The Globe story was based on government documents filed by Bain Capital itself. Those described Governor Romney as remaining at the helm of Bain Capital as its “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” until 2002. The story also cited state financial disclosure forms filed by Romney that showed he earned income as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

The Globe story accurately described the contents of those documents.

—–

UPDATE: It may not be illegal to lie on the campaign trail, but federal disclosure forms could be another matter. Earlier this month, Factcheck.org lambasted the Obama campaign for claiming that Mitt Romney was still working for Bain Capital after 1999, citing Romney’s statements mode “on official disclosure forms under pain of federal prosecution.”

If the Obama campaign is correct, then Romney is guilty of lying on official federal disclosure forms, committing a felony. [Pols emphasis] But we don’t see evidence of that.

Here’s what Romney has said:

Mitt Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011: 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.

Romney’s signature appears on the line that states: “I certify that statements I have made on this form and all attached schedules are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.”

We assume Factcheck.org is on the case today, folks.

—–

We direct your attention to the Boston Globe story everybody’s talking about today:

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…

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.”

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?”

Besides the exposure of pretty serious mendacity on the party of Mitt Romney personally, evidence that he remained in control, both in an operational and financial sense, of Bain Capital would underscore claims made by Democrats that Romney had a role in high-profile closures like Kansas City’s GST Steel in 2001–hotly disputed by Romney’s campaign, based on the same alleged 1999 departure date now in question because of the aforementioned SEC filings.

Is it illegal to lie on the campaign trail? No. But it often ends, you know, badly.

And we really don’t know how to explain this one away.

Tweet
Share

Comments

119 thoughts on “Mitt Romney: Busted?”

  1. From the Washington Post today:

    But now the Boston Globe hasВ 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 aВ regular contributorВ 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)

    1. I was about to post something very similar. It’s not easy to stop the Democrat smear machine once the wheels are moving, but they’ve just plain got it wrong this time. There’s no way that Romney would contradict SEC filings, which means this is all explainable as a technicality. Numerous reports document the withdrawal of Romney from Bain Capital in 1999. The facts will come out soon enough, and I hope Pols posts a retraction.

        1. There’s no way that Romney would contradict SEC filings, which means this is all explainable as a technicality.

          ROFLMAO

          “Official spin”?  Not really, but it’s all this shill has been ordered to throw up on the wall so far in this crisis — until his paymasters come up with something a bit more salable.  (Hint:  those filings are all the Government’s fault — Mitt’s just a simple man of the people . . . who can make sense out of, and decipher, all those bureaucratic  gotcha’ questions and tricky legalese?)  They can buy a lot of shit with their billions; credibility, probably not so much.

      2. From the same Globe article…

        “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.”

        Look, there’s the word you used! But as someone who worked for the SEC says…

        You can’t say statements filed with the SEC are meaningless. This is a fact in an SEC filing.”

      3. the facts just did come out, goobers.

        ” There’s no way that Romney would contradict SEC filings “.  

        Given his past contradictions on just about everything, why would we expect him to contradict the SEC filings ! Of course !  Makes sense to me.

        Somebody left some tracks in the attempted washing of the hands.  Too bad, because I really was looking forward to seeing what living like a serf was like.

      4. His agreement transferring control, dated 2002.

        Knowing Romney’s methods of playing tricks with money, that probably had more to do with his vesting in certain stock interests than it had to do with the uncontested fact that as of a 2003 filing for 2002, Romney was still listed as sole shareholder, chairman of the board, president and CEO of Bain Capital.

      5. I anticipated when this came up on  today’s open thread.

        To save you the trouble here it is again:  

        Factcheck.org, which disputed the truthfulness of the Post report and accepted that Romney left the firm in 1999, wrote that were that not the case, Romney “would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999.” (my emphasis)

        The SEC filings listed in the Globe article were first flagged in a letter the Obama campaign sent to Factcheck.org, which nevertheless concluded that Romney never returned to active management in the company after 1999, instead shifting his focus to the 2002 Winter Olympics. But in separate SEC filings from 2000 and 2001, Romney listed his “principal occupation” as “Managing Director of Bain Capital, Inc.,” (my emphasis) and a 2003 state financial disclosure form said he owned 100 percent of the firm in 2002.

        That’s straight from the SEC filing. There you guys go again, claiming that documented reality has a liberal bias. Only if it’s not good for a Republican, of course.

        1. If “there’s no way that Romney would contradict SEC filings,” and if doing so is a “federal felony” – well, we can’t have a financial felon as our commander-in-chief, can we?

      6. enterprise documents.  Are you going to shit your pants then or what?

        He’s toast like Lance Armstrong if the truth comes out and it shows what a nefarious lying prick he really is.  You have to suspect that is why he won’t release ten years of tax returns.  It would show exactly the extent of his ownership in Bain during those hanky panky times.  I don’t want to be in the neighborhood when you shit your pants A-BOT after realizing that Romney is another McGinnis imploding right before your eyes and a another golden opportunity turns to dust for Republicans months before election day.

        Ha-ha asshole.

    2. that SEC documents identify Romney as Bain’s Chairman, CEO, sole investor through 2002.

      Your comment and quote are pathetic. ADDRESS THE SEC DOCUMENTS if you have anything.

        1. only two standards for personal behavior.  1) Anything goes as long as it’s technically legal. 2) If it isn’t exactly legal, it’s OK if you don’t get caught or can manage to get people to buy it as a misunderstanding/innocent mistake or you delegated it to someone else and they screwed up so it’s not your responsibility.

          Now there’s an inspiring role model for the White House.  

          1. Romney’s position on any issue is directly proportional to the percentage of caucus goers, primary voters, delegates, voters that agree at any given moment.  

  3. Romney was the CEO and primary profiteer of the company, sure. Nobody with a brain disputes that.

    But to say he actually did anything in three years to earn that money? To imply that CEOs have something to do with the company’s operations? That’s fantasyland stuff, as any conservative will tell you. CEOs don’t do shit.

    Romney, like every CEO, was getting rich off someone else’s work, and all the time he said he was putting in was actually being spent on golf and personal calls and transportation. It’s beyond libelous to claim that a CEO has anything to do with his business.

    1. that a Bain partner – a DEMOCRAT (the tweeter made sure to use all caps) – told reporters (and not the SEC, I’ll note) that Romney left in 1999 and had no involvement.

      I’m just waiting for A-BOT and the ‘net’s other Rmoney shills to be good sheep and repeat that.

        1. I’m not sure if any of this stuff is still within the statute of limitations. If that’s expired, doing so wouldn’t cost Bain anything.

  4. Bain tells Politico:

    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. 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.

    The question remains: why would this take three years? And what about the other positions SEC filings show him holding (Chairman, CEO, President)?

    I saw a great comment at Slog: “I for one believe that a firm specializing in takeovers and the transfer of corporate ownership was unable to formalize a change in its own ownership until three years had elapsed.”

  6. What happens when one of you guys pushes through the door of one of those upper-floor offices on 17th Ave that says “Owner, CEO, President, Managing Director, Shirt Washer and Dog Hoser“, and you say, “Hey, bud, you’re not really in charge here!”?

    3. It’s the Congress with its stupid supermajority rules and an obstructionist House that is a gigantic, steaming sack of crap.

      Obama has done what he can – and what he’s done, he’s done extremely well, whether it’s killing Bin Laden or shepherding the ACA through the crapsters.

            1. Alan Kreuger

              Bendheim Professor of Economics and Public Affairs (Princeton). He has held a joint appointment in the Economics Department and the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton since 1987. In 1994-95, Mr. Krueger served as Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor.

              Mr. Krueger was a member of the Board of Directors of the MacArthur Foundation and the Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education at Charles University in the Czech Republic, and a senior scientist for the Gallup Organization.  He was named a Sloan Fellow in Economics in 1992 and an NBER Olin Fellow in 1989-90. He was elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society in 1996, a Fellow of the Society of Labor Economists in 2005 and a member of the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association in 2004.  He was awarded the Kershaw Prize by the Association for Public Policy and Management in 1997 and the Mahalanobis Memorial Medal by the Indian Econometric Society in 2001.  In 2002, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and in 2003 he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.  He was awarded the IZA Prize in Labor Economics with David Card in 2006.

              Katharine G. Abraham

              …appointments in the Department of Economics, University of Maryland; the Brookings Institution; and the Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  She is a Fellow of the Society of Labor Economists and of the American Statistical Association; holds an honorary doctorate from Iowa State University; and is a past Vice-President of the American Economic Association.

              Dr. Abraham earned her B.S. in Economics from Iowa State University in 1976 and her Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University in 1982.

              Carl Shapiro

              Transamerica Professor of Business Strategy at the Haas School of Business and Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics, IC Berkeley.

              Shapiro is a former Alfred P. Sloan Fellow and Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.  He was the founding Co-Editor and then Editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.  Shapiro was Director of the Institute of Business and Economic Research at UC Berkeley from 1998-2008.

              Shapiro served from 2009-2011 as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economics at the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice, where he supervised more than fifty Ph.D. economists in the Antitrust Division’s Economic Analysis Group.  He earned his Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981.

              Yeah – these guys are just a bunch of knuckleheads.

                1. Bernanke, Geithner, Bollinger, Kelleher and a bunch of Wall St guys.

                  But to the degree that the “Obama administration” is doing anything, it was the other guys above. Mostly Obama has been hands off.  But– shhh don’t tell the right, they need to blame him for interfering.  ANd the Left – they need to blame him for not interfering enough. ANd most people want to believe he’s actually in charge and in control.

          1. So yes, even though they did do some things right, it’s still an F. Keep in mind that when you get a 59% on a test – that’s an F.

            We don’t award a B because they got one medium thing right while getting every major thing wrong.

            1. when failure is properly attributed to the bad kids making lots of noise and creating a chaotic atmosphere in the classroom (e.g. the GOP house voting 30+ times to repeal ACA and voting on the jobs bill zero times).

              I know that you won’t be swayed by Republican obstructionism (and turncoat Democrats in the 2008-10 Congress) in the least – somehow, someway, Obama is supposed to overcome the most hostile opposition since Lincoln was elected. Right?

              1. You’re not going to score a touchdown regardless of what the other team does. Read up on how they addressed the recession – they didn’t even try to get what was needed. And when Obama first took office Congress, including the Republicans, were scared. Very scared. They were open to what was proposed. They would have been open to more.

                    1. for what you know you can’t get. And, those Blue Dogs limit the ask. Every single time

                    2. It would suck if we didn’t have the civil rights bills he passed. Not to mention the great society, medicare, etc. All bills JFK found impossible to move forward.

                    6. Being an effective president is an incredibly hard job that few are capable of performing well. And that on the economy Obama has not been up to the job.

                      He’s clearly very smart. He clearly wants what’s best for the country. He clearly has a vision for America that would make it a much better place. But it requires more than all that.

                    7. Would it be something every previous president had, or something only the great ones had?

                    8. FDR was once described as a second rate intellect with a first rate political skill. I think that was unfair but it does speak to the importance of the political component.

                      It absolutely requires immense political skill. It requires using all the powers available to the president from getting the voters onboard to local projects being approved vs delayed.

                3. Why don’t you admit that the grade score analogy wasn’t apt? Instead of creating a new one (which also isn’t apt because reaching out to the opposition and being spurned isn’t anything like football – and like Fidel says, it’s crazy to say the ‘pubs had the least bit of willingness to work with Obama.)

            2. First, we haven’t been in a recession since 2009.

              President Obama came into office at a time when we were seeing nearly a million jobs lost each month. Within a few months of stimulus money actually being paid out and entering the market, those job losses quickly turned into job gains each month – especially if you look beyond the public sector jobs that were being gutted primarily at the local level and somewhat at the state level due to lagging tax revenues resulting from the economic mess of the previous two years. The President has zero control over local and state budget deficits so I don’t see how you can blame him for what is the primary factor holding down the unemployment rate.

              I’d say 4.3 million private sector jobs added since February 2010 is pretty damn good. Here’s a nice chart to illustrate this for you: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-co…

            3. Saving the auto industry was not a “medium thing”. Some estimates put the number of jobs dependent on the success of the big three auto manufacturers at 10% of the total American workforce. So if they had all three went under the unemployment rate could’ve easily jumped 5-10 percentage points. What President Obama did with the auto industry was absolutely huge!

              1. And yes, apparently they are people too 🙂

                And it’s great for people in certain segments. But for the majority of people in this country, it still is a recession for them. 17% unemployment/underemployment. Pay frozen or dropping for those with jobs. Future prospects worse than today.

                Sorry, but what we have right now remains a disaster for way too many people.

    4. this is Mittens lying and possible SEC violations and possible felonies.  Your ploy is to stupidly deflect.  Folks answering your trolling need to get a clue.

  8. It looks like it may be that between the documents Romney signed, by definition he lied on some of them as they’re conflicting. And no matter which set he says are a lie, he’s facing a clear felony charge.

    If so, how on earth does he have a prayer in the election if he’s facing a felony charge?

  10. I love it when the Rmoney apologists explain away all the flip-flops as Mitt’s “evolving” positions (or morals/ethics/sense of time, or whatever).

    So now his concept of “truth” is evolving as well.  Simply start with an inconvenient fact, lie about it, and then voila — new, cleanly-pressed “truth”.

    I’m sure cashing those executive paychecks from 1999 to 2002 was merely a legal “technicality”.

  11. The real damage to this is that Romney is having to run away from his Bain experience, rather than embrace it as the centerpiece of his vaunted business experience.

    He’s forced into saying: “Hey, all that outsourcing and factory-shutting that Bain did after I left in 1999? That was TOTALLY DIFFERENT than what I did when I was there.”

    But the problem is, he can’t really show any facts supporting “job creation” when he admits he WAS with Bain.

    And then it neatly ties that Bain-batross around his neck with fundamental questions about his candor, honesty and judgment.

    You quit Bain in 1999 and had absolutely no influence after that point? Ummm, RIIIIGGGGHT. And your dog “loved” 12-hour trips in the June heat on your car roof…

    (Off topic: I wish someone would check the almanac as to what the temperatures were back on the day when Romney subjected his dog to that cruel trip. If it was 90 or 100 degrees that would make the cruelty even worse.)

    And it also neatly ties into Romney’s refusing to release old tax returns. Now he’s refusing not only because of the embarrassing Swiss bank account and Cayman Island tax dodge stuff, but also possibly because if the returns show that he got a bunch of money from Bain in 2000, 2001, 2002 – especially if it was not just as an investor but on a W-2 form, as an actual employee – that would be pretty close to fatal, at this point: Exhibit A in the federal felony case against him.

    It fits into the “lack of trust” issue raised by all of Mitt’s CONSERVATIVE opponents during the primaries. They were all questioning his basic character and candor.

    I don’t think Mitt is half as bad as he’s made out to be. The same goes for Obama, as viewed by the right. But Mitt has been far more guilty of pandering and taking extreme positions, such as not saying his dog abuse was an error in judgment but instead implausibly claiming his dog “loved” the experience.

    1. The Swift Boating of Willard with his own documents and signatures.

      A classic Republican tactic of taking an opponents strength and just launching devastating after devastating attacks on his credibility until his strength is sapped to the point of being useless.

      And the Globe article is published the same day he launches his big defense of his Bain legacy so he has to immediately go into a crouch mode with out any chance to have his ad establish any narrative.  If anything the ad makes a mockery of his claim to be uninvolved.  It reinforces the narrative that he was invested in outsourcing and then lied about it.

      Oh the undiluted joy of finally seeing Democrats role out the rough stuff and stick it to the little lying bastard.

      1. http://factcheck.org/2012/07/f…

        I know this is a lot to post for fair use, but it’s relevant, and sometimes folks don’t read links.  Emphasis mine.

        Romney Committing Felonies?

        If the Obama campaign is correct, then Romney is guilty of lying on official federal disclosure forms, committing a felony.  But we don’t see evidence of that.



        Here’s what Romney has said:

        Mitt Romney Public Financial Disclosure Report, Aug. 11, 2011: 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.

        Romney’s signature appears on the line that states: “I certify that statements I have made on this form and all attached schedules are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge.”

        Making false statements to the federal government is a serious crime (under 18 USC 1001) carrying possible fines and up to five years in federal prison. But we don’t see that the Obama campaign has come close to showing that Romney has committed any such crime.

        Romney is supported by the current management of Bain. We re-checked with Bain spokesman Alex Stanton, who released a statement about Romney’s departure date:

        Bain Capital, July 2: 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.

        Where’s the Evidence?

        So what does the Obama campaign have in rebuttal? Very little, and none of it convincing in our judgment.

        Much of the Obama campaign’s letter is devoted to quoting portions of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 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.

        1. Factcheck link is dated 7.12 and the most recent citation of anything is a team Romney denial from July 2.

          Boston globe story is from today, Jul 12.

          When Factcheck runs their retraction/correction – will  it be game over on this issue, or just more spin evolution?

          THe Globe denied in plain language theRomney request for correction. Is it safe to assume team Romney is papring te libel suit?  

  12. Sorry to be a turd in the punchbowl, but you’re doing the pee pee dance over a ten-year-old story that didn’t make a difference back then.

    Obama campaign officials are treating this as huge breaking news, even suggesting criminality if Romney falsely represented his position to the SEC.

    It’s not.  It’s old news, which I posted about in quoting the leaked McCain oppo research book on Romney:

    Romney Served As CEO Of Bain Capital Through August 2001, Even Though He No Longer Ran Daily Operations. “Although he gave up running day-to-day operations at the venture capital firm in order to head the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, he remained CEO and held his financial interest in the company through August 2001.”

    Guess who the McCain oppo research book cited for this information.  Really, guess.

    Okay, I’ll tell you, The Boston Globe (emphasis added):

    Romney Served As CEO Of Bain Capital Through August 2001, Even Though He No Longer Ran Daily Operations. “Although he gave up running day-to-day operations at the venture capital firm in order to head the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, he remained CEO and held his financial interest in the company through August 2001.” (Stephanie Ebbert and Yvonne Abraham, “Camps Spar Over Romney Word Choice,” The Boston Globe, 10/31/02)

    The article no longer is online, but references to it linger on the internet.

    I assume Romney’s explanation has not changed, that he retained the role and duties of CEO, but gave up operational day-to-day control.  That explanation either will fly or not; I think it should as even the new Globe article acknowledges that the Romney’s status was disclosed in SEC filings.

    Whatever else it was, though, it’s old news repackaged by the same newspaper which first published it a decade ago.

    Update:  It gets worse.  The Globe has taken down the story temporarily and will give partial credit to TPM and Mother Jones for a story The Globe originated a decade ago!

    1. Does it become false after eight years? I know Romney somehow in 2002 retroactively ended his involvement in 1999 (oh by the way I am retroactively quitting Pols, starting next month, but it counts as I quit in 2009 just before I started making all those bets). But you can’t retroactively make the story false just because someone reported the truth when it was also relevant before.

      Romney lied to the SEC and to the FEC. I probably wouldn’t do that, because someone like me would get caught and punished. But hey, that’s cool for your guy.

      1. …called a Leave of Absence, apparently.

        Never mind – I think this is the one piece of information that’s REALLY GOING TO SINK HIS CAMPAIGN!!!

        Don’t worry about the economy – it’s secondary to a ten-year -old hit piece.

        1. for three years and they still call me the teacher and pay me my full salary and I assign all the grades and teach all the classes, but it doesn’t count because all my students failed those three years and I don’t want to take responsibility. I feel just like Mitt Romney!

          But no, I don’t think we’re talking about this story because it’s the one thing that’ll sink his campaign. I think the fact that nobody in the history of America has ever actually liked Mitt Romney will probably do more damage.

        2. Love it jerk off to see you pissing all over yourself trying to say that Romney wasn’t head and CEO of an outsourcing operation because he was owner in title only.  Either he wasn’t a bad ass superior CEO or he was heavily invested in outsourcing and bankrupting companies for profit.  This one is going to leave a mark.

          Maybe you boys can have a brokered convention and ditch him before you end up with another McGinnis affair on your hands.

          Swift boat away Matey’s.  Aye Aye Captain.

      2. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com…

        The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain became a lightning rod earlier today, when The Boston Globe published an article suggesting that Romney remained actively involved with the firm longer than he and his campaign have claimed. The sourcing is largely SEC documents that list Romney as Bain Capital’s CEO and sole shareholder through 2002 — or three years after Romney officially left to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games.

        These claims are very similar to ones made last week by David Corn in Mother Jones, which we disputed at the time.

        Now Fortune has obtained new evidence that supports Romney’s version of events.

        Bain Capital began circulating offering documents for its seventh private equity fund in June 2000. Those documents include several pages specifying fund management. The section begins:

        Set forth below is information regarding the background of the senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital. Also listed are certain investment professionals responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the Brookside and Sankaty funds, which are affiliated funds of Fund VII.

        It then goes on to list 18 managers of the private equity fund. Mitt Romney is not among them. Same goes for an affiliated co-investment fund, whose private placement memorandum is dated September 2000.

        1. Nobody is disputing that as CEO, Romney had nothing to do with the running of the company. I am the last person who would ever claim a CEO did an ounce of serious work.

          But Romney kept the title and took all the money, and even if that doesn’t equate to “responsibility” in the Republican world, it does in mine.

        2. The Globe investigation also found that Mitt Romney’s state financial disclosure forms show that he received at least $100,000 in salary from Bain during these years when he was supposedly “gone from the company”.

          You don’t get a salary if you’re not on the payroll.

          1. Finance industry press runs cover for the finance industry’s candidate? Say it ain’t so!

            I won’t personally be saying it ain’t so.

            This does not impact my heart emoticons that don’t wrk on Colorado Pols for my man ellbee, I’m so glad to see him swinging that fine Republican manhood up in here!

            Not literally up in here, you know what I mean though. 🙂

            1. just an elaborate cover-up to retain investor confidence in the company while the transition was taking place.  Err, that doesn’t sound good when talking about SEC disclosures.  Let’s try something else…

          2. Good work if you can get it but doesn’t exactly identify how you can be a superior job creator if you don’t know what’s going on.

    3. And that’s what counts. Every time Romney tries to get on message about how great he’d be for the economy something like this pops up and he has to go on defense. And none of it makes it look like he’s any good at creating jobs.  In fact, his area of expertise has nothing to do with creating jobs.  He’s experienced in creating profit without regard to jobs. And that’s fine. Not his job.  His job was to make money.

      Thing is the whole basis of trickle down is false.  Our prosperity was never created by trickle down from the top.  The broadest most prosperous middle class on the planet was created by the labor movement, and it became the economic engine of the world. Oh a few union haters like Henry Ford recognized that paying workers enough to buy products if those products could be produced at the right price was a great way to make big money. Your workers are also your consumers. Much more money in that than just selling a luxury product to the few who could afford it. In any case, the heyday of the worker was the heyday of our economic growth, prosperity and muscle.  Not a coincidence.  

      The elite have had over a decade to create jobs with their ever growing share of the wealth and they mainly go for “increased efficiency”, paying the fewest the least possible, outsourcing to cheaper labor and anything else that makes them the most money. They’re into making wealth for themselves, not jobs for the masses. Just not their thing.

      The dirty little secret is that no, the wealthy aren’t the primary job creators, never have been, and businessmen like Romney aren’t about creating jobs.  I don’t kid myself that he’ll be prosecuted but any day a story like this hits the fan is a bad day for Romney and I like that. Not dancing or peeing but I like it.  

      1. anything you wrote before . . .

        Thing is the whole basis of trickle down is false. В Our prosperity was never created by trickle down from the top. В The broadest most prosperous middle class on the planet was created by the labor movement, and it became the economic engine of the world. Oh a few union haters like Henry Ford recognized that paying workers enough to buy products if those products could be produced at the right price was a great way to make big money. Your workers are also your consumers. Much more money in that than just selling a luxury product to the few who could afford it. In any case, the heyday of the worker was the heyday of our economic growth, prosperity and muscle. В Not a coincidence. В 

        . . . I would start by loving this!   Bravo, BC!

        Unions built this country, and this country’s middle class.  Nothing that any of  the Republicans have done since PATCO has done a damn thing to help our country’s eonomic and social well being.   Jesus, I just wish our Democratic “leaders” would wake up from their slumber and start supporting American workers like they used to.  

    4. I assume Romney’s explanation has not changed, that he retained the role and duties of CEO, but gave up operational day-to-day control.

      The role of the CEO is operational and day-to-day control.

    5. then why is Rmoney demanding a correction?

      You can cry about the economy all you want, just as if the GOP haven’t too busy playing political theater (how many votes to repeal ACA have been taken?) to offer any solutions themselves, but people aren’t going to vote for a guy they can’t trust.

      That’s where we keep coming back with Rmoney. Can we trust him?

        1. where factcheck really addresses the revelations. It gives a Fortune link saying he didn’t manage funds (neither did the CEO of the mutual fund company I worked for at one time). There’s this gem:

          “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.”

          In what company is CEO “passive” or “absentee”? How would you feel about investing in a company whose CEO was in a passive, absentee capacity?

          They talk about other minor quibbles, but they don’t offer a plausible explanation for why he was listed as CEO. (Or the other titles for that matter, OR why it would have taken three years for a takeover firm to figure out how to transfer its own ownership.)

          With factcheck, we have a reputable organization facing a major challenge to its credibility. I’m sorry to say that it looks as though they’re equivocating, trying not to appear as though they made a mistake. I hope not for their sake, but they would be far from the first to handle a challenge this way.

        2. factcheck doesn’t exactly illuminate the situation not to mention that factcheck is hardly the be all and end all here.

          As I said, I don’t seriously believe Romney will be prosecuted for this but it’s still  a bad day for him. And whether or not he is held to have broken any laws, when you’re caught saying one thing on one official form and the opposite on another it doesn’t do wonders for one’s image as a straightforward stand up guy. But then that’s not the type who successfully navigate in the universe in which entities like Bain operate, is it?

          Since Repugs, after all, are the ones who insist on claiming the holier than thou high ground, family values, moral superiority and all that, why shouldn’t we, the godless and immoral (according to conservatives), be enjoying this? You would be if the shoe were on the other foot and you know it.

          One thing’s for sure; Mittens never met a job he wouldn’t enjoy eliminating if doing so would make him a buck. Jobs, jobs, jobs? What a joke.  

    6. the geneal consensus of opinion is that this is BIG trouble for the Rmoney campaign.

      He has put himself in a box. Can he get out?

      I don’t think so…

    8. You’re saying that since he wasn’t actively involved in managing Bain he isn’t responsible for the investments made just months after his departure.

      That raises some questions. First, as the sole stockholder wasn’t he still reaping all the financial rewards for Bain’s new outsourcing strategy?

      Second, how long does it take to thoroughly vet a major corporate investment? Because if it’s more than 9 months (my guess is it’s at least a year) then Romney WAS intimately involved in at least the intitial investment considerations.

      Third, even if he wasn’t actively involved in day-to-day operations, are you telling me that with so much of his personal wealth still at stake he had no contact with Bain managemet regarding their investment decisions during this 3-year window? I find that impossible to believe.  

    1. the captain in one hand, a nice glass of frosty pino grigio in the other, maybe a cheese and cracker plate too, in front of the tube with the Missus after we put the kids down.  Going to be rather nice viewing this evening.

        1. to review my etchings, take in a few pages of Proust and enjoy a brief moment of repose  : 0

          Valium and a glass of Sterling merlot – I like your style Middle !

  14. It is very obvious that we, the 99%, are not capable of understanding the complexities of being owner, stockholder, CEO and whatever of a Robert’s personhood company.

    How could a stockholder, the only stockholder, of a company not realize the dividends stopped? Because dividends are for the little people. Maximize profits, minimize 99%. If the CEO says betting against America is good, so does the stockholder. Are the books open for all to view? Of course not. The CEO took the hard drives from a state, which is nothing compared to a minor little company, so he took the hard drives from his play toy company.

  15. Just saw this and thought it added something to the fun… From the front page of the Huffington Post:

    Mitt Romney’s repeated claim that he played no part in executive decision-making related to Bain 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 doll maker that was a Bain investment during the period.

    1. Just saw something about the Ed Show having some evidence that Romney was flown in at company expense for a board meeting in 2002.

      And of course there are the documents he signed between 1999 and 2002 for the company.

      OFA hints that more is coming.

  16. As delicious as all this is, it will have zero impact on the election……unless Obama propagandists heretofore not seen can keep it boiling until November.

    Not effin’ likely.

    2. They aren’t giving Romney any room to establish the narrative of “Super CEO here to save the day”.  Romney can’t release his tax returns otherwise the whole house of cards falls in so he has to feebly counter every blow and watch as his strength ebbs away in a thousand little cuts.

      I think you underestimate the political savvy and determination of OFA.  This is a political operation at the highest level that knows how to win.

      1. You might be right.  But OFA certainly can’t campaign on his record.

        This is all going to be about the economy, and it sucks, and will suck on election day.  None of this silliness about Bain, or the roof dog, etc. is going to matter.

        I guess we’ll see.  I’m about 6 and 1 on Pols on bets.

        Want to wager something friendly?  

        1. Honorably ending the war in Iraq and removing the money drain from our national budget.

          Saving the auto industry was a prudent investment.

          Bringing the mass murderer Osama bin Laden to justice and making America safer.  No Republicans bring up 9/11 and national security anymore.  Obama won the War on Terror.

          Insuring that health care is affordable for more Americans and verifying it’s Constitutionality by one of the most conservatively partisan Supreme Courts in the history of the United States.

          Assisting with the growth of the democracy movement in the Middle East.

          Providing stable leadership while being assailed from both the left and the right for his centrist positions.

          Obama has a hell of a lot more to run on then Romney who was 47th in job creation during his single term as a governor.

          You’re just ticked that you’re party is running another Massachusetts loser.  Both parties should make an agreement not to nominate anyone from Massachusetts for president anymore.  The state of losers.

        2. than Republicans are in deep trouble because they promised jobs, jobs, jobs when they retook the House.  How many of Obama’s job’s legislation was actually made it a vote in the House.  If you want this to be about the economy then what exactly did the Republican House do with their mandate other than whine about women and health care?  Nothing.

        3. If this election is about the economy than it is an indictment of the whole philosophy of giving more money to the rich in the hopes that good jobs will be generated.  If this is the result of a decade of Bush tax cuts then it is a dismal failure for wealthy welfare.  

        4. you’re probably very upset that Willard isn’t campaigning on his record?   Just wondering, when was the last time you heard Willard utter the word “Massachusetts” . . . since that primary, I mean.

          Hmmmmm, I wonder why he hasn’t been campaigning on his record . . . ?

          I’m not convinced that you’re all that interested in comparing “records” this time around.

          1. has made a compelling pro-Romney case. Forget compelling, no one has made a coherent argument.

            Except – they don’t like Obama.

            Which is not compelling, no pro-Romney, and not an argument.

            1. The fact remains that most hardcore conservatives still don’t like him. They didn’t have a change of heart when Santorum, the last not-Romney standing, finally folded.

              Your comment is 100% on the mark.

  17. If credible evidence ever emerges-the kind that passes the partisan smell test-that Romney committed a crime, he’s candidacy will be done for.

    Even if Romney hasn’t done anything illegal, his continual mistakes are re-enforcing the perception that he’s out of touch.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

82 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!