[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Mother Jones? I linked to a Boston Globe article. Why are you talking about re: Mother Jones?
[/QUOTE]
From your article:
I’m not making them the final arbiter on anything…I said I’m going with them PERSONALLY, until I see some real EVIDENCE that contradicts what they said and what Mitt and Bain are saying. If that comes out, I believe FactCheck will actually do a retraction and new article stating that, but that’s neither here nor there.
Not at all, and I’m sorry that you read my post as saying that. I’ve reread it, and I still don’t get that out of it, but you obviously do, so must just be me. Let me be more clear…if any real, substantial evidence comes out, which I’m sure it will considering that microscope Romney is under, then I’ll be happy to come back in here and say what I said I would, regardless of what FactCheck does or doesn’t do.
Do what you like. I love YOUR little dig here. How about ‘you are focused on a cite that is generally highly regarded around here but that I don’t like, and here I’ve posted what amounts to some speculation and ‘just asking questions’ stuff that should trump that automatically, but you stubbornly cling to your original site…sheesh XT, you are such a tool.’
What counts as real evidence? I’d say the evidence that Romney was involved in operations at Bain during the time period in question is pretty “real and substantial” already.
(I also like the Romney campaigns response to the SEC filings showing him as manager is basically “its complicated”. I’m sure SEC filings are complicated, and there very well might be a complicated reason that Romney was listed as manager when he wasn’t really managing. But you can’t just say “its complicated” and leave it at that, you have to actually follow that up with saying what the complicated reason is).
Yea, I think that article raises a good point. There are two issues here:
The first is whether Romney lied about being an active participant in Bain after 1999. I think the SEC filings (and the fact that he won’t rule out that he participated in Bain meetings during the time in question) are pretty good evidence that that was the case. But they aren’t absolute proof, and maybe the Romeny campaign will flesh out their “its complicated” story into a convincing refutation.
(or more likely, I suspect they’ll just engage in some acrobatic parsing of what it means to be an “active participant”)
The second issue is whether or not Romney can really declaim responsibility for the actions of a company he was owner and CEO of and was drawing a salary as executive manager in even if he wasn’t active in decisions made at the company. That isn’t really a factual claim, so different people can hold different views. But I suspect most people would consider someone responsible for the actions of a company that they owned and were ultimately in charge of, even if they’d delegated the actual management.
Since the tangent seems to be getting more response than the actual point of the thread, here is CNN’s take on this (note, I find CNN, as several of the other cites less meaty than the FactCheck, but that’s just me):
And, to be fair, this is speculation just like most of the other cites claiming Mitt et al lied:
[QUOTE=Simplicio]
What counts as real evidence? I’d say the evidence that Romney was involved in operations at Bain during the time period in question is pretty “real and substantial” already.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree, and it seems that the issue is far from settled. What will convince me or ‘counts as real evidence’? I couldn’t say at this time. What will convince you or ‘counts as real evidence’ that this is all basically just a spin job by folks trying to dig dirt on Romney? If you are like me then it’s going to be hard to answer that…you’ll know it when you see it.
Neither SEC filings or statements from people that worked at Bain at the time are “speculation”.
I already said that I think the SEC documents are evidence. As are the statements from the people that worked at Bain from the CNN article you linked. I think your confusing evidence with proof. Neither of those two items are proof either way, but they’re both substantial pieces of evidence.
But we’ll see. Romney is giving a bunch of interviews today with real news outlets, so if nothing else we should get an “official story” rather then some handwaving towards nameless “complexities”.
[QUOTE=Simplicio]
Neither SEC filings or statements from people that worked at Bain at the time are “speculation”.
[/QUOTE]
The speculation is in what it means.
You are correct…I’m talking about proof and you are asking about evidence. My bad. I see it all as evidence, and from my perspective I don’t know how to interpret it at this time.
I didn’t watch the interviews by the overall impression I am getting is that Romney was as evasive as ever and didn’t really clear the picture.
Has he explained what he was being paid $100,000 for? This is not big money in the world of high finance but it’s still a lot of money if you are doing absolutely nothing.
While we don’t have hard facts on what Romney’s exact role was post-1999 it beggars belief that he completely washed his hands off the company. After all he was the owner and a large fraction of his personal fortune was tied up in the company. And as CEO and managing director he was legally responsible for the affairs of the company. Of course he was going to keep a close eye on the big decisions that Bain was making. That’s not hard to do even if you are not physically present at Bain.
mr romney drew at least a 6 figure salary at bain after 1999
mr romney’s own words that he returned to mass. for board meetings after 1999. he stated this along with other things to prove residency for his gov.s race.
that makes his statement about having “nothing to do with bain after 1999” a bit difficult to reconcile. who (other than sgt. shultz) would have their name all over something, take a salary, attend meetings, but say “i know nothing, i did nothing”.
I think he attended board meetings of companies like Staples but IIRC his campaign refuses to answer questions about Bain meetings themselves. Of course as owner and CEO he was perfectly capable of keeping an eye on Bain without physically attending board meetings and had every incentive to do so.
to prove residency he had to be in mass. for some part of the time. he sited personal and business reasons, with board meetings as part of the business reasons.
granted they haven’t stated which board meetings, what they were about, or where the meetings were.
it makes for a very odd narrative, with bouquets of technicalities. for the most part american voters do not think well of technicalities. they tend to see them as a negative thing.
This argument over 1999 vs. some other date is so stupid and tendentious, a great example of why Democrats lose arguments all the fucking time, they let the other guys do the framing. Fact is, Romney was President, CEO and chairman of the board of Bain the WHOLE FUCKING TIME and he is DAMN RESPONSIBLE for what Bain did during his tenure, even if he was working on the Summer Olympics. (And you don’t believe there were phone calls? Really?)
Getting caught up in this crap is just damn stupid, look at the big picture, IT WAS ROMNEY’S DAMN COMPANY THE WHOLE TIME! I just LOVE how these businessmen are always sharp-eyed eagles of industry, running their company with vigor and attention when things are going well, then become meaningless figureheads when things go south. And I HATE how people allow this narrative to be advanced, unopposed, or get caught up in tendentious, minor details, as is happening now, with this argument. Look at the big picture, people!
Evil Captor, you might want to read the whole thread. The Democrats are winning the argument that Romney is a lying weasal. Romney is the one who keeps trying to say that he quit in 1999. Obama is the one who keeps saying that Romney is responsible for the whole time he was there.
So it’s Sunday, and we have a new excuse from the Romney camp: he “retroactively” retired in 1999.
Yeah, that’s not at all going to clear everything up. He was a part-time CEO, that’s the ticket!
Meanwhile, yet another document has turned up showing that Romney was working for Bain, this one from 2002, after he’d taken office as governor.
This isn’t at all what’s going to win Obama another 4 years as POTUS. Obama has never been in danger of not being re-elected. If anything, this is just fuel for the fire that is already burning up the right wing.
Also, I don’t think it’s really “painting” anyone with a label if the label is a) already affixed and b) credibly accurate.
The refutation in your linked article can be summed up in one sentence:
This is a dodgy assertion at best. If Romney was in charge of Bain, then he was responsible for the actions of the company, just like a parent is responsible for the actions of their child. To most people, it won’t matter that it was actually John Smallberries who supervised the closures/outsourcing/offshoring; if Bain did it while Romney was in charge, then Romney was responsible.
For the party that talks so much about how important personal accountability is, the GOP seems loathe to actually take responsibility for damn near anything they do. Everything is someone else’s fault, unless it’s something they can try and re-label as “a feature, not a bug”.
And yeah, FWIW, I can kinda see where this November, the GOP will be handed their asses at the polls, as least as far as Mr. Romney & his running mate are concerned.
Romney seems to have been the Republican Kerry: sufficiently savvy to put together the funds and support to guarantee a nomination, but without the explicit message (or charisma) to beat an incumbent. Romney seems to have been running on the “not Obama” platform that worked so well for Kerry and he comes with enough baggage–from his religion, (that still scares a lot of the Religious Right), to his misstatements about enjoying firing people to his proud connection–that he also disavows–to a company that made a lot of money shutting down other companies while we are currently still frightened about keeping our jobs. (That his connection to Bain ended 13 years ago, (or ten years ago, depending on which Romney statement one chooses to believe), is irrelevant to the perception that he made money off a practice that is feared today.)
Can Obama still lose the election? I suppose he could, but Romney is going to make it difficult for Obama to throw it away.
He’s a weak candidate, but do you think Rick Santorum would be a better one? Now you’re just replacing one seemingly out-of-touch guy with another, just over different issues. Newt Gingrich? Rick Perry? Romney was the best of a bad lot.
The GOP has socially moderate guys who project “competent executive” without looking like someone starched their underwear; none of them ran. If Mitch Daniels had a different wife or Jeb Bush a different brother, they’d have been good candidates. But they don’t, so it was Romney or one of the freaks.
