Romney stayed longer at Bain

[cybrsage]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-obsession-with-bain-continues.php

Romney left exactly when he says he left.

Figured it was such.

 

[First]

I personally do not remember the year I left each of my jobs I have had.

lol troll.

 

[sunzt]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-obsession-with-bain-continues.php

Romney left exactly when he says he left.

The Source said he left, but would still be part-time on key investment decisions. No where in that powerline article does it say he was not consulted or didn't add any input into key bain investment decisions. Just says he was busy, but it doesn't take much time to be in a 30 min conference call to give your blessing to an investment decision to offshore work or close a facility.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-obsession-with-bain-continues.php

Romney left exactly when he says he left.

Powerline is a right-wing blog. Most of the story quotes a FactCheck piece from July 2nd. The thread is about a much newer story that just came out today.

We'll see what FactCheck has to say about the newer article. But that blog entry is playing fast and loose with the evidence in how it presents the FactCheck piece without noting the dates.

 

[cybrsage]

...

 

[mect]

Powerline is a right-wing blog. Most of the story quotes a FactCheck piece from July 2nd. The thread is about a much newer story that just came out today.

We'll see what FactCheck has to say about the newer article. But that blog entry is playing fast and loose with the evidence in how it presents the FactCheck piece without noting the dates.

Yeah, because if Romney is working 80 hours a week, it leaves all kinds of time for him to be running Bain. There is plenty wrong with Romney without having to stoop to these kinds of accusations. I don't care if he participated in a conference call for 30 minutes every few months, if he is working 80+ hours a week for the olympics, I don't see how anyone could consider it dishonest to claim that as when he left the company.

 

[sunzt]

Yeah, because if Romney is working 80 hours a week, it leaves all kinds of time for him to be running Bain. There is plenty wrong with Romney without having to stoop to these kinds of accusations. I don't care if he participated in a conference call for 30 minutes every few months, if he is working 80+ hours a week for the olympics, I don't see how anyone could consider it dishonest to claim that as when he left the company.

A 30 min call is the difference between getting an approval for an investment decision by the CEO or not. What needs to be known is if he was involved in any approvals or rubber stamping of investment decisions.

Why does that matter? It's because some of the investment decisions during that time frame included the closing of sites and off shoring of workers. If he was involved in the approvals process then he holds some responsibility for those decisions.

 

[woolfe9999]

Don't forget terrorist and attempted mass murderer Bill Ayers.

Nice try, but this thread is not about Obama and Ayers. You can start a thread on that topic any time you want. What you're trying to do is the same partisan nonsense that is constantly done by people on both sides - change the subject to the other guy. In this context it doesn't matter if Obama is himself a terrorist or even a child molester or Satan himself, because neither would justify Romney's lying about Bain, if in fact that is what happened. And don't bother accusing others of having partisan double standards when that is in fact exactly the behavior you exhibit here.

The shame is that people actually take up these equivalency arguments when in fact the response I gave above is the only response they deserve. Let's stay on topic and stop trying to justify one person bad behavior with another's.

- wolf

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yeah, because if Romney is working 80 hours a week, it leaves all kinds of time for him to be running Bain.

80 hours a week? That's all?

That's not even 12 hours a day. Leaves plenty of time to manage more than one business, if all you are doing is directing traffic at a high level.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Nice try, but this thread is not about Obama and Ayers. You can start a thread on that topic any time you want. What you're trying to do is the same partisan nonsense that is constantly done by people on both sides - change the subject to the other guy. In this context it doesn't matter if Obama is himself a terrorist or even a child molester or Satan himself, because neither would justify Romney's lying about Bain, if in fact that is what happened. And don't bother accusing others of having partisan double standards when that is in fact exactly the behavior you exhibit here.

The shame is that people actually take up these equivalency arguments when in fact the response I gave above is the only response they deserve. Let's stay on topic and stop trying to justify one person bad behavior with another's.

- wolf

The problem is there really is no content to this story or thread. Doesn't help that the OP just did a hit and run.

 

[mect]

80 hours a week? That's all?

That's not even 12 hours a day. Leaves plenty of time to manage more than one business, if all you are doing is directing traffic at a high level.

And you have experience as a CEO?

 

[LTC8K6]

Powerline is a right-wing blog. Most of the story quotes a FactCheck piece from July 2nd. The thread is about a much newer story that just came out today.

We'll see what FactCheck has to say about the newer article. But that blog entry is playing fast and loose with the evidence in how it presents the FactCheck piece without noting the dates.

The "new" documents aren't new. They were already looked over. Non story.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The "new" documents aren't new. They were already looked over. Non story.

I see no indication that the July 2 FactCheck article deals with the documents discussed in today's Globe article. It's possible I missed something.

If it's really a non-story, then it will disappear. We'll see.

 

[Genx87]

No, it's not fine. Romney running on a platform of 'I will repeal the ACA' is not a lie. He really wants to do it. He probably won't be able to do it.

If I promise to meet you tomorrow, and then I am kidnapped before I get to meet you, am I now a liar? Use your brains people. Think about the logistics and realize there is a difference between what people want to do and what they can do. Or just continue on with your blind generalizations and lump everything into the same category. It's easier for your simple minds to grasp that way.

Why do you need to come up with such silly and outrageous analogies to make the case your guy isnt a liar?

Lets deal with one example and go from there.

Gitmo closing.

Obama naive or a liar?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

 

[dank69]

Why do you need to come up with such silly and outrageous analogies to make the case your guy isnt a liar?

Lets deal with one example and go from there.

Gitmo closing.

Obama naive or a liar?

I do not know enough about the situation to say. Can he just wave his hand and close it? Or does he need to follow some process? What is that process? Who has the ability to block the action? Now that he is president, has he been made aware of some situation that he was not aware of when he made that promise that overrides his desire to close Gitmo?

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

"In Romney's 2002 race for governor, he testified before the state Ballot Law Commission that his separation from Bain in 1999 had been a "leave of absence" and not a final departure."

Again, why does this even matter?

 

[Genx87]

I do not know enough about the situation to say. Can he just wave his hand and close it? Or does he need to follow some process? What is that process? Who has the ability to block the action? Now that he is president, has he been made aware of some situation that he was not aware of when he made that promise that overrides his desire to close Gitmo?

No cant wave his hands and close it. Anybody following the situation knew that. So does that make Obama naive or did he lie? Did he really believe he could close it? Or was he lieing to the voters knowing full well the Bush admin had been trying to close it for years but couldnt?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Again, why does this even matter?

Because the information suggests a reasonable likelihood that he lied about his role there either a decade ago, or this year.

If he was on a "leave of absence" then why was he listed as chairman and CEO in 2001? And why was he drawing a $100,000 salary?

To be perfectly honest, I'll be amazed myself if this has any legs. I mean, Romney's campaign has proven itself to be incompetent on an almost weekly basis, but I can't believe he would really be so dumb as to get himself in hot water over this stuff.

Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a public figure did something truly idiotic out of sheer hubris.

 

[LTC8K6]

I see no indication that the July 2 FactCheck article deals with the documents discussed in today's Globe article. It's possible I missed something.

If it's really a non-story, then it will disappear. We'll see.

How are these SEC filings new?

 

[dank69]

No cant wave his hands and close it. Anybody following the situation knew that. So does that make Obama naive or did he lie? Did he really believe he could close it? Or was he lieing to the voters knowing full well the Bush admin had been trying to close it for years but couldnt?

The Bush Admin had been trying to close it? I find this hard to believe. Regardless, with the limited info I have at this point I am leaning towards naive, which is not the same thing as saying 'I didn't work at X company at Y time' when it seems that in fact, he did.

 

[LTC8K6]

"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 company said in a statement. "Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/questions-romney-left-bain-capital-135713042.html

 

[Charles Kozierok]

"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 company said in a statement. "Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."

That's damage control, not a real explanation.

If he was on "leave of absence" why wasn't that specified?

Why was he drawing a salary?

And do they really expect us to believe that this guy is some sort of "uber businessman" but he let his business drift rudderless for three years?

I'm not drawing conclusions on this either way. But there's definitely something rotten in Denmark.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Because the information suggests a reasonable likelihood that he lied about his role there either a decade ago, or this year.

If he was on a "leave of absence" then why was he listed as chairman and CEO in 2001? And why was he drawing a $100,000 salary?

To be perfectly honest, I'll be amazed myself if this has any legs. I mean, Romney's campaign has proven itself to be incompetent on an almost weekly basis, but I can't believe he would really be so dumb as to get himself in hot water over this stuff.

Then again, it wouldn't be the first time a public figure did something truly idiotic out of sheer hubris.

I'm trying to see where any false statements have been made.

The purpose of that statement in the Public Financial Disclosure Statement was to determine when his active involvement ended with Bain Capital.

Full statement is here btw: http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00000286_2010_pres.pdf

And I am sure he reported any salary and ownership in the company.

From the fact check article:

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.

His name remained on SEC filings because he was technically still the owner.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Powerline is a right-wing blog. Most of the story quotes a FactCheck piece from July 2nd. The thread is about a much newer story that just came out today.

We'll see what FactCheck has to say about the newer article. But that blog entry is playing fast and loose with the evidence in how it presents the FactCheck piece without noting the dates.

In the interest of fairness, FactCheck has followed up and said they stand by their earlier assessment.

Honestly, I find this whole thing so confusing that I don't even know what to think. I certainly can't imagine it's good for the Romney campaign, regardless. It makes Romney look even more like an out-of-touch Richie Rich / Gordon Gekko type to average Americans.