CNN: Two Active Obama Supporters at Bain Confirm Romney Left in 1999

[nonpareil]

If you look in the other thread

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-us-presidential-election/130472-romney-didn-t-leave-bain-1999-w-404-a.html

You will see that it has already been proven, re-proven, and proven again that the SEC documents are not evidence of any managerial or operational contol at Bain on the part of Mitt Romney. As long as he was not voting his own shares (and no one has claimed that he was voting his shares), he can be listed as the CEO and sole stakeholder. This is because the ownership of the company was in transition. SEC requires the seller of a company to remain listed on SEC filings as the owner until the buyout is complete. The buyout was not complete until 2002.

Mitt can state that he had no control or input whatsoever at Bain after 1999, and also list himself as the sole stockholder and CEO on the SEC filings without lying, committing a crime or contradicting himself. Both can truthfully occur at the same time.

Nothing was proven. You are making crap up. Just because you claimed that the "ownership of the company was in transition", doesn't make it "proven". Don't confuse yourself. Romney said he owned the firm 100% until 2002. Romney said he intended to go back to Bain Capital after the Olympic. Romney acknowledged that he had the capacity to run the business if he wanted to, but he did not.

 

[hazlnut]

Okay, Mr. President. So, when are you going to clean up your political campaign and apologize to Mitt Romney for all of your false accusations and blatant lies???? Come on .... man up!

Why did it take CNN to call you out on this? Are your advisors falling down on their jobs? Perhaps you should replace Valerie Jarrett with an advisor who is more honest and more competent!

Put it simply: Team Obama is lying, and it continues to lie about Romney. They are desperate to find a way to make Romney’s time at Bain work in their favor, and that desperation has nearly reached pathological levels. Still, for Obama, it beats talking about the economy, jobs, the deficit, and anything else that actually matters to voters.

"Valerie Jarrett is not only one of President Barack Obama’s closest advisors; she also is one of the most radical, with close connections to the Chicago left that nurtured Obama in his early political career."

CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999

posted at 12:41 pm on July 13, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

CNN reported last night that the accusations from Team Obama of felonious conduct are sheer nonsense and lies — and got that message from four executives at Bain, two of whom are “active” supporters of Barack Obama.

John King spoke to all four, three of whom are Democrats, and all four said that Mitt Romney left Bain in a big hurry in 1999 in order to work full time on rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics. The rushed departure created a lot of paperwork headaches as Bain tried to unwind Romney from leadership, which required a significant amount of time.


CNN: Two “active” Obama supporters at Bain confirm Romney left in 1999 « Hot Air

SEC filing confirm otherwise.

FAIL.

 

[cpwill]

man, you guys really are desperate, aren't you?

 

[Morality Games]

man, you guys really are desperate, aren't you?

Hard to be desperate when you don't have a stake in the outcome, but the matter has already been clarified that Romney was CEO. Rhetorically that's all that is necessary.

 

[Zyphlin]

Ok, so your position is that he lied on the SEC forms? So rather than continue his campaign, he should serve up to 5 years in prison?

A title does not prove operational control, managerial control, participation in the business, or anything of the such.

 

[Morality Games]

A title does not prove operational control, managerial control, participation in the business, or anything of the such.

If he was legally the CEO then it implies all those things, even if in practice the business was administered by others.

 

[teamosil]

I'm saying that he WAS the CEO, President, and Managing Director as far as the SEC is concerned. Not as far as any other rules and laws are concerned.

As a real life example, Atlanta Medical Center was purchased by Tenet Healthcare about 15 years ago. I worked on the buyout. The agreement was for Tenet to pay the former owners of Atlanta Medical Center x number of dollars over a period of 6 years. The completion of the buyout did not occur until 2003. During the period between 1997 and 2003, Tenet owned Atlanta Medical Center. However, the former owners were required to be listed on some SEC documents (including the 13d) as the owner and managing partners- because the SEC requires it to be done this way. In real life, Atlanta Medical Center's former owners had no ownership of the hospital during the buyout period. However, in the event of contract default on the part of Tenet, the former owners would have retaken control (an act similar to repossession or foreclosure). In the eyes of the SEC, this creates an indirect "ownership interest."

In that instance, the former owners carried no insurance, had no liability, and no control over the actions of Tenet during the buyout. Still, the SEC required them to be reported as the owners.

This is simply the way it is. IMO the regs don't make a whole lot of sense, but they are what they are.

I think you're confusing two things. Romney would have had to submit the form no matter what because he was an owner. That's fine. That isn't the issue. The issue is that he was listed as the CEO, president and managing director. Being an owner doesn't mean control, being a CEO, president and managing partner do. That is a clean sweep of all the top positions. Whether he was going to work or not, that means he still had complete legal control over the company.

That is what the Romney campaign is denying- that he was CEO, president or managing partner. The Romney campaign just released a statement today claiming that he was the CEO and whatnot when the forms were submitted, but that he later "retired retroactively"... Ummm..

Personally, I think that the stuff he did at Bain prior to when he claims he left is just as bad as the stuff Bain did during the time when he apparently was still CEO, president and managing director, but doesn't want to talk about it. What Bain is is bad from ground up. It's a chop shop. They buy companies, often against the will of the owners and founders and management, they pay off some of the directors to get them to vote for the merger, then they fire the employees and sell off the assets. That's what Bain does- take struggling, but still solvent, companies, and destroy them for profit. They look for companies whose assets are worth more than the market capitalization, buy them for market and sell the assets. It's vulture capitalism and it does an enormous amount of damage to the country. Shipping jobs overseas isn't really worse than firing people and closing down businesses, it just sounds worse on a campaign ad.

 

[Redress]

man, you guys really are desperate, aren't you?

It's not desperate, it's smart politics. Right now Obama has framed the discussion on terms he wants them on(basically, talking about Romney), and is staying on message. Romney is stumbling all over, reacting and off message. Considering that the electoral map favors obama right now, this is not a good thing for Romney. On the plus side for Romney, he has alot of time to recover,

 

[Redress]

A title does not prove operational control, managerial control, participation in the business, or anything of the such.

The next step that will be coming, is while it does not prove any of those things, CEO and owner makes him responsible for those things, just as being president makes you responsible for the whole executive branch.

 

[AdamT]

Romney 2012: "The buck doesn't stop here."

 

[apdst]

It's not desperate, it's smart politics. Right now Obama has framed the discussion on terms he wants them on(basically, talking about Romney), and is staying on message. Romney is stumbling all over, reacting and off message. Considering that the electoral map favors obama right now, this is not a good thing for Romney. On the plus side for Romney, he has alot of time to recover,

Or, it could backfire and amplify what most people already know: Obama is afeaid to talk about his record.

 

[apdst]

The next step that will be coming, is while it does not prove any of those things, CEO and owner makes him responsible for those things, just as being president makes you responsible for the whole executive branch.

Two words: Fast & Furious.

obama doesn't want to go down that road.

 

[apdst]

Romney 2012: "The buck doesn't stop here."

Like it does with Obama? Oh, wait...

 

[kamikaze483]

SEC filing confirm otherwise.

FAIL.

Wow. First the birthers, now the Bainers. Next they are going to start asking Romney when he stopped beating his wife.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I think you're confusing two things. Romney would have had to submit the form no matter what because he was an owner. That's fine. That isn't the issue. The issue is that he was listed as the CEO, president and managing director. Being an owner doesn't mean control, being a CEO, president and managing partner do. That is a clean sweep of all the top positions. Whether he was going to work or not, that means he still had complete legal control over the company.

That is what the Romney campaign is denying- that he was CEO, president or managing partner. The Romney campaign just released a statement today claiming that he was the CEO and whatnot when the forms were submitted, but that he later "retired retroactively"... Ummm..

Personally, I think that the stuff he did at Bain prior to when he claims he left is just as bad as the stuff Bain did during the time when he apparently was still CEO, president and managing director, but doesn't want to talk about it. What Bain is is bad from ground up. It's a chop shop. They buy companies, often against the will of the owners and founders and management, they pay off some of the directors to get them to vote for the merger, then they fire the employees and sell off the assets. That's what Bain does- take struggling, but still solvent, companies, and destroy them for profit. They look for companies whose assets are worth more than the market capitalization, buy them for market and sell the assets. It's vulture capitalism and it does an enormous amount of damage to the country. Shipping jobs overseas isn't really worse than firing people and closing down businesses, it just sounds worse on a campaign ad.

Bold:
AMC Entertainment, Aspen Education Group, Brookstone, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Domino's Pizza, DoubleClick, Dunkin' Donuts, D&M Holdings, Guitar Center, Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), Sealy, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group and The Weather Channel----would disagree with you, they benefitted from takeovers by Bain Capital.

Teamo you are buying the talking point without investigating what actually happened. There are a lot of companies that became much stronger after being acquired by Bain. Business isnt bean bag, you make a profit or you have to cut expenses until you make a profit. If you arent making a profit, people and product lines because casualties. Its a pretty damn tough market out there, you have to be good to prosper and some companies just forget how or never learn.

 

[upsideguy]

from The Real Romney, by a couple of Boston Globe Reporters:



That sounds like he'd pretty much left, all right - while retaining his financial interest in it.

I think you are missing the point. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that he remained at Bain a had control of day to day operations after 1999.

The point is that he maintained executive title, and executive authority on various aspects of Bain, including some of its funds. The question now is A) What parts of Bain did he maintain title of CEO? (If he had the CEO title over the management company; then he has responsibility, albeit perhaps technical); and if A, then B) How much continuing participation (as there will have been some) did he have over the operations of the company

 

[PeteEU]

man, you guys really are desperate, aren't you?

Only ones desperate are the GOP and Romney campaign and their supporters. Else why would they get Drudge to float the idiotic idea that Condi Rice was to be VP favourite, and why else are the usual suspects trying to deflect attention away from the issue by coming with contradictory comments and attacks. The GOP and Romney campaign knows that this is a serious hit to Romney's creditability and election chances, because it puts a serious dent in his "economic" credentials. For one, it would mean he was owner and active in Bain when the company invested in a medical company that got rid of aborted fetuses... not exactly a vote winner among the far right..

 

[teamosil]

Teamo you are buying the talking point without investigating what actually happened. There are a lot of companies that became much stronger after being acquired by Bain. Business isnt bean bag, you make a profit or you have to cut expenses until you make a profit. If you arent making a profit, people and product lines because casualties. Its a pretty damn tough market out there, you have to be good to prosper and some companies just forget how or never learn.

I'm not buying talking points from anybody. I've worked with several Bain-like companies. I know what they do very well. It is true that they don't chop every single company. Some companies they can make more profit by just firing people and taking steps to make it look more profitable on paper. For example, companies like Bain might buy a company with 1,000 employees, fire 400 of them, strongly imply to the remaining 600 that they will be fired if the revenues from their departments drop off. So, for a few months, you have 600 people working 60-70 hour weeks terrified that they are going to be fired. So, on paper, it looks like Bain magically reduced expenses 40% while keeping revenues the same. Then Bain sells the company at a huge profit. But, of course, that's just a trick. That is unsustainable. Those 600 employees all start to leave the company or to work normal hours and revenues drop off rapidly. So, all that really happened in that transaction is that 400 people lost their jobs so that Bain could make millions.

Another trick they like to pull is to game the revenues by telling customers, for example, if you buy this quarter instead of next quarter, we'll give you 50% off. So they artificially boost up revenues for this quarter by stealing from next quarter, and they do it at a huge discount, so it's actually a big loss, but on paper it looks like a big win.

When a company like Bain buys the company you work for, start applying for other jobs immediately, and if a company like Bain is trying to sell you a company, run.

Now, companies like Bain don't do it in an honest way, but it is true that sometimes companies need to be downsized to stay afloat. Somebody does have to do that. But even somebody who had to do that honestly shouldn't be bragging about that. They should be ashamed of what they did. They should strive every day to make up for their failure to run the company well enough to keep the people there employed. They should have trouble sleeping at night. But Romney loves it. He brags about it, he thinks all the firing he did shows that he should be president. He isn't trying to make up for what he did, he is trying to get a bigger stage to do it on. That just isn't the kind of guy we want to be president.

 

[Redress]

Or, it could backfire and amplify what most people already know: Obama is afeaid to talk about his record.

Obama is not talking about his record, but Romney is. That is why it is effective.

 

[Redress]

Two words: Fast & Furious.

obama doesn't want to go down that road.

Fast and Furious is already being used against him, so what exactly is your point?

 

[kamikaze483]

Only ones desperate are the GOP and Romney campaign and their supporters. Else why would they get Drudge to float the idiotic idea that Condi Rice was to be VP favourite, and why else are the usual suspects trying to deflect attention away from the issue by coming with contradictory comments and attacks. The GOP and Romney campaign knows that this is a serious hit to Romney's creditability and election chances, because it puts a serious dent in his "economic" credentials. For one, it would mean he was owner and active in Bain when the company invested in a medical company that got rid of aborted fetuses... not exactly a vote winner among the far right..

So who would the far right vote for instead? LOL.

The GOP and Romney campaign knows that this is a serious hit to Romney's creditability and election chances, because it puts a serious dent in his "economic" credentials

The GOP knows that a large majority of Americans are too lazy or ignorant to understand a subject as complicated as company ownership, authority, and control. This issue, while lacking any meaningful, substantive information pertinent to Romney or the election, will be oversimplified, perverted, and bastardized. The dialogue with the left and with the media will be absent of facts and evidence, having not even an iota of basis in truth- and will still be problematic for Romney only because Americans, in general, are lazy and ignorant.

 

[AdamT]

So who would the far right vote for instead? LOL.



The GOP knows that a large majority of Americans are too lazy or ignorant to understand a subject as complicated as company ownership, authority, and control. This issue, while lacking any meaningful, substantive information pertinent to Romney or the election, will be oversimplified, perverted, and bastardized. The dialogue with the left and with the media will be absent of facts and evidence, having not even an iota of basis in truth- and will still be problematic for Romney only because Americans, in general, are lazy and ignorant.

Yep, sorta like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.

 

[cpwill]

I think you are missing the point. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that he remained at Bain a had control of day to day operations after 1999.

The point is that he maintained executive title, and executive authority on various aspects of Bain, including some of its funds. The question now is A) What parts of Bain did he maintain title of CEO? (If he had the CEO title over the management company; then he has responsibility, albeit perhaps technical); and if A, then B) How much continuing participation (as there will have been some) did he have over the operations of the company

the section seems to make clear the answer is "none".


But really? This is it? Your big scandal about Romney is that some SEC forms are signed in a manner as to appear suspicious to people who do not understand the relevant regulation?

 

[teamosil]

But really? This is it? Your big scandal about Romney is that some SEC forms are signed in a manner as to appear suspicious to people who do not understand the relevant regulation?

The point is that he has been reduce from his original pitch- "we need to give rich people even lower taxes so they can go about creating jobs like I did at Bain" to trying to deny his involvement with Bain the job destroying machine and refusing to admit that he, and the other people like him whose taxes he wants to reduce, actually don't pay hardly anything in taxes. He got swiftboated.

 

[kamikaze483]

the section seems to make clear the answer is "none".


But really? This is it? Your big scandal about Romney is that some SEC forms are signed in a manner as to appear suspicious to people who do not understand the relevant regulation?

I've been going round and round with this in two threads. Links to the SEC regulations, the differences between SEC filing requirements and "real life," and even gave an example of a hospital buyout I worked on where the result was the same- the former owners listed on SEC documents as if they were the current owners and decision makers...

And all I get back is links to the Boston Globe story, citing the SEC documents. LOL.