Visual source: Newseum
Romney’s own words, along with other documentary evidence, appear to challenge his campaign’s assertion in a recent financial disclosure that Romney had “retired” from Bain in 1999 and “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.”
Financial disclosure forms Romney filed in Massachusetts indicate he earned at least $ 100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings…
The Romney campaign declined to comment on the record about whether the business trips and board meetings were related to Bain Capital obligations.
The URL for this story suggests the original headline was: Evidence Mounts of Mitt Romney’s Continuing Ties to Bain After 1999. Romney’s people think that because he got away with misleading about Bain when he ran for governor in 2002, he can get away with it now. After all, you just lawyer up and find loopholes to make your own rules. Doesn’t everyone?
In any case, it’s about your taxes, Mitt. Release them and show the voters how you get around paying them, just like you and me.
Glenn Kessler, who writes the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column, dismisses  the SEC filings bearing Romney’s name, insisting, “much of the language saying Romney was ‘sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president’ was boilerplate that did not reveal whether he was actually managing Bain at the time.” Again, there is a difference between managing and participating in the firm’s operations.
Kessler notes that Romney signed that public disclosure form, under the penalty of perjury. Still, he doesn’t seem to believe this is a problem for Romney. He does concede, “The SEC documents, especially the ones Romney signed, do raise some questions. One can certainly argue that because Romney did not fully extricate himself from Bain till after his Olympic sojourn ended, he should bear some responsibility for what happened in that period.”
Kessler, though, slams the Obama campaign—three Pinocchios!—for saying that Romney and Bain may have violated the law by filing documents with the SEC that falsely represented Romney’s status at Bain. But even Kessler’s reading of the available evidence could land Romney in hot water regarding his financial disclosure form. While he contends the available evidence does not support the claim Romney actively managed Bain after February 1999, he does find that the signed SEC documents indicate that Romney, at the least, did not “fully extricate himself from Bain” until 2002.
it’s pretty clear Kessler writes an opinion column disguised as a fact checker. Too often, he rules on his subjective definition of intent to convey a narrative, not facts. Meanwhile, Corn has been all over this, getting an apology from the Boston Globe for not crediting him (TPM got one as well) for his earlier work.
For most Americans, filings for the Federal Election Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission are foreign concepts that would have limited resonance. But being misleading is a universal concept: most have done it and most frown upon it. The insinuation by the Obama campaign that Romney was either lying then or is lying now (or is shaving the truth down to a sliver) to make a buck and win an office is a much easier and more dangerous concept for voters to wrap their minds around.
Furthermore, the slipperiness of this explanation underscores Romney’s otherness. If you were a construction worker or a schoolteacher, the year you stopped doing your job wouldn’t be ambiguous. Having no “active role” in a parent “entity” feels like a term of art for a con artist.
Second is the issue of Romney’s tax returns.
A con artist and a corporate consultant aren’t the same thing (except when they are.)
Romney gave five network television interviews on the subject on Friday. While it was true that a bunch of Securities and Exchange Commission filings submitted into the new millennium described Romney as Bain Capital’s boss, that was a technicality, he told CNN.
Well, actually, he said, “I was the owner of an entity that is filing that information.” Also that there’s a difference between an owner and “a person who’s running an entity.”
It was Romney’s Star Trek moment. They were always talking about entities on Star Trek, and entities were very seldom good news…
The Republicans currently have a symbolic legislative agenda and a presidential candidate who can be in two places at one time, but whom nobody likes.
Other than that, it’s all good. Nobody’s brought up the dog on the car roof for days.
With few exceptions, the men who become president are very good at politics; it’s generally not wise to assume otherwise. But it seems that some in Romney’s camp have done just that about their competition — Obama and his campaign — and it has left them floundering in the face of 18-year-old attacks that should have been obvious to anyone paying attention.
Nate Silver‘s latest forecast:
Obama Forecast Buoyed by Stock Rally | No offense to the people of the Peace Garden State. But when the only survey out is one of North Dakota, as was the case on Friday — plus the national tracking polls, which moved in opposite directions — there just isn’t much polling news to worry about. There was, however, a substantial gain in the stock market, which recovered the ground it had lost this week. The Dow Jones was up more than 200 points as investors reacted to better-than-expected data out of China. The forecast for President Obama’s chances of winning the Electoral College rose, to 67.7 percent, on the attendant gain in our model’s economic index.
Recent surveys show the presidential race tight, and this latest poll is no different. Obama edged presumed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by 2 percentage points, 48 percent to 46 percent. He led among African Americans 78 percent to 15 percent, among young people 74 percent to 20 percent, among Latinos 67 percent to 28 percent, and among women 55 percent to 40 percent.
Romney, meanwhile, bests the president among older voters, ages 60 and older, by 57 percent to 36 percent, among whites by 55 percent to 39 percent, and among men by 52 percent to 40 percent.
But the Obama and Romney advantages among certain slices of the electorate belie the fact that on issues, like who would best handle the economy or foreign policy, the divide between them is much closer, with the president only slightly ahead, according to the poll.
They also share similar splits on likability: 49 percent of the voters have a favorable view of president, while 46 percent don’t; 46 percent like Romney, but 42 percent don’t.
Independent voters are likely to be pivotal in November, and the poll gives Romney a boost. Overall, they favor him, though not by much.
Miringoff said that most telling was that neither candidate so far draws support of 50 percent or more on any of the “fundamental” questions that determine elections.
“The race was close yesterday, it’s close today and it probably will be close tomorrow,” he said, “and it may even be close on Election Day.
In this poll, tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthy, are favored. OTOH, any poll that finds Romney likable is a bit of an outlier (the party ID of respondents seem reasonable at D 36 R 29 I 34.)
Source: Daily Kos