Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (495420)	7/12/2012 2:52:33 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793907

This is an interesting charge. Designed to put Romney on the defensive, it will come down to proving a series of dates. It gets muddled a bit since Romney never took a salary from Bain or the Olympics during the period.

To: FJB who wrote (495420)	7/12/2012 3:05:21 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793907

Already debunked by Fortune. What's next? Perhaps an accusation that Romney was a pedophile Docs prove Romney didn't manage Bain funds By Dan Primack CNNMoney July 12, 2012: 2:41 PM ET New evidence for when Romney really left Bain Capital. FORTUNE -- Mitt Romney did not manage Bain Capital's investments after leaving to run the Salt Lake City Olympic Games, according to confidential firm documents obtained by Fortune. 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. It 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. Then there is Bain Capital Venture Fund -- the firm's first dedicated venture capital effort -- whose private placement memorandum is dated January 2001. Romney also isn't listed among its "key investment professionals," or as part of its day-to-day operations or investment committee. All of this could prove problematic for the Obama campaign, which has spent they day crowing over the Globe story (going so far as to hold a media call about it). "When Mitt Romney ran for governor and now as he's running for president, he consistently claimed he could not be blamed for bankruptcies and layoffs from Bain investments after February 1999 because he departed for the Olympics," said Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, according to the Globe. "Now, we know that he wasn't telling the truth." But the contemporaneous Bain documents show that Romney was indeed telling the truth about no longer having operational input at Bain -- which, one should note, is different from no longer having legal or financial ties to the firm. As Fortune wrote earlier, Romney left Bain suddenly -- rather than as part of an organized transition plan -- after being asked to lead an Olympic organizing committee that had spiraled out of control. Moreover, it was unclear in February 1999 if Romney's leave of absence would be permanent, or if he would return (as he had in 1994, after losing a U.S.Senate race to Ted Kennedy). He didn't formally give up his title and firm ownership until 2002, once the Games had been successful and he was interested in other elective office. In the interim, he continued to fulfill legal obligations such as signing certain documents -- but actual investment and managerial decisions were being made by others. After deceiving the Bain Capital documents, Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt emailed over the following statement: "Mitt Romney either misled the American people or misrepresented himself to the SEC. Romney has said he had no authority or responsibility for managing Bain since 1999, but that has been proven false. Regardless of whether he was on the management committee for this particular deal, he remained President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board and he was legally responsible for every investment and decision made by Bain." finance.fortune.cnn.com

To: FJB who wrote (495420)	7/12/2012 3:13:44 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793907

Misdiagnosing Romney’s campaign By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: July 11 Could it be that Mitt Romney is correct from a strategic point of view to tell us little about what he’d do as president? There are, of course, excellent civic reasons for a candidate to say where he or she would lead the country. But the debate raging right now in Republican circles is about politics, not civics. Conservatives, including the editors of the Wall Street Journal’s canonical editorial page, are telling Romney that his “insular staff and strategy .?.?. are slowly squandering an historic opportunity.” In the Weekly Standard, William Kristol fumed: “Is it too much to ask Mitt Romney to get off autopilot and actually think about the race he’s running?” There are grounds for such skepticism. This week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll found the race dead even but gave President Obama a 12-point advantage among registered voters on the matter of which candidate has a clearer plan for dealing with the economy. After several months of disappointing jobs numbers, Romney is behind Obama in other national surveys and tends to lag in the swing states. Far be it from me to get in the way of internecine Republican bickering, but Romney’s GOP critics are wrong in seeing his specifics-lite approach as his core problem. His difficulties lie elsewhere. A defense of Romney’s minimalism starts with the matter of timing. The best rationale I’ve heard for the current Romney strategy came from former U.S. representative Vin Weber, a Romney adviser who noted in an interview that the very first question voters have to answer in a reelection race is whether there is “a compelling reason to remove the incumbent from office.” “There’s a broader indictment of the incumbent that’s necessary before the country decides to replace him,” Weber argued. Only when a majority has reached this decision can a challenger begin to present himself as a plausible alternative. Only then is the country prepared to listen. Viewed this way, the relentlessly negative approach of the Romney campaign so far (summarized in top adviser Stuart Stevens’s favorite slogan, “Obama isn’t working”) is the essential first step toward opening the electorate to the idea of changing leadership. If Romney wins, Weber said, hindsight might suggest that this tipping point was reached this month with the latest jobs report. Moreover, those calling on Romney to be more specific tend to be staunch conservatives who are absolutely convinced that the country would respond to a full-throated right-of-center agenda. Here, they are allowing their philosophical commitments to cloud their political judgment. Romney’s economic recovery strategy is rooted in the same old conservative ideas that have been around for more than 30 years: lower taxes on the wealthy and economic deregulation. These nostrums are wildly popular with the Republican base — especially very rich donors — but not with swing voters. More details about a largely unpopular program would not do Romney much good. Conservatives are forever fond of pointing back to Ronald Reagan for having run a highly principled campaign in 1980. But Reagan’s most effective line was the decidedly non-ideological question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” That is the Romney campaign in a nutshell. Now to the drawbacks with the Romney campaign’s theory. Operatives in both parties are surprised that Obama has been allowed to tell a negative story about Romney that is moving poll numbers without any competition from positive ads building Romney up. Romney could be rendered unacceptable before he has a chance to make his case. And David Winston, a Republican pollster, has asked one of the campaign’s most interesting survey questions. He found that only 32 percent of voters said that “the economy is not getting better at all.” At the other end, 26 percent thought it was getting better at an “acceptable” rate. Fully 40 percent said “the economy is getting better, but the rate of progress is still unacceptable.” Romney’s argument is aimed squarely at the third of the electorate that feels the economy is in disastrous shape. Obama’s messaging, on the other hand, is directed toward those “better but not good enough” voters — and it is members of this group who will decide the election. The problem with Romney’s campaign thus lies less in his lack of policy beef than in his failure to talk enough to the right voters. A message of economic pessimism will keep Romney close. But barring another major downturn, it won’t close the deal. washingtonpost.com

To: FJB who wrote (495420)	7/12/2012 3:44:27 PM
From: teevee	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793907

The US has become a cleptocracy. Claiming that Romney is a liar, cheat and a criminal will strengthen his campaign for the presidency of the US, improving the pickings for his crony Wall Street criminals and bankster associates. If you want to know who will win the White House, it will be the biggest liar, cheat and criminal between Obama and Romney. Obama has filled the White House with former Wall Street banksters, however, Romney is no angel either. I believe it is a coin toss as to who will win.