The Paddock

What the hell is secretive about Bain capital?? The problem isn't that it's secretive, it's that people don't understand the nature of private equity and how it works. By all indications, Bain is a highly reputable entity and this comes from pundits on both sides of the aisle to include Bill Clinton, Cory Booker and Ed Rendell to name a few.

This whole episode is living proof that if you repeat a lie often enough, then people start believing it. I again point you to the TWO SEPERATE FACT CHECKERS who unequivocally state that this whole line of attack against Bain is FALSE AND MISLEADING. What part of that do you not understand?? Do you think PolitiFact and Factcheck are wrong, lying, misleading?? I'll take these two organizations as better arbiters of the truth than the likes of David Corn, the Huffington Post, Mother Jones etc. who keep recycling this garbage. That's like me citing articles from Drudge, the Daily Caller or Rush Limbaugh as proof that Obama has done something wrong. But here is some added info from a NYT article from this weekend.

“It’s a disconnect between the ownership interest and managerial functions,” said Harvey L. Pitt, who served as S.E.C. chairman under President George W. Bush. “When Bain takes positions in public companies, they’re required to show anyone who has an ownership interest that could be the effective equivalent of control. So Romney has to be shown on those filings. If they didn’t show them on those filings, they would have broken the law. But it has nothing to do with who’s actually running Bain Capital.”

Indeed, no evidence has yet emerged that Mr. Romney exercised his powers at Bain after February 1999 or directed the funds’ investments after he left, although his campaign has declined to say if he attended any meetings or had any other contact with Bain during the period. And financial disclosures filed with the Massachusetts ethics commission show that he drew at least $100,000 in 2001 from Bain Capital Inc. — effectively his own till — as a “former executive” and from other Bain entities as a passive general partner.

An offering memorandum to investors in Bain’s seventh private equity fund that was circulated in June 2000 also suggests that Mr. Romney was no longer actively involved in managing firm investments at the time. The memorandum, first published by Fortune, provides background on the “senior private equity investment professionals of Bain Capital.” Eighteen managers are listed; Mr. Romney is not among them.

On another filing with Massachusetts officials, Bain Capital listed all of Bain’s directors and officers for 2001. The form lists Michael F. Goss as “president, managing director and chief financial officer,” along with seventeen other managing directors. Mr. Romney is not among them, suggesting that while he still owned Bain’s management company, he was not an officer of the company.

By August 2001, Mr. Romney had announced that he would not return to Bain Capital. Talk was already swirling about a bid for Massachusetts governor; behind the scenes, Mr. Romney was negotiating his final departure from Bain. Mr. Romney’s partners agreed to pay him a declining portion of the firm’s profits in buyout deals and other businesses for 10 years. The deal, signed in 2002, incorporated a payout formula reflecting his passive role in the firm from February 1999 forward, officials said. "

At the end of the day it still comes down to the fact that Obama is an abject and utter failure at his job and the left is crapping all over themselves trying to save him from getting fired in November. He remains an empty suit incapable of leading or governing effectively due to his incompetence, arrogance and inexperience. In short, the snake oil salesman who promised the country hope and change along w/stopping the rise in the oceans, global temperatures and all the rest of his 2008 campaign drivel has been exposed for the incompetent fraud that he is!!!!!!!!

I think you're the one lacking some understanding. They are secretive because that's what they do. A public company would have a difficult time as a Bain capital because of their disclosure obligations. Most of their transactions are confidential--and they should be. But when their founder decides to be president it's going to throw scrutiny on their firm.

I'm not knocking Bain, but I'm saying Romney should have been aware that his entire life--public, private, and business--becomes fair game once you announce for public office. He's in a tough position because there are things he won't legally be able to discuss, but he's only making it worse by not being more forthcoming (with tax returns, etc.).

The comment that stirred all this up is that Romney's statements about when he left Bain are contrary to SEC filings. There are a lot of explanations for why that might be--and plenty of inconsistency in those explanations (care to explain what "retro-active retirement" means)? If you're satisfied, you're free to move on.

There are really two possibilities with the facts--either Mitt stayed very much in contact with the company and exercised some level of input on direction after 1999 (contrary to his statements) or he's an absolute idiot for being the named CEO for a company with which he has no input. He'd be the first person in the line of fire for a lawsuit. This is easily resolved for me because I don't think Mitt is an idiot. I guess you have your doubts.

This is why politics are so fckued up today. No one will admit when they are wrong. If someone has a good idea, use it. If someone proves you wrong admit it. How hard is that and does it really make a difference in the grand scheme of life? Hell no.

I usually try and be as objective as possible and gain as much of the facts as I can before rendenering an opinion. Candidly, I've found even more articles and stories from more objective sources backing Romney on this but if the 1st four links I provided don't convince people about this BS concocted campaign issue, then nothing I can say or do will. This is one of the few times where the evidence is pretty damn clear and compelling that if anybody is lying and or misleading, it is the Obama campaign.

That's the best you've got??? I've sited numerous fact check and MSM organizations who have rebuffed these claims as false. I didn't site conservative writers, publications or partisan hacks (like you have and do consistently) but instead did some simple research and proved this whole line of attack is BS. Yes, I'm conservative but I'm also an adult, unlike you, and I'm capable of independent thought and refuse to be a lock step hack like you. You don't know me but I showed your feeble Dem Lib talking points are pure garbage so you have to pop smoke and try and obscure the real issue, just like your hero BHO. Being an adult means you have the ability to admit when your wrong. Friggin grow up and stop acting like a petulant child!

Tell me one issue you agree with the libs on. Just one. Everything you've posted are half truths at best. The man said he stepped down after 1999 and documents prove he was the CEO for years after that. Period. He still got paid. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.

..................

WTF... the laughter I enjoyed for that joke, was well worth a +1...

And you are wrong yet again. Every credible fact check organization in America has said
That Romney hasnt lied and that the Obama campaign ran a misleading ad. The truth clearly doesn't matter to you.