Political Animal
Blog
So to get a little distance from last week’s big presidential campaign discussion, how did Mitt Romney’s campaign get to where it is today on the questions surrounding his stewardship of Bain Capital?
First, there was the fateful decision to make Romney’s success (the money he made plus the jobs the firm supposedly helped create) at Bain the centerpiece of his own campaign. This decision appears to have been the product of several calculations: it reinforced the simplistic economic monomania of their chosen campaign message; it avoided the kind of detailed policy-based message that might be dangerous for any Republican; they didn’t want to campaign on his Massachusetts record because of RomneyCare and other major flip-flops; and they figured an atmosphere of unprecedented hostility to government and politics was the best possible time to campaign as a technocratic businessman.
Second, there was a major effort to draw a big line in the sand in 1999 and make everything Bain did up until then a supreme achievement of American capitalism, and everything after that irrelevant to Mitt Romney. This effort was compounded by the equally firm decision to draw another line in the sand in 2010 as the maximum period of exposure of Romney’s tax returns; his “golden parachute” arrangement with Bain ended in 2009, so there’s something about the income he received from Bain during that period, or about how it was generated, or about how it was invested (quite possibly through Bain-managed funds) that’s dangerous. But at this point, the period of time after 1999 (and even after 2002) is unsurprisingly drawing a lot of attention. As Josh Marshall noted today in a Tweet: “Romneys point seems 2b that Satan took over as CEO of Bain immediately after his departure; started doing awful stuff he’d never have done.” TNR’s Alec MacGillis more thoroughly laid out how the media are likely to begin looking at this shoe question of timing:
[H]ow should we judge his responsibility for Bain activities? Well, on a sliding scale. It doesn’t have to be black-or-white. We can judge him as very responsible for its decisions pre-’99, as somewhat less responsible for its decisions between 1999 and 2002 and as less responsible yet for its activities post-2002. But I would argue that it’s not out of the realm of fairness to hold him slightly to account even for Bain’s activities post-2002—as the New York Times reported a while back, Romney continued to get a huge cut of Bain’s deals this past decade as part of his retirement deal. And it is, after all, the company he founded and whose direction he set in motion.
Third, and this was the major thrust of the Team Romney pushback last week, came the tactic of going for the capillaries of the attack, declaring them wrong-minded, over-the-top, or refuted, and trying to take the whole subject off the table (at least in terms of media coverage) for the duration. Thus the Romney campaign tried to reduce the entire “story” to Obama operative Stephanie Cutter’s suggestion that if Romney had actually lied on his SEC forms about his role at Bain he would have committed a felony, while it was obvious what Cutter was actually saying that he had lied to the American people. But the important point here is that Romney’s campaign and its media enablers are trying to find some sub-argument it can have been said to have “won,” thus “resolving” the entire “Bain issue” until after the election.
Fourth, and apparently intensifying this week, is a drive to make this whole back-and-forth over Romney and Bain just a tactical campaign issue that can be submerged in race-horse analysis. So today you have some of Romney’s most reliable mouthpieces (e.g., Jennifer Rubin) shouting joyfully that the Obama campaign’s focus on Bain represents a concession that the president must pull out all the stops right this minute because his whole campaign is about to collapse. This is part of a “July Panic” for the Democrats, you see. At the same time, Romney’s own campaign is trying to create its own horse-race noise, partly through a fresh attack on Obama’s alleged cronyism, and partly through renewed Veep speculation speculation (with carefully planted rumors today that Mitt might even announce something this very week).
We’ll see if this last gambit works, but it’s important to understand that if anyone manufactured the furor over Bain, and largely directed the development of the “story,” it was the Romney campaign, from the very beginning. It remains to be seen if they knew what they were doing, have outsmarted themselves, or simply had no better options.
Facebook
Twitter
ComradeAnon on July 16, 2012 9:55 AM:
In the long run this will die down. (But not completely.) Maybe a former SEC Official will says something along the lines that it's no big deal or it happens all the time. I certainly understand how it fits in the narrative we on the left have been making and observing for ages. Just more having your cake and eating it from another 1%er.
But give him a break. He's unemployed and running for office for Pete's sake!
NHCt on July 16, 2012 9:56 AM:
The fact they're considering announcing their VP in mid-July kind of invalidates the whole Obama-panicking-meme they're going with here. Mitt won't have another opportunity to move the needle before the convention and using it now seems to me an admission of weakness rather than a sign of strength.
T2 on July 16, 2012 9:57 AM:
when Conservatives take to the Sunday talk shows and suggest that something funny is going on with Romney's taxes......its not good. At this point, even if he releases the taxes and all is well, he's taken a hit. If all isn't well, he'll take a bigger one. As Axelrod says, its not that he may have done illegal stuff, just that he took every loophole he could and it will not look presidential... at all.
stormskies on July 16, 2012 10:01 AM:
The corporate automaton's and pathological liar's entire campaigns strategy was/is based on a total con job to the American people. And they thought they could safely rely on much of the corporate media to mega phone that con job. To some extent that has been true yet the actual reality of what Romney did is so overwhelming that even most of the corporate media has been obliged to report on the actual reality of the corporate automaton's behavior.
This can only be good for America as a whole.
N.Wells on July 16, 2012 10:01 AM:
The GOP is positively overflowing with potential VP candidates like Ralph Reed, Tom DeLay, Rick Scott, and Darrell Issa: these guys have long records and highly noteworthy involvement in public affairs and public/private partnerships, and proposing any of them for VP would certainly take the spotlight off Romney and Bain. Heck, why not announce that all of them are "under serious consideration"?
:)
tonyroma on July 16, 2012 10:02 AM:
Who in their right mind (no pun intended) would accept the VP nod from an obviously wounded Mitt this week, when there is still a remote possibility his entire candidacy could become toxic depending upon further reveals of taxes and Bain dealings?
Knowing what we already know should preclude anyone with a chance of being a fallback option from even taking Mitt's phone call. It should be very interesting from here on out to see how this plays.
c u n d gulag on July 16, 2012 10:02 AM:
And don't forget Ed Gillespie's new, instant-classic - "Mitt Retroactively Retired!" back to 1999.
Too bad for the employees at many of the companies Bain cannibalized, the worker’s were never “Retroactively Rehired.”
Here’s a nice description of what Bain was up to:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-15/romney-s-bain-yielded-private-gains-socialized-losses.html
Why didn’t anyone ask that snake in human form, Ed Gillespie, whether, after Romney is sworn in if he wins, he’ll start a “Retroactive Rehiring Program” for the people whose jobs and lives were destroyed by Captain Mitt and his band of greedy “‘SOMMELIER’ Pirates?”
And it's too bad OJ's still behind bars.
If he was still free, maybe on a breaks from searching for the real killers of Nicole and Ron, OJ could lend Mitt a hand looking for the real CEO of Bain from 1999-2002?
Ron Byers on July 16, 2012 10:05 AM:
So far the Republican media enablers have suffered in this debacle. The only person not on Fox News to fall for the Cutter spin was David Gregory and he will fall for anything a Republican tells him. Kessler at the Washington Post has seen his reputation tarnished beyond redemption. I hope he was paid well for throwing his career down the drain.
DAY on July 16, 2012 10:07 AM:
Bain is a distraction, a sideshow. Who really cares what he did, and when he did it?
There is a line from a film that cuts to the quick here.
"Show me the money."
Even the Republican Talking Heads are saying, "release the returns!"
stormskies on July 16, 2012 10:15 AM:
Gulag: thanks for that link. Fucking a ....
Rick B on July 16, 2012 10:15 AM:
I suspect that the team Romney has been congratulating themselves on having the best and most experienced Republican campaign operators in the business while in fact having no idea how to handle a large and diverse staff in a volatile and dangerous environment. They also have bought the conservative disdain for Democrats in general.
Nothing else seems to account for the utterly incompetent staff work they have produced most of this year.
I also suspect that they cannot bring anyone more competent in to shake things up because the entire group is so tied up in ideological orthodoxy that if they could find someone capable of changing things the staff would reject that person (or small team) as insufficiently conservative.
Even assuming this is what is happening, I still don't know if the massive amounts of money paying for advertising can defeat team Obama in October.
America is now in interesting times.
TT on July 16, 2012 10:21 AM:
One word why Romney is running away from Bain and insists on February 1999 departure date: STERICYCLE the company that disposes aborted fetuses.
Not only did Bain invest in this company in November 1999, Romney PERSONALLY invested in Stericycle. Here read this SEC filing to see it with your own eyes:
http://www.motherjones.com/documents/392937-stericycle-13d-1999
Check out page 37 for Romney's signature. His personal investment in Stericycle is through Sankaty the bermuda shell corporation. Romney set up Sankaty in 1997 for his personal investments and transferred it to Ann's blind trust one day before taking office as Governor in MA.
He probably still owns Stericycle stock. Bain and Romney made a killing on that stock. You can bet there will be ad in September/October saying Romney personally profited from a company disposing aborted fetuses. The ad will be run to depress evangelical turnout. Romney knows he is finished if that happens. And that is why he is running away like crazy. Even if that means he look like a complete fool and saying stuff like "retroactive retirement"
Stericycle is the "Game. Set. Match" folks. Hence Obama is already saying if you are the CEO, the buck stops with you... No silly excuses.
rick on July 16, 2012 10:21 AM:
Offshore accounts in Switzerland, Bermuda, and the Cayman Islands all smack of tax evasion and money laundering. Blind trusts are in Romney's own words "a ruse". These are the issues that will make independents run from Mitt like a scalded cat. Bain may be a little too nuanced for some, but the suggestion that Romney probably payed $0 tax dollars on millions of income during wartime, effectively disqualifies one to be president. Its time to really crank up the pressure on those tax returns; Romneys refusal will fuel speculation that could be more damaging then the returns themselves.
stormskies on July 16, 2012 10:23 AM:
TT: thanks for that stunning insight into what may prove to be the bottom line is all of this ...
jjm on July 16, 2012 10:29 AM:
Bain IS important.
I don't know about you, but I was thoroughly disgusted with the ETHICS of Bain's support for outsourcing, as outlined by that former Bain exec, Condon, on Chris Hayes. He was absolutely certain that offshoring was a perfect, winning strategy. Why? Because you get to slough off all the costs of employment (except the salary which is much lower than here) such as health care for the employees, safety standards, pensions and retirement--all borne by the country jobs are shipped to.
Two bonuses, he noted, no wear and tear on our infrastructure in the US, AND this is a biggie, you are insulated from the crime that inevitably follows hiring these people as immigrants here. (Little smirk here from the Bain guy.)
His only regret was that certain people and their salaries and benefits are what he called 'insulated' from this possibility, people like doctors and nurses, and firefighters and police.
And we all know what the conservatives and the Bains of the world would like to see happen to them...
Daryl McCullough on July 16, 2012 10:33 AM:
I'm glad that Obama is getting some traction out of this Bain business, but I don't actually see anything of interest about it. We all knew already that Mitt Romney was the candidate of the wealthy and of big business, and that his policies as President will most likely benefit those groups, and not ordinary workers. What specific details about Romney's time at Bain is needed to make that case?
Ronald on July 16, 2012 10:41 AM:
Totally on with TT- Gotta check out the Stericycle story y'all...
Look- it may not be much on the surface, but you know the rampaging right takes to any whiff of 'denial of the orthodoxy' (ie- support for abortion in any way, shape, or form) with a great deal of rabid vigor.
The key is here:
SEC Accession No. 0000950131-99-006448
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/861878/0000950131-99-006448-index.html
Page 18 shows a W. Mitt Romney (as an individual, NOT as part of an investment group) being granted 2,116,588 (12.63%) of Stericycle stock. W. Mitt Romney signs for this, with his own signature, on 11/19/1999 (page 34).
No matter what is dissembled regarding his control, or lack thereof, regarding Bain, there can be NO denial that he, himself, under his OWN name with his OWN signature, owned stock in and made money from whatever this business was doing, including, yes, disposing of aborted fetuses.
To the great foxnews fed masses, it doesn't matter that Mr. Romney is rich- he 'got what he deserved', but when they learn, and they will, that he made his money on the backs of burning fetuses?
I doubt it will make any rabid supporter suddenly 'change teams' to join Obama- but it will certainly put a big hole in the enthusiasm balloon that the evangelicals bring. And if they 'sit on their hands' this fall, then Obama wins in a walk.
---
captcha- iscrisq necromancy
Ronald on July 16, 2012 10:48 AM:
And regarding your fourth point-
The whole idea of everything that is going on now is to _define Romney before he can define himself_
Money for ads can only buy limited narratives:
self-definition (which by the time the republican ad buys come out Romney will already have been defined by the opposition)
expression of views (which Romney has none)
brining down the opponent (which will only appeal to the far right anyway who are already supporters).
Has there been a presidential cycle where the major opposition candidate has been so on the ropes _before the convention has even opened_?
The Obama campaign's nimbleness in being able to land body blow after body blow has been beautiful to watch. Hillary knew how to play rope-a-dope, Romney simply looks lost and bewildered.
There's a part of me that wonders if there is now a part of him that is regretting this whole 'president' thing and wishing he could just go back to being extraordinarily wealthy...
j on July 16, 2012 10:51 AM:
It has been suggested that chickenhawk Romney is going to retroactively join the US marines and serve in Vietnam, then when he is elected president he is going to retroactively award himself the medal of honor.
Robert on July 16, 2012 10:56 AM:
This is the goal of the corporations, with Mitt in the lead as president.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/labor-ready-jobs-temp-workers-investigation
I do have some insight in this as I supervised temp workers, and got in trouble for trying to be fair, and honest.
jpeckjr on July 16, 2012 11:02 AM:
An unfamous Mitt Romney is interviewed for a management position at an American corporation.
Interviewer: "There's a gap in your resume from 1999 to 2002 when you took that job with the state of Massachusets. Can you explain the gap?"
Romney: "Yes. I was doing a little sports project in Utah. Skiing, ice skating, bobsledding, that kind of thing. But I was still working for my previous employer, too. Except I had no responsibilities with them. Although I did travel back and forth a lot from Utah to Boston. I mean, the only way I could get the state job was to keep living in the state which I couldn't do if I lived in Utah instead."
Int: "I see. Well, thank you for your time, Mr. Romney. We'll be in touch."
Romney: "Does that mean the interview is over?"
Int: "Yes. We'll be in touch."
B on July 16, 2012 11:09 AM:
This attack is foundation for a policy argument coming in the fall. Polling had shown when people were told about Romney's policy positions=taxes,the Ryan budget, nedicaid etc they didn't think any candidate would propose thes seriously. By clearly defining Romney's "business experience", the belief is they would be more inclined to believe and understand the policy positions and their impact. We may all know that he is of the 1%, for the 1% and supported by the one1% but that has not permeated to the masses.
And secondarily, it underscores most clearly the profound willingness of Romney to misrepresent and lie as he needs to on any issue to accomplish his goal as well as withhold important information from the electorate.
Finally, the new ad's tag line, Romney is not the solution, he is the problem can be the theme all the way to November as more fact and information are put forth about him and his policies.
Josef K on July 16, 2012 11:09 AM:
This has legs because (a) Romney made Bain his primary credential, and (b) he continues to refuse to release his tax records. He's half-defined himself as a serial liar, so his protestations on both counts are virtually neutralized as soon as they're offered. His staff disorganized responses only cement the image of an out-of-touch rich white guy trying to buy his way into the White House.
The offshore accounts stike a huge, very negative chord with the electorate that will likely echo clean through November. Couple that with Bain's unfriendly business practices, Team Romney's behaving like the Keystone Kops, and the coming tax debate, this isn't going to be a very pleasant summer for Romney.
I sometimes wonder if he isn't trying to deliberately toss this election. God knows he looking less and less Presidential as the days go on.
Stephen on July 16, 2012 11:14 AM:
If he had the title and he got the paycheck, then he should take the responsibility.
Has he ever commented on Bain's involvement in outsourcing other than to say it wasn't his fault ?
SadOldVet on July 16, 2012 11:16 AM:
Inquiring minds want to know:
1) Has Willard Romney received 'tax amnesty' for his Swiss or other offshore accounts?
2) How did Willard accumlulate $100 Million in an IRA account when there are yearly limits on how much can be contributed to one?
3) Has Willard evaded or avoided U.S. taxes by the use of his offshore accounts?
James M on July 16, 2012 11:56 AM:
This whole saga reminds me of a scene from the movie Highlander 3 where the hero,Connor Macleod, tells an opponent, "You have already lost".
I read an article some years ago arguing (similar to Prof. Krugman's position)that in fact, successful CEOs tend not to be successful politicians. The reasons are that CEOs function as the head of rigidly hierarchical organizations and tend to be either feared or revered (or both) by the people who serve under them. They say jump and their subordinates reply 'how high?'.
National politics, however, is a completely different environment, one filled with all manner of diverse interest groups with varying goals and demands. The unwavering, forceful leadership style so valued in CEOs often becomes a detriment for aspiring politicians (See Donald Trump, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, etc.). In Mr. Romney's case, add a huge sense of entitlement, a stiff and unappealing personality, and an apparent total lack of integrity.
Finally, as much as it pains me to agree with Rupert Murdoch on any subject, Mr. Romney's campaign staff does appear to be totally tone deaf and utterly outmatched. Long way from here to November, but right now this election is BO's to lose.
aretino on July 16, 2012 11:59 AM:
Romney will get about two minutes of relief from his bad campaign narrative with a veep announcement. Then the first question the press will ask Romney's prematurely announced veep pick will be "How many years of tax returns did you provide to the vetting team?" Where does Romeny think he can go from there?
Ed from Watertown on July 16, 2012 12:09 PM:
Mitt Romney was the sole owner and stockholder until 2002. He had developed the corporate structure, hired the management people, put them in place and then they served at his pleasure as sole stockholder. He reaped the profits. Yet he is not responsible for any actions taken by Bain during this period?
All the profit but none of the responsibility. Wall Street is a wonderful place! No wonder we're so scr**ed.
Peter C on July 16, 2012 12:54 PM:
@Ed from Watertown is absolutely correct. Mitt was SOLE OWNER. As sole owner, you set the direction. You don't need 'operational control' (which is Mitt's phrase). As sole owner, you hire the people who run the company the way you want it run (as a pioneer in the practice of reaping enormous profits through outsourcing). Bain = Mitt and Mitt = Bain.
Skip on July 16, 2012 12:54 PM:
Take the Stericycle information and links off these liberal boards and venues and spill that information on every conservative board, blog, comment, letter to editors, etc. It's the least we can do.
The right's two favorite hot button topics are abortion and gay marriage? The GOP party platform stands pretty tough on those sanctimonious planks.
How can any good faith conservative vote for a candidate not of their religion who has stock in Stericycle? It's a one-two punch that will turn up righteous noses all across America, because the right's propaganda machine has trained conservatives for years that liberals are heathens because we are pro-choice. Well, what happens when the right's own candidate pops up owning stock in such a place?
Conservative abortion hating people need to confront what Mitt is really bringing to the party. I want to see just how much compromise of principles the God Party is capable of.
T2 on July 16, 2012 12:57 PM:
@sadoldvet....you put your 6K a year into stocks that you have insider knowledge on, and they skyrocket. That's how you do it. Granted...that's a lot of skyrocketing.
Marcus on July 16, 2012 1:02 PM:
I think Charles Pierce, and in a way Paul Krugman, hit it today....it's contempt. Contempt for those who are not in the same "economic-social" class as Rmoney.
This is a fight between democracy and aristocracy.
jjm on July 16, 2012 1:38 PM:
By the way, is Mitt possibly refusing to release his returns because they show ZERO tax paid--except for the two recent returns, once he was seriously running? (And then he was too cheapskate to go for more than the 14% rate, which is lower than the middle class one of 18%).
And yes, @Marcus: Romney shows complete disdain for those without money. That will be the death of his campaign.
jpeckjr on July 16, 2012 5:35 PM:
If Mitt Romney wasn't running Bain Capital between 1999 and 2002, who was? Could we get a name, please? Has anyone asked him: "Who was running your company while you were running the Olympics? We'd like to meet that person."
Maybe Mitt doesn't remember. Chortle.
TheTruthSquad on July 17, 2012 4:16 PM:
This is going to end very badly for Mitt. These returns have been leaked by McCain staffers as a middle finger to Mitt for what he did to McCain. The rank and file Republicans want him gone before the convention. These show a creative form of accountancy like "Son of Boss" with Marriott, and declaring his wifes hobby (horse dancing) as a business. The 13.9% rate was one of his more generous years. The 2009 return they didn't get shows he took the amnesty. A little forensic accounting can show a lot about the years they didn't get. If Mitt doesn't quit to spend more time with his family, expect the leaks to get more personal.
crebtetry on November 02, 2012 10:55 AM:
Political Animal - The Bain Quatrain
sac longchamp
vxuu