Mitt Romney, liar.

[RandFan]

I think the thread title pretty much nails it.

I'm not sure how that is an answer. Are you saying that Romney cannot tell the truth even when the truth is in his best interest?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Was he just stupid and this was a good faith screw up? What would be the bad faith reason for claiming to step aside when he didn't?

The bad faith reason would be to dodge the blame for what Bain was doing.

 

[Dymanic]

I'm not sure how that is an answer. Are you saying that Romney cannot tell the truth even when the truth is in his best interest?

Yes. I think saying whatever he thinks his target audience wants to hear has become such a habit that he gets lost in his own tangled web, and hardly has the decency to even care.

 

[Upchurch]

FactCheck.org disagrees

FWIW, this FactCheck article was written on July 2. It is not entirely clear to me if they account for the "new documents" (not sure if they are new or not) in their analysis.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yes. I think saying whatever he thinks his target audience wants to hear has become such a habit that he gets lost in his own tangled web, and hardly has the decency to even care.

... which, again, is an amazingly good description of the Obama campaign.

 

[RandFan]

The bad faith reason would be to dodge the blame for what Bain was doing.

Okay, so did Romney know that Bain was going to do something that could have negative repercussions before Bain did it? Let's be clear here, Romney decision and actions were not done in hindsight but in real time? It would be one thing to come up with a narrative after the fact but that's not what we are talking about here, if I understand correctly. I guess it's possible that there was no ill intent, Romney intended to leave but events kept transpiring to bring him back into involvement with the company.

 

[RandFan]

Yes. I think saying whatever he thinks his target audience wants to hear has become such a habit that he gets lost in his own tangled web, and hardly has the decency to even care.

That's not substantive to my question. I get what you are saying but that's now what I'm after. FTR: I was the first person to respond in this thread making that very point. Telling me this now isn't helping. I get that. I understand it. I said it first. It's not what I'm trying to get at.

But thanks.

ETA: I think Romney lied. I think he lies shamelessly. I've no problem with accepting that fact. What I want to understand is this, what was in it for him at the time? Lying for the sake of lying makes no sense, and that's what you are saying. There was no audience to lie to when he ostensibly quit Bain.

 

[Dymanic]

I guess it's possible that there was no ill intent, Romney intended to leave but events kept transpiring to bring him back into involvement with the company.

Either way, we have Romney's signature on an Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report claiming that

"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".

And we have his signature on documents filed with the SEC indicating that as of February 11, 2001 he was Bain Capital's Chief Executive Officer, President and Managing Director, and listing Managing Director of Bain Capital as his Principal Occupation.

I don't see any way to resolve that. He either made false statements on the one or false statements on the other.

 

[RandFan]

Either way, we have Romney's signature on an Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report claiming that

"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".

And we have his signature on documents filed with the SEC indicating that as of February 11, 2001 he was Bain Capital's Chief Executive Officer, President and Managing Director, and listing Managing Director of Bain Capital as his Principal Occupation.

I don't see any way to resolve that. He either made false statements on the one or false statements on the other.

Dude, it's simple, if you don't know then you don't know. And that's fine. I'm not disputing ANYTHING. I'm not sure what's going on in your head but we just ain't communicating. At all. I've no axe to grind. I'm not trying to defend or excuse Romney. I accept this at face value. So I've no idea what you think you are trying to clarify for me. Can you just accept that you don't understand me?

 

[Nova Land]

FWIW, this FactCheck article was written on July 2. It is not entirely clear to me if they account for the "new documents" (not sure if they are new or not) in their analysis.

Even apart from that, I have problems with the FactCheck article.

The Obama campaign argues that Romney bears some responsibility for Bain Capital's policies. FactCheck argues that since he was the owner rather than the manager, he doesn't:

We have never disputed that Romney remained the owner of Bain while he was running the Olympics committee. The issue always has been, who was running Bain?

I think that's silly. James Randi doesn't manage this forum on a day-to-day basis, but as the owner he still bears some responsibility for what goes on here. That's why JREF imposes certain rules on the forum (such as rule 10 in the MA): because Randi knows that what the JREF forum does reflects on him.

Yes, those who manage companies bear responsibility for the policies their companies enact. But so do the company owners. And no one is disputing that Romney was the owner of Bain Capital during years it was outsourcing "off-shoring" US jobs.

 

[Upchurch]

I think that's silly. James Randi doesn't manage this forum on a day-to-day basis, but as the owner he still bears some responsibility for what goes on here. That's why JREF imposes certain rules on the forum (such as rule 10 in the MA): because Randi knows that what the JREF forum does reflects on him.

Yes, those who manage companies bear responsibility for the policies their companies enact. But so do the company owners. And no one is disputing that Romney was the owner of Bain Capital during years it was outsourcing "off-shoring" US jobs.

That's a fair criticism. My understanding of the OP claim that Romney was lying about his involvement running/managing the company. FactCheck says he wasn't, but as I said, I'm unclear if there has been new documents released since they made that judgement.

That being said, I would agree that Romney probably bears some responsibility for actions of the company he owned whether or not he was actively involved in the decisions to take that lead to those actions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

FactCheck says he wasn't, but as I said, I'm unclear if there has been new documents released since they made that judgement.

I'm not sure. This is FactCheck's response to the "Obama camp's" dispute with their evaluation of the claim--dated July 2.

They seem quite certain that it's impossible that Romney was lying about this matter. They said they reviewed the documents provided by the Obama camp, and they saw nothing that changed their position.

 

[BenBurch]

Why?

I'm genuinely interested to hear why.

I like to think that serving one's country brings out the best in people, and I like to think that the best people make it through vetting to become elected officials.

And I'd like to think that somebody who knows himself to be a crook wouldn't even DARE something like this.

Probably stems in part from my misguided youth spent as a Boy Scout.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The Obama campaign argues that Romney bears some responsibility for Bain Capital's policies.

I don't think that's the claim that the FactCheck article was evaluating. They were evaluating the claim that Romney shipped jobs overseas. They were not evaluating the claim that Romney was indirectly responsible for what Bain did, or even the claim that Romney may have profited from Bain's shipping jobs overseas.

I don't think it's fair to assume that Romney was somehow the de facto CEO when he wasn't the actual CEO.

I think it's entirely fair to say that the company he owned did this, and that he most likely profited from it, and he made no attempt to stop it.

ETA: And the charge that Romney lied has no merit, in this case.

 

[Upchurch]

They seem quite certain that it's impossible that Romney was lying about this matter.

That's the part that didn't sit easy with me. Their primary reason that it's impossible seems to be because it would mean that Romney would have committed a felony. That's an appeal to consequence and not a real reason. Beyond that, they don't really outline why they think it's impossible.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's the part that didn't sit easy with me. Their primary reason that it's impossible seems to be because it would mean that Romney would have committed a felony. That's an appeal to consequence and not a real reason. Beyond that, they don't really outline why they think it's impossible.

True. But they did say they reviewed the documents provided and found nothing to make them change their position.

ETA: And this really shifts burdens of evidence. Are we evaluating FactCheck's claim that it is impossible that Romney lied, or the OP (Boston Globe) claim that Romney lied? If there is no evidence to support the latter, I'm prepared to dismiss the former. Perhaps FactCheck is guilty of overstating their evaluation. It's enough to say that the evidence doesn't support the claim that Romney lied.

 

[Dymanic]

Dude, it's simple, if you don't know then you don't know. And that's fine. I'm not disputing ANYTHING. I'm not sure what's going on in your head but we just ain't communicating. At all. I've no axe to grind. I'm not trying to defend or excuse Romney. I accept this at face value. So I've no idea what you think you are trying to clarify for me. Can you just accept that you don't understand me?

I'll admit that failing to understand is not among the things I find easiest to accept. In this case, I don't think I even understand what it is that I don't understand. You appear to be wanting somebody to take a peek inside Mitt Romney's head and report what they see. I certainly can't claim any privileged access to those inner workings, but I'm not sure I see the point anyway. We seem to agree that the guy probably isn't really all that deep, and that his motives are probably pretty much what they appear to be. This thing is bad enough as an "honest screwup", considering that he is vying for what is arguably the world's most important management position. If it turns out that there are specific and substantive bad faith motives behind it and someone is able to root that out, then it would of course be fatal to his bid for President, but I don't see us getting at that via any speculative romp through the mind of Mitt Romney.

Even if no such evidence does emerge, Upchurch has just put his finger on one aspect of this that will at the very least make this very damaging to Romney's campaign:

I would agree that Romney probably bears some responsibility for actions of the company he owned whether or not he was actively involved in the decisions to take that lead to those actions.

The "I never had a The Buck Stops Here placard on my desk at Bain" defense doesn't fly when you're running for President of the United States.

 

[Dymanic]

The Obama campaign argues that Romney bears some responsibility for Bain Capital's policies. FactCheck argues that since he was the owner rather than the manager, he doesn't

That claim does not hold up under examination of the SEC documents which not only list him as Managing Director, but indicate that as his Primary Occupation.

 

[RandFan]

I'll admit that failing to understand is not among the things I find easiest to accept. In this case, I don't think I even understand what it is that I don't understand. You appear to be wanting somebody to take a peek inside Mitt Romney's head and report what they see.

Nope. I only want to know if by chance anyone has a possible/plausible explanation. That's all. No mind reading required. Just inductive reasoning and some imagination.

I certainly can't claim any privileged access to those inner workings, but I'm not sure I see the point anyway.

Motive/reason/whatever, certaily isn't requisite but it could go along way in helping ME understand. That's all. If someone has a plausible explanation then that could assist my decision making process. If they don't then I'll find some way to carry on.

We seem to agree that the guy probably isn't really all that deep, and that his motives are probably pretty much what they appear to be. This thing is bad enough as an "honest screwup", considering that he is vying for what is arguably the world's most important management position. If it turns out that there are specific and substantive bad faith motives behind it and someone is able to root that out, then it would of course be fatal to his bid for President, but I don't see us getting at that via any speculative romp through the mind of Mitt Romney.

I'm only looking to see if anyone has a possible reason for bad faith. I was simply asking. Nothing more. Nothing less. Because, if we can't even come up with a possible bad faith reason then it's hardly honest to dismiss the possibility that he just screwed the pooch.

Even if no such evidence does emerge, Upchurch has just put his finger on one aspect of this that will at the very least make this very damaging to Romney's campaign:
The "I never had a The Buck Stops Here placard on my desk at Bain" defense doesn't fly when you're running for President of the United States.

And that's fine but not really salient to my question.

 

[BenBurch]

True. But they did say they reviewed the documents provided and found nothing to make them change their position.

ETA: And this really shifts burdens of evidence. Are we evaluating FactCheck's claim that it is impossible that Romney lied, or the OP (Boston Globe) claim that Romney lied? If there is no evidence to support the latter, I'm prepared to dismiss the former. Perhaps FactCheck is guilty of overstating their evaluation. It's enough to say that the evidence doesn't support the claim that Romney lied.

The documents the Boston Globe found seem definitive.

I read the factcheck entry, and they appear to not have been aware of these new documents that have him legally CEO much later than he claimed.

ETA: Romney may be in a no-win here.

A CEO has certain legal responsibilities, and knowing exactly who is CEO is a very important thing from a securities POV. Investors partially value a company based on who is at the helm. If he claimed to be a CEO on an SEC filing, and was not, that is fraud, and a crime.

If, however, he really was CEO that whole time, that is another fraud because he signed that he was not.