Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flamingdem

(39,313 posts)
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:32 AM Jul 2012

NYT ed board calls Romney's explanations of when he left Bain "erratic and self-serving"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/mitt-romneys-complaints.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper

excerpt:
Mr. Romney’s descriptions of when he left Bain have been erratic and self-serving. In 2002, when he needed to show he was still a Massachusetts resident, he denied he had quit in 1999, saying he had taken a leave of absence to run the Olympics committee. A series of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Committee show that Bain certainly didn’t describe him as absent after 1999.

A former Bain managing director, Edward Conard, said on MSNBC Sunday that Mr. Romney remained C.E.O. “legally” so he could negotiate his generous exit deal.

But now that Bain has been accused of helping other companies outsource jobs overseas, laying off steel company employees and wiping out their pensions, Mr. Romney says he had no management role after 1999. A Kansas City steel plant that Bain bought in 1993 under Mr. Romney’s control, for example, went bankrupt in 2001, costing 750 workers their jobs and pensions. After the Obama campaign made an ad featuring several of the angry workers, the Romney campaign said he couldn’t be blamed because he left Bain in 1999
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT ed board calls Romney's explanations of when he left Bain "erratic and self-serving" (Original Post) flamingdem Jul 2012 OP
Self serving?!! 3feetofsnow Jul 2012 #1
He got a homesteader's tax break on his ski chalet mansion in Utah around that time, too. MADem Jul 2012 #2
definition of a fact janlyn Jul 2012 #3
Sadly Xyzse Jul 2012 #4
Yep, "erratic and self-serving" is good but understates the nonsensical... Spazito Jul 2012 #5
I like "radioactive" as an overall description! nt flamingdem Jul 2012 #6
LOL, yep, it certainly looks like SwissMitt's tax returns... Spazito Jul 2012 #7
Let's see, Romney bought companies, gutted them, loaded them up with debt Blue Meany Jul 2012 #8
"erratic and self-serving" malaise Jul 2012 #9

MADem

(135,425 posts)
2. He got a homesteader's tax break on his ski chalet mansion in Utah around that time, too.
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:44 AM
Jul 2012

He had to pay it back after the people of the Commonwealth of MA said "WTF? It's bad enough the shithead is a carpetbagger, how dare he be a BLATANT carpetbagger!"

He really thinks the rules do not apply to him.

janlyn

(735 posts)
3. definition of a fact
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:00 AM
Jul 2012

Mitt continues the conservative belief that if they say it loud enough and often enough it makes it FACT.

I liken this to any one of us having a mortgage and being solely responsible for paying said mortgage,moving out and letting someone else live in our house and say that since we no longer live there we are not responsible for making the payments.

What planet does this guy live on?????

Xyzse

(8,217 posts)
4. Sadly
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:02 AM
Jul 2012

It is true though.
Repeat a lie often enough and loud enough people tend to believe it. So even if it is not a "Actual Fact" it becomes a "Known Anecdote".

Spazito

(50,363 posts)
5. Yep, "erratic and self-serving" is good but understates the nonsensical...
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:04 AM
Jul 2012

excuses being used by him and his surrogates.

"Retroactively" is now my favorite word to attach to Mr. Outsource/Offshore.

 

Blue Meany

(1,947 posts)
8. Let's see, Romney bought companies, gutted them, loaded them up with debt
Mon Jul 16, 2012, 11:59 AM
Jul 2012

in order to pay himself and his cronies huge management and consulting fees, and a lot of them eventually went out of business because of the huge debt load he left them with. But as long as that happened after Feb. 1999, he has not responsibility for it.

It's as if terrorist sent a letter bomb to someone. The next day he decided that was wrong and turned over a new leaf. The former terrorist wrote a letter to the press saying he decided to give up terrorism. Therefore, when the bomb goes off and kills its target, he is not responsible because it happened after he quit. But he is till entitled to receive ongoing income from promised him by that evil foreign dictator who hired him to engage in terrorism.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NYT ed board calls Romney...