The Thurston Mittens the 3rd Veep Megathread

[MadImmortalMan]

Yeah, everybody's a big meanie to him.  For a campaign that survived that pit bull fight of a primary, they sure seem lost playing defense.

It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, everybody's a big meanie to him.  For a campaign that survived that pit bull fight of a primary, they sure seem lost playing defense.

It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.

Oh I dunno...'88, '00, and '04, they certainly knew how to dictate the terms of combat.

[Scipio]

Is that like the 350k a year job Michelle Obama had at UChicago that magically was created for her and disappeared after she left?

Nope. $350k is peanuts compared to Mittens profiteering.

At least he worked.

[CountDeMoney]

Is that like the 350k a year job Michelle Obama had at UChicago that magically was created for her and disappeared after she left?

Nope. $350k is peanuts compared to Mittens profiteering.

At least he worked.

Yeah, he worked, alright.

[DGuller]

Yeah, everybody's a big meanie to him.  For a campaign that survived that pit bull fight of a primary, they sure seem lost playing defense.

It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.

Republicans are very good at making the country argue on their terms, especially when it comes to economic matters.  Obama is just an unusually competent knife fighter when it comes to negative campaigning, unlike most of his fellow Democrats.

[The Minsky Moment]

It seems the story is very much being dictated by the Obama campaign. So far it feels like Romney's failed to cobble together or to articulate a strong defence, or to communicate his perspective.

The whole I didn't work there after 1999 defense sounds like an admission that bad things happened at Bain.  Bizarre defense.

[The Minsky Moment]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html

This is also odd commentary.
I am a little surprised a securities lawyer in the post-Enron, post Sarbanes age would still refer to these kinds of disclosures as "boilerplate".

[stjaba]

It seems the story is very much being dictated by the Obama campaign. So far it feels like Romney's failed to cobble together or to articulate a strong defence, or to communicate his perspective.

The whole I didn't work there after 1999 defense sounds like an admission that bad things happened at Bain.  Bizarre defense.

The "SEC attack" has two prongs to it:

1.It suggests that Romney lied or misled the public about his involvement at Bain. He has always said that he retired in 1999, and these documents, at first glance, contradict that narrative.

2. It also suggests that Romney is responsible for any "bad stuff" (i.e. factory closings) that Bain was involved with post 1999.

His rebuttal, IMO, is effective as possible,as far as the first prong. Anyways, what else could he possibly say, other than "I in fact did retire in 1999 and the language in the filings was boilerplate."

As far as the second prong, there really is no effective rebuttal, since Romney is running partially on his record of a job creator at Bain, and because plenty of bad stuff happened while Romney was in charge of Bain. So, whether he was in charge of Bain post 1999, he gets to take credit, as well as responsibility for everything that happened at Bain prior to his retirement.

[Sheilbh]

It's a GOP thing. They just suck at creating the frame and making everyone else argue on their terms. Always defensive. Makes them sound petulant. Been that way as long as I remember.

I disagree.  I think Republicans are pretty good at framing the debate.  It seems they've framed the debate for more or less the past 20 years or so.

[alfred russel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-bain-sec-documents-suggest-mitt-romney-is-a-criminal/2012/07/12/gJQAlyPpgW_blog.html

This is also odd commentary.
I am a little surprised a securities lawyer in the post-Enron, post Sarbanes age would still refer to these kinds of disclosures as "boilerplate".

I'm not sure why they would be considered boilerplate, but he was discussing filings in the pre Enron pre Sarbanes Oxley world.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not sure why they would be considered boilerplate, but he was discussing filings in the pre Enron pre Sarbanes Oxley world.

That was kind of my point: that whatever attitudes may have existed pre-SOX, it is eyebrow raising for someone to claim now as a present tense statement that these statements are boilerplate.

[CountDeMoney]

That was kind of my point: that whatever attitudes may have existed pre-SOX, it is eyebrow raising for someone to claim now as a present tense statement that these statements are boilerplate.

But it's OK now, since Ed Gillespie explained yesterday how Mittens was "retired retroactively" for 3 years.  Whatever that means.

[The Minsky Moment]

It seems the story is very much being dictated by the Obama campaign. So far it feels like Romney's failed to cobble together or to articulate a strong defence, or to communicate his perspective.

The whole I didn't work there after 1999 defense sounds like an admission that bad things happened at Bain.  Bizarre defense.

The "SEC attack" has two prongs to it:

1.It suggests that Romney lied or misled the public about his involvement at Bain. He has always said that he retired in 1999, and these documents, at first glance, contradict that narrative.
. . .
His rebuttal, IMO, is effective as possible,as far as the first prong. Anyways, what else could he possibly say, other than "I in fact did retire in 1999 and the language in the filings was boilerplate."

He could tell the truth (as I understand it) which was - I took a leave of absence in 1999 with the intent to come back but after my experience at the Olympics I committed to public service and my leave of absence became permanent. 

Otherwise he is the position of trying to explain why he was submitting information to the SEC *as a filing person* and personally signing those statements which is an acknowledgment of responsibility for the information contained inside. 

This is a person whose pitch for the presidency is based in significant part on his claim to be a competent manager based on his business experience; to suggest that at certain times in that career he viewed the position of CEO to be of no significance and disclaims all responsibility during the period creates some tension.

[The Minsky Moment]

But it's OK now, since Ed Gillespie explained yesterday how Mittens was "retired retroactively" for 3 years.  Whatever that means.

I sort of get that.
He took a leave of absence.  He planned to come back.  But when it was time to come back, he had changed his mind.  And in negotiating his separation from Bain at that time, it probably made some sense to date his departure date back to 1999.

The problem is where his people try to suggest that he had absolutely no role or contact with the company in the intervening three years.  Either someone was forging those filings and not telling Mitt or that claim is not very believable.

[CountDeMoney]

The problem is where his people try to suggest that he had absolutely no role or contact with the company in the intervening three years.  Either someone was forging those filings and not telling Mitt or that claim is not very believable.

Well, he's used the "leave of absence" thing before in '94 to dodge LBO criticism, so it's a convenient excuse.

When you're the founder, the CEO, and the sole shareholder, you are the business.   Doesn't matter if it's a hot dog stand or a private equities firm worth hundreds of millions:  you keep tabs on what's going on with your company, and your money, in your absence.