PLANK JULY 12, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Early last month, a political blogger at a major national newspaper, as part of a growing chorus, all but declared that Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital was effectively defunct as a campaign issue. The headline: “Bill Clinton sticks another fork in Obama’s Bain strategy, says Romney had ‘sterling’ business career.” The top of the article: “The shelf life of President Obama’s Bain Capital strategy appears to be rapidly shrinking. Less than two weeks after Newark Mayor Cory Booker caused the Obama campaign plenty of heartburn by calling on it to ‘stop attacking private equity,’ the biggest name in Democratic politics (outside of Obama) has lodged his own torpedo. Bill Clinton, in an appearance on CNN last night, said that Mitt Romney a ‘sterling business career’ and that the campaign shouldn’t be about what kind of work Romney did.”
Well, apparently not every real reporter in the country was ready to take as final the word of a Davos-haunting ex-president and the mayor of the 68th biggest city in the country. Today’s Boston Globe report documenting that Romney’s executive role at Bain continued three years beyond his alleged departure point in 1999, which builds on earlier reporting along these lines, is damaging for any number of reasons. It again calls into question the credibility of a candidate who has been playing hide the ball with his tax records; it opens up Romney to criticism over post-1999 actions by Bain that he had previously claimed no hand in; and it reminds voters of what was really involved in Romney’s outsized success—in his own telling, he made a $100,000 annual salary after 1999, on top of his much larger cut from Bain gains, for doing no actual work for the firm. Already, there are rumblings about whether Romney violated federal law by having declared on disclosure forms that he had nothing to do with Bain between 1999 and 2002, in contradiction of the SEC filings.
But it’s also worth stepping back for a moment to consider the Bain story from a higher vantage. Just a few weeks ago, there was a growing sense amid the East Coast’s Very Serious People that there was nothing more to be said about Bain, that any further attempts to attack Romney over his role there were somehow played-out and, even worse, undignified. That the Obama team was engaging in tacky populism by trying to keep the subject alive. But Chicago stuck to its guns. It was a decision that was anything but a sure thing—after all, there had been many times in recent years when the Obama team shrank from the more populist, harder-edged course, swayed by the murmurings of caution from the Tim Geithners in its ranks. In this instance, though, another instinct won out, a Middle American gut sense that the Bain attacks might yet have more resonance in Dayton and Danville than they had in D.C. In hindsight, it seems like a no-brainer—polling shows the Bain attacks having a clear impact in the swing states where they’ve been focused, and Romney’s now in serious hot water about the latest revelations (despite mystifying attempts by some fact-checkers to undercut the solid reporting of their own colleagues.) But it might easily not have turned out this way, had Chicago accepted the Beltway declaration that the fork had been stuck. A sign, perhaps, of the wisdom of the campaign’s having set up shop on the shores of Lake Michigan, far from the 100-degree echo chamber on the Potomac.
follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
12 comments
Good; less dignity, more facts.
- Sophia
July 12, 2012 at 2:57pm
Mr. MacGillis has wisely reported a very important fact: that the US isn't all East Coast and/or Beltway, and we the people are OUT HERE, not "in there," and we have a point of view that may or may not be tacky populism but which nevertheless demands facts and also demands to be heard. So good for Chicago, by which I presume is meant Axelrod et.al., but also a reflection of the fact that the US is more than the Eastern seaboard. Oh by the way we have problems out here including the destruction of our crops by drought and heat, and innumerable miles of forest by fire, and our cities by poverty and joblessness and lack of hope. Meanwhile corporate profits soar.
- Sophia
July 12, 2012 at 3:05pm
Of course, it works, not because of Bain and its business (America is business) or Romney's time at Bain (whenever it ended), but because of Romney's telling of it is viewed as being shifty. And once a candidate gets the reputation of being shifty, like the reputation of a candidate who can't spell, it's all but impossible to shed. The former charlatan-in-chief knows from personal experience this is about reputation, not business or any other experience. Or to paraphrase the loser of the national spelling bee, a reputation is a terrible thing to lose.
- rayward
July 12, 2012 at 3:29pm
Great piece, Alec. While Americans admire business success, especially in this environment they despise people who profit from others' pain. And in terms of style, substance and image, the Obama campaign's attacks on Romney very legitimately appeal to that sentiment. In addition, the Obama campaign seems to be remembering something that Democrats all too often tend to forget: While you're mounting a legitimate attack, the focus becomes the opponent's weaknesses rather than your own. At worst, you break even if the attack fails. But if it gains traction, as seems to be the case with the Bain and related charges, you come out ahead.
- Thunderroad
July 12, 2012 at 3:38pm
This article is a pretty good explanation of why Romney has to focus on the economy and make the dubious claims that President Obama owns it and made it worse.
- Nusholtz
July 12, 2012 at 4:49pm
Alec --- wrong again.... While you clearly have no expertise or experience running a private sector business... An ownership stake is not the same as operational control. Romney had no operational control, as Bain reported. He had an ownership stake. Pretty basic stuff, but moonbats are easy to confuse and willing to believe anything the obamanation feeds them. The attack ads are just lies. Will ultimately hurt Obama. But Romney needs to start calling out the myriad failures and utter incompetence of Obama; along with the lies.
- mr_rationale
July 12, 2012 at 4:53pm
Well, speaking about - ah - misinformation, how about the one claiming Romney left Bain in 1999?
- Sophia
July 12, 2012 at 5:04pm
He was listed as "Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President." But he didn't have operational control. Mind squaring that circle, mr-rat?
- zardoz67
July 12, 2012 at 5:06pm
And an "ownership stake" is clearly different from being “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”. So now these positions (even just one!) don't confer any control?
- Nari224
July 12, 2012 at 5:09pm
pwned.
- Curran1
July 12, 2012 at 11:54pm
Mr. Rationale, do you know what "Chief Executive Officer" means in the real world?
- miceelf
July 13, 2012 at 11:38am
And can we please shine that spotlight on the off-shore holdings? And the undivulged tax returns? I mean, only one year of tax returns is a pretty lame attempt to make Mitt's tax situation appear transparent. I don't think its asking too much for him to disclose tax records for as many years as his pop did (a dozen) - after all, returns for just one year might "be a fluke, for show" (as said pop said). Cheeses K. Reist! After all the ridiculous nonsense about BHO's birth certificate, is such a common-sense request for a show of records really out of line?
- Haole45
July 13, 2012 at 3:22pm