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
 

Segami

(14,923 posts)
Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:02 PM Jul 2012

Romney's Protests About Outsourcing Unravel. WHICH LIE DID HE TELL?

" Let's walk down memory lane and recall Ed Gillespie's defense of Mitt Romney's outsourcing activity last month. Then take a walk a little farther and recall how the Romney campaign pressured the Washington Post to alter their story about Romney's Bain Capital involvement in outsourcing jobs to China, and how they were able to co-opt Factcheck.org to carry their water.



It's time for Romney to give up the line in his stump speech about being tough on China's trade practices, because Mitt Romney personally and directly benefitted from them. If you look around your kitchen, I'll bet you'll find at least one product with parts manufactured in China. Chances are, those parts were manufactured by Global-Tech, a company with Mitt Romney's hands all over it.







David Corn has the goods:

On April 17, 1998, Brookside Capital Partners Fund, a Bain Capital affiliate, filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission noting that it had acquired 6.13 percent of Hong Kong-based Global-Tech Appliances, which manufactured household appliances in a production facility in the industrial city of Dongguan, China. That August, according to another SEC filing, Brookside upped its interest in Global-Tech to 10.3 percent. Both SEC filings identified Romney as the person in control of this investment: "Mr. W. Mitt Romney is the sole shareholder, sole director, President and Chief Executive Officer of Brookside Inc. and thus is the controlling person of Brookside Inc." Each of these documents was signed by Domenic Ferrante, a managing director of Brookside and Bain.



At the time Romney was acquiring shares in Global-Tech, the firm publicly acknowledged that its strategy was to profit from prominent US companies outsourcing production abroad. On September 4, 1998, Global-Tech issued a press release announcing it was postponing completion of a $30 million expansion of its Dongguan facility because Sunbeam, a prominent American consumer products company and a major client of Global-Tech, was cutting back on outsourcing as part of an overall consolidation. But John C.K. Sham, Global-Tech's president and CEO, said, "Although it appears that customers such as Sunbeam are not outsourcing their manufacturing as quickly as we had anticipated, we still believe that the long-term trend toward outsourcing will continue." Global-Tech, which in mid-1998 announced fiscal year sales of $118.3 million (an increase of 89 percent over the previous year), also manufactured household appliances for Hamilton Beach, Mr. Coffee, Proctor-Silex, Revlon, and Vidal Sassoon, and its chief exec was hoping for more outsourcing from these and other American firms.






The Boston Globe reports this morning that there is evidence Romney did not leave Bain Capital until 2002.





Mitt Romney has repeatedly sought to distance himself from some business dealings at Bain Capital by asserting that he left the firm in February 1999, but a review of public records shows that his authority lingered for three more years as Bain repeatedly listed him on government filings as the man in charge. Until 2002, when Romney and Bain Capital finalized a severance agreement, he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president,” according to SEC documents. The description was applied even to the creation of five new Bain partnerships a full three years after Romney has said he relinquished all control.






Lying on SEC documents is a very, very big deal. John Aravosis also goes back to FactCheck.org's defense of Romney's claims that he left in 1999 to point out that their defense puts him in a tight spot. Either he lied on SEC filings or he's lying about when he left Bain in order to duck responsibility for Bain deals that caused people to lose their jobs as more and more of our manufacturing sector was shipped off to China.



There's nothing illegal about Romney remaining in charge, so why is he lying about it? As Romney would say, it's perfectly legal. It is true legal doesn't necessarily translate to something patriotic, or appropriate for a candidate leading the United States. It should cause people to question his claims about whether or not he would be sensitive to American job losses or simply "restructure" this country out of all of our manufacturing base. Here's the bottom line: There's a lie here. It's either a lie on official documents subject to perjury enforcement, or it's a lie to the public. My money is on the latter, because this is what Romney does. He routinely lies in order to advance his cause or avoid confrontation. It's why he doesn't want to release additional tax returns and it's why he stubbornly clings to 1999 as his termination date. If you think about it, it's actually more reasonable to assume he did stay on at Bain through the Olympics, because those high-rolling corporate contacts could come in handy with efforts to revive an effort that was nearly dead and buried.






cont'


http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/romneys-protests-about-outsourcing-unravel


.
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Romney's Protests About Outsourcing Unravel. WHICH LIE DID HE TELL? (Original Post) Segami Jul 2012 OP
Why is this not being discussed on the news programs today?? flamingdem Jul 2012 #1
Beginning of the news cycle BlueToTheBone Jul 2012 #2
Looking forward to that! flamingdem Jul 2012 #3
Me too! BlueToTheBone Jul 2012 #4
Isn't there something in mormonism about when its ok to lie? rbixby Jul 2012 #5
Good question. Igel Jul 2012 #6
when you are the sole stockholder and major honcho of onethatcares Jul 2012 #7

flamingdem

(39,376 posts)
1. Why is this not being discussed on the news programs today??
Thu Jul 12, 2012, 02:04 PM
Jul 2012

quote:
Lying on SEC documents is a very, very big deal.

rbixby

(1,140 posts)
5. Isn't there something in mormonism about when its ok to lie?
Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:19 PM
Jul 2012

I thought there was. Anyone know anything about it?

Igel

(35,522 posts)
6. Good question.
Thu Jul 12, 2012, 04:50 PM
Jul 2012

Come up with alternatives or wait for evidence.

I know a guy, let's call him J. He moved on from being director--CEO--of an organization with 300+ full-time employees and annual sales of $75 million to being CFO of a somewhat smaller, more comfortable business.

He was hired a month after his resume said he ended his job as director. His resume shows no gaps in employment--he was employed by one organization for 30 years, then moved on.

Yet for 17 months as director, the final 17 months, he was in charge of an organization he wasn't in charge of. He was on forced administrative leave. He didn't have authority over so much as a paperclip; I confiscated his parking permit with his keys. Still, he was the director, and the organization's letterhead and government, state and federal, said so.

He was in charge but he wasn't in charge. He wasn't lying when he told his new employer that he had been director until the previous month, when he retired. We didn't lie when we said he was effectively dismissed from his job and was "gone." Reconciling what two stories that *must* include at least one lie is possible. But messy. You gotta know the details for it to make sense.

Anybody accusing either J or me of lying would have to prove it. On the other hand, as a gesture of good will one or both of us should be forthcoming, if challenged like Romney is. The problem is, it's probably messy and "messy" is hard for the common voter. Just look at the SEC filing nonsense: they're already commonly believed by "high information" folk to be signed by Romney (just as kids believe in Santa Claus) when a guy named Nunnelly signed them. This is a simple matter--you look down the page and find the signature, what's so hard about that that it's so easily screwed up? What's at hand might actually be complicated. Moreover, there's a simple power struggle involved: Forcing somebody to do something is always good for the ego, and that kind of dickwagging attracts votes. It also immediately makes the person subject to pressure resist. (Study on person in car waiting for another person to back out of parking space: Women tended to back out more quickly for somebody waiting than they did control groups, but men took significantly longer to back out than in control groups.)

onethatcares

(16,308 posts)
7. when you are the sole stockholder and major honcho of
Thu Jul 12, 2012, 05:46 PM
Jul 2012

a firm, how do you go about negotiating your severance package?

Do you sit on two chairs across from each other and make offers/counter offers to yourself?

I can just imagine me, onethatcares, telling myself that I need 89 million dollars cash and

stock options of 145 billion along with a corporate jet and unlimited use of a company car for the

rest of my life, only to have myself say, "can we pare back the company car? If we can, I'll sign

off on this right now".

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Romney's Protests About O...