Search the Lounge


« Four Quick Takeaways From The Freeh Report On Penn State & Sandusky | Main | The New Yale Ph.D In Law: The Perfect Choice For...Whom? »

July 12, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Steve Diamond

The problem with this story - and I am no fan of Mitt Romney - is that it ignores the structure of most PE funds. I thought it a bit disappointing that Roberta Karmel did not make this more clear in her appearance tonight on MSNBC.

Romney clearly continued as CEO of the GP of several of Bain's funds organized as LP's. It is not clear from the Boston Globe story however if the real decisional power was in those GP's or in a related management company such as Bain LLC. In other words it could easily be the case that if Bain was set up - like many PE funds - so that a management entity organized as an LLC has day to day to operational control over the portfolio companies.

If so, then it could in fact be accurate to say that Romney had left active control if he had handed his role in that management entity over to someone else (Connaughton?) while nonetheless remaining CEO of, relatively, powerless GP's of the LP's.

Of course, Bain is still private so we don't have a lot of insight into the actual structure.

Steve Diamond

Upon closer inspection it appears that indeed Romney remained as CEO of Bain Capital Inc., the management company at the hub of the Bain network of LP funds through 2001. I explain in detail in a blog post at LUN.

Steve Diamond

Sorry try this LUN.

richard watson

Was Obama a cocaine dealer? Is there any there there?
If you are going to post the Democratic talking points please put a disclaimer on your postings.

Brando Simeo Starkey

Watson, it seems as though you're not sure what a talking point is. Let's break down my post.

1. Romney supposedly left Bain Capital in 1999 <--- That is Romney's claim. Not a talking point.
2. filled out certified paperwork affirming this to be true. <--- that's a fact. He filled out FEC paperwork. Not a talking point.
3. But the Boston Globe has a report out (that it stole from Mother Jones and without giving the proper credit) that claims that Romney headed Bain as late as 2002. <--- That's a fact. Boston Globe does indeed have that report out. Not a talking point.
4. claims that Romeny "would be guilty of a federal felony by certifying on federal financial disclosure forms that he left active management of Bain Capital in February 1999." <---- This is what claims. They're right. That's not a talking point.

Now if I had written a post stating that Romney can't be trusted, that would be a talking point. Writing a post asking a *question* that has merit is not a talking point.


You seem to be under the impression that the "Just asking" style of accusation fools folks who have graduated from junior high school ...
"Is this man a race traitor?"
"What should happen to these race traitors?"
"Just asking ..."
These sorts of "questions" are of the sort that many recognize.
Bias and pov can be quite obvious from questions. Every DA knows that trick; in fact, every lawyer knows how to make a point by "asking questions."
You say the formulation "hey, just asking" means you aren't expressing a pov.
If you want to claim that you have no pov about Romney v. Obama, fine. If you want to repeat charges against Romney without any context, objectivity or counter-narrative, fine. This forum welcomes that, though I seem to recall a post a while back that had to be taken down because it took the other side in this contest. That doesn't seem to be a big problem, though. This really isn't an "objective" forum, and that's ok.
But please, don't insult the intelligence of your readers. In my view, you weaken your clearly intended point when you claim that you didn't intend to make any point at all.

Brando Simeo Starkey

"You say the formulation "hey, just asking" means you aren't expressing a pov."
"you weaken your clearly intended point when you claim that you didn't intend to make any point at all."

My noting that I was not "post[ing] Democratic talking points" does not mean that I claimed to have no point of view. You're attacking a straw man, "anon".


You claimed you were "just asking a question."
Now you concede you were making a pooint, but you are telling us there is a difference between a "talking point" and a "point."

C'mon, Brando.

Brando Simeo Starkey

Stephen, were you trying to post this link?

In any event, very informative.

Steve Diamond

Thank you, yes. And the idea that I am somehow guilty of posting DP talking points is, well, simply risible. I will point out, again, that I, too, initially thought that if Romney were just head of the LP funds he might have a case to make. That turns out not to be the case, something he himself admitted in the Jan C. Greenberg interview.


Steve: No one said you were posting DP talking points.
Watson said that about Brando's OP.
I know you are more careful than that, so you must have just make a mistake in reading the commments.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad