Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney did NOT "save" 2002 Olympics. Lost his cool. Likely breached his contract. Profiteered. (120 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shuksan Tahoma, delphine, roadbear

    sure what you read, but you seem to have missed a huge chunk of the diary.  I documented multiple examples of profiteering, some of them involving people who were central to 2002 scandals and who were supposedly not part of ROmney's Olympics.  You completely skipped the part where I documented restrictions that were placed on Romney, and which he seems to have ignored.  As for your other comments about Mattel, I have no idea what Mitt Romney knew about the condition of TLC.  I would be extremely surprised to find that he was on the board and did not know it was saddled with lots of debt.  And if he knew that, which he most likely did, he hid it from Mattel during negotiations.  That was unethical.  There are more important things than making sure you get the most for a company you are selling.  More important, at least for many of us, is personal integrity.

    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

    by mikepridmore on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 04:18:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  i am not questioning the existence of examples, (0+ / 0-)

      but rather the conclusions you drew from them.  Everything you say is within the realm of possibility, but all of those examples also have potential explanations that are not nefarious.  The mattel bit speficially shows this, where the problems were related to product recalls and the debt likely in the form of written-off vendor advances relating to same and about which it's perfectly reasonable for a board member not to know about  three years in advance.  The "dog that didn't bark" is the lack of a major lawsuit settlement.  What I was referring to is the fat that how Mattel chose to pay for the acquisition has no bearing on how we view Romney's personal integrity.  These are the types of nuances that are absolutely essential when you talk about M&A deals, and casual errors in terms of who owes what to whom makes it harder to actually make a case about the problems with a regulatory regime that is so favorable to private equity at the expense of other producers of goods and services.

      To that end, therefore, I did recognize that there is plenty in Mitt's Olympics record that's worthy of criticism -- both in terms of what he really did, and even taking his claims as true, whether they qualify him to be President.  There are separately similar examples of Romney behaving unethically in his business practices and in his own aggressive tax avoidance in his own life and as an audit committee member of Marriott International.  Those cases have stronger support.

      Also, calm down.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 05:29:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the more time Romney (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is playing defense on "M&A" the better, full stop.

        America gets sleepy when Al Gore talks about climate change, imagine what they'll do when Romney is struggling to articulate some technical legal distinction under the heat of the klieg lights....

        Views Differ On Shape Of Planet

        by nota bene on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 12:19:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Calm down? (0+ / 0-)

        One problem Mattel had is that it was saddled with debt from TLC. It seems highly unlikely that Romney did not know of this debt.  Whether he was charged with the crime is not the whole story. There is also the question of integrity.  What makes you think I was not calm when I wrote that, either this time or the last?  

        The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

        by mikepridmore on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 12:45:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reading between the lines, (0+ / 0-)

          I imaginene debt was in the form of written off vendor advances due to products they couldn't sell because of a recall.  Did Romney know they advanced loans to vendors to buy the products (if that's what they were doing?). Yes.  Did he know the products would later be recalled?  That's not something an outside director of a diversified company would necessarily know. possible,must you can't infer lack of integrity from being on the board of a company that does experience such recalls. Mattel knew there were risks inherent in buying any businesses.

          You might have been calm, but you have a very aggressive and accusatory writing style.  It's unnecessary.  None of us here like Mitt Romney.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 09:40:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  debate techniques (0+ / 0-)
            you have a very aggressive and accusatory writing style.
            I am merely trying to get at the facts.  If that seems aggressive and accusatory to you, then so be it.

            You seem to keep imagining some possible universe where Romney would have been unaware that TLC was loaded with debt when Mattel was talked into buying it.  His whole Bain experience shows a pattern of saddling companies with debt, with acquisitions being one source of that debt.  Your hypothetical situations seem highly improbable.  Mine fit within a pattern of behavior by Romney.  

            And you made one suggestion that I find at least possibly objectionable, namely that Romney had an obligation to get as much for TLC as he could. This was before you started imagining possible ways he would have not really have known about it.  If by that obligation you meant that he was obligated to hide the debt from Mattel (and that was how I read your post) that goes against what I would say are rules for maintaining personal integrity.  And that would make me wonder about the integrity of someone who would suggest as much.

            The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

            by mikepridmore on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 12:07:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That is an absurd interpretation (0+ / 0-)

              of what I said.  He would not be obligated to murder people, for example.  He would not be permitted to hide debt for acquirers or, for that matter, any other present or future shareholder, whose interests he was representing.  You also don't distinguish between a purchase and a sale of a company.  There's a case to be made, but this example by your own explanation has too much innuendo, nd too few facts.  When was this debt taken on?  If when Bain bought TLC, the world was on notice about it.  Nobody takes on debt as part of the sale of a corp., the acquirer is the one who has to finance the merger.

              Very basic facts about Delaware corp law are not issues of personal integrity.  I have some, Mitt doesn't.  Both of us agree on what happens when Revlon duties apply.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Sat Aug 04, 2012 at 10:30:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Calm, Well-Reasoned and Very Enlightening Diary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Loge's claim that MikePridmore has an "accusatory" writing style and is not "calm" caught my eye. I did not find any evidence of an accusatory tone, nor did I sense that he was not calm. I found this to be the best-researched and most timely diary on DKos for quite some time and I am very grateful to him for his superb effort. We need to have more pieces like this and I can only hope that campaign leaders pick these themes up and get wide distribution for this data. Bravo!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site