Originally Posted By skinnerbox The founder of Bain & Co, Bill Bain, gave an interview to Boston Globe reporters for their book on Romney. His tale of how Bain Capital got started, is completely different than the one Ann Romney told tonight at the RNC convention. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/25/ann-romney-speech-_n_1838228.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...228.html</a> <> TAMPA, Fla. -- Ann Romney on Tuesday recounted her husband's life story in her prime time convention speech, describing his effort to launch Bain Capital as a struggle with a high amount of risk. "I was there when he and a small group of friends talked about starting a new company. I was there when they struggled and wondered if the whole idea just wasn't going to work. Mitt's reaction was to work harder and press on," she said. "Today that company has become another great American success story," she said. "Has it made those who started the company successful beyond their dreams? Yes, it has." Ann Romney's story of struggle is similar to how Mitt Romney has described his adventure on the campaign trail. "I left a steady job to join with some friends to start a new business," Romney said when launching his campaign. "It had been a dream of mine to try and build a business from the ground-up. We started in a small office." The tale the Romneys are telling, however, is not true. Romney only agreed to run Bain Capital after he had been promised that he could have his old job back if it failed, plus raises he would've missed. He was also promised that if it failed, a cover story would be crafted so that he took none of the professional blame. For their book "The Real Romney," Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman interviewed Bill Bain, the founder of Bain & Co., who asked Romney to head Bain Capital. The story he tells couldn't be more different than Mitt and Ann Romney's. From "The Real Romney:" He saw the opportunity, of course, but he also saw risks. First, he felt comfortable in his life. He already had a great job and had five young sons at home. Second, he and the partners in the new firm would be expected to contribute significantly to the investment fund, and thus, if deals went south, they could lose their own money. Romney explained to Bain that he didn't want to risk his position, earnings, and reputation on an experiment. He found the offer appealing but didn't want to make the decision in a 'light or flippant manner.' So Bain sweetened the pot. He guaranteed that if the experiment failed, Romney would get his old job and salary back, plus any raises he would have earned during his absence. Still, Romney worried about the impact on his reputation if he proved unable to do the job. Again the pot was sweetened. Bain promised that, if necessary, he would craft a cover story saying that Romney's return to Bain & Company was needed because of his value as a consultant. 'So,' Bain explained, 'there was no professional or financial risk.' This time Romney said yes. <> Wow. What a surprise. George Romney gives his son $1 million to start his life off right. Then Bill Bain makes Mitt an offer to start Bain Capital with basically zero risk to his personal finances and zero risk to his professional reputation. None of us in the 'real world' would ever get sweetheart deals such as these. Try as they might to relate to the regular Joes in this country, they can't. Neither one of the Romneys have ever had to want for anything in their entire lives. And to play the 'he took a lot of risk' card regarding Bain Capital... forget it. There wasn't any. There never has been any. And there will never be any. They're much too rich for that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 She's very polished, but she lost me with the "just folks" pose she tried to take when talking about she and Mitt lived in a "basement apartment," with an "ironing board for a table." That didn't ring true considering the money they came from... turns out that's when they were both still at BYU, living in a near-campus apartment (in lieu of a dorm, since they were married). And they paid for it by selling some of Mitt's stock in AMC, given to him by his Dad... "Ann was widely mocked for this at the time. (a 1994 interview.) I don’t dissent from the mockery. Her idea of her and Mitt facing 'not easy years,' having 'no income,' 'living on the edge' as 'struggling students,' was that the couple had had to face college with only sale of stock to sustain them. "By Ann’s own account, the stock amounted to 'a few thousand' dollars when bought, but it had gone up by a factor of sixteen. So let’s conservatively say that they got through five years as students—neither one of them working—only by 'chipping away at' assets of $60,000 in 1969 dollars (about $377,000 today)." Oh yeah. Struggling. Some of the speech was better. But she really lost me there. Look, there's nothing wrong with having money, or coming from money, per se. But you never saw Ted Kennedy, say, in all his years in politics, try to say he ever "struggled" financially. He didn't. The difference is he never tried to pretend he did.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Look, there's nothing wrong with having money, or coming from money, per se. But you never saw Ted Kennedy, say, in all his years in politics, try to say he ever "struggled" financially. He didn't. The difference is he never tried to pretend he did.<< Exactly. What an eye-roll moment. This is like Mitt's "lifelong hunter" nonsense. Wouldn't surprise me much if, by convention's end, he's telling tales of being in a Viet Cong P.O.W. camp.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan By the way, American Motors gave us fine classics such as the Pacer and the Gremlin. Hasn't this country suffered enough?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<But you never saw Ted Kennedy, say, in all his years in politics, try to say he ever "struggled" financially. He didn't.>> I get the impression that the Romney's are being sincere here - they probably truly believe that they were struggling. It's all a matter of your point of view - when you're used to having it all, having to "only" live off $377,000 (in today's dollars) over four years feels like a struggle. They probably truly feel they know what it's like to be one of the little people. Problem is, most of the little people would kill to make even 10% of that figure. The Romney's are just that out of touch with reality, and I think it shows.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I get the impression that the Romney's are being sincere here - they probably truly believe that they were struggling.<< Sadly, I think you're right about that.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Hasn't this country suffered enough?>> No way! <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTheG--2NE0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...eG--2NE0</a> =8^D
Originally Posted By utahjosh Obviously the Romeny's haven't struggled financially. But to say they have no clue or empathy for those who have is disingenuous. The fact that Romney spent nearly 5 years as an LDS bishop and many more as a Stake President ends that discussion for me. Romney most likely has spend countless hours sitting at a desk with people who are struggling financially, offering help and looking for solutions. It's one thing Bishops do. Not to mention all of the other everyday problems and major personal and family issues that the members of his congregation would have gone to him to work out.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Obviously the Romeny's haven't struggled financially. > Then why do they pretend they have?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<But to say they have no clue or empathy for those who have is disingenuous.>> That's not what I said. Having "empathy" for those who are poor is not the same as making it sound like you know what it's like to be poor, and have personally struggled.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<But to say they have no clue or empathy for those who have is disingenuous. The fact that Romney spent nearly 5 years as an LDS bishop and many more as a Stake President ends that discussion for me.>> First off, having a clue about someone else's life is a totally separate issue from being empathetic. You can fully understand what someone is going through and still not give a damn. Second... and this point is more important... Romney as Bishop was dealing strictly within the confines of his own non-secular community. He isn't helping non-Mormons deal with problems. He's only helping other folks who share his faith, who are part of his larger family group in LDS. It's not uncommon for human beings to care about their kin and not really be too concerned about those outside their family group. I believe Mormons are more prone to this behavior, given how insular and closed the LDS religion has always been.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Posts #13 and #14 zero in on the heart of this matter. Ann wanted the conventioneers to believe that she and Mitt have struggled in the past financially. Ann also wanted the conventioneers to believe that Mitt took huge financial and professional risks starting up Bain Capital. Both of these statements made by Ann are false on their face. No one struggles as a student in college with over $377,000 in real dollars at their disposal, even at a pricey private university. No one struggles in starting up a business if they don't have any skin in the game. If Bain Capital had gone under, Mitt would have returned to his old job plus pay raises he would have received had he not left, and received a tailor-made excuse for the start-up failing as the result of someone else's screw up. Sorry, but it doesn't pass the smell test. Ann Romney wanted the conventioneers in Tampa and the viewing audience at home to believe that she's just like them. And that's a load of you-know-what.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Ann Romney wanted the conventioneers in Tampa and the viewing audience at home to believe that she's just like them. And that's a load of you-know-what.> Minor point, but I think most of the conventioneers probably know it. This was really for the home audience, many of whom don't follow politics like we do, and will just accept statements like hers without thinking twice. "Oh, well isn't that nice? They started with nothing and now they're successful."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If Romney had empathy for the struggles of the working class because of his experience in leadership positions within the LDS, then he sure as heck compartmentalized it. How could he have empathy for that and then go and lay off thousands of workers in viable businesses just to increase his investment returns? Does he have empathy for those who aren't in his own circle? It's one thing to tap into the resources that the LDS has set aside to help members of the LDS in need, but something else entirely to think about the people outside the LDS you are dumping in to poverty just to have some more money to dump into your Cayman Island accounts.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Romney is Gordon Gekko. That he is a viable candidate simply boggles my mind. What has happened to the party of Eisenhower?
