Skip to comments.In July 1996, Mitt Romney helped locate the missing teenage daughter of a partner at Bain Capital.
Posted on 02/02/2012 4:17:25 PM PST by fred4prez
"In July 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared," the story reads. "She had attended a rave party in New York City and gotten high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was. Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly to New York to help find Gays daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search. He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with in New York and asked them to help find his friends missing daughter. Romneys accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part of New York and talked with everyone they could prostitutes, drug addicts anyone.
"That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a home in New Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose. Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day. Romneys former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughters life, saying, It was the most amazing thing, and Ill never forget this to the day I die.
(Excerpt) Read more at politifact.com ...
Jim... I am as solid against abortion as anyone you could imagine. I am proud to have met you once, at a function you probably don’t remember here in Tacoma some years ago.
I’m not thrilled that Romney might be our candidate. But if he is... He is.
The question then becomes: Do you want another Obama administration or not? Is FR going to be pro-Obama in the general election?
Don’t be an idiot. FR will never be pro-Obama. And we’ll also never be pro-abortion or pro-socialism or pro-socialist healthcare or pro-Romney.
Mitt happens, but don’t let Mitt happen to America!!
Ronald Reagan walked away from the democrat political party when it left him. If the Republican party becomes the party of abortion or socialist healthcare, it will have left me and I’m no longer a Republican.
I appreciate the fact that others have had to dig this up and report on it and that he never, to my knowledge, has tried to use it to get others to respect or like him.
Kid you know this was dragged out in 2008
thats the first time I saw this story...
and much of it was debunked back then too...
Willie Mitty was desparate to find some reason for the other kiddies to like him in 2008 and hes worse off now...
FR is already pro-Obama. Its been nauseating to watch.
what? C’mon... If Romney ends up being the nominee... FR will become Obama-central. FR will be the anti-Romney tool that the dems dream of.
That’ll be the day.
We’ll be the anti-socialist/anti-abortionist site we’ve always been. Friends don’t let mitt happen.
Was the girl a fellow Mormon? They used the Marriott for their base I see, which makes me wonder if it was a Mormon operation.
Things have changed a lot since August of 2008.
For one, many of us are being faced with something that we have never truly faced before, a Republican candidate that we really cannot vote for this time, they went too far, they have attacked us openly for 3 years and destroyed every threat to Romney, they even helped defeat a republican candidate for Senate to help him, after the tea party delivered an historical victory in 2010, they blocked us from the House leadership.
The other big change is that this time, at the moment that they push a candidate on us who shouldn’t even be in republican politics, we have three years of having built a machine, a movement.
We will have solid options and a course of action ready if it becomes necessary in 2012, to find an alternative to voting for Romney.
I think that FR will have plenty to keep itself busy, relevant, and effective, and not vote for Romney.
The Catholic Church has more problems than the Mormons ? Maybe, but thats because of -
a Large size - in the US its at least 10 times the size of the Mormon church. More people, more scandals.
b. Geographic distribution - Mormons are concentrated in Utah and problems largely remain inside that limited media market, and/or they are taken care of internally.
In the past, and up to this day the Catholic church had and has immensely more political power in the US than the Mormons.
It is still visible even in the fabric of our cities, if one knows how to look. In San Francisco for instance Catholic parish churches and parochial school sites (often former sites) are regularly spaced across the residential zones of tract houses, by area the bulk of the metropolitan area. This is not an accident, these were planned into the city, in collusion with the political authorities, as these areas were being developed in the 1880’s-1910’s. Multiply San Francisco by a hundred.
As far as Catholics are concerned Mormonism is a Christian heresy, as heretical as any other non-Catholic church (save perhaps the Orthodox) as far as I know, as the church has never provided a measure of degrees of heresy.
And the church has never had any official standard of the Christianity of other churches either. If the Mormons want to call themselves Christian that is entirely their business. If they say they are Christian, they are heretical, if they are not Christian then they are not Christian.
If they are not Christian (a broad definition), that is just as much or as little a problem as being a Hindu or Buddhist, or Lutheran or Baptist for that matter. Catholics have no requirement binding them to vote for other Catholics just because they are Catholics. The church would not oppose the election of a Buddhist, why should it oppose a Mormon ?
As far as conversions - the current policy of the church, again as I understand it, is that in the political realm it does not require that other faiths be prevented from converting Catholics as long as Catholics are free to convert others as well. The major loss to conversion is actually from Evangelical/Pentecostal groups, not the Mormons.
You are just making this stuff up. Pope John Paul II told you that Mormonism is not Christian.
The Catholic church recognizes that Lutherans and Baptists are Christians, the Catholic church cannot baptize you if you join them from another Christian church, because you can only be baptized once, however they do require that Mormons be baptized into Christianity.
It is also the reason that all Christians have to be baptized into the Mormon religion when they abandon Christ.
Mormonism is an anti-Christian religion, founded on converting Christians, mostly with clandestine means, what they call milk before meat, where they convince the (often Catholic) Christian that he or she is merely moving sideways, moving into another Christian denomination.
Actually that person is moving into Bishop Romneys, antiChristian religion, a move which will require baptism into Mormonism.
I also want you to point out the history that you claim I got wrong in post 185.
John Paul II ruled on the Christianity of Mormons ?
Thats news to me.
Remind me, I am not as young as I used to be - what is it that you object to in this regard ?
Your argument was that Reagan developed politically in a liberal world, and hence was more liberal than a neo-Reagan would be, having acquired his politics in recent times.
My counter was that Reagans world was in reality closer to our vision of conservatism, in a cultural and ideological sense, than is the present day.
You sounded like you were giving a lecture from the mountain, as though you were an expert, you didn’t know about the baptisms?
Now tell me the history that I got wrong in post 185.
Why not read the post again 185, you made a silly, rambling response to it, and said I was "ahistorical".
Silly I may be but it certainly makes sense to me !
Your argument was as I summarized it -
Reagan developed politically in a liberal world, and hence was more liberal than a neo-Reagan would be, having acquired his politics in recent, more conservative times.
My argument summarized -
Reagans world was in reality closer to our vision of conservatism, in a cultural and ideological sense, than is the present day.
It is what I recall from the lectures on heresies, from many decades ago, by the sainted (or should be sainted) Brother Victor, our teacher in the Christian Brothers seminars. I was at one time recruited for that august order, though I proved to myself I was thoroughly unsuitable!
Basically, a heretic is a heretic, and as far as we are concerned he might as well be a Buddhist. They are no better or worse, and are just as likely to go to hell for unbelief, though I gather we have let up quite a bit on that last part.
As for the “special” case with Mormons, I gather its a recent tiff in retaliation for the business of retroactive baptisms. At this rate we will have to disinvite them from the bingo, take that !
That wasn’t it at all, I was pointing out that as President, Reagan could, and would, be much more conservative today.
By the way, why do you post so much on abortion and Romney, in his defense, but refuse to answer anything about yourself and abortion and the homosexual agenda?
Also, ignoring Santorum, I get the impression that Gingrich ranks below Romney to you, is that correct?
I didn't expect you to mock the Pope, and the Catholic church and it's faith.
You really are just making up things as you go.
I am completely against abortion, and homosexual behavior is a sin. I am an ordinary Catholic.
As far as Romney vs Gingrich - If you all were being as intemperate towards Gingrich as you have been towards Romney I would be saying the same things.
Gingrich is an extremely talented man, and he has a huge legislative achievement to his name. However, he is just as ideologically unsound and politically mutable as Romney. Neither is trustworthy, in an ideological sense, if their political prospects are at stake. He has never actually run anything.
Unfortunately we have no other real options, and the fate of the republic depends on voting for one or the other of them. The alternative is so immensely worse than either that disaster is staring us in the face. I am not voting for disaster.
Santorum is a consistent and trustworthy man, at least, in most ways. However he has all the political talent of the usual California Republican.
No I am not. Have you ever heard the clergy talk ?
That is precise it -
“I was pointing out that as President, Reagan could, and would, be much more conservative today.”
You said that this was because the political climate was more conservative now. I said that the ideological/cultural climate was more conservative then.
Yet you seem to rank Romney slightly over Gingrich in your previous post.
The 50s and 60s and 70s (actually, roughly 1935 to 1975, give or take)was a heyday for the left, the left’s victories are smaller, less permanent, and less frequent today.
Lyndon Johnson, the Warren Court, etc. did things with their own and JFK’s agenda, that could not be done today, and if those things had not happened, America would have survived, as it is, some of that past activity, killed our future.
Slightly as how ? By a comma or a full stop ? I am not aware of this.
Romney is a cold fish without an ounce of the “common touch” and he can easily become extremely unpopular. He is untrustworthy on the critical matters that a president actually controls (and policy towards abortion and homosexuality aren’t under his control). He is very likely to cave in a legislative crisis over the critical legislation we need to massively deregulate - if this isn’t done, quickly, we are toast. Romney has form here, he has caved more than once.
If he does bring a horde of Mormons into the white house that would be the best thing he could do, most of these fellows would probably be more competent than he is, have a solid group consciousness and derive confidence from it, and perhaps more inclined to purge the civil service and the regulators. I suspect though that he won’t have the guts to do it.
He would be a failure with the press from the first day.
Gingrich has a talent for directly annoying people, and though he can please the crowds on occasion, he is just as capable of falling on his face. All presidential candidates are almost pathologically arrogant, but he has the fault of letting it show. He could certainly also fail like I think Romney would, through a failure of nerve. He has form here too.
He has absolutely no track record with appointments that I can see, and brings no shadow cabinet or executive staff with him, which is a grievous fault.
He could, perhaps, conduct a successful rhetorical war with the press, but the odds of this succeeding are at best 50/50.
Both will TRY to appoint acceptable Supreme court judges. Who would do better at this ? i don’t know. Even Bush did quite well in the end, after much howling and gnashing of teeth, so we may be happily surprised.
1950-1964 - That covers the era when Reagan went from non-political actor to politician.
This was not the heyday of the left. The state was much smaller than it is today, the state intruded far less in the economy. Any manufacturer in the country would trade the regulatory conditions of 1955 for today in a heartbeat, even if they had to admit a union (1955 style).
As for cultural values, night and day. Those were the days when you could not distinguish a Democrat from a Republican on the subject of “vice”, divorce, or much else. You had a small avant-garde in pockets of the coasts but that was it.
When I read that, I see Newt and Rick as off the table for you.
I have always distrusted Gingrich.
I am leery of Romney.
Santorum has no political talent, or at least none thats effective at this level. Nobody will raise money for him - he doesn’t seem to know how to get people to do that chore for him. Thats not a good indicator of presidential timber.
Palin, Perry and Cain all could raise money.
It sounds like Romney sits atop Newt to you, if forced to choose.
Because I listed Romney first ?
Feel free to swap my Gingrich/Romney sections.
I’ve actually wondered about how many if his partners, associates, in business are not Mormons.
I would say a little more than that, by 1964, he was making history at the 1964 convention, Reagan first emerged nationally as a conservative in 1947, he testified as a friendly witness before the House of Un-American Activities Committee, already becoming known as on the right before that. By 1952, Reagan publicly endorsed Eisenhower in 1952, and then in 1956, and then for Nixon in 1960, and you know that he was earning a reputation as a conservative speaker in the late 1950s.
Yes, I know that, I was there. I too have read all the books.
The point is that back then we were all - even in San Francisco - “conservatives”, by modern standards.
Great gravy. In putting Romney on the pedestal, you're the one who said:
" Why does it matter why he did it? Do the people who shop at Goodwill care that someone donated clothes for a tax write off, or do they care that they have clothes?"
And I should assume that you, and nobody at FR, thought any less of Bill Clinton for donating used underwear to charity with a declared value of $3 per pair. Sometimes motive can lessen the value of a good deed, even if it remains a good deed. We see that when Democrats do something for the poor for the purpose of getting their vote.
As for it diminishing what happened, I believe we've already established in this thread that Romney and Bain played a part, but that what happened is not what is written in this piece-o-puffery email-sourced story that germinated in the mind of febrile Romney supporter. Yeah, I can just see Romney personally calling everyone Bain does business with in New York. At five minutes a call, that would take . . . a couple of weeks? Or until long after the girl was found?
"Feel free to swap my Gingrich/Romney sections.
Switch them how? You never mentioned Gingrich in that response, he and Santorum are clearly off the table as not as good as Romney, not "better", not even worth mentioning, they aren't even in the equation to you..
My post 230
My opinion in a nutshell -
The government wasn't, the institutions weren't, not the media, not the courts, they were making such bold radical jumps to the left that we will never recover, the accomplishments and victories of the hard left in the 1960s, cannot be duplicated today, and not since the 1980s or late 70s.
If the JFK inspired 1965 immigration act had not been passed, then this country would be very far to the right, today. We would have rolled back much of what was done to us in the 1960s.
I'd like to post a public retraction and apology for whatever I made up. Will you please direct me to my offending post(s)?
Post 168 was your original answer, that is what I have been quoting, Gingrich was not even on the table for you, only Romney, on this whole thread your preference for Romney in the primary is clear.
Sorry, ansel12. It’s early and I’m an idiot. That’s not a good combination. I figured out (I think; it’s still early and I’m still an idiot) that your post was not directed at me.
I merely pinged you to my answer, go look at the post again.
buwaya’s theology and defense of Mormonism is so bizarre, that I thought some of the Mormon experts could bring him up to date.
cynwoody: No, it's not. I first heard this story in 2007 or 2008. Here's a contemporaneous article.
cynwoody? I think Flycatcher is saying that the very puffed up "Romney did everything, right down to personally making the phone calls to everyone Bain did business with in New York" piece is from a Chain e-Mail, not that the base substance of the story (that Bain helped find the missing daughter of a Bain partner) is true.
The contemporaneous article you linked never mentions Mitt Romney's name a single time. It says the "partners" at Bain did the job - and then it certainly sounds as if Bain leaned on those with whom it did business or in whom it invested to get the rest done (which I probably would have done as well). Leaned on others - not that Mitt or Bain partners were out doing these things personally:
"R. R. Donnelly, the firm's printer, printed more than 300,000 fliers bearing Ms. Gay's picture and last known whereabouts. Duane Reade, a drugstore chain in which Bain Capital is an investor, had clerks at 52 stores insert fliers in shopping bags. Price Waterhouse, which does the firm's accounting, sent nearly 100 volunteers to distribute the posters, and Goldman Sachs, Bankers Trust and Morgan Stanley dispatched more than 60 people.
It took a little research. Romney helped. This story is over-the-top and not accurate about Romney 'closing down the firm' and taking all of these personal action - at least not according the news articles from 1996.
You'll need a subscription to Boston Globe archives. Pull up the July 12, 1996, Friday, City Edition.
Turns out that Bob Gay was embarrassed that his daughter took off for a rave party and disappeared. He kept it to himself for a couple of days and then finally told Romney. Romney didn't make any decision - except to tell the other eleven Bain Managing Directors. *They're* the ones who decided to 'shut down the firm' and put money into the search. I'm certain Romney suggested it, but Romney didn't do it (nor these heroic things like calling every Bain contact in New York himself).
From the article:
Bob Gay waited until 2 that night. His daughter never came home.
"That's when we knew something was not right," he said in a telephone interview last night from New York City.
They called all her friends and then called police. They soon learned that Melissa had hopped a train with several friends to New York Saturday night to catch the Rock Rave-Fantasia II concert in Manhattan.
Her friends returned to Connecticut without Melissa sometime Sunday.
Bob Gay doesn't believe his daughter ran away, because she didn't take any clothes and had only $ 10 with her. "I believe she fully intended to go to the concert without telling us, but not stay there in the city," he said.
Ridgefield and New York police are working together. Hospitals have been checked and arrest records canvassed, Gay has been told.
New York police said her friends last saw her at a party at 11 a.m. Sunday near the Whitestone Bridge, which connects Queens and the Bronx.
Last night, officials from both departments would not comment on the case, except to say that the investigation is continuing.
But Bob Gay just couldn't sit back and watch.
On Wednesday he walked the streets of Manhattan looking for his blonde daughter, who was last seen wearing a blue or red-striped shirt and baggy tan pants.
Gay, who has worked for Bain for eight years, kept his ordeal to himself, confiding only in Romney.
But Wednesday, Romney decided to tell the other 11 managing directors, and they decided that finding a missing daughter was more important than operating a $ 1 billion investment firm.
The executives decided not only to give their time but their money, paying all expenses for the search for the fifth of Gay's seven children.
That night, 16 employees flew to New York, turned a function room of the Laguardia Marriott Hotel into a "war room," and got printing giant R. R. Donnelly to print 200,000 fliers with a color picture of Melissa. They also hired a private investigator and set up an 800-number hot line.
Another 40 employees caught an early morning shuttle yesterday, and later were joined by about 250 colleagues from other Wall Street firms, including Goldman Sachs, Price Waterhouse and Bankers Trust.
"Most of us have children," said Stephen Pagliuca, 44, a Bain managing director with four children. "That's the most important thing in our lives. It wasn't even a question. We just decided to do it."
So, this was a good story with a great ending. And there's a subsequent Globe article in which Gay thanks Romney for his help. But the article posted was posted because Romney is running for President - and Romney's role was rewritten and beefed waaaaaaaay up to make him more than a leader, but a superhero.
Romney did the right thing, he just didn't do all of the things in the article. Bain's other eleven Managing Directors were involved in shutting down the firm. When you've done something good, why do your supporters need to taint it by crafting lies about what you did, exaggerating your role, and outright lying about you "shutting down the firm," yada, yada?