Skip to main content

Short Diary, but this question has not been asked by anyone in the media, and it should be, and it boggles my mind that this basic, simple, obvious question hasn't been asked.

Because if Mitt Romney wasn't in operational control, then SOMEONE had to be, and if they haven't provided a name at this point, then that means, it was Mittens.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good question. (3+ / 0-)

    How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

    by boophus on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:20:48 AM PDT

  •  Apparently, it was an executive committee (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    pasadena beggar, Sylv
    Hidden by:
    Bush Bites

    FactCheck.org quotes the Boston Herald from February 12, 1999:  

    Boston Herald, Feb. 12, 1999: Romney said he will stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions. But he will leave running day-to-day operations to Bain’s executive committee.
    Unless that is not an accurate quote from the Boston Herald on February 12, 1999 (I haven't paid to go into the Boston Herald archives) I suspect that is your answer.  
    •  Who took over ? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pasadena beggar, MKSinSA

      Who was the person that took over operations when Romney left ?

      Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

      by yet another liberal on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:27:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the Boston Herald is correct (0+ / 0-)

        it was not one person, it was a group -- an executive committee.  

        I'm a lawyer and lots of law firms are run that way -- by a management or executive committee, often elected by the partners.  A business is not always run by one person.  

        •  They don't have names ? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pasadena beggar, Bush Bites, MKSinSA

          Who is on the comittee ?

          Really, talk about dancing around a simple question.

          Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

          by yet another liberal on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:34:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is an article from the Boston Herald in 1999 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Paul Ferguson

            that article did not name the members of the executive committee.  I suspect that was because, in 1999, it wasn't anybody's concern as to the names of the members of the executive committee.  

            Some of those SEC documents filed from the time may list the members of the executive committee.   Some filings will do that in addition to listing the owners, the members of the board, and the officers.  I don't know if they do or they don't.  

            My only point was that, in February 1999, when the Boston Herald reported on Romney's going to run the Olympics, it also reported that the firm's executive committee would be taking over management of day-to-day operations.  

            •  Then you missed the point (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MKSinSA

              Why bother quoting a non-answer from Mitt Romney via the Boston Globe when the point is ( obviously ) that Mitt Romney should legitimately be pressured to refer Americans to the people who did ( supposedly ) take over Bain.

              Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

              by yet another liberal on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:43:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not an "answer" because nobody asked that (0+ / 0-)

                question in 1999.  In 1999, the only question was, who will run Bain? And the answer "the executive committee" was sufficient in 1999.  At the time, since Bain was a private business, it frankly was nobody else's business who was on the executive committee at Bain.

                In 2012, I haven't heard anybody ask Romney, who on the executive committee of Bain from 1999 - 2002?  The answer may be in the SEC docs if they list the names of the Bain executive committee.  

            •  Roger that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MKSinSA

              Also, if you look at Bain Capital's website today, the fiction that the company is run by nobody is still maintained (which you can see for yourself if you click on their links "Senior partners" and/or "Managing partners".  What you get is long, long lists of people, but no one person named as in charge.

              •  That may be true. (0+ / 0-)

                As I said elsewhere, my firm is run under the same kind of structure -- a management committee.  It's not a "fiction."  Some professional businesses are set up that way -- the partners elect a management committee and specify in documents what they have the authority to do.  

                I don't know whether that's how Bain is run or not.  All I'm saying is that it's not necessarily "fiction" that a management or executive committee runs a business.  

                •  I understand. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hey338Too, Bush Bites, MKSinSA

                  But what I'm telling you is that I'm intimately familiar with company structure.

                  Even in companies that are run by committee, there is an individual--named something, somewhere--who is ultimately responsible.  Private companies can organize themselves any way they like, and they can call their officers any ridiculous thing they choose, but what they canNOT do is be immune to power and the struggles there of--which pyramids and org charts are designed to prevent.  

                  Romney, for all his other faults, was far too astute a manager (or director, or whatever--remember, I said it doesn't matter what his job title was) not to know that he couldn't just exit the company and not leave a defined power/authority structure in place.  If this is NOT the case, then he really is too stupid to be president.

                  •  This is the question (0+ / 0-)
                    not leave a defined power/authority structure in place.
                    I have no doubt there was a defined power/authority structure in place when he began running the Olympics. And, I suspect that the power/authority structure were spelled out somewhere in an agreement between Romney and Bain.

                    I just don't know what that defined power/authority structure was, and whether Romney retained any power/authority, and if so, how much.  That would all be spelled out in the agreement.  

                    •  Well.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MKSinSA

                      Absolutely all of this seems logical, and easy to comprehend.
                      The question is why hasn't Rmoney even hinted at who (or, in the case of an executive committee) who all was in charge.  Certainly he knows, all he has to do is name names, and they should be willing to come forward and confirm that, yes, they (as an executive committee) or he/she (in the case of a single person), was in charge of the day to day management decisions while Mittens was away.  Nothing particularly unusual or secret, and as has been said, it happens often in firms.
                      UNLESS....there are no names to be named, no one else was in charge and Mittens is lying.
                      And we all know that couldn't happen, right?  
                      Right?

                      I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

                      by Lilyvt on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 03:59:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  but we know it's a fiction (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MKSinSA

                heck I bet back in the 90s they might have put up the same fiction if they had a website, but Mittens was in charge.

            •  Boston Herald's a right wing rag. n/t (0+ / 0-)

              "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

              by Bush Bites on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 11:11:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  It may not be RUN by one person, but ONE person (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MKSinSA

          has to have more authority in the executive committee than the others.  Even in partnerships like accounting and law, there is ONE managing partner or director, even if there is an abundance of other partners with the same title sitting around the same conference table.  No company can function without a defined hierarchy and org chart.

          •  Very true. Often an executive committee (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Paul Ferguson

            will have a chair, or something like that.  

            My law firm is run by a committee elected by partners.  There is one person who holds the chair-type position on that committee.  Still, if you ask who runs our firm, the correct and accurate answer is that committee, because the person in the chair position does not have authority to act unilaterally.  

            In other words, there's no reason to believe that the Boston Herald's report in February 1999 that an executive committee would be managing day-to-day operations at Bain was inaccurate or incorrect.  It did not list the names on the committee or the chair of the committee probably because, in 1999, that was not newsworthy.  

      •  A really, really easy way out of this.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MKSinSA

        for Mittens, is to simply say who was in charge, name names.  This isn't the HUAC hearings, naming names would only clear up this question and help Mittens out. Leaving someone, or an executive committee, in charge while you took leave is not illegal, unethical or unusual.  Just tell us who they are, I'm sure they'll corroborate your statement.
        UNLESS, there are no names other than Mittens as Owner, President, CEO, Director and sole stockholder.
        In which case, Mittens, you got some 'splainin' to do.

        I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

        by Lilyvt on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 04:11:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Which, obviously, means Romney is... (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xanthippe2, ExStr8, TFinSF, Lilyvt, a2nite, MKSinSA

      ...lying about being completely out of Bain management after February 1999. No surprise since lying comes as naturally to him as breathing.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:36:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think this proves anything other than (0+ / 0-)

        the intent of the parties in February 1999 as to how they thought things would work out over the next three years.  Whether it actually worked out that (1)  Romney gave part-time advice to Bain over the years, while the executive committee ran the firm, (2) Romney actually weighed in a lot on day-to-day activities from Utah from 1999 - 2002 on far more than a remote or part-time basis, or (3) Romney actually didn't give much, if any, advice or input from 1999 - 2002, you can't really tell from that one February 1999 quote from the Boston Herald.

        •  In and of itself it doesn't prove anything... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, TFinSF, MKSinSA

          ...but when it is tied to all the other things we know in this regard, it is obvious Romney has lied and continues to lie about his role at Bain because he was not divorced from the company's operations in the absolute way that he claims.

          The document here says he was on part time leave. That's not a divorce, that's not even a separation.

          To give just one example from David Corn's excellent reporting in this matter:

          In 2001 and 2002, Romney filed Massachusetts state disclosure forms noting he was the 100 percent owner of this Bain venture. But Bain Capital NY was incorporated in Delaware on April 13, 1999—two months after Romney's supposed retirement from the firm. Was Romney uninvolved with the incorporation of a new Bain entity—which only he owned—after his departure? Perhaps. [...]

          No one disputes that Romney retained ownership and legal control of Bain. For that alone, he might be considered partly accountable for its actions. But is it believable that while he remained Bain's owner and possessed full legal control of assorted Bain entities, he never took an interest in what the firm and its funds were doing?

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 10:18:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Passing the smell test (not) (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Meteor Blades, Hey338Too

            What strikes me as curious is that there doesn't seem to be any particular reason for Willard to completely give up involvement in Bain from 1999-2001.

            I can't see any gross conflict of interest here: doing his thing at the Olympics vs. doing his thing at Bain, doesn't seem to be controversial or in conflict. Aside from the ability to devote chunks of time to one or the other, there's no problem with doing both. So it just doesn't make any sense to say with absolute 100% line-in-the-sand certainty, that there was no involvement with Bain whatsoever. There's no practical need for it, outside of serving as a convenient excuse. And one could certainly argue that if Willard's signature is on the SEC filings, there is a motivation for him to be involved in Bain, to protect his own various interests. And of course a growing list of documents and evidence that he actually was involved, in some way.

            On one hand, Willard parses words to say specific things he wasn't involved in, then on the other hand wants to say that his non-participation was total and absolute.

            It smells really really bad.

            I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what Obama said, but I stand by what Obama said was wrong, whatever it was. - Pseudo-RomneyBot 2012

            by lotac on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 11:07:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  And if Mitt was ON the executive committee? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul Ferguson, TFinSF, Lilyvt

      Look, if that's the real answer, then why isn't that the first thing out of Mitt's mouth?

      I didn't run it, the executive committee did, and on that committee were...

      There's a reason that such a really simple shut this down response is still not there.

    •  You're a wingnut troll. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      Comment history shows you defending Mitt, Rush and Florida's attempt to stop black people from voting.

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 11:18:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BushB - coffeetalk is not a wingnut or a troll (0+ / 0-)

        She is a New Orleans based lawyer who looks at issues through the prism of her legal training. She has been here a long time and makes valuable contributions. She lays out the actual law as it applies to various situations, and plays devil's advocate, more than stating opinions.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Mon Jul 16, 2012 at 12:35:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

    All Mitt has to do is refer us to the person who did run Bain.

    Then we can talk to that person who can tell Americans that Mitt Romney had zero input into Bain finances and operations.

    Easy.  What's Mitt waiting around for.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:25:40 AM PDT

  •  Willy Wonka? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yet another liberal

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:30:11 AM PDT

    •  Ya know.... (0+ / 0-)

      It could have been Judge Crater (haven't heard from him in a while), or Jimmy Hoffa, or Amelia Earhart.
      This is proving to be more complicated than 'Finding Nemo'.

      I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

      by Lilyvt on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 04:16:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Another reason to know who (if not Mitt) was (4+ / 0-)

    running Bain during that time (while the offshoring and outsourcing was occurring en masse):

    Who were they, and where are they now?

    Any still part of Romney's inner sanctum?

    Are they now advising Romney?

    Would they be part of a Romney Cabinet?

    Notice: This Comment © 2012 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:33:56 AM PDT

  •  Answer: Mitt. He decided he could cut back (3+ / 0-)

    to part time by merely clearing the major decisions that were handled by the executive committee. Anyone who thinks that as sole stockholder and official CEO he didn't reserve the right to say grace over big decisions is on the silly side of the street.

    Further, affiant sayeth not.

    by Gary Norton on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 09:50:02 AM PDT

    •  I suspect there was some time of agreement (0+ / 0-)

      at the time, that specified how things would be done.  That would be the case even if they contemplated that his leave to run the Olympics would be temporary and he would be returning in 2002.  That kind of agreement would spell out what authority Romney was relinquishing and what authority he retained.

      If people were really interested in finding out the truth of Romney's role in 1999 - 2002, that is what would give you those answers.  But I don't think Romney is interested in giving that out because he considers it nobody's business, and I don't think the Obama campaign is interested in calling for it, because it may hamper their framing of the issue.  In other words, both sides think they are better off without delving into the details, which would be in such an agreement.

      •  not compelling (4+ / 0-)

        1. if there was an agreement showing he retained ANY amount of authority then that would reveal Romney's statements yesterday to be an out and out lie, because he says he had ZERO authority. So why in the world would the Obama campaign not want that out?

        2. Romney is getting hammered on this, your argument that he doesn't present an easy, obvious answer on this simply because "it's nobody's business" is not likely or compelling, but if true reveals a pretty big character defect in Romney.

      •  The guy with the title is responsible. Ask Ken Lay (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too, TFinSF

        and Jeff Skilling. Saying I wasn't in the lop does not absolve you of responsibility, it merely provides evidence of your incompetence. Signatures mean something.

        Further, affiant sayeth not.

        by Gary Norton on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 11:06:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sometimes, sometimes not. (0+ / 0-)

          it depends what your company documents provide about who has what authority.  

          You can call somebody King of the World, and if the company documents don' provide them with any authority, they don' have any authority.  

          On the other hand, you can call somebody "Messenger in Chief," and if the company documents provide them with all the authority, that's who has all the authority.

          Often, the CEO is the one with day-to-day management authority.  But it is not always necessarily that way.  What would tell us if it was that way here is the Bain company documents, and/or the agreement between Romney and Bain spelling out what his authority was -- or was not -- after February 1999.  

  •  Oh, no, no. What is on second base. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Prospect Park

  •  oddly enough... (0+ / 0-)

    ...neither Brian Williams nor any other alleged network "journalist" bothered to press Mittch-A-Sketch on that nor any other obvious questions last night. (Or, perhaps it's not so odd, knowing that the owners of the networks will actually benefit financially by aiding and abetting the election of Mittch-A-Sketch.)

  •  Good question. n't (0+ / 0-)

    "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

    by Bush Bites on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 11:10:08 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, just forgot to mention that.... (0+ / 0-)

    Willard Romney, my brother (in spirit), and there is one thing that is REALLY MAKING ME MAD.  Just because I am sweating and blinking and looking away and shaking, it was because of the lights.  I have never told a lie in my life.  Go ahead, try and prove it, no wait, I don't think I have, but I have a lot to think about.  I am Mitt Romney and I am worth billions of, no wait, I mean millions of dollars, and I not only don't lie, I am so rich I can say whatever I damn want, no wait, I didn't mean that, I only say whatever the truth is.  Thank you.  Stop picking on me, I mean it or I will get out my Highway Patrol uniform, no wait, I don't have that, I mean didn't ever, it was just a joke, I am a good man, just ask Ann, no wait, don't, ask my assistant, um, what is her name.....June I think.   She will tell you what a great man I am.  I just gave her a raise after just ten years, and now she gets above minimum wage, and next year, I am being made, no wait, looking forward to putting her on our insurance.  I thought of all of these things myself.  See?  Imagine what I can do for America.

    "My Momma always taught me to play by the rules, and if you don't that's called cheatin'." - Donna Brazile

    by jjmn on Sat Jul 14, 2012 at 03:50:31 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site