Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Cutting Through The Bain Bamboozlement
Cutting Through The Bain Bamboozlement
Brian Beutler
<...>
The reason this issue is in dispute at all is because Mitt Romney wants full political inoculation from anything Bain did between early 1999 and 2002, when he definitely truly left the company. He wasn’t in charge, except in a narrow, technical sense; he’d delegated his duties; Bain’s business practices from that period can’t be hung around his neck.
If you’re not already belly-laughing think about it this way.
For Romney to be truly off the hook politically for the stuff Bain was doing, he’d have to claim not lack of control, but lack of knowledge. And that’s just not going to wash with anyone. He could try going the “I didn’t have even the slightest idea what the company I technically still owned was doing” route, but he’d be marking himself as either dishonest or incompetent.
And yet that’s really his only out. Just a guess, but if, hypothetically speaking, he’d learned during the 1999-2002 stretch that Bain had made a practice of poisoning the water supply in a Midwestern factory town, he’d have severed all ties, legal and otherwise, with the company.
But that didn’t happen. More likely, Bain went on doing what it had always done, and with Romney’s tacit stamp of approval. So he owns it.
- more -
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/cutting_through_the_bain_bamboozlement.php
Brian Beutler
<...>
The reason this issue is in dispute at all is because Mitt Romney wants full political inoculation from anything Bain did between early 1999 and 2002, when he definitely truly left the company. He wasn’t in charge, except in a narrow, technical sense; he’d delegated his duties; Bain’s business practices from that period can’t be hung around his neck.
If you’re not already belly-laughing think about it this way.
For Romney to be truly off the hook politically for the stuff Bain was doing, he’d have to claim not lack of control, but lack of knowledge. And that’s just not going to wash with anyone. He could try going the “I didn’t have even the slightest idea what the company I technically still owned was doing” route, but he’d be marking himself as either dishonest or incompetent.
And yet that’s really his only out. Just a guess, but if, hypothetically speaking, he’d learned during the 1999-2002 stretch that Bain had made a practice of poisoning the water supply in a Midwestern factory town, he’d have severed all ties, legal and otherwise, with the company.
But that didn’t happen. More likely, Bain went on doing what it had always done, and with Romney’s tacit stamp of approval. So he owns it.
- more -
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/cutting_through_the_bain_bamboozlement.php
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
to try to knock all of this off the news cycle. If he does a Hail Mary like McLame, it'll be for short term gain but long term pain and if he picks a milquetoast, this will still be a lead story....
