Dear Greg Sargent, you're compromised

[ProSense]

Don’t go down the Bain rabbit hole

By Greg Sargent

Under Mitt Romney, Bain Capital — which he co-founded and helped build into a money-making powerhouse — invested in companies that were pioneers in facilitating the practice of outsourcing. After Romney severed his direct managerial control over the company, it broadened an approach originally set in motion by Romney — who retained the title of CEO and chairman for several more years — by investing in companies that broke new ground in helping companies ship jobs overseas.

Anyone have a problem with the above description of what happened?

Ultimately, when you strip away the argument over whether he remained actively involved from 1999-2002 — when some of the more controversial deals took place — that’s what you’re left with. And that description of what happened is itself likely to be enough to damage Romney’s overall case.

As far as I can tell, no one has established evidence that Romney had direct involvement with the controversial deals involving jobs getting shipped overseas. Is Romney partly reponsible for the activities of a company at which he remained listed as CEO and chairman, even if he was not directly involved in running it? That’s ultimately a matter of opinion — the argument over that question is a political one — and as a result, it’s a fair case for Obama to make (and for the Romney camp to dispute). But that aside, it has not been established that Romney was directly involved in offshoring. As a result, as Jonathan Chait notes, the original ads Obama ran accusing Romney himself of offshoring are false.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/dont-go-down-the-bain-rabbit-hole/2012/07/13/gJQAdayFiW_blog.html

"Outsourcing"? And yes, I have a problem with that simplistic and dismissive opening summary.

You see, Sargent has been pushing the WaPo factchecker's argument:

* Fact-checker says Obama campaign is blowing smoke: Glenn Kessler takes another look at the whole controversy and stands by his assessment that Romney left the company in 1999, and I’d agree that there is still no conclusive evidence that Romney had any active involvement in company decisions.

But in political terms, the broader question still remains: Is Romney really going to be able to continue asserting he bears no responsibility for and shouldn’t be associated with the activities of a company that listed him as chairman and CEO?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-how-do-swing-voters-view-the-economy/2012/07/13/gJQAY8qghW_blog.html

Maybe Sargent can contact Jennifer Granholm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002940521

Or ask the questions that even a tool like Mark Halperin is now asking: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/13/1109508/-Bain-Halperin-tightens-the-screws

But it's highly suspect to ask people to ignore Bain based on a bullshit factcheck (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002940773) and emphasizing the outsourcing point in his latest piece when Romney is being scrutinized for statements and actions that cannot be reconciled with the SEC filings is suspect.

Romney has a ton of explaining to do, and even more documents to release to clear up the question: felony, lie or both?

On edit, Josh Marshall can help with the questions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002940502

[ProSense]

1. Kick for

the "leave Romney alone" arguments.

[ljm2002]

2. It's the usual crap...

...from Romney, just like all the other CEOs who get caught with their pants down: "Who, me? I didn't know nuthin'. (shrug)"

So he's earning millions per year, he's the CEO and Chairman, but he didn't actually know anything about what the company was doing. Tell me, would you want that CEO running any company where you worked or had invested your money?

But this idiotic posture has a history of being successful. Remember Ken Lay? Well, arguably he was not successful in using the argument -- he died (maybe). How about Jamie Dimon? Dayum, he didn't know a thing about a several billion dollar loss, until it was far too late. It was "one rogue trader". Or how about Jon Corzine, of MF Global fame: he, too, had no idea that sequestered client funds had been used to pay off his company's positions just days before the company went under. Shrug.

These guys are PROs. The only question is, what are they PROs at? Because from where I sit, it looks like they are PROs at being criminals and not much else.

[denverbill]

3. Romney was the SOLE shareholder of BAIN capital. He was the owner, period.

He voted for the directors, if there were any, and would have a complete veto over any decision made by whoever was the titular head of Bain.

If he didn't like the outsourcing, he could have replaced the board and the CEO the next day. If he was ignorant of what was going on, how can we expect him to pay attention to what's happening in government, should have somehow become President? This company was virtually his entire life savings, and you are telling me he just ignored it while he managed the Olympics?