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
Romney loses WaPo fact checker Glenn Kessler
The Morning Plum: Bain won’t detail Romney’s post-1999 role
<...>
Here’s something that will add to the discussion: Bain is refusing to detail whether Romney played a role in company board meetings during the disputed period.
Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, one of the toughest critics of Obama’s Bain attacks, has taken another deep look at the situation, and has concluded that there’s no basis for saying Romney had no role whatsoever at the company or bears no responsibility at all for its activities. Here’s the key bit:
No evidence has emerged to directly link Romney to the deals in question, so it’s wrong to say that Romney himself outsourced jobs or was directly involved in store closings or firings. But that does not answer the broader question of whether it’s nonetheless fair to hold Romney partly responsible for Bain’s activities during the disputed period, given that he was listed as its CEO and given that the true nature of his releationship to the company remains unclear.
Bain refuses to undertake a detailed accounting of whether Romney was involved in company discussions or decision-making after 1999. That’s the company’s right, of course. But as Kessler notes, now that some evidence of continued ties has emerged, the result is that it’s not unreasonable to suggest that Romney bore “some responsibility” for what happened during that period.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-bain-wont-detail-romneys-post-1999-role/2012/07/20/gJQAtoFsxW_blog.html
<...>
Here’s something that will add to the discussion: Bain is refusing to detail whether Romney played a role in company board meetings during the disputed period.
Post fact checker Glenn Kessler, one of the toughest critics of Obama’s Bain attacks, has taken another deep look at the situation, and has concluded that there’s no basis for saying Romney had no role whatsoever at the company or bears no responsibility at all for its activities. Here’s the key bit:
Our position has been that he effectively stopped managing Bain when he left for his Olympics job. Most important, without direct evidence, we have been reluctant to grant carte blanche to the Obama campaign or Romney’s GOP rivals to assert that Romney had a direct role in Bain deals between 1999 and 2002 (“Romney closed 1,000 stores…”).
However, a case could be made that, with his ownership role shown in SEC documents, he still bore some responsibility. (As far we can tell, Romney has never said that the Bain deals done in that period had problems.) ...
While we cannot definitely prove that Romney did not play a role in Bain deals in 1999, neither can the Obama campaign prove that he did. Our general position has been that the burden of proof rests with the campaign.
But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response.
However, a case could be made that, with his ownership role shown in SEC documents, he still bore some responsibility. (As far we can tell, Romney has never said that the Bain deals done in that period had problems.) ...
While we cannot definitely prove that Romney did not play a role in Bain deals in 1999, neither can the Obama campaign prove that he did. Our general position has been that the burden of proof rests with the campaign.
But Romney has failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had “no role whatsoever” at Bain. Over the past few days, we have repeatedly asked Bain Capital whether the firm could provide a statement that a review of Bain board meetings had shown that Romney did not attend any such meeting, either in person or by phone. We are still waiting for a response.
No evidence has emerged to directly link Romney to the deals in question, so it’s wrong to say that Romney himself outsourced jobs or was directly involved in store closings or firings. But that does not answer the broader question of whether it’s nonetheless fair to hold Romney partly responsible for Bain’s activities during the disputed period, given that he was listed as its CEO and given that the true nature of his releationship to the company remains unclear.
Bain refuses to undertake a detailed accounting of whether Romney was involved in company discussions or decision-making after 1999. That’s the company’s right, of course. But as Kessler notes, now that some evidence of continued ties has emerged, the result is that it’s not unreasonable to suggest that Romney bore “some responsibility” for what happened during that period.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum-bain-wont-detail-romneys-post-1999-role/2012/07/20/gJQAtoFsxW_blog.html
Is Romney still profiting from outsourcing jobs?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002969559
Tax professionals have doubts about Romney's tax returns
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002978581
Forbes: 35 Questions Mitt Romney Must Answer About Bain Capital Before The Issue Can Go Away
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalker/2012/07/14/35-questions-mitt-romney-must-answer-about-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/
Obama campaign memo: Unanswered Questions About Mitt Romney’s “Retroactive Retirement”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002956292
Yes, Romney Perjured Himself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002960206
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
is going to have to revise that ad.
