See, now that’s commitment. When you back out, you back the fuck out! Where is that kind of dedication these days? Huh? America: A country in decline because our candidates don’t have the good grace to die anymore.
Well, it is embarrassing to lose to a corpse, as John Ashcroft found in his Senate race.
I find the wording especially strange because there actually is substantial evidence that he had a management role at Bain after February, 1999. In fact, it is the very existence of that evidence that is the issue. What he needs is evidence that he **really didn’t **have a management role after 1999. If there is such evidence, though, he has another problem. In 2002, he insisted that his continued presence at Bain made him eligible to run for Governor of Massachusetts. So, if the story is that he wasn’t there, then he should have had trouble meeting the residency requirement to run for Governor. If he was there, then he bears some responsibility for the actions of the company during that time.
He’s screwed either way.
I like the 35 (somewhat repetitious just to drive the point home) questions posed by Forbes about the issue.
No wonder his dog shit all over his car.
Since this seems to be the thread to discuss this in:
I don’t care if he had any active participation in Bain after 1999 or not. He owned it, he’s responsible for what his business does. Every business owner knows this. If he doesn’t, one can assume the success of Bain was due to dumb luck or wrongful acts. One can also assume that he shouldn’t be president. You can delegate duties, but you can’t delegate responsibility.
“1. Are you contending that an individual can simultaneously be the CEO, president, managing director of a company, and its sole stockholder and somehow be “disassociated” from the company or accurately classified as someone not having “any” formal involvement with a company?”
Someone on Twitter who I can’t remember now mentioned this. It’s like Romney’s trying to audition for the position of POTUS by showing just how good he was at being a do-nothing executive at Bain. Huh.
And it probably should be noted that the “$100,000” that Romney took as salary from Bain all those years that he wasn’t apparently involved at all in the running of the business are actually “at LEAST $100,000”, since the top range category for salary in SEC filings is “$100,000 or above”.
Basically, the analysis seems to be that the income tax returns we HAVEN’T seen are political dynamite (or plutonium, take your pick). Consider that the McCain campaign got to see 23 years of Romney returns when they were vetting VP picks, and they STILL went with Palin over him. What the hell is in there?!
Laissez-faire?
Credit it due Nawth Chucka for the brilliance of this joke.
“I don’t see why I should pay for pizzas when I ordered no pizzas!”
[/Steve Martin]
I don’t even give a care. Let’s make Friday part of the weekend and give every new baby chocolate eclaires.
(that was for the Moxy Fruvous fans out there).
Mitt’s spokescreature says Mitt ‘retroactively’ retired in 1999 as of 2002 (got that?). I wonder if he realizes that would mean he was retroactively ineligible to run for Gov of Massachusetts; Mr. Gillespie, do you really want to run w/ the angle that undermines his only elected position?
Ay dios mio, as Mitt’s granddaddy might have said.
That’s the part that’s brilliant: He is retroactively inelligible, so he retroactively was never governor, and retroactively never implemented Romneycare and is thus retroactively not hypocritical for criticizing the near-identicatl Obamacare plan.
Coming attraction for next week: Romney retroactively doesn’t bully people in high school.
It’s not a good explanation since there are some contemporary articles that assert Romney remained invovled with Bain after he left to run the Olympics. But how exactly would running Bain have made him “ineligible” to be governor?
Getting back to the OP, what if he retroactively quits campaigning after the election?
**
Then I should imagine there’ll be a collective sigh of relief (certainly internationally).
**
It was NOT running Bain that would have made him ineligible. He “proved” his Massachusetts residency requirement by swearing that he was going back and forth from SLC in his Olympics thingie so he could attend board meetings in Massachusetts. There are about three different sets of sworn filings (SEC, FEC, MA state elections board) that contradict each other in this whole thing. ALL of them bear a penalty for perjury, and there are at least two different stories that have been sworn to in them. That’s the nub of Romney’s problem right now…one of those filings has to have been perjured, because they can’t all be right.
Exactly; Bain gave him the residential and financial ties to Mass he needed and if those are ‘retroactively’ misstated (or whatever they come up w/ next) he wasn’t eligible.
My guess is Spokesman Gillespie will lose his job soon, having come up w/ the ‘retroactive’ comment on his very own, sprung forth fully formed from the fever of his entirely independent thought. This will buy the campaign a week, two at most to come up w/ something the public will swallow.
From here in Utah I can tell you anecdotally that he’s losing Mormon votes a few at a time. If Huntsman had a vigorous 3rd party campaign you’d see an enormous Utah upset.
Romney’s problem seems to be that as long as he wasn’t telling the same lie to different groups, he wasn’t likely to get caught out. How often does the SEC compare notes with the Mass Board of Elections? But once he went presidential, he ran into trouble because the whole thing is higher stakes than just about any other position in the country and the scrutiny gets taken to the nth level.
Romney’s problem now is that there is essentially no way out. While I never really thought Mittens had a chance, I think this is the moment when it is basically a foregone conclusion barring some Obama-tastrophe.