What if Mitt Romney Ran America the Same Way He Says He Ran Bain?

Yesterday, an explosive report in the Boston Globe showed that Mitt Romney has been lying to us about the time at which he actually left Bain Capital. His biggest line of defense against the lives upended by Bain's vulture capitalism has thus far been that when some of those companies went bankrupt while enriching Bain's shareholders, Romney was no longer in charge. He says he left Bain in 1999, never to look back. Yet, SEC filings show Romney listed as the CEO, Chairman of the Board, President and sole owner of Bain until 2002, and was being paid a salary by Bain as late as 2001 and 2002.

The Romney campaign offered a contorted excuse after being caught in a big lie: yes, he was the company's everything on paper, but you see, he really didn't have anything to do with anything Bain did after 1999. Tortured explanation, yes. Worst campaign spin in a generation, sure. But for argument's sake, let's take Mitt Romney at his campaign's word. This is a guy who, while fully legally responsible for the highest decision making of an organization and not on a formal leave of absence, just goes AWOL and deserts the organization. That's according to Mitt Romney himself.

Mitt Romney has staked his campaign for the presidency - indeed his fitness for the job of President - on being a CEO. And by his own admission, he's the kind of CEO that runs off to do his own thing, abandoning his duties while keeping the title for years on end. So if he became president, when can we expect him to just abandoning the duties of the office but continue to keep the title? At least when Sarah Palin didn't want to be governor anymore, she actually resigned the position. Mitt Romney is worse - he will leave his responsibilities, but continue to claim the privileges of the title. Just great.

Again, that is not me saying it. That is the Romney campaign's defense against the Boston Globe story.


Like what you read? Chip in, keep us going.