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
Let's say you were the in-name-only CEO of a corporation...
...(I know: "Whatever that is..." But go with me.)
Wouldn't you want to stay apprised of the corporation's activities, just to make sure they didn't do anything that went against your principles? And if you didn't, wouldn't that mean you suck as a businessperson? And if you did monitor your corporation's activities, and the corporation made reprehensible moves, and you did nothing about it, wouldn't that mean you suck as a person?
Even if Romney wasn't calling the shots (ha, ha), he gave tacit approval to everything that went on at that corporation during his in-name-only phase.
