If Mitt Romney was not CEO from 1999-2002, who was? Why can't anyone in the press ask that question?

[Tx4obama]

I'm waiting ...

[snappyturtle]

1. Excellent question!

I think I'll join you....

[Rosanna Lopez]

2. CNN

CNN (eg. John King, David Gergen, Anderson Cooper etc.) have been defending Mitt Romney and Bain Capital all week and refusing to ask any tough questions about Romney's contradictory statements and the documentary evidence that has come to light so far.

I just Tweeted about a dozen angry responses to the various CNN anchors, not that I expect it to make much difference . . .

https://twitter.com/RosannaLopez101

[snappyturtle]

4. Good for you!

Welcome to DU!

[swayne]

3. THANK YOU !!!!!! Yes, WHY hasn't anyone asked that?

All these so-called news organizations MISSED that important question....the question that no one dare ask?

No wonder Romney avoided MSNBC....

[targetpractice]

5. It's shameful.... If you were the only shareholder (sole owner), CEO, and Charmain of the Board...

... of a private company, there is no way you could turn your back and ignore operations for 3 years. Okay, it's possible but it would be extremely irresponsible.

As the only shareholder, Romney's upside was tied to company decisions... Bad decisions could reduce or wipe out the value of his stock. His stock was worth only as much as the paper it was printed on until he sold it to someone else. Furthermore, as Chairman of the Board, he would be legally required to meet regularly with management and other board members and approve major decisions. In fact, the only reason Bain existed and operated was to make money for the only shareholder... Mitt Romney.

[ZombieViolin]

6. Great Question...

I have been brutalizing the editors at FactCheck.org over this controversy all week.

The President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board listed with the SEC is legally responsible for all decisions made by the organization whether he delegates them or not.

He could have been on a nod in an opium den for two years and it would not matter. His name was on the SEC form and that makes him responsible for the decisions whether he made them himself or not--he surely participated in the profits from them.

The next question I have will be about income taxes and tithe. I believe Romney would not short change God, but I'm not so certain about his ethical relationship with the IRS. I also believe he would not give anyone a dime more than he had to--it is not in the nature of the beast. So when I see that his charitable contributions are greater than 10% of his income I wonder a whole lot about it.

It would help to see the other tax returns to gain an understanding of what he has to hide. I think he does not trust his own party to give him the nomination even at this late date and he is not going to release any more tax forms until he is certain he is really in the running. Then he will hope that they are convoluted and confusing enough that the press doesn't have the resources to sort them out before election day.

[renate]

21. thank you for contacting FactCheck! and welcome to DU!

Boy oh boy I can't wait to read your future posts!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. As has been noted elsewhere...

I takes a grand total of one (1) interview with one (1) member of the Bain Board of Trustees to clear this up.

"Why no," he might say, "Mitt was just a name on the letterhead and I [or Bob Jones or whoever] was actually in charge of the day-to-day operations of the company. Mitt wasn't involved at all."

That's all it takes. It's been three weeks since the story first broke and we haven't heard a peep from anybody who is a position to confirm of deny Mitt's story.

I'd say that's just a titch suspicious...

[Tx4obama]

8. Not really. It can't be 'cleared up' because Romney was 'sole owner' of Bain. See comment #5.

When you OWN the whole company you are responsible for what a company does.

Doesn't matter who was there day to day working - it matters who the owner/top boss is

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. I see your point...

But I think if Romney was not in charge (only the boss on paper and others were running company), then one of those people could clear all this up by saying that while Romney's was the legal "owner" of the company, some other person was responsible for day-to-day operations.

Since that person hasn't stepped forward, one can only assume that such person doesn't exist. And that Romney was, in fact, in complete control of the company.

[Tx4obama]

12. But what would that matter?

Since Romney was the sole owner HE was the one profiting from everything that Bain did.

AND he was the person that ultimately let the folks at Bain do what the did - it was HIS decision (as owner of the company) to let those other folks make decisions.

So, even IF he comes out and says that he didn't agree with some of the things that Bain did it wouldn't really matter since HE is the one that allowed those folks to do what they did.

When a person owns 100% of a company they have 100% responsibility for what that company does.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

13. Responsibility is for Democrats....

Come on Tx4obama, you know perfectly well that Obama was responsible for every syllable ever uttered by Jeremiah Wright and for every misdeed of Bill Ayers (and anyone who he ever met), but Republicans can deny responsibility for ANYTHING.

Remember that old political adage about, "unless you caught with a dead woman or a live boy?"

Joe Scarborough
Larry Craig
Etc., Etc., Etc.

Republicans don't accept responsibility for ANYTHING. So as long as Mittens can say, "Sure I owned the company but I had no idea what they were doing," then the GOP Sheep will vote for him.

But who am I kidding. Mittens could say, "Yeah, I owned the fucking company and I'm GLAD they shipped your jobs to Singapore. Now vote for me, you fucking cretins, or the Black Man will still be President" and they'd vote for him.

[Tx4obama]

14. And ...

from your comment: ... So as long as Mittens can say, "Sure I owned the company but I had no idea what they were doing,"

That shows that Romney is NOT a good at running a business. And that is what Romney is running on - his business experience

Like President Obama say the other day: The buck stops at Romney

This is going to be fun

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. Jon Stewart should be required to give his paycheck to charity....

The jokes are going to come so easily it won't be like working at all.

[Kristina A]

19. Perhaps the Mormon Church was running Bain for Romney?

I have posted this on another thread, and I'm new to posting here at DU, though I've relied on this site for many years for insight. (thanks & appreciations!)

I saw an article posted here entitled 'How the Mormons make Money' from Bloomberg Businessweek, and one quote in the article really stood out to me:

“As we trade securities, all of the trading happens essentially with a handshake. … There’s lots of protections around it, but billions of dollars change hands every day just based on the ethics of the group—that people know that they can trust each other.”

I have been quite perplexed with the "riddle" of Romney's finances, and wondered myself why NO ONE was asking this question you posted. This quote led me to believe that perhaps the Mormon Church was assisting in running Bain during Romney's "missing years". I could be over-reaching...maybe with a tin-foil hat much to big for my own head. But, I wanted to finally take the time to post this, as I have seen several people's curiosity grow, but this hasn't been mentioned yet, that I know of.

If the Mormon Church was assisting in running Bain, then this would answer a host of questions as well as explain why no one is talking about it ... yet. Not only would this be devastating for the Romney campaign, it would be quite difficult for the Mormon Church to explain why they were responsible of outsourcing American jobs. It would be even more difficult (if this were the case) for Romney to explain how he intends to run the country as President withOUT relying on the Church.

Perhaps this is also why Romney refuses to release his tax returns, perhaps this is why Harry Reid decided to mention this the other day ... if the Mormon Church were exposed, it would be huge ... at least out here in Nevada where I live. And Senator Reid has a reputation for not taking well to corruption.

Again ... maybe I am over-reaching, but I found that particular quote from the article to be (possibly) quite telling. I have included the link to the full article below, and would love to hear others thoughts on this.

Cheers to all from Las Vegas!
~Kris

Bloomberg Businessweek 'How the Mormons make Money': http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money#p2

[renate]

22. welcome to DU! very interesting stuff!

I hadn't heard anything about that handshake trading or about the possibility that the church might have been more involved than just accepting the tithes.

This all just gets curiouser and curiouser... thanks for that insight!

[Kristina A]

23. Thank you for the welcome!

I'm not sure if I can take credit for "insight", I have just been wondering, like all of y'all, who was running the show and when I read that in the article, it seemed to make sense ... to me at least!

It is indeed very intriguing, and I plan on staying tuned!

Thanks again for the welcome!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. He was listed as President on the annual report in 2001

President and sole director, WITH NO DATE FOR EXPIRATION OF TERM.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/07/12/document.pdf

[Rosanna Lopez]

10. And yet

CNN (eg. John King, David Gergen etc.) kept saying all week that Obama was lying when he said Romney stayed beyond 1999.

[whistler162]

15. Willard something not sure of the last name.....

[Avalux]

17. And as a follow-up question:

Since you were CEO, president, sole shareholder, etc. during that time and say you made no management decisions, is this how you would run the country as president?

[Tx4obama]

18. Yep, that would be the final nail in the coffin :) n/t

[damaya]

20. This reminds me of former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson's SEC resume blunder!

IMHO... Sole Shareholder probably not a problem if that's all he was... but...

Sole director... that becomes a problem... a board of directors has responsibilities to protect the rights of shareholders... but this requires making some sort of decision... which could arguably in theory be delegated to...

The President and CEO... this is the biggest problem... especially when combined with all of the others.

The only way I can see them explaining this is if someone claims a "clerical error" or oversight on the SEC form.

Although, that didn't work out so well for former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson who allegedly disclosed he had a computer science degree on SEC documents, when he did not, and then resigned as CEO of Yahoo.

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240150181/Yahoo-CEO-Scott-Thompson-quits