The latest on the controversy from the in-tray. One reader underscores a "minor but important distinction":
I’ve noticed several references in the last few days to Mitt Romney’s receiving "$100,000 a year" from Bain Capital after he supposedly left the company. I think only once did you allude to the real truth: that the forms in question said that he was paid "at least" $100,000. Methinks it was likely more (possibly a lot more); but we just don’t know.
Releasing his tax returns would resolve this question of course. Another reader:
May I point out something that no one else has emphasized? If you looked at newspaper business pages 50 years ago, you would not have found the term "CEO". Back then, individuals in leadership roles in corporations had structural titles like chairman, president, etc. The term "Chief Executive Officer" came into vogue explicitly to answer the question, "So who is really in charge?"
It could be the president, the chairman, or even someone else, but the new description was created precisely to clear up the uncertainty. The claim that Romney was the CEO – not chairman, not owner, but CEO – while taking no part in decision-making, if it is not outright lying, is at least stretching words beyond the point where they have any meaning. I checked the timeline for the spread of the term "CEO", and sure enough, there is an academic paper (pdf) on precisely that topic. It confirms the chronology that I suggest.
Another:
Just to add one thing to the Bain pile-on: in the 2008 election, we collectively decided that a candidate can be held accountable for… comments made by his pastor! I didn't like it at the time, but here we are. Clearly, as a society, we've passed the point where a candidate can claim to hold no responsibility for the actions of the company of which he is the CEO, even if he (and Kessler et al) chooses to argue that the title was merely nominal.
Another:
Let’s stop for a moment and pretend everything Mitt and his campaign are currently saying is true. We'll call this "the best case scenario." Mitt left in 1999, had absolutely nothing to do with Bain from 1999 to 2002 (except to draw a 100k/year salary which I have neither heard them explain nor refute) and concentrated 100% of his energy on rescuing the Olympics, which we have to admit, ended up a success. In 2002 then, after the Olympics were over, Mitt retroactively retired back to 1999 and a new CEO was named, meaning that there was no CEO for three years.
This is their best-case scenario, correct? So their BEST CASE is that the founder and CEO left suddenly in 1999, without a succession plan in place, and therefore the company was left without a CEO for three years? What kind of businessman, manager or leader does that? Certainly not the type I want running my country, especially when his key selling point is his business savvy. It appears to me that even in his best-case scenario he demonstated rash thinking, poor judgment and an inability to effectively plan for the future.
Another:
Romney could defeat the entire line of attack by admitting that he did what was best for Bain and himself at all times. When what was best for Bain and Romney, he outsourced. When it was best to create jobs here, he did so. When it was best for Bain and Romney that it be unclear if he was really in charge so that he could run the Olympics without appearance of conflict of interest he did that, but also kept his place open with Bain so that he could return at any point if and when needed.
His argument should go something like: "Yes, I outsourced to make Bain a success. Yes, I was deliberately ambiguous with the SEC and the public about my status with Bain during the Olympics to continue to ensure success in both. My goal in either case was the success of the thing I was managing. This is what being a manager and a leader is about: knowing how to achieve success by whatever means that requires. As President I will be in charge of making sure the U.S. is a success with the same pragmatic and necessarily ambiguous approach."
You shift the attack from specifics to the approach necessary: "I will do whatever it takes, as can be seen in my record." I think this is the kind of approach some on his campaign think he is taking (including himself), but he will have to make it clear to the general public and then let them decide if that is the approach they want.
The Dish 