[Stephanie Cutter] Dem aide on Bain: If Romney wasn't in charge, who was?

"I can't let you do that, Mitt."

"Seamus, Seamus, give me your answer true..."

Evidently NO ONE was in charge----it just ran by itself!

paused long enough from their fawning over him giving them the interview to ask such a question of him. I watched cnn's interview and it was just a fucking joke. They let him try to reposition by turning his weak sauce "I want an apology" attack back onto the President instead of stopping him when he tried that deflection to steer the interview back to the fact that he was advancing a bald faced lie.

Not one of the veteran or "showcase" staff did the interviewing. Why is that? Was that a signed requirement in order to get the interview at all?

CNN - Jim Acosta (just promoted in 2012 - will he be John King's replacement some day?)
ABC - Jonathan Karl (former CNNer)
NBC - Peter Alexander (eventual Brian Williams replacement one day?)
CBS - Jan Crawford (she should know better)
Faux - Carl Cameron (I won't even bother with Faux because their station is... well... fake)

none of them are seasoned, veteran reporters--all young, easily intimidated, order taking myrmidons.

I was a waste of anyone's attention who watched.

Thank you for posting it. Stephanie Cutter is wonderful!

"If you're signing an SEC document with your own signature that you're the president, C.E.O.,
chairman of the board and 100 percent owner of a company, in what world are you living in
that you're not in charge?" Cutter said Sunday on "Face the Nation."

Watched the Sunday shows.

Ds are almost always worthless in the clinches.

Gregory bushwacked Durbin by having Kyle show in studio. Durbin is usually one of the least pathetic, but Kyle got the best of him.

Cutter was strong and also hit the right cues.

I get SO TIRED, being a nobody, seeing the clarity of their BS, and no one simply calling the BS for what it is worth.

The question that should be asked, flat out, how can you say he was not involved with Bain when he was legally, by documents he signed, the president, chairman of the board and 100 percent owner of the company?"

She asked that, then was sharp enough to follow up when the twit blew his crap - what kind of person puts their name as the president, CEO of the board and 100 percent owner of an organization and has not accountability for its actions.

Just displayed toughness, common sense and did not back down.

She clearly is not a democrat.

lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie..........................

Which is complete BS. Someone has to be in charge. It was Mittens!

People like facts, but make assumptions.

We had an acting CEO when our CEO was on leave. The acting CEO was a short-term guy. He had some authority--firing those on the list we approved, when he saw fit, and recommending replacemens. He was good for routine expenditures, per the budget. He had to make a lot of proposals. But that's about all he could do. Everything else was run through a 3-person executive committee. They regularly met weekly and whenever there was something else important they had to be available to meet within 24 hours.

There was somebody sort of in charge of really routine stuff. There was a 3-person committee of directors in charge of everything else.

Then there was the CEO, who was on leave. It worked for 17 months. Actually, it worked a lot better for those 17 months than it had for the previous 17 months.

Any high-level documents that only the CEO could have signed were either left to the acting CEO, if they weren't that high level; or kicked "upstairs" to the chairman of the board. But that's because the CEO's leave wasn't quite amicable.

so yeah, I'm going to assume that the person who signed the documents listing himself as CEO, president, chairman of the board and sole stockholder was the person in charge. Even if he wasn't involved in the day-to-day operations he's responsible because he signed those documents saying he was the boss. Why won't they just tell us who was in charge if it wasn't Rmoney? They are completely silent on this specific fact and will only say it was a committee so based on the facts as we know them there was no acting CEO. Are you aware of any company run by committee without one person making the final decisions?

when he "gave up" the position in 1999.

Sounds like Rmoney was in charge and the "transition" is a hoax. Otherwise, who was the transition CEO or head of operations?

I see it in the business and legal worlds within which I work. I think we all see it. People of Rmoney's wealth, status, and class - the 1% - believe they are also entitled to these positions, Governor, President, by virtue of their status.

These non-excuse excuses of theirs, short-sighted as they are, have always worked and they assume always will.

In addition, these people are bullies. They think, because they have experienced it, that if they throw their weight around, they can get what they want.

I think it is really good that the Dems and Obama are standing strong. It's they only thing that ever works, has ever worked, with bullies. Typically, Dems / liberals back down. Gore. Kerry. Dukakis. They back down to the bullying. This is the first I can think of in my lifetime (maybe since LBJ) that we are seeing the Democrats have a spine and give it back to the righties.

I don't know, maybe it was VietNam? Civil rights backlash? Or maybe just in our nature.

about this. The plain, irrefutable fact is, his signature is on records with the SEC. He can't call the truth a lie. Every time he or anyone who serves under him tries to tell the story of him leaving Bain in 1999, they're going to make him look like a liar, because IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE. This makes him NON-Presidential material. He can't even admit to something that any rational person can see is the truth, and who wants someone at the helm who refuses to accept the truth? What he's doing is showing that he'd lead this country from an irrational position.

rMoney is suffering from serious Bain damage.

There you go.

Who ran Bain after RMoney "left" in 1999 is the precise point.

n/t