HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » [Stephanie Cutter] Dem ai...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:43 PM

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

Source: CBS

(CBS News) The debate over when Mitt Romney left Bain Capital continued Sunday morning, as a campaign aide to President Obama hammered on the issue despite the Romney campaign's attempt to move beyond the discussion and focus on the economy.

The debate intensified this past week after media reports revealed that Romney maintained the title of "sole shareholder, Chief Executive Officer and President" of Bain Capital after 1999, when he said he left the firm to run the Salt Lake City Olympics. Obama spokesperson Stephanie Cutter said Romney's departure date matters, because his experience at Bain is "his sole rationale for being president."

"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."

"If he wasn't the head of it, who was?" she asked.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57472580/dem-aide-on-bain-if-romney-wasnt-in-charge-who-was/

27 replies, 5315 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply [Stephanie Cutter] Dem aide on Bain: If Romney wasn't in charge, who was? (Original post)
maddezmom Jul 2012 OP
msanthrope Jul 2012 #1
randome Jul 2012 #7
DCKit Jul 2012 #20
young_at_heart Jul 2012 #2
SemperEadem Jul 2012 #10
BumRushDaShow Jul 2012 #11
SemperEadem Jul 2012 #17
mucifer Jul 2012 #3
Champion Jack Jul 2012 #4
Botany Jul 2012 #5
Cosmocat Jul 2012 #13
Iliyah Jul 2012 #6
RedStateLiberal Jul 2012 #8
Igel Jul 2012 #16
RedStateLiberal Jul 2012 #18
wordpix Aug 2012 #24
ejbr Jul 2012 #9
cilla4progress Jul 2012 #12
freshwest Jul 2012 #14
wordpix Aug 2012 #25
truthisfreedom Jul 2012 #15
KeepItReal Jul 2012 #19
sarcasmo Jul 2012 #21
Kablooie Jul 2012 #22
avebury Aug 2012 #23
wordpix Aug 2012 #26
bushisanidiot Aug 2012 #27

Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:48 PM

1. We need wanted posters for the CEO of Bain Capital, 2001....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:11 PM

7. 2001: A Bain Odyssey.

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:31 AM

20. No dear, a milk carton: "Have You Seen This CEO?" nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:50 PM

2. He has not said who was in charge

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to young_at_heart (Reply #2)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 03:05 PM

10. that is because NO ONE in any of the interviews

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SemperEadem (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 03:54 PM

11. It seemed like 3/5 of the interviewers were wet-behind-the-ears staff

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 07:32 PM

17. I agree.. I think Mittiot handed them the questions to ask him

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:54 PM

3. That was an EXCELLENT 5 minute clip from CBS

Thank you for posting it. Stephanie Cutter is wonderful!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:00 PM

4. She's really good

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:07 PM

5. I loves me some Stephanie Cute-R



"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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 05:01 PM

13. She was EXCELLENT

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:11 PM

6. Mittens' surrogate lied

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:13 PM

8. Ed Conard claims it was a "management committee"

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedStateLiberal (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 07:32 PM

16. Why?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #16)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 07:42 PM

18. Because they won't tell us who the acting CEO was

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedStateLiberal (Reply #18)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:11 PM

24. plus there was a 3-year transition of ownership and Rmoney was the only one to sign as late as 2002

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

9. THANK

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 04:53 PM

12. This all stems from Romney's sense of entitlement

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 05:02 PM

14. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cilla4progress (Reply #12)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:13 PM

25. +10000, Dems are growing a spine, for sure, and it's getting stronger!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 06:54 PM

15. Flip Flopney has a serious problem here. There's nothing he can do but keep his surrogates lying

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 08:30 PM

19. Game, Set and Match... Obama.

There you go.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:43 PM

21. R money needs a quick distraction, hurry, name the running mate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:56 AM

22. Hey, that's my line!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:25 PM

23. K&R. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Sun Aug 19, 2012, 03:17 PM

26. all Madden could say was "Waaaahhhh," those meanie Dems keep bringing this up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Original post)

Mon Aug 20, 2012, 11:22 AM

27. Keep asking that question until we get an actual answer!

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread