Let's Look into the Romney Affair

Of Mitt Romney, I offer ye all some words. I am not ready to dismiss it all as just lies and libel.

I will say, instead, while I want to vote for him, his reply has not been enough.

Mitt's been charged with some pretty heavy things. The current president -- that would be Barrack Obama -- has even wondered if he committed a felony.

And, it is a felony -- I believe -- to falsify a federal document. Romney is said to have listed himself as a "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of Bain Capital in 2001, and as "Executive" in 2002.

Romney has responded that Obama is not conducting himself in accord with how a president should act. "Is this the level that the Obama campaign is willing to stoop to?" he replied on CNN. "Is this the standards expected of the presidency of the United States?"

Such a reply is not enough, for me. Did Romney falsify a federal document? He is saying he "had no role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999."

Even an independent source verifies he was no longer managing Bain. "I was an owner, and being a shareholder doesn't mean you're running the business," he says.

I would not doubt the independent fact-checkers are verifing that. Although remaining owner of it, it appears he did, indeed, step away from running Bain Capital.

Alas, that document on file with the Securities Exchange Commission says not only that he was owner, but that he was chief executive officer and president. That is a different matter. It becomes a question, then, of whether it is okay to list yourself with the title, even though your functions with the company are -- of your own admission -- not such.

 Is CEO just a title? Is there no ethical responsibility to be functioning even in the least way as CEO in order to list yourself as CEO?

CBS interviewed a former SEC investigator and enforcement officer who said it is okay to put your name down as CEO without actually being an active manager. Does that mean we, as the public, should also say it is okay? Or, can we continue to look at it and ask, you had yourself listed as CEO, so you shouldn't you be functioning, at least in some fashion, as CEO?


It has been suggested that when Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2004, to establish his eligibility, he said he was still with Bain, that while he took a leave of absence, he was still affiliated with the company.

Can you have it both ways? If in order to qualify for running for office you say you are affiliated with the company, and if you are also listing yourself as chief executive, is it fair to turn around and say you had absolutely no management responsibilities?

Well, these are questions we should ask. No, it is not right to suggest we drop it all, in order that we not be involved in lies and libel. We deserve answers. 

(This post edited and updated July 19.)