I see that Romney adviser Ed Gillespie appeared on CNN this morning "to clarify the matter" of Bain, as The Hill puts it; which clarification entailed Gillespie's belching that Mitt Romney was so busy in Salt Lake, he had to "retire retroactively" from Bain.
This raises profound linguistic and philosophic questions, the affirmative answers to which would also suggest the existence of alternate universes. (Republican politics has actually demonstrated such otherworldliness for some time now, and far more convincingly than scientific theories). One asks, for instance, is it possible to dine now a while back, or presently brush one's teeth before now, or die today last year?
But you know what? In RomneyWorld, logic is only a matter of whatever gets Mitt through just one more day.
p.s.: Before someone notes that "retiring retroactively" is in fact logically different from "dining now a while back," I should hasten to note that the above is meant only to spotlight the writhing linguistic extremes to which the Romney campaign has been forced. The entire debacle would be impossible to endure, if it weren't so preposterous--and doomed.
Edward Conard, a former partner of Romney at Bain during the years in question (and promoter of the latest paean to laissez faire capitalism), provided what is probably the best explanation on Chris Hayes' show today: Romney was negotiating a buyout of Bain by his former partners and wanted to maximize his return from the "franchise value" he had brought to the company. Also, since he was the first to leave Bain, the terms of his deal would affect subsequent deals, so Romney retained his ownership until all this could be worked out. Hard to believe this took three years, but Conard said Romney was a tough negotiator and wanted a lot of money for what he had contributed ("Hey, I made all you guys rich!"). To be fair Conard is a major Romney supporter, and his view may be colored, but the fact that Romney didn't relinquish ownership until his payout was secure makes sense for a business transaction. Of course, none of this is to say that Romney won't continue to equivocate, prevaricate and generally diminish his "brand".
Posted by: R. Jacob | July 15, 2012 at 01:10 PM
If that's the best explanation, Romney's in trouble. How do you rephrase that in the form of a sound byte? Are low info voters more likely to follow that or are they more likely to follow "Mitt was the CEO, president, chairman of the board, and sole stockholder and he says he wasn't running the company? Who does he think he's kidding with 'retroactive retirement'?"
Posted by: mdblanche | July 15, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Ah-hahahahahahahaha!
The Obama team react to Romney's reaction to their hammering of the Bain thing:
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j116/fogiv/olaugh.jpg
Posted by: Janicket | July 15, 2012 at 05:48 PM
@R. Jacob: "but the fact that Romney didn't relinquish ownership until his payout was secure makes sense for a business transaction."
It also means he was still liable for what the company was doing while he retained ownership (which he's furiously lying about..excuse me, denying, now). Ownership means you own something, no matter how many ways Romney and his apologists trying to kick up a cloud of dust about it. If he was gone from Bain in 1999, he wouldn't be on the SEC forms, wouldn't have testified that he came back for business between 99-02, wouldn't have his signature on other transaction documents from the period. If his excuse is that he was a do-nothing absentee owner/CEO, well good luck with that Mittens. You jackass. Oh, and no matter what story he lands on, he lied at some point on this topic. It's a matter of record.
So, this is just more of the dissembling Kessler and the Factcheck hacks are trying to cling to to avoid the "oh shit we blew this one" statement that should have been on offer since Thursday.
Posted by: Turgidson | July 15, 2012 at 08:01 PM
I confess that I have never seen or read of a campaign quite like Romney's. It seems to be based entirely on distancing himself from his own achievements.
Posted by: Peter G | July 16, 2012 at 09:00 AM
If Romney signed a Bain document as CEO in 2001, say, and then in 2002 retired retroactive to 1999, does the 2001 document become unsigned? If not, does it become a fraudulent signing by someone falsely claiming to be the CEO?
Posted by: tamiasmin | July 16, 2012 at 12:21 PM
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive."
Posted by: janicket | July 17, 2012 at 09:38 AM