But here's Mitt's real problem for the day
It's not the silly alleged photo gaffe. The far more important story is this piece
about how Bain Capital claimed in filings that Romney served as chief executive for much longer than what Mitt has publicly stated. It could be a case of him technically not being an active CEO after 1999. But in that case, isn't a CEO supposed to be active and so why name him in SEC filings as chief executive? ... Also, I didn't know he was the sole shareholder of Bain Capital.
-- From Reader AM:
"sole shareholder." This doesn't seem to jibe with story about how
Mitt was persuaded to run it. (These professional outfits are strange, though;
my son works for a law firm that has both "partners" and
"shareholders.") Clearly he wasn't the "real" CEO in 2002,
and I wonder if he wasn't the real owner either -- if Bain Capital was
structured on paper differently from its actual structure. If so, I assume this
might reopen some tax issues.
And I agree with Reader AM. It's a strange set up. He obviously wasn't the day-to-day CEO, especially during the Olympics or earlier running against Ted or later getting ready to run in 2002. The partnership/titles structures at these firms can be a little confusing and misleading at times. Let's see how this pans out. ... Andrew Sullivan makes some decent points
. But here's the thing: There are a lot of retired CEOs who sit on boards and become quasi-active with other firms -- and they all call it "business." And it is business. It's just not necessarily full-time business for them. So what else are they going to call it? It'd be dishonest not
to call it business.