As "Chairman, CEO, and President" of Bain, he damn well would have remained responsible for these decisions. In which case, saying he had "left" and implying that he had no involvement or responsibility whatsoever is highly misleading.Interestingly, Romney claims to have "left" Bain in February of 1999, and the aborted-fetus deal happened in November of 1999, so Romney et. al. are claiming that he had nothing to do with the deal, even though Romney remained President, CEO and stole shareholder. Interesting timing on Romney's claim to have left.
The CEO of a car company may not have input into the decision of what specific cars the company makes or where it makes them (though he or she obviously could if s/he wanted), but this CEO is unequivocally responsible for these decisions.
Similarly, if Romney was CEO of Bain at the time it made the Stericycle decision, as well as the company layoffs and other unpleasant facts that Candidate Romney would like to disown, he certainly was responsible for these decisions.
So, enough with walking a fine line rhetorically.
We're to believe that no one told Romney that they were going into the aborted fetus business. Uh huh. That's like me taking a leave of absence from AMERICAblog, but retaining total ownership and leadership, and Chris deciding to take the blog into the porn business without telling me. Or, perhaps a more apt comparison for a company run by a man who ran for the US Senate as a Republican: Chris decided to make the blog a GOP political blog while I was gone but still running and owning the thing.
Chris also raises the point of how you run a huge business like Bain when the President and CEO is missing in action for three years, but retaining his posts in the company. So Bain was rudderless for three years, rather than Romney temporarily stepping down as President and CEO. Really?