[cynwoody]

The contemporaneous article you linked never mentions Mitt Romney's name a single time. It says the "partners" at Bain did the job - and then it certainly sounds as if Bain leaned on those with whom it did business or in whom it invested to get the rest done (which I probably would have done as well). Leaned on others - not that Mitt or Bain partners were out doing these things personally

The job of a CEO is to make things happen, especially when there is an unexpected crisis. The fact that this CEO's name didn't appear in a contemporaneous account is of no significance.

The author of the NYT article was remiss in not checking who was CEO of Bain. If she had, it might have clicked — Oh, that guy. Didn't he run against Ted Kennedy a couple of years ago? — and the unessential detail would have enhanced her story.

[Scoutmaster]

The job of a CEO is to make things happen, especially when there is an unexpected crisis. The fact that this CEO's name didn't appear in a contemporaneous account is of no significance.

No, but the fact that he didn't individually do all of the things that the article says he did is of significance. Attributing actions to him, individually, that were taken by a group, is a lie. The fact that his campaign or supporters now feel they have to lie, and to inflate Romney's role, is of significance.

I suppose you still believe that Mitt Romney personally called every party Bain did business with in New York.

So you want to believe a puff piece written today to boost Romney's presidential aura more than a contemporaneous newspaper article (the one you called to everyone's attention earlier in this thread as proof that this event happened, by the way; are you now backing away from *your* newspaper article when it doesn't support the most precious facts of the SuperRomney fairy tale?).

By the way, it was a good thing that Romney *and all of the other people at Bain* did.