Where are the FUD busters for this one? Or do we only participate in dispelling FUD from conservatives?
I only watched the first minute or so, but the first example they cite took place in October 28, 2010. Romney wasn't a part of Bain Capital at that time, so how can he be held responsible for that? Then they go on to say "[Mitt Romney] owns about $8 million worth of Bain funds that hold 51% of Sensata's shares. . . ." If I'm not mistaken, Romney's investments are in a blind trust and he has no control over what they hold (or is even supposed to know what they hold).
I found the editorial the video quoted from. It seems to indicate that his ownership of those funds has to do with his retirement package from Bain. Here's another quote from that article which the video conveniently leaves out (I assume, I didn't finish the video):
Mr. Romney had nothing to do with that decision. It would be troubling to learn that the candidate still had such power over the company and was willing to exercise it. The workers, obviously desperate, are hoping that the campaign’s need to avoid bad publicity might help them.
If he had nothing to do with the decision, how can he be blamed for it?
Here's the full editorial http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/bain-never-left-romney/
There's plenty of valid things to attack Mitt about. This just doesn't seem to be one of them.
But anyone who thinks he is not disgustingly corrupt is a deluding themselves. But then that can probably be said for most candidates.