Of course, he's responsible. But the way Bain organizes it's investments in companies is in individual partnerships within the parent company. The partners in the "deal partnerships" are the Bain professionals who found and negotiated the deal, and who almost always serve on the board of directors of the acquired company.

Often, those partners actually make personal investments in the deal, parallel with the larger investment made by Bain. The key managers of the acquired company that Bain chooses to retain are almost always given options to buy shares in the company when it is sold or taken public, often as much as 10% ownership. In that way, both the Bain partners and key management of the company have "skin in the game", and potentially can make a lot of money if they do a good job in turning the company around.

But back to your question. While Romney may have been CEO and sole owner of the parent company, he would seldom get involved in the operation of the individual partnerships. He'd get periodic reports, often quarterly with lots of financial detail, but little on operational decisions. As an example, if an individual company closed a division or opened a factory in Mexico or China, that would probably be footnoted in a quarterly report. But Romney would not have been involved in those decisions.

Surely, Romney could have established a firm-wide policy not to make any decisions that would either move jobs offshore or close U.S. factories. But remember, Bain is managing and investing $65 billion of other people's money. Those investors would have the purely capitalistic goal of maximizing the return on their investments. Any such Bain policy would have to be disclosed to investors and they almost certainly would not be in agreement with such a virtuous policy.

So, was Romney responsible? Yes. Should he have known about every bankruptcy or movement if jobs offshore? That's almost ridiculous on its face. Bain owns 79 different companies, some very big ones. Should the CEO be expected to know all the operational details of each company Bain owns? Of course not.

Romney is responsible for what happens in 79 different companies managed by over 400 Bain professionals and thousands of company managers? Sure, in much the same way that President Obama is responsible for actions by government employees several levels below his pay grade.

As an example, was Obama responsible for the Energy Department's investment in the now bankrupt Solyndra? Yes, it happened on his watch. Should he have known about Solyndra's financial condition or the apparent self-dealing by federal employees and Congressional family members? Should he be blamed for their actions? I don't think so, not any more than Mitt Romney should be blamed for Bain's portfolio companies filing for bankruptcy or sending jobs offshore.