Slate’s Dave Weigel makes an astute observation about the burgeoning Mitt Romney “Did he or didn’t he work at Bain Capital in 1999 – 2002” story:
“…(W)ho gave people the idea that Romney had completely severed ties with Bain in February 1999? The Romney campaign! On May 14, bristling at the first Obama/Bain attacks, the Romney campaign (via spokeswoman Andrea Saul) sent out a kitchen-sink debunking statement. The argument, made VERY LOUDLY in bolded sentences, was that Romney “left Bain Capital” in 1999. …[snip]…
You can see how people got the idea that Romney was out, see-ya, exit-stage-left when it came to Bain. But here’s the weird part. The articles being cited (by the Romney campaign) clearly said that Romney had left the company but would provide some advice when it was needed.”
Mitt Romney’s role at Bain Capital after Feb. 1999 is a story that’s been building for at least two months now, and appears to have finally reached critical mass. (How do we know? Romney did television interviews today with multiple non-Fox News channels for the first time in months.)
Now, the Romney campaign has its own reasons for wanting to distance Romney from Bain Capital in that three year period. First, all the evidence we have so far is that he really didn’t do much (if any) work for Bain Capital in those years. Second, some of Bain Capital’s investments (like Stericycle, a medical-waste firm that disposed of aborted fetuses) in those years would cause trouble for Romney with social conservatives who are already mistrustful of him. Third, other Bain Capital investments (like Dade Behring’s medical technologies business) went bankrupt in the early 2000s, leading to the loss of hundreds of jobs while Bain Capital investors made huge profits.
Instead of answering those questions, Romney and his campaign find themselves trying to explain how the “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” of Bain Capital—according to its own SEC filings at the time—really had nothing to do with running the company. Despite the $100,000 he received in annual salary.
If, at some point over the last 7 1/2 years (or the last 7 1/2 weeks!) of running for president, Romney and his chief advisers had sat down and come up with a more-or-less coherent explanation for his role during his last three years at Bain Capital, he wouldn’t be stumbling to answer these questions. Instead, we may look back on this as one of the more spectacular own goals in the history of modern presidential campaigns.
Crossposted at: http://masscommons.wordpress.com/
Romney has been running mostly on Bain this time around because it had been the unquestioned part of his last three campaigns. Like many before him, it didn’t occur to them that the POTUS general election is like no other and everything is fair game.
It appears that the “Stop Stericyle” campaign is relatively new — organizing around 2/2010. Whatever public attention it got, I can’t recall that it made its way into major political campaigns such as Santorum’s and Bachmann’s or when the link to Bain was made. Or when the Mittster claimed that he had nothing to do with Stericyle because he was running the SLC Olympics. What’s fascinating about this is that who on the right would have questioned Romney and who on the left cared enough about this issue to question him? Yet, as David Corn had demonstrated, seeking answers to some questions can be very interesting.
Actually, one of the interesting things about Romney’s campaigns is that Bain always comes up…and Romney frequently is caught off-balance and/or handles it badly.
It came up when he ran for Senate in 1994, and Kennedy’s campaign more or less hung Bain around Romney’s neck like a millstone.
Shannon O’Brien tried (and failed) to use it against him in the 2002 governor’s race.
When it came up in the Republican primaries this year(!), Romney was caught off-balance a couple of times.
.
It stays private! [Your Dave Weigel link doesn’t work]
To be eligible to run for governor of Massachusetts, my attorney John Montgomery had to explain I didn’t own a residence in the state but kept my domicile here. The tax advantage of $54,000 for my primary residence in Utah was a minor oversight of my longtime tax advisers at Pricewaterhouse Coopers. I like to fire people, so I fired the guy and hired R. Bradford Malt because as governor I would retire from Bain Capital retroactive to 1999. I need to deal with that by securing future income through carried interest (legal tax loophole), offshore accounts and $100 million trust fund for my boys so they get a head start in life. I can’t afford them to be seen as poor for that is a disqualification in the Mormon religion.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Thanks! (I think it’s fixed now.)
Wouldn’t the fact that the Romneys retained the Belmont house they purchased in 1989 during their three year SLC sojourn have made the question of residency/domicile easier to answer? Was that not offered because someone other than the Romneys lived in that house from 1999-2002? Not sure why MA has such a strict residency requirement for public office if they don’t bother to enforce it when a weasel like Romney decides that it might be better to run in MA instead of Utah. Might as well join NY and welcome carpetbaggers for high public office.
.
Ownership of Belmont residence was not in his name, but house was kept in Romney’s wife’s name.
Did Mitt Romney Commit Voter Fraud?
[Living in California, he cast a ballot for Scott Brown in the 2010 special election in Massachusetts.]
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Am sure Mitt never declared California residency — that would have meant paying CA income tax. But Mitt seems to take the position that he’s a resident of wherever he says he is at any time he says so. That was good enough for the MA electoral commission in 2002; so, any MA voting eligibility questions about Mitt are a waste of time.
I like to say that Romnney is same for America.
http://www.erotikexpress.com