Mitt's Bad Day

I learned today that yesterday was a particularly bad day for Mitt Romney.

NAACP Convention

He was booed at the NAACP convention, provocatively using the pejorative "Obamacare", which he said he would repeal. This to a group who, according to most polls, strongly supports the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Guess we can't accuse Romney of pandering to all the people all the time.

While he did get some applause during the speech (and, a standing ovation at the end) it's been reported that he brought "ringers" to the convention - conservative Black leaders who are not active in the NAACP - to provide the cheerleading. High-ranking NAACP officials confirmed this. After the speech Romney reportedly had private meetings with African American leaders, who he didn't identify. “I spoke with a number African American leaders after the event and they said a lot of folks don’t want to say they are not going to vote for Barack Obama but they are disappointed in his lack of policies to improve our schools, disappointed in urban policy, disappointed in the economy,” Romney said. 

Who was he talking to, his ringers?

In the speech, Romney said, “If you understood who I truly am in my heart, and if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president.” 

Point well taken. So, why can’t he fully communicate who he truly is and what he really believes? Is it possible that he has no heart and doesn’t have any true beliefs?

Off-shore accounts 

Another day, another barrage of questions about his off-shore accounts, his blind trust and his unwillingness to come clean by releasing more than one year’s worth of tax returns. 

Let’s be clear. It very well could be that everything he’s doing is perfectly legal (even if its repugnant to the rest of us). So, if it’s legal, show us. Is it that exposing the information is simply embarrassing? Or is there something more going on? And how will we know until he comes clean?

Bain 

New reporting by David Corn of Mother Jones (here’s the link to the article: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/bain-capital-mitt-romney-outsourcing-china-global-tech) suggests that Romney might not have been free and clear of Bain when he said he was. The firestorm about this is focusing on outsourcing – that Bain/Romney invested in a Chinese company (Global-Tech) whose business model is based on outsourcing manufacturing jobs from the U.S. But that’s not the real point here, as good the political theater is. Lots of people, even those in the 99% might have investments in companies that are not completely in line with their political (or even moral) views. If you have a pension, a 401K or an IRA invested in stock-based mutual funds you probably do. The issue is that there is could be evidence that Romney was still involved in these investments AFTER Romney claims he gave up any managing interest in the entities involved. The article provides a lot of detail involving a Bain-affiliate company (Brookside) and a Romney controlled Bermuda-based company (Sankaty), with shares of Global-Tech moving between them. Romney claims he left Bain in February 1999 to run the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and, as such, was no longer in control of these investments. But as Corn reports, "An SEC report filed on March 25, 1999, stated that Brookside and Sankaty at this stage owned 9.11 percent of the firm's (i.e. Global-Tech's) stock. Romney was still listed as the sole shareholder and president of both Brookside and Sankaty. If Romney was the president and the sole shareholder but wasn’t in control, who was? 

I heard Bay Buchanan explaining all this away on Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC by suggesting that these were just "titles". And that everyone involved has said that Romney was not in control. Everyone involved? What do you expect them to say?

To paraphrase the great Ricky Ricardo: “Mitt, you got some “splaining” to do!