There appear to be three general arguments trotted forth by conservatives in response to questions surround Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital: A) Romney wasn’t there after February of 1999, and accusations to the contrary are false. B) The length of Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital is irrelevant and a diversionary tactic by liberals/Obama supporters. or C) Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital is simply off limits from discussion/examination.
Let’s run through these in reverse order:
Thank Mr. Bob McDonnell for C, which is my favorite argument of all. I am glad to know that political candidates can pick and choose which topics of discussion or examination are off limits. This encourages me to want to run for public office…No. That’s in another universe, sorry.
Argument B is another charmer. Isn’t Mr. Romney’s business acumen and record of job creation one of his main arguments for qualifying him for the presidency? Shouldn’t we know whether or not he lied about his business record? Is his company’s record for outsourcing jobs rather than creating them not an important part of his business record?
Argument A tickles me nearly as much as the other two. Either Mr. Romney was involved with Bain Capital after February of 1999, or he lied on the company’s SEC filings and press accounts of his Bain Capital activities in 1999 and onward were also false.