I never thought of it this way. Romney doesn't really talk of his time as governor of MA (2002-2006), doesn't talk much about his time running the Olympics (1999-2002) because, what is there to say. I think he did both of these things pretty well though not particularly remarkably. But still he talks about his time running Bain which he says he left in 1999. So what's he done in the last 13 years to qualify him for the presidency?
I tweeted this yesterday but I love this comment that James Fallows received, "If you weren't in charge at Bain in 1999-2001, who was? If Mitt Romney had 'retroactively' retired -- who was 'proactively' managing Bain Capital? Just a simple name -- or a committee would do. (Next question, why wasn't this person listed on the SEC forms?)"
I'm also finding it interesting to hear the comments about how badly Romney's campaign is handling this. I thought his campaign through the primary was inept as well. He never made a strong case for himself and I can't think of an instance where he handled an attack particularly well. He certainly didn't convince others to vote for him as his polling remaining constant throughout the primaries. It was just that all his competitors were much worse. For most of the other GOP front runners (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrinch, Santorum), he just had to wait a month until they proved themselves stupid or crazy. That won't be the case with Obama.
I also tweeted this but Romney is no teflon Reagan. "Not many people remember this now, but when Reagan was governor of California in the early 1970s, it came out that he'd paid no state income taxes – none – one year, despite being a wealthy man. And yet, he went on to run – twice – for the highest office in the land, without the revelation making any sort of dent at all."
"Meanwhile, conservative titan William F. Buckley charged to his hero's defense, in terms that would become familiar Romneyian parlance: "Somebody, giving pause to the demagogic imperative to tirade against wealthy men, should point out that if a rich man pays no taxes 'because of business reverses,' that means that he is – net – less well off than he would have been if he had paid taxes." Liberal columnists Frank Mankiewicz and Tom Braden weren't buying it: "What he really was talking about were the paper reverses that abound in the tax field, artificially created expenses and deductions which cancel out income and profits."
They were right, and Buckley was wrong. One month later, the Sacramento Bee broke the story of how things really went down with Reagan's taxes, and it was a doozy. The governor had contracted to have cattle he owned "managed" by a company called Oppenheimer Industries, which in its brochures advertised to clients with a net worth of at least $500,000. "Federal tax laws favor cattle if you pick the right kind and stick to the rules. Herds of beef cows top the list. When you buy them, you become a farmer and can keep your books on a cash basis. You put in dollars that depreciate or are deductible. You take out capital gains." Voila: newly minted cattlemen – their ranks, the Bee reported, also included Jacky Benny and Alfred Hitchcock – "lose" enough money on cows raised hundreds or thousands of miles away "to avoid or postpone payment of any income tax, state or federal.""
No comments:
Post a Comment