Politico reported yesterday's Enlightenment Offensive this way:
Up until today, Romney’s campaign has done relatively little to respond, beyond repeating the same claim that he left the company in 1999.
There's no arguing with (most of) that. Mitt Romney had repeatedly asserted the Sergeant Schultz defense that he knew nothing of this century's sordid business affairs, that his post-1999 existence was swaddled only in Olympic salvation, whence he came unto us politically, to deliver us from progressivism and conservatism, all things being equal.
That was Mitt's story, and he was sticking to it--but only, remember, Up until today, which would be yesterday, at which earth-shaking point Mitt flooded our antediluvian benightedness with this representative torrent of an awesome revelation:
I was the owner of an entity that is filing that information, but I had no role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999, not that that would have been a problem, to have said that I was with the firm beyond that, but I simply wasn’t.
From the Schultz to the Seinfeld defense--Not that there's anything wrong with that--although Mitt is retaining Schultz's counsel, just in case.
OK, I know what you're thinking ... that Mitt said the same thing last night, that he had "no role whatsoever" in Bain after 1999, as he had said before, and which he pledged not to say again, to "respond" again, that is, since "responding is losing," as they say, which isn't at all what they say, nonetheless Mitt went right out there, on five networks, and said precisely the same thing as what he had said before, nothing more, nothing less, nothing of any informational value.
Thus the real story here is actually one of a journalistic misdemeanor (I'm feeling leniant this morning): that of modified, mitigated pleonasm, in some minor degree. Which is to say, the first three words of Politico's story--"Up until today"--were in need of an unsentimental eviction, leaving, merely:
Romney’s campaign has done relatively little to respond, beyond repeating the same claim that he left the company in 1999.
Politico could have led with, "Once again"; but "Up until today" implies some fundamental transition within Mitt's defense, which in fact remains unchanged. Did Politico not notice?