From what I can gather, the right-wing pushback on the explosive Boston Globe story is that Mitt Romney, notwithstanding whatever all those fussy SEC filings say, was as busy as a Mormon missionary in Gomorrah in 1999 and beyond, saving the Olympics; and even if he had wanted to pick up another few million for himself, through his toils at Bain Capital, he couldn't have--because he was busy, busy, busy, utterly preoccupied, absolutely swamped by his singular duties as Savior of The Golden Rings.
I find this an odd defense (not that the right has a better one).
Romney is campaigning to be president of the United States, the world's lone superpower and largest economy. And perhaps someone should tell Mitt's right-wing apologists--those peddling the Olympics alibi--that there would be days when he would have to deal with more than one problem, one issue, one crisis at a time. In fact there would be days when he'd have to deal with three, or four, or forty simultaneous calamities.
Mitt--or the right at large--thinks the Olympics were a headache?
Hah!
He ain't seen nothin' yet. (And he never will.)
He's going with the Clinton defense: It depends on what the definition of "ownership" is.
Posted by: Chris Andersen | July 12, 2012 at 03:22 PM
It would seem that the right's only defense on this is nothing more than semantics. It would also seem that Mitt Romney's only argument for being elected president is the Olympics. He's been running for president for how long now? Eight years? Is his campaign really so stupid that they didn't prepare themselves for this kind of opposition research or are they just banking (and maybe rightfully so in some ways) on the American electorate being stupid?
Posted by: AnneJ | July 12, 2012 at 03:31 PM