Mitt Romney: Trying to have it both ways on Bain Capital

By Richard K. Barry

Hey, stop reporting the things I say.

Here's a funny thought. Mitt Romney did the rounds at media outlets this past week to argue unequivocally that he had nothing to do with Bain Capital after February of 1999.

CNN listed the ways in which he said it:

"I had no role whatsoever in the management of Bain Capital after February of 1999."
 
"I left in February of 1999 to go out and run the Olympics."

"I went out and did that full-time, relinquished all management authority and role in Bain Capital after February of 1999."

"But the truth is that I left any role at Bain Capital in February of '99."

"And I had no role whatsoever in managing Bain Capital after February of 1999."

And then, when pressed abut the discrepancy between his own words and government documents that list him as head of the company between 1999 and 2002 and the extent to which that would be a distraction for the campaign, he offered a blanket defence of Bain's work.

"Well, there's nothing wrong with being associated with Bain Capital, of course."

But Mitt, apparently you do think there is something wrong with being associated with Bain Capital and you've been screaming it from the rooftops for quite a while.

Mitt Romney co-founded Bain in 1984 and ran it for years. He no doubt helped define its corporate identity, its ethos, how it does business.

Even aside from the absurdity of claiming to have no knowledge of the companies dealings after 1999 even as he was legally tied to it in government documents, are we to believe that deals that happened after 1999 don't reflect at all on the kind of businessman he was?

Either there is nothing wrong with the decisions made at Bain Capital between 1999 and 2002 or Mitt Romney should stop claiming at every turn that he had nothing to do with them. After all, there's nothing wrong with being associated with Bain Capital, right Mitt?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)