re: #205 lawhawk

Greets and saluts from the NYC metro area. I’m heartened to hear that Romney has admitted that he worked at Bain from 1999 to 2002. But then retroactively retired (first identified as a big problem by yours truly here on Thursday).

Oh wait. He hasn’t. He’s been busy trying to get the President to apologize for making accurate statements about Romney’s business activities. If Romney wants to run on a business record, he can’t run away and say he retired for the years in question when he was still a responsible person for the years in question. The severance deal may address certain aspects of work, but for purposes of the IRS and potential lawsuits, he would have been brought in as a responsible person as a sole shareholder, CEO, and managing director as per multiple SEC filings.

Romney’s better bet is to try and claim that Obama’s going after Romney’s decades old business practices because Obama can’t run on his business growth record since being president, but even that doesn’t completely hold up to scrutiny. The economy has rebounded since the President was elected, but not as fast or as much as anyone would have hoped for. The GOP has contributed to that by blocking any kind of programs that might create new jobs - particularly infrastructure jobs, to say nothing of the debt ceiling fight and undermining the President’s economic policies at every turn.

However, watch for Romney to go and announce his VP choice as a diversion to dealing with the Bain Capital records. Easier to make positive headlines that way for him, and if I were advising Romney on this, now would be the time to let that news go.

Yep. Rumor says it’s to be announced this week, though I’d not be surprised to see buzz generated with teasers and then take an extra week to actually announce. Not two, however, not if he intends to keep the news off Bain.