The story about Romney's tenure at Bain and his inconsistencies lies about when he left is a very, very big deal. This should be self-evident, but in case it's not, let me be specific. The core of Romney's campaign is that he can jumpstart the economy in ways Barack Obama cannot. He points to his time and successes at Bain Capital as evidence of his ability to lead. But those successes did not build the economy at all. They made really large profits for investors, but they left thousands out of work as jobs were shipped overseas or just eliminated altogether, forever.
One might think that a seasoned reporter like Andrea Mitchell (aka Mrs. Greenspan) might be really concerned about those lies, because well, aren't journalists supposed to be interested in truth? Please, don't bury me in your laughter.
In Mrs. Greenspan's case, it would appear that she is more interested in rehabilitating the notion of outsourcing than she is in actually looking at the snake oil the current presumptive Republican nominee is selling.
MITCHELL: What do you think the larger import of this is? In terms of Mitt Romney's career at Bain, what it says about himself. What are you trying to suggest, if in fact, he was in some role at Bain according to the SEC filings four years beyond when he says he left for all intents and purposes to go to the Olympics? What is the larger point, in terms of his qualification to be President?
In case that question isn't answered in anyone's mind, please refer to the first paragraph of this post. Really? Shorter Andrea Mitchell: So he lied? Why does that matter?
Stephanie Cutter answers pretty clearly. Again, refer to paragraph one of this post. That's followed by Ben LaBolt patiently explaining that it really does matter because President Obama's plan for the country is to reward companies for bringing jobs back to the United States, whereas Romney's rewards outsourcing. To which the intrepid Mrs. Greenspan asks this:
MITCHELL: Do you think outsourcing is a bad thing for the economy? Do you reject the suggestion that outsourcing is part of the normal ebb and flow of global trade, that it helps farmers in Iowa as much as it helps some auto workers in some cases?
The campaign's answer was to point out that we can either join a race to the bottom or lead a race to the top. It was a good one, but REALLY?
Do you think outsourcing is a bad thing for the economy? The magical economy with magical markets that doesn't give one rat's @ss about whether or not that family of four has to go on food stamps because the jobs moved overseas, or whether the only people who can actually afford a home are zillionaires?
Are we supposed to just overlook the care with which Mitt Romney has disguised his Bain career to deny involvement with outsourcing -- to the point of trying to bully a national news publication -- in order to have a meta discussion about outsourcing as a good or bad thing?
If we make stuff, the country (and the economy) does better. Forget all the argle bargle about "ebbs and flows." People work, they spend, the economy grows. When the work dries up, so does the economy. More to the point, this is about whether Mitt Romney LIED -- said things that were untrue -- in order to advance his ambitions for the White House.
Please, Mrs. Greenspan. Can we possibly pay attention long enough to look at what the candidate is doing rather than defending outsourcing as a global economic "good thing"?
Grrrrr. At the risk of sounding cliche´, this is why we can't have nice things.
One more time: Romney is lying. Either he was involved in outsourcing jobs and is lying to all of us, or he wasn't, and he lied to the SEC. That is a BFD, global economy or not.
