Romney Denounces Blind Trust As "A Ruse"

Seriously, there is no issue that you can't find Romney on both sides of. Here he is criticizing precisely what he's using today as an excuse for controversial investments. The man seems to have no integrity at all. Along with everything else, his lack of character will keep him out of the White House in the Fall. h/t ComfyPaws on Twitter.

"The blind trust is an age-old ruse," Romney told the Boston Globe in October of that year. "You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don't invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they're going to get an advantage from me."

Romney's personal financial filing showed that Romney's trust owned some potentially controversial stocks, including China Petroleum & Chemical, which has links to Sudan, and several gambling companies(including MGM and Harrah's, which were sold).

Comments

[Anna]

I read the words 'Mitt...blind trust', but my brain edits it as 'Willard...blindly trust me'. If a politician has no legs to stand on, does that make him a snake? Just asking....

[Ragspierre]

Again, Dan, really reaching here.

In context, Romney is guilty of using the wrong word (ruse) when me should have said something like "mechanism" or "strategy".

He goes on to describe pretty well what the blind trust is and does for a political candidate or office-holder.

[Ltw]

The aspect that interests me about the Swiss bank account link and this 1994 story on blind trust is that Romney appears to have the same trustee...Brad Malt. So, what is the philosophy of the actual trustee that is running the blind trust.

[ltw]

Finally found a link after searching for "Brad Malt" to an article giving info on what I want to know from Mitt Romney. He's the guy that can explain to the little guy what's going on in everyday language and reform in his area of expertise how all that money was moved quickly back in the crash of 2008, that left many investors with their 401k's in shambles. Everything is legal, but who writes the laws and with what influence?

"As a presidential candidate, Romney regularly touts his successful business background. But he rarely describes his unusual experience in the rarefied world of international high finance."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-mittoffshore17dec17,1,4761345.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true

[ltw]

My chief concern about all the Republican candidates and the GOP debate and nomination process, and in particular Mitt Romney since he has loads of experience in high finance and also as a governor oversaw "affordable housing" and also "individual mandated" healthcare, is answer what their solution is to say the Obama administration HUD reform (of which George Romney was secretary under Nixon) as well as other federal government programs which are complete and utter failures and Obamacare. Does any of the candidates see a path or the need to eliminate these programs at a federal level. This is what is so infuriating about the debates...stupid...stupid...questions about nothing. No solutions, no vision, just continued management and growth of the huge federal overreach.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=housingfinmarketreform.pdf

Sudden and relentless reform as Gov. Palin says. Energy Independence, Crony Capitalism, Reigning in Government Overreach. I agree with that vision. The only GOP candidate that should get one vote, is the person that will talk transparently and lay out fundamental reform reigning in the overreach of the federal government. The overreach resulted in debt and collapse.

I wish Newt Gingrich could be more targeted about what reigning in the growth of government entails, and a plan to get there. I did like how Gingrich said in one debate in essence...who needs a lot of these federal agencies...just have a targeted clear policy in a lot of these areas. Departments get lost in their own importance and add overreach upon overreach and get dazed and confused in their own interests, largesse and power.

Santorum did a good job of just sticking it to Romney on RomneyCare.

[ltw]

No apologies for being successful is not a transparent, specific enough explanation for me. Lots of people are familiar with the caps on contributions to IRA's. Romney can't beat Pres. Obama.

http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2012/01/23/how_did_romneys_ira_grow_so_big/page/full/

"Whether Romney used this technique, which is legal, when he put partnership interests into his IRA is a question that won't likely be answered when he discloses his 2010 tax returns on Tuesday.

Romney's IRA, valued at between $20.7 million and $101.6 million, as reported by The Wall Street Journal last Thursday, holds stakes in 13 investment entities run by Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he cofounded and led for 13 years."

[Ragspierre]

ltw, that last post was BS.

What Romney did with his IRA was perfectly legal, and has been done by many others.

[ltw]

I'm not saying it's not legal. It is. It's not breaking the law. It's all about perception and communicating well to influence toward more perceptiveness in the electorate. All I'm saying is I'd like him to explain it, how it works. Why can't he explain how the free market capitalism works to the everyday person. He could explain, even if he posted it on his website, how high finance interacts with investors to attract capital and then with main street. He could explain what he likes about the system and why, and what he doesn't like. All he seems to say is, I'm successful. I don't envy him, I just don't get how a person with his record and his lack of being able to articulate how free market capitalism helps keep economic freedom and creates jobs, using specific examples from his life experience to help bring light to the free market capitalism cause. Any leader worth their salt, so to speak, should be able to communicate core principles from what they have learned over time. I get a little sick of the whole "class envy" beat down (not from you, but from seemingly surrogates of Romney) when the what I want to know is about equality opportunity (as opposed to fair share) and level playing field. He's supposed to have studied and be experienced in free market capitalism, so communicate it. I'm pretty sure I'm beating a dead horse by now.

[Ragspierre]

I feel all that ltw. It is a poser, I agree. I could do it, and I'm not rich by any stretch.

I just believe in economic liberty, so I can speak to that.

[Emmanuel]

Code Pink what a bunch of iodits. They fit perfectly with the morons on the left. In Berkley I would expect this crap. Now we have the Democrat mayor of Toledo telling the marines to leave the city by six o’clock. The commander should have told the mayor “no” and armed his marines. If this is how the Democrat’s support the military, then the military does not need their support. Where are the presidential hopeful’s on this important subject.

[Amina]

"We don't need your so-called "military", pf1.Get OUT of our pogsresrive neighborhoods!"I would love to see how your "pogsresrive neighborhoods" do without their federal funding!!Who will pay for all your failed pogsresrive/liberal programs?

[Ryo]

Randi has aboelutsly nothing to apologize for and, quite frankly, I'm disappointed she disavowed the bit rather than embracing it. Parody and satire are cornerstones of good radio and this one is both funny and appropriate. In comparison to some of the outrageous bits produced by Paul Shanklin and aired by Limbaugh (much of it very funny) this is tame. As for Code Pink and Berkeley and Toledo protests, all I can say is, big deal! As one of the few former Marines who read and contribute to this blog I am offended not by the protests but by the archaic anti-gay attitude of the U.S. military. I served with Marines who I knew or suspected to be gay and they served honorably. One of those Marines was buried in Beirut rubble. Gay Marines, soldiers, sailors and Airmen have fought and died in every war their branches have served. And they and I served because we actually take freedom seriously... even the freedom to protest the military. Tell you what, you knuckle dragging neocons. Until you are willing to put your ass on the line and don the uniform rather than shaking and peeing in your frilly little panties as you rah rah rah America and wave your tiny flag and drive around with your pathetic little yellow ribbon magnet, your hystrionic rants are meaningless. You pathetic little nancyhawks annoy me a helluva lot more than mothers who protest war and bigotry.I didn't become a jarhead to get lip service from your asthmatic pantie boys with Reagan mancrushes, I served for those moms. Got a problem with them? Take it up with this Marine if you have the cajones. Oh, wait... that's right. You didn't serve because you don't have any. That's reflective of your anonymous postings. Typical.