Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Romney's a Secret Yankee
And Other Tales of the Trust


George Pataki, then the N.Y. governor, lost a bet to Mitt Romney and donned a Red Sox jersey. But is Romney really a Yankees man? (AP).

Now that the assets of his blind trusts are public, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is facing lots of questions about where he made his recent millions--on companies that perform stem cell research, run casinos and do business in Sudan, for instance. The die-hard Boston Red Sox fan even ended up with an investment in the reviled New York Yankees' cable network.

Romney's defense is one well-used by politicians past: I had no control or say over where the money was invested since I created the blind trusts. "Beneficiaries are prohibited from directing the activities of a blind trust," spokesman Matt Rhoades said today.

A decade ago, however, Romney didn't buy that explanation when Democrat Ted Kennedy used it during their 1994 Senate race to explain a controversial land deal made by his trust. "The blind trust is an age-old ruse," Romney was quoted as saying back then. "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 disclosed yesterday that his blind trusts earned him between $17 million and $69 million in income in the last 18 months. His rivals for the GOP presdiential nomination are now picking through the fine print of his investments hoping to find examples that will drive a wedge between Romney and the religious and social conservatives he is courting

For instance, Romney reported yesterday that one of his trusts owned between $100,000 and $250,000 in stock in the biotechnology and drug company Novo Nordisk, which describes itself on its web site as an "active partner in national and international cooperative projects involving stem cells." Many religious conservatives, including President Bush, oppose the scientific use of embryonic stem cells because the cells often come from aborted fetuses. Novo's web site says it uses embyonic stem cells only in cases where adult stem cells don't work, such as producing in-vitro insulin-making cells.

Romney's trusts also recently unloaded numerous stocks--valued at between $150,000 and $1,165,000--in casino operators MGM-Mirage and Harrah's and gambling equipment companies such as Boyd's Gaming Corp. Many Christian conservatives--as well as leaders of Romney's Mormon faith--oppose gambling as a moral blight.

The Romney trusts also reported owning and then selling stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000 in the Schlumberger global oil services company, which was identified as doing business with the Sudanese government by members of Congress pushing legislation to end the genocide in Sudan's Darfur region.

Romney's disclosure report showed the blind trust in his wife Ann's name invested in a fund with a stake in the Yes Network, the regional cable channel that airs the Yankees baseball games and is a joint venture of the team, Goldman Sachs and the former owner of the NBA's New Jersey Nets.

It remains to been seen how conservatives accept Romney's defense about the investments made by his blind trust. Red Sox fans--known for their unwavering hatred of the Yankees--may be a tougher sell.

--John Solomon

By Washington Post editors  |  August 14, 2007; 1:14 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Strategists in
the Wings

Next: How Holy Art Thou?

Comments

The bridges are falling down, soldiers are dying and children still go without in a country that can well afford to do better - but we gotta see who is the biggest racist among the Republicans. If thats where they are gonna make their stand, just bring on Custer and be done with it. How clueless do you have to be to get the GOP nomination? Just look at the last ones, I guess...

Posted by: cmaexecutive | August 16, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Romney is a typical political prostitute. He would do anything to win. Maybe he has already checked into certain hotels for some fun. And he wasn't the patron.

Posted by: traveler255 | August 16, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

So, debwolfewv, you're arguing that we should vote for Romney so that you and your family might enjoy another pajama party on Pennsylvania Avenue?

Posted by: birdcrash | August 15, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a political expert or insider. I'm not a high powered executive or entrepreneur. I'm a middle-aged, hard-working wife of an honest law enforcement officer, mother of 8 children and grandmother of 8 1/2 grandkids, who has, over the years, through various mediums of service, gained a little political saavy and had opportunities to meet many of candidates we are all bantering about.

I just want to say that my husband and I have met Bush, Clinton, Giuliani, McCain and Romney...and while I'm at it...Ronald Reagan. The first time I saw Obama, I thought he had some potential...but we all know where that went! My husband liked Giuliani fairly well, until we met Romney, and got to know him!

Whatever your political orientation, few Americans would deny Ronald Reagan's influence on our country, and the world. He represented more than just traditional values, but HOPE, optimism, and a belief in ourselves as a nation. My husband and I happened to be in The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library a couple of weeks ago, and I couldn't help but feel how desperately we as a nation need a "Reaganesque" leader: one who embodies leadership and integrity, one who instills confidence and trust, and who, despite any foibles (we are human, after all!), is sincerely motivated to serve. Mitt Romney is the ONLY candidate who embodies all of these qualities.

At the age when most people are retiring, this full-time wife, mother and grandmother had to get a job to help my kids go to college, pay for orthodontia...pay the utilities...My husband has often worked 3 jobs to keep us going...Are we not dismayed by Romney's millions??? No way! Our "thing" in life happened to be grunt work in the trenches. But thank goodness some folks are called to serve in other ways...which include perpetuating healthy business and MAKING MONEY!!! Romney has made money for a LOT of real people...created jobs...improved health care and education...supported real life business...helped families...Thank goodness this guy's absolutely brilliant about business, and has a clear common-sense vision for infrastructure!

My children will not be "raised" by Hillary's village...(heck...I homeschooled most of our children into college!), and how quickly we forget what we felt as we all watched the Twin Towers crumble...

My husband, his father, grandfather, and our sons have served in the military. My oldest son, James, graduated from The U.S. Naval Academy and served as an Officer in Operation Desert Storm. We are as corny a flag-waving family as you will ever see.

But in a day of an all-volunteer military, sometimes young men (and women!) CAN serve their country best pursuing higher education, serving in their own communities, or perpetuating business on the home front to support those men and women who find their calling in the active military.

Attack Romney for his state's liberal positions??? (Gambling...pro-choice...etc.) Romney was elected Governor, not KING! He was elected to represent the people of Massachusetts, and he had the integrity and moral fortitude to try to strike a balance between his own personal convictions and appropriately acting in his position to represent the people who elected him. THAT should instill confidence on both sides of the aisle!

Above Ronald Reagan's gravesite is engraved this quote:

"I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph and there is purpose and worth to each and every life."

Ronald Wilson Reagan

We have been privileged to meet many of the presidential candidates. And we were privileged as a family to be guests in the Reagan White House. Mitt Romney is the real deal. Perfect? Almost, but probably not quite. The best choice to reinstill pride, confidence, optimism and trust in our nation? Absolutely.

Posted by: debwolfewv | August 15, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

gthstonesman, are you Giuliani's 3rd wife? i only say that because his first two as well as his children don't speak to him. Giuliani's shine will disappear once the general election starts. The 9/11 political car wash will fade away. Before 9/11 Giuliani was in the dumps politically. He was getting worked by Clinton in the senate campaign and used a relatively weak cancer diagnosis to weasel his way out of the losing run. The man has no policies other than saying "9/11" and "Islamic Extremist" over and over. His answer to our health care crisis is more of the same BS. Romney and Giuliani both say the problem is there is no incentive not to get sick. How dumb are these guys? Isn't living an incentive? As well as not going through pain and suffering, copays, and the inevitable arguing with the insurance company over the bills. These guys are both outside of reality. What are Giuliani's foreign policy credentials other than standing by smoldering wreckage (including his counterterrorism center that he so thoughtfully put in the WTC complex) and standing up the Iraq Study Groups invitation? Nothing!

Posted by: BlahBlahBlah314 | August 15, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

muhaha, evil republicans! Its good to see that most posters here know the truth about the party! Keep voting democratic because they truly have your best interests at heart and are willing to make all your decisions for you.

Posted by: AustrianOak | August 15, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"Red Sox fans--known for their unwavering hatred of the Yankees--may be a tougher sell."

Romney's affiliation with the Yankees is the least of his problem with Red Sox fans. He made himself widely hated during gubernatorial tenure here. Once elected, he immediately dropped his "moderate" guise. When he wasn't trying to cram right wing legislation down our throats to make himself good for his presidential run, he was out of state trash-talking Massachusetts and its residents. He is an unmitigated creep.

Posted by: nicekid | August 15, 2007 8:00 AM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney is Jeb Bush's fav candidate for prez. 'Nuff said.

Posted by: shapiromarilyn | August 15, 2007 7:26 AM | Report abuse

A host of curious events at the Iowa Straw Poll at the weekend has raised questions as to whether there was some kind of tampering with the final vote count, with evidence to suggest Ron Paul may have been wrongly placed in fifth position behind Mitt Romney and three second tier candidates.
It was reported by local TV news stations before the event that upwards of 45,000 Republicans would arrive to meet candidates and cast their votes, however this number was dwindled down to between 30,000 and 33,000 according to the Iowa GOP's projected figures.

The number of voters then decreased by another sizable margin to around 26,000 the next day, only for the final figure to drop EVEN FURTHER to 14,302 actual votes cast.

Even if the immediate figures of 45,000 and 33,000 were wrong and the Iowa GOP grossly overestimated the figures, with only 26,000 tickets being sold, this still does not account for the other 12, 000 tickets that suddenly disappeared. One has to ask the question why did 12,000 people buy tickets at $35 each and not vote?

In 1999 the Straw Poll, which was won by George W Bush, attracted 23,685 voters, an incredibly similar figure to the 26,000 tickets sold this year.

As we reported yesterday, it has come to light that the voting procedure was overseen the Story County Auditor's Office, the head of whom happens to also be a member of Mitt Romney's "Leadership Team".

When the electronic voting machines inevitably malfunctioned, many immediately became wary.

According to some reports 4500 ballots had to be re-run and the announcement of the poll results was delayed by over an hour.

Earlier in the week a group of Ron Paul supporters had attempted to block the vote based on concerns over insecurities in the Diebold machines, yet the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to join an injunction against the vote.

It hasn't helped Romney's case that swirling around the blogosphere are rumours that previous to the straw poll he was "joking" out loud that his team were going to "stuff the ballot box".

The plot thickens with further analysis of the figures. A reader to popular website Whatreallyhappened.com writes:


FUZZY MATH #1
So we know from the state Auditor that one 'problem' machine contained 500 votes. Assuming most machines contained a similar pattern of use, then they should also contain about the same number of votes. 60 (machines) x 500 = 30,000 votes. That is more than TWICE as many as the official count. Based on a total vote count of 14,301, if all machines were used about equally, then the average number of votes per machine SHOULD have been 238 {14,301 (total votes) / 60 (machines) = 238 votes per machine}. What are the odds that one of the machines that 'malfunctioned' and actually gave up an audited vote tally would contain TWICE as many votes as the 'average' machine? But it gets worse...

FUZZY MATH #2
State Auditor David Vaudt (who unofficially certified the vote count) said that there were only 2 machines out of the 60 that were inconsistent (paper printout vs. electronic tabulation) and needed to be recounted. Mary Tiffany of the Iowa GOP said that a total of approximately 1500 votes were re-fed into the Diebold machines. Since we know that there were only two machines that were a problem and one of them contained 500 votes, then the second machine must have contained about 1000 ballots, which is more than FOUR TIMES what the 'average' machine should contain based on a total vote of 14,301. It seems more likely that there were actually 3 problem machines, and the true average per machine was about 500 votes, which would have resulted in a total vote of about 30,000 which is twice the official total vote count.
Though it was reported that "there were nothing but Ron Paul signs in the crowd" and that his campaign signs lined the highways and streets leading into Ames, Iowa, Paul came in fifth place behind Romney, Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo.

Some exit polls also suggested that Ron Paul had actually WON the poll outright, before the final result was announced.

The Ames Straw Poll's results are non-binding and have no official effect on the presidential primaries. However, the straw poll is frequently seen as a first test of organizational strength in Iowa by the news media and party insiders. At the very least an investigation should be conducted to determine how significant an effect on the vote the Diebold machine malfunctions had and also why 12,000 tickets were not translated into votes.

Posted by: calumonit | August 14, 2007 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Best one liner ever in a debate.

Mitt Romney: Mr. Kennedy votes with the Democrats party 99% of the time.

Mr. Kennedy: Uhh the reason why I vote with the party policy 100 % of the time, I make party policy.

At that point in time. GAME OVER. Mitt loses in a landslide.

Posted by: jerryclause_72 | August 14, 2007 9:52 PM | Report abuse

"Blind trusts are ruse," nice catch on a another Romney flip-flop.
Obviously, though, he was correct if his trust has unloaded controversial stocks in the run up to his campaign, they could have avoided investing in them altogether to begin with. I don't buy that the trustees magically decided to clean house at the start of the run with no imput from Mr. Romney.

Do you?

Posted by: sfmandrew | August 14, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like the last episode of "Big Love", doesn't it?
Mormons do better at gambling investments than Gentiles.
Warms the heart, this does.

Posted by: jaerling | August 14, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Let me assure all my copperhead democrats, that they should not be concerned. we, republicans will ensure that whoever the nominee is eventually will have the enthusiastic support of a unified gop. I see Mr Romney's witty tongue is starting to scare them. I cannot wait for the election. I remind you of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the day after the election of 1864, when Lincoln was re-elected: he exclaimed "Laus deos, the american people can be trusted to take care of the national honor". mark my words, no copperhead democrat will be elected President of the United States!

Posted by: tiecorp | August 14, 2007 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I am proud to be an American when I see the way the Iowa straw poll seemed to cut through some of the hype created by the media that was in favor of the over financed candidates.

Back about 1915 or so we had a politician named Woodrow Wilson that accepted a bribe to create the Federal Reserve. They were a group of very powerful bankers and businessmen from around the world at the time. Through the monopoly of being the source of our money and by being outside of our government, or paying any taxes, they have built up a fortune that, I believe, includes owning most of the politicians of the world.

It is going to take a determined, We the People, to restore law and order in our government before we can restore law and order in our streets.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

-Woodrow Wilson

Posted by: Stokeybob | August 14, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Mitt is a nickname.Since it is better-sounding to me than his first name, I will not mention the latter. A blind trust is just that. Romney has no control over it-others manage it.He will be the Republican nominee-Americans like what they see and they will turn out for him.Giuliani and Thompson blew it-bad spousal scandals will move forward.It is a question of bad choices: G's driver's past, the new spouse, the Vagina Monologues' other spouse and the estranged children out there to hurt papa-too much. It is too bad. With the right spouse, better choices and restrained youngsters, he may have made an excellent president. Thompson's wife: first she is allowed by the Thompson team to be represented as an attorney for the Justice Department by not denying those reports-it seemed strange that someone with that background would be dressing in DC with plunging necklines on an overweight short frame-she looked better suited for being the Ms. 1984 Milk Maid pageant winner with her puffy cheeks and overweight short frame-Fred, who is very tall looks like a huge bear next to her-What was he thinking? Fred is a great guy but does not make good choices.Who started Trophy Wife to refer to this homely woman? She is younger than Fred, but no super model. Of course, if Hillary, the Democrats' sure fire nominee, wants to reward the crooks who brought us the housing fiasco-immediately give yourselves a pay cut when voting for her-and who failed at marriage, health care and even her daughter's preparation for a medical career, we do not want her. Years of watching her on TV while president gives some people nightmares-that is not a pretty picture-or even amiable. And then there is Bill roaming the White House in search of...Spare us that picture-Oh, let us not forget that the Clinton Administration let Bin Laden get away. There would have been no 9/11. Mitt's OK-he is a winner and he will do a good job.

Posted by: usa1citizen | August 14, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Red Kerry chokes again! I can't wait for the camera phone YouTube of him boozing it up at some fundraiser and the flip-flopping on how he is not "abandoning his faith".

Posted by: slimeddy | August 14, 2007 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Romney's wealth dwarfs that of any other Presidential contender. And like our current President, Romney seems to feel that jiggering tax laws to his class's advantage is one of the perks of being an American politician. As far as I'm concerned his investments are irrelevant, but his 250 million dollars and what sorts of tax policy he might propose in order to protect that huge sum is a matter the news media should be concerned about.

Posted by: birdcrash | August 14, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

But . . .
Yes he's rich, dapper, smooth, and business-like. He has a good speaking voice, steady eyes, and seems likable. But Willard Mitt Romney, as Governor of Massachusetts was haughty and political. He spurned the "paltry" gubernatorial salary, but by doing so he seemed to also forget that government officials (regardless of branch) are public servants. And he callously suspended state employee contracted raises so that he could cut taxes for wealthy Bay-Staters and show a balanced budget.

The well-known "Big Dig" project, already over-budget and poorly supervised under a succession of Republican governors, he blindly continued lax oversight. And the latest boondoggle, the health coverage plan so highly touted will soon unroll as lower-middle class Mass. residents face the impossibility of buying reasonably-priced yet effective insurance.

I'm sorry, but it was clear from the outset of his gubernatorial campaign that his true interest was the U. S. presidency. That self-serving self-promotion at the expense of a citizenry is not what we should be applauding. Each time I see him and think of what the American public will never know about this man I shiver.

We just had George W. Bush (well still have, eh?) whose interest in American democracy is pretty much the same as Romney's. Are we going to do again to ourselves what we've been doing the past 6.5 years? Or will we wake up and look clearly at who these people are who say they want to be President? It's time to ask: What's in it for them?

Posted by: Jazzman7 | August 14, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Romney is just another rich white guy who has "given his life to public service". Yah, right. We don't need another rich white guy in the White Guy House!

Posted by: mikie44 | August 14, 2007 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Embryonic stem cell research does not involve "aborted fetuses" at all. By the very term of the name, embryonic stem cell research, involves days old cells that will never be implanted and will never become fetuses.

Therefore for you to say, "Many religious conservatives, including President Bush, oppose the scientific use of embryonic stem cells because the cells often come from aborted fetuses." is inaccurate.

Richard Arvedon

Posted by: rd | August 14, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a swing-voting Democrat. Gov. Romney is the kind of Republican that I would consider voting for, if I were unhappy about all the Democrat candidates, and/or if I wanted to see divided government at some level.

So far, none of the Democrat front runners is very impressive. Hillary is too extreme, with her most recent proposals to Federally subsidize the current housing ponzi crisis, and Obama is too inexperienced in government to be taken seriously or trusted as the most powerful head of state on the Earth.

Al Gore seems positioned to enter the race at some point, although he is too possessed with notions of controlling global warming, which may very well be uncontrollable, to be taken very seriously as a practical minded President. The notion sells, but it will probably turn out to be misguided. The fact that it is controversial, and that Gore has embraced it as an issue, does not speak well for him as a serious national candidate, should he choose to become one.

Of the entire field, Romney looks perfect so far, as a dark horse that has made great strides in developing his positions on issues. Fred Thompson looks equally promising, as well. So I believe the presidential race ultimately will come down to these two, candidates, since they alone possess any credibility, Romney as a seasoned Governor, and Thompson as a seasoned Senator.

There must be a lot of bloggers trying to attach Romney personally, with their off beat attacks. I suppose that is why Thompson has not officially entered the race yet. This insulates him from all these morons and their irrelevant personal attacks, which Romney alone must bear.

We have already learned from recent history that you can be any faith, Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic, Jewish, or anything else, and still be a worthy candidate. That issue does not need to be re-hashed now.

Posted by: karlschubertcpa | August 14, 2007 6:28 PM | Report abuse

OK, maybe I am missing the point here. How can someone say his income for the past 18 months was between $17 and $69 million? Isn't that margin a little wide? $17 - 20 million I could see: $515 - 569 million I could maybe see: but, $17 - 69 Million?

Posted by: owenaja | August 14, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, this is another attempt to slander a candidate. But in the end people will see through it.

An interesting thing is happening in this year's political scene, and it's making some people mad. All you have to do is read the comments above.

But here's the evidence that people see throught this type of sneering towards Mr. Romney. NH and IA residents didn't know him at first. Poll numbers reflected it with single digits. But now, he's grown a double-digit lead with a third of all voters leaning towards him. He even leads by 15 points over the second place candidate in one recent NH polling. How can that be?

Some press writers say it's his money that's buying votes. The people in NH and IA are too smart for that. They do their homework and actually study the candidates. It isn't the Mormon thing either--most people get past that (unless there is hate inside). What people are saying is that they are encouraged with his successes. His strategies, management skills and core values message is felt. It may be true that money is opening doors, but it's the message that, in the end, rings true.

People like his stance against ideologies that sap energy from society. His beliefs center now more than ever on applicable, long lasting values esteemed by a strong, growing society. If we want the Rome of old, keep feeding Washington the way it has been.

People who rely socially on Washington won't like Mitt though. The big spending machine will be retooled and that will leave some looking for another job and others fending for themselves out in the free market. And better for it. Working with the enterprising goose always lays more golden eggs when given the chance!

All this wouldn't be exciting if Mitt didn't have his detractors. The producers behind most widely read newspapers and large media conglomerates can't stand him. But as much damage as they try to inflict with their pens, speakers or lenses, it has in turn persuaded people to check him out and, believe it or not, like him. Americans like underdogs. Even more so--they like to watch them win.

Posted by: jskousen | August 14, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Nice haircut/no values: I smell another bush-era republican. Tell us you're a uniter now, flip-flop romney.

Posted by: binkynh | August 14, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Forget the blind trust. The big question is, could we or the rest of the world take seriously a guy named "President Mitt"? "Mitt"? What were his parents thinking?

Posted by: dcuervo | August 14, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

while nothing about his blind trusts is illegal, he's a mormon...This means that he turned his back on his religion's values to make a buck. how quickly would he turn on our country's values?

more importantly, how could a red sox fan own ANYTHING related to the Yankees? That's heresy as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: remain | August 14, 2007 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Most of this discussion is just a feeble attempt at character assassination - including the column by Mr. Solomon. Apparently the desire is to look at the public documents as a way to trash someone that perhaps you don't like or know much about anyway.
Why don't you just be candid and admit it?
If looking at investments in a blind trust
is the only way you can create dirt on Mr. Romney, then he's kept himself above reproach. Mr. Romney has withheld the onslought of naysayers in the past and I have no doubt he will in the future. He a great leader and a deserving candidate for President. Let's keep things positive.

Posted by: mikepmcn | August 14, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

***"The blind trust is an age-old ruse," Romney was quoted as saying back then***
Get used to this kind of thing from the Mittster...he lies when the truth would do...and especially savor those mid-air flips and flops that he specializes in...just another pious liar trying to look wholesome but pus-filled and corrupt as any other thug just beneath the surface, out of sight, where the sun don't shine.

Another religious freak ready to "bring morality back to the White House"...remember that one from Dumbya's lying lips? Makes you wish for Bill Clinton and his intern-diddling days...at least he didn't pretend there was anything moral about what he was doing...

Wait until the media starts peeling the skin back on Big Hair's Mormonism....that should be loads of laughs.

Posted by: Jerryvov | August 14, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to know the context around Kennedy's land deal because it sounds like there is only enough story here to get the reader to take the logical leap that Romney's dealings are the same as Kennedy's.

Did Kennedy's political influence have a material effect on the land deal? Going off of Romney's quote it sure sounds like it did, but Romney probably isn't the one to ask about Kennedy.

Did Romney approve any casinos in MA while he was Gov? What about awarding state funds for stem cell research to Novo Nordisk? When was it discovered that the oil firm he had invested in had ties to Sudan, and was he an investor at the time? If so, what was his trust's reaction to the news?

I think it would be worthwhile to know what rules Romney did setup for his trust and how they have evolved over time.

Posted by: spam1 | August 14, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Another lying,deceiving republican.Keep up the good work guys and make sure you stay in Iraq until Nov.of 08.I will watch all you R's out there get crushed again in the elections even worse then in 06 and see you become the permanent minority party you so richly deserve to be.

Posted by: lindamdoyle | August 14, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Of course you can hardly blame the Blind Trust for this. The overseers couldn't possibly keep straight all of Willard Mitt Romney's position(s) over the years. According to him he's a pro-choice, anti-stem cell research, pro-lifer. He's a pro-gay rights, anti-gay marriage kind of guy. He loves the Red Sox, but investes in the Yankees. Clear as mud this Willard Mitt Romney is, ain't he?

Posted by: rrgreene | August 14, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

In this article you write, "Many religious conservatives, including President Bush, oppose the scientific use of embryonic stem cells because the cells often come from aborted fetuses."

Please correct this significant misstatement of fact. Embryonic stem cells NEVER come from aborted fetuses. They are derived from 5-day old blastocysts generated in the context of in vitro fertilization clinics. Any amount of background research on stem cells would have revealed this to you. Religious and other conservatives object to ES cell use because they are taken from a structure that occurs after fertilization. This embryo has never been in the uterus, and is a ball of about 100 cells.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Thomas Robey
http://hope-for-pandora.blogspot.com

Posted by: tom_robey | August 14, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Romeny is such a devote Mormon, he owns gambling stock.
LMAO.

THe only 2 things he wants from Mormons are their $$ and their vote,otherwise he wants them to shut the hell up.

Posted by: newagent99 | August 14, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

As he himself said, "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...."

Too bad he didn't follow his own advice. Interesting.

Posted by: Fxston | August 14, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in that Romney looks like a worse "flip-flopper" than Kerry. Not to mention, if you consider yourself a person of principle, why not do your own investing and avoid getting involved in blind trusts, knowing you might be involved in some questionable deals? I mean, how much money does he really need?

Posted by: hallv | August 14, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

People who truly know Romney realize he's a leaping lizzard.......he absolutely does NOT walk the talk and he's an elitist's elitist.

There many-many illegal business deals in his past at Bain - someone should expose the Boston Scienitific insider trading and other things that he is closely involved.

If you think Bush misled America on all sorts of things - like Katrina recovery, public education, IRAQ, tax cuts for the rich, and etc..... Just elect Romney - he'll make Bush look like an honest and transparent politician.

Romeny said his 5 sons are serving the country by getting him elected into the White House.....ha? His 5 sons should be serving in Iraq or as guards in Gitmo - Romney wants to double the size of Gitmo.

Romney - thank god - is not electable.

Posted by: go2goal | August 14, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm beginning to doubt Romney even has an ounce of integrity. The man clearly lives in a house made of glass, yet he's always throwing the first stone.

The only thing about him I believe is that he's a family man. Everything else is a politically expedient lie.

Posted by: alc0f7 | August 14, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Guiliani's business deals are even murkier with his business partners being a pedphile priest and a corrupt police commisioner who is indicted. And Guiliani has made much money off of dealings with Hugo Chavez's companies. Guiliani is a real corrupt poltician. And so it seems is Romney.

Posted by: goldie2 | August 14, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Romney is so far removed from everyday people it'll be another monarchy, this time by the Osmond like family. His encounter with the woman in the diner who questioned him about health care was eye opening to see his masked disdain. His answer to the questioning of his hypocrisy on the Iraq fiasco on his sons' lack of military service was classic deer in the headlights response. Just because a man is good at making money doesn't necessarily mean he'd be good at everything, especially being president.

Posted by: castillomark | August 14, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Romney's defense is one well-used by politicians past: I had no control or say over where the money was invested since I created the blind trusts."

...because it is true. Typical Solomon BS.

Posted by: zukermand | August 14, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

More, more, more! This guy is a shiny political opportunist from start to finish - he is the nominee the GOP deserves. I hope they get him.

Posted by: cafinch | August 14, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

GD! I know I don't have an college degree or nothing....but if something is in a blind trust, and he can't act on it, or know what he is investing in, does this not make it a blind trust anymore? So now he has knowledge of and he will set new rules governing his accounts, this is no longer a blind trust right? or am I just a noob to reality? Someone with a private school education want to inform some peeps about these investment programs or something, maybe do an article in the Post about it?

Posted by: Scarlofs | August 14, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Dear gthstonesman,

Hey look a commercial. Dip-wad.

Sincerly,
Phillynets

Blind Trusts are still Blind Trusts and they exist so the person can earn a decent return without having to ask every company to submit a "morals test" before investing. Happy, socially responsibile investing is a nice idea, until some idiot decides that these companies are really baaaad.

The casinos was questionable but not illegal. The Novo investment was a good investment. Regardless of which pharma company you invest in, someone is going to object to something. The oil servies company works all over the world - not just in Sudan.

What would be a wise investment AND a completely socially-responsible investmnt? Walmart doesn't like its employees, or something like that. Home Depot hires jackass CEOs. GM fights Unions. Peanut butter companies are screwing over Third-World Companies. Nike shoes are make by children who are missing finger. Boeing makes missles that kill people. There are several mortgage companies and home builders who have dropped into the Penny Stock Zone - and they are sleeze-bags too.

It sounds like Mitt's Trust was well-managed by people who were smart enough to ignore him.

As for his comments about Ted Kennedy coming to bite him in the ass - Good.

Posted by: phillynets | August 14, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Romney is too clever by half, when explaining things that don't fit the kind of candidate he wants us to believe he is. The only difference between Romney and Bush is that Romney is far and away the most intelligent and capable. They are exactly alike in the way they lie and dissemble. Republicans need to take a hard look at this man's history before they vote for him.

Posted by: Diogenes | August 14, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

It's dissapointing Romney no longer appears to be the progressive republican he seemed to be during his 1994 senate run against Kennedy and subsequent term as MA governer. His newfound conservatism is going to open him up to criticism from both sides, given his history including that detailed in this piece. 2008 is going to be the year when a moderate Republican is the only type of Republican that has a chance to win the Presidency. Romney couldn't have picked a worse time to "flip" to a conservative, in my opinion.

Posted by: smarty_pants | August 14, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The handwriting is on the wall with this one, friends.

Republicans are beginning to unite behind Giuliani because they realize that not only is he the most qualified Republican candidate on the ballot, they also understand that he is their only chance to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Rudy will soon have a unified Republican voter base behind him and he will also have a significant % of independent voters who respond well to his strong stance on national security and his moderate social values.

He is also capable of winning Democratic votes due to his moderate social values and this will ultimately lead to a fairly sound victory over Hillary, or Obama, in the general election.

Posted by: gthstonesman | August 14, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Romney is another Republican all Americans can trust. Thank you Mitt!

Posted by: vinnie777 | August 14, 2007 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company