So, Romney is alleging that he is a super-capitalist who owned 100 percent of a company -- and had no influence over it whatsoever. Conservative economic guru Milton Friedman must be spinning in his grave.
Why is it that when Republicans focused half of 2008 on what church President Obama attended it was called "going on offense" but when Democrats focus on Mitt Romney's "business experience," it's "negative campaigning" and he's being "swift boated"?
Barack Obama's campaign has given us all a crash course on the ills of Bain, but hasn't given us an alternative narrative of the kind of capitalism that should define the nation as we emerge from the financial crisis -- if, in fact, we ever do.
Just a decade ago, this nation began to dig itself out from the Enron fall-out. At the core of Enron and the impetus behind the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was the importance of knowing who's in charge and who's making the decisions.
If one has nothing to hide, why not release a set of comprehensive records (Romney reportedly, after all, provided the McCain campaign with 20+ years of returns when being vetted for VP)? The answer is simple -- Mitt Romney must have something to hide.