Kidding, of course. But it’s not impossible. Back in 2002, the decision to formally challenge Mitt Romney’s residency in Massachusetts from 1999 to 2002 was quite controversial even within the party. Globe articles (these links all require a subscription to view) report that then-General Counsel James Roosevelt filed the challenge:
Roosevelt said Romney has shown a “pattern of making false and self-serving statements” to establish legal grounds to run for governor in Massachusetts.
“What we have here is Mr. Romney attempting to rewrite history after the fact,” Roosevelt said at a press conference. “Now that he wants to run for governor in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney is trying to turn back time. He can’t do that.”
Tell that to Ed “retroactively” Gillespie! Anyway, then-candidate for Governor and now-Treasurer Steve Grossman “said the residency challenge is not appropriate,” and several Members of Congress, including Barney Frank, strongly questioned the wisdom of initiating it. Later, when the challenge failed (as most expected it would), pundits like Scot Lehigh declared that the state party looked “picayune, pettifogging, and petrified” for having brought it in the first place. Lehigh continued:
both in his lame claim to have accomplished something worthwhile merely by pursuing the challenge and in the immediate decision not to appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court, Roosevelt lent support to suspicions that from the beginning this was essentially a pursuit of a political goal – embarrassing Romney – by legal means.
Steve Grossman, the only Democratic gubernatorial candidate to declare from the start that his party’s challenge to Romney was a bad move, summed it up best yesterday: “This decision is a victory for democracy and a rejection of the insider politics that people have had a bellyful of.” …
[I]n launching their long-shot challenge, the Democrats cast themselves as a bunch of antidemocratic spoilsports. Let’s hope they’ve learned a lesson.
I suspect that they have indeed learned a lesson, but it’s probably not the one Lehigh had in mind. Because by getting Romney on the record under oath about what he was doing between 1999 and 2002, the Democrats who challenged Romney’s residency supplied much of the raw material for the story that is now posing a major existential threat to Romney’s campaign for president. On the one hand, it’s difficult to imagine that Roosevelt and then-party chair Phil Johnston saw exactly this issue coming. But on the other, it’s certainly not that hard to imagine them foreseeing a Romney for President campaign, and thinking that getting Romney under oath about anything involving his finances might not be such a bad idea.
So one could well imagine Phil Johnston, James Roosevelt, and other Democrats involved in the challenge having a good chuckle right about now. Here’s a song they might enjoy. 😀
Yes, I certainly am glad that Romney said things under oath in 2002 that are coming back to haunt him now. This post, however, feels like childish gloating in the middle of a football game after one good play.
Thank you, though, for digging up that Lehigh quote. I find it painful to read his columns, and that excerpt is the perfect example why.
Over what? I didn’t make the decision to challenge Romney’s residency, nor did I express any opinion on it at the time. Though it’s now hard to imagine how MA politics survived, there was a time before BMG. 😉
Gloating on behalf of others?
It’s “we told you so” – and legitimately, actually, since at the time even Dems were being annoying about it.
by legal means
Diligence is not something that should be discouraged. So long as the resources required are relatively small, in a situation where the opponent’s challenge is the only way to ensure compliance, it doesn’t make any sense to me to “challenge” the challenge. Just let it run it’s course.
As of July 17th…
I think Mitt has a long road ahead of him but after the Republican primary and all the BS the left, in coordination with the Main Stream Media has done, being tied or slightly ahead is great.
I’ve heard people say EW being tied at this point against the incumbent is good news as well.
This was always going to be a hard-fought race, though the President is still leading in electoral counts. Because of the EC these national polls mean very little, and yes, I’ve said that when my candidate has been ahead too. Plus the usual GOP tilt caveat when it comes to Rasmussen.