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. :D