Back in 2004 when we were thinking about starting a blog, a tour around the internet revealed very few other sites focused specifically on Mass. politics. One of the few — and for a long time one of the best — was Romney Is A Fraud. The mysterious “Ben,” who was the site’s only blogger, was very well-informed and very well-connected, to the point where it seemed like he must either have worked in the State House or had close friends who did. He was also very funny.
Sadly, the site has been dormant for some time now. But Romney is still a fraud.
The latest evidence of this is his recent voting habits. Romney, as you will recall, sold his multi-gajillion dollar home in Belmont last April. He has no residence in Massachusetts, and hasn’t for months (though supposedly he’s got an offer down on a condo). For now, when he comes to MA, he stays with family, like thousands of other people who don’t live here.
former Gov. Mitt Romney (R) voted last month in the state’s Republican primary to choose a candidate for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat using his son’s address and has already mailed in a ballot for the Jan. 19 special election.
Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said despite selling his home in Belmont last year, Romney never gave up his Massachusetts residency. When he is in the state he stays with his son Tagg.
WTF?? Who needs ACORN when you’ve got Mitt Romney?
(To be fair, the Herald quotes the Secretary of State’s office as saying that Romney can declare residency anywhere he wants and that it can be invalidated only if a complaint is filed. Well, great. Doesn’t make it right.)
Teddy spent his remaining days in FLA and didnt they set one the older Kennedys ( Rose, Eunice ?)up with FLA residency to escape MA Estate tax???
it is to escape the Massachusetts winter.
<
p>(of course, today, I’m watching Southerners crash their cars on ice-slick roads on MSNBC–crash-up derby!)
Do you think Romney is doing the right thing, or don’t you?
I think the Secretary’s comments put this to rest and I have no interest in filing a complaint.
But only one place at a time, I assume?
In some states, for some purposes, “residence” is the location that you spend 183+ days a year in or, if there is no such place, that meets some other criteria. I don’t know what MA does, or what the criteria are.
<
p>I wonder: is this the sort of thing that The Editors of BMG ought to pursue — to actually file a complaint about Romney? A little on the ground reporting…
Is likewise a fraud. Didn’t she just buy a place in DC? Oh yes, I forget, democrats are entitled. Gooch doesn’t make up for all the frauds and scams you folks have inflicted upon us.
do you think Romney is doing the right thing, or don’t you?
What a waste of time. What about all those seniors 5 months in Mass and 7 months in Florida and they are still voting in Mass! (although it might be warmer in Mass this weekend!)
<
p>Now if this was about Scott Brown, well that would be different
I suspect its more like 8/4… and those seniors own homes in MA. Given the tax structures, I suspect that they’d legally move to Florida in many cases if they really were living there 6+ months.
<
p>
<
p>On a side note, what is with all these GOP apologists using the “but he did it too!” excuse so common amongst six year olds?
My parents are Jan-May in FL, the rest here. My father was a firefighter, has a pension, so it’s in his best interest to vote in MA.
<
p>To the apologists on the thread: the Kennedys own their homes in Hyannis. Yes, Ted lived primarily in DC, because he was serving MA in the Senate. You can’t be in MA and do your job in DC.
The counter example is George Bush, senior, whose legal residence was a hotel room in Houston for years. His permanent residence has been Walker’s Point since 1980, but he didn’t vote in Maine.
“those seniors 5 months in Mass and 7 months in Florida”
<
p>Well, gosh, fdr08, I’d say those folks are spending 5 months in Mass, aren’t they? And they probably have somewhere to stay other than their kids’ couch, don’tcha think?
<
p>Do you think Romney is doing the right thing, or don’t you? Very simple question.
Didn’t Sec. Galvin say it was OK? A lot of Republicans don’t like Romney so at this point it is just “piling on”.
If he says he is legal by using his son’s address what’s wrong with that. Let the local city or town clerk make a ruling.
No, Galvin’s office took no position, as was appropriate since AFAIK no formal challenge to Romney’s eligibility has been initiated.
Students bounce back and forth, as do retirees, as do members of Congress. I know the party tried making a stink about his eligibility to run for Governor in 2002 based on his extended stay in Utah to work on the Olympics, but I didn’t buy that either. Maintaining a voting residence with family is fine by me as long as you only have one valid registration address at a time.
Retirees may have a couple of actual residences, and they can choose where to vote, but Romney has no residence here. This is nothing like the 2002 incident, because at the time Romney owned a home in MA.
<
p>You really think it’s “fine” that Romney claims his son’s house (more precisely, the guest room on his son’s 3rd floor or whatever) as his residence, even though he doesn’t, well, reside there? And even though he owns actual residences in other states? Doesn’t seem fine to me.
<
p>What if Romney didn’t have kids who lived in MA, but he stayed at a friend’s house when he visited? Would it be OK in that case? There’s no difference IMHO.
…especially since I’ve been in similar situations. In this federal union you should be able to choose your residence as long as you have the least bit of reasonable connection to it and only choose one for voting purposes. Yes, I think a family is a bit different from a friend. The Secretary says it’s fine so that should be that. Besides, making a stink about this seems contrary to the prevailing sentiment around here to make voting easier with measures such as same-day registration and universal early voting. Frankly, it’s petty and partisan and especially given the transition he’s in to getting his own condo I absolutely support Mitt Romney’s right to vote in MA? Where else does he live anyway? Your diary doesn’t mention where you think he should be since selling his Belmont house and I’m not aware of other residences where he’s spent more time.
He had to pay MA back taxes in order to run for Governor. Voting here without a residence is a stretch.
In the situations where I’ve maintained voting in MA, my income tax withholding has continued to go to MA as well.
especially since I’ve been in similar situations.
<
p>Probably when you were a student. But, like I said, Romney is a grown-up, or at least he plays one on TV.
<
p>In this federal union you should be able to choose your residence as long as you have the least bit of reasonable connection to it and only choose one for voting purposes.
<
p>Why? I don’t understand that line of thinking. MA has a perfectly legitimate interest in ensuring that the people who decide who governs us, and who represents us in DC, are the people who are directly affected by the decisions those people make. Which is to say, MA has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the only people who vote in MA elections are legitimate MA residents. Do you really want a bunch of teabaggers parachuting in, declaring MA residency because their great aunts live here, and casting absentee ballots in important elections?
<
p>Yes, I think a family is a bit different from a friend.
<
p>Again, why? The fact that Romney’s son lives in MA says exactly nothing about whether MA is appropriately Romney’s residence, particularly because he himself owns property in other states. I see no difference between visiting Tagg at Thanksgiving and Christmas, and visiting his old pal Fred, who he sees twice a year every year, once for the annual bowling tournament and once for the boys’ July 4 picnic.
<
p>The Secretary says it’s fine so that should be that.
<
p>No, the Secretary took no position and said that it can only be questioned via a formal complaint. Perfectly appropriate position for the SoS to take at this stage, but certainly not a stamp of approval.
<
p>Besides, making a stink about this seems contrary to the prevailing sentiment around here to make voting easier with measures such as same-day registration and universal early voting.
<
p>Nonsense. The prevailing sentiment is to make it easier for people who live here to vote in elections that affect them. Nobody “around here” has any interest in making it easier for out-of-staters to inappropriately vote in MA elections.
<
p>Where else does he live anyway?
<
p>Um, how about where he owns a house? Which would be NH or CA?
<
p>I’m not aware of other residences where he’s spent more time.
<
p>I don’t know the exact number of days that Romney has spent in his other properties vs. the number of days he’s spent in Tagg’s guest room. But I don’t see how that’s relevant. He has no residence here; he does have residences in other states. That’s why the counter-examples about students, snowbirds, renters, etc. all fail as analogies. None of them concern people who actually own property in other states but don’t own property here. Residency is a slippery concept, but that seems to me a fairly easy bright line. (And note that back when he ran for Governor, Romney had continuously owned his Belmont house for many years, even though he had relocated to Utah to run the Olympics.)
I personally have no problem and stand by what I said.
but I’ve raised substantive objections to your positions. If you don’t want to defend them, that’s your prerogative, but just “agreeing to disagree” isn’t the same as defending your view on the merits.
You don’t like my reasoning, then that’s your prerogative. What it comes down to for me is simply I DON’T CARE!
Well, great. Can’t argue with that. Except to note that in most cases, we have laws for a reason, and it’s someone’s job to care that they’re enforced.
It is absurd to argue that Mitt Romney should be able to vote in Massachusetts when he doesn’t live here. The man had to jump legal handsprings to establish his residency prior to choosing to run — he had declared himself a Utah resident and, as I recall, filed “incorrect” tax returns that his legal team scurried to clean up when his Massachusetts residency status was rightfully challenged while he was preparing to rescue the Massachusetts GOP from the prospect of Jane Swift running as an incumbent.
<
p>The rightwing and teabaggers are fond of recycling the old “taxation without representation” meme in all sorts of inappropriate places. Mitt Romney pays no taxes in Massachusetts, has no legitimate claim to residency, yet still wants to vote here.
<
p>Is this “representation without taxation”, or is he just a plain old-fashioned Carpetbagger?
not really. Like most rich people, he lives with his money, everywhere and nowhere, in cyberspace or whatever abstraction.
<
p>So if His Expediency says he lives in Utah, or Belmont, or Atlantis, he does. At the same time, though, he doesn’t really live anywhere.
we should embrace what it will bring to his state… MA.
<
p>If Mitt has a permanent residence somewhere else and votes there, but then votes in MA then I think you would have a beef. But he doesn’t and hasn’t. How long after you sell your house in MA are you no longer able to vote here? Do you need to own a home in MA to vote? Don’t we have thousands of people who travel the country, visit family members but still vote in MA? I know many people with Florida and CA homes, but they vote here.
<
p>I think you’re dissecting a gnat here and would be treating a Dem far differently.
<
p>I believe MA has No durational residency requirement for voting.
…except for refering to Romney as the next President:)
complain about people like Hilary Clinton moving to NY quickly so she can run for a Senate seat.
Oh that’s right. She moved to NY before becoming a candidate.
<
p>Romney moved out of MA and still votes here. Quite different indeed.
<
p>Ooh! Look at the shiny thing!
It’s OK to vote in this state, but pay taxes to another state and not here?
<
p>Interesting.
Since when is property ownership a requirement for residency?
<
p>Wasn’t there some kind of MOVEMENT to establish the franchise for those who didn’t own property?
<
p>A person declares residency and provides an address. Students, retirees, all the examples provided, did the same thing not to mention the millions of apartmen renters in Mass.
<
p>Mitt regards Mass. as his home. He lived here most of his life, raised his family here, etc. He had a place in Mashpee as well as the home in belmont, and owns houses in other states as well.
<
p>Are you arguing that BECAUSE he owns houses in other states, he cannot consider himself a resident? That he must be a Mass. homeowner to be a true resident? Because unless you own one yourself, then neither are you. You makes your declaration and you takes your chances.
You’re latching onto part of his argument while ignoring the rest.
<
p>Of course you don’t have to own property to vote. You do have to be a resident.
<
p>Mitt Romney is not a resident because he has been a resident in the past — which is the crux of your argument. Furthermore, Mitt Romney isn’t a resident merely because he claims to be a resident.
<
p>So, to answer your question: No. There was not a movement to establish the franchise for those who didn’t own property. There was, however, a movement to establish the franchise for adults residing in the district who didn’t own property.
Of course I am not taking the idiotic position that one must own property in MA in order to vote here.
<
p>Renters live here. Snowbirds live here at least part of the year. Non-commuting students are a special case – they sort of live at school, but their only real residence is their parents’ house. None of that has any relevance to Romney’s situation.
<
p>Who cares whether Mitt “regards Mass. as his home”? If I “regarded” Ohio as my home during the 08 election because it was a swing state, would that entitle me to vote there instead of here? Who cares if he raised his kids here decades ago, and if he “had” a place in Mashpee and Belmont? “Had” is the operative word. He sold them. He’s gone. He has no residence here, rented, owned, or otherwise.
<
p>
<
p>No — unless he has no residence in MA, either owned or rented. Oh, gosh, look at that! He doesn’t!
<
p>If this were a Democrat, PP, you would be howling bloody murder. But it’s your friend Mitt, so you’re defending the indefensible.
<
p>And you still haven’t answered me “directly,” even though you claimed you would.
is with the words “sort of.” As in, I’d remove them completely. Students do live at school. They pay for housing, eat three meals a day in that community, and most days don’t actually leave the particular city or town they’re in. They visit family on Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, and summer elsewhere.
<
p>Why the “sort of”?
Only thing I would say, by way of personal anecdote or whatever, is that when I (mis)spent a couple of years in Hyde Park, IL, I took very little interest in either IL or Chicago politics, and didn’t vote in any Illinois elections while I was out there. Knowing that I would probably be returning to MA after four years (or less, as it turned out), I still felt more invested in my community of origin, and I think I actually voted in a Boston election by absentee ballot while I was away. It seems fair for students to be able to choose whether they want to switch their residency to the new location or not, so long as they don’t try to vote in both places in the same year. I’d be interested to learn how many Boston undergraduates from NY or CA or wherever cared enough to participate in the recent mayoral election. I’ll bet not many.
Maybe this is me being hypersensitive to student voting issues. Maybe this is me being an engineer. But…
<
p>
<
p>Frankly, that’s still too restrictive. I’m going to vote in January 19th in the town I live in now. I could easily move in February to another MA town and register in time for local May elections. Then, I could move again and end up voting in a special election in November. Three different municipalities in the same year. Unlikely, but certainly not illegal, immoral, or unethical.
<
p>Yet, you’ve set a different standard for students.
<
p>A student is perfectly entitled to change his or her “residence” status multiple times in a year, just as any other citizen. The caveat, of course, is that you can’t vote twice in the same election.
Maintain multiple “theoretical” residences, could take unfair advantage of this? A roving band of fanatical homophobes masquerading as itinerant scholars for instance? Register for a class at BU in time to vote for Brown, then off to the next “residence” to vote in a referendum on same-sex marriage, etc. Think inverted Tom Joads: “Wherever there are people struggling to be free, we’ll be there…to vote against them.”
Students are eligible to vote where they go to school.
<
p>I don’t have time right now to chase the specific cites, but I remember quite clearly that several states (including MA, as I recall) tried to claim that students could not vote in the towns where they attended school. That claim was soundly rejected by the courts, following precisely the reasoning the stomv offers.
<
p>Don’t forget that this was set up when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 during the Viet Nam era. The brouhaha about student voting happened as a backlash to that change. That single change — making virtually every full-time student (instead of just the seniors) a potential voter — transformed the local politics of a great many “college towns”. Local officials were terrified that all those students would “change” the towns that had been happy to take their money for decades.
<
p>I will assure you that, along the way, more than a few local-yokel police departments got very stern marching orders from more than few elected officials when those officials realized that beating the bejezus out of voters exercising their constitutional rights of free speech was not good politics for those who ostensibly managed the local police.
<
p>There is a world of difference between the way the Cambridge police department treats students today and their behavior in 1972. The 18 year old voting age goes a long way towards explaining why.
I have no idea where Mitt Romney files state tax returns, but I would strongly suspect that he files in MA. He is a statutory resident in MA if he spends 183 days or more in MA, but he also must file a MA personal imcome tax return if he has his domicile in MA. Domicile, once established, continues until a new domicile is established. There is no question that Mitt Romney was domiciled in MA in 2006, when he owned his residence in Belmont and was employed in MA. Unless he has established domicile somewhere else, he is still a MA domiciliary and owes MA personal income taxes. And if he’s still registered to vote in MA then he probably hasn’t established domicile anywhere else.
<
p>I don’t know whether the laws regarding residency and domicile for tax purposes affect MA election laws. But for what it’s worth, Mitt Romney likely pays MA personal income tax.
If he has earned income from speaking engagements or other employment in another state then he owes tax to the state where he earns the income. But he owes taxes on his whole income (including interest, capital gains, etc) in the state where he is domiciled, and can take credits for taxes paid to any other state.
He does not live here.
A person can only have ONE domicile and it continues until a new domicile is established. He was clearly domiciled in MA in 2006. Therefore, he would have to establish domicile in another state in order to abandon his MA domicile. Simply selling your MA house and owning property in other states is not enough to change your domicile. Domicile takes many factors into consideration, like:
What state issued your drivers license?
Where are you registered to vote?
Where are your cars registered?
Where is your job?
Where are your bank accounts?
Where are your doctors?
Where are your friends and family?
Where do you spend holidays?
Where have you made arrangements to be buried after you die?
Where do you keep your “near and dear” items? (i.e. keepsakes, photos,important paperwork, anything with sentimental value, etc.)
Where are you members of clubs or organizations? (i.e. country club, book club, gym, religious organization, etc.)
Where are you involved in civic or community activities? (i.e. charitable organization, volunteering, political or governmental activity)
Basically, all the factors that you would consider when someone asks the nebulous question: Where is your life?
<
p>If your life WAS in MA and now isn’t in any one particular state then your domicile is still MA. I think that’s likely the case with Mitt Romney.
You might re-read the link huh posted above (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>My recollection is that, at the time, Mr. Romney declared that his Utah filing was an “innocent mistake” and a “miscommunication” with his legal team. A Republican administration on Beacon Hill was happy to accommodate him.
<
p>I’m reminded of the year that Governor William Weld paid zero income tax, because the interest deduction on the mortgage he took on his home — to fund his campaign expenses — zeroed out his income for the year. He, too, was allowed to “correct” that “mistake”.
<
p>Mitt Romney is a fraud.
it certainly could be argued that his domicile changed to Utah, depending on how much time he spent in Utah, his ties to the Utah community, whether he changed his voting registration to Utah, whether he had cars registered in Utah, whether he joined a church in Utah, whether he made contributions to Utah charities, etc. If I were his tax advisor I might advise him to file a Utah return as a Utah resident and file a MA return as a nonresident. But then when he decided he wanted to run for MA Governor he made it clear that he never actually intended to stay in Utah and that he considered MA to be his permanent home. My understanding us that he amended his Utah and MA returns to reflect that, and paid MA all taxes owed.
<
p>But what happened between 1999 and 2002 has no bearing on whether Mitt Romney owed or paid taxes in MA from 2006 to now. Based on MA tax law and the facts in this post, I think it’s very likely that Mitt Romney has owed and paid taxes in MA from 2006 to now. But you just assume that Mitt Romney does not pay MA taxes, and you offer no support for that assumption at all.
he owned a house in MA until April of 2009, and that house might well have been his primary residence. So it seems likely that he will owe MA 2009 taxes. This therefore strikes me as a moot discussion. The question is whether he is now eligible to vote in MA, several months after giving up his only dwelling here — a different question from where he must pay income tax.
I don’t know what the standard is for eligibility to vote in an election. I was responding to comments like
from BrooklineTom and
from huh.
<
p>They seem to be making a fairness argument, that because Mitt Romney does not pay income taxes in MA that he should not be voting in MA. I was merely correcting them, Mitt Romney does very likely pay income taxes in MA. Further, Mitt Romney probably continues to owe income taxes in MA even after selling his house until he establishes domicile in another state.
<
p>So here’s the question. If a person is registered to vote in MA, but then sells their house in MA, are they still eligible to vote in MA if they haven’t registered to vote anywhere else yet? I don’t know the answer to that question. But I would think that someone who sells a house in MA and lives a transient lifestyle for a few months has a certain amount of time where they can still vote in MA. (In this case the transient lifestyle is because he has property and ties to so many places that he hasn’t chosen one yet but in another case it could be because someone has nowhere to go and stays with family and friends in several different states.)
It’s actually an interesting question whether a “transient lifestyle,” as you put it, qualifies one to continue voting in a location to which one no longer has any significant ties. That’s not exactly our case, but it’s interesting. The Romney situation strikes me as somewhat easier than that: he no longer owns a residence here; he does own residences elsewhere. Seems to me like he should have to register somewhere else.
The crux is, as you say, where he’s claiming permanent residency now. It’s not Utah, since he sold that house as well.
<
p>Here’s Jon Keller’s blog entry on the sale, from last February:
<
p>
If he hasn’t, and doesn’t want to ever use the NH or CA properties as any more than getaways from his real life? If he wants them to retain a certain tranquility where he can get away from the grind, but he just hasn’t purchased a new place where the grind will take place? Should he have to register to vote and pretend that those are his real home while he puts offers in on condos in the Boston area (therefore retaining his “significant ties” to MA)?
<
p>PS – This is a response to huh’s comment but is intended to reply to both huh and David.
I’m fine with that scenario as long as he’s paying his income tax…
and I think it’s probably legally unsettled. Though I’d note that the Keller post is from almost a year ago; he sold the Belmont home in April; and he still hasn’t bought this mysterious condo. The Herald just reported that he has an offer down; Fehrnstrom says he’s “expected” to close on it in March, but who knows if that’ll really happen? At some point, surely, your time expires.
at some point your time expires. But I would think it would depend on the facts and circumstances. Is he making reasonable efforts to stay in MA? Does he actually use his NH and CA homes as vacation spots or has he basically resumed his day to day life at one of those homes? Where has he slept each night since he sold the Belmont home? I think its perfectly plausible that Mitt Romney truly intends to keep his day to day life in MA but has been busy trying to lay the groundwork for his political future and hasn’t had the time to buy a new place in MA, especially given that he has great guest accommodations at his son’s MA house. I think that its plausible that Mitt Romney is “doing the right thing.”
<
p>Or do you think that Mitt Romney has some sort of evil plan, that he has kept his MA voting registration and avoided establishing his domicile in another state (and probably reducing his tax burden) in the hopes that his vote in the MA Republican primary would push Scott Brown over the 90% mark? What exactly do you think his evil plan is?
From the Secretary of State Web page:
<
p>
<
p>Note the last line… he had to re-register to vote at some point.
I cite his behavior in 1999-2002 to demonstrate that he was a fraud then and he is likely to be fraud today.
<
p>It seems clear enough to me that he did, in fact, move to Utah in 1999. All the evidence supports this conclusion. I’m unaware of any legal concept of “permanent home” — his residence was either UT or MA. We agree that after establishing UT as his residence, he subsequently chose to return to MA.
<
p>It’s the part where he “amended his Utah and MA returns” that I argue he simply defrauded Massachusetts voters as well as Utah and MA tax authorities. I note that the Governors of both Utah and Massachusetts were Republicans — I am therefore not surprised that both states accepted his decision to “amend” his filings without further complaint.
<
p>I have no clue about what taxes he has or has not paid in Massachusetts today, and I absolutely make no such assumption. If, today, he’s paid no MA taxes, I have no doubt he’ll simply “amend” his returns again, and “correct” the “mistake”. He’s demonstrated to my satisfaction that he is perfectly willing to “amend” whatever he has to amend to accomplish what he wants to accomplish. That’s what I meant by “convenient”.
<
p>That’s what I meant by saying that Mitt Romney is a fraud.
that Mitt Romney had to call in favors with the Swift administration in order to amend his 1999-2002 MA returns to claim MA domicile and pay MORE taxes to MA? I can’t imagine any state, no matter what party is in control, that would ever turn down an amended return claiming that they mistakenly filed a nonresident return and were now filing the proper resident return along with a payment of the additional tax owed. You seem to be under the understanding that some elaborate conspiracy went on. People amend their MA income tax returns every day. There is a three year period when your return is open, you are perfectly free to amend your return to pay either more, or less taxes. You certainly don’t need special connections to the MA administration to amend a return, especially if you’re paying MORE MA taxes with your amended return.
Maybe fabulously wealthy people amend their MA tax returns every day, but I doubt many average working people or even upper middle class people do. Sounds like you’re grasping at straws.
Mitt Romney is fabulously wealthy. Mitt Romney amended his tax return. Therefore, only fabulously wealthy people amend their tax return.
<
p>Look, I work as a state and local tax lawyer. I see cases where average working class and middle class people amend tax returns all the time. For example – it can happen when a person has a significant life event occur (they get married, they get divorced, they have a child, they purchase a home, they inherit some money, they change jobs) and the person has an accountant file their tax return for the first time, or at least the first time in several years. The accountant looks at the past few years of returns and sees that the person is entitled to an additional deduction that they did not take. The accountant helps the person prepare amended returns. Hell, it even happens when a person talks about taxes with family, friends, or co-workers. “Guess what honey. Steve at work told me that he deducts his rent on his MA income tax return. I had no idea you could do that! And he said he’s been doing it for years. Do you think we can fix our returns and get some money back?”
<
p>That’s nice that you “doubt” that it happens, but in real life it happens regularly.
I said nothing about any conspiracy (simple or “elaborate), nor “calling in favors” (and whoever he worked with in the MA GOP was surely NOT the Swift administration, Jane Swift was furious at Mitt Romney’s candidacy), nor “special connections.”
<
p>We agree that Mitt Romney claimed Utah as his residence, then changed his mind and claimed Massachusetts for the same time period, all to suit Mitt Romney’s political convenience.
<
p>In my view, that makes Mitt Romney a fraud (and a carpetbagger). He invented a Massachusetts residence to exploit the well-earned quandary of the MA GOP when Republican Paul Cellucci jumped ship leaving Jane Swift in charge.
<
p>The quandary was real, of course. The MA GOP certainly did not relish the prospect of facing, in an election campaign, questions about things like Jane Swift’s admitted and confessed perjury on her 1994 marriage license (she explained that her “misguided decision” was because “Chuck had a desire to keep his life private”) or her husband’s apparent bigamy in marrying one of his several wives before, rather than after, his divorce from a prior wife was finalized. A real bastion of family values, this Massachusetts GOP.
<
p>Mitt Romney reversed himself about where he lived so that he could qualify for the MA governorship. In order to be competitive, he also presented himself as pro-choice and as a supporter of gay/lesbian marriage rights (conveniently distancing himself from his predecessor’s embarrassing flip-flop on that question).
<
p>Then, Mitt Romney decided it was more convenient to be anti-abortion and against gay/lesbian marriage rights. he decided that he didn’t actually like Massachusetts after all, and after bailing from office, spent his failed presidential campaign attacking and ridiculing our “liberal” electorate.
<
p>Now, after once again leaving the state, he determines that is again more convenient for him to again claim to be a MA resident. We don’t know yet what “amended” tax returns he has or has not filed.
<
p>You can argue the strict legality of everything he did all you like, and I don’t dispute any of it.
<
p>That’s because his entire public record (including his legal machinations) demonstrates that Mitt Romney is a fraud.