Oh!pinion Rotating Header Image

Perfect question for privileged-character candidate

Sometime between now and election day, when Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney sits down for an interview, one critically important question should be put to him.

Whether the interviewer is a reporter for a small-town weekly, a big-city daily’s editorial board or a talk-show host, this question should be asked.

Here is that all-important question and how it should be asked.


Interviewer: Gov. Romney, I’m going to ask you something that’s on the minds of many as they decide whom to vote for, but first I’m going to present a scenario, a context if you will, for the question. So, please bear with me until I get to the question itself. Will that be all right?.

Romney: Uh . . . sure, why not? Heh, heh, heh, heh.

Interviewer: Very well then. You’re still CEO of Bain Capital. You’ve established a tradition that when a new executive is being hired, before a final decision is made, you will study the top prospect’s application and resumé, then personally interview him or her. Are you with me so far?

Romney: Yes. Go ahead.

Interviewer: Good. Now, your HR chief has just given you the paper work of a seemingly exceptional man. This applicant is a graduate of Choate, the prestigious boys’ school John F. Kennedy attended. He earned a bachelor’s degree in economics from an Ivy League college, finishing in the top 10 percent of his class. He later earned an MBA from another Ivy League school. He interned at one of Wall Street’s biggest financial institutions, earning a glowing recommendation.

You notice this man took five years to get his bachelor’s and that three years passed before he entered graduate school. His resumé only notes that he worked at part-time and full-time jobs as an undergraduate and while seeking his MBA — no specifics.

You then notice your HR chief has put a Post-It note on the third page. It says, in red ink, “Applicant unwilling to provide work history beyond past two years.” Bain job applications request all work history.

During the interview, you ask this job seeker about his past employment, beyond two years. He says he had several jobs, did his work well and left each one on good terms. He tells you that going back beyond two years only leads to more questions about details he feels no longer matter.

Now, Gov. Romney, unlike every presidential candidate for the past several decades, you refuse to divulge your tax records beyond two years. Your wife has said providing more tax records will only raise more questions. You insist you’ve paid all the taxes required by law, expecting the public to take your word for it.

So, my question for you is, would you take that job applicant’s word for it and hire him? Or, would you suspect that because he, unlike any job candidate you ever interviewed, refused to share his full work history, he must be hiding something disqualifying?



  1. Ha, good question, but what applies to the lowly masses doesn’t apply to the privileged. We not only see this with Flippers, we’ve seen it with both Bushes.

  2. Of course Romney would not hire him. But he lives by a special set of rules. Rules for the common person do not apply to him. You can bet your sweet ass that he asked for more than 2 years of returns from his VP candidates.

  3. Shaw Kenawe says:

    I worked in HR in a high tech company. Of course we would never hire under the circumstances put forth in your question to Mr. Romney. So why would the American people accept Romney’s word? It’s a good question and speaks volumes about how upper class privileged people get away with things the rest of us never dream of. Money, privilege, and power confer this special status on those who are part of the plutocracy, and they get away with it.

    Mittens is no exception. And he’s getting away with it too.

  4. Tom Harper says:

    Excellent question. Don’t hold your breath waiting for it to be asked though.

    And as the previous three commenters have said, the laws that apply to us lowly commoners don’t apply to the Upper Crust.

  5. Stupid question. First, no one still trying to decide how to vote has this question on their minds. Only the radical left would think up such a silly question.

    Second, job history is nothing like tax returns. Obviously no one would hire someone with a lengthy job history but is only willing to talk about the last two. But tax returns have nothing to do with job performance in prior years. Your analogy doesn’t hold up, except in your mind.

    Keep patting yourself on the back, but it’s not a very smart question and there are a lot better things to be asked considering the state of the economy, Libya, and Iran. Your question reveals a lot about the questioner and his priorities.

    1. Dave Dubya says:

      What a stupid comment. Romney pays a lower tax rate than I do. That happens to matter when Romney whines about “oppressive tax burdens” on the filthy rich.

      Typical Republican.

  6. Holte Ender says:

    @The Heathen Republican – “Stupid question” ‘silly question” “not a very smart question” I guess your words say something about the commenter.

  7. S.W. Anderson says:

    L.P., Jerry, Shaw and Tom, The ultimate wealthy-privileged-character outrage I’ve seen is George W. Bush’s military “service.” I served 12 years on active duty in a very different Air Force than the one Bush did. I didn’t get to serve when, where and how it was convenient, skip out on physicals and other obligations, then opt out of the whole thing when it got in the way of my personal plans. Neither did 99.9 percent of others, enlisted and officers alike. That Bush got away with all those things was nothing but gross corruption.

    Holte, good to see you back after a long time. I agree. 🙂

  8. Octopus says:

    No manners or social graces, the teethin’ Heathen invites himself into the room, kicks the family dog, pees on the furniture, and insults the guests. Nice way to ingratiate yourself.

    And no appreciation for a plain spoken analogy either. A presidential candidate who refuses to disclose his tax returns is akin to a job applicant who leaves gaps in his employment history. When there are glaring omissions, the first thing any hiring agent thinks: “This dude is hiding something.” In this analogy, the voter is the hiring agent, and the presidential contender is the job candidate.

    Is Romney hiding something? Perhaps an IRS audit? A failure to disclose income? Revelations about an amnesty offered to tax dodgers who unlawfully shelter their income in offshore accounts? Voters have a right to know.

    Why should voters hire a panderer, con man, Etch-A-Sketch artist, serial liar and suspected tax dodger for president? Of course, Republicans have a history of fielding unqualified and incompetent candidates. Shall we beat around the GW Bush, for example.

  9. S.W. Anderson says:

    Octopus, good to see you back. I’m relieved the plugin is fixed, too.

    Voters shouldn’t hire someone who refuses to make his full tax records for at least 10 years available. A summary could omit many things, such as an amnesty filing and any number of revised filings. Those would raise legitimate questions the Romneys obviously don’t want to have to answer.

    Regarding your other observations, I’m reminded of a great old folk song, “It Takes a Worried Man to Sing a Worried Song.”

  10. Octopus says:

    As a creature armed with 8 tentacles – each lined with rows and rows of suction cups – I still ended up outsmarted by that plugin (it gave me a hickey). Does the plugin have a photo? A telephone number?

  11. S.W. Anderson says:

    No phone number, but maybe a bit of a checkered past. 😉