Ben Smith makes the case today that Mitt Romney is a much stronger presidential candidate than many give him credit for. As Smith sees it, the former governor is “the perfect challenger,” and “it’s hard to imagine a stronger Republican candidate emerging this early in the cycle.”

I didn’t find the piece especially persuasive — Smith seems a little too quick to dismiss major Romney shortcomings — but there was one observation in particular that stood out for me.

“This weak field showed it’s incredibly easy to throw him off his game,” Adam Jentleson, an aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, tweeted Wednesday night.

But Romney didn’t just face a weak field — he made it weak. His strength, money, and organization scared off some serious challengers.

Smith didn’t reference anything to support this claim, and I’m curious — is there any evidence at all to back this up?

I don’t mean that in a snarky way; I’m genuinely curious.

Most objective observers seem to agree that the Republican field is not only weak, but probably the worst of any major party in the modern political era. Smith argues that Romney’s strength as a candidate caused the paucity of quality challengers — would-be candidates took one look at the former one-term governor and presumably thought, “What chance do I have in Republican primaries against the flip-flopping, French-speaking architect of Obamacare?”

Smith tends to have pretty solid sources, so it’s possible he can speak to the internal deliberations of various would-be candidates, but there were some fairly prominent Republicans — Mitch Daniels, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Haley Barbour, John Thune, Mike Pence, Bobby Jindal, Bob Corker, Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin — who all took a good look at the race before deciding not to run.

Did all of these Republicans stand aside because they were intimidated by the Romney juggernaut? Were any of them actually scared of Romney?

If I had to guess, I’d say no. Throughout 2011, much of the Republican establishment sought credible Romney rivals, in large part because he didn’t look particularly strong. Hell, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, there was still scuttlebutt about a brokered convention, with key GOP figures still hoping to nominate someone else. Rick Perry was convinced to jump in precisely because Romney wasn’t an imposing political force.

Romney scared away credible Republican opponents? I don’t see it. The more likely scenario to me is that those interested in a national campaign saw President Obama as tough to beat, were content to see Romney lose, and decided to keep their eyes on 2016.

As recently as five months ago, Mitt Romney boasted about having created “tens of thousands of jobs” at his vulture-capital fund.

“When I was at Bain Capital, we invested in about 100 different companies. Not all of them worked…. But I’m very proud of the fact that I learned about how you can be successful with an enterprise, why we lose jobs, how we gain jobs and overall, in those 100 businesses we invested in, tens of thousands of jobs, net-net, were created.” [emphasis added]

That was the same line Romney took three months ago, in early October.

By December, Romney had come up with a new number.

“In the real economy, some businesses succeed and some fail,” said Romney. “That’s how that works and you try and encourage the more successful and fortunately for many people, tens of thousands of jobs, actually over a hundred thousands of jobs were created by the investments that we were able to help make.” [emphasis added]

The 100,000 figure quickly became the standard talking for Romney and his supporters, but it’s been definitively debunked. The number simply has no basis in reality, leaving the Republican frontrunner with a weak foundation for his entire campaign.

Which leads us to the new/old line, which Romney shared on CBS this morning:

“People here in the state know that in the work that I had, we started a number of businesses, invested in many others, and that over all created tens of thousands jobs so I’m pretty proud of that record.” [emphasis added]

So, over the course of a few months, Romney went from five-figure job growth, to six-figure, and then back to five-figure. Anyone who finds the former governor’s line persuasive isn’t paying close enough attention.

Why is Romney proving to be so incoherent on what’s supposed to be his top issue? After all, as we discussed yesterday, this is supposed to be the raison d’etre of his entire campaign: elect him president, the argument goes, because he created so many jobs in the private sector. If this is his top selling point, why can’t Romney keep his own story straight? What’s with all the fuzzy math?

The answer is, Romney is trying to turn his private-equity firm into something it’s not. Bain Capital and its executives weren’t in the job-creating business — its purpose was to make money for its investors, not grow businesses and create jobs. What’s wrong with wealth creation? In theory, nothing. The problem, though, is when Romney decides to describe his firm in ways that are at odds with reality.

As Ezra Klein explained yesterday, the Bain prospectus “never mentions ‘jobs,’ ‘job,’ or ‘employees.’ Those simply aren’t the objective. Sometimes, in fact, they’re collateral damage.”

Again, this is just how private-equity firms work. It’s a feature, not a bug.

But Romney wants to repackage reality in a way voters might find more appealing, since the truth doesn’t quite work. The result is a series boasts that completely fall apart under scrutiny.

Or as Ezra concluded, “Romney invited the electorate to judge his economic chops by judging his success at something he wasn’t trying to do and that isn’t relevant to the policies he would pass as president. The more energy he invests in this narrative, the larger his eventual losses will be.”

In 1995, a group of men burst into a New Orleans home in search of money and drugs. They ordered those inside to lie down and then opened fire, killing five innocent people. One man, Larry Boatner, survived the violence and identified Juan Smith as one of the assailants.

Boatner’s testimony was the only evidence presented at trial, and it proved persuasive enough to convince a jury. Juan Smith was convicted of murder.

There was, however, a problem. The Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office decided to hide relevant information from both Smith’s lawyers and the jury: mere hours after the slayings, Boatner told police he could only describe the gunmen as black men, and five days later, Boatner said he never saw the intruders’ faces.

Smith’s conviction was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the conviction yesterday in an 8-1 ruling. The court majority found that the relevant evidence obviously needed to be shared with the defendant’s attorney as part of the discovery process. The question before the court was whether the disclosure of the evidence would have affected the outcome of the trial, and eight of the nine justices endorsed common sense and said it would.

As Adam Liptak reported, Clarence Thomas disagreed.

Justice Thomas’s dissent, at 19 pages, was almost five times as long as the majority opinion. “The question presented here is not whether a prudent prosecutor should have disclosed the information that Smith identifies,” Justice Thomas wrote.

Rather, he wrote, the question was whether Mr. Smith had not shown a reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different conclusion had it known of the undisclosed statements. Justice Thomas said a careful review of the balance of the evidence demonstrated that nothing would have changed.

Has Thomas never heard of “reasonable doubt”? Prosecutors had no fingerprints, no weapon, no DNA, and no physical evidence of any kind. They had one witness, who said he never saw the faces of the murderers.

A Supreme Court justice believes a jury wouldn’t have cared about these details at all?

How did this guy end up on the bench?

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that won’t necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Mitt Romney’s campaign raised an impressive $24 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, and enters 2012 with more than $19 million cash on hand. To date, the campaign has already exceeded its published goals.

* On a related note, Romney’s Super PAC, which has its own expansive fundraising operation, has bought over $2.5 million in airtime for campaign ads in Florida. The primary in the Sunshine State is Jan. 28.

* And speaking of Florida, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Romney leading President Obama in the state, 46% to 43%. Obama would be ahead, but there’s a base gap — 92% of Florida Republicans would back Romney, but only 84% of Florida Dems would support the president.

* At the national level, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows President Obama leading Romney, 48% to 43%. The rest of the GOP field fared even worse in hypothetical match-ups.

* Rick Santorum raised quite a bit of money after Iowa, but he couldn’t spend in time to influence the outcome in New Hampshire. The former senator will, however, put his new-found riches to use in South Carolina, and a top Santorum consultant said they’ll spend at least $1.5 million in ads in the state.

* The most organized presidential candidate in New Hampshire wasn’t a Republican. It was President Obama.

* Is Jon Huntsman’s father prepared to throw good money after bad in his son’s failing campaign? He doesn’t want to talk about it.

* Rep. Paul Gosar (R) is worried about re-election in Arizona, so he’s moving to a neighboring, more GOP-friendly district.

* And speaking of Arizona, Sen. John McCain (R) told Sean Hannity yesterday that choosing Sarah Palin his running mate was “still the best decision I’ve ever made.” I’m not sure if he was kidding, or if his life has been a series of awful decisions.

We’ve all heard politicians boast that American workers are the most productive workers in the world. It’s worth pausing to consider whether that’s true or not.

Michael Mandel tackles the issue in a new piece for the print edition of the Washington Monthly, and this editors’ summary set the stage for an interesting piece:

One thing Barack Obama and Mitt Romney agree on is that America can achieve broad prosperity again because we have “the most productive workers in the world.” And indeed, federal data seem to prove their point: despite steady job losses in the industrial sector, made worse by the Great Recession, America’s manufacturing output is 16 percent higher than it was a decade ago.

But what if these productivity figures are fatally flawed? In the latest issue of the Washington Monthly, economist Michael Mandel makes the case that a fundamental statistical blind spot calls into question both parties’ assumptions about the underlying strength of the economy and what it will take to put it back on track.

Read “The Myth of American Productivity.”

After watching Mitt Romney’s speech in New Hampshire last night, I went back and watched Barack Obama’s speech in New Hampshire, delivered almost exactly four years ago. The contrast told me quite a bit about the two candidates.

Obama, who’d just lost to Hillary Clinton in an upset, delivered his “Yes We Can” speech. It made literally no mention of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, literally no mention of those seeking the GOP nomination, and it referenced Republicans only twice — each time to highlight the fact that Obama was prepared to work with anyone, regardless of party. In the same speech, then-candidate Obama looked at his competitors and said, “All of the candidates in this race have good ideas and all are patriots who serve this country honorably.” He also shared a vision, which included ending the war in Iraq and reforming the nation’s health care system.

Romney, with the benefit of a teleprompter, delivered a very different kind of speech last night. Within seconds of thanking his supporters, Romney began a lengthy condemnation of the president, who, along with “some desperate Republicans,” wants to “put free enterprise on trial.”

After mocking the president’s “lofty promises,” Romney also proclaimed last night:

“Our campaign is about more than replacing a president; it is about saving the soul of America.”

First, I’d prefer that pandering politicians leave our soul alone. Second, “saving the soul of America” sounds a little “lofty” to me.

And how, exactly, does Romney intend to save the American soul? As it turns out, he never quite got around to that. And that’s part of the problem I have with his candidacy.

It occurred to me, watching the guy deliver a series of cheap attacks that I doubt even he believes, that Romney has been running for president for more than five years straight, and I still have no idea why he wants the job or what he intends to do with these awesome responsibilities.

The Monthly has a terrific cover package in the new issue on what Americans could expect from a Republican administration in 2013, and it tells us a great deal about how the nation would change, but I’ve been kicking around a slightly different question: Why does Romney want the presidency?

I understand that he’d like power. I also understand that he might even feel entitled to it. In Romney’s mind, it’s likely his “turn” to be president, and if he can demonstrate his contempt and disgust for Obama to the satisfaction of his party, Romney seems to believe that should be enough.

But is it? Ask yourself: after five years of national campaigning, can you say what he strives to do as the leader of the free world? What grand vision he’ll pursue to “save the soul of America”?

“Repeal Obamacare” isn’t an answer, so much as it’s a negation of recent progress. “Create jobs” is a worthwhile goal, but it’s a vague platitude. Romney’s speech last night, and indeed all of his recent speeches, tell us practically nothing. We know Romney has an odd hang-up about Europe, and that he’s comfortable lying with a straight face about the president, but ultimately his agenda is thin and his vision is … small.

A combination of tax breaks for the wealthy, free rein for Wall Street, and less health care coverage for millions of middle-class Americans does not a saved soul make.

As the general election phase gets underway, I’m hoping Romney can start telling the nation less about how much he detests President Obama and more about what he’d do if he replaces President Obama.

Congressional Republicans are still quite outraged by President Obama’s recess appointments last week, and plan to take up a resolution criticizing the move — just as soon as they return from recess.

Rep. Diane Black (Tenn.) and 71 other House Republicans introduced a nonbinding resolution today voicing concern over President Barack Obama’s recess appointment of four administration nominees last week.

“It’s astounding to me that the president is claiming these are recess appointments and within his authority, when Congress was not in fact in recess,” Black said. “These appointments are an affront to the Constitution. No matter how you look at this, it doesn’t pass the smell test. I hope the House considers my resolution as soon as we return to Washington so we can send a message to President Obama.” [emphasis added]

Jonathan Bernstein called this the “best self-refuting argument ever,” adding, “[W]e’re to believe that it’s outrageous for the president to call what’s happening now a recess, and the House intends to take it up as soon as they get back into town after recessing for the holiday.”

Exactly. The president decided lawmakers had left town for a congressional recess. Lawmakers effectively endorsed the line when they said the White House couldn’t submit a request for a debt-ceiling increase while they were on a congressional recess.

And now Diane Black and her cohorts want a resolution to complain that Obama thought they were on a recess, which they’ll vote on, just as soon as they get back from their recess.

I’d encourage Republicans to think this one through a little more, but I’m not sure they’d understand the problem even if they pondered the contradiction.

On a related note, Brian Beutler reports today that “the Obama administration is still operating with scores of vacancies, including an unexpected hole at the top of the Office of Management and Budget,” and unless the president is prepared to “dial his use of the recess appointment power up even further,” the vacancies will persist for the foreseeable future.

Ezra Klein makes the case this morning that in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, “moderation is winning.”

Which is not to say Romney’s plans make him a moderate. On taxes, for instance, he is well to the right of George W. Bush. Where Bush proposed his tax cuts to spend down a surplus, Romney, in a time of massive deficits, is proposing to make Bush’s tax cuts permanent (price tag: $4 trillion) and then add trillions more in cuts that heavily favor wealthy Americans. On Medicare, too, he is well to the right of Bush: A more moderate version of Ryan’s plan is vastly more conservative than anything Bush ever attempted.

Nevertheless, he is, of the Republicans running for president, the least extreme in his policy proposals, and also the most likely to capture the nomination. If Huntsman counts as a moderate, then so does Romney — and so, in their presidential preferences so far, do a plurality of Republican primary voters. They have, after all, not only backed Romney, but they have decisively rejected Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, the candidates aimed most squarely at Tea Party wing of the GOP.

I think that’s probably right, but it’s rather unsatisfying, isn’t it? It’s true that the candidates perceived as running furthest to the right have fared poorly, and that the radical Tea Party base has played almost no meaningful role whatsoever, but I’m still left with the impression that we’re talking about a Republican field separated only be degrees of far-right extremism.

Romney, to be sure, was a relative moderate for much of his career, but as has been documented ad nauseum, the current Romney bears no resemblance to the previous versions of himself. Indeed, he’s gone to almost comical lengths to repudiate every policy position he ever took before becoming a presidential candidate.

As Jonathan Cohn argued persuasively last week, “At least on domestic policy, Romney has taken positions every bit as extreme as Santorum.”

What, after all, is the Romney agenda? Tax cuts for the wealthy, replacing Medicare with a voucher scheme, privatizing Social Security, taking away health care coverage from millions, letting Wall Street do as it pleases, a more right-wing federal judiciary, slashing public investments that benefit working families, more foreclosures, and of all things, tax increases on those already struggling.

Romney thinks putting “country first” means putting country second — or perhaps third, behind ideology and party. If given a chance to work with Democrats on debt reduction, and they offered him a 10-to-1 deal on cuts to revenue, he thinks that’s not one-sided enough.

Ezra’s probably right that Romney doesn’t seem as extreme as some of his more unhinged rivals, but that says more about the state of the Republican Party in 2012 than it does about the limits of Romney’s ideology.

Last week, underwhelming Republican turnout in the Iowa caucuses fell short of expectations and hinted at a listless, uninspired party. Yesterday in New Hampshire, it happened again.

Going into the first GOP primary, there was ample talk about the expected record turnouts. But as the dust settled, we learned otherwise.

Turnout in the early Republican nominating contests could be a warning sign for Romney: the participation rate in Iowa barely exceeded the state’s 2008 mark, when many GOP voters were disaffected and depressed. New Hampshire officials projected record turnout in Tuesday’s primary, but exit polls showed about two-fifths of the voters were non-Republicans who crossed over to participate.

Remember, Republican turnout was supposed to soar in these early contests. GOP voters are reportedly eager, if not foaming-at-the-mouth desperate, to fight a crusade against President Obama, and they had plenty of high-profile candidates trying to stoke their enthusiasm. For that matter, Romney actually lives part of the year in New Hampshire. These voters had a chance to vote for their neighbor.

This, coupled with the boost from the so-called Tea Party “movement,” suggested energized Republicans would turn out in numbers that far exceeded the totals we saw in 2008, when GOP voters were depressed and all the excitement was on the other side of the aisle.

And yet, in two contests in a row, that hasn’t happened.

The Romney campaign almost certainly won’t care, at least not publicly, but behind the scenes, the turnout numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire should give party leaders pause.

Mitt Romney’s victory in New Hampshire wasn’t quite as big as expected, but it didn’t matter. The former governor, who led a neighboring state and lives much of the year in New Hampshire, did exactly what he set out to do: take control of the race for the Republican nomination. Romney is, as was mentioned last night, the first non-incumbent to win Iowa and New Hampshire in the same cycle — which means more than just bragging rights.

At this point, the question isn’t whether Romney will wrap this up, but rather, when his rivals will decide their efforts are pointless.

Indeed, the traditional value of the early nominating contests is that they start winnowing presidential fields. Candidates make concerted efforts to perform well in Iowa, New Hampshire, or both, and when they fail, these candidates invariably lose attention and fundraising before throwing in the towel.

But that doesn’t seem to be happening. Other than Michele Bachmann, who bowed out a week ago, the current Republican field is filled with candidates who’ve convinced themselves they’re doing just well enough to stick around. They’re deluding themselves, of course, while helping guarantee Romney’s eventual success.

Take Rick Perry, for example. The Texas governor spent $6 million in Iowa and came in a distant fifth. In New Hampshire, where he wasn’t making much of an effort, Perry didn’t quite get 1% of the vote. If there’s a path to the nomination for this guy, it’s a road only he can see.

And then there’s Jon Huntsman, who practically moved to New Hampshire and said for months he fully intended to win the primary. It was the only state in which he had any meaningful organization, making this contest a make-or-break test for his campaign. It was a test he failed — Huntsman ended up with 16.8% of the vote, less than half of Romney’s total.

Huntsman has picked up the undying love of the media, which provided the oxygen that allowed his campaign to breathe, but unless pundits and magazine writers create a 51st state, and that state quickly squeezes itself into the GOP nominating calendar before Super Tuesday, there’s simply no reason for the former Utah governor to continue with the charade.

Huntsman’s father is believed to be the financing force behind the campaign, but after last night, one can only wonder how much longer it’ll be before dad takes away the credit card.

So, now what happens? Attention turns to South Carolina, which will hold its primary a week from Saturday, and where polls show Romney leading. (That lead will likely increase with a post-NH bump.) Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who roughly tied for fourth yesterday, both say they intend to pull out the stops in the Palmetto State. They’ll have to — it will effectively be their last chance.

I doubt it’ll make a difference. With apparently no one dropping out, the right will remain divided, splitting the anti-Romney several ways, and Romney will use his considerable financial advantage to keep his rivals at bay. What’s more, after seeing the Iowa and New Hampshire results, the holdouts in the Republican establishment will likely swallow hard and coalesce around the frontrunner.

In the meantime, Democrats will continue to focus on Romney, and Romney will continue to focus on the White House, marking the beginning of a 10-month general-election phase, even while the Republicans primaries and caucuses continue.

The results in New Hampshire are already starting to trickle in, so it’s time for a primary night open thread.

I’ll update this post with results and noteworthy developments as they’re available, but in the meantime, I thought I’d open the floor to some discussion.

Let’s hear it.

7:45 p.m.: Nearly one in five voters made their decision on who to support today? What have these people been waiting for?

8 p.m.: NBC News and CNN have already called the race for Romney. That surprises no one — it’s always been a question of what his margin of victory would be (and who finished second).

8:05 p.m.: Exit-poll results are available here (among other places).

8:07 p.m.: Fox News says Ron Paul will finish second, with Jon Huntsman third. Of course, Fox News says a lot of things.

8:20 p.m.: With about 16% of the votes in, Romney is ahead with 35.3%, followed by Paul at 24.7%, Huntsman at 17.5%, Gingrich at 10.4%, and Santorum at 9.6%. Rick Perry is not only last, he’s below 1% and barely ahead of Roemer.

8:30 p.m.: Romney boasted to supporters tonight that they helped make “history.” That’s true — no non-incumbent Republican has ever won the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the same cycle. Of course, since Romney lives in New Hampshire for much of the year, he had an advantage no other GOP presidential candidate has enjoyed.

8:45 p.m.: With about 25% of the votes in, this is already pretty dull. Romney is first with 35.3%, followed by Paul at 25%, Huntsman at 16.9%, Gingrich at 10.3%, and Santorum at 10.2%. (The closest race is for fourth, and no one, including the candidates, care which way it turns out.) Rick Perry is still below 1%, which I find vaguely amusing.

9 p.m.: Unlike a week ago, when the outcome was very much in doubt until very late at night, it occurs to me there’s no point in blogging about a contest when the results are already obvious. So, I’m wrapping this up. Feel free to consider this an open thread, and be sure to check in tomorrow morning for more commentary and analysis.

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Assad reduced to conspiracy theories: “In his first public address in months, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria lashed out on Tuesday at the Arab League for isolating his country, mocked Syrian rebels as traitors and vowed to subdue what he said was a foreign-backed plot against his country. ‘We will defeat this conspiracy,’ Mr. Assad declared in a speech that lasted nearly two hours.”

* The obvious call: “Oklahoma’s referendum against state judges considering Islamic law is unconstitutional, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday (Jan. 10), upholding a lower court ruling that had blocked the measure. The ruling could affect more than 20 other states where laws against Shariah are under consideration.”

* Closing a Citizens United loophole: “In a terse four words, the Supreme Court on Monday issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections. The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions.”

* Profits: “The Federal Reserve announced Tuesday it would be transferring $76.9 billion in profits to the Treasury Department. The total represents the entire amount the central bank earned in 2011 minus its operating expenses and other costs. Under Fed policy, any excess funds beyond those needed to facilitate Fed operations are transferred to the Treasury.”

* A good personnel move: “The White House will name Cecilia Munoz, the president’s point person on immigration and outreach to the Hispanic community, as director of the Domestic Policy Council, officials said Tuesday.”

* When it comes to big economic moves, President Obama needs Congress for just about everything. But mass refinancing is an exception, and should certainly be on the table.

* Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), who doesn’t make much of an effort to hide his extremism, argued on a right-wing radio show this week U.S. military leaders should consider ignoring the orders of their commander-in-chief. He wasn’t kidding.

* Daniel Luzer: “One of the more troublesome things about student loan debt in the United States is that, unlike normal consumer debt, it can’t be charged in bankruptcy.”

* Pfc. Kyle Hockenberry’s extraordinary commitment to service: “A U.S. soldier who lost both legs and an arm from an improvised explosive device while on patrol in Afghanistan wants to stay on active duty, if the military will have him, according to a report on the Army website.”

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

Mitt Romney clearly wishes he could take back the line, “I like being able to fire people,” but since that’s not an option, it’s up to him, his campaign, and its surrogates to downplay the story’s significance.

There’s a perfectly sound response to this: explain the intended context and move on. But Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) appeared on MSNBC earlier and took a very different approach.

“Yesterday, [Romney] said something about firing people,” Grimm said. “I think it was a very good thing because it’s honest and it’s real.”

That’s not much of a defense. To hear the freshman Republican put it, Romney’s right to enjoy being able to fire people. Never mind the context and intended meaning, Grimm is blowing past the Romney campaign’s talking points and making the case that Americans should want a president who takes pleasure in layoffs.

It’s “real.”

Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh told his audience something similar today, arguing, “Don’t we want somebody who loves firing people” in the White House?

If Democrats are unrealistically lucky, the debate going forward will be over whether Romney is right or wrong to enjoy firing people.

Postscript: By the way, if Grimm’s name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s the guy who based his congressional campaign on attacking health care reform, and then offered a hilarious response when asked if he’d be willing to give up government-subsidized health care for himself.

“What am I, not supposed to have health care?” Grimm said soon after getting elected. “It’s practicality. I’m not going to become a burden for the state because I don’t have health care, and God forbid I get into an accident and I can’t afford the operation. That can happen to anyone.”

Note to the Romney camp: this guy may not be the ideal surrogate for national television.

Looking back over the last several months, nothing has caused as much trouble to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign as C-SPAN archives. Eagle-eyed researchers have relied on these archived clips to catch Romney saying all sorts of unfortunate things (see here and here, for example).

And is it turns out, the archive is still being tapped for additional gems. James Carter posted this clip from 1999.

At the time, Romney had recently taken over as president and CEO of the Salt Lake Olympic organizing committee, which had been plagued by scandal. In the clip, we see Romney explaining the importance of transparency, and vowing to share materials with the public, even correspondence between Romney and other Olympic officials.

This, Romney said at the time, was a way to demonstrate “ethical conduct.”

In hindsight, it’s interesting he’d put it that way.

This is, of course, the same Romney who, shortly before departing the governor’s office, oversaw the purchase of 17 state-issued hard drives, in order to purge his administration’s email records in advance of his presidential campaign. Romney admitted the move was intended to hide official correspondence from the public and keep potentially-embarrassing information from “opposition research” teams.

This is also the same Romney who seems a little too eager to hide his tax returns from public scrutiny.

What would 1999 Romney have to say about 2012 Romney? I suspect “ethical conduct” isn’t a phrase that would come up.