I think Victor has a salient point though. If there is anything in his past, it will only be revealed if he's the nominee. Until then, he's too useful a tool to keep the party divided.
The next bombshell will be that he once went duck hunting...
Not necessarily, but often enough: Nixon, Clinton, John Edwards, Charlie Rangel, Anthony Weiner.
They are just "slimy" because everyone around them knows they are "in it for themselves". Usually they can succeed because they have something to offer in return, at least to those who "matter" and will reward them most in the end. Put another way, slimy people aren't always criminals.
Well, Romney doesn't need money, and it's unlikely that he drinks or gets sex on the side, so that takes the major forms of corruption off the table, and if you're born at the top, you don't have to cut corners the way other people do.
But I'd agree that what people see as sliminess or slipperiness may just be a way of selling oneself and trying to ingratiate oneself with people.
I think Victor has a salient point though. If there is anything in his past, it will only be revealed if he's the nominee.
Doubtless some kind of scandal or conflict of interest may show up if he's nominated. That may not necessarily be a sign of corruption on his part, but rather a part of how Bain capital operated or a moral lapse on the part of an appointee.
What people are expecting, I guess is some incident where Romney thinks himself to be above the rules that apply to ordinary people. To their way of thinking Romney's been a "master of the universe" so long that he must have done something reprehensible.
Maybe they'll find it, but so much of political debate now seems to run on the idea "This person disagrees with me, therefore he or she must be devoid of all moral integrity." It doesn't always work out that way.