I’m not sure if it’s a good enough reason, but of course everyone has to judge that for themselves. I definitely don’t think it should be required though.
No secret handshake?
Required? No, not “to disclose financial details” per se.
But, and this is the case for many people in many situations, all candidates should be required to disclose possible conflicts of interest, whether actual or perceived.
Good way of putting it. I don’t think we need to force a disclosure of whether some candidate paid her way through college selling bootlegs, but someone who’s actively involved in international business on a large scale may have problematic priorities.
Limiting myself to only presidential elections for the sake of simplicity, probably the best scenario for voters is to know about any definite conflicts of interest a candidate may have. But expecting the same for perceived conflicts is I think going too far. Even among reasonable people, not to mention the, shall we say, “logically-challenged”, this could open up the candidates to so many frivilous accusations of non-compliance that they wouldn’t have time to talk about anything else! That being said, I don’t see that in either case it is realistic to expect/require a candidate to be held to this standard. I think we have to rely on methods that are now in place, ie investigative journalism and the like to unearth such conflicts. I don’t see how we can force a candidate to disclose anything, not even things that are illegal, and this hasn’t been a problem in the past, at least to my knowledge.
For the interview where the bishop or the stake president asks him if he’s a full tithe payer? No, no secret handshakes whatsoever. There will certainly be a prayer at the beginning of the interview and a prayer at the end of it.
Here’s an article from CNN that is enough for me to be convinced the Obama campaign should drop this line of attack on Romney.
I didn’t like it when unsupported statements were being thrown around about Obama’s eligibility for the presidency because of the whole birther thing, and I don’t like the Obama campaign from throwing the word “felon” around. I’ve got nothing against so-called “negative” campaigning, so long as you can back up things with facts, but this is unseemly and undignified.
Yeah, I guess. You take what you can get! 
He was the sole stockholder, CEO, and president of Bain until 2002, drawing a salary in excess of $100,000 until then. If he lied on disclosure forms concerning Bain, it is indeed a felony. This story may have some legs and dare I say (dare, dare!) that Romney may have to abandon the race because of it.
While nothing would please me more than this scuttling the Romney campaign, there is no way in hell that will happen. If you think otherwise, you are completely deluding yourself.
If. Until they can show proof of a felony, they shouldn’t be making accusations. It looks amateurish and desperate.
I agree they shouldn’t be dropping the F-word around so loosely, but this whole thing is very bad news for the Romney campaign and I think it’s going to have legs.
News out today is that Romney testified in 2002 that he still maintained business ties while working with the Olympics and his campaign will not specifically state that he did not attend meetings at Bain during that time.
Business Insider, which is not a partisan news source from what I know, comes out pretty hard against himon this as well. The headline sums up their stance:
What do you mean “if”? Bain filed documents with the SEC which show Romney as the president, CEO, and sole stockholder until 2002. He claimed on his financial disclosure forms in 2011 that he had no interest in Bain after 1999. That’s a felony. Get the tar warmed up and gather up the feathers.
You said “…*f he lied on disclosure forms concerning Bain, it is indeed a felony.” That is the “if” I was referring to. What I am saying is it’s not good enough for the Obama campaign to simply say Romney might be a felon. They should cite an actual statute that cleary shows him to be such, instead of making vague accusations. Again, if you have substantiated “dirt” on someone, by all means show it, but until you do this type of thing looks desperate.
But the Obama campaign wasn’t calling him a felon. They said he would be a felon if he lied on his SEC forms. Since Romney is saying that the information on the SEC forms isn’t accurate, I don’t think its unreasonable for the Obama campaign to point out that lying on SEC forms is a felony.
i think its pretty clear that Romney is just lying about his involvement with Bain 1999-2002, and that the info on the SEC forms was accurate. But since the Romney campaign seems bound and determined to deny that’s the case, I don’t think its unreasonable to point out the concequences if the filings were really false.
I didn’t say the Obama campaign was calling Romney a felon. Note I used the word “might”. I said they shouldn’t be using that word without presenting evidence that that was the case. Not to sound like a broken record, but when you use the word “either”, as the Obama spokesperson did (see the article) it leaves open the possibility that Romney isn’t a felon.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding Romney said, in so many words, that he wasn’t active at Bain after 1999, not that he wasn’t listed on SEC forms as Chairman, CEO, etc. In other words, you can be those things and still not go into the office every day.
They were presenting evidence that was the case.
So?
The Obama camps point is that he either is lying about his involvement with Bain or he’s a felon. I’m not sure how they can make that point without using the word “felon”
He said he has “not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way,” He also told the SEC he was managing five Bain-created investment entities. Presumably one or the other statement was false.
Regarding this Boston Globe story, it seems the Romney campaign has little desire to actually address anything. In fact, they seem to be taking the “horse wearing blinders” approach to presidential campaigning.
To paraphrase:
Do you have any evidence that suggests he invested in Iranian oil, or did anything illegal with his money? No? Then why even mention it? While you’re at it, demand proof that he doesn’t beat his wife anymore, too.
His Cayman Island accounts raised the red flag of tax evasion for me, but as has been shown here, that doesn’t apply to individuals. So far, it looks like the worst he could be doing with them is avoiding U.S. regulations, which would have a bit of a stink about it, but it’s just as possible that he’s not. Until there’s a good reason to think he’s doing something underhanded, I think forcing him to reveal his personal finances is a worse invasion of privacy than demanding that Obama produce his birth certificate.
Well, he does have some plutocratic tendencies…
As I said, I believe they should cite a statute that was violated by Romney.
I think a higher standard of evidence is required when you suggest someone may be guilty of a crime than when, say, you criticize their policies or beliefs. Thus my point is that the campaign looks feckless and desperate when they make such an accusation without more facts and evidence than has been offered. In a nutshell, if they had said, “Mitt Romney has misrepresented his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony” instead of the wishy-washy statement that they did make, and offered the appropriate statute to back it up, than I wouldn’t be posting along these lines.
The characterization of ‘bedwetters’ to describe concerned citizens who wish to know if one of the two viable candidates for POTUS committed a crime seems a trifle off-putting to me.