As I said, you can’t tell anything about the candidate from what his opponents say about him. I realize you would like to make this about Romney, but it isn’t (any longer). Reid has made an accusation, and will not back it up.
Correct, just like it is a fact that Reid refuses to name his alleged informant. The reasons for that are equally open to speculation.
You are, again, trying to shift the burden of proof. Romney does not have to rebut what Reid claims; Reid has to prove what he says.
The one who needs to be honest and open is Reid. Reid chooses not to be so, and y’all think that reflects badly - on Romney.
What you’re pretending to misunderstand----and Romney is pretending to misunderstand --is what will happen after Romney releases his returns.
They will be discussed, analyzed, criticized–not necessarily by hyper-partisan Obama supporters, certainly not exclusively–which is the end that Romney and you doesn’t want to happen.
And the reason for that is, it fits the commonly held narrative about rich guys like Romney; people will easily believe he paid no taxes for ten years for the same reason they will believe Obama raised everyone’s taxes, even though it isn’t true; because it fits the preconceived notion about liberal Democrats. Both parties have to work against commonly held misconceptions.
So, will Mitt do what it takes to overcome this misrepresentation, or is he going to stand on principle, even if it costs him the election?
Or we can dispense with changing out this number for that and just go with, “Romney has released 100% of the tax returns he is required to. He is in full and total compliance.”
This is not about being in compliance, it is about appearances. Will the voters think being in compliance is adequate, when his opponent has released 12 years of tax returns? How bad does Romney want to win?
Swell, but this has never been a legal issue (except maybe in a few pundits’ minds, and they’re unsupported by fact as of right now), but a political issue. If you want to argue that this answer will satisfy undecided/swing voters and not affect how they vote (ditto with the lead-up to this whole mess), be my guest, but this answer as it is strikes me as dismissive without proper support.
**Fear Itself **poses the question: or is he going to stand on principle, even if it costs him the election?
Where is there any prior evidence of “principle”? He’s demanded the release of opponent’s taxes numerous times.
Someone, maybe Reid, noted that to be confirmed for a cabinet position would require more disclosure than Mitt appears willing to make.
Also, unless I missed something, McCain vetted Romney as a possible running mate, presumably has some knowlege of what’s being withheld, and I haven’t heard the Senator from AZ weigh in anywhere. But I’ve been on vacation, maybe I missed it?
You assume it’s going to improve his chances of winning. His calculation is that it won’t. But not for the reasons you’ll no doubt jump to. The reason it won’t help is because the Obama/Axelrod machine will just keep nitpicking:, What’s this, and this, and this , and THIS! Oh they might all be completely fine, but we just want a full explanation. The people [cue chorus of angels] deserve a full explanation." PLease. the game couldn’t be more transparent.
My guess is that McCain never even glanced at Romney’s tax returns. It’s quite possible that nobody did. The campaign didn’t want him, the candidate didn’t like him, he was only going through the motions of pretending to consider him. In all likelihood, they went through the shredder shortly after being received.
Go ahead, Mittens. Stick to your principles (today’s principles, anyway). You’re only hurting yourself.
IANAL, but from my reading all the elements seem to be in place for the jury (i.e. the voting public) to infer the contents would be unfavorable. Obviously Romney’s not on trial here, but I personally would exdpect more than his laughable “put up or shut up” defense against Reid’s cahrges.
When birthers were demanding more info about Obama’s birthplace, (or grades, or whatever) what was your stance about that? My recall may be faulty, but I don’t remember you standing up for Obama’s right to stonewall the Birthers, and demanding that the Birthers ‘put up or shut up’, but again, I might disremember…
You’re forgetting that there is some evidence available 2010’s returns and soon, 2011’s. Barring credible new information, it’s logical to assume that his other returns would be similar.
You make a very poor Mr. Spock. It’s far more logical to assume that other returns, further from his Presidential runs, would be crippling. Why don’t we see?