It looks like I’m going to have to bother finding links for you after all. I present to you Obama’s Senate accomplishments. Did he produce world peace? No. Did he have a typical first four years in Congress? Yes. Some might argue he was more productive than most.
Which is exactly how he got elected in 2008.. But I agree, I don’t think it will work again. I actually think some of the press is embarrassed about their complicity in the Debacle of '08.
Just as bad? No. Reid has a much larger audience, and he’s a Senator. For both those reasons, I expect a higher standard from him.
However, there are lots of factors to take into account when assessing someone’s credibility. Do they have a history of lying, a reason to lie, a potential reason to withhold some things, and who might they be protecting. It’s possible that Reid made this up to put Romney in a position where he had to release more returns to refute it. Or it’s possible he’s telling the truth, at least as it was told to him, and he promised confidentiality to his source. I don’t really know. Sounds like a great debate to me.
What I can’t abide are people who claim to know the answers, and hypocritically make their own attacks against Reid with no more proof than Reid has given about Romney.
In other words, if it’s fair for us to demand proof from Reid, why isn’t it fair for Reid to demand proof from Romney? It’s turtles all the way down. magellan01 just seems to think that he’s on the bottom.
Can anyone truly doubt that this is the exactly the type of things certain Democratic groups and Obama supporters will try to do if and when Romney releases more returns. If so, you haven’t been paying attention to politics in this country for years. This is not to say that I think Romney should be allowed a pass here. We deserve to know what’s in his returns, and we as voters need to get off our asses and stop falling for ridiculous negative campaigning of this sort.
Reid could very well be bluffing 100%. The fact is that Romney hasn’t released jack shit. The guy has been planning to run for President for at least 6 years if not his whole life. You’d think that he would, ya know, do some things to avoid looking bad. Like pay a “reasonable” tax, keep his money in good American banks, remove the obvious tax shelters available to the uber rich, make sure you’ve paid social security for the hired help, etc. Take a page from his old man in terms of transparency and trust (but Mitt probably thinks that cost Dad the Presidency).
The fact that Mitt Romney couldn’t be bothered to sanitize his tax returns speaks volumes about him, and not in a flattering way.
I, for one, am not very surprised to see that this has become a discussion about something other than why Mr. Romney has chosen to act in a contrary manner to all other presidential nominees for the past 40 years. It is much more interesting to attack the people who are questioning this (non)action than it is to defend the person who has chosen to hide his returns from public scrutiny.
But rhetoric aside, the issue still remains ‘why won’t Mr. Romney release his tax returns?’.
For the sake of accuracy, ‘his tax returns’, should be replaced with ‘his tax returns for the past 12 years’. Why 12 years? That has become the precedent set by another earlier candidate for the seat of POTUS, a certain George Romney back in 1968. Yes, I am aware that other candidates haven’t released that many returns before, most notably Mr. McCain (who Mr. Romney’s campaign has cited as their precedent). However, that isn’t quite the point. The point is that the Democratic Party has found a sticking point in this contest and is using it in a manner that is rather uncommon for them. This is almost a Rovian tactic and it is somewhat ironic that the GOP has handled it so clumsily.
Are you talking about the press that played the Rev. Wright “God Damn America” video loop for weeks on end? That press?
No. Romney’s running for president; it’s up to him to make the case for why we should vote for him. Reid said he was told that Romney paid no taxes for ten years; it’s up to him to back that up (if he can without violating confidence). You said Reid was lying.
It’s up to you to back up your own words.
If Romney really did keep money in foreign accounts, what’s wrong with saying that he kept money in foreign accounts? I’ll let the people make up their own minds about what factors to weigh when choosing whom to vote for. For me, that’s not terribly important, but it’s still more important than wearing a flag pin on his lapel or which one I’d rather have a beer with.
Who’s to say that’s all that would be in his returns, anyway? Whether he has a foreign account doesn’t mean much. I’m more curious about things like the impossible IRA, whether he took advantage of the tax amnesty on foreign earnings, whether his investments indicated that he expected the U.S. economy to succeed or fail, and how much he personally stands to gain or lose with changes to the tax code. Those things do matter.
Well, that’s the thing. I too expect a higher standard from Reid. But while it’s certainly fair that Reid and anyone else call for Romney to release his tax returns, to accuse him of something and then, as you say, “demand proof” seems to be just a cheap debating tactic. Offer up some evidence other than hearsay.
“He’s squeaky clean.” Magellan, I have to admit to doubts about this. I think there is at least a fair possibility that he participated in the ‘amnesty’ for Swiss bank account holders, for example. I think if he were truly “squeaky clean”, he’d release the returns, just as he has demanded from opponents in prior electoral contests, and has become customary in recent Presidential contests.
I can only figure he’s either:
- not squeaky clean, or
- A *huge *hypocrite.
Can you legitimately offer another reasonable, better interpretation?
Please understand that I think there could very well be legitimate items in his returns that bear scrutiny and criticism. I’m merely saying that if theoretically there were indeed nothing of any import, people would still find phony controversies to gin up.
Like that? Yes. Hannity had been talking about Wright and playing the video for months. The main stream media? Crickets. Same with his association with ex-terrorist, Bill Ayers. His dealings with Tony Rezko. Etc. If you’re of the mind that the mainstream press didn’t give The One a pass, you’re not dealing in the real world.
Given the nature of his declared source (an associate from the Bain days, whenever those were, exactly), the most likely scenario is that the statement reflects what the source heard from Romney and then relayed to Reid, but that the story itself may be less than accurate. Boardroom boasts about screwing the IRS need not bear any more relation to reality than locker-room boasts about screwing cheerleaders.
Actually, if you believe ANY of those constant attempts to slander/libel candidate Obama actually MEANT anything outside of the right-wing echo chamber, you have no relationship with any real world.
How bad would it be for Reid if Romney released his taxes and he’d paid more than zero dollars?
I mean, I’m actually asking. Not like, “whoa, how bad would that be!” but rather, like, “I actually not sure and am inquiring–how bad would it be?”
It is a cheap debating tactic, when Reid uses it and when magellan uses it.
If people raise question about something Romney feels is above board and commonplace, he can explain it or say “is that all you’ve got?”
The only excuse anyone seems to be offering about why Romney won’t release his returns is “because people might find something.”
You don’t think Fox News is main stream media? I don’t watch Hannity but that clip was playing on CNN every time I walked by the break room at work.
As for The One, I don’t see as it’s relevant to this discussion but I thought that Couric’s questions were fair. I mean, how the fuck can you not throw out the name of a newspaper.
Well, yes, just as Crackpot Gazette talks about the moon landing hoax incessantly, only to be ignored by the mainstream media. Must be a conspiracy…
He needs to back it up, regardless of violating confidences, or retract the bogus accusation and keep his yap shut.
I did. You think I’m wrong, prove it. As I said, you get Reid to show that he is not full of shit and I will retract my statement, with an apology. UNtil then, I call him a blathering, lying idiot with no ethical core.
The notion that Romney would rejigger the tax code so he can save another million dollars is absurd. I think it equally absurd to say that Obama would rejigger it to benefit himself personally. For both of them, it’s ideological. Let them both stake out their positions and argue it out. What Obama paid or Romney paid is immaterial.
Do not accuse other posters of lying in great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]