There was no reason for all of the other presidential candidates in the last 40 years to release theirs either; we knew they were all rich too. But they did, didn’t they.
What makes Mitt so special?
Do you seriously think that sort of thing holds water? Are you in 4th grade?
If Romney thinks this will blow over, he’s mistaken. Reid is but one of many who can speculate
on the contents of those returns.
Every couple of weeks someone is going to make headlines with their speculation,
“Ripped off the morman church”
“Funded drug cartels”
“Hookers and blow”
I expect no less, either. Romney is an IDIOT for not nipping this in the bud earlier.
This isn’t going away, and it shouldn’t. It says so much about republican philosophy.
Well, if the campaign is going to start resurrecting the welfare dogwhistle, I’m sure magellan feels comfortable doing so now, too…
What does it say?
So, do you agree that **at the very least **this then makes Romney look like a huge hypocrite, even if he is ‘squeaky clean’, to have demanded tax returns from opponents in the past (and even their spouses), and now to apparently claim that his returns aren’t relevent?
Doesn’t it seem damaging to claim that his opponents could find something to distort as a rationale for not revealing them? Of course, anyone’s opponents can always distort or lie about anything. But if you don’t have a decent response to such distortions, doesn’t that say pretty bad things about your candidacy?
You are incorrect to imply that corporate tax amnesty involves illegality. If you disagree, please point to the illegality.
You’re using The “amnesty” to narrowly, which is understandable since its a misnomer in this case. Corporate tax amnesty merely describes an incentive given by the federal government for companies to repatriate dollars that are overseas—legally—without having to suffer the usual tax penalties, and a reduced rate. Good idea or bad, it has nothing to do with illegal acts. It incentivizes companies like Coca Cola, IBM, Pfizer, McDonald’s, HP, and others to bring “permanently reinvest earnings” back to the U.S.
How do you “resurrect” something you never let die?
Possibly. I’d have to know the context. I do think it would be hypocritical if he demanded returns from Candidate X and then refused requests from Candidate X to release his own. I would have to know what he asked for specifically, why, and his rational for not releasing his own if he had, indeed been requested to do so.
Not when we’re talking about thousands of pages of accounting that contain a bunch of stuff that most people, including me, would have a difficult time understanding. Do you have any doubt that his returns will be picked over and stuff will be used that “sounds bad”, but is perfectly legal? Multiply that times 10 years of complicated returns and Romney’s decision makes perfect sense.
Has this been a problem for any of the other candidates in the last 40 years? Why are only Mitt’s returns susceptible to this scrutiny?
And is hypocritical as hell. Oh, wait, I get it, his returns are special because he’s the “specialist little snowflake” to run for President in the past 40 yrs.
Thanks. But not enough info, even in the linked article. I’d need to hear the reason Romney offered for 1) wanting Kennedy to release his records and 2) his reasons for no releasing his own at the time, (if that is part of the allegation).
Every presidential candidate in the last 40 years has been subject to the same picking over of their tax returns for something that sounds bad.
What makes Mitt so special?
My guess it’s due to the class warfare that Obama loves to play. Also, Mitt is a known entity. No one denies that he’s a very rich guy, so they’re nothing to be gained with that revelation. And he is going to have two years released. If it were zero years, I think that would be a problem. But two years will give voters a good enough peek into his dealings. I could even see asking him to release one older return, say from 8 or 10 years ago, if the “fear” is that the last two years will have been crafted to be unusually clean. But there is no need for anyone to pour over 12 years of his records, not without any reasonable allegation of wrongdoing against him.
POOF! And the notion that a serious discussion could be had disappeared just like that.
As there was no need to pour over any of the presidential candidates’ returns from the last 40 years, despite no prior allegations of wrongdoing.
What makes Mitt so special?
Dude, I can play this all day. You keep going on about, “there’s no reason …” Yes, there is a reason. Every fucking candidate from the last 40 years has. Obama has. If he refuses becuase, “there’s no reason to,” then he is claiming to be a special snowflake who doesn’t have to play the same game as the rest of them.
What the fuck makes Mitt so fucking special?
And there’s no need to *pore *over them, either.