POOF! And the notion that a serious discussion could be had disappeared just like that.
Here’s the Shannon O’Brien campaign details for you:
Mitt Romney Refused Tax Return Release in 2002 Running for Massachusetts Governor - Business Insider
You’ve been given two indisputable instances of candidate Romney demanding opponent’s tax returns, (Kennedy and O’Brien, and O’Brien’s husband, to boot) asking “what do they have to hide?”, without disclosing his own.
Somehow, no matter how blatent, I doubt you can bring yourself to admit his obvious double-standard. Hell, it seems to be *your *claim that somehow his returns are so different in some way that the same standards shouldn’t apply.
Again, I don’t doubt that at this point this may be his best strategy, but I suspect it is because in the past he’s used tax strategies that he fears would damage him if exposed. Isn’t that why he wanted his opponents to release their returns, in the hopes he could damage them somehow with the contents? How can you hold up your part of a serious discussion if you can’t even admit this most obvious of points?
Violating a confidence occurs when one repeats something one has been told in confidence. Whether one identifies one’s source is irrelevant.
Senator Reid already violated a confidence. I would prefer it if he were to go further and reveal his source. My sense, however, is that the source would deny having made the statement to Senator Reid, the back-and-forth shrieking would shift to whether Reid or his (probably former) interlocutor were lying about the exchange, and Romney would still treat the entire conversation as something that does not concern him.
AFAIK, he may have been told “you can use this but can’t attribute it to me” by his supposed source.
I wish we’d left the whole ‘secret informant’ out of it, and just raised the issues related to romney’s taxes without the whole sideshow, it seemed an unnecessary flourish to me anyway.
Participating in the amnesty was, by any reasonable understanding of the word “amnesty,” perfectly legal.
I’m under the impression that performing actions that require one to later participate in an amnesty are (by the same understanding of the word “amnesty”) illegal. Even if inadvertent.
That counts as a detraction from “squeaky cleanliness,” at least using any reasonable understanding of the terms “counts,” “detraction,” and squeaky cleanliness."
You may consider yourself corrected.
this is an article from Politifact summarizing the amounts of returns released by Presidential candidates in recent times:
I haven’t done the math, becasue I’m lazy, but a cursory look suggests an average of about 6-8 years worth, with a few outliers on either end of the curve.
Romney is a significant outlier if you compare…
Perhaps you’re unclear that Mitt Romney is actually an individual human being. According to the IRS those who took part in the 2009 amnesty program were indeed engaging in criminal acts.
Fuck that. If I am forbidden to say where I learned some information, I’m damn well not passing it along.
Yes, I do expect to hold Senator Reid to the same standard. We’re supposed to be the Good Guys.
Or at least, not as bad as the Republicans.
I have the same disagreement with Reid’s approach that you do. I’m very disappointed in the tactic. I’d go so far as to put in the “Stupid Democratic Idea” thread. We could have opened the topic and had the same discussion without the “source who must not be named” BS.
Republicans are not the bad guys because they fight dirty. They are the bad guys because they want to enrich their little tribe, at the expense of all the others they see as unworthy. Fighting dirty is just how they get there.
And we would be damn fools not to fight dirty for our principles. We are the good guys because our goals are to bring prosperity to the largest number of people possible, not because we bring a knife to a gunfight.
Not sure I agree, it can be an awfully slippery slope. I’d rather pursuade than manipulate through lying and fearmongering. OTOH, if you don’t win, you can’t promote your agenda…
/end hijack
I think Reid’s move is a good one if he’s right (and has good reasons to believe) that Romney paid no taxes. If he knows that to be true, then there is nothing wrong with communicating this truth and letting Romney make the next move.
If he’s wrong, or if he doesn’t have good reasons to believe the claim, then it’s a bad move in both the pragmatic and ethical sense.
I honestly don’t understand magellan01’s arguments in this thread. Romney doesn’t have to release his taxes because it is all legal. If it’s all legal then why not release them? Politics? Please, Romney should put on his Big Boy pants.
Yeah, Romney is definitely the real story here. But why do you imply that Romney “can’t handle” this? How is he not handling it? Maybe he’s making the most prudent decision based upon what he know about his own tax returns.
Yes, it largely depends on whether Reid has a legitimate source who confided the information about Romney’s tax returns to him. Just calling him a liar, a dirty liar, a dirty fucking liar, or a goddamned dirty fucking liar doesn’t really do that much to move the conversation along, but it’s a cool diversionary tactic, especially if you can say it while your head asplodes…
He’s not handling it in the sense that he’s hiding from it. He’s whining about the questions being asked, and thereby allowing it to mushroom instead of making it go away. If he continues this approach, he loses. If he were to come forward with whatever the reason is, then it would be forgotten by Election Day.
I don’t know, if he participated in the amnesty plan, for example, I suspect that might be fatal to his campaign regardless of when it got disclosed. As I recall, the Swiftboating stuff started fairly early in the election cycle and I don’t think its effect ever entirely disssapated.
It might not be amnesty that he’s hiding (though that does seem to be the likeliest inference), so whatever it is might or might not be fatal. Contributing to the obvious general inference that he’s hiding something serious *definitely *is fatal, though.
Kerry never directly addressed the swiftboat lie campaign, either, which is one of the reasons they didn’t go away. He made the assumption that the media would take care of that instead - and the fact that they didn’t is the other reason. The difference is that he wasn’t hiding something and never appeared to be, but the opposite is true for Romney.
I’m not getting your point here. What is the illegal activity? It is my understanding the a company, say IBM, can keep certain profits out of the country and not pay taxes on them. But if they bring that money back here, or spend it here, taxes kick in. No?
Are you deliberately being obtuse? He’s not talking about corporate tax amnesty. He’s talking about the individual offshore accounts tax amnesty in 2009.