Q. Is it right for the Senate Majority Leader to campaign for the President and accuse a private citizen of malfeasance from the floor of the Senate?

Q. If Reid actually has a source, why not reveal it? That way we could determine the credibility for ourselves.

Q. Is it not blatant hypocrisy to demand Romney exceed the legal requirements when Reid does not release his tax records?

Q. What moral standing does Reid have when he is about to go 4 consecutive years violating the law by failing to pass a budget?

Q. Isn't this simply another "shiny object" to divert attention from the President's feeble record?

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:It's private information, but it is extremely relevant to federal policy. At issue is the tax burden of the wealthy vs. the middle class. Romney's has strong views on the issue. Romney has also benefited from the lower tax rates enjoyed by private equity firms which has also been a policy issue. Throw in the fact that he managed to move high value assets to tax free retirement accounts at low valuations, and has apparently taken advantage of off shore accounts, and this all strikes me as legitimate.

First of all, is there any reason to think he paid zero? Even if Reid's allegation, based on an invisible and unnamed witness, is true, when would that have been? Certainly not in the past five years, right?

That is a point: what years was it that Romney allegedly paid zero? If he simply released that part for those years, would that stop the yammering?

In any event, unless a law is broken, I don't believe it has any bearing on policy.

If you want to make this a battle on ethics, I'm fine with that. Again, I suggest that Romney should release everything--right after Obama does.

I'm perplexed that Romney did not ensure that his last several tax returns are squeeky clean.

What makes you think they're not? Seriously. Because of Reid's secret informant?

First of all, I'm disgusted with Reid, mostly for not understanding the basics of free trade or understanding them and purposefully telling the American people otherwise. I'm sure Romney has paid lots of tax over the years. He's probably paid more tax than all of us Redscapers combined. But that's besides the point.

Second, to your later point, I don't think that the press is fair. It has a left leaning bias as far as I can tell. The coverage of Romeny's visits to England, Israel, and Poland was pathetic. I also don't think that's the core issue here.

I think that the Romney campaign has discussed the issue of releasing tax returns quite a bit. They are calculating the plusses and minusses of releasing the tax returns. The plus is that they can be done with the issue and focus on the US economy, and Obama's inability to solve it, which should be the focus. They desperately need to keep that as the focus of the election. The minus is --------------? It's got to be something. This is all careful and calculating; these are pragmatic people making these decisions.

Ray Jay wrote:I think that the Romney campaign has discussed the issue of releasing tax returns quite a bit. They are calculating the plusses and minusses of releasing the tax returns. The plus is that they can be done with the issue and focus on the US economy, and Obama's inability to solve it, which should be the focus. They desperately need to keep that as the focus of the election. The minus is --------------? It's got to be something. This is all careful and calculating; these are pragmatic people making these decisions.

You're right in that there is "some" reason. Now, it's the "what" that is all speculation. I don't think it has to be anything more than not giving Obama's Team a new "shiny object" and I suspect the worst-case is probably more like he paid 15% or so (effectively) for many years. Given that he was running four years ago, and that he had planned for at least two years before that to run (when he declined to run again in MA), I am very dubious of the idea that he paid zero taxes. I think Reid, Cutter, Pelosi, and others are just goading him into giving them a distraction--anything to take the focus off of the economy.

At some point, I think the tactics themselves may become the issue. Do we want four more years of a man who knows no limits in terms of propriety? This won't be their last slimy attack.

Have you forgotten abou the Swift Boat attacks of 2004, DF? What about the release of a rumor that McCain had an illegitimate black child in 2000? How about the conservatives having Kenneth Starr investigate Clinton for a myriad of things and turning up essentially nothing? You are being selective in your memory of who plays hardball. Actually, that has been a weakness in the Democratic Party in recent history--not going for the jugular. Obama is a tough cookie--and that's a good thing

freeman2 wrote:Have you forgotten abou the Swift Boat attacks of 2004, DF?

Nope, but . . . was it Bush and his campaign? Was Kerry not the guy who testified against fellow soldiers, comparing them to "Genghis Khan?" Were there not eyewitnesses who came forward? Even IF they were lying, at least we could examine them.

This situation is entirely different.

What about the release of a rumor that McCain had an illegitimate black child in 2000?

Whattaboutery and nothing to do with Obama/Romney. Furthermore, the NYT and WaPo had no compunction about publishing (on the front page, iirc) that McCain had an affair. Evidence? Nah, but it helped their man, Obama. How? By painting him as irrational.

How about the conservatives having Kenneth Starr investigate Clinton for a myriad of things and turning up essentially nothing?

Other than lying under oath and having sex with an intern.

You are being selective in your memory of who plays hardball. Actually, that has been a weakness in the Democratic Party in recent history--not going for the jugular. Obama is a tough cookie--and that's a good thing

Oh yeah, he's tough--on Republicans and the American economy. China? Russia? Iran? Syria?

He's a warm fuzzy hug.

Here's the deal I would make if I was Romney: "Tell you what Mr. Majority Leader, I will give my last 20 years of tax returns to all four major accounting firms. Here are the terms: they can only certify whether or not I've paid taxes in any given year. If I have paid taxes in all 20, you must resign from the Senate."

Deal?

fate

If Reid actually has a source, why not reveal it? That way we could determine the credibility for ourselves

The only way to determine whether Reids source is credible is if Romney releases his tax returns.
Other wise it probably just ends up with Reids source saying "Mitt told me this ..."
and Mitt saying, "No I didn't".
The issue can't be put to rest till Mitt releases the returns for public consumption... period. (And there will still be the nutbars who think they are frauds the same way nutbars come out with the "Its a fake certificate nonsense. And the nonsense about blaming his book publicist for all the disinformation about his birth place... "

Reids talking through his hat, but it doesn't matter.... Mitt had his tax haven bank accounts, which any IRA agent knows is likely there for tax avoidance.
And thats where his problems lay with his image....
His other problem lays in his tax plan, written by George Bush's guy. Its really just a rehash of the Bush tax cut plan...... and how'd that work out ? Deficits... and no job growth.
The first problem is exacerbated by the second. The second makes the first tougher to ride out.

fate

I would invite you to consider what Ann Coulter says. Why? Not because she is anything less than the Right's Maureen Dowd, but because on this issue she's exactly right: this is how Obama has run every one of his races--destroy the opponent, often using sealed records or false rumors.

[/quote]

If true, why isn't Mitt better prepared ? He's had a long time to plot strategies to deal with the Chicago style politics.

Oh, I don't know RickyP. Could Reid's source be named by Reid?

bbauska wrote:Oh, I don't know RickyP. Could Reid's source be named by Reid?

If he actually thought for a moment, that would hit him between the eyes.

rickyp wrote:The only way to determine whether Reids source is credible is if Romney releases his tax returns.
Other wise it probably just ends up with Reids source saying "Mitt told me this ..."
and Mitt saying, "No I didn't".

That is really dumb.

Think for another moment. Reid's "witness" comes forward. He/she describes the circumstances surrounding Romney's startling revelation and how he/she came to know how he didn't pay for 10 years and then Romney's up against it. He has no choice but to release his returns--if the person has a shred of credibility.

Of course, since the "witness" lives in a dusty corner of Crazy Uncle Harry's brain, we'll never get to meet him/her without access to strong psychiatric medication.

Reids talking through his hat, but it doesn't matter.... Mitt had his tax haven bank accounts, which any IRA agent knows is likely there for tax avoidance.

"Are you now or have you ever been associated with an offshore bank account?"

You have joined the new McCarthyites.

If true, why isn't Mitt better prepared ? He's had a long time to plot strategies to deal with the Chicago style politics.

First, it is true.

Second, he probably thought that playing by the rules would be good enough.

DF, Romney has no bargaining power here. He is faced with a Hobson's choice--not release his tax returns and get clobbered for three months or release them and get clobbered for what is in them. So no deal needs to be made by Obama or Reid to exchange documents in return for Romney releasing his tax returns. I don't see how he gets past this issue. And I very much doubt that the tax problems have to do with his paying only 15% for many years. The tax return he released indicated that so releasing more tax returns with the same info is not going to do any damage (certainly nothing compared to not releasing them). As RJ pointed out he has smart advisors and he would be releasing those tax returns unless the damage from releasing them is greater than the damage from not releasing them. And the damage from not releasing them is pretty big so there is something pretty significant there...I mean, one-third of Republicans think he should release them...

This is what you call checkmate...

Whatever.

If Romney paid more taxes than he owed, mowed your lawn, and personally ironed your shirts every day for the rest of your life, you wouldn't vote for him. So, you are hardly a reachable vote.

Otoh, I'm voting against Obama because he's done a bad job. Nothing will change that.

"If Romney paid more taxes than he owed, mowed your lawn, and personally ironed your shirts every day.."

I wonder if Romney has ever done any of those things....

There is no evidence that he has, but seeing that evidence doesn't matter, Romney seems like a nice guy!

freeman2 wrote:"If Romney paid more taxes than he owed, mowed your lawn, and personally ironed your shirts every day.."

I wonder if Romney has ever done any of those things....

I guarantee you he did at least two of the three. I'll let you decide.

Meanwhile, you seem fine with McCarthy-like tactics. Let the rumors begin!

No, Mccarthy-like tactics would be accusing a Clinton aide of helping the Muslim Brotherhood without any evidence. While we don't have direct evidence that there is anything wrong with Romney's tax returns, we do have circumstantial evidence to think there is and given that tax policy is a huge issue Romney's own tax returns have become an extremely relevant issue in this race and he should release them.

Your use of McCarthyism is misplaced--that is something your side of the aisle is doing.