As a rule, family members of candidates shouldn't be considered political players, but once those family members become campaign surrogates and enter the political sphere making partisan arguments, there's nothing inappropriate about scrutinizing their comments.
Take Ann Romney's latest defense of her husband's secrecy, for example.
Ann Romney sat down with NBC's Natalie Morales and when the subject turned to the still-hidden tax returns, the Republican became quite agitated. Romney insisted that her husband's campaign has done "what's legally required of us," which is true, but fails to meet accepted norms, standards, and expectations.
She added, "There's going to be no more tax releases given." I assume that means outside of the 2011 returns Mitt Romney has promised to release, but has not yet disclosed, though Ann Romney didn't elaborate.
She went on to say, "There's nothing we're hiding." Except the tax returns, the tax rates paid, and the explanation for the Swiss bank account, the shell corporation in Bermuda, and the cash in the Cayman Islands. Other than hiding all of that, they're not hiding anything.
And why will the Romneys refuse all additional calls for disclosure, even from Republicans? According to Ann Romney, it's because Democrats might use the materials to make Mitt Romney look bad.
I continue to marvel at this deeply odd argument. As Dahlia Lithwick and Raymond Vasvari recently explained, "[Romney] isn't actually claiming that his opponents will lie. He's claiming he's entitled to hide the truth because it could be used against him.... These are tax returns. Factual documents. No different than, say, a birth certificate. But the GOP's argument that inconvenient facts can be withheld from public scrutiny simply because they can be used for mean purposes is a radical idea in a democracy."
And yet, this radical idea is now the Romneys' only talking point on the issue.
Leave a Comment:
Trust us !
We'll Help the middle class
Trust us !
We'll trickle down that wealth
Trust us !
We'll get more jobs
Trust us !
We'll get you a nice bridge in Brooklyn and a penthouse on Park Avenue
Trust us !
And the Best part is it will be a headline again Friday Morning .
Trying to stay on Message Willard?
What about those taxes? What are you hiding?
These people are inept.
America wanted to escape in 1980, and chose a vacation in ReaganVille.
There must be a willingness of the audience to suspend disbelief. Reaganomics looked like Voodoo then, and it was- yet people wanted to believe the big promises so they did, and despite the betrayal of those promises many still do.
30 years later, tour guides are writing nasty things about the shabby versimilitude of RomneyWorld. It's like a scientist taking his son to Disneyland telling him how everything works. It takes away the Magic, and the child is let down. Other children have been on a Fox news binge and are feeling more than a little depressed when considering evidence of the unreality.
How Ann Romney is not behaving how June Cleaver would.
How given his record, Ryan is a deficit hawk like a myna bird is an english speaker. Killjoy pundits contradict spokespersons weaving the Romneyworld alternate reality version of events. Analysts like Ezra Klein point out how the illusions work, how lifeless the robots appear, the tax cut ride gives every indication the middle class will be taken for a ride.
If there is a strong desire to live in RomneyWorld, there can be an overwhelming desire for things to be hidden from them. Many people want to get back to that simple world of the white picket fence, where Ward has his good job, and June is at home making dinner for him in the kitchen, and the boys are taught good values in the American morality play.
The question is whether the verisimilitude is convincing enough, inviting enough.
Will people will be in a frame of mind to willingly suspend disbelief on November 6th?
Wonderful prose , and you nailed it. It does in fact require a suspension of disbelief . Ailes, Murdoch and the others of their ilk have destroyed reasonable discourse in this country I try and avoid the same syndrome on the liberal blogs and progressive outlets. But when you are assaulted nonstop every day with constant lies that never seemed to be questioned lest the interviewer appear unfair and unbalanced, your natural reaction is to retreat to those familiar places .
While we are not perfect our platform is not predicated on a lie and deceptions.
We will however take no prisoners and do what is necessary to stop the scourge of the oligarchy
Everyone looks for comfort. It is comforting to watch with joy as our Rachel takes apart GOP prevarication with such deft skill. It is much less pleasant to study the messaging on Fox or AM talk shows. For that matter- many people tell me they don't want to watch the news anymore because it makes them feel very bad and fatalistic. I must confess that after an election season is over, it has the same dispiriting effect on me- I spent very little time listening to the news- it was just too unpleasant to see the inaction on climate change and refusal to breakup the Wall Street big five.
That is the sin of the viewer in walling himself off from information.
The media are also not without sin, but clever players of the reality game pose an impossible task for true journalists. Because true journalists follow rules, they can be gamed.
The stakes in this reality game are high in our country, but they can be much higher. Amanpour was described as biased in favor of the Muslim minority in Bosnia- and was criticized by US journalists for not being neutral- not balancing the Muslim version of events with the Serbian version. She felt she could just report,
There was genocide in the Balkans but there was ambiguity and the world was unable and unwilling to act. Reporters on the ground knew what the truth was, but empirically- it was tough to prove that one side was telling the big lie. Amanpour's journalistic standards informed her she must dispassionately report the Serbian version without spin. Morally, she felt it was her duty not to treat the two versions equivalently stating, "in cases of genocide you can't just be neutral". (source:guardian.uk)
Most have little trouble with Amanpour's refusal to be gamed by the Serbians. But this is tough stuff- if it is proper for Amanpour to have made an exception, then what about journalists facing "lesser" cases- perhaps involving life and death and vicious oppression- but not genocide. What do we expect the reporter to do with unsubstantiated intuitions?
There is other gaming of journalistic maxims. Some would say that O'Brien stepped over a line when interviewing Sununu. The maxim he was gaming was that journalists must not take sides. Sununu repeated his GOP talking point and became visibly agitated when O'Brien contradicted him. In an interview the story is not supposed to be about the reporter, but the person interviewed- the interaction should not be a debate about what is real.
The vigorous assault on the legitimacy of the truth tellers of society is central to the reality game. It is a tough place to be in- Honest journalists must remain faithful to the standards of their profession while avoiding being gamed into becoming unwilling participants in a campaign of projecting falsehoods.
No, it requires disbelief to have a noose draped around it's neck and then be dropped through a trap door.
Very upsetting! What is PA thinking even considering this so close to the election??
They're thinking that if everyone eligible to vote is allowed to do so, Romney will lose.
Ann Romney says there is nothing hiding in the unreleased tax returns. Well, that surely settles it, huh?
+1 for your screen name. Hee.
Let's get this argument straight.
Obvious question: how can you, Ann Romney be in a position to give any assurance? You just said you didn't know any better than I did what the trust has been doing.
We are to believe that although Romney himself has pointed out that Blind trusts can be given explicit instructions about what sorts of activities to stay away from, that he is not responsible for the financial decisions his blind trust has made with his money.
It makes me think that Romney has made a calculation that releasing his tax returns would be worse for his reputation than the ongoing political damage he sustains by not releasing them. There must be some really fun information in those documents.
Did Ms. Morales dare ask Mrs Mitt if Romney's non-disclosure is an acceptable precedent for all following presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat. No.
Does anyone have the cahones to ask what should be a blatantly obvious question?
Radical idea? You mean like Obama hiding his college career behind a wall of secrecy. Obviously, it's not radical at all. Which reminds me, why did Obama let a representative of his say he was born in Kenya?
I know you are, but what am I?
Childish enough for you?
College transcripts. What a pitiful attack.
I don't know what Obama's college transcript has to do with anything. I do know he is one smart dude.
As to Obama's education, he was the President of the Harvard Law Review. Let's review what that means so even a slow person like you can understand, Shooter. President of the Harvard Law Review is the single most sought after law student position in the country. It isn't an affirmative action gig, a popularity contest or something that is faked. For me, as a practicing lawyer for the last 38 years, that is all I have to know about Obama's smarts.
Now where the f**k are Romney's tax returns.
You are such a worthless pile of something one scrapes off their shoes. Go to hell you worthless illegitmate scumsucking fascist. No wonder your "avatar" is a reptile.
Shooter, Pres. Obama has released his tax returns. Mitt Romney has not. Any other right-wing talking point is a transparent ruse to distract from these facts.
Man, you really are just a total bad faith troll. You never respond when anyone shows why what you say is ridiculous or false or just imbecilic. Instead, you just disappear then come back on another thread and say it again.
So, here is again.
No presidential candidate in this history of the Republic has ever released his college records. No sane person thinks what a person who must be at least 35 and has never been younger than 43 did when he was 20 is relevant to his character or qualification to serve. Not least because the overwhelming majority of people don't think the stuff they did at that age is particularly relevant to who they are now and have things they did at that age they'd rather their own kids not know about.
Recent tax returns however--well, most sane people, including your guy's dad, George Romney, understand that there is no single set of documents that says more about a person's character, recent background, and understanding his or her duties as a citizen than a tax return. And there's no document more critical to exposing potential conflicts of interest. Which is why candidates started following George's lead on that.
Your guy's dad, who was ten times the man his son was, set the standard. Far from disagreeing with his dad's reasoning, your guy clearly thinks it is precisely right, and that's the problem.
Now do slink back under your bridge like you always do.
Ok shooter once again'let Romney release his military record during the Viet Nam war.The one he so vehemently defended.He rode around France on his bicycle peddling his religion while over 50,000 of our young people died,defending the country that allowed him to make a fortune.Or how about his record as a police officer when he used to dress in his uniform,put a siren on his car and pull people over.Or how about his grade in barbering in high school when him and some other cowardly hater's cut a defenseless kid's hair off.Or has he offered up his college transcript's?No.
Shoo? Shoo? Where are ya?.... (crickets)
Well put, Steve.
The answer Kenya was given to the question concerning his Father. What have you against the great Land of Kenya?
Awwwww, Shooter what's the matter? You having a hard time with truth, facts, even facts unseen? Maybe if you took the plastic bag off of your head, you just might get some air and reality to clear out those "voices" in your head.....
I see everyone is studiously avoiding the Kenya bio.
Obama has hidden his entire college career. Why is that? No applications, writings, transcripts, anything. Not even while at Law Review. Anyone claiming the man is brilliant, is making an assumption.
An assumption, like Romney's taxes being problematical. OK let's assume what? How about paying no taxes for ten years. So what? I'm going to assume Romney did everything by the book, and navigated the system successfully. Why make that assumption? Anyone that has to ask has never been on the wrong side of an IRS audit. I don't have to trust Romney I trust the IRS. Especially with Obama as boss.
So once again we are at the point where any claims about Romney's taxes is irrelevant. If you don't like that Romney can avoid (legal term) taxes because of the rules, your problem is with the rules, not Romney.
Obama on the other hand is being secretive about his past. Secretive about who he was and the transition to who he is. Now personally I don't care. What he's done is enough to know, he needs to go. But no one is going to shame Romney into releasing anything he doesn't have to, as long as Obama does the same.
Any questions?
President Obama is merely not one to boast about his near perfect report card. Unlike others who willingly stick their noses up at the American people.
Angel you have no idea what is on Obama's report card. You are just another reason to ignore the left.
Fixed the country? Recovered the stock market's value? Rescued a major American industry? Killed Bin Laden? Yeah, he's been SOOOO horrible... maybe for your racist ass, Shooter, but not for us thinking Americans. Where's Mitt's school records? I mean, you wouldn't be such a hypocrite as to demand something from one that your own guy hasn't released... *snort*
Now see, this is just a big fat untruth...
Unless of course, you're Bush 43. The hypocrisy here is strong. Can we start a feature called Steve's Sanctimony?
Shooter, Pres. Obama has released his tax records. Mitt Romney has not. All this talk about Kenya and college records is an ineffective attempt to distract.
And for what it's worth, why would I vote for a guy who stuffs $100M into an IRA account, takes a medical deduction on a show horse, stashes cash overseas and squirrels away his tax returns - and all the while, the devil in the details of his "budget" say that he's planning to raise my taxes.
Was what Romney did legal? Maybe - let's say it is and that he's gotten away with paying extremely low-to-no taxes. Fine. Some think that's awesome. I think it's unbecoming of someone who wants to be president, and certainly unworthy of my respect and of my vote.
Again, Romney has not released his returns. Pres. Obama has. Anything else on the topic - transcripts, Kenya - is silly season talk.
Sorry June, but the issue is that both have something they don't want anyone else to see.
As for why one should vote for Romney? Democrats under Obama are like dogs fighting over table scraps, trying to make sure everyone gets an equal share. Romney knows how to make the meal, the scraps originally came from.
No, he knows how to slaughter the cow, fire the butcher, take out the choice pieces, and leave the rest to rot. Has it escaped you that Romney SOCIALIZED everything that wasn't profitable for him? He shoved everything he could onto the backs of the US citizen, and took everything profitable and useful with him. That's not making the meal, that's stealing the meal.
After a campaign event in Miami at the business of a convicted drug trafficker, questionable Salvador investors, French auto fatality, questionably perjured documents in Mass., the purchase of electronic records from Mass., hidden financial records from his Olympic work, no delineated plan to govern if elected, state trooper uniform, barbering without a license and tax records, offshore accounts, bloated IRA and radically shifted moral stances, it is obvious Mitt has nothing to hide. He has everything to hide!!!!
Anne said that what is on their tax returns would be damaging. And that the Democrats could use this information to harm Rmoneys' chances of being President, it must be something undemocratic. What could be more undemocratic then not paying taxes, especially when you are a billionaire? Anne and her husband should understand that the rich political leaders who are Republican seem to be trying to change legislature that would only favor the rich. Leaving other Americans who weren't born with silverspoons in their mouths to work themselves to death just trying to make ends meet. They can't relate to hard working Americans and going around bragging about how better they are than everybody else doesn't help. We are merely poor peasants in their eyes who deserve to die without first even getting to see the doctor. If he picked Paul Ryan as his first mate or his number2 or his best man, we can all look at the depression again rearing it's ugly head. Paul Ryan may have abs of steel but, his heart is in the wrong place. He worships those who worship Money his belief in the narcissistic Ayn Rand is proof.
"...it's because Democrats might use the materials to make Mitt Romney look bad."
No Ann, your husband "looks bad" all on his own. Stop blaming democrats for Mittens immoral actions.....
Documentation of his management of the Olympics: into the shredder.
Email and other electronic records of his governance in Massachusetts: deleted.
Queen Ann and King Mitt say: shut up and vote us in, little people.
If this was my wife I think I would be filling for divorce.
I'm not sure Mitt and Ann have bought themselves what every uber-rich made in America couple that has everything really wants, but I'm sure they've thought about it - since a moat is the only thing they seemingly need to keep the riffraff out and the hungry hordes at bay! -Kevo
There can't be anybody left in the US who doesn't agree that Romney is not releasing his returns because they reveal him to be a very rich man who pays not enough in taxes in the eyes of the majority of Americans.
"But the GOP's argument that inconvenient facts can be withheld from public scrutiny simply because they can be used for mean purposes is a radical idea in a democracy."
However under this idea, Clinton should never have lied about all his many affairs in 1992 and never become president as a result.
In fact, it's the law that protects Romney's returns from public scrutiny, just like all the incorrect info about Obama's school records being sealed. It's the law that does so there to.
Changing the law on the disclosure of tax returns makes abundant sense, but lets include members of Congress as well, so we can watch all the dancing on hot coals
Thank you for the daily hydrant marking, little boy. You're in need of toilet training.
The difference here is that Bill Clinton didn't run on the premise that his ability to pull chicks in a bar is going to turn the economy around or something...
Mitt Romney began his campaign with the premise of - I am a successful business man, therefore, I have the qualifications to fix the economy.
Ok, premise accepted. Now, wouldn't it be logical to take a look at that persons financial dealings in order to make a determination for ourselves if this premise rings true?
I don't mind you senselessly repeating this post to me very much. I simply figure that it's all you have to contribute.
However given your constant fetish with canine evacuation habits, all the dogs in your neighborhood must be very nervous and constipated
Well, if all Americans are already clear about what the problems with the returns are, why doesn't he just release them? Obviously, because there's another problem there that you're not considering. E.g., maybe he CHEATED on his taxes, possibly even for years, by hiding money in foreign accounts, and then took advantage of the IRS program of amnesty for foreign-account holding tax CHEATS. Maybe.
I'll be happy to apologize if my suspicions are... demonstrably... wrong. All Willard has to do is release his returns like every other modern Presidential candidate (or would-be home buyer) has already done.
Show us your long-form worth-certificates, Willard!
;-)
I knew the extra-marital affairs issue was going to come up sooner or later. Next.
dfabs:
Thanks for the polite post.
I wouldn't of course agree that the honesty of a presidential candidate, in Clinton's case, is immaterial, or then Romney would be a good candidate instead of a bad one.
I also would think that it would have been nice to know about his most basic lack of self-control even regarding 22 year old interns IN the Oval.
Now I think it does or would have made sense for him to release them but he didn't and people should vote on their feelings about this.
Changing the law, AND including Congress, would be a real eye-opener.
Are you throwing stones? Should you be.
I agree, we would all love everybody to be 100% truthful and honest all the time but who you sleep with has nothing to do with how you would run the country (IMO) and I also defend every Republican politician who gets caught cheating on THEIR wives or picking up gay prostitutes in a bus station rest room etc...
If Newt Gingrich cheats on his wife... I don't care, that's his private life.
If Clinton has an affair... same thing.
If Larry Craig is gay, so what, fine with me.
If Larry Craig has an anti gay platform for running for office, then it's an issue that he is gay and was lying about it.
I guess I just don't believe that being a womanizer means that my president will not be able to handle the Bay of Pigs or create jobs or is inherently dishonest. Every single person in this country is tempted by sex and half the country, statistically, has cheated! I don't know, maybe I'm in the minority on this one but I wouldn't cut my star quarterback from the team for cheating if he is throwing touchdown passes.
dfabs:
that's a reasonable position but one that i thinks undercuts Benen's argument:
"But the GOP's argument that inconvenient facts can be withheld from public scrutiny simply because they can be used for mean purposes is a radical idea in a democracy."
Other things certainly fall within that category, Kennedy's severe physical problems, John Edwards lack of even the most basic moral standards Cheney's as well.
I actually think that Romney's overall policy positions are more of a problem than how much taxes he paid in terms of how good a president he would be.
Marie Antoinette, er, I mean Ann Romney is so full of it, it's no wonder her eyes are brown.
I must say that someone else's vitriol (other than my own) is most refreshing. Thanks for the laughs!
(: - )
I want a pony.
A dancing, dressage one ? Nice tax write off.
WOW. They really do think voters will accept the "trust me" response. They're clueless.
Wow, is it just me or does the whole thing appear to be unraveling already for Mr. (and Mrs.) Rmoney..? When your wife is offered as a campaign surrogate so you don't have to disclose your tax returns it just seems, to me at least, to be a very desperate move! I assume that not long after this, Ann and Mitt will be potentially moving to the Cayman Islands (and hopefully, renouncing their citizenship). One can dream!
Off they go into the sunset, on their matching Cadillac jet skis.
I just noticed the reproduction Staffordshire dog next to Ann in the interview. Placed intentionally or not, that and Ann's demeanor are not making the Rmoney's case for a connection with the Middle Class even remotely believable!
(lolz)
Is that a real pearl necklace?
Not that they need tax returns to do that...
Exactly, only with even more relevance. I demand to see the long-form worth-certificates!
;-)
Okay, Natalie was much to passive in that interview. She was afraid of Ann. Why?! And will someone please pass a law for the next election that states how many years of tax returns must be handed over.
Trollop: I agree that Ann's demeanor was awful. Someone should tell her that she's supposed to appeal to the American people under all circumstances, or at least try to look the part. This segment also reminded me of the one she gave on one of the morning shows when she referred to the American public: "you people."
I have no doubt her deference to Ms. Mitt was why she was given the interview.
Compare her to Michelle on Leno the other night.
Need I say more?
Trollop: I also agree with you regarding Mitt's lack of courage and class having his wife (who looks incredibly stressed in that interview and already has M.S.) do his dirty work, like he had his boys do his dirty work when he had them call the other prospective V.P.'s saying they wouldn't be chosen. What's up with that?!!
What it is is Romney's always had someone to do his dirty work for him.
Rightie is awfully fond of citing something then complaining about the cite being scruitinized. Been watching this for a long time.
This isn't that much different, someone willingly joins the fray and the Rightie wants that person untouchable.
Which goes along with another thing I've noticed about the Rightie, they have nothing to do with reality.
I can't believe Ann Romney would say "... there's nothing we're hiding." I would believe she'd say "There's nothing we're hiding, you people!"
Gosh, her husband must have been wrong when he said blind trusts were a sham, mustn't he? Oh, no, he can't be wrong! There's only one possible reason to hide the returns... just like there's only one possible reason to set up offshore tax shelters!
What's with the constant disparaging of Harry Reid by talking about "unverified source" when e.g. Huffington Post has an article called "Harry Reid Romney Tax Tipster 'Is A Credible Person,' New Source Tells CNN (VIDEO)"?
Well what I think they're hiding are the many sister wives of Mitt and his sons that they need all those houses for, as in Big Love...
Thread winner!
Don't forget the $100 Million IRA...! How did that happen?
That huge IRA, to my understanding, is illegal, e.g., in Ann's name, who has never worked and/or the large amount it contains. Why aren't more people talking about that illegality?
like somebody believes her entitled ass