Ann Romney: "We've given all you people need to know."

[_Kishkumen]

Carter's defects are exaggerated.

Reagan's virtues are exaggerated.

Four years as president are better preparation for the presidency than eight years of flip-flopping on the campaign trail.

[_beastie]

Carter's defects are exaggerated.

Reagan's virtues are exaggerated.

Four years as president are better preparation for the presidency than eight years of flip-flopping on the campaign trail.

Agreed.

In regards to the tax issue, Romney has been planning and/or running for president for at least a decade now. And during that time he didn't have the foresight to make sure his tax returns wouldn't cause a big stink? I think that speaks poorly of his judgment. I also think it hints that he's been surrounded largely by fans who haven't asked a lot of him. We all know that being one of the Mormon royalty - and a rich one at that - can easily have that effect. They're practically treated like rock stars, and rock stars end up behaving in ways that seem to indicate they don't expect any negative consequences. That's because they're surrounded by sycophants.

[_Cicero]

Do you think what he did there translates in any meaningful way to the job he's trying to get now? Granted, a president is essentially the CEO of the executive branch. But most of his job is dealing with the two other branches that have at least as much power as he does. CEO skills don't seem to help with this.

I think his experience running SLOC does translate in a meaningful way. That job involved a great deal of diplomacy, public relations, and motivation. It was a complete mess when he took it over, and I think he did an impressive job turning it around.

Obama certainly ran into this problem. His President resume consists mainly of a long list of things that he tried to accomplish, but were blocked by filibusters.

Early in his term, Obama made the classic mistake of bringing a pocket knife to a gunfight when it came to dealing with congressional Republicans. I also think it was misguided to spend so much political capital on health care. I'm not against universal health care per se, but I don't think it was the right time for it since the economy was (and still is) in such bad shape. At some point, a president is going to have to get serious about tax and entitlement reform or we'll be in real trouble.

As I said before, I am much more concerned with the possibility of a war with Iran than I am about who Romney might appoint to the Supreme Court, although that is certainly on my mind as well.

[_moksha]

Republicans, of all people, should readily see the danger of incentivizing the wrong behaviors. Incentivizing incarceration, for example, is a wonderful way to lay the foundation for a police state.

Best to let the private prisons be reimbursed at Medicaid rates and the incentive to build these prisons will no longer exist. Only when there is sufficient profit to be made through privatization will companies lobby Republicans with envelopes of unmarked currency.

[_EAllusion]

Incidentally, while it is rhetorically convenient for Republicans to say they want to appointment more Clarence Thomas's because his opinions have been friendly to conservative politics, in practice that's a tough option. Thomas has a pretty unusual judicial philosophy which narrows the candidates that could seem qualified down considerably. The Scalia challenge is different. For someone like that you need someone who can thread the needle in having qualifications without having a deep record that will create a nomination battle. Alito was perfect for that.

Romney could nominate an Alito to the Supreme Court as a bone to the religious right or not. He could also go in a completely different route and it wouldn't surprise me. There's a shot that he'd nominate a libertarian friendly justice, to be frank. I wish I had a better read on what the man would do, but I think it's a wall of mystery. This is further complicated by the fact that Republicans have amped up opposition to routine judicial nominations - thus forcing more conservative nominees - and it's not clear how much the Democrats will do the same in the face of a president Romney. She's probably too old now, but a Janice Rodgers Brown type would be my best guess if I were to handicap it. I wouldn't mind that at all, all things considered.

[_kairos]

ok- you heard the prophesy here first- Mitt romney will NOT release his tax returns as called for by his opponets. why?

for the same reason that cardinal mahoney did not /would not release files of la diocese on priest sexual abuse. mahoney had his lawyers kick the can down the road for years- finally the courts ordered him too release the files - he did not- why because he would have been toast if they were released- his involvement was so deep and morally defective that he might even have gone to prison. so instead he paid over $1,000,000,000 to the survivors/victims who were suing the la diocese and trying to get a court case/decision. he would have paid $2,000,000,000 or more. he was not going to give up the files that would "hang " him. his bro cardinal law in boston gave up the files- he lost big time! mahoney would have given up his first -born, uh no becasue he is supposedly celibate so he would have given up his mother to keep those files secret.

now mitt's guys have assesed the damage if mitt makes his returns public-releasing could/would cost him the presidency so he will take the heat of not releasing and counteratk -probably already has asking for obama's school records from k-harvard law school plus asking for any other embarrassing obama paperwork.

trust me- the mittster has weighed the pro's and con's and has decided the con's far out weigh the pro's on releasing his 1040's; so unless some irs employee or obama 'plumber" gets involved, we will NOT see those returns.

just sayin
k

[_DrW]

ok- you heard the prophesy here first- Mitt romney will NOT release his tax returns as called for by his opponets. why?

for the same reason that cardinal mahoney did not /would not release files of la diocese on priest sexual abuse. mahoney had his lawyers kick the can down the road for years- finally the courts ordered him too release the files - he did not- why because he would have been toast if they were released- his involvement was so deep and morally defective that he might even have gone to prison. so instead he paid over $1,000,000,000 to the survivors/victims who were suing the la diocese and trying to get a court case/decision. he would have paid $2,000,000,000 or more. he was not going to give up the files that would "hang " him. his bro cardinal law in boston gave up the files- he lost big time! mahoney would have given up his first -born, uh no becasue he is supposedly celibate so he would have given up his mother to keep those files secret.

now mitt's guys have assesed the damage if mitt makes his returns public-releasing could/would cost him the presidency so he will take the heat of not releasing and counteratk -probably already has asking for obama's school records from k-harvard law school plus asking for any other embarrassing obama paperwork.

trust me- the mittster has weighed the pro's and con's and has decided the con's far out weigh the pro's on releasing his 1040's; so unless some irs employee or obama 'plumber" gets involved, we will NOT see those returns.

just sayin
k

The longer this goes on, and the more Republicans who call for release of the returns, the more folks will be (should be) convinced that Romney really has something to hide. The point about poor planning in Romney's part is an excellent one, as well.

The Obama campaign should not let this one go and should hit Romney hard with it during the debates. Romney has no comeback on this.

Properly handled by the Obama campaign, this issue will continue to be a very serious problem for Romney; mainly because it fits so very well into the Democrat's narrative about him.

It is almost as if the Democrats had prophetic powers (just like kairos).

[_EAllusion]

I think it's the opposite. The more other Republicans call for Romney to release his returns, the more likely it is they aren't that big of a deal. Because if they were, there certainly would be inside Romney people telling those other Republicans to shut up. Rove knows how to play ball. Most likely, the returns just reveal that Romney is filthy rich and able to use things like creative deductions that filthy rich people do.

[_EAllusion]

In related news, politicians are awful people:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/nancy_pelo ... 283-1.html

[_Kishkumen]

Because if they were, there certainly would be inside Romney people telling those other Republicans to shut up...

Publicly? Or behind the scenes? The latter may be happening, and you just don't know it.

Rove knows how to play ball.

Is Rove a big Romney supporter? I ask because I simply don't know.

Most likely, the returns just reveal that Romney is filthy rich and able to use things like creative deductions that filthy rich people do.

Yeah, and isn't that explosive enough in the current climate? Really?