Will Romney call his bluff?

[Gob]

The Obama campaign has said if Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney releases five years of tax returns, they will drop the issue.

Mr Romney, who has made public his 2010 taxes and plans to do the same with his 2011 returns, rejected the offer.

The former private equity chief said on Thursday he had never paid under 13% in taxes over the past 10 years, a much smaller rate than most US wage-earners.

Mr Romney will challenge President Barack Obama in November's election.

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina made the tax-returns offer to his counterpart, Matt Rhoades, in a letter on Friday.

[Lord Jim]

The Obama campaign has said if Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney releases five years of tax returns, they will drop the issue.

[Gob]

GREER, South Carolina: The Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says he has paid tax of least 13 per cent in each of the past 10 years, offering the fullest explanation yet of his tax status.

''I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 per cent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. So I paid taxes every single year,'' he said on Thursday.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/take-my-wor ... z23qkW5gG5

[rubato]

13 percent of WHAT?

If it is 13% of his gross income then he does not have a problem and would release his income tax returns.

But it is not.

Mitty is a liar.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Yeah, and he's not nice to dogs!

(I wonder how he feels about bees?)

[Scooter]

The Obama campaign has said if Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney releases five years of tax returns, they will drop the issue.

They said they will drop the issue about release of tax returns. They didn't say they would not address whatever issues would be raised by the release of the tax returns (of which there must be some whoppers, else Romney wouldn't be flouting decades of precedent set by presidential candidates (including his own father) by refusing to release them.

[Econoline]

Team Romney has apparently made the political calculation that whatever information is contained in those tax returns would cause more political damage than his "flouting decades of precedent" by stonewalling the issue and enduring the rumors and speculation. If you assume Romney and his advisers aren't (politically) stupid, then they're probably correct.

[Miles]

Just and obversation, how many one term presidents have had a real positive effective?

[Gob]

Good point Miles, and worthy of a new thread I believe Miles, do you want to start it or shall I?

[Lord Jim]

Team Romney has apparently made the political calculation that whatever information is contained in those tax returns would cause more political damage than his "flouting decades of precedent" by stonewalling the issue and enduring the rumors and speculation.

Well, that's one theory....

Another might be that they've made the political calculation that at this point they are better off refusing to give in to the truly reprehensible tactics that Team Obama has resorted to in order to try to brow beat them in to producing more material for them to demagogue, take out of context and misrepresent, than they would be by giving in to them....

A good reason for why they might make this calculation is because "the rumors and speculation" are coming almost exclusively from Team Obama, other Democratic partisans, and their allies in the press. Mitt Romney doesn't lose one single vote that he otherwise would have by standing up to the gutter tactics this bunch has employed over this.

There isn't one single voter in this country who is going to say to to him or herself, "Well, I was going to vote for Romney because the economy is tanked and I don't think Obama knows what do about it, but because he didn't release more years of his tax returns, I'm sticking with Obama".

Nobody, and I mean no-body "reasons" in that fashion....

As I've said, I used to think that he should release more returns, but since seeing the appalling depths to which the Obama campaign has been willing to stoop over this, I've turned 180 degrees on the question. If I were Romney I'd tell them to kiss my ass....

(though please don't use those words Mitt....)

[Miles]

Good point Miles, and worthy of a new thread I believe Miles, do you want to start it or shall I?

Given my current conditions I would very much like to interact with such a thread but don't think I should start one. My thought process at present is constantly on a level with that of Homer Simpson. I hope to get things on a more even keel soon.

[rubato]

Still waiting to hear how he got close to $100,000,000 in a 401k.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

A theory articulated in Baron's last week (admitted as pure speculation) was that he didn't earn much during some of those years, and releasing them would be embarassing - counter to his image as "extremely successful."

I agree with Jimmy on this one. There is NO political downside for Romney to refuse to release these documents, and if he does release them they will be examined minutely by every Dem political flack for weeks, with the result that every week between now and November 6 we will have another "headline" about some outrage revealed in MR's tax return of one year or another.

Given the complete "pass" that has been given to Obama on his academics, citizenship, past associations, etc., this campaign to make an issue of MR's tax returns is not only nauseating but aggravating as well. I sincerely hope that someone in the Republican camp brings these issues to the forefront in the coming months.

[Grim Reaper]

Given the complete "pass" that has been given to Obama on his academics, citizenship, past associations, etc., this campaign

How quickly you forget about the Donald and his little birther circus. And there's nothing in his academics to question, or his past associations. At least nothing real to question, except half formed conspiracies by people like you.

[Econoline]

There isn't one single voter in this country who is going to say to to him or herself, "Well, I was going to vote for Romney because the economy is tanked and I don't think Obama knows what do about it, but because he didn't release more years of his tax returns, I'm sticking with Obama".

Nobody, and I mean no-body "reasons" in that fashion....

Yes, but....

If the Democrats can effectively portray Romney as a rich man who doesn't pay his fair share of taxes, who pays a lower tax rate than middle class taxpayers and want even lower taxes for himself and others like him...then they might get enough of these voters--a pool of 90,000,000 who prefer Obama to Romney by a margin of 2-to1 riled up enough to get up off their asses and into the voting booth. (From the linked article: "They could turn a too-close-to-call race into a landslide for President Obama— but by definition they probably won't.")

The Republicans are demonizing Obama and making every effort to get people either to vote AGAINST Obama or at least to be too pessimistic to vote at all (by ignoring the policies that led to the worst recession in 80 years and ignoring any improvements in the economy in the last 3½ years), so I can't see anything wrong with pointing out something that many voters are likely to dislike about Romney.

A theory articulated in Baron's last week (admitted as pure speculation) was that he didn't earn much during some of those years, and releasing them would be embarassing - counter to his image as "extremely successful."

That's ridiculous. If anything, the revelation that a rich man like Romney has gone through some lean years himself would only increase his likability factor with those less affluent than him. (OTOH, if the revelation were that he earned a lot but very little of it was taxable, it would have the opposite effect.)

And of course any candidate who releases his tax returns should expect that they'll be examined by his opponent's supporters: that's just the way presidential politics works nowadays. Barack Obama has released 12 years of his tax returns....do you really think there have been no Republican political flacks examining them minutely?

[Lord Jim]

of these voters--a pool of 90,000,000 who prefer Obama to Romney by a margin of 2-to1 riled up enough to get up off their asses and into the voting booth.

After reading that article, I think the Obama campaign would be better off spending it's money on free beer to give away at the polling stations on election day than on campaign commercial hit pieces if it wants most of that bunch to show up....

[Econoline]

Probably true...but my point was that it was NOT just the "undecided" voters the Obama campaign might be targeting...there's also a substantial pool of "sympathetic-but-not-voting" voters. And apparently it would help Obama if they vote, and Romney if they don't.