Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D), a former chair of the DNC, told MSNBC Friday that some of the language the Obama campaign is using to attack Mitt Romney over his time at Bain Capital may be crossing the line.
“It’s a great ad in the making. But on the other hand, I think Carol also made a very good point about all this attack may be hurting the president’s brand a little bit, too,” Rendell said on an MSNBC panel show. “I think our supporters went a little bit too far with the felony business.”
Seriously. SERIOUSLY. Just once, can everyone just get behind something and not start muddling the message so others can point and say "LOOK EVEN SOME DEMOCRATS THINK THIS IS TOO FAR!"
I swear, it's like half the Democratic party is made up of double agents set on making them look utterly incompetent.
They've always been incompetent, but they're dumb the way cats are dumb in that they keep trying do stupid shit and get stuck in awkward places when you're not looking and keep getting in your way when you're trying to be productive.
Republicans are dumb the way dogs are dumb in that they'll bark at anything that comes near them that they aren't familiar with. This extends to an irrational hatred of public servants (like mailmen.) They're also slavishly loyal to people who don't deserve it and have a habit of ineffectually chasing their own tails, sprinting out into traffic, and sniffing assholes.
You know, up until the last 10 seconds of the embedded video, the guy from the campaign was actually doing really well. He was basically saying "he was CEO in name only, he was entirely uninvolved, and he was only signing things because that's what CEOs on leave do, because on paper they're still CEO." Then he uttered the words "retired retroactively," which isn't a thing, and destroyed 100% of his credibility.
Well, it can't be the entire American public, can it?
Well the truth is, these little things aren't really what motivate people to vote. All they do is give talking heads something to talk about, so it seems like more of an issue while it's running, but people generally vote with gut instincts and a whole bunch of other irrational nonsense guiding them.
So if you're inclined to vote for Romney for whatever irrational nonsense reason, you don't need a believable excuse to make yourself feel better for voting for him, you just need an excuse. Any one will do.
I think the emotional gut reaction motivator for voting is dead on for the majority of people. Even those who are making rational examinations of the candidates are heavily influenced by those same kind of emotional guy reactions. Whether they are working to keep them in balance or integrating them into their own rationalizations.
This being true it seems to suggest that partisan villification with repeated hammering of tired accusations is exactly the correct thing to do if you want to win an election. Because only by controlling the public mudlsinging in your favor can you build concensus and motivation of irrational nonsense reasons people have. And so if you cared about the future of your country you'd choose your candidate and then proceed to engage heavily in those same tactics. And that depresses me.
“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” said conservative columnist George Will, on ABC’s “This Week.” “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”
On the ABC roundtable, Republican strategist Matthew Dowd had a similar take.
“There’s obviously something there, because if there was nothing there, he would say, ‘Have at it,’” Dowd said. “So there’s obviously something there that compromises what he said in the past about something.”
The fact is, Gov. Romney has released his tax returns and that’s the reason the Democrats are continue to talk about it. He released over 500 documents and it’s important to remember that none are required, so Gov. Romney has gone above and beyond what is required of him to be transparent in these tax returns.
The longer this is drawn out, the better. Love seeing them have to play constant defense on this stuff.
I assume it just shows he's terribly rich and has investments in everything that makes money. Which can be framed to look like he's out of touch and insensitive to regular people. By the time he caves, he'll probably have done as much damage in the refusal than from anything found in them. And the anticlimatic revelations might even make the whole fuss look heavy handed. But probably not, since media hype feeds on innuendo more than content anyway.
I just can't imagine that it's only that. Romney has had no problem thus far showing off his wealth and stating that he won't "apologize" for the money he's made, which is fair and completely reasonable. Not to mention all-in-all, Americans don't have a problem with someone who has a ton of money in itself. There has to be something more there that would cause the campaign to make a calculated decision that whatever damage they take on from refusing to release them is still better than releasing them. I don't know what that thing could be, but no sane person would refuse to perform such a relatively mundane and common task unless there was a damn good reason not to.
He kinda went through this in the primaries too. He refused, then promised it would come later, then after it really blew up he came out with current tax returns. There was nothing in there. But he was able to make it a controversy to shoot himself in the foot with. Not seeing any different behavior in all of this yet. Seems like a replay, so I expect the result to be the same.
I think the real damage would be seeing exactly how many tax shelters and loopholes he has taken advantage of to protect his money from dining anyone but Mitt any benefit. One of the bigger issues is the mess US tax code is in, and putting him in charge of closing the loopholes he has used so much himself smacks of letting the fox guard the henhouse. It would be completely against his own interests to do anything about the massive abuses he has participated in, if I were running the Obama campaign, I would beat Romney over the head with this all the way to November.
If there was evidence of illegal actions, that's just a cherry on top, the real story is how bad Romney would be for the tax system.
That seems to be the most popular and likely theory. I doubt there's anything unlawful in there. Romney and his cabal of lawyers/accountants would have made sure he was operating within the dark nooks and crannies of the law. I think if he releases the tax forms though Obama will use them as a symbol throughout the remainder of the campaign of everything that's currently wrong with the tax system and pretty much everything else you said.
The real question is whether the media will continue to apply pressure by talking about it, or if they'll do what I'm sure Romney is hoping, which is get distracted by something else and stop asking.
This arises out of a court win a couple years ago where Swiss authorities ruled that Swiss privacy laws couldn't allow banks to shield the identities of US depositors from the US Government. So the IRS got a list of everyone who had a swiss bank account and then just has to compare it to who is declaring income and who isn't. They offered amnesty for anyone who came forward and declared previously hidden income.
That would be huge, because it would be tantamount to an admission of tax evasion. That's almost why I believe that probably wouldn't be the case. That's a big enough skeleton in the closet to make most advisors blanch.
Tired of this bullshit. Nothing will fucking happen because he said that. He will still be a top Romney surrogate that gets trotted out onto all of the networks spewing this thinly-veiled racist/fear-mongering filth.
Sununu also said that if Obama campaign aides were suggesting Romney may have committed a felony by misleading on SEC filings and public disclosures, Obama should be judged by his past relationship with Tony Rezko, a supporter who was later convicted of fraud.
Yep. Because those two things are absolutely equivalent.