Offered as a preview of the content available in The GOS Weekly Review - An iPad App.
This Diary is mine :) It appears here not in exactly the same way as in the App, because that version is edited to tighten the writing by someone who is, quite frankly, better than me at that kind of thing! It's close though.
As Mitt Romney continues to divert, deflect and, quite frankly, plain dodge any questions about his financial history beyond the brief submission he has already made, so do the questions and suspicions become ever stronger.
Despite the questionable pick of Paul Ryan to join the ticket as candidate for Vice President, a move that certainly grabbed a few headlines not all of them positive, those questions and suspicions are refusing to go away. As the calls for Romney to explain the apparent discrepancies in both his tax positions, and his business record grow ever louder, Mitt himself appears to be retreating into the remarkable position of seeking to take “everything about Mitt” off the table.
An untenable position that was reflected by La Feminista in a snarky piece this week:
Please ignore my past business records; but take my word for it that they were great, and by the way I will not answer any questions on this subject.
My term as Governor was an unmitigated success, no matter what the historical record shows. No, I will not respond if you call me "Fifi" again.
I paid many, many taxes, no you cannot see my tax returns; believe me.
Goshdarnit, are you deaf? [there must be a fee for that]. I told you that I will not answer questions on the past
Vote for me, since I am whomever I want you to believe I am.
Today my Name is Mitt Romney. Tomorrow? I will blame Paul Ryan.
Responding in the same spirit,
onetheleftcoast carried the baton into the
comments:
I'm getting a major case of whiplash trying to follow the Republican "logic". We're not allowed to look at what people did because it's all about the future unless it's Barack Obama then the past is the future unless they claim the future will be past in which case the past is allowed in the present. Or something like that.
Despite these well-expressed views, and the many more like them reflected all across the blogosphere and, increasingly, the mainstream media, both Governor Romney and now Mrs Romney are holding firm. In an interview in, of all places, Wales, Ann Romney displayed an increasing frustration with the requests for some transparency:
While these questions, and the increasingly frustrated responses go to the suggestion that Romney has very little of substance to run on, the culture of secrecy also says a great deal about the process we use to choose a President, and the character of the man on the GOP Ticket.
It is the aspect of character I would like to examine here.
Simply put, what does the evasion, and refusal to take the simple step of releasing the returns say, if anything, about the character of Mitt Romney?
There are in excess of 300 million people living in this country. Even without doing the math, and all that pesky researchy stuff, it is apparent that many tens of millions would be eligible to be President. For the sake of all of us, it would be helpful were we to choose the most able to sit in that chair.
I accept, have always accepted that no one is perfect. Not me, not you, not President Obama and certainly not Mitt Romney. For years I had a different pithy little saying that attached to the comments I leave on Daily Kos:
"When we deny our politicians their humanity, we force them to behave inhumanely".
Such is the constant scrutiny of our elected representatives, and so great is the polarisation of political thought, that the slightest character flaw, the tiniest deviation from one side's judgement of what is acceptable is magnified and examined in excruciating detail.
In his regular series “The Chronicles of Mitt” Hunter elevates this parody of Mitt to an artform:
During my required evening telephone call with the new vice presidential unit, he agreed with me that I was correct to be outraged, and reminded me that under his own tax proposals I would have only needed to relinquish zero-point-something percent. He was sorry that he had not proposed zero-point-zero percent, and said in hindsight that zero-point-zero percent was certainly an even better percent. I will admit that the conversation cheered me considerably.
In more serious instances, political careers are ended, or stall badly over personal indiscretions that really have little bearing on the actual job performance, although I do accept that there are degrees. That said, when one considers the relative fortunes of
Anthony Weiner and
Senator Vitter, the application of “morality” can appear to be capricious at best. Even Fox News couldn’t entirely avoid the Vitter scandal yet he remains in the Senate.
All to what end?
Personally, I could care less if my representative is black or white, female or male, hetero or homosexual. I care only what they do. Hypocrisy is out. If you are married, with a girlfriend on the side, or have a questionable marital history, then please do not run a campaign based upon “Family Values”. Other than that, your personal life is a matter for you and your family. Honestly, I don't even much care what they say, or to whom, although some common decency is always nice.
When members of the same family rise, or even almost rise to the highest Office, then one might suspect that we may not be picking the best person for the job. That applies to the Kennedys just as much as it does to the Bush family. It is possible that two brothers could be simply that talented, but it's not likely. We can remain open to the argument that we don't need the best, but we need "good enough", and that might let Bobby Kennedy, or Malia Obama in; it is no excuse for George Bush.
So the process is imperfect, yet we muddle through somehow because of a series of checks and balances. In reality we are fishing in a pretty small pool. Not everyone is interested in politics, ruling out most people. The children, other family members and close associates of Senators, Governors and Presidents are both well-connected and likely to be interested ... and so we whittle down the potential incumbents to a much smaller subset, and hope we pick the best from there.
In this race the GOP has picked Mitt Romney and, more recently, Paul Ryan. There is a great deal of speculation about the VP pick. Both sides of the debate, from RedState to Daily Kos are pleased that Ryan was picked; or at least they pretend to be. They can’t both be correct.
It is fair to say that the Right are a tad confused. Erick Erickson responded first with a mixed post on Friday August 10th:
If it is Ryan, I’ll be quite happy. His departure from Congress would improve both Congress and the Romney campaign. It would improve Congress because too many people tend to lionize him when his record has some flaws. His presence often drowns out competing ideas that may be better and/or more conservative.
And in the very next paragraph:
His presence on Team Romney would improve Team Romney immensely. Team Romney has, since the primary, had problem making the moral case for freedom and free market. Paul Ryan is articulate and passionate on the issue. Likewise, the GOP, even in polls having Romney behind Obama, often leads on issues of the economy and debt. Those two issues are at the heart of Paul Ryan’s ideas.
By the next morning he was clearly benefiting from
having slept on it:
The sighs you hear are Republicans sighing some relief. Finally, the Romney campaign has a spokesman who can do what Mitt Romney has never been capable of doing — defend success and articulate a message of why we must reform our nation’s budget and support free markets.
In short, while the reaction on RedState was generally positive, it was so at the expense of the top of the ticket, who seems to be giving them some sleepless nights.
On the other end of the political spectrum, Daily Kos contributors were full-throated in their approval. This quote from a first reaction by mdmslle:
I trust the people who have so eviscerated the central-casting-perfect presumptive GOP nominee that he was forced to throw out his entire campaign strategy (referendum on Obama) to make a desperate choice in Paul Ryan and adopt what he has to know, in his heart of etch-a-sketch hearts, is a losing strategy (hard right conservative principles vs moderate populist democratic message). The team that caused Mitt to cry uncle just a day or two ago. ("it would help my campaign if you stopped bringing up stuff about me!!!")
Not content with eviscerating the Ryan pick in the Diary, mdmslle
twists the knife in the comments:
The media honeymoon seems almost over already. They're talking about "his bold but risky choice" and segueing right into the Ryan Plan Controversy.
Dumbass Romney is Dumbass.
Markos himself
summed up the reception in a front page piece; one among many by the Staff Writers:
Then, with the press in a frenzy over his refusal to release more tax returns, and with a conservative base ready to revolt at his convention over his sudden defense of Romneycare, it was clear that Romney was close to the breaking point. Thus, the bizarre and poorly crafted rollout of the Paul Ryan VP pick.
Yet rather than earn him some breathing room in the campaign and a nice honeymoon, the reception has been cold at best. Sure, there's been a smattering of puff pieces about Ryan's body fat composition, but the coverage has been more focused on the facts that Romney has moved to the Right rather than the center, that he had to pacify an increasingly hostile base, that Ryan endangers GOP advantages with seniors, that his presence on the ticket is a nightmare for downballot Republicans, and that his budget gives Democrats a treasure trove of material with which to attack.
Of concern in this Diary is the top of the ticket.
While it was always the case that wealthier people could indulge in politics, and afford to get elected, there was at least the semblance of a meritocracy. Candidates could start locally, with School Boards, City Councils, State Legislatures, etc. With millions of dollars now being dumped even in State elections, that possibility has all but disappeared. The very wealthy are simply anointing their chosen candidate.
Even the Democrats are forced to play this "dance of the dollar", because advertising works and a candidate that can't get elected is about as useless as a very useless thing. Sure we want to change that, but we live in a reality based community, and change requires votes.
So what of the presumptive nominee appointee of the Republican Party?
My own basic question is not about his politics. It is clear to me that I disagree with those, fundamentally disagree, absolutely disagree. The Left has no right to be ... er ... right, we just think that we are, and we feel also that we have plenty of evidence suggesting the same.
My concern is the man. His basic character and the evidence we have for that. Is he a man who can be expected to lead the country towards a vision that he feels is right for Americans, or is he not? Even from the perspective of Republicans, that is a pertinent question. Would Willard Mitt Romney adopt policies that the bulk of his supporters feel are appropriate, or is it all about Willard Mitt Romney? If it is the latter then we could be in for a great deal of hurt should he prevail in November.
There are a number of indicators that are helpful in this regard. The Oligarchs who are bankrolling him initially presumed that his experience at Bain Capital was key to his election. America was in trouble. The economy had tanked and the way forward was a businessman who was demonstrably successful, at business .... well at making money anyhow, and the deficit being what it is, money-making is a winner.
What soon became clear was that Mitt Romney is very good at making money, for Mitt Romney. The underlying businesses (America?) were going broke at an alarming rate, so they stopped talking about Bain. Indeed, the candidate would now prefer that we do not ever mention Bain again. The trouble is that without Bain, all Mitt has is RomneyCare. That kinda sucks if you are being pressured from the Right.
If Bain Capital demonstrates one thing very clearly, it is simply that should they knock on the door of your business, then you probably should be slamming it firmly shut, and if that door is leading to the Oval Office, then we all should be slamming it shut. When factcheck.org investigated the Obama Campaign approach, they found that while slanted to demonstrate the point they were making, the Campaign was broadly correct.
Beyond the professional life of Romney lie the things that drive him personally. Not the ego that is required of anyone that seeks the Presidency, that is normal, more the actions he has taken that go to character. As described earlier, I don't care about his habits or indiscretions. His religion is of no interest beyond him keeping it to himself, and his wife's dressage horse is relevant only in the tax treatment.
For the motivations that make the man tick, we need to look to the Tax Returns.
Of particular concern is the constant mantra from Governor and Mrs Romney that they "paid everything they were legally obliged to pay". This is a disingenuous statement that is breathtaking in its scope. The fact that Mitt Romney had an income estimated at 20 million dollars in 2010 is not the major concern, although it is nice if you can get it. What does matter is the manner in which his Campaign is obfuscating, and how he is using that phrase "we paid what we were legally obliged to".
If you are middle class, like most Americans, you minimize your Federal Tax obligation. That is what we all do, and it is right and proper that we should. The middle class lives on their income, and times are hard. We claim our deductions and we seek to maximize those. The tax code is designed that way. If you do not approach your 1040 with the ambition of reducing the net payment, then you are simply treating the IRS, and your fellow citizens, to a gift. This approach to taxes reaches quite high into the earnings brackets, as we all live on our incomes, even those whose income is quite high.
No one in their right mind blames any regular tax-payer for doing this, and the aforementioned phrase is something we all relate to. Romney is actually relying on this to make himself appear honest, a working stiff, an ordinary Joe (but no Plumber). Someone who is in touch with common practice and so can relate to you and me.
There comes a point though, when an individual reaches an income level that exceeds their need to support a lifestyle, even one so lavish. Mitt Romney reached that point a long time ago. In many decades he has not had to worry about a single dollar, or million dollars, that he spends. It is likely that he is so rich that none of his children, or indeed grandchildren, will ever have to concern themselves with money.
So the concern is this. At what point should an individual be expected to stop maximizing deductions. At what level of income, or wealth, is it appropriate that a citizen should quit seeking ever more creative ways to pay less tax. Does there come a level beyond which the pursuit of more wealth, for a smaller contribution to the general good, indicate a serious character flaw. We might not necessarily hold that against an individual, but we might question his qualification for President.
Is it, for example, fair and reasonable that a man with maybe several hundred million dollars stashed away is using a Swiss Bank Account, or any other tax shelter many of dubious legality, to pay not just less tax as a proportion of his income that regular taxpayers, but substantially less, massively less? So much less that were Romney and Ryan allowed to implement their plan, he would have paid less than one percent last year.
Should he be instructing accountants in a manner that encourages them to look for yet more loopholes, even to the point of creating new ones not mentioned in the code? Is a man prepared to go to those lengths to avoid any meaningful contribution to the nation in any position to be telling the rest of us how much we should pay, or how much we might be entitled to? Even if he has paid "everything we are legally obliged to pay".
Is that a sentiment that should garner respect for financial probity, or repulsion for what it says about his concern and care for the American people?
Quite frankly, if Mitt Romney were suited to the Office he is so desperately seeking, he would be demanding that capital gains be taxed at an individual’s marginal rate. Fair, progressive and reasonable.
Of course then he would be Warren Buffet! (pdf)
-
The Application in the Apple Store
The Page at the Zuckenberg Empire
-