Sources: Romney Wouldn't Have Run If He Had Foreseen Tax Controversy

[SteelerEmpire]

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has been determined to resist releasing his tax returns at least since his bid for Massachusetts governor in 2002 and has been confident that he will never be forced to do so, several current and former Bain executives tell The Huffington Post. Had he thought otherwise, say the sources based on their longtime understanding of Romney, he never would have gone forward with his run for president.

LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1682539.html

[suitanim]

A hack hatchet job gained legs.

Funny, John Kerry is worth a lot more than Romney, and HE only filed two-years of taxes.

It's amazing. Obama has nothing to run on, and almost nothing to attack Romney for, yet, here we are...

[GoSlash27]

Not all that amazing. This is exactly like the flap over fast & furious. Whether he's actually guilty of anything or not is a side issue. He's refusing to release the records and that makes him *look* guilty. It would be foolish to expect Obama to not take full advantage of this.

[Wallace108]

I know I'm being incredibly naive about this, but if I was Romney, I'd say, "I'll release more tax returns when Obama releases his college records. Until that happens, let's focus on the issues that Americans actually care about."

The point is that Romney needs to get his defense off the field and start playing some offense.

[suitanim]

I know I'm being incredibly naive about this, but if I was Romney, I'd say, "I'll release more tax returns when Obama releases his college records. Until that happens, let's focus on the issues that Americans actually care about."

The point is that Romney needs to get his defense off the field and start playing some offense.

I would normally say no, but when the mud starts slinging, whether you throw it or not you're still going to end up covered in it. Might as well get the other guy dirty, too...

This sets a horrible precedent, by the way. It used to be there at least had to be some basis for an attack, SOME kind of kernel of truth. In this case, there's just nothing. There can't be anything all that damning on those returns or the IRS would have audited Romney and nailed his ass to the wall. They LOVE to audit the super wealthy. The REAL reason he doesn't want to release them is he doesn't want an ignorant and sometimes borderline mentally retarded electorate believing whatever hopelessly idiotic fabrications Obama will make up about those returns. I mean, look at some of the worst smear campaigns, and there was something there. Dukakis DID support the furlough program in Massachusetts that led to the release of Willie Horton. John Kerry DID have 250 vets sign off that they thought he was unfit for duty. One can argue the validity of the latter, or the tactics of presentation of the former, but both attack campaigns had some kind of truth at the center. This is new. We are entering an era where political attack ads can be made up out of thin air out of literally nothing.

And I'm not surprised. Obama wants a second term. Romney is a Boy Scout, and attack ads work. If there's nothing real to attack, well, make something up...and it's WORKING!

[fansince'76]

This sets a horrible precedent, by the way. It used to be there at least had to be some basis for an attack, SOME kind of kernel of truth. In this case, there's just nothing. There can't be anything all that damning on those returns or the IRS would have audited Romney and nailed his ass to the wall. They LOVE to audit the super wealthy. The REAL reason he doesn't want to release them is he doesn't want an ignorant and sometimes borderline mentally retarded electorate believing whatever hopelessly idiotic fabrications Obama will make up about those returns.

Actually, I've seen the very plausible conjecture made that since Romney, being a member of the "super wealthy," took a bigger bath than most in the crash of 2008, to the point of probably owing very little, if any, taxes in '09 which is the year that is in "dispute." Although perfectly legal for him to claim such losses as a deduction, you-know-who will use that as more ammo towards the wealthy "not paying their fair share," and the usual suspects will eat that up and have a field day with it (see: mainstream media). So, why give them the ammo? Especially considering, as you rightfully point out, if there was any real impropriety with his '09 return, the IRS would've nailed his ass to the wall already.

[suitanim]

Actually, I've seen the very plausible conjecture made that since Romney, being a member of the "super wealthy," took a bigger bath than most in the crash of 2008, to the point of probably owing very little, if any, taxes in '09 which is the year that is in "dispute." Although perfectly legal for him to claim such losses as a deduction, you-know-who will use that as more ammo towards the wealthy "not paying their fair share," and the usual suspects will eat that up and have a field day with it (see: mainstream media). So, why give them the ammo? Especially considering, as you rightfully point out, if there was any real impropriety with his '09 return, the IRS would've nailed his ass to the wall already.

Absolute Catch-22. Address the non-issue by REFUSING to release more returns, thereby fueling the moonbat argument that he's hiding something, OR release the returns and face the moonbat class warfare argument that protecting wealth through legal tax loopholes and write-downs for loss is somehow evil and immoral (although perfectly legal).

Lose/lose, and all over a non-issue.

I'd just punch back. I'd release a series of ads with Obama and Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Frank Davis, Rashid Khalidi, et al....expose all those connections along with quotes of what these people have said and trace all these connections back to their roots. If Obama is going to make shit up, I'd punch back with the truth...

[SteelerEmpire]

Doesn't the President/FBI/Secret Service have access to and individual's records with the IRS anyway ? If so, then Obama already knows what's in there and is pushing the issue for a reason. If not, then just smoke and mirrors...

[suitanim]

Doesn't the President/FBI/Secret Service have access to and individual's records with the IRS anyway ? If so, then Obama already knows what's in there and is pushing the issue for a reason. If not, then just smoke and mirrors...

I don't believe that to be the case. But that doesn't necessarily mean they don't access them anyway. Look at this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577368280604524916.html

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records," the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that "quite a few" have also been "on the wrong side of the law" and profiting at "the expense of so many Americans."
These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having "outsourced" jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a "lobbyist") and Thomas O'Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a "bitter foe of the gay rights movement."
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

AND THIS



http://online.wsj.com/article/potomac_watch.html

This column has already told the story of Frank VanderSloot, an Idaho businessman who last year contributed to a group supporting Mitt Romney. An Obama campaign website in April sent a message to those who'd donate to the president's opponent. It called out Mr. VanderSloot and seven other private donors by name and occupation and slurred them as having "less-than-reputable" records.
Mr. VanderSloot has since been learning what it means to be on a presidential enemies list. Just 12 days after the attack, the Idahoan found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This bloodhound—a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm.
Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government. In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been "selected for examination" by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot's wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).

[Mach1]

Doesn't the President/FBI/Secret Service have access to and individual's records with the IRS anyway ? If so, then Obama already knows what's in there and is pushing the issue for a reason. If not, then just smoke and mirrors...

If obaama did that wouldn't it be a felony of some sort. Invasion of privacy?

[SteelerEmpire]

I don't believe that to be the case. But that doesn't necessarily mean they don't access them anyway.

I hear you suit. If you asked me to put my money on it, I'd bet that (9 out of 10) the Pres. "has" seen the tax records or 'knows someone' that "has" seen them and has reported back to him. Politics is a dirty game... has been for forever... just would hope that this country would have been the one that rose above that predictable and time tested chaos... doesn't look like were the "chosen ones" for that tho... just another struggle of one group vs another... just like all the rest of em (great nations) that came and went throughout history... :(.