Regarding Romney's Taxes

In the recent debates trailing candidates attempting to trip up the front runner asked/demanded that he release his tax returns and since then it has been a growing issue. Whether it is bored media looking for something to fill air time or supporters of other candidates, there has been a a lot of discussion of whether Gov. Romney should release his past tax returns. Romney in response has shifted his position from "nothing to see here" to briefly discussing his tax situation and saying he'll release the returns at a later date. My feelings on this issue are mixed. I am not a Romney supporter because based on considerable research by a couple people (Tom Blumer & Dan McLaughlin) whose opinions I've learned to trust he is not someone we can rely upon to do the right thing and moreover his main selling point of "most electable" is clearly a myth. However, I can not get on board with the "Release the Tax Records" line of attack for several reasons. Primarily, I'm opposed to this as it reeks of the leftist nonsense of demonize this guy because his returns show he's rich or they reveal that his accountants properly applied current law to minimize his tax burden. As conservatives, do we want to attack someone for being successful? Do we want to criticize him for correctly following the law? Hopefully, your answer to both is a resounding NO! Secondly, what do we expect to learn from Romney's tax returns? Will we find out he is rich? Nope, that is already known. Will we find out that he pays a lower rate of tax based on the majority of his income being dividends, long term capital gains and other investment income as opposed to regular wages paid on a W-2. Nope, that also is already known. All Romney's tax returns should do is confirm that our tax system is a horrific mess which needs to be greatly simplified or abolished. Beyond that, the fact that everyone is clamoring for his returns shows what a gross violation of our privacy the mandatory income tax return entails. People over the last decade have denounced the Patriot Act over manufactured fears of loss of privacy yet they voluntarily provide all sorts of information to the government every year in hope of getting a tax refund. In recent years, I'll admit I joined in the laughter as released tax returns from various politicians confirm that most liberals (who believe charity starts and ends with government taxation) give very little to charity while those greedy conservatives turn out to be veryy generous. Thing is, it is none of my business whether my neighbor or a political candidate tithes to their church or gives to the Salvation Army, etc. Yet, because our income tax system has gotten so ridiculous all of that information is considered fair game. It is wrong. We should elect candidates based on their policy positions and readiness to perform the duties of the office they are seeking.

Today's Political Comedy

In an article about who a New Hampshire Republican party official will support in 2012 we get this snippet:

“He’s a nice guy. But there’s a number of guys I’d vote for. He’s not one of them,” Wrobleski said of Pawlenty. “I don’t think he’s conservative enough.

So, Wrobleski, a supporter of Mitt Romney, in explaining his reasons for not voting for Tim Pawlenty says he's not conservative enough. Pawlenty is not charismatic. He's not exciting. He's probably not one of my first choices, but Pawlenty is about as conservative a candidate as you're going to find from Minnesota. What makes this funny is the comment coming from a Romney supporter. However Romney is selling himself these days don't let anyone fool you into believing he is an arch-conservative. Heck, when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate he tried to position himself to Kennedy's left on some issues and then as governor of Massachusetts he led the way to enactment of a state health care overhaul used as a blueprint for Obama-Care. You can support Romney for various reasons. Whether you like his business acumen or you think his competent demeanor would be a sharp contrast to President Obama, there are legitimate reasons some might choose to back his doomed run for the presidency. However, claiming his potential primary opponents are not conservative enough will just get you laughed at as a fool.

On that point, if, as it appears, the health care nonsense is going to be a key issue in 2012, then Mitt Romney would be the worst candidate for the Republicans to run. How will House and Senate candidates reconcile support for the national ticket with hammering their opponent on their vote for HCR. It is very difficult to beat an incumbent president, but you don't pick a nominee who will undermine down ticket candidates.

Local Example of Media Fixation With Palin

Former Massachusetts governor and one time presidential candidate Mitt Romney was in Norwood (Cincinnati suburb) yesterday doing a book signing. What is the headline and focus of the first paragraph of the story about his visit to town? Would you guess Sarah Palin? You betcha!

Romney crowd pales with Palin's

NORWOOD - Former and probably future GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney didn't draw even half as many people for his book-signing at Joseph-Beth Booksellers here Thursday as potential rival Sarah Palin did last fall.

I'm not a Romney backer, but was it necessary to make the comparisons between the crowds the leading focus of the story?

I don't know if either politician is planning to run for president in 2012. Currently, I'm much more likely to support Palin than Romney. However, that is due to their individual policy positions. The size crowd they draw to a book signing event will have no bearing on my preference between the two.