WhitmanSampler
250+ Posts
I did not get that from your OP, but that is fair enough, and a rational position, though a bit of a slippery slope. I guess the argument is that either all books are open (even those traditionally deemed private), or all may be closed at the depending upon the vulnerabilities of the candidate (even those traditionally deemed appropriate to be opened), or Where does the open book end? Gynecological records fromfemale candidates? Should you be able to view Gingrich's colonoscopy tapes? Did I just make you vomit by typing that? Obviously some things are more critical than others.
Precedent matters in this case. Romney has drawn the line where other candidates have not, and where his own father famously said it should not be drawn. He can brazen this out, and the true believers (who insist on seeing multiple forms of Obama birth records, of course) will back him up. The question is whether the criticl middle thinks something is fishy. I'm guessing that most inthe middle smell a rat, the question is how much they care about the odor.
The academic records red herring is, I think, a false comparison. Yes, you can fashion an argument, just as you could for the proctology records, but people (not political weasles like us West Mall denizens) instinctively know that Obama and Romney are both smart enough to be president, as their spectacular academic careers demonstrate. Moreover, releasing academic records is not part of our electoral tradition. Tax records are, and if you buck the tradition, people suspect that there is a reason. It is a reasonable suspicion, and one that Romney has chosen to let simmer. It was his calculated choice. We'll see if you Romney suporters can pursuade the swing voters that it doesn't matter. We will then enter into a new phase of politics when tax records do not get released. If that happens, congratulations.
I strongly disagree that tax records are immaterial, as have pretty much all presidential candidates over the last 40+ years, for reasons that have been adequately discussed elsewhere (if you really don't know them, I'll be happy to sigh heavily, and go over that).
Precedent matters in this case. Romney has drawn the line where other candidates have not, and where his own father famously said it should not be drawn. He can brazen this out, and the true believers (who insist on seeing multiple forms of Obama birth records, of course) will back him up. The question is whether the criticl middle thinks something is fishy. I'm guessing that most inthe middle smell a rat, the question is how much they care about the odor.
The academic records red herring is, I think, a false comparison. Yes, you can fashion an argument, just as you could for the proctology records, but people (not political weasles like us West Mall denizens) instinctively know that Obama and Romney are both smart enough to be president, as their spectacular academic careers demonstrate. Moreover, releasing academic records is not part of our electoral tradition. Tax records are, and if you buck the tradition, people suspect that there is a reason. It is a reasonable suspicion, and one that Romney has chosen to let simmer. It was his calculated choice. We'll see if you Romney suporters can pursuade the swing voters that it doesn't matter. We will then enter into a new phase of politics when tax records do not get released. If that happens, congratulations.
I strongly disagree that tax records are immaterial, as have pretty much all presidential candidates over the last 40+ years, for reasons that have been adequately discussed elsewhere (if you really don't know them, I'll be happy to sigh heavily, and go over that).
