[QUOTE]I expect he wouldn't be refusing-to-release so doggedly unless he realized that "if I release these, it's bye-bye presidency." Not necessarily because of illegalities, mind you, but just the "this guy would be the biggest tax dodger in the White House since, well, ever" rap his Cayman-Islands bank accounts and such point to.[/QUOTE]That is pretty close to what I think too. I don't think Romney has any real illegalities to hide, but is (rightly) worried that the press and his opponent will try to find any little thing they can and make it as big as they can. Romney doesn't need the distractions.

Consider for example the whole "Romney cut someone's hair in high school" story. Or the "Romney strapped a dog (carrier) to the top of his car roof" story. The media is mostly one-sided. They don't have similar stories about Obama abusing his girlfriend, or hiding his college transcripts.

Romney has no incentive to release his taxes.

And frankly, I agree with his decision. Honestly, how much would they say about Romney? It would tell us what kind of accountant he hired to do his finances, what decisions he and that accountant made (including taking advantage of tax loopholes, accounts in other countries, etc...), that he is more charitable than Obama, and not much else. But it would provide endless fodder.

Consider the article ewmayer linked to. All sorts of innuendo, and outright accusations: "startlingly low tax rate", "financial engineering that seems in many cases to have left workers worse off", "in some cases driven companies into bankruptcy", "grudgingly, release one year’s tax return" etc..., etc...

The accusation that Romney is less transparent than Obama is a crock. The accusation that Romney is not completely transparent is correct, but for good reason.

[QUOTE]The accusation that Romney is not completely transparent is correct, but for good reason.[/QUOTE]Whatever happened to:

"The Truth, [U]the whole Truth[/U] and nothing but the Truth."

:iceberg:

[QUOTE]Whatever happened to:

"The Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."[/QUOTE]Answer 1: It is a principle meant for a specific time and place.

If you want to fault Romney for not being completely open, fine, he isn't. But neither is Obama.

I believe it was Obama who, when he was running last time, promised he would make any bill he was going to sign available for public scrutiny long before he signed it into law. How did that work out?

What do you think we'd learn if Romney did disclose his tax returns? What do you think we'd learn if Obama released his college transcripts? What would we learn if they released their medical records? Would any of this information be useful in making a decision on the next president, or serve as a distraction from the real issues? Is the Romney campaign being hypocritical on this issue? Is the Obama campaign being hypocritical?

Answer 2: It isn't part of the rules of the game. In chess one is not required to tell one's opponent what one is planning to do next. It would be utter madness to acquiesce to the demands of one's opponent, especially when one's opponent does not play by that rule either. One might rightly reject Romney as presidential material if he were to cave to Obama's request for such openness. (As much as I would love to see him say, "Okay, I have the next 10 years of tax returns made ready. I'll release them as soon at Obama releases the following documents...." I just view this all as a distraction anyway.)

getting a bit OT for this non-election thread
 

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;305845]I believe it was Obama who, when he was running last time, promised he would make any bill he was going to sign available for public scrutiny long before he signed it into law. How did that work out?[/QUOTE]1. Will you show us a link to where Obama is on record as having made that "promise", so that we can see that your belief is not just another conservative myth or misunderstanding?

2. Unless the "promise" to which you refer is significantly different from your summary there, it's trivially satisfied because such public scrutiny has been available since at least the 1990s on the Internet (and in the Federal Register, at depository libraries, since long before that).

All those laws are published in the Federal Register and on the Internet. All the bills are posted on the Internet as they're going through the legislative process.

Anyone who wants to read the text of a law can do so. Anyone who wants to see what amendments were made to a bill, and who voted for or against each, as it passed through Congress can do so.

(There are [I]rare[/I] exceptions for classified bills that require a security clearance to read because of their importance to national security -- but that's been true for at least two decades, so these are not some Obama maneuver.)

Were you actually ignorant of these facts? Is that why you misleadingly present that "promise" (let's see the actual wording!) as something that you insinuate is unfulfilled, and thus is evidence of lack of transparency?

Hmm... Zeta-Flux?

[quote]What do you think we'd learn if Romney did disclose his tax returns?[/quote]How much U.S. income tax he avoided by using offshore tax shelters.

[quote]What do you think we'd learn if Obama released his college transcripts?[/quote]Probably nothing about tax avoidance or offshore shelters. What would you hope to see?

[quote]What would we learn if they released their medical records? Would any of this information be useful in making a decision on the next president[/quote]It's quite relevant to know whether a candidate has a medical condition that might render him unable to serve a full term, so, yes, it would be useful.

getting a bit OT for this non-election thread
 

Speaking of transparency, where have conservatives ever shown objective evidence that the types of voter fraud that could be prevented by recent state voter ID laws, but not by previously-existing legislation (such as felony fraud for misrepresenting one's identity when voting), have ever been prevalent enough to have affected an election outcome?

Hmmm...?

I am in agreement with Richard (cheesehead) re. Romney. But...

[QUOTE=cheesehead;305885]1. Will you show us a link to where Obama is on record as having made that "promise", so that we can see that your belief is not just another conservative myth or misunderstanding?[/QUOTE]

Even a cursory web search turns up numerous links, and they don't all lead back to conservative-disinformation blogs:

[url=www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wheres-the-transparency-that-obama-promised/2011/03/31/AFipwHCC_story.html]WaPo: Where’s the transparency that Obama promised?[/url]
[quote]The day after his inauguration, President Obama promised a new era of “openness in government.”

“We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration,” he wrote in one of his first memos to federal agencies. “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”

But the reality has not matched the president’s rhetoric. We, presidents of two of the nation’s largest journalism organizations, and many of our thousands of members, have found little openness since Obama took office. If anything, the administration has gone in the opposite direction: imposing restrictions on reporters’ newsgathering that exceed even the constraints put in place by President George W. Bush.[/quote]

cheesehead,

The website I would have cited is: [URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-public-comment-before-signing-b/"]PolitiFact[/URL], but ewmayer's website is also clearly non-conservative, so that should suffice. (And by the way, I would not describe myself as a conservative.)

--------

ewmayer,

[QUOTE=ewmayer;305936]I am in agreement with Richard (cheesehead) re. Romney.[/QUOTE]I'm in agreement too. I just don't see it as all that significant.

Romney has already made it clear he wants to clean up the tax code to fix such problems, and that until it is fixed he will take advantage of the holes. His tax returns will likely be compatible with that position. His already released tax returns establish that position. *shrug* My point to Xyzzy was that Romney is being no less transparent than most other politicians, including Obama. I suppose Obama may give more lip service to the concept however. So in that area I suppose it is the choice between a president who publicly supports the concept generally even as he is sometimes hypocritical about not releasing damaging information vs. a president who sees limitations on the principle even as he sometimes refuses to release damaging information.

[QUOTE]My point to Xyzzy was that Romney is being no less transparent than most other politicians, including Obama.[/QUOTE]So, rather than being an honest and forthcoming guy, he is content to be like most other politicians?

That's a standard for us all to strive for!

WWJD?

Obama - Gorbachev. Glasnost', perestroika - openness, government reform.

Discuss.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;305948]So, rather than being an honest and forthcoming guy, he is content to be like most other politicians?[/QUOTE]Are chess players dishonest for not revealing information to their opponents? Sounds like a false characterization to me. It can be entirely honest to say "That information is not what I am running on, and is at best a distraction."

Politicians have their faults. But until we, the electorate, change the rules I'm not going to fault them for those rules. (And personally, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that we need to know the tax returns, or the college transcripts, or the medical histories of our political leaders. But I could be convinced otherwise.)

[QUOTE]WWJD? [/QUOTE]According to the Bible, Jesus instructed his apostles not to reveal the fact that he was the Messiah, until after his death.

Not revealing information that could be used by your enemies is not necessarily dishonesty. On the other hand, it is a valuable character trait in a political leader, such as the American president. We then have to decide what is important for our leaders to reveal (to us, and hence to the entire world) and what is not.

This doesn't seem like a chess match to me. Chess players are playing each other and are not trying to win the spectator's votes.

This is more like a beauty pageant - and because the audience cannot possibly judge on who of the contestants will be a more fit mother in the future, they judge on who will undress more and reveal more inner beauty (and masterfully hide blemishes at the same time). Recently, these pageants also include mud fights. Yeay!!