Anonymous wrote:

Now Romney, in street talk, is being called out by the most powerful man in the US Senate, not some blogger, or lamestream reporter. Reid has Mitt backed against the wall. If Mitt fails to respond to Reid's accusation, its defacto confirmaton of it's accuracy.

No, it is Mitt refusing to let Reid flat-out make stuff up to pressure him to do something he doesn't want to do. Good for him.

Anonymous wrote:How about the possibility that there is something he worries about as much as, or more than, the reaction to HIM when the general populace sees what he got away with (presumably all according to law). Perhaps he's worried how people will react to the LAWS that allowed it; that there will be a general uproar demanding changes in the laws that treat him and his colleagues at the top so favorably.

No, I'm pretty sure people will be more disgusted with him than they are already.

How about the possibility that there is something he worries about as much as, or more than, the reaction to HIM when the general populace sees what he got away with (presumably all according to law). Perhaps he's worried how people will react to the LAWS that allowed it; that there will be a general uproar demanding changes in the laws that treat him and his colleagues at the top so favorably.

You do realize, don't you, that if you stacked Romney's net worth up against Congress, he wouldn't be at the very top. He might crack the top 5.

Whom in Congress (let's say the House and the Senate) do you think has more money than Romney? Kerry? Issa? Roll Call reports that McCaul is the richest with a net worth of $294M, I thought Romney was in the $400M range (although I expect he's a closet billionaire.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue iss not is Harry Reid an idiot, or Daryl Issa's ability to buy and sell Mittv, it's public opinion. Can Mitt remain a viable candidate, can he sell the Republican agenda I think not

I'm not sure Republicans know what their agenda is. I thought it was to dismantle government, but then they started trying to warn voters that layoffs were coming in industries affected by the sequestration, as if that was Obama's fault.

Yikes. Poor understanding of the issue (sequestration notification) and the Republican agenda.

The only people who care about Mitt's tax returns are the people who wouldn't vote for him anyways.

Funny enough Angle actually had Reid backed against the wall. He eeked it out but should have never even been in that position considering he was the incumbent and the Majority leader of the Senate! Funny you see it opposite.

No, my understanding of it is quite perfect. The deficit supercommittee deadlocked, so automatic budget cuts scheduled for January 2013 are due to go into effect. As they approach, some contractors (and the Republicans they support ironically enough) started telling people the law required them to give notice of mass layoffs 60 days prior (which turns out to not even be true, but whatever). So, the logic flow is: Government spending slows (what Republicans want), making it so contractors can't pay their workers (which Republicans don't seem to grasp is the natural consequence and are trying to persuade voters this must be Obama's fault.)

As for the question of the Romney tax returns, I think many of the same people who were up in arms over Timothy Geithner's (relatively minor) tax antics will be consistent and vote against Romney when we know the full extent of his tax trickery. You'll agree with that, right? If you even once criticized Timothy Geithner or Charlie Rangel over their tax affairs, you are obligated to vote against Mitt Romney.

The average swing voter will care, too. They are paying more in taxes because Romney ducks his fair share. That's an easy message.

As for Angle, Reid beat her by 6 points. That's not "eeking" out a victory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue iss not is Harry Reid an idiot, or Daryl Issa's ability to buy and sell Mittv, it's public opinion. Can Mitt remain a viable candidate, can he sell the Republican agenda I think not

I'm not sure Republicans know what their agenda is. I thought it was to dismantle government, but then they started trying to warn voters that layoffs were coming in industries affected by the sequestration, as if that was Obama's fault.

Yikes. Poor understanding of the issue (sequestration notification) and the Republican agenda.

The only people who care about Mitt's tax returns are the people who wouldn't vote for him anyways.

Funny enough Angle actually had Reid backed against the wall. He eeked it out but should have never even been in that position considering he was the incumbent and the Majority leader of the Senate! Funny you see it opposite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue iss not is Harry Reid an idiot, or Daryl Issa's ability to buy and sell Mittv, it's public opinion. Can Mitt remain a viable candidate, can he sell the Republican agenda I think not

I'm not sure Republicans know what their agenda is. I thought it was to dismantle government, but then they started trying to warn voters that layoffs were coming in industries affected by the sequestration, as if that was Obama's fault.

They are the only political party in history that must be dragged kicking and screaming into their own agenda. It's crazy.

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that Mitt will be ejected if he didn't pay tax returns for the last 10 years, even of it was legal. I'm giddy at the thought. But a previous poster had a good point - why wouldn't this have come out during his run for governor?

I don't know if this is verified, but according to this article he did not release his tax returns: http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romney-tax-returns-release-massachusetts-governor-election-obama-2012-7 Also it appears that the overriding concern at the time was his residency, which was questioned by some because he had spent the prior 3 years in Salt Lake City due to the Olympics. So it looks like he got a pass on this.

There is no way that Mitt will be ejected if he didn't pay tax returns for the last 10 years, even of it was legal. I'm giddy at the thought. But a previous poster had a good point - why wouldn't this have come out during his run for governor?

Anonymous wrote:The issue iss not is Harry Reid an idiot, or Daryl Issa's ability to buy and sell Mittv, it's public opinion. Can Mitt remain a viable candidate, can he sell the Republican agenda I think not

I'm not sure Republicans know what their agenda is. I thought it was to dismantle government, but then they started trying to warn voters that layoffs were coming in industries affected by the sequestration, as if that was Obama's fault.

The issue iss not is Harry Reid an idiot, or Daryl Issa's ability to buy and sell Mittv, it's public opinion. Can Mitt remain a viable candidate, can he sell the Republican agenda I think not

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Harry Reid (who is an idiot) quotes some unnamed investor who is familiar with Mitt Romney's tax returns? Is the unnamed investor also Romney's personal tax attorney? Sounds like a solid indictment to me. But let's assume - zut alors - that it is true. I say great. Romney ought to be able to better identify with the one half of folks in the country that don't pay any federal income taxes.

You call Harry Reid an idiot in the same post where you state what I bolded? Really?

The half of the people who don't pay any federal income taxes don't do so because they are poor.

I agree, however, that Mitt should have that experience. Let's pass a private bill in Congress imposing a 99.99% wealth tax on the Romney family, trusts and all. Then he can be one of the people. I know he won't object, right?

You do realize, don't you, that if you stacked Romney's net worth up against Congress, he wouldn't be at the very top. He might crack the top 5. But nevertheless, you suggest a bill that confiscates all his wealth? What kind of drugs are you on? You have to be on something.

It was a joke for the person who said Romney has something in common with the poors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Harry Reid (who is an idiot) quotes some unnamed investor who is familiar with Mitt Romney's tax returns? Is the unnamed investor also Romney's personal tax attorney? Sounds like a solid indictment to me. But let's assume - zut alors - that it is true. I say great. Romney ought to be able to better identify with the one half of folks in the country that don't pay any federal income taxes.

You call Harry Reid an idiot in the same post where you state what I bolded? Really?

The half of the people who don't pay any federal income taxes don't do so because they are poor.

I agree, however, that Mitt should have that experience. Let's pass a private bill in Congress imposing a 99.99% wealth tax on the Romney family, trusts and all. Then he can be one of the people. I know he won't object, right?

You do realize, don't you, that if you stacked Romney's net worth up against Congress, he wouldn't be at the very top. He might crack the top 5. But nevertheless, you suggest a bill that confiscates all his wealth? What kind of drugs are you on? You have to be on something.

Sharron Angle might disagree with you, pp. He walloped her ass.

Reid will never have anyone backed against the wall...ever.