I don’t like your attitude very much. It seems very entitled and imperious. You say you have done everything legally required, and there will be no more tax returns. Not only do you say it, you say it with a snarl, as if those you’re asking to vote for your husband are simply too stupid to understand what a tax return filed by a Very Wealthy Couple looks like. As if you’re saying “we’ve given all you people need to know.”
Oh wait. You actually said that.
Ma’am, you’ve released *one* return. ONE. If we’re really lucky, we’ll get to see the second one 15 days before the election, when it’s too late to really understand how you and your husband run your finances.
Here’s the thing. I’m not looking for a fight with a woman who is fighting for her husband’s election, but you’re simply wrong about your pronouncement that what is in those returns isn’t relevant, doesn’t matter, and won’t matter if you do release it. You assume the reason we’re asking for these returns has to do with some sort of attack on you.
Don’t you understand the attacks are happening because you refuse to disclose this information to people who you’re asking to trust for four years? Or are you just above it?
Here is a list of legitimate, real reasons why voters are entitled to access to your tax returns, whether you like it or not: The next President of the United States must lead an effort to reform our current tax code. It’s long overdue and must be done. We’re entitled to understand how you approach your own taxation, and what interests your husband will serve if he were leading that effort. Simply put: Will a Romney Administration consider the needs of the working poor over the needs of corporations and the wealthy? Ordinary people don’t have offshore tax shelters. Why do you? Why do you consider it American to shelter income from taxes offshore? Why would your investments take precedence over patriotism? Americans deserve to fully understand how Bain benefited your family. It’s well established at this point that Bain Capital was in the business of mergers and acquisitions. People lost many jobs to offshoring, mergers, and just plain asset-stripping. It’s fair for them to understand what kind of profit you took from those lost jobs, particularly when you claim you know how to create them.
Ordinary people endure far more invasive inquiries for minimum wage jobs. You can get all high and mighty with us, but to get an $8.50 per hour job, many ordinary people have to endure (and authorize) a credit check, and in the case of government jobs, a background check. In many cases, they have to submit to a drug test, too. That drug test requirement isn’t because their potential employer believes every applicant is a drug addict. It’s because they want to make sure this applicant isn’t one.Similarly, we’re entitled to know whether any possible future President is a tax dodger. From the one single return released, it certainly appears that there are some dodgy tax items that deserve closer scrutiny. The problem is, we don’t have enough information to say one way or the other, and you think we shouldn’t see it.
You say to us: “Trust me.” I say to you: “Why?” What have you done to earn my trust? You treat me like I’m some kind of scum for asking reasonable questions about issues that truly do matter. We’re entitled to know how you manage these things, how you approach taxes, how we can expect to be treated in a Romney administration. Telling me “you people don’t need to know” does not foster trust. It fosters resentment.
You haven’t given us one single reason to trust you. You say, well, we tithe, that makes us good people. No, it doesn’t. Anyone can write a check. So what? A central tenet of LDS doctrine is the requirement to tithe, at a minimum. a very bare minimum. That’s not evidence of integrity; it’s evidence that you seem to place the LDS doctrine above the tax laws currently in effect in this country. That’s hardly reassuring.
You say to us: “You don’t need to have that information.” I beg to differ, for the reasons I’ve stated. Here’s what you risk with this attitude, Mrs. Romney. You risk alienating voters who might have been in your camp. I say might, because there are plenty of other reasons not to vote for your husband. But by shoving your puffed-up chest and a mighty attitude of high dudgeon in our faces not once, but several times, you exclude those who might otherwise be convinced.
You want your husband to represent me, Mrs. Romney? You want him to have that job, a job I pay for? Then both of you need to submit to my hiring requirements. This election is a by the people, for the people moment, not an appointment by the oligarchs, no matter what you might think. We, the people, are your Job Interviewers, and right now we’re inclined to say we’ll get back to you with our decision after the returns are released. The fact that you would place yourself and your husband above even one other person in this country tells me you and your husband are unfit to occupy the White House. That you do it to the voters who are entitled to know exactly who they are voting for disqualifies you entirely.
I’m sure you’ll enjoy your retirement to California. Bye, now.
Someone needs to spend a little less time worrying about the wife of the candidate and little more time worrying about the actual candidate. However, I'm sure this person felt better after belting this out.
I don't disagree with some of her points about why the tax returns might be important, but I don't like this:
You want your husband to represent me, Mrs. Romney? You want him to have that job, a job I pay for? Then both of you need to submit to my hiring requirements.
That line of thinking in my opinion indicates that we the people basically get to determine what the candidates have to share with us. And yes, to a certain degree that is true. Don't tell the voters what they don't need to know, that doesn't go over very well usually, but also at the same time - a lot of people don't think they need to release more tax returns. Soooo, whose hiring requirements matter? Whose requirements win out? I dunno. Something in that sentiment bothers me.
I agree with that mrsbecky. I also agree with IIOY about focusing on the candidate.
I am totally squicked out by women demanding information from the wife of the candidate. Like, IDK. I'm sure it's meant in some "we're all mothers" or something, but it's almost rubbing me the wrong way because it's like women can't ask questions of the candidate but have to address his wife? I'm probably explaining it weirdly, but it just doesn't sit right with me.
Also, the "bye, now" at the end is so ridiculously unprofessional and trashy to me. I'm pretty sure I don't care about the "hiring requirements" of someone who uses that along with the "I'm sure you'll enjoy your retirement to California." Also... don't know that Romney et al care about the "hiring requirements" from a democratic group. Uh... pretty sure you weren't hiring (voting) for him anyway.
In short, I don't really see how this letter has any credibility to anyone and I think it reflects poorly on women, in general. Yuck.
Post by ChillyMcFreeze on Aug 18, 2012 9:32:49 GMT -5
Preachy much? I agree he needs to release more returns--all the reasons stated above aside--just to get the national conversation back on track. He's playing games at this point, lamenting that we're not focused on the real issues when he knows exactly what it would take to get us back to the issues. (That is, if he really doesn't have anything to hide.) But yeah, nothing smothers sound reasoning like a good diatribe.
yeah- someone with too much time on their hands - and focusing on the wrong person/things.
I don't give a shit about their tax returns. If they "didn't pay taxes for 10 years" I think that looks a lot worse for the IRS than it does for the Romneys, which I don't believe for a second failed to pay taxes for 10 years.
They are stinkin' rich - we all know that. Most presidents are stinkin' rich.
The way candidates get treated these days is getting so disgusting- it's no wonder we rarely have anyone truly GOOD running. The really good people don't want to subject themselves to all this bullshit in the media, what it does to their families, etc. And we wonder why politicians suck...
This is why women should never have gotten the vote.
Thank you for summing up what I was thinking much more succinctly.
BYE, NOW!
See, now, I don't like the "I don't like your attitude very much." It sounds like something my mom would have said to me when I was 10 and being a brat.
I think there are legitimate reasons to take issue with the whole tax return thing but for the love of pete, scolding Ann Romney isn't really the way to express that.
Interesting... I thought there were a couple of good points in there.
To me this letter is a very verbose complement to the post we had here comparing republican wives to the stepfords. That is what I took from this woman - she feels Ann Romney is acting like everyone is beneath her like a big queen bee pearl clutcher. That attitude will certainly turn off blue dog democrats who might otherwise vote for Romney because they don't like Obama's more liberal social position on gay marriage. But they like rich aristocrats who treat them like indentured servants even less.
Compare her to someone like MO who seems so much more approachable (even though IMO she has a snarl when she smiles at something uncomfortably herself).
Seems like Paul Ryan needs to get his wife in the public to add some humility and relatability to the R ticket for voters like this one.
LOL... I know it's a big middle finger. I didn't know it was southerismbonics, though, haha.
I just think this letter bugs me because it's seemingly all over the place. Lecturing about hiring requirements and wanting to be taken seriously (I assume), but ending with the bye, now. IDK! I can't explain it. It just bugs me.
Post by sweettooth on Aug 18, 2012 14:24:41 GMT -5
I had mixed feelings about this piece, but posted it for responses. One, I do think it is condescending, but I also feel that it is in response to Ann Romney's condescending attitude during the interview Thursday night. I have read many comments in different places that say that they found her attitude cool, aloof, and superior, and those are the milder ones.
As far as going after the wife, she agreed to this interview so she must have expected the question. To say that they would not agree to provide more ammunition sounds like she thinks there is something there to attack. In politics almost anything is attacked, but the fact that her husband is running ads with distortions and lies about the welfare issue makes me less than sympathetic.
Her attitude came across in a way that is not going to help independents vote for her husband, so if this is how she is going to respond, it might be better for the campaign that she not agree to more of them. This interview and the one where she said "we have given enough to 'you people'" has not endeared her to the average citizen.
He asked for tax returns from the possible candidates for vice president, and Paul Ryan has said that he gave "several" years of returns. Why shouldn't we have the same kind of knowledge about the person running for president, especially when tax structure is likely to be an issue in the coming years and his attitude toward who pays and how much matters to voters; it does to me.
This may not have been noticed as much if there wasn't already a perception that the Romneys are out of touch with the average person, but it enhanced the feeling that I already had.
I heard somewhere (NPR I think?) that potential cabinet members have to submit something like seven years of tax returns.
Why isn't this information just part of the proverbial "application" that you have to submit when you file to run for president? Shouldn't it be standardized?
And yeah, Ann Romney was a smug bitch in that interview.
Post by decemberwedding07 on Aug 18, 2012 16:50:35 GMT -5
Regarding the "you people" remark... I didn't watch the interview, but wouldn't it make sense that by "you people" she meant the people doing the interview, not the voting public?
Regarding the "you people" remark... I didn't watch the interview, but wouldn't it make sense that by "you people" she meant the people doing the interview, not the voting public?
It could have been either--still condescending. I am trying to think of any instance of referring to "you people" that wouldn't sound like you are looking at them from a position of superiority. Even if she feels that way, it isn't a good way to get votes for her husband.
If she doesn't like to be questioned, then she should quit agreeing to these pre-scheduled sit down interviews with lights and cameras rolling. She knows she is going to be asked things; it isn't like they ambush her in a car or walking somewhere.
I heard somewhere (NPR I think?) that potential cabinet members have to submit something like seven years of tax returns.
Why isn't this information just part of the proverbial "application" that you have to submit when you file to run for president? Shouldn't it be standardized?
And yeah, Ann Romney was a smug bitch in that interview.
Your opinion of her was what I saw more often in comments on various sites and tv interviews--when I mentioned the more mild ones.
Post by EllieArroway on Aug 18, 2012 18:25:46 GMT -5
This letter is ridic, but really Ann Romney needs to stop doing interviews. I don't get why she agrees to them & I don't think she is doing her husband any favors. She often comes across as condescending and out-of-touch.
Post by penguingrrl on Aug 18, 2012 20:20:39 GMT -5
I don't agree with the letter, mostly because it's over the top. But I saw that interview and honestly thought she really was downright nasty. I've seen her in a few interviews and she's kind of the worst I assume of Boston money (snotty, condescending and not willing to appease others to get what she wants). I don't think she's doing her husband any favors in the way she interviews as she kind of comes across as an obstinate child.
I also think that letter did not need to be written and could have been wrapped up in a sentence or two.
The one who says "You don't need me to answer questions about my husband's job. I've got my own job to go to. Goodbye."
I will respect the hell out of that woman. I don't know why any woman agrees to put up with the scrutiny and the endless criticism/cattiness that comes with their husband running for or being President.
But if it were absolutely impossible to talk him out of it, and if divorce or killing him in his sleep were out of the question I would be all "This is your baby. I'm out of it"
Post by sweettooth on Aug 18, 2012 21:54:15 GMT -5
I can see how a potential first lady's attitude and people skills figure into the important job. Look how many joint appearances they make with foreign leaders and state dinners, events. When a woman becomes president, I think the same will be true of her husband, if she is married. Whether it seems fair or not, it is a fact that the spouse is part of the picture. For the record, I thought Kerry's wife came across as a snob also.
I can see how a potential first lady's attitude and people skills figure into the important job. Look how many joint appearances they make with foreign leaders and state dinners, events. When a woman becomes president, I think the same will be true of her husband, if she is married. Whether it seems fair or not, it is a fact that the spouse is part of the picture.
And what would happend if the spouse took themselves out of that picture? There is no constitutional role for a First Spouse - and the pay sucks! I would just say no. Seriously. You do what you have to do honey, but I have to get up in the morning and go to work.