I'm more than a little curious to see how the debates go. The odds of it changing my vote are right up there with the odds of finding myself falling towards the earth next to a whale and a pot of petunias, but I'll enjoy watching both candidates nonetheless.

^^^this. (Although I suspect we'll be cheering at different times, that's why I love talking to you, hearing the differing perspective is so much more intellectually stimulating than living in an echo chamber.

I think a transparent candidate would be cool. He could totally go into the ladies locker room and see boobs and stuff. He could like sneak into Bushehr and see what them pesky Persians are really up to. While we're at it, can he fly too? And have x-ray vision?

I don't know why exactly, but this reminded me of one of my favorite Firefly quotes:

Wash: [about River] Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science-fiction.
Zoë: We live in a spaceship, dear.
Wash: So?

I don't agree with everything you wrote, but I think Romney not making his tax returns available is really, really risky. He's a smart person and has a smart campaign team, so I definitely think it's a calculated risk. I don't think there's anything illegal in them, but, when you have that much money, there's certain things about your taxes that most people wouldn't understand, and would make you look bad to the average person.

I have a feeling that the drumbeat is going to become too loud, and he's going to have to end up releasing them anyway, which will end up worse than if he just released them in the first place. Obama hasn't done a lot of harping on the issue, but I'm sure it's coming.

As far has how available Romney has been to the media, I think that's a strategy of trying to keep the focus on Obama and the economy rather than the gaffes that inevitably occur when Romney is allowed to speak.

As for whether I'm "ok with it," I don't really care what is in Romney's tax returns. I'm not under any illusion that the kind of people that run for President have much in common with me. How much information a candidate reveals about himself is a personal choice; if people don't like it, they won't vote for him.

And this is just one of the many reasons why I want to spoon you and miss you.

Evan gets spooned for the Firefly reference.

We are to blame. We want someone infallible, someone pristine, someone righteous. We don't want to hear anything remotely critical of OUR GUY, but only hear and see the BAD in the OTHER GUY. We aren't looking for someone who can do a job. We are looking for an idealistic fantasy superhero. I wonder how long before U.S. presidential candidates start wearing capes.

I will vote for the first candidate to campaign in a cape. Or a boa.

Additionally, we have become a nation of jersey-wearing team supporters. We don't care about the candidate. We just care about his team. And I want my team to WIN! Election night should be held at Chili's restaurants across the U.S. with people wearing Republican and Democrat football jerseys, cheering wildly as the results come in.

Wait...I think that IS how it happens.

As far as a candidate's personal life goes, I think it depends on whether or not it's reasonable for us to ask that a candidate practice what they preach, so to speak.

For example, I look more harshly on social conservative candidates who get caught up in scandals than I do liberals (who get caught up in similar scandals) because it seems like it's the socially conservative politicians who frequently run on "family values." Ok fine, you want to bring "family values" into play, you better not whine when we take you to task for not living by the standards you set for yourself when those are the reasons you say people should vote for you. It's seems fairly clear to me.

In like fashion. frequently fiscal conservatives bring up the idea of taxes (and how bad they are). I think one could make the argument that their tax history is relevant if I'm supposed to vote for a guy because his philosophy on taxes is so superior. If Romney doesn't want people digging into his tax history mining for fodder (whether or not there is any), perhaps he should stop talking about how tax hikes for the upper crust aren't justified...or show us his taxes, one of the two.

If a candidate doesn't want something to be an issue in a personal way, they probably shouldn't bring it up as an abstract reason to vote for them.

I think presidential candidates should provide the people who are voting for them a reasonable amount of transparency. What is "reasonable"? I don't know. That's the hard part. I think a candidate's voting record, political commitments, public comments, political fundraising sources - all public. I'm less sure about a candidate's personal life. I'm not foaming at the mouth about Romney's tax records. I know it seems dishonest that he hasn't released them. Has he broken the law? If not, I'm not sure his tax records are necessarily relevant to what kind of job he would do as President. There needs to be some logical connection for me to care more.

I suspect that his tax records will be fodder for the Dems message about how out of touch Mitt is with the common people. And his refusal to make the records public are now making him look like he has something to hide. At the very least, it's a bad PR move. But ultimately, do we really care what Romney paid in taxes? If we're being honest, any presidential candidate is unlikely to be anything like the "common man." They're all quite wealthy. Maybe Romney is wealthier than most. I don't care. There are other reasons to consider him a good or bad choice for President.

Insulation from traditional media outlets is not OK. If you are a public official, you should answer to the media. If you don't want to answer a question, don't answer it. But the media can ask. This orchestrated crap is ridiculous. There is a reason "the media" is considered the fourth branch of government. It is supposed to be a way TO transparency. The media's job is to inform the public. Yes, much of the media does a poor job of this. But "the media" isn't to blame.

We are to blame. We want someone infallible, someone pristine, someone righteous. We don't want to hear anything remotely critical of OUR GUY, but only hear and see the BAD in the OTHER GUY. We aren't looking for someone who can do a job. We are looking for an idealistic fantasy superhero. I wonder how long before U.S. presidential candidates start wearing capes.

Additionally, we have become a nation of jersey-wearing team supporters. We don't care about the candidate. We just care about his team. And I want my team to WIN! Election night should be held at Chili's restaurants across the U.S. with people wearing Republican and Democrat football jerseys, cheering wildly as the results come in.

I second all of this.

I am not convinced that "character" is an important issue for a presidential candidate. At least it's not anywhere near as important as people make it out to be. Hear me out...

I fully recognize that "character" can be defined any number of ways. It can be someone's moral standing, reputation, or simply the type of person they are (ex: grumpy in the morning).

I think "character" is a red herring, used both for getting votes, and for convincing people not to vote for the other guy. I am not saying character doesn't matter. I am arguing that we have made it matter about 1000 times more than it should. As I said, there are multiple meanings of character. Online Free Dictionary lists 14 definitions for the noun: http://www.tfd.com/character More important, though, is that "character" doesn't really measure performance. It doesn't really measure intelligence. It doesn't really measure competency. It doesn't really measure patience. It doesn't really measure diplomacy. It doesn't really measure communication skills. And so on. Sure, character matters inasmuch as I probably don't want someone who lies all the time or would willfully take bribes.... but wait! What are people crying about politicians all the time? They're all liars and crooks, right?

I think the whole character issue is used so that people are less likely to critically evaluate someone's competency. I'm an upstanding citizen, go to church, and have strong family values. This makes me a better presidential candidate more than my experience - more than my voting record. (Note: I am making a point here - I don't personally go to church and I value my own family, but don't care what others do with theirs. Also, I don't have 1.5 gazillion)

If you want to define character as moral strength, there is no logical connection between character and job performance. We want there to be. We really want our guy to be the "good guy." But there really isn't a direct connection. Not for the job of running the country. I know people will argue that. But it's what I believe. I don't think it's the President's job to teach us about character or about morality or any of that stuff. So, for example, I think a President who ignores the poor is not doing his or her job. It's not a moral failing or a character failing. It is a job performance failing. The ONLY time character matters to me is if it affects the job performance of the President. The argument against this idea seems to often be couched in extremes. So, Ken, do you want an ax-murderer (bank robber/child molester) as President?

Personally, I think we spend entirely too much time worrying about, talking about, criticizing, and judging OTHER PEOPLE'S CHARACTER FAILINGS. We are obsessed with it. Turn on the TV during prime time or glance at the magazine rack checking out at the grocery store. We loves us some character failings.

I don't like the concept of "important issues reveal character" because it puts us back into that character-evaluation loop. I prefer "important issues are important because they affect the populace." Why bring character into it? Important issues are important because of their effect on us.

I'm also not a big fan of the hypocrisy flinging that is in vogue (much of the last decade). Catching someone in an act of hypocrisy is a national witch hunt. We love the GOTCHA moment. Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. We all aspire to higher standards than we sometimes employ ourselves. Again, I go back to job performance. Is it fair to say that a candidate cannot stand for any value that he himself has not acted within 100%? That's seems short-sighted and unnecessarily strict. There was a thread earlier today that some guy posted about not wanting advice from skinny people who have never been fat. It's the same myopic logic.

I agree that a conservative politician than ran on family values, high moral ground, etc. who gets caught blowing a transient at a bus stop is in a bad position. It is hypocritical. But the problem isn't the hypocrisy. The problem is that he was allowed to run on a platform of family values and high moral ground to begin with. The problem is that a platform like that was accepted as credible qualifications to do his job. Those aren't job qualifications. Those are concepts with which to base your throw pillow needlepoint creations on.

Getting back to the thread title - I think the problem with the lack of transparency is that we are no longer realistic. Azdak, you say you are a big boy, want to judge for yourself and simply want as much honest information as possible. Sadly, I think you are an outlier in a world of people looking to point fingers at the "bad guy."

I refuse to give up hope, though. I still think we will eventually settle into respecting - and seeking - the truth without the hazy filter of morality. I may not live to see it. But I think we'll get there.

I've been doing taxes and financial advising for 20 years. I obviously have no direct knowledge of Romney's tax/financial situation but from a professional standpoint as someone who understands all of that stuff I'd actually be very surprised if Romeny DIDN'T do anything illegal on his taxes in past years. At the VERY least he's hiding them because he paid no taxes at all. But based on his hiding money in several foreign countries known to be tax havens I think I'd be falling from the sky with that whale if he actually did do the legal thing and disclosed that money in the past. There is no other reason to hide money in foreign countries than to avoid claiming it on your tax records.

Loving all the sci-fi quotes and references! I shall be looking out for falling whales (and petunias!) around Debate time, and hopin that the number 42 gets mentioned at least once...:flowerforyou:

I think we need to balance the need for knowledge with the American sense that nothing famous people do is private. What I need to know about a candidate is what their views are on the areas in which they will have control, and what they intend to do under certain scenarios. I don't need to know what their spouses wear, the name of their dogs, or even what their sources of income are. All of that is irrelevant, and I'm tired of it being the main issue. I didn't care that Clinton may or may not have boinked an intern, and I don't care what Mitt Romney's tax returns say.

In essence, I agree with this, and the discussion about public v. private and competency v. character above. To me, a candidate's voting record, declared policy intentions and history of achievement in previous posts is of far more importance, in terms of how I vote, than his previous girlfriends, how much his wife spends on his wardrobe, or whether or not he ever tried marijuana. It's also very difficult to deduce someone's true 'character' in a highly stage-managed system, where advisors and PR gurus are dictating every step and the colour of the candidate's tie. (Just realised this is written entirely in the male mode, assuming that all candidates are men. Ugh.) Besides anything else, some of your most effective Presidents have turned out to be of rather dubious character... This elusive 'character' does also seem to be a rather US preoccupation. No-one in France seems at all perturbed by the fact that the current president has four children by the leader of another party (to whom he was never married), and has installed his current girlfriend in the Elysee Palace as First Lady of France. I suspect that wouldn't fly in the USA...?

Unless there is reasonable suspicion of illegal or severely prejudicial activity, or they impinge on policy positions, I rather feel that someone's private affairs - financial, romantic, familial - should remain so, even when running for public office. Do I think Romney is being wise to avoid releasing his tax returns? In the current political/media environment, no. Do I understand why he isn't? In the current economic environment, with the level of anti-wealth sentiment around, yes, I think I do. Either way, he'll lose votes as a result.

Oh, financially impropriety is definitely an issue. I just want to hear evidence of it before I go looking into every detail of Romney's (or Obama's) tax records. Their sources of income and personal accounts are none of my business.

In the words of Eddie Izzard, "Pol Pot was history teacher, and Hitler was a vegetarian and a painter."

It's almost funny how so many Romney fans (not just here, in fact so far not even really here at all but more just in general) are not the least bit concerned with Romney's tax returns but then turn around and STILL harp on Obam's birth certificate. That's been released, verified, re-released, re-verified, lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum. They were outraged that a potental POTUS might have ties, however remote and distant to a half brother in Kenya or a former stint living in Indonesia. But when it comes to one of their party hiding money in foreign countries it's a non issue. His Mexican relatives aren't even on their radar. As for "suspicion of illegal activity" the mere fact that he has money in Switzerland, the Caymans, etc (known black holes for hiding finances) is in itself highly suspicious. There is absolutely no other reason to have money in those places except for tax evasion unless you are living in one of those countries at least part of the year.

As for Romney's views on anything - tell me what view of his you like and I can almost certainly find you a quote where he says the exact opposite.

[

Oh, financially impropriety is definitely an issue. I just want to hear evidence of it before I go looking into every detail of Romney's (or Obama's) tax records. Their sources of income and personal accounts are none of my business.

Yes - sorry I wasn't more clear. If there is a reasonable suspicion, evidence-based for preference, of financial impropriety, of course that's something that needs to be cleared up in a public way. If, on the other hand, people just want to see a candidate's tax returns so they can use his wealth/sources of income and legal financial planning strategies as a rod to beat his back, then I see no reason why he should disclose his financial affairs to the public eye.

What I was trying hard to skirt around saying outright - and that's the source of the wardrobe-expenditure thing, given that suits can be had from £50-£5,000 - is that there are a lot of people in the world who despise/envy/are suspicious of the wealthy, and the interest taken in a candidate's tax affairs, unless he/she is suspected of wrongdoing in this regard (and if Romney is, and I've missed it, my apologies! The news here is ever-so-slightly sports-fixated at the moment...), strikes me as prurient interest, designed more to stir up this sort of resentment and negativity than genuinely 'in the public interest' - a tool for the negative campaigning Azdak mentions. Does the public have an interest in knowing that the candidate has paid what he was legally due to pay in taxes? Yes, of course. However, the fact that the Tax Office (IRS in the US?) hasn't/isn't investigating should surely be sufficient to assure the public that the candidate's tax affairs stand up to the scrutiny of those versed in tax law and regulation, without his needing to disclose the private details of his financial arrangements.

Of course it's none of YOUR business--you don't vote here.....:laugh:

I still don't understand how you can obtain "evidence" of financial impropriety without looking into someone's finances. You keep saying that "sources of income" are no one's business--huh? I would think that if someone wants to assume the office of POTUS, the source of their income would be of absolute interest to every voter. I just don't see how the ideas that "financial impropriety must be investigated" and 'it is improper to ask questions about finances" can be reconciled.

And the same thing with "the public have an interest in knowing that the candidate has paid what he was legally due to pay in taxes" and yet the public have no right to see his tax returns. Maybe that's a misunderstanding, since the IRS do not routinely audit the tax returns of candidates -- and only audit a tiny fraction of returns at all. Actually the *kitten* would totally hit the fan if the IRS, under an incumbent POTUS, ever even showed evidence that they sniffed at the opposition candidates tax returns. There is no official process for candidates' finances to be reviewed privately by an independent agency.

Tax returns are one of the most private documents that citizens have. Candidates for public office are not required to release them at all. Doing so has always been a traditional "good faith" gesture on behalf of candidates, a ritual part of campaigning that shows the candidate is a good, average citizen with nothing to hide (oblivious to the fact that most of the voting populace is trying to cheat on THEIR taxes)

I don't think people in American automatically dislike rich people. In fact I'd say the reverse is true. It seems to me that most working class Americans walk around with "kick me" signs on their backs and are all too eager to lick the boots of their corporate overlords.

[

At what level of public service do you think a candidate should start to disclose his tax returns in good faith? City Council, State representative, Congressman or POTUS?

Investing in a foreign business = free market enterprise and a potentially sound financial decision. Sticking money into foreign bank accounts = tax evasion. All of Romney's foreign held finances isn't invested in businesses in Switzerland and the Caymans. He has money in their bank accounts.