Questions:

Mitt, the only way to avoid cutting taxes on very high income people (CEO’s and other people with multi-million dollar salaries) is to leave the top tax rates where they are. For them, the value of a rate cut far exceeds the tax-saving value of itemized deductions that might be eliminated to “broaden the tax base.” So, how do you explain that to the GOP base, when you’ve been saying you would cut tax rates across the board by 20%?

Mitt, how do you keep the part of ObamaCare regarding pre-existing conditions without requiring everybody to be in the risk pool (i.e., individual mandate)?

Mitt, how do you take back the $716 billion in Medicare spending cuts (as done by ObamaCare and formerly proposed by Paul Ryan) and avoid the Medicare Part A trust fund being depleted by 2016 instead of 2024?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

If it’s a red herring as defined above, it seems to be a doozy — i.e.,it’s working in terms of public opinion. John Huntsman, Sr., once again a big backer of Romney now that Huntsman’s son isn’t running is now calling on Romney to release the returns. When the big boys in Utah start telling Mitt to provide the returns, Mitt’s in a bind.

We don’t know that Harry Reid lied about having a source, or that the information from that source is false. Only Mitt has the means to prove that Harry is spewing falsehoods, assuming that’s the case. If Harry Reid can be accused of making accusations without offering proof, the same can be said of Mitt’s counter-accusatiion.

I predict that, starting with the Democratic convention, Obama will shift gears and turn to running on his record. Unlike Romney, he won’t be running away from his efforts to make the health insurance market work for 60 million people who don’t have access to group insurance or government-sponsored insurance and have to rely instead on the dysfunctional, predatory individual health insurance industry.

red herring
 
noun
1.
a smoked herring.
2.
something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

They sure can’t run on the Ayrab’s record, now can they?

But it’s OK to lie like Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi says so, and you know SHE’S absolutely trustworthy.

He basically defends Reid and is critical of sanctimonious liberals for being so quick to join the Republican attacks on Reid. He goes on to discuss a legal doctrine known as the “Missing Evidence” instruction to jurors. Of course, Romney’s tax issue is not a legal case. But, if it were, the instruction to jurors would be as follows:

If a person in control of evidence (that would be Mitt) refuses to produce the evidence (that would be the tax returns that presidential candidates normally provide and that Romney already provided to McCain in 2008), then the jury (that would the court of public opinion in this situation) is instructed that there is a presumption that the evidence would be against the party failing to produce.

Maybe, but he’s likely serving his last term in the Senate and maybe his final year as Majority Leader. So, he’s got nothing to lose. He’s making sure that Mitt doesn’t get a free pass on his tax returns. If Mitt wants to dig in his heels, he’ll pay a political price, as he should, in my opinion. People who are not already locked into the pro or anti Obama/Romney camps will form their own conclusions as to why Mitt won’t release information that other presidential candidates have released. For that, Mitt will have nobody to blame but himself.