A couple of weeks ago, Think Progress put together a list of 20 prominent Republicans who think that Mitt Romney should release more tax records. The list included a mix of politicians, writers, and operatives. There were people like columnist George Will, former RNC heads Haley Barbour and Michael Steele, the current head of the RNCC, the governor of Alabama, and Sen. Chuck Grassley. The criticism of Romney has come from a wide swath of the Republican Party. This morning, Ed Rollins became the latest in a growing list of campaign strategists to join the choir.
“I think at this point of time it’s going to dog him all the way and he needs to get it behind him,” Rollins said. “I think he needs to release more taxes. Absolutely.”
Rollins, who managed the presidential campaigns of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and President Ronald Reagan, said he would have released records from “five or six years” much sooner.
“I would not put out 20 years and I obviously wouldn’t respond to anything Harry Reid states,” he said. “At the end of the day you come to the point where you basically give a little bit more and you move forward. And he’s going to do that. Two years is not enough, obviously.”
Maybe Romney is going to do it, but I kind of doubt it. What I find more interesting is this spectacle of the usually quite disciplined Mighty Right-Wing Wurlitzer bellowing smoke and emitting clunking sounds. When Brit Hume and Bill Kristol are stomping on Romney’s rationale for not releasing his taxes, you know that something has gone amiss. So, what is it? Is the fix in? Are conservatives openly sabotaging Romney’s chances? Or do these ruthless operators actually have a point beyond which they won’t go in defending the indefensible?
Let’s remember these people’s behavior during the Iraq War, shall we? These are the type of people who will tell you that a little torture is no big deal as long as someone is served chicken with rice pilaf and two kinds of fruit. Moral qualms and truthfulness are not things we normally associate with these folks.
But they are not willing to do something much less difficult than glossing over torture and murder. They won’t go on television and say that it’s no one’s business what Romney pays in taxes. They refuse to have his back on this.
Maybe a couple of them are simply offering sincere advice. They think Romney is making a strategic error and that nothing in his taxes is so bad that it would justify taking this much heat to avoid disclosure. But we’re talking about more than 20 people now. And some of these people really ought to expect a chance to work for the Romney administration.
Romney isn’t putting fear into anyone. He isn’t earning any loyalty. He’s not even getting much in the way of brown-nosing.
It really makes me wonder if the fix is in, and what that might mean for how the congressional elections play out. You can’t throw half an election, after all.
Interesting analysis — I think you’re on to something. Notice that none of Mitt’s GOP critics are cozy with the tea party crowd… are they wagering that if they set up an Obama landslide, it’ll be the tea party that takes the blame for the loss?
For the most part, you’re right. We’re talking about guys who have headed the RNC, or RNCC, or been head of the Republican Party in a particular state. Mr. Will and Kristol are insider’s insiders. And all the campaign operatives will want jobs next time around and won’t find the if Romney is running for reelection.
But how did Romney get on the wrong side of a Tea Party/Establishment fight?
Who could have seen that coming?
Because Romney’s natural appeal is certainly not to the Tea Party elements of the base.
Romney got on the wrong side of the Tea Party – Establishment divide by being a loser… and these establishment guys have no loyalty at all to losers.
Interesting question:
The GOP insider elite would probably like nothing better than to blame the 20102 GOP POTUS loss on the teabaggers. They likely loathe than as much as their predecessors loathed the Birchers back in 1964. But while that election shut them up for decades, they did pay a high price to silence them. Medicare/Medicaid, civil rights legislation, etc.
Wouldn’t have considered a few months ago that a Romney loss could be hung around the necks of tea baggers, but now looks as if such fix can work.
Marie, did you see that the House left town without a rescue bill for drought-stricken farmers? Those are the Republican Mid-West constituents, most white, mostly conservative, mostly religious, mostly voting Republican. These are the voters that are giving them control of the House. The base is in the South, but the prairie states give them the edge. They are hurting BAD and their party is deserting them on ideological grounds. That is a sign of a party going over an ideological cliff.
The DNC needs good community rooted candidates who can say in effect, “Hey, forget about gay marriage and abortion. MY party supports your farm in tough times. We wanted to give you relief. We gave you farm subsidies in the first place. We gave you rural electrification. We will save your farm. They have deserted you.” Farmers care about keeping the farm above all else. We need some Brian Schweitzer types or even Jon Tester types who can sport missing fingers lost in farm machinery. But college-educated Liberals from a rural family would be ideal.
If FDR who actually did something positive for Midwest farmers couldn’t cut through their traditional alliance with the GOP, rhetoric from DEM pols today isn’t going to change the situation. iirc the bulk of current farm subsidies go to agro-business. Even the ethanol mandates and corn subsidies are but tinkle down for farmers.
With Oklahoma now burning up from heat and drought and the residents there along with both political parties in denial about a major underlying cause, the truth couldn’t be heard even if someone was speaking it.
Blaming their misfortune on gays, liberals, atheists, etc. is much easier than wondering why their precious lord has abandoned them.
Please not to disparage farmers. I assume you have no idea what it’s like to depend on weather for your livlihood. Farmers (I’m talking small farmers here not agribusiness) live with the ups and downs of weather variations and I may venture to say it’s a somewhat backburner issue for them whether it’s human caused or not because they are pretty carbon neutral – furthermore, climate change or no climate change, there’s not much they can do but adapt or give up their way of life. And farmers around the world are adapting while everyone else is debating it.
Didn’t disparage or denigrate the profession of farming — only the voting behavior of a majority of farmers that has facilitated the neo-liberal, privatization, etc. legislation of the past forty years.
Exactly where are farmers adapting to global climate change? Being adept at adjusting to variable weather is what farmers have been doing for thousands of years — globally they have been unprepared for the severe weather events — floods, droughts, heat waves, etc. — in the past few years.
here’s an article – the scientists are also at work analyzing
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/35379/
These researchers also go out and talk to farmers about what they are doing – i.e. the farmers make changes on the ground, for example discontinuing certain crops that it is now too warm to grow
From the abstract, looks like an interesting research paper —
< blockquote>…Therefore, this study assesses the effect of observed climate variables on yield of major food-crops in Nepal, namely rice, wheat, maize, millet, barley and potato based on regression model for historical (1978-2008) climatic data and yield data for the food-crops. The yield growth rate of all the food-crops is positive. However, the growth rate for all crops, except potato and wheat, is below population growth rate during the period. …</blocquote>
Not that it appears to come close to supporting your point that farmers are leading the way in adjusting to global climate change.
I said they are adjusting, changing their crops. If a crop won’t grow because of climate change they must abandon it and look for something that grows in the new climate situation. I suggested you read the bibliography. that’s what these researchers are studying – how farmers are impacted in the day to day.
Read the titles in references cited.
For example
R. M., Zhong, X., et al. (2004). Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), 101(27), 9971-9975.
BooMan, I don’t quite understand your analysis here. Even if those GOP bigwigs don’t like Romney and don’t think he can win, why would they actively try and throw the election? Especially since (as you point out) doing so could harm their downballot candidates?
I can see why conservatives might concentrate their resources on the Congressional races, rather than the Presidential – indeed, I believe George Will recommended something like that a few weeks ago. I can also see why prominent conservatives would try and distance themselves from Romney, if they think he’s going down and don’t want to be associated with the loss. The latter reason makes more sense to me as an explanation of why all these folks are calling for the tax returns.
But, I don’t see why they would actively try to sabotage the Romney campaign. What benefit would they get from it?
Exactly. Even if you think Romney is dead so what? You’re the GOP. Your rightist money men are happy to pour money into every one of your orifices! Prop Romney up. No other Dem can even come close the money Obama can raise. Force him to spend it against Romney instead of down ballot where money will matter more and where victories will really effect how he can govern!
I just don’t get it.
Yes, the “who benefits” question.
Well, if you aligned with the Bush family and want a Jeb comeback, you benefit from a Romney loss.
If you are a campaign director you don’t want 2016 to be Romney running for reelection unopposed, because you’ll be unemployed.
If you think Romney is not a true conservative, you may not want him to lead the party.
If you make your money selling anti-Obama books, shows, columns…you need Obama in power.
There are many reasons to throw an election.
I’m sure we can identify more…
Interesting. I guess it really is possible that these people could be so self-centered that they don’t care what happens to their candidate. Especially those conservatives that don’t believe or care about the GOP’s ridiculous policies and are just in it for the money.
You reap what you sow…
Or their own power, real or perceived. Happened in 1972 for the Democratic candidate who, unlike Mitt, had a political base in the party.
Who did they want in ’72? Was Muskie that good?
What I’m seeing is that, unlike the war in Iraq, which guys like Kritol really really wanted, Mitt Romney doesn’t particularly excite anyone. No one wants to be seen as carrying water for that dork.
Apparently Nixon was their preferred guy.
Also governing is hard. Much easier to obstruct in congress and blame it all on Obama.
Also, too, the two conservative columns in today’s Washington Post are quite unhelpful to Romney. George Will disses football and Kathleen Parker praises Michele Obama.
This is on a Sunday with less than 100 days until the election. It doesn’t seem like they are even trying.
like i’ve been saying, literally NOBODY likes mitt.
True, but they hate Obama more. That hasn’t changed.
To be perfectly accurate, many “fixes” aren’t even prosecutable in the fight game. When a promoter deliberately builds up a bad fighter by matching him against even worse fighters until he has a good record and then throws him into the ring with a real tiger, is that a “fix” or is it just good business? The bad fighter and probably most of his trainers really don’t understand what’s up…they’re dummies, that’s why they are involved with a tomato can. No one has to “throw” a fight for a fix to happen. The throwing happens when they throw him into the ring to get his lights punched out.
Now…take Romney.
Please. (Thank you, Henny Youngman.)
But really, folks…take Romney. Who were his opponents? Worse tomato cans. Discredited crooked pols. Batshit crazy right wing idiots. Pizza makers, fer chrissake. The one possible opponent with a good chance to take him out …guess who…wasn’t even given ring time other than the equivalent of a walk-on meet-and-greet for the first few debates, and even when he was allowed into the ring the refs were basically calling him for fouls whenever he made a fist. When it came to a decison he was always “Too old” or “Too crazy” or Too…” I dunno. You fill in the blanks. And Romney walked away with the championship of that particular organization.
Fixed?
You bet.
But when it comes time for a unification bout between the two major champions?
HOO boy. Fuggedaboudit!!!
Suddenly the exact same interests who were protecting him from Ron Paul and matching him up with the likes of Bachmann and the Pizza King are flailing away at him for previous dirty tactics.
And there he is, dumb as a stick in the ring with the Muhammad Ali of presidential politics. (Y’know…Ali was involved in some fixes, too. Smart enough to know it even if he wasn’t officially notified and smart enough to play it to the hilt as well.)
Of course, Liston was in the know.
I think it’s just beginning to dawn on Romney what’s really up.
Which proves at least one thing.
Sonny Liston was smarter than Mitt Romney.
Bet on that as well.
Duh.
Later…
AG
I don’t recall Jon Hunstman being called too crazy, or too old.
Another explanation for the relative weakness of the Republican field this year is an unwillingness to run against the most politician in living memory.
Huntsman?
He was no threat to Romney. He wasn’t even a credible non-candidate.
As they say in the fight game…
No chin.
Bet on it.
AG
Huntsman jumped into the 2012 ring to set himself up for 2016 or as VP for Pawlenty or Perry. Not deferring to the whims and fortunes of Romney was also a first for Jon.
There’s some bad blood between the Huntsman and Romney camps, but like all tribes they come together against outsiders. But after Mitt loses, the GOP is not likely to nominate another Mormon for a very long time, if ever.
Arthur, the Republican Establishment doesn’t want Ron Paul because although he says the Right things, they (the Corporate Establishment) don’t want someone who believes in those things. They don’t want small government. They like big government just fine as long as they can suck on the public nipple, cf TARP, DoD contracts, farm subsidies for corporate farms. They want hypocrites that will spout the Party Line but keep the cash flowing, i.e. George W. Bush.
They don’t want Medicare to end. They want bigger payouts for United Healthcare. They don’t want to end Social Security. They want to funnel the money to Wall Street so they can fatten on it.
Besides, Ron Paul is insane. Plus, he’s insane.
I don’t see how you could watch Mitt Romney and conclude that Jon Huntsman would be less credible or less effective as a candidate.
No, he’s not as good looking, but it’s the Republican Party, and they’re ok with people who look like Bob Dole or John McCain.
Huntsman might have not been as good looking as Romney, who looks like the guy a Hollywood casting director would select for the role of president, but his family sure was hot.
P.S. Nobody liked Sonny Liston much, either.
Just sayin’…
AG
Nobody likes Willard.
What fix? What are they fixing? We can assume that none of them are being whipped by principle or conscience, so what’s in it for them? I have to think they’re panicked that Romney’s weird stubbornness is going to lose him the election. Or to put it the way that really matters to them, that it will give Obama another 4 years. They’ve now seen the kind of hay Obama’s campaign is making out of the issue. They think disclosure of whatever the secret is can be massaged, but the suspicion that there’s a big bomb in the closet will go on forever.
But their public statements have to be damaging Romney. If they were primarily concerned about the electoral impact, wouldn’t they give their advice in private? Making it public, ironically, damages any benefit Romney might get by coming clean: instead of looking decisive and honest, he comes off as reluctantly buckling under public pressure. In the childish vocabulary of American politics and media, he comes off as “weak”. They’re cutting off his retreat while pretending to advocate it. Extremely strange.
Obama–they can live with that. That this turns into a wave election that sweeps the GOP out–that’s what they are concerned about. The math still looks very hard for the Dems on that account but I imagine these folks see the tax issue as potentially turning the whole election into a referendum on something they don’t want discussed and that will continue to be discussed until Romney releases those taxes.
On the other hand, they have no one to blame but themselves. If I’m not mistaken, Gingrich at least tried to raise these issues during the primaries and once he started to gain traction, someone seems to have persuaded his campaign to change directions. Of course, the Gingrich campaign was not known for its discipline, so maybe he just got bored with that line of attack, but I remember thinking at the time the shift was curious.
Obama–they can live with that.
What have any of the prominent Republicans done over the past four years to make you think they can live with Barack Obama?
Work with him? Praise him? Give him the benefit of the doubt? Treat him as anything less then the Kenyan Anti-Christ, ever?
They can live with it in the sense that they believe they can use the same gridlock they have for the last two years to keep him from getting much done. What they fear is that the Dems will win like they did in 2008, only this time the Dems would go in with no illusions and a much better legislative strategy.
Gotcha.
Here’s hoping Harry Reid is able to bring the caucus along on the filibuster.
Gingrich is less likeable than Romney. Plus he’s not as pliable for those who would pull his strings. However, he never had any message that resonated except racism and even that wouldn’t have been heard if not for the gambling casino godfather, Adelson.
Unless he’s not listening to them in private, either, and so what they see as the last best chance to save his candidacy is to make public statements in an effort to sway him.
I agree that the Republican pundits’ advice is likely sincere and that their assumption is that they can spin whatever is in the returns. However, they simply cannot spin Romney’s failure to produce the returns. I think it’s really that simple.
It could be as simple as that. Simple explanations are generally most likely to be correct.
Why is it only plausible that a couple of them are offering sincere advice?
Romney is getting killed over this. If I supported Romney, I’d tell him to release his taxes, take the hit, and get it behind him, too.
Then you’d be acting like a moron.
Why would you assume he can release his taxes? Do you know better than he does?
If you had a voice in the GOP, you’d be better off giving your advice privately. Why would you pile on your own candidate?
You’d have to be a dope to do something like that.
Exactly! They are publicly distancing themselves from their candidate. Rats leaving a sinking ship come to mind.
The professional right want to go where the money is and that’s hating Barry Nobama. They know Milt Romney can’t fix the economy without going socialist, so better to stay on the losing side for 4 more years and rake it in fleecing the rubes. The sooner they convince Romney to throw the game, the sooner they can start figuring out how to blame the Democrat party, lamestream media, Rmoney himself, etc. for once again sabotaging the USA.
Right wing pundits prefer being in the minority because they make more bank playing defense and blaming the Democrat Party for their own failures is what I’m saying.
And I know how they feel. It’s a lot easier and there’s more money when the GOP is in charge and enraging liberals than when the Dems are in control and we’re fighting amongst ourselves. But I would never wish for a Republican presidency because it would have narrow benefits to myself.
any time the republican pol and pundit leadership put their “reasonable” cap on in large numbers, I’d be looking for them to exploit that reasonableness against the opposition in an unrelated but similar matter, or using it as a means of gaining credibility they don’t deserve.
For example, what are the odds that the Romney camp wasn’t aware that his taxes would be an issues? Granted, he may have had a reason to hide them back in the days covered extensively prior election efforts –but what if he cleaned them up to the point of “reasonability” in the interim, and can safely release a “reasonable” quantity like 5-6 years?
His stonewalling is nothing new, so his deciding to release them this time around can be portrayed as a magnanimous act in response to an undeserved (as they could show at least for that time frame) fed case/persecution from those unfairly attempting to paint him as something he’s not, gaining him sympathy and giving his side something to beat the dems over the head with.
ANd those now demanding he release them would lead the charge, and be in the perfect position to benefit from the intended victim of that evil “liberal” media — the martyr for the 1% — being exonerated given their role in prompting him to take this action.
And after this as well, they can then pluck the stupid strings of their minions, and use the same “missing evidence” instruction in our court of public opinion that underlies the Mutt’s problem with his tax records, to go after BHO for his college records, etc. After all, what’s BHO hiding, no? I’m sure there’s no shortage of rightwingnut pundits that’ll beat that drum until we’re all deaf.