Oh, Baby, That’s What I Like!
Okay, this ad might need a little back story: but if I were to sum up, it’s about structuring a tax shelter based on fake debt. As in, “Um, see that money it looks like we made? We didn’t because…..deduction.” The complicated part seems to be in the ellipses, and I am not a great filler-in of ellipses person, but what I am is a political blogger. I know what it looks like. It looks like, once again, we have an example of Romney being proximate to some tax-dodging activity, if not in the actual center square. This is why I like the Harry Reid long-game. Or rather, what I take to be the long game. As long as Romney holds out on submitting a reasonable number of returns, speculation grows. It’s just the nature of the beast. And in the meantime, Romney has less and less defense for withholding the information.
I’ve been following the argument of the “is it fair?” test being applied to the Obama campaign message and that of its associated superPACs with interest. I really am of the mind that if my president got dunned for his birth certificate, and now is being twitted for his school records, the standard for his opponent is also being raised. So how do they like it! Is the superPAC ad that basically lays the death of a man’s wife at Romney’s feet for having laid off her husband fair?
Shoot. That’s a question about fairness on a different level—is it fair that employed persons have a greater access to health care than the unemployed? And just what loyalty does an employer owe an employee for service? It goes beyond the campaign, itself, and touches on our actual economic inequalities all around. On one level, Romney can say he has no responsibility—
On another, I suppose he isn’t his brother’s keeper. Good to know.
But let’s look at the Son of Boss ad a little closer. It relies on Harry Reid’s claim. The allegation regarding what lurks in those unseen returns provides the entree to the speculation that, because Romney approved of a Son of Boss-like deal, he is probably a tax-dodger, which is basically the opinion I’ve had from looking into what he did at Bain. Is it fair?
It looks directly at what he has been involved with. Just like the fantastic “Firms” ad., it strikes at defining Romney before he’s adequately defined himself.
I know there has been some meta-discussion about “burn-rate” regarding the Obama campaign, especially in the face of the large fund-raising numbers that Romney is putting up. I suspect that the strategy behind this is—ruin Romney’s credibility early enough, and hurt the money subsequently spent on his behalf. The people who would be “investing” in Romney futures are counting on Romney’s “electability”. If he looks less electable, he’s not such a hot investment anymore. The spending right now is not just to wreck Romney’s cred in terms of his resume—but also in terms of the wisdom of tossing money into a big Boston hole. Think about it, if the majority of voters think this is a double-dealing, slimy, two-faced, cowardly-ass twit, they won’t vote for him no matter what money gets spent, and the repetition of negative ads might cut against the candidate, anyway.
What I’m saying is, I like that the GOP candidate is getting hit, and it’s kind of bonus to me that the guy they are hitting is Romney, because the more I have to blog about this mook, the less I’m liking him. And that, of course, is the idea. Even people on his alleged side don’t like him.. (I don’t think Santorum likes him, I don’t think Gingrich likes him, I know in my heart McCain doesn’t like him.) After all the birther crud and PUMA spoor Obama has faced, really, I could care less what Romney gets hit with, especially if it’s all his own bio. Psht, Son of Boss it is. Tax dodge it is. Is he patriotic enough to be president?
Oh say can you see? His returns if you could?