Friday, October 12, 2012
2012 VP Debate Transcript Part 2
The second part of the transcript is after the fold.
The second part of the transcript is after the fold.
Who knows what effect last night’s VP debate will have once the spin dies down? But if it doesn’t cheer up Democrats and address any lingering enthusiasm gap, I’ve no idea what will.
The MSM and Romney camp spinners (spot the difference), of course, are hard at work claiming that Ryan “won,” that Biden’s a loon just laughing at serious issues, OH! THE INCIVILITY!!!!!, it was a “tactical draw,” or on occasion coming to the conclusion that Joe Biden’s a force of nature you underestimate at your peril, and Paul Ryan’s still wet behind the ears and various other places despite his years in Congress.
For those who missed the debate or are embroiled in discussions and arguments about it elsewhere, there’s a transcript after the fold. It’s too long for our blogware to handle in one post, so above you’ll see Part 2, on which comments are disabled.
You know there’s never going to be a better night than tonight to crack open a beer and insulate it in in a koozie with Fightin’ Joe’s visage emblazoned thereupon. If only it were possible for anxiety prone Joebots to crawl into a full-body koozie till it was over. Or at least don a head-koozie like the little Aynist’s up there, fashioned before the Republicans had cornered the market on tin-foil skull-coverings—hough the lining may very well be metallic and crinkly, much like its original wearer.
Below the fold, the YouTube livestream, so you need never leave the warmth and comfort of our Roasty den to follow along. If you are so inclined, though, the long-suffering Guardian writers are liveblogging and streaming here, nomenclature-superabled ZEGScoiner Charlie Pierce will be twittering here.
We’ll be liveblogging tonight’s VP debate, beginning at 9 p.m. ET.
Will Joe Biden kick the evening off by ambling across the stage and sitting daintily on Martha Raddatz’s knee, to her obvious delight?
Will Paul Ryan flounce out in a cloud of talcum powder?
Will the booze stash stand up to the onslaught?
Will this chickenwire barrier I’ve erected in front of my laptop hold out for the whole 90 minutes?
Will Chicago derail the media narrative by taking down Twitter and Farmville, leaving the rest of the world to figure out WTF just happened for themselves?
Time alone will tell. Join us if you don’t like screaming at your screen without company.
There’s less than a month to go till the election, and there’s barely room to fit your butt on the fainting couches in some quarters as the MSM derails from its narrative of the moment and doles out yet another gross indignity to the man who would be king.
Meanwhile, I’m looking forward to the end of this silly week—at worst, for the poll-obsessed, we should have MOAR DATA, and some of the outliers and sample sets from the immediate debate aftermath and a holiday weekend should be diluted by more substantive things to set everyone’s hair alight, woefully misinterpret, and keep the horserace narrative alive into the final stretch. And of course, there’s the hope that ole handsome Joe Biden will gallop to the rescue and serve up the mancrush red meat that some of the daftest public bedwetters I’ve ever witnessed before going back to ignoring them again so obviously crave and turn this thing around. Or not. Whatever.
In any case, his opponent, hottie Dauphin of the Damned Paul Ryan, is evidently feeling the heat. Both he and the campaign, flying in the face of gleeful predictions from the Borg that he’ll wipe the floor with the geriatric hairplug-studded gaffe machine, have been trying desperately to play down expectations for his performance. Though, since we’re talking the Romney campaign here, they’re simultaneously playing up expectations that the understuffed suit of a granny starver will deliver another gamechanger and finish this thing, since if O’Biden doesn’t stride manfully across the stage and deliver the eyewatering wedgie of a lifetime, Ryan WINS IT’S ALL OVER. I think that’s called a spread bet.
Ryan’s even channeled Queen Ann Of The Fainting Couch and issued his own preemptive strike:
Ryan: Dems’ Strategy Is To “Call Us Liars”
Paul Ryan said that Democrats’s strategy through the election is “to call us liars for a month” in an interview with Michigan radio host Frank Beckmann Monday. The day after Wednesday’s presidential debate, the Obama campaign released an ad saying Romney had not told the truth during the debate.
“It seems pretty clear that their new strategy is basically just call us liars, to descend down into a mud pit and hopefully with enough mudslinging back and forth and distortion, people will get demoralized and then they can win by default; sort of a choice of the lesser or two evils,” Ryan said.
There’s one course of action Ryan and Romney could adopt to avoid this “new strategy,” but that’s obviously never going to happen. Maybe Joe’s dug out the thesaurus since the l-word is so offensive to the Romney camp’s delicate sensibilities—they’re so unused to the help answering back—or maybe he’ll find other more subtle but no less devastating ways to convey the message.
Mitt Romney’s quest to get in touch with his “inner human being” is starting to have comedic results. Take his recent forays back into the dark realm of “wimmins issues” . . . on Tuesday, Romney gobsmacked the realm with his new positions on abortion and contraception. In case you missed it, he’s now for them, or at least not as much against them. Ladies, don’t be distressed if you’re confused—you’re meant to be. At least until after the election . . . when all things will be revealed, issuing forth from quiet rooms filled with leather furniture, Cuban cigars and Napoleon.
A bit of silliness but too good not to share. Via Crooks & Liars
The serious side, though, is that this really could happen to virtually all domestic spending if Romney & Ryan had their druthers.
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Mark Twain
Now that Presidential Debate #1 is in the can, if you will, after being throughly sliced, diced and minced, there appears to be a somewhat mushy consensus that a whole lot of lying took place. The national response to that lying is pretty similar to the reaction to the preceding political conventions—a hearty “meh—politicians lie.”
One of the most interesting facets of the public’s response is that plenty of finger-pointing goes on but very little defensiveness. For example: Mitt Romney says that he can give everyone in the country a 20% tax cut (and a pony for Christmas) without exploding the debt. We all recognize that promise for the pure, unadulterated political poppycock that it is, Republicans and Democrats alike, but Mitt gets to say it and sail on anyway. Democrats say that’s impossible, how can you do that? And Republicans counter “easy. Trust us.” And it works a charm—Mitt’s base is invigorated, dreaming of acceptance speeches and the dawn of a conservative Golden Age. It’s unlikely that an absurd statement like that wins over any of the wishy-washy independent voters that Republicans must win over to beef up their low numbers, but it makes the base feel good to see their man up on his hind legs on a testosterone high.
Unfortunately, for Barack Obama, there’s a flip side to that coin. His own tribe might walk away from such an encounter feeling threatened, duped or victimized; the tribe might feel a lot better if their chieftain accused and raged and lied back. Even if it made their chief look petty and ridiculous, it would be cathartic.
And this is why politicians lie. And why they get away with it. And, they continue to do it—because it works.
I think human survival instinct plays a huge role in all of this. We homo sapiens use lying to survive all sorts of threats to our person and/or our psyches daily.
People lie for all of these reasons (and more):
to avoid punishment
to avoid harm
to win admiration
to control information available to/or the perceptions of others
to avoid embarrassment
Most lies are told to deal with mundanities rather than actually life-threatening situations, nevertheless all are told to avoid existential threats like loss of love, respect, and security.
Back in ‘08, gun and ammo wholesalers cunningly spread the meme that if elected president, dusky peacenik/wannabe murderous dictator for life Barack Obama would be comin’ fer yer guns, so BETTER STOCK UP RIGHT AWAY. As things panned out, although it provided a handy additional stimulus to the American economy, that didn’t happen.
Gamechanging alleged hottie wunderkind prospective VP Paul Ryan hasn’t exactly set anybody’s hair on fire except his and Mitt’s handlers and spinners so far. With a few days to go to the first presidential debate, and a few more to the VP one, Ryan’s currently damping down widespread expectations among the borg that he’s gonna ZING! Joe Biden into a quivering blob of hairplug-studded jelly:
GOP vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan said Sunday he’s not counting on gaffes from Vice President Joe Biden when they debate on October 11.
“I don’t think he will. You know he doesn’t do that in debates. The gaffes - he’s kind of legendary for this - that’s not in these kind of situations,” Ryan said on “Fox News Sunday.” “He’s a very disciplined person when he speaks in these kinds of situations. He doesn’t produce gaffes in these moments. Those are when he’s off the cuff.”
As for his own debate preparation, Ryan said he’s not worrying about coming up with creative lines - he’s just going to be himself.
“I’m not really a line guy. I’m more of a gut guy,” Ryan said. “I believe in what I believe. I do what I do. And I really believe in the policies we’re providing, that we’re pursuing. And at the end of the day, I’m just going to go in there and be me.”
Ryan has been preparing with former Solicitor General Ted Olson, who is playing the part of Biden in mock debates.
Ryan said Biden has excellent debate skills, so his plan is not to try to rattle Biden, but to simply lay out the Romney-Ryan vision for America.
Nevertheless, during this tense run-up to the debates, if any tactic can be identified in the Rich Bastard/Granny Starver 2012 campaign at the moment, as Bette observes, it looks like they’ve decided they need to go hell for leather for the crucial outdoorsperson demographic to clinch this thing, so this last week Ryan decided it’s time to fulfil his early promise and basically steal Palin’s favorite lines:
“I might add that in small towns we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t,” she said.
Mitt Romney’s quest for a “defining moment” took a sharp-turn off-road this week. In an effort to reconnect with the 47% of “your tired, your weak, your longing to be free of Lyme disease,” Mitt promised the State of Virginia, specifically, that he will find a way to deliver them from the ravages of the deer tick, in a campaign mailer delivered this week.
The mailer (see below: credit: The Weekly Standard) declares the disease a “massive epidemic threatening Virginia” and says that the Republican presidential nominee and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will do more to fight the spread of the disease by “improving synergy” between agencies and “increasing awareness” among the public. It is a little-known fact that the disease, carried by tiny ticks that ride on whitetail deer, flourish in environments, such as Virginia’s, where “interdepartmental synergies” are particularly sub-par due to the failures of the Obama administration.
Unlike his opponent, Barack Obama, who rattles on continuously about jobs and boring stuff that affects everyone, Candidate Romney cares deeply about the .00002 percent of the population of battleground states afflicted by Lyme disease, where the tick-borne scourge threatens whole communities of TEA Party activists who conscientiously keep their health insurance up to date and never mooch off the taxpayers.
The mailer’s text is reprinted below, compliments of Huffington Post:
It’s a disease that begins with small bug…
But Lyme Disease has quickly become the most common vector-borne disease in the United States, devastating our families and our pets.
It’s a serious problem - that demands immediate attention.
As president, Mitt Romney will ensure that real action is taken to get control of this epidemic that is wreaking havoc on Northern Virginians.
Ensure that government agencies have an open line of communication and work with patients, researchers, doctors, and businesses in an objective, comprehensive manner.
Work with federal and state health agencies to support Lyme Disease awareness efforts to help prevent further spread of the disease.
Who says this guy’s a cold fish?
P.S. The more I think about it, the surer I am that one of Romney’s “debate zingers” is going to be about Lyme disease. POTUS better bone up on this trending topic in a hurry.
Well, DAMN! You know how it is when you laugh so hard you start worrying about passing out? you can’t see for the tears in your eyes? can’t catch a breath before another wave of hilarity hits?
Well, that just happened to me when I landed on Politico and read Kevin Robillard’s piece on Mitt Romney’s plan to become a one-man, real-time fact check team during his upcoming debates with President Obama. I’m wondering “is he a buzzer, or perhaps, a gong man?” Or maybe, to show he’s up to speed, he’ll bring a little audio fx pad along. Or, maybe Ryan’s told him about the nuns’ trick? the old ruler across the knuckles.
I suppose Mitt thinks all of this is necessary because a) he’s losing, b) he’s a bully and c) he’s a lumberjack and he’s Okay (sorry, just a little Romney-esque campaign humor. Plebs never get this stuff.)
Romney leaked his hardline debate stratergery to the Good Morning America crew, earlier in the month:
. . . I think the challenge that I’ll have in the debate is that the president tends to, how shall I say it, to say things that aren’t true. I’ve looked at prior debates. And in that kind of case, it’s difficult to say, “Well, am I going to spend my time correcting things that aren’t quite accurate? Or am I going to spend my time talking about the things I want to talk about?
Evidently, Mitt’s now made up his mind. He’s going to play Truth Enforcer and to hell with “what he wants to talk about” because, truth be told, he still doesn’t quite know what he wants to talk about . . . to tax or not to tax . . . that’ll come to him later “in quiet, private rooms” or “in the light of day” or maybe just riding in his car elevator. Who knows?
I’m guessing that this plan actually came crawling out of the maw of Team Romney who connected the dots between Paul Ryan’s trousers flambe performance at the Republican Convention and the big boost in Obama popularity after the world pegged Ryan as an even more audacious liar than his running mate. Ergo, if Romney calls Obama a liar, good polling for Romney should ensue, eh? It has Team Romney foolishness written all over it, IMO.
At this point, I can’t think of much that would be more entertaining than watching Mitt play “debate truth monitor” unless, of course, it would be watching him smirk his way through a concession speech.
President Bill Clinton, speaking at this year’s Democratic Convention, voiced many sentiments about the Republican Presidential Campaign that Democrats were all longing to hear. Among them was this hands-down winner:
When Congressman Ryan looked into that TV camera and attacked President Obama’s Medicare savings as “the biggest, coldest power play,” I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Key cuts that $716 billion is exactly to the dollar the same amount of medicare savings that he had in his own budget. It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.
Undeterred, Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan gave a speech in Colorado yesterday that is no less “brassy.” Ryan’s job, yesterday, was to talk up Romney/Ryan foreign policy expertise (Oxymoron Alert) and bromance the military at the Air Force Academy and Fort Carson. Here’s what Paul’s been keeping under his “foreign policy hat” . . .
Ryan cited the protests in the Middle East as evidence that Obama’s foreign policy has failed there, saying it “looks like Tehran in 1979, but in about a dozen capitals throughout the world.” (Can’t get away from that Jimmy Carter meme).
You can turn on the TV and look and see how the Obama foreign policy is blowing up in our faces.
In Colorado Springs, home of the Air Force Academy and Fort Carson, Ryan promised:
We’re going to rebuild this military and stop apologizing for the greatness of this country.
Now I wonder why the Greatest
Show Military on Earth would need rebuilding . . . ? Could it be that some Republican Commander-in-Chief and his merry men embroiled the military in not one but TWO neocon wetdreams that wound out for a decade? squandering blood and treasure and global credibility? Chickenhawk Ryan has big brass ones and a very short memory.
I’m no policy wonk but it’s pretty obvious to me that some of these “costs of war” resulting from our neocon escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan might, possibly, have contributed to anything that’s “blowing up in our faces” today . . .
Here are just some of the “costs of war” tabulated by costsofwar.org, as of January, 2012:
• Putting together the conservative numbers of war dead, in uniform and out, brings the total to 286,006. A more realistic minimal estimate is 298,000.
• Indirect deaths from the wars, including those related to malnutrition, damaged health infrastructure, and environmental degradation, may far outnumber deaths from combat. While these deaths are difficult to count due to factors such as lack of comparable baseline mortality figures, a 2008 survey by The Geneva Declaration Secretariat estimates that assuming a ratio of four indirect deaths to one direct death in contemporary conflicts would not be unreasonable. This would put the death toll at five times 181,000, or 905,000.
• Millions of people have been displaced indefinitely and are living in grossly inadequate conditions. As of March 2012, the number of war refugees and displaced persons—7,424,780—is equivalent to all of the people of Connecticut and Oregon fleeing their homes.
• The wars have been accompanied by erosions in civil liberties at home and human rights violations abroad.
• The human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades, some costs not peaking until mid-century. Many of the wars’ costs are invisible to Americans, buried in a variety of budgets, and so have not been counted or assessed. For example, while most people think the Pentagon war appropriations are equivalent to the wars’ budgetary costs, the true numbers are twice that, and the full economic cost of the wars much larger yet. Conservatively estimated, the war bills already paid and obligated to be paid as of June 2011 are $3.2 trillion in constant dollars. A more reasonable estimate puts the number at nearly $4 trillion.
• As with former US wars, the costs of paying for veterans’ care into the future will be a sizable portion of the full costs of the war.
• While we know how many US soldiers have died in the wars (over 6,500), what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with over 675,000 disability claims registered with the VA as of September, 2011.  Many deaths and injuries among US contractors have not been identified.
• The ripple effects on the US economy have also been significant, including job loss and interest rate increases, and those effects have been underappreciated.
• While it was promised that the US invasions would bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, both continue to rank low in global rankings of political freedom, with warlords continuing to hold power in Afghanistan with US support, and Iraqi communities more segregated today than before by gender and ethnicity as a result of the war.
Now. Tell me again whose fault this is? and how you and Stench plan to make it better? Through strength? How manly . . .
Americans, if you have a heart or a mind or a soul or a conscience or anything left in your bank account, make sure, on Election Day, that the only way these clueless amateurs ever see the inside of the Oval Office is with a Visitor’s Pass. PLEASE!
Just in from Bloomberg:
Americans have more confidence in President Barack Obama to deal with a crisis in the Middle East than they do Republican Mitt Romney, though they are losing faith in the president’s handling of terrorism.
By a margin of 49 percent to 38 percent, respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll say Obama would be better suited to cope with unforeseen events in the volatile region.
The poll, coming two weeks after Romney assailed Obama’s response to protests in Libya and Egypt, offers little evidence the Republican’s foreign policy critique is boosting his candidacy.
Romney is seeking to capitalize on turmoil in the Middle East, ranging from strains in the U.S.-Israel alliance over a showdown with Iran to violent protests in the once-authoritarian countries that embraced democracy in the “Arab spring.”
The wheels are coming off the RomneyBus and there’s not a tow truck in sight so most of the passengers are either a) gibbering incoherently b) praying for a miracle or c) plotting their escape without incurring grievous bodily harm. Democrats are rubber-necking but not all that surprised.
I don’t believe it ever does to overanalyze crazy talk. Just cataloguing it is usually enough to make the point that “crazy is as crazy does.” I can’t say that I blame the nutters because I know that entertaining even a remote possibility of their candidate winning the 2012 election turns my brain into a flopped souffle swimming in squid sauce. If the prospect of another Obama term does that to Republicans, I can fully understand their current dementia.
Surely, by this stage of the presidential campaigns, most Republicans expected that their candidate would be cruising toward victory . . . which means that they vastly overestimated their candidate’s viability or underestimated his opponent or a lethal mix of both. At any rate, I never expected, under any circumstances, how wildly the usually buttoned-down GOP would react. We’re ten days away from the beginning of the 2012 Presidential Debates which are, more and more, shaping up to be “Romney’s Last Stand.” Keeping that, and the fact that there are only 40-some days left to campaign, here is a compilation of this weekend’s “quiet riot” of serious people and serious people surrogates on the Right . . .
The ever-hilarious mean-girl, Ann Coulter, checked in with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos for a little race-baiting and to share a bit her own homespun civil rights manifesto. Ann has taken it upon herself to warn her friends in the black community that Obama has dumped them for latinos because, well, there are more latinos than blacks, now.
Coulter: We don’t owe the homeless, we don’t owe the feminists, we don’t owe women who are desirous of having abortions or gays who want to get married to one another. That’s what ‘civil rights’ have become for much of the left.”
Stephanopoulos: “Immigrant rights are not civil rights?”
Coulter: “No, I think civil rights are for blacks. What have we done to the immigrants? We owe black people something, we have a legacy of slavery. Immigrants haven’t even been in this country.
OK. Show of hands . . . who out there has read the “hot off the presses” Romney/Ryan policy plan, inspirationally entitled: Securing the American Dream and The Future of Housing Policy?
What’s that you say? . . . you didn’t even know about it? Well, maybe that’s because politicians and Wall Street have a long tradition of dumping bad news, lame-ass statements and damaging revelations into the late-Friday afternoon news cycle. The reasoning behind this Old-Media custom is that such things will get the least possible amount of attention when tossed into the TGIF outbox.
So it is that Team Romney, in their infinite wisdom, first dumped the Romney-Returns, then, at 4 pm, the Romney Housing Plan “white paper.” Clearly, they believed that the “white paper” was the lamer of the two. And they’d be right, for a change. (I suspect they believe that the tax dump was a masterstroke of genius, with its under-reported largesse and would overshadow the silliness of the Housing Plan.)
The “white paper,” and I use the term with a smirk is, basically a blown-out vintage blog post that, in true Team Romney fashion, says nothing in seven pages or less . . . and shows little signs of any attempt to spin it into “something.” I guess it’s a shortcoming of my liberal education that I expect things that call themselves “white papers” or “policy plans” to have some substance and/or contain some clarifying facts and explanations . . . maybe that’s just me? Since the campaign has allegedly reset itself to provide greater detail of the RomneyVision, I expect that there are many more “white papers” in our immediate future. Oh well . . .
The Romney/Ryan Housing Plan is 50% whingeing about Obama’s “failed poloicies,” Dodd-Frank and the Macs (Fannie and Freddie); 40% platitudes (see title for example) and 10% plan to continue everything in Obama’s housing policy, so far, and take credit for it in four years.
I have to admit that the R/R Plan is a welcome evolution from Romney’s previous position on the housing crisis which was:
don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom . . .
And this little nugget of tough love:
I think the idea of helping people refinance homes to stay in them is one that’s worth further consideration, but I’m not signing on until I find out who’s going to pay and who’s going to get bailed out and that’s not something which we know all the answers to yet.
Those comments were made by Romney, late last year, during the Republican primary. They were delivered with typical Romney tact, sensitivity and fellow-feeling to an audience in Las Vegas, NV, one of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis. In fact, Nevada had the highest foreclosure rate in the nation for 56 consecutive months, according to data from RealtyTrac. More than 80 percent of Nevada homeowners are underwater, owing more on their mortgage than their home is worth.
On that occasion, The Las Vegas Sun’s J. Patrick Coolihan noted, Romney completely failed to address this critical part of the nation’s economic problem:
Conspicuously absent from the Romney plan is anything about housing. Construction spending has led us out of just about every recession since World War II. But because there was so much overbuilding — especially in Las Vegas — construction is dormant. And because nationally there are 4 million mortgages seriously delinquent or in foreclosure, construction will remain flat for years. Romney has nothing to say about this.
Indeed, Romney never mentioned housing or foreclosures during his speech, and makes only a passing reference to “millions of homes [that] have been lost to foreclosure” in his economic plan document, without suggesting any remedy.
Anyone who is busy giving Romney the benefit of the doubt on his recent “47%” revelation ought to do a little digging and discover that the same callous disregard for families losing their homes, through no fault of their own, is part of a recurring plot line in the Romney narrative which ascribes monetary difficulties to a lack of moral fiber.
But I digress . . .
Wait, wait. Before I get into the whole Romney mishegas more than I want to—but as much as I have to, being a political blogger, can I just start with the running mate story? M’kay. Here’s a perfectly well-programmed Randroid getting booed for lying in front of people who are old enough to know better than he probably ever will:
I understand his own mama was in the audience. and some of the seniors walked out on his ass. Somehow, Lyin’ Ryan and his mam benefited from government survivor benefits just enough for him to want to fiddle with them to make them dependent on market forces and less available to people who could use them. Obama is leading Romney in Wisconsin per the polls. That’s all I have to say about all that.
But when I’m not mentioning that Romney relied on a rock star privatization/supply side ideologue to be his running mate to give him a boost with a base that distrusts him—why don’t I point out that they still don’t love him enough to refrain from talking shit about him? Because Herman Cain just did:
“Stupid people are ruining America, and we’ve got to take it back,” he said.
Cain told members of the media after the speech that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s recent “47 percent” comment was a “non-story” being blown out of proportion by the media. But Cain said he would have been doing better if he was the nominee, saying that he’d probably have a “substantial lead” on President Barack Obama at this point.
“The reason is quite simple: I have some depth to my ideas,” he said.
Yeah. The guy who gave us the “999” plan and said he wouldn’t sign any bill more than three pages long, believes he has more depth to his ideas. Because, of course, he would handle the Libya situation that much better. And of course he wouldn’t be as especially crass in his language about the poor in America. By which I mean—seriously, whatever. The Hermanator isn’t running for president—Mitt is.
So, I think that Romney had a Friday doc-dump of his 2011 return and a notarized statement about his previous 20 years of returns is one ginormous subject-changing.30-second over the pants handjob. I expect there to be more educated opinions than mine, but I would say that even if he paid taxes as attested, he did release the info when he said he wouldn’t—didn’t he? Huh? Right. And folks are picking over it, such as it is, huh? Also right.
Does it distract from whether he’s still a bloody awful candidate with a rotten campaign going on? Not especially. It’s like proof of it. Cheers.