re: #313 Daniel Ballard

I feel sure he has maneuvered to pay very little. He may have suffered some big losses that carried over as tax credits, maybe not. If the taxes were to his advantage he would disclose. So he is trying to avoid taking a big hit, and failing to do so.

I just do not see good reason to suspend sensible expectations like a proportion between accusation and evidence from the majority leader of the Senate.

What I have learned here is we should have a tax disclosure requirement for every candidate running for Congress, the Senate or the executive branch. Cabinet posts. Justice department positions like judges. That is what my biggest take away is from this. I was already not going to vote for Mitt, not that it matters in California, winner take all. I could vote Mitt or Mickey mouse and have exactly the same influence on the outcome.

Sure, Reid is swinging wildly. He’s a former boxer, and those are his instincts, though he usually isn’t this public about it. Still, it makes sense from a strategic standpoint for the Dems to keep this in the spotlight. If nothing else, Romney is thumbing his nose at the precedent for tax returns that goes back over 40 years in presidential contests. Going so far as to have his wife tell us that “you people” have seen enough of Romney’s finances, so screw the last 40 years of campaign customs.

You’re absolutely right about the electoral college. I’ve lived my whole life in TX, MA and CA. Not once have I felt like my vote made a difference, because my state was so red or blue. The effect of the electoral college, an elitist concoction in the Constitution to prevent actual direct democratic elections, is that the election takes place in 10 swing states at most, while the rest of the country is only valuable to the candidates as places to raise money. Furthermore, it makes us the only democracy in the world IIRC where the winner of the popular vote can actually lose the election to be head of state.