Scot, When John Kerry was running for president, his tax returns showed he paid a rate of 13%, did you write an article about that, if so, please supply a link, would love to read it.

What can be "amiss" with tax returns? We know he made a lot of money. We saw a return. The rest is just fodder for ridicule, by nincompoops (i.e. the press). And we gain nothing by knowing about knowing about Clinton's deductions. The sudden interest in intense scrutiny rings hollow after giving the current President a pass.

I would comfortably wager that Romney's tax history is far cleaner and more legal than Secretary of the Treasury Geithner's or Congressman Rangel. Or, say, a certain couple of former to Mass pols named "Turner" and "Wilkerson."

What matters in politics is appearance and one handles those things that brings into questions your character. Now I don't know what Mitt's returns look like. I'll even lean towards the idea he has done nothing illegal. However, the problem will be and I think at its core the reason Mitt holds back is the tax returns won't look pretty. It will show who and where Mitt invested in over the years. His supporters will say he is a business man and should have multiple investments throughout the world. Guess what I agree, he should. But then comes the bad part. Those global investments will show a disregard for the American worker. His opponents will beat him to death with it. Enough of the public won't like it, won't trust someone who goes outside the US, someone who costs Americans jobs and that true or not is how it will be presented.(NP)Now the Mitt's passionate supporters and the crazies can go all "outraged" as they want but the fact is Mitt has to respond. Politics is about responding to an issue and getting back on message. Obama has done that consistently. Mitt is failing. He needs to give up the returns and I mean a lot of them, take the heat and move on. Otherwise his campaign will continue to slide into an election that is "all about Mitt" something no political adviser worth his salt would allow to happen.

Hi Guys, OBGT: Well, the Vanity Fair article is interesting and is food for thought in that regard. Quite complex, but worth a read. And you're telling me you didn't blanch a bit upon learning that Bill Clinton was claiming deductions for his used U-Trow? I doubt it changed any votes, but really, who does that? MIGH: I don't think so, though honestly, I don't have a column archive in my head; I couldn't tell you what I wrote last year, let alone in 2004. Nor am I here criticizing Mitt for the rate he paid (though honestly, I was surprised that, just as public relations thing, he didn't his get his tax rate + contributions up to a percentage of his income that would have let him analogize to higher-bracket placement; I would have thought they would have done that for bragging rights alone). But his 2002 semantic antics did give reporters here a look into a certain less-than-forthright pattern of behavior. It wasn't the biggest deal in the whole wide world, but it was misleading. That and a couple of other, similar, incidents led me to write a "Tale of Two Mitties" column in which I split him into Masterly Mitt, the managerial wunderkind, and his not-very-forthcoming alter ego, Slick Willard.

It was entirely appropriate to examine tax returns in 2002, when there was a challenge to Mitt's residency, and tax returns could answer that question. But Scot has no specific questions that this current plea for returns would answer. It is just a fishing trip, looking for bits of information that might be embarrassing for Romney. Mitt would be a fool to give in to such a request, as it would take the focus off Obama, and put it on him. NEW PARAGRAPH: As long as we are fishing Scot, why not demand that Obama release his Columbia University grades, papers and political affiliations? You get the picture. Fishing for material should go both ways, or, better still, not be done at all.

Willard just loves using words that make him sound like a dishonest weasel, but I can't figure out why.

I'm betting that Willard's returns show that his investment direction continually made bets against the American worker. Willard does what he wants because he has the money and he has never yet run into something he couldn't buy off.

So do I believe Obama's reassurance that there's nothing amiss with his Fast and Furious program that resulted in the murder of a federal agent ? I'd like to, but on this one, I'll take my cue from the Gipper: I'll trust that assertion when I can verify it. Let's stick with issues that are more important.

Years ago, Bob Lee wrote a column entitle "With malice toward none and charity toward all". At the risk of unleashing another scathing, diatribe from Mr. Lehigh, may I suggest that even the title of his column is an undisguised political lament. Many busy readers peruse the paper and see only the declarative highlighting Romney's dishonesty shady business dealings. Throwing in a few interesting tidbits about Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton doesn't undo the chorus of innuendo and malice designed to destroy a decent man's reputation and character. Politics aside, the columns are interesting forays into the world of journalistic politics. They are light reading and a fun way to start the day.

ProFox. Here's another "scathing" diatribe: I wrote this column recounting the story because I think it is instructive, but as I said, I don't think anything we'll see on the tax returns will be a game-changer. Probably more a transitory embarrassment. The episode I recount wasn't one of fundamental dishonesty -- no one thought Mitt was, say, trying to cheat on his taxes -- but rather of Slick Willard-y political trimming. I tried to convey that with a half-humorous tone in the piece. That, for example, is the reason for the M-word alliterative paragraph. Scot

I'll bet that Mitt will gladly release his tax returns as soon as Obama releases his academic records.

Mitt and Eric are only slightly better than Karl Rove and Dick Cheney in inventing ways to subvert the truth. The spin Eric puts on the deletion of files on computers used in Romney's administration show how completely unethical their process and tactics are and purely intended to obfuscate the truth to the public. A mandatory tamperproof archive was never a deterrent to Mitt's team.

What a contrast between George Romney and his son. George put out 12 years of tax returns when he was running for President. Mitt looks pale in comparison. George Romney walked out of the 1964 Republican convention because of the convention's lack of commitment to civil rights. Mitt goes to the NAACP and taunts the delegates with his promise to hurt every low income black family in the country, especially those with medical problems. And he gets booed. Music to the ears of a certain segment of the resentful Right Wing. Ronald Reagan did the same thing. But here is the nub of the tax return issue. Mitt claims special competence on his knowledge of how the economy works. His tax returns would be the clearest evidence of that competence and his commitment to the American worker. George Romney said that one or two years could be misleading. He was right. Would Mitt's returns show that he was a "job creator"....or something else.

Guys, please don't call me Mr. Lehigh. We are not formal types here in the troll colony. Scot is fine. (Or even Scott.)

I assume your next article will be on why Obama refuses to release his medical and academic records.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.