A Valid Question: the McCain Campaign Saw 23 Years of Romney's Tax Returns in 2008. Why Aren't They Stepping Up to Vouch for Romney? Why Is McCain Staying Silent?

The variety of answers here are a little sparse. All three of them presume an ongoing familiarity by McCain with Romney's tax records that by no means has to be the case.

I have no idea what John McCain and his advisers saw when they looked at Romney's records - tax and otherwise - and at Sarah Palin's and at the records of the other potential candidates to be McCain's running mate. The idea that Romney's tax records were uppermost in their minds, however, is entirely gratuitous. Hell, Hillary Clinton saw John Edwards as her principal opponent during most of 2007 and had sufficient connections in Illinois and throughout the country to have a solid book on her rivals, and until 2008 she saw Edwards as her principal rival. Why didn't she perceive BHO as her principal opponent sooner? Did she really get the goods on Obama's place of birth and thought she could get rid of him anytime, but became too principled to disclose it? Or was she aware of his having fathered a child out of wedlock? What the hell, we can speculate endlessly. (I can see it now, John Boehner calls a press conference, and, a la Harry Reid, steps to the microphone and says "I have several reliable acquaintances who worked for the Clinton campaign - despite our policy differences, they're good moral people (a tear or two here would be effective) - and they assured me that the Clinton campaign had solid evidence that ..... 1. Birther nonsense, 2. Islamic nonsense, 3. Nonsense about narcotics pushing in Chicago, etc, et alii, ad nauseam." And then the game begins about whether Hillary will deny the allegations - and, if she does, the game will begin as to the adequacy of her denial. These valid questions can ultimately lead just anywhere.)

But, my2cents wants us to speculate on what McCain saw, so let's do that. I would think that, to the degree he compared Palin and Romney, he didn't compare tax returns; He looked at Palin's, he didn't bother w/ Romney's. McCain saw in Romney someone that didn't add as much to his ticket as Palin did. My recollection is that in 2008 the discussion of the gender gap between Obama and McCain materially changed when Palin became McCain's VP designee. Palin's nomination, despite whatever negatives you might want to say went with it, dramatized the fact that the Republicans were not advocating policies because of a hostility towards women, as the liberal/progressive element would have one believe, but were advocating policies that, while they may have been less popular with women than the Democratic policy choices in the same area, were still popular with many women. BTW, that function is one Sarah Palin still serves, which is why liberals and progressives continue to hate her, but I digress.

More significantly, the liberal author of this thread asks her question as if Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney were the only two people being considered for the job of McCain's VP. That's nonsense. Palin came out of left field and Romney likely never made it to the short list; Tim Pawlenty and Charlie Crist seemingly brought far more to the table of the same type of stuff that Romney brought, and they didn't risk the same degree of spurring the charge of being "the rich man's ticket" that already was dogging McCain as "the rich man's candidate". Joe Lieberman presented an opportunity for a bi-partisan appeal that could totally re-orient the campaign, something McCain needed and a risk he could take, because he was being buried by Obama at the time.

As speculative as the discussion I've already engaged in is, it's far more reality-based than speculation as to why McCain hasn't spoken up as to Romney's tax returns (well, maybe the out-of-wedlock kid was a tad stretchier). Perhaps, consistent with my speculations above, Romney was kicked out as a result of preliminary political analysis, McCain may never have given a serious look at Romney's taxes - a relatively labor intensive process - and isn't going to pretend now that he did. Or, perhaps now he will step forward. Whatever, I don't find this inquiry worthy of the time I've aready taken on it.

Well, that was quite a thesis on a topic not "worthy of the time"!

All the same, I applaud you! You have definitely given this a lot of analysis, which is much more than most bloggers do. It was genuinely a pleasure to read, a refreshing change from the same old talking points that everyone else regurgitates without any thought at all.

You're right about the Palin choice, at least I agree with it. I don't think Romney was rejected solely because of what was on his tax returns, but McCain was already an old white rich guy, and since Obama was a minority candidate, McCain wanted to have a running mate that represented a minority (at least in government) as well. McCain needed a "hook" of his own, and a young, attractive female governor fit that perfectly. Until she opened her mouth off-script, that is.

However, you are assuming a lot in your analysis. You're assuming that McCain received 23 years of past tax returns and didn't bother to so much as look at them. That's a lot of documentation to ask for and then ignore. You claim McCain "looked at Palin's and didn't bother w/Romney's". I don't know why you would assume this, but I seriously doubt Mitt's returns were never examined at all. It stands to reason that McCain at least has an overall impression of MItt's tax behaviors that he could reference at least in general terms if not specific ones. If Mitt didn't pay any taxes at all for years, I'm sure that's something that would stick out in McCain's mind. To be worth hundreds of millions and pay absolutely no income tax on it for years is not something one sees every day.

Well, I'll applaud right back at you. I ll readily own up to not expecting the thread author to evaluate negative comments seriously, it's sooooo unSodaHeadish.

As to "not worthy of the time", let me offer up a mea culpa for sounding more dismissive than I intended. I didn't say your thread was not worthy of any time, but, rather, that, having given the intro as much time as I had, I was quite ready to call it a day, since, as they say in the legal game, I had found your basic thesis more inflammatory than informative. I still do, but, silver-tongued fox that you are, your siren call irresistibly brings me back (albeit helped by my various sleep disorders, old age is a bitch).

I didn't say McCain didn't look at Romney's returns. In fact, my thinking was discernibly the opposite. Although I originally said "[McCain] didn't bother with Romney's" returns, I later said McCain "didn't give a serious look", likely because a more intense one was "labor intensive". There are two problems with that. First, in terms of our conversation, a light once-over, not looking whatsoever, and a review that resulted in rejection all might reasonably generate the same silence from McCain. Second, taking the process a step further, a statement from McCain that "I looked at it preliminarily and, though I take no responsibility for further analysis because there was none, given internal campaign factors relating to other issues, but I am certain that Mr. Romney paid taxes in those years.", really doesn't accomplish much; once he starts down that road - just like Hilary Clinton in my hypothetical - the battle likely is lost, it becomes a question only of the degree it's lost. And, incidentally, I'm assuming an easy scenario, albeit a pro-Romney one. What if Romney paid a lot of taxes, but there were two or three years when he paid none? If I'm McCain I don't make the statement I just did, inadequate as that was, and I don't see any easy word-smithing to a different statement.

A couple other thoughts. I'm not happy Romney hasn't released his taxes, in fact I'm very curious about it. Obviously four years ago he was made aware that taxes would be an issue to some degree, one would think he'd have taken steps that would have made the tax filings since then releasable. But, to me that's just a nagging question, like what Obama could possibly have been thinking when he was listening to Wright's sermons; to you, I suspect, it's much more. I don't care about Romney's taxes as long as what he did was legal, and I have faith enough in the improper use of the IRS that I'm reasonably sure it was. Lastly, I find it unlikely that Romney would have given McCain something four years ago that was too damning, but, obviously, that just makes the picture murkier. Perhaps Romney gave McCain redacted returns?