Is it time to get back to Romney's tax returns?

By Richard K. Barry

Just what I need. Another photo next to this horse's ass.

When something of national significance, like the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, happens in the middle of a presidential election campaign, you wonder what impact it will have. Will story lines that were front page lose profile never to be significant again? Will other issues that may not have otherwise had a profile, like gun control, become prominent? Maybe in the short-term the "you didn't build that" meme against President Obama will go away because there was nothing behind it but an intentional misquote. I don't think, however, that Romney's failure to disclose more than a couple years of tax return will ever go away unless he changes his mind.

Now we hear from Steve Schmidt, top advisor to the McCain presidential campaign, that there is nothing in Romney's returns, all 23 years of the ones he provided during the 2008 VP vetting process, that would be "disqualifying" for a presidential run.

This is what Schmidt had to say on Meet the Press yesterday:

Mitt Romney went through this process and what I can tell you is that he's a person of decency with the highest ethical character and background. There was nothing that was disqualifying. That pick in 2008 was not about any deficiency with Mitt Romney. It was a political decision that we made in a very bad political circumstance.

He added that Mitt Romney is an "extremely wealthy man" and that his tax returns "do not look anything like the average American's."

But I'm not sure precisely what Schmidt meant when he said that nothing in the returns is disqualifying. I don't think many people are running around suggesting Romney did anything illegal. My guess is that his lawyers are far too good for that and he is far too smart. So, this clearly has to do with political optics, and that is, after all, Steve Schmidt's specialty. Still, if Schmidt says the optics are okay, I'm not sure I agree.

What many people have said, and I'll just repeat it here, is that Romney or his campaign has made a decision that releasing more returns will do worse political damage than not releasing them. Given that the current level of secrecy will make Romney a punching bag until election day and that 53 percent of independent voters think he should release more returns, there is obviously something in there that he thinks is a big problem, with all due respect to Mr. Schmidt.

Sure, Romney told National Review that releasing more returns would give the Obama campaign more ammunition for attack ads, which is true, but surely this confirms that there is something in them to attack.

But perhaps the important point is in Steve Schmidt's comment that Mitt Romney's finances don't look anything like the average American's, which will, in fact, mean that the Obama campaign will rip through them to expose the obvious point that the Romney's inhabit a different planet than the other 99.9999 percent. Point taken.

Most people will say that a candidate's extreme wealth does not concern them as an abstract concept, but specific details about exactly how much money the Romneys have, how much or little tax they pay, what they spend their money on, might remind people that Mitt Romney cannot possibly relate to the hopes and challenges of the vast majority.

Could the Romney campaign's calculation be that week after week of discussions about "this tax break," "that tax rate," "this tax shelter," "those foreign bank accounts," "the value of multiple vacation properties," "something or other to do with horses,' etc., etc., etc., would, on balance, be worse than not releasing more returns? Maybe.

The fact is that not releasing the returns is just one negative narrative, one that voters might grow tired of over time. But more returns will, as Romney fears, provide countless opportunities to keep his wealth in the news in ways that are potentially new and exciting with the turn of every page.

That would seem to be his point. Maybe he's right.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)