|
Mitt's in a tough spot, there. The figure would be damaging, but failure to release only draws attention to it. He MAKES it an issue when he does that. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If I'm his adviser I guess the relevant question is just how much less than cap gains he pays. (cap gains being the base line that one would assume, given his situation)
Should presidential candidates release their taxes? It's the general practice, so yeah, they should lest they make it an issue. Should we require it? I think so. I like the transparency. If you're running as (say) the son of a mill worker, it's relevant to me that you haven't lived a life of poverty in quite some time. Do you really know what it's like to be poor in modern America? Mostly, it's a way to stop them from putting you on (mind, rags to riches is a story that works every time, so that wouldn't be damaging).
The threshold question for these things is the degree to which you are running on them. It was the subject of a different thread, but I don't think that fidelity is a big issue unless that's your platform. I can't stand hypocrisy.
As for the last bit, I care to know where a presidential candidate stands philosophically, so his religion matters (or other philosophy, I have no problem with atheists and religion isn't always the biggest influence by a country mile anyway). No, his attendance isn't the best way to get at that, so I don't care about that.
Health matters. Consider that last election. If you've got one foot in the grave and Palin is your running mate, I care. I care a lot.
School records are interesting, but not always all that informative 40 years down the road. Criminal record is definitely relevant. Are there crimes of moral turpitude on the list? Ever take a bribe? Defraud someone? A bar fight doesn't matter, but embezzlement sure does.
|