Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Romney’s ‘Kenyan’ tax returns

Romney’s ‘Kenyan’ tax returns

Ann Coulter already told us that Tea Partiers opposed to Mitt Romney were just a bunch of “birthers” (emphasis mine):

Pemmaraju pressed Coulter on Romney’s conservatism, adding that the Tea Party has resisted him strongly, an indication he may not be as conservative as she thinks. Coulter replied that the Tea Party was “wrong about this” because “they’re looking at who is going to go around bombastically demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate or calling him a Kenyan,” instead of substance.

So I can’t say I’m surprised to see one of the more active Romney supporters on Twitter assert this line of defense as to Romney’s refusal to release income tax returns:

Somehow I doubt playing the birther card will prevent Mitt Romney from having to release his income tax returns, or pay the consequences in a general election.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Karen Sacandy | January 16, 2012 at 8:44 am

“Birther” is a disgraceful term. “Constitutionalist” is so much truer. We’d like to see SOMEBODY in a position of authority over ballots (dem party officials, republican party officials, secretaries of states, etc. etc. ad nauseum), actually verify a candidate meets constitutional and statutory requirements before they print the ballot, and certainly before they are installed in office!

We’re just such stick in the muds! Let’s have a party, and elect Caesar Chavez!

    In most states, the chair of each party certify that the candidates they have submitted to be on the ballot has met the Constitutional requirements to do so. The chair then signs the certification and submits it to the state election boards.

    The candidate, themselves, do not have to show proof of eligiblity.

    To most people, George Romney was ineligible to run for president, even in the primaries, as he was born in Mexico and held dual citizenship. Yet he did run, and his dual citizenship, to my knowledge, was never an issue. We only learned about natural/native born issues when John McCain ran and certain Democrat Congressmen questioned McCain’s eligiblity to run due to being born in the Panama Canal region, and even though he was born to a U.S. citizen who was stationed in the Canal, his “citizenship” eligiblity was questioned because he was born in a hospital that was off base.

    There have been some states that have tried to pass legislation that a candidate for POTUS, on either side, must present a valid birth certificate in order to be on the ballot. Unsurprisingly, the Democrats have tried to block that kind of legislation. And there are some legitimate questions as to whether Marco Rubio, whose parents were not yet citizens when he was born, would be eligible to run. You can bet the Dems would make an issue out of it if he did, as long as Obama was already out of office.

    The SCOTUS will eventually have to determine who is eligible and who is not. So far, they have tried to dodge that bullet.

I am the DNC chair.
I declare Huge Chavez meets the requirements to be on the ballot.

see how easy it is to bypass the constitution there?

yet when I say I don’t like coulter I get crapped on a lot.

StrangernFiction | January 16, 2012 at 9:03 am

Coulter’s shilling for Romney is to her conservative credentials as Ron Paul’s shilling for Islam is to his.

Or worse, she actually believes Mitt to be a conservative.

I stopped buying Coulter’s books years ago. I prefer someone who communicates with me and not someone who talks down to me. This is what she really thinks of her audience.

Perhaps, the next title for her book should be, The Sell Outs: People Who Willingly Trade Conservative Principles For Power.

There are very few people in the media worth paying attention to – Ann Coulter has never been one of them.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to ncmont. | January 16, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Ann Coulter is the kind of street fighter we need on our side. I’ve thought she’s great. But recently, in the last year or so, she’s gone off the rails.

    Not sure what’s happened to her. Maybe she’s one of those “pod” people….and they’re coming for us!

    Her writing was like P.J. O’Rourke’s book “Parliament of Whores” except stronger. Admired her writing, when she was making sense.

    I used to like Coulter, but her arguments now are just bizarre. Somehow, it’s good that Gov. Romney supposedly fooled Massachusetts liberals into electing him? What if he’s fooling American conservatives into electing him now? Talk about a trust issue.

    Romney’s defense of Romneycare is okay because the Heritage Foundation was for it (though now admits it was a big mistake)? But there’s no problem with Romney refusing to admit it was a big mistake?

    Only Chris Christie could win but now Romney can win because Obama is much weaker than she thought? Spin, spin, spin.

    And somehow Coulter can judge the IQ of the presidential candidates. She sounds just the MSM (or presidential historians) except that at least Reagan won’t come out at the bottom of the IQ list.

    Bizarre. She seems to be doing a Peggy Noonan.

    A bit off topic, but one of the things I like about Newt Gingrich (and I’m still undecided) is that he freely admits that he has made mistakes and has even admitted it about some of his current candidate rhetoric. They’ve all made mistakes in attacks this campaign, but he’s the only one who has admitted it. I know that politicians have a really hard time admitting they’re wrong. But, apparently Ann Coulter also can’t admit she was wrong.

“‘Release your tax returns’ sounds a lot like ‘where’s the birth certificate.'”

One small difference, nitwit. ‘Release your birth certificate’ hasn’t been and won’t ever be shrieked by a million MSM Obama minions in vicious, perfect and unrelenting unison.

I’d like to feel some pity for “Keger”, who looks a little wet behind the ears, but can’t manage it somehow.

We keep hearing that Romney is the most electable. I don’t believe it. We here are paying attention to what is going on in politics. We understand Capitalism and Bain, but guess what, most people don’t! Not only that, but they don’t want to have anything to do with politics. When I’m out with friends, and politics comes up, some will actually get up from the table and go to the restroom.

I urge everyone to watch this clip from “Morning Joe” this morning. Suze Orman was a guest, and she has some very interesting things to say at 5:35. She is absolutely correct when she says that when people just hear the words “bank” or “Wall Street”, they jump on it and hate you.

Romney and Bain will be attacked by the media with Obama’s billion dollar attack ads. Get ready. Again, are you absolutely positive that he’s the most electable? I see McCain 2.0.

    raven in reply to cynic. | January 16, 2012 at 10:26 am

    “I see McCain 2.0.”

    It’s worse — uniquely bad, like nothing we’ve seen before. It will prove an unholy candidacy for the Republican party.

    MSO in reply to cynic. | January 16, 2012 at 10:33 am

    This is worse than McCain 2.0. I could at least hold my nose and vote for McCain.

    But Romney, Boehner and McConnell? What kind of government will these guys churn out?

    I’m going to write-in a real conservative: Hubert H. Humphrey.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang | January 16, 2012 at 10:03 am

“‘Release your tax returns’ sounds a lot like ‘where’s the birth certificate.’”

My, but some of these ‘Mittiots’ are a smug bunch, aren’t they?

Hmmmm… I seem to recall something about pride coming before a fall?

My guess is Romney is trying to figure out that “Other Income” line from that string of Thai hookers he’s been running in Bangkok.

And all those charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood (which is probably closer to the truth).

Actually, they both sound like reasonable requests. As for the birth certificate, I believe 0bama was born in Hawaii, my concern is that his father was a British National. When did 0bama denounce his British citizenry?

As for the income tax returns, “When a candidate initially enters a race, he or she usually conducts a vulnerability study to investigate potential problems in his or her background. ” comes from 1% Elizabeth Warren can’t have it both ways. If Romney is so damn electable, why didn’t his people or his opponents trip across this sooner? I would think especially for an opponent who has flipped-flopped on key issues, as Romney has, and is loaded with money, as Romney is, the tax returns should have been demanded sooner.

Perception is everything. Romney’s two choices:

1. Release his tax returns and deal with the contents*

2. Let folks’ imagination inform them on why you won’t.

*The Obama administration has access to Romney’s tax records, of course. Do we suppose they are too ethical to leak them?

    Milwaukee in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 16, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    Two quotes: “If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.” and “The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead.” Governor Romney: your tax returns will become public knowledge. Ya ever hear of “Jack Ryan”? He had sealed divorce papers that neither he nor his wife wanted unsealed. Somehow, somehow, those became public. Barack 0bama became a United States Senator from the great state of Illinois. 0bama can hide his birth certificate because he has become the President, and he has friends in strategic places. You don’t have those advantages. You better come clean sooner rather than later.

    Don’t forget: there are people who need to be fired. There are companies that need to go out of business. Can’t you twist that to ‘there are government agencies which need to be shut down, i.e. Headstart, Housing and Urban Development, etc., etc. I know how, and I will.’ Grow a pair, Governor, grow a pair.

We “peasants” are just getting “too uppity.” Our “betters” will soon take care of that!

“Sit down, shut up, and do as you are told…”

Nobody should be surprised that Romney and his surrogates are continuing to use Obama’s campaign tactics.

I really don’t give a rat’s behind regarding his tax records.

I AM concerned on the candidate’s ability to lead this country out of the morass that currently prevails.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    I don’t much care what’s in his tax records either, barring donations to the New Black Panther Party or the Man/Sheep Love Association. The problem is that Romney has created an unnecessary diversion for exploitation by the Democrats.

    The only worse scenario is if it IS necessary. The tax records will come out, sooner or later, one way or another. Romney has guaranteed he won’t control when. Unforced error.

SmokeVanThorn | January 16, 2012 at 3:48 pm

I’m trying to convince myself to vote for Romney if he’s the nominee – but the Coulters and Keders are making it awful hard.

I’m so sadden by Ms.Coulter’s attacks on the true conservatives only to give support to the biggest of RINO’s (Romney) in the republican party. I’ve always had been a supporter of Ms.Coulter against the liberals/progressives and even rino republicans, to the effect of buying most of her books and not really having the time to read them. I lost any and all respect for her because her recent behavior has shown her true colors.

If not Gingrich or Perry i will have to hold my vote until 2016, cannot vote for Romney/McCain/Huntsman/Paul/Christie/Obama. 🙁

Henry Hawkins | January 16, 2012 at 8:04 pm

Heretofore, Coulter’s media presence has been consistently pro-conservative/anti-liberal, and her fame came not so much from insight or innovation – plenty of others were saying the same thing – but from the wittily acidic delivery. We can be forgiven for believing her hatred was reserved for liberals. Now we learn this is not so. Coulter’s personality (disorder?) is binary -she loves or hates, no in-between, no gray area. While Christie was still a possible candidate, she loved Christie, hated Romney. Christie declined to run, so Coulter shifted to Romney, whom she loves, while all others receive her hatred.

Her movements could be ascribed to access protection, but her emotional vehemence speaks to something rather more pathological.