3 ms·

If all your candidates must be squeaky clean, you're probably ruling out some of the most able. The most law-abiding, unquestioningly tax-paying, physically-fi

If all your candidates must be squeaky clean, you're probably ruling out some of the most able. The most law-abiding, unquestioningly tax-paying, physically-fit candidate is probably not the person who has the best understanding of and instinct for foreign affairs, the most ability to inspire, cajole, and back-scratchingly motivate Congresspeople to cooperate with important ideas, and the most ability to quickly to make difficult decisions in no-win situations.

ck2 14y ago
They don't have to be squeaky clean, they just have to have full disclosure. Heck, look at the lineup before the final nomination this year - every candidate (and the final nomination) had serious issues and people voted for them anyway, so squeaky clean is not the problem - full disclosure is.
antidaily 14y ago
unquestioningly tax-paying?
- JasonFruit 14y ago
  Years of tax returns that have a low percentage are an opportunity for attack ads even if they're strictly legal. It's politic but unwise to pay more than you would strictly have to.
  - firebones 14y ago
    In other words, the expected value of opacity is greater than the expected value of transparency. Got it.
  - Jach 14y ago
    Returning to your "quick decisions in no-win scenarios", there are going to be attack ads based on whether Romney does and what they contain or whether he doesn't and what they might contain, and it's easy to come up with possible contents likely or unlikely. Maybe it's just me that thinks he'd be better served by the path of openness in this instance. Of course, it's just his taxes, and I feel like the only reasoning people are upset with Romney over this is that they are thinking "What's he hiding? If you have nothing to hide..." which most of us probably dismiss as bad thinking in the usual context. If the People want to make it a law for candidates to disclose their tax information, let it be done, right now he's just breaking a 40 year old precedent. (It seems McCain did the same thing and only released two years--was there an outcry about that? I don't remember, there were so many other juicier attacks. If "you're rich!" is the only thing they can attack you on you're doing alright.)
- mudil 14y ago
  I say unquestioningly tax-paying. If he did not pay his fair share of taxes wouldn't he have been under IRS investigation years ago?
jamesbritt 14y ago
If all your candidates must be squeaky clean, you're probably ruling out some of the most able. If more people came to see that perfectly capable people are often not squeaky clean in largely irrelevant matters we would all be better off. Imagine a country where politicians don't live in fear that the public might learn they sometimes spark a bong, or once cheated on their spouse, or like people of the same gender as themselves from time to time.
- sailfrog 14y ago
  I guess it really depends on your definition of irrelevant. Personally I have no problem with candidates who have a storied past, since I seriously doubt they have made as many ill-informed decisions as I have. For some reason though I have a hard time accepting Romney's refusal to release tax returns before 2010 as legit. Maybe I just relate better with the type of candidate that smokes pot than the type that abuses offshore accounts :P
bct 14y ago
You really think candidates are (or could be) chosen based on anything even remotely related to those abilities?

ck2 14y ago

They don't have to be squeaky clean, they just have to have full disclosure. Heck, look at the lineup before the final nomination this year - every candidate (and the final nomination) had serious issues and people voted for them anyway, so squeaky clean is not the problem - full disclosure is.

antidaily 14y ago

unquestioningly tax-paying?

JasonFruit 14y ago
Years of tax returns that have a low percentage are an opportunity for attack ads even if they're strictly legal. It's politic but unwise to pay more than you would strictly have to.
- firebones 14y ago
  In other words, the expected value of opacity is greater than the expected value of transparency. Got it.
- Jach 14y ago
  Returning to your "quick decisions in no-win scenarios", there are going to be attack ads based on whether Romney does and what they contain or whether he doesn't and what they might contain, and it's easy to come up with possible contents likely or unlikely. Maybe it's just me that thinks he'd be better served by the path of openness in this instance. Of course, it's just his taxes, and I feel like the only reasoning people are upset with Romney over this is that they are thinking "What's he hiding? If you have nothing to hide..." which most of us probably dismiss as bad thinking in the usual context. If the People want to make it a law for candidates to disclose their tax information, let it be done, right now he's just breaking a 40 year old precedent. (It seems McCain did the same thing and only released two years--was there an outcry about that? I don't remember, there were so many other juicier attacks. If "you're rich!" is the only thing they can attack you on you're doing alright.)
mudil 14y ago
I say unquestioningly tax-paying. If he did not pay his fair share of taxes wouldn't he have been under IRS investigation years ago?

jamesbritt 14y ago

If all your candidates must be squeaky clean, you're probably ruling out some of the most able. If more people came to see that perfectly capable people are often not squeaky clean in largely irrelevant matters we would all be better off. Imagine a country where politicians don't live in fear that the public might learn they sometimes spark a bong, or once cheated on their spouse, or like people of the same gender as themselves from time to time.

sailfrog 14y ago
I guess it really depends on your definition of irrelevant. Personally I have no problem with candidates who have a storied past, since I seriously doubt they have made as many ill-informed decisions as I have. For some reason though I have a hard time accepting Romney's refusal to release tax returns before 2010 as legit. Maybe I just relate better with the type of candidate that smokes pot than the type that abuses offshore accounts :P

bct 14y ago

You really think candidates are (or could be) chosen based on anything even remotely related to those abilities?