I wasn't watching all that closely since I was busy writing a post, but the little I caught on MSNBC was more than enough for me to catch two whoppers in ten minutes, tops. Both Romney surrogate (and possible running mate) Tim Pawlenty and Willard Romney himself blatantly lied, one after the other.
Tim Pawlenty was being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell and claimed that his candidate shouldn't have to be held to a "
higher different standard" ( or maybe he said he should be held to the same standard, I can't remember the precise wording) as previous presidential candidates regarding the number of tax returns he should release. I'll post the clip when it becomes available.
So Pawlenty thinks two is enough. Considering the two years of returns Romney is saying he's willing to share (2010 and 2011) would be well within the time period he knew he was running for president for Pete's sake, then those returns would be much less revealing than earlier ones.
Previous years would tell Americans far more about him than the most recent ones.
But since TPaw made a point of saying which standards his guy should be held to, let's compare and contrast Romney to everyone else. Source: TaxHistory.org:
Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly. In the hope of making this information more widely available, the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts has compiled an archive of presidential tax returns.
Again, George Romney disclosed 12 years of his tax returns in his failed 1968 White House bid. So what could his son be hiding? Brad Friedman thinks it might be voter fraud.
Then MSNBC switched to a live feed of a campaign speech in which Willard claimed that Democrats had a filibuster-proof super majority for two years and got nothing accomplished. Wrong and wronger. One: He must have forgotten about that secret GOP conspiracy to obstruct in order to make Obama a one term president. Two: A lot was accomplished, despite all the roadblocks. And three: The so called super majority lasted only a few weeks, not two years. Via Sully (you should really read his entire piece):
This stood out to me in "The Lies of Mitt Romney III":
"we remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years"
I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.
And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.
And now, because it's election season and we'll be extra busy, we GottaAsk:
Please note: You can chip in to help TPC using the widget below via PayPal or major credit cards.