To clarify, not everyone considers it a choice of the lesser of two evils. I realize some people are quite happy with one or the other. Most of us, though, aren't.
He did a couple of interviews later on (one was on The View, don't remember the other) where he admitted that he was not as convinced as he had been, and that he was conflicted as to whose freedoms were impacted more, the child's or the mother's. I really liked that. He really does just care about preserving as many freedoms as possible.
And I am unsure whether or not I will vote for Romney. I am considering Gary Johnson, who I know has no chance, but maybe seeing a few extra votes go his way will give libertarians more ammo in future campaigns. Sadly, it makes little difference either way, as I am registered in Texas, and I think we all know who will win that state. Still, if Romney and Obama were the *only* choices, I would vote Romney. I don't care for any of his policies, though he seems to favor internet privacy more than Obama, but my main reason is that Romney hasn't had the chance to fuck us over yet. Again, it isn't much, but I feel Obama abused his authority and my trust, so I will not vote for him on principle. It's kinda like when I get horrible customer service from an internet provider and I switch to the only other company in the area. I know it won't be better, but that company hasn't fucked me yet.
Also, regarding Romney, at least his lack of character in kinda right out in the open. It irritates me every time I see a post about how cool Obama is. At least we can all be disappointed in Romney together. Also, while I do not care for Ryan's budget, I liked the fact that he at least tried to put something together that cut spending while everyone else just bickered. In fact, I would take Biden over Obama and Ryan over Romney, kinda weird.
Still, Ron Paul is a damn fine man, and I can't fully explain how much it hurt to see him not make it. Completely unrelated, I know, but it's important to remember that there are honest representatives out there, and that our current campaign laws and processes seem designed to ensure that they are weeded out. I wasn't a huge McCain fan, either, but I think he had more character than Obama, and would feel less resentful of seeing McCain fans. At least he actually did something noteworthy to earn his support base.
There's a lot of things that I like about Ron Paul. However, one of his big things is (I've heard) how he'll put pork into a bill and then vote against the bill when he knows it's already going to pass anyway.
I also respect the willingness to vote for a third party, but unless we can get a better voting system than single vote democracy or develop some method of getting out from the twin thumbs of two party rule, it seems meaningless to me.
As a third bit, I totally get the idea of one and done. Only the really good presidents should get a second term, because they have no incentive for people to want to vote them in a third time. I'm not saying to go back to the FDR days of allowing someone to run as many times as you want, but most politicians are only kept in check because the people can vote them out at any time. How do you keep a politician from hosing things otherwise?
May have gotten off topic somewhat there.
Heads up.. he's literally the richest man to ever run for the Office of President. The estimates of his networth (personal) is upwards of 200 million and he's got a good chunk of ownership in companies like Bain and even less visible/tangibly trackable holding companies.
He's not a tool of the 400.. he's part of them.
Only if you don't take inflation into account. George Washington alone was worth $525 Million.
He can't pay.. that is as good as saying that he has something to hide.. the only thing he can do is release ALL his tax returns like most candidates do anyway. He's played really TIGHT with his own returns. Had he matched the other GOP candidates or the President he'd have never gotten this sort of play done against him. http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns?OpenDocument
Otherwise.. the only other move is hope the Secret Service gets everyone involved the theft before they can release the key. Ironically the key could come out as part of the court case.
With Romney releasing two years, that's more than Clinton had released as of the 1992 election. Also more than FDR released during his presidency (ye donut).
Stupid question: if Clinton only gave 1992 as the earliest year, he wouldn't have had those ready as of the election, right? So he literally never did give any before the election, right?
This is just the crazy talking, but I'd actually prefer that a president was rich before getting into the office, as opposed to getting rich during or after thanks to all the special arrangements and legalized bribes so common to politics.
Maybe I just don't get what the big deal is about tax returns, but then, I never got it about the birth certificate either. If you believe that Obama doesn't have one, isn't a standing president going to have more than enough power and influence to fake one?