From time to time, political candidates come by the office so that we can ask them questions and they cannot answer them. The art of not answering questions is more difficult than you’d think.
You don’t want to just flat say you won’t answer a question. That makes people suspicious. The very best not-answerers, former President Bill Clinton comes to mind, have perfected the art of not answering questions in such grueling, point-by-point detail that until you go back your notes and listen to the tape, you don’t realize that even though they spoke for five minutes, they never actually answered your question.
We had a newbie in here last week. His name is not important at this point, but he’s a political novice who obviously had been coached to his eyeballs by his handlers: “If they ask you about this, talk about that. If they ask you about this, talk about that.”
Professional political handlers train their candidates in a tactic they call “The Pivot.” When asked a question you don’t want to answer, you say, “I’m glad you asked that” and then you pivot like LeBron James and answer something completely different at great length. The longer you talk, the fewer questions you have to not answer.
Not everyone is LeBron James. The newbie hadn’t mastered the moves. No matter what we asked him, he’d refer to his military career or his business career or his family and make an allusion that had absolutely no bearing on the issue he’d been asked about.
I thought afterward that he must have trouble buying groceries. When they ask, “Paper or plastic?” he’d tell them a story about basic training.
Once I knew a public relations man who was excellent at not answering questions that his clients didn’t want answered, but his manner was not subtle. “That’s not the question you want to ask,” he’d say. “The question you want to ask is ...”
He would then go on to tell me something I didn’t want to know. This tactic apparently worked well for him because he went on to have a fabulous career in public relations based on the simple tactic of not answering questions in a bossy way.
These days, according to a recent story in the New York Times, there are bossy new “quote approval” rules out on the campaign trail. Reporters can ask a candidate’s aides whatever they want, and the aides can answer or not answer them in any fashion they like, but then the reporters have to email the answers back to the aides so they can revise them before publication.
Thus, on the off chance a reporter gets an actual answer, the aide gets a second chance to not answer the question. Apparently this is standard operating procedure for the Obama campaign.
I can’t decide which side of this transaction is wimpier _ the aide who’s such a weasel that he won’t stand by his own words, or the reporter who’s so desperate to prove to his boss that he has access to big shots that he goes along with these ground rules.
My theory is that if someone doesn’t want to talk to me, fine. But then he doesn’t get to complain about what I write.
Which brings us to Mitt Romney. Of all the ways to not answer questions, he has chosen the worst one of all. He won’t answer questions, and then he complains about the criticism.
The questions are why he won’t release his tax returns for the years before 2010. He’s even being careful about which parts of his 2011 tax record he releases.
All this does is make people speculate. Robert Bentley, the Republican governor of Alabama, said last week, “If you have things to hide, then maybe you’re doing things wrong. I think you ought to be willing to release everything to the American people.”
Ron Paul, the Republican House member from Houston, told Politico that Romney is making a mistake: “Politically, I think that would help him. In the scheme of things politically, you know, it looks like releasing tax returns is what the people want.”
Even The National Review, founded by the sainted William F. Buckley, says Romney should open up.
Why would you give your opponents that kind of ammo? You don’t answer a question, you give people a license to speculate. Tax havens? Deducting campaign costs as a business expense? Confusing statements about when he actually left his job at a hedge fund? Where’d that $102 million IRA come from?
That’s just the start. Al-Qaida futures? The investment in the start-up company shovegrannyoffthecliff.com?
You run for president of the United States, or for that matter, any political office, you’ve got to cowboy up. The questions don’t get any easier if you’re elected.
• Kevin Horrigan is a columnist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Comments (15)
Add commentTrue
I was pretty into McCain until he selected Palin. Then I just couldn't vote for him - what if something had happened to him in office!? So I gave my vote to Obama. I don't regret it; but I was expecting him to help unite our country and didn't realize how polarizing his election would make the US. It's ugly out there.
I am undecided again. I'm waiting to learn a bit more about Romney and see who his running mate will be.
Why can't politicians just let it out there? Why lie and evade and delay? Remember the "I didn't inhale" days? So unnecessary!
Geez, just get your stuff out there quickly and honestly and deal with your past so we can get to know who you are.
fisherwoman
Answer me this: What effect has Joe Biden had since becoming VP? Can you think of any? Unless the president dies, they don't matter all that much.
If you're conflicted between the lessor of two evils in Obama and Romney, why vote for either? Your presidential vote won't count. Alaska's 3 electoral votes will go toward Romney, That's a foregone conclusion. How you or I vote will not matter.
So vote for a third party candidate. Libertarian, Green, Nazi, or Socialist...there are all sorts of interesting parties out there that might align better with your principles. Give them your vote. Help them grow so that eventually the media is forced to acknowledge them.
Oh, and regarding Romney's taxes
He obviously has some major embarrassments to hide. Worse than the $77,000 tax deduction for his dancing horse.
Nothing Illegal
Romney's tax returns are most likely totally above board. But I am sure he took advantage of every loophole the sharpest CPA's and tax attorneys could find. Why is he worried about that? People of great wealth pay very little in tax relative to their income in contrast to people with modest incomes.Why is he making being financially successful look nebulous?
Biden?
Obama's life insurance policy. Only a balled-eyed anarchist would take out No. 1, knowing what kind of dangerous idiocy awaits with a President Biden.
Yeah, we've all been waiting
Yeah, we've all been waiting for BO to "cowboy up" for over four years now - school records, real estate deals, social security number, selective service records, medical records...
Rasmussen Poll on Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns - July 25, 2012
Romney has released his tax returns for 2010 and 2011. Is that enough or should he release more of his tax returns from earlier years?
•Enough 46%
•Release more 46%
Note: Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans say Romney has released enough; 75% of Democrats think he needs to release more. A plurality (49%) of voters not affiliated with either party believes Romney’s release of his 2010 and 2011 returns is enough.
In terms of how you will vote, how important is it whether or not Romney releases tax returns from earlier years?
•Very important 22%
•Somewhat important 13%
•Not very important 26%
•Not at all important 37%
Calypso - others are also waiting
For Romney to make public his school records, real estate deals, social security number, selective service, medical records,bank accounts in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, was he or was he not the one in charge of Bain after 2002, and all the rest.
He has been running for President for several years. If our President should be required to provide every record of his life, shouldn't a candidate who wishes to replace him do the very same. What's that old saying? "What's good for the goose is good for the gander"
By the way, I have seen photo copies of Obama's birth certificate and testimony from many in Hawaii, saying that he was born there. Why hasn't Romney given us a copy of his birth certificate? Was he really baptized or did someone substitute for him ???
His father, and many other candidates for president have provided extensive records of their tax returns. Why doesn't Romney follow his father's example?
P.S. Is the Rasmussen poll the only poll allowed? Perhaps other polls might indicate differently. I'm sure you know about other polls, can you cite them so others can verify the findings? Thank you.
Calypso
Maybe you are right in asking that any candidate for our presidency provide their medical records for the previous four or six years, along with their dental, optical and any psychological records. If we are to elect someone to lead our nation for the next four years, shouldn't we know that they are healthy, sane, and everything about their personal life??
Hey, what if the Empire required that of all those who comment on articles?? Wouldn't that be a blast??
Mama T asked: "Why can't
Mama T asked: "Why can't politicians just let it out there? Why lie and evade and delay?"
Simple. Because our two-party political system and media establishment is such that most of what we are fed these days is infotainment and absurd political theatre. It keeps us distracted and divided while our politicians and their buddies laugh all the way to the bank.
I mean seriously. Obama's birth records? Romney's tax returns? Ridiculous.
The sad thing to me is how many Americans fail to recognize the charade and the completely corrupt and self-feeding system that it is, and continue to vote for the same corrupt politicians.
Not only that, we continue to accept the idea that we have some awesome freedom of choice when it comes to our politicians, when really our choices are usually Coke and Pepsi.
Maybe, just maybe, it is time stop choosing from the two flavors that continually rot your brain.
Colorado 14er
Nice comment, but how about some possible solutions to the problem? As a registered non-partisan voter, I don't have much choice. I can vote for a Republican or Democrat or some small group that I am convinced will not elect a candidate. Trying to pull non-partisan voters into some kind of third party, is like trying to herd a group of cats - they all go off in their own direction.
Maybe term limits for those we elect to be "public servants" temporarily until they return to their former lives. Or maybe limiting political election campaign funds, as some nations do.
Or maybe you have some better ideas.
Complaints and criticism is nice, but the real answer is to come up with some solutions to problems.
What are your suggested solutions? Toss them out and let others evaluate them. That's fair, isn't it?
I understand the sentiment, but...
Wally, I understand the sentiment, but with those criteria and the societal prejudices in place at the time, FDR wouldn't have made the cut!
Colorado 14er allow me to give an example
I don't have any easy or quick answer to how our nation should move forward in 2012 and the years to come.
Rather than just complain, I will toss out a suggestion that you or many others can comment upon.
What if we had term limits for those we elect to represent us on the state or national level? Would that be a possible solution?
We often hear talk about "public servants," meaning people who are doing well in their lives, but decide to give up temporarily their lives to serve the rest of the community in which they live - local, state or national?
On the national level, our President is limited to two terms in office. In Alaska, the Governor is limited to two terms in office. They are asked to serve, and when their term is over, they are required to return to their prior life.
Today, we have many "career politicians," who, when elected find they have a good salary or income, health benefits and retirement plans and want to continue in this "good life" they have found. In many cases, the benefits of the "good life" is far beyond that of the average working person.
So, how about this. If our President and the Governor of Alaska are limited to eight years in office and must then step away for at least another election period, should we or should we not require the same of our elected state legislators and our national congressional representatives?
Yes, I am fully aware that in many ways "seniority" in an elected office may be important for a person and their constituency. Committee appointments, responsibilities are often based not on competency or service, or even contributions to the benefit of others - simply "the longer you stay here, the more power you get." Is that what a representative democracy is supposed to be? "The older and longer you are here, the more power you get." ??
And so, term limits is one of my proposals. Maybe it is a good idea, a stupid idea or something to that should be considered. Maybe for State and Congressional representative there should be a limit of eight or twelve years in office and then they must return to their private lives.
Now, I have tossed out a possible solution and whether it is a good one or a lead balloon that will never fly is up to others to debate. Now, what are your suggestions or recommendations, and I don't mean your complaints, but I am looking for something constructive.
Wally Olson, Auke Bay, Alaska
Wmolson
Good and fair question, although loaded. I can't possibly answer it all because I don't have all the answers. I've only recently realized the main problem. So I am still searching for answers myself.
First, recognize the main (huge) problem. The marriage of big government and big banks, corporations, and unions (on a side note, Tea Party folks rail against big government and unions, Occupy Wall Street folks rail against big banks and corporations - hello? If these two groups ever got together... crazy I know, but a guy can dream, right?). Stop focusing on the symptoms and focus on the illness.
Second, recognize that all of our political leaders essentially play for the same team, and shed yourself from the nonsense mentality that you MUST vote for someone, otherwise you don't have a right to complain, etc. That mentality is what keeps the vicious circle going, and our leaders know it. Why change when they know we don't have anything else to choose from?
Term limits would be great. So would banning corporate and union giving to campaigns completely. The idea that a corporation or union is a person in beyond ridiculous. Reinstitute Glass-Steagall in its full form, so that commercial banks and investment banks are once again separate and not giant gambling casinos. Audit and reign in the Federal Reserve. Actually prosecute and send to jail finanacial fraudsters who have committed massive crimes, like Iceland did (they have suffered for it, but their economy is starting to rebound nicely).
Realize that all of the above things happening depend on either our leaders suddenly having a change of heart or the majority of our fellow citizens waking up and changing our leaders' hearts for them. I'm sure not waiting for the former to happen anytime soon, so I spend my time trying to change people's minds, fruitless as it may seem.
Honestly, until the above things happen, the illness will remain. The problem is so large... a part of me thinks that things may be too far gone for anything meaningful to be done now. I hope that part of me is wrong.
Colorado
I think there's a world of difference between Obama's birth certificate and Romney's taxes.
Obama has provided his certificate, there's tons of corroborating evidence. Case closed. Non-story.
Romney's tax returns, however, give us an important glimpse behind the facade. We have very few insights of the guy outside of the carefully crafted soundbites he's taught to repeat.
I think he's also a great case study on the inequities of our current tax system. And maybe, just maybe, he's hiding something important that we should know about. Right now he strikes many as shady because of this.
Regardless, I'll likely vote third party.
Latitude
Good point, and actually you're right. My statement regarding Obama's birth certificate and Romney's tax returns was intended to be more of an illustrative thing, as in things we are distracted with that keep our eye off the ball. Maybe a bad example.
Still though, I don't need Romney's tax returns to know he is shady. There is a massive amount of evidence in his track record that proves that. Him and his handlers' behavior during the primary process only cemented it for me. Plus, he has flip-flopped so many times I've lost count. He's even disagreed with his flip-flop afterwards (a flip-flop on a flip-flop?).