EDMUND BURKEIt’s been pointed out to me that both John McCain and Steve Schmidt, who was a senior McCain advisor for the 2008 campaign, reviewed 23 years of Romney’s tax returns when they were vetting possible vice-presidential candidates. Senator McCain says: ""I can personally vouch for the fact that there was nothing in his tax returns that would in any way be disqualifying for him to be a candidate."" Steve Schmidt, using similar – and presumably agreed-upon – language says: ""There was nothing that was disqualifying.”
Senator McCain and Steve Schmidt are both honorable men. I don’t question their veracity. Yet what they are saying turns upon what “disqualifying” means. They clearly chose that word carefully, and they both reasonably declined to go further. McCain expressly declined to answer whether Romney paid no taxes.
Surely “disqualifying” includes anything illegal. But does it include taking a position that was open to debate at the time but later determined by the IRS or the courts to be improper? Does it include aggressive use of tax shelters? Does it include making a charitable contribution to an organization that advocates something controversial? Does it include paying no or extremely low taxes for several years?
In the context of Senator McCain and Steve Schmidt’s remarks, “disqualifying” probably does include paying no taxes for ten years. Presumably, that would make any political candidate toast. Moreover, I do not believe that McCain and Schmidt would have implied that Reid’s claim is false – as their statements were designed to do – if that were not the case. Nevertheless, I don’t equate “disqualifying,” as used by Senator McCain and Steve Schmidt, to include everything that would be politically problematic. I continue to believe that it’s logical to assume that Romney’s unreleased tax returns differ in some politically-harmful way from those he has released – and that whatever this is, it’s not a minor matter.