Can you imagine a "circle the wagons"
approach to transparency for the next four to eight years? Mitt and Ann Romney seem to think an adversarial stance to transparency should exist between them and the people. People have a right to know who are the people who will be leading them before they hand the office of the presidency over to them.
Ann Romney said it right on GMA: "Because there will be so many things that will be open again for more attack".
So Mitt Romney is not even in office yet and he is already on an adversarial footing about information? He's already assuming everyone is out to hurt him, establishing a defensive footing between him and the American voters, instead of him acknowledging that presidential candidates undergo a scrupulous but benign examination of their background as part of the process of assuming the highest office in the land. In effect, he is assuming, "the American people want information to hurt me", instead of, "the American people want information to make an informed decision about my aspirations for the presidency."
Mitt Romney wants to play on the team without having to go through the physical examination.
What will this mean in regards to information if he is ever elected to the presidency? Does that mean anything, whether true or false, that can hurt him will be repressed?
How can we ever trust somebody with the presidency who has this kind of relationship with information?
= new reply since forum marked as read
