Mitt Romney's cone of silence

The Romney White House

(image source)

From Indecision Forever:

In an interview with Israel Hayom, Mitt Romney explained that any criticism of Israel should not be for public consumption, saying, "If there were places where we disagree, I would hold these disagreements in private conversations, not in public forums." It wasn't the first time Romney relegated political discussions to "quiet rooms…"

* When asked if there were "no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy," Romney replied,"I think it's fine to talk about these things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the President has made it part of his campaign rally."

* When asked about specific cost saving in federal programs Romney responded, "One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don't care about education [Wow! Like in a real political campaign!]…so will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I'm not going to give you a list right now."

* Asked if he supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Romney said, "I'm not going to go back and look at all the prior laws and say had I been there which ones would I have supported and signed."

Between diplomacy, domestic spending, tax rates and women's rights, that's a lot of issues to talk about in quiet rooms. No wonder Romney needs so many homes.

Of course, whether or not Mitt Romney has paid his fair share of our taxes, whether he's hidden his wealth in secretive foreign tax havens, whether he's scammed IRA rules that limit normal Americans to a few thousand dollars in annual contributions - all those discussions must very definitely be held only in the cone of silence, right?

Maybe someone should tell Mitt Romney that this is a democracy, that our citizens are supposed to use information when deciding how to vote. Otherwise, what are we left with? Political ads from SuperPACs funded by anonymous billionaires?

Oh, I guess that's the whole point, isn't it?