The rise of the dedicated “fact-check” organization in a time of contested facts could have been, in theory, a welcome addition to the political landscape, a way to impose order on chaos, to force a common set of facts onto the process. Unfortunately, all we have are Politifact and Glenn Kessler. Today, both of them decide to unilaterally call Harry Reid’s claim about Mitt Romney and taxes a lie. Not that they think it’s a lie, not that they’ve done a non-partisan scan of Romney’s tax returns going back ten years and found them to contradict Reid’s claims, but that Reid hasn’t backed up his statements with any evidence and that therefore they are lies. I’ll outsource this to Scott Lemieux:
This does not, in fact, constitute a “lie.” If it is, than Romney has told “pants on fire” lies about what he’s paid in taxes as well. And PolitiFact is double-pants-on-fire-with-an-additional-Pinocchio lying, since they haven’t provided the slightest evidence that Reid wasn’t told by someone that Romney hasn’t paid taxes. As always, PolitiFact simply doesn’t understand what facts and lies are, which is kind of a problem when you purport to be a fact-checker.
Kessler stands guilty of the same problem, delivering “four Pinocchios” to Reid today, even while acknowledging that “this whole exchange poses a fact-checking conundrum,” that “without seeing Romney’s taxes, we cannot definitively prove Reid incorrect,” and that the only fact available to check is whether Reid did receive a communication from some investor at Bain Capital with knowledge of Romney’s taxes. Nevertheless, Kessler examines the 2010 and 2011 (partial) tax returns Romney has provided, and extrapolates from that into calling Reid a liar.
I don’t think Reid will really care about what self-styled fact checkers have to say about him. First of all, they have discredited themselves by fact-checking something where they have no facts to handle. Second, Reid has no monopoly on what you might describe as dishonorable tactics designed to raise conversation about a topic the opponent would rather keep quiet about. It’s pretty much how politics works. And third, building on the second, it actually is working on a political level.
Republican sources say they’re in a Catch-22 situation on how to reply to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s claims that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney went 10 years without paying taxes.
They understand that they’re taking Reid’s bait and that responding to his unsubstantiated claims against Romney to keeps alive the issue of Romney’s refusing to release his tax returns.
Still, these GOP sources say they feel that if they do not respond to such a serious charge from such a high-ranking Democrat, it will look like a tacit admission Reid is right.
It is to laugh. Never let it be said that Democrats don’t know how to play politics. They can play the game when they want.




7 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
“Never let it be said that Democrats don’t know how to play politics. They can play the game when they want.”
I don’t understand why you continue to stress this point. To me it’s damning with faint praise.
What the Republicans do — creating firestorms out of whole cloth — is playing politics. Day after day, the Democrats are tied up putting out fake controversy fires that the Republicans light under an eager press. From Fast and Furious to Birtherism to Michelle’s garden.
But here, with Romney’s tax returns, we have a real issue. Not only has every candidate historically released years of tax returns, Romney’s own father was the champion of doing so.
Romney’s failure to release is highly irregular. Pointing that out, as Reid has done, is in no way “playing politics”. It’s pointing at the elephant in the room — with a little bit of flourish (claiming he paid NO taxes).
When you’re in a poker game, and you play the right card at the right time, this is not “playing poker”. Anyone can do this. Bluffing, and calling a bluff, is playing poker. All Harry Reid has done here is play his hand according to well established conventions. Big deal. Failure to do so would be tantamount to folding with a straight flush.
If Reid in fact as no information to back up the “paid no taxes” part, that is a bluff of sorts. But it’s not significant or clever. There is no risk for Reid and it’s exactly what any politician would do.
I thought that McCain only released 2 years of returns. Romney hasn’t even done that. He’s released a partial 2010 and an estimated 2011 return. He won’t even file his actual 2011 until October, apparently.
I’m glad to see Reid (with Pelosi’s backing) working this issue. It needs to stay front-and-center. And, yes, it may be politics. I’m glad to see the Democrats raising their game strategy when the competition has been eager to accuse a sitting President of being foreign-born and a collegiate faker.
@botazefa, yes, you are correct. My bad. Sort of takes the wind out of my sails, and demonstrates that I am not as informed on this issue as I think I am. Looking it up, Palin also only 2 years. Thanks for the correction.
:-( I’m sorry. I definitely didn’t want to take the wind from your sails. Your point is still very valid, I think. FWIW, I didn’t know that Palin had also only released 2 years.
no, don’t feel sorry. you made a good point, and I appreciate it.
I’m not sure this is *the* best source, but here’s where I checked.
On This Week, “moderated” by the repulsive George Stephanapoulos, Reince Priebus called Reid a “filthy liar.”
And, of course, George Steph made no remark about how very disrespectful and unfounded Preibus’s own canard was.
Right now, no one knows exactly what Reid based his claims on. I do know that some of the investors in Bain Capital were Bain himself and some of Romney’s other partners in Bain and Company (whom Romney later jerked around on sharing profits from Bain capital.)
And all of them would have had to provide tax information to Bank of New England when they were negotiating their loan default with BNE.
(This is not inside info, but right in the wikis of Bain and Company, Bain Capital and Romney, though the Romney camp may have given those wikis a fresh scrub this week.)
That is why I do not find it farfetched that some of the Bain Capital investors might know a lot about Romney’s financial history–and might have a motive to retaliate at Romney.
What I do know for sure, though, is the following;
1. Romney has lied before about having paid the amount of taxes that he legally owed, but not a penny more. He has also lied before about quite a few other things. In fact, he has specialized in dissembling to voters since he first ran against Ted Kennedy.
2. Romney can prove anything and everything about Romney’s tax history by simply giving the American people the very same packet of tax documents that Romney gave McCain four years ago. It would only take a copy machine and a stapler.
American voters deciding on their President deserve at least as much information as McCain got when deciding on his Vice President.
3. It is not only a question of how rich Romney is or how much he paid in U.S. taxes. It is also a matter of what else those records may show. For instance, in 2002, he tried to get away with showing no tax records. And also claimed he had paid every penny he owed. Turned out, he had paid state income taxes in both Massachusetts and Utah at the lower resident rate, instead of paying either state the nonresident rate.
For instance, which deductions did he take (besides the deduction of over $70,000 he took for his wife’s horse as a business expense)? How much money did he sock away in offshore accounts and investments, etc. We are not going to know what we should want to know about those records until we see them
If Romney has nothing to hide, why is he willing to risk his credibility as a Presidential candidate in the face of calls from the media, influential members of his own Party and from Democrats, in order to keep his tax records hidden? Heck, even Republican toady George Will was not able to defend this stonewalling.
I am not planning to vote for him or for Obama, but I still think that I and other voters have a right to information.
It’s our tradition that candidates open themselves up for intense scrutiny – says this book from 1837 http://bit.ly/Qef2tC