Skip to main content

I am not educated as a political scientist, or a political insider of any sort.  Mostly, I observe the goings-on of what is happening with a mixture of amusement and curiosity.  I would generally prefer not to throw out political analysis as a 'pundit', but since I see nobody saying this yet, it might be worth getting out there.  Especially considering that this is both potentially good and bad news for the Democratic party, if it is true.

I think Harry Reid is sensing a political shift for the Democratic party, and acting early in an attempt to hold onto his position of power within the party.  A strong sense of moral outrage and accusations of nefarious intent are always going to be popular attention-grabbers.  As a politician skilled enough to become a high profile leader, I believe Harry Reid is doing this accusation with no evidence for a reason.

It is the same reason the Fox News channel, as well as Rush Limbaugh, and all those folks make up facts out of nowhere to rail against.  Righteous indignation is so popular, it doesn't have to be based on any evidence.  The only thing that matters is the accusation for the guilty target to prove wrong.  Eric Holder was attacked like this.  ACORN was attacked this way.  Climate researchers involved in 'Climategate' were attacked like this.  Shirley Shirrod was attacked like this.

This isn't to say that Harry Reid is making up his accusation, either.  I can't know this for sure, but I think he probably wouldn't be doing this unless he had a high degree of confidence of what he was saying was true.  Most political analysts seem to think that Mitt Romney will eventually release his returns, and if that occurs and Harry Reid is wrong, he'll look like a fool.  But that potential outcome is completely irrelevant to making an accusation without evidence and charging the party as guilty until innocent.  All that matters is that the accusation of a wealthy person paying no taxes makes one feel righteous indignation.  Even when being presented by someone as mild as Harry Reid.

A charge like that, with no accompanying evidence is hearsay.  But it doesn't matter to the Democratic party base.  It could still be true.  Even without evidence, a good chunk of the Democratic party base could accept it as true.  Hell, I believe it's more likely to be true than not, even though there's no evidence for it.

But, the refusal to prove it definitively false is just evidence in it's favor, right?

I think this may represent a shift for the party.  Sure, there's always the outliers that express righteous indignation.  Alan Grayson got a lot of attention for his die quickly rant against the Republican opposition to health care.  Elizabeth Warren got a lot of attention for her words about fair taxation on the wealthy.

But now Elizabeth Warren is a rising star within the Democratic party.  She's going to give a speech at the DNC.  Not only that, but as the article notes:

Warren has warmed up the crowd for a bigger speaker before -- she introduced President Barack Obama at a recent fundraiser in Boston.
Clearly, the President is comfortable associating directly with her.  And she has a habit of saying things of a righteous indignant nature.
Asked recently about news that Mitt Romney had money in offshore tax havens, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, “It’s really American to avoid paying taxes, legally…. It’s a game we play. … I see nothing wrong with playing the game because we set it up to be a game.”

Graham is right about one thing—it’s a game for some. It’s a rigged game that benefits big corporations and billionaires who can deploy armies of lobbyists and lawyers to create those tax loopholes and then exploit them.

Righteous indignation is a mixed blessing.  The Republican party uses it so much, they've practically lost the ability to do anything else.  It's just about the only thing they seem capable of doing.  The problems they have is virtually everything that upsets them is actually not true.

Righteous indignation is such a powerful political tool, it doesn't matter if the underlying narrative has any truth to it.  It can motivate the base, be exciting, and feel wonderful that someone is finally saying something that needs to be expressed.  It can make someone popular.  Keith Olbermann built his career on righteous indignation.  James O'Keefe does the same.  It can give a party huge political leverage and the ability to accomplish an agenda.  For example, ACORN was abandoned so quickly in the manufactured scandal, that the facts only came out after the damage was done.

Are we heading in the direction where Democrats 'fight' in this antagonistic manner?  I suspect Harry Reid thinks so, and is choosing to pick a fight with the top Republican to prove how he's dedicated to the new Democratic party.  I suspect we'll start to hear more rhetorical attacks like this coming from our party in the future.

As I've noted, this kind of political tactic can make a party divisive, paralyzed by uncompromising dogmatism, and flail madly at imaginary demons.  I don't think any of that is a danger in Harry Reid's allegation that Mitt Romney's no paid taxes thing, but it probably ought to be something we're all aware of, in case this kind of guilty until proven innocent rhetorical style catches on.  Generally, bullying a bully is kind of cathartic anyway.

But I think this is just a side-effect of the Democrats finally learning to utilize righteous indignation.  I think I can be okay with this sort of thing (in limited quantities) if it ultimately means more Democratic politicians like Elizabeth Warren.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  My read on Reid (17+ / 0-)

    Is pretty straightforward. Let's set aside the parlour game of wondering who Reid's source is or even if he has one.

    Knowing what is in his own tax returns, Mitt Romney has decided that the price of releasing them is higher than the price of not releasing them. Thus, he's decided not to release them, and simply pay the price for not doing so.

    Now that he's made that decision, the Democrats' job -- Reid's job, but really, everyone's -- should be to drive that price as high as possible; to drive that price up to equaling or surpassing the price of his releasing the returns.

    Part of the way you do that is by assigning a projected value to what is in those documents. Just throw stuff out about whats in there. There's no need to lie about it, but we should feel free to speculate -- after all, its Mitt who has put the American people in the position of speculating. If he didn't want folks to publically speculate, he could just release the returns. We have no choice.

    And as long as we're speculating, we might as well speculate based on the worst case plausible scenario. Make Mitt prove us wrong by releasing the returns. If he won't, then that possibility becomes reality. Perception always becomes reality.

    This is pressing the advantage that Mitt has given us. The key here is that this is a win-win approach. Lots of folks on DKos have expressed nervousness that this will backfire if Reid's speculation/source turns out to be wrong. Here's the thing -- it doesn't matter. Once Mitt releases the returns, its fair game to go after everything in those returns that Mitt is currently hiding. The American people aren't going to view the question of tax avoidance on a sliding scale. If the truth is not as bad as Reid's speculation, but Romney still payed a 5% tax rate on what amounts to a billion dollar fortune and used tax shelters to do it... he's going to lose the election even though it wasn't "as bad" as Reid claimed.

    This is exactly what the Republicans would be doing if it were our candidate, although I can't possibly imagine any Democratic candidate being as politically incompetent as Romney has been in not releasing them.

    •  Yes, it almost doesn't matter ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, gustynpip

      ... if Rmoney actually paid some taxes.

      If the truth is not as bad as Reid's speculation, but Romney still payed a 5% tax rate on what amounts to a billion dollar fortune and used tax shelters to do it... he's going to lose the election even though it wasn't "as bad" as Reid claimed.
      Harry can easily get away with saying he was simply misinformed -- hey, it happens to everyone -- and issuing an apology for having been wrong to trust his source.

      But it will all be out there, and when the jackals begin to pick through Willard's tax bones, nobody will be saying, "Hey, Reid was wrong: Romney did pay taxes."  They'll be saying, "He paid how much in taxes?  His tax rate was what?  How did that happen?"

      "The fears of one class of men are not the measure of the rights of another." ~ George Bancroft (1800-1891)

      by JBL55 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:12:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini, gustynpip

      speculation is not the same as lying or making shit up when it suits your political needs like Romney does.

      And all that matters is the non-political junkies hear rumors that Romney didn't pay taxes, unless Romney proves the rumors false, they are as good as true to most Americans.

      Facts are liberally bias

      by SuzieQ4624 on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:22:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One Problem (0+ / 0-)

      There's one problem with this.  Harry Reid is not running against Mitt Romney for anything.  Why risk the chance of appearing unhinged and talking about things irrelevant to his district if he's only doing it to expose Mitt Romney's political weakness in refusing to disclose his tax returns?  What does Harry Reid win if he's proven wrong?

      He could bring up the same issue without going about it in that way.  How about this?

      "How can we know that Mitt Romney has the moral character to run the country, if we know so little about how he deals with the government as a private citizen?  We do know he desires to pay as little taxes as possible.  We know he classifies his recreational horse hobby as a business for a tax break.  The American people really need to know if Mitt Romney has an even bigger interest than has already been demonstrated in continuing and exploiting the unfair tax loopholes that leads to the record inequality in our country."

      There.  No need to make an unsubstantiated claim.

      •  Reid is not making unsubstantiated claims. He (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        merely stated that he was informed by someone who's in a position to know that these were the facts.

        And Romney leaves it open to anyone who wants to make a claim.  Your suggestion would have virtually no impact.  It's what everyone else has already been saying.  What Reid has done is leave Romney no wiggle room.  He either releases his returns or everyone is free to speculate as they want.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 11:44:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

          If Romney is leaving this thing open ended, we need to fill in the blank for him.

          This is stunning incompetence by the Romney people. It has grown to the point where it has threatened to take over the entire campaign, but they've come too far. They don't have an easy way out here other than changing the subject (e.g., military vote suppression! WELFARE MOMS!). There isn't even a coordinated theme in any of the Romney campaign narrative right now because they've had to devote all of their strategic energy to the tax return issue and they still don't have an answer besides throwing shiny objects out to distract people.

          There is ZERO blowback for Reid on this. He's not going to run for re-election in all likelihood. He hates Romney (who in politics doesn't?). And the only way that Romney can prove that Harry's source is inaccurate is to release his returns which Mitt will never do.

          This entire issue was handed to us as a fumble on the one yard line by Mitt. Its not even a fumble, its like the quarterback literally took the snap from center and placed the ball on the goal line. Not recovering it for a touchdown is political malpractice.

          •   (0+ / 0-)

            Romney people... They don't have an easy way out here other than changing the subject
            which they do incessantly.
            What's "odd" is that Romney demands proof of accusations, yet weekly (at least) creates his own  unsubstantiated or bass ackwards accusations.

            WELFARE MOMS
            Work to Welfare, state waivers. Reality is opposite of Romney's attack. The attack lacks deniability. Therefore, the gist (headline/title) of related news stories should be: Romney's Lies Again Again or, Romney Can't Stop Lying.

      •   (0+ / 0-)

        That looks wordy (-:   Any political attack must be 'sloganizable'.
        No need to make an unsubstantiated claim.
        Either Reid hasn't practiced technique, or msm hasn't repeated the claims to Reid's preference.
        The "why does glenn beck refuse to clear up the questions whether he killed and raped a 10 year old girl in 1990?" episode distills the plausible deniability technique. It's kin to the "have you stopped beating your wife" rhetoric/quip.

  •  Who is Harry protecting his (12+ / 0-)

    position of power within the party FROM? Who else in the party wants his job?

    Harry's tooling on Mitt because

    A.) It's good for the Party
    B.) He" in a great position to do it,
    C.) It's a whole bunch of fun.

    He was an amateur boxer. This means that he's completely capable of fighting for the fun of it.

    •  all of the above (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  Not so much protecting (0+ / 0-)

      Not so much protecting from any particular individual.  More like signaling that he's going to be on the side of the Elizabeth Warrens and the Alan Graysons of the party.

      Willing to drag things out and strike political blows the base wants to see.

      Consider it something like signing up for the Occupy wing of the democratic party, if that is the future of the Democratic party.  To maintain credibility amongst the new group of incoming politicians.

      Consider it something like certain Republican politicians trying to appeal to the new Tea Party politicians.

  •  I see no need to overthink this. (15+ / 0-)

    Reid is using a shiv on Romney.  Somebody had to do it and Reid is likely not running for reelection, so the political price is nil.

    Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum -- when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes. - PJ Crowley

    by nsfbr on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:05:47 AM PDT

  •  hang together, (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA, JBL55, fritzi56, sunbro, Rooe, avsp

    hang separately.

    one for all, all for one.

    and, my favorite, e pluribus unum.

    someone has a sig: Courage is contagious.
    me like.

    Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.
    * Join: OBAMA'S TRUTH TEAM *

    by greenbird on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:06:56 AM PDT

  •  If it made Reid a fool, Romney'd release his tax.. (16+ / 0-)

    returns at the speed of light. He needs to bury this issue immediately, because it's corroding his campaign into a giant pile of rust before he even gets off the ground.

    But the very fact that Romney continues to stonewall on the dog that didn't bark. There must be something so heinous in Romney's tax returns that he is willing to endure this public savaging rather than allow it to see the light of day.

  •  I'm not sure (0+ / 0-)

    I want Democrats to win this race to the bottom.

    Unsubstantiated comments that would not hold up in court, uttered on the Senate floor, by a lawyer?

    OK, so it's just the top Democrat in the Senate, acting like a Republican saying any old crap he wants to play this game of wits against a half wit.

    I don't want Democrats acting like Republicans.

    How far are we, as Democrats, from sinking to the same low as Rush Limbaugh? Should we next claim that Mitt Romney is a bad Mormon for not tithing 10% of his enormous wealth, and all he has to do to prove his Mormon credentials is to release his tax returns? So, we're not far from accusing Mitt of using his Mormon Faith  to avoid war in VietNam, huh? Are we on the verge of repeating an unsubstantiated statement that Mitt spent his VietNam years in France ordering hookers his father had to pay for?

    Because those lies are out there.

    Should we become what we despise? Are we already?

    We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

    by Patriot4peace on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:23:42 AM PDT

    •  I'm not worried that much. (0+ / 0-)

      I doubt it's that bad.  I don't think Harry Reid is that much of a fool, and I doubt the Democratic party will lose touch with reality.  That kind of thing takes decades, and if we see it coming, we can prevent it with clear thinking.

      But you raise an interesting possibility.  Maybe he doesn't want to release his tax returns because there's considerable donations to the Mormon church in the records.

      Imagine a huge charitable deduction on his taxes because of Mormon tithing.  No taxes paid AND contributing large amounts of money to the Mormon church.  That would be an interesting, and very damaging revelation.

    •  I don't see that we really have a choice. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The GOP has shown gross irresponsibility in their obligation for the safety and welfare of the American people by not vetting their candidate and by putting forth one who is supremely blackmailable and susceptible to extortion.  We simply cannot have a presidential contender who would be a national security problem.  If the GOP is going to be this craven, then I'm not seeing that we have much choice.

    •  I don't normally believe in situational ethics (0+ / 0-)

      That said, with Citizen's United, SuperPAC money, the non-stop parade of lies from Willard, and his refusal to abide by the rules that have been good enough for EVERY candidate in the past; I'm gonna have to say "what's good for the goose, is good for ...."   You know where I'm going.
      I think Indiana Jones said it best., "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight." We have to use every avenue to get out the message that Willard would be a DISASTER for this country. There is no other way to combat this Juggernaut of the Rmoney campaign.

      America is a COUNTRY, not a CORPORATION. She doesn't need a CEO. Vote Obama.

      by manneckdesign on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 11:48:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow. You really consider Reid repeating what (0+ / 0-)

      someone he believes to be in the know the equivilent of Rush Limbaugh?  Well, okay then.

      Sorry, but if Romney refuses to do the honest and honorable thing of providing us - those he wants to elect him - the information we need to determine whether he is in fact honest and honorable, then anyone - including those Dems you want to keep the white kid gloves on - are free to speculate all they damn well please.  And Reid isn't even speculating.  

      We should indeed be providing every worse case scenario of what those tax returns contain - because the only way we'll know those worse case scenarios are not true is for Mitt to release them.  You try to hide something, voters get to speculate about what you're trying to hide.

      Whenever there's a failure of transparency, you always assume that what they're trying to hide is worse than the worse thing you can imagine.  Otherwise they wouldn't be hiding it.

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 11:50:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hope you don't misunderstand me (0+ / 0-)

        and perhaps invoking Rush Limbaugh is more hyperbole than required to make my point...

        which is - the "informant" may be fictional, may be real and full of shit, may be someone from the McCain campaign that saw the returns, may be someone with an axe to grind, may be the guy who got his hair cut off in college by young Mitt....

        We don't know.

        We may not ever know.

        I just don't want the Democrats to have to say: "Well, they did it too!!"

        I just hope this person is both real, and credible.

        We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

        by Patriot4peace on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:19:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We may never know for sure, but Reid isn't the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          kind of guy that goes around lying his ass off.  He's 76 years old and, as far as I know, has never been accused of making facts up yet.  So I'll trust him on this one until there's some actual reason for disbelieving him.

          And this is not anything like the shit pulled by the Republicans the last few years towards Obama.  Absolutely nothing like it.

          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

          by gustynpip on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:26:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I hope you're right (0+ / 0-)

            I just want the Democrats to uphold honesty and integrity. I know it's an election year and things are said and done that are less than honorable.

            I'm very much enjoying the cornered animal response from the right, with ad-hominem attacks against Reid because without those tax returns that's all they have.

            All the B.S. posturing about "he paid his taxes, it's on his website" is truly pathetic and is likely going to cost Romney this election.

            As a Democrat, I want to win, to re-elect this President.

            I just want it done honestly. The Majority Leader in the Senate should not make unsubstantiated claims from the Senate floor.

            We're better than that, so I'll say it again: "I hope you're right"

            We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

            by Patriot4peace on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 12:51:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, stop those insinuations! (0+ / 0-)

          may be the guy who got his hair cut off in college by young Mitt
          that blond surf boy was only a fling! (from Rafalca's mouth to your ears)

      •   (0+ / 0-)

        You really consider Reid repeating what someone he believes to be in the know the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh?
        Not until Reid obsesses for 3 days ,demanding to see Ann's "slut sex" videos with dressage horses (in the french mormon church). That's lushbo's style.
        Ann Romney said Thursday her horse Rafalca "thrilled me to death"
        Reeeeely? Lushbo wants to know more.

        You try to hide something, voters get to speculate about what you're trying to hide.
        Where the liberal MSM retreats, the Patriotic Tea Investigative Reporters must reload! Ask these important questions!
        Where are Mitt's longform tax returns? What is Romney hiding?
        We know Mitt is not a real tea party patriot. Americans demand to know why Romney may have donated to Al Qaeda's Jihad GPS "social welfare (wink) charity"!

  •  Harry is not playing a game, he's not making (6+ / 0-)

    shit up. Someone, and it's looking like more than one someone, he knows and trusts told him this information and told him he/they know/s it as fact. In due time we'll find out who this person/these people is/are and how it is that he/they is/are privy to this information.

    What most folks are not aware of is that this is goes beyond politics where Harry is concerned. Harry is a high ranking official in the Mormon church, considerably higher up the ladder above Mitt. There's a lot of disgust among church leaders that Mittens goes about touting his dedication to tithing to the church, but that tithe is based on falsely reported net worth. He's been lying to the church.

    It'd be one thing to be open and honest and say, yeah, I'm not going, to give the church a full 10%, but it's another thing altogether to go around pretending like you paid all you owed when you didn't. The Mormon church doesn't have the loopholes the US tac code does.

    I think for Harry, it's not even so much about the church getting short changed. I don't think it's about that at all. It's about the depth of flaw in character of a man who has used his church as just another stepping stone to amassing personal wealth, a man who simply has no moral compass of any kind, a man who is in no way shape or form fit to occupy the Oval Office and who must be prevented from doing so by whatever reasonable means necessary.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:47:22 AM PDT

    •  I think the LDS church will give Mitt a pass on (0+ / 0-)

      everything if he can get elected.  

      •  Maybe, maybe not. But I don't think Mitt cares. (0+ / 0-)

        He's gotten good use out of the church over the years. He doesn't really need them anymore.

        Who knows, in the messed up place that is Mitt's mind he may be the Prophet of the New Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. Clearly, he writes his own rules, wipes away and redraws past history with god-like ability. Some Mormons strive to become immortal. Mitt appears to believe he's already made it.

        So exceedingly angry doth He become when we questioneth Him about the great mysteries of how He createdeth His vast riches. It is not for us mere mortals to knoweth such thing for we wouldst burn as if cast into the furnace were we to look upon the wonder of the fullness of His accounting.

        The Book of Mittens
        Chapter 1, verse 2

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 11:52:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If Reid is wrong, where are Mitt's forms? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Unit Zero, gustynpip

    Simple.  That's all we need to know.  

    Reid is a fighter and a stategist.  I believe he got the call from the Bain guy who wants his name kept quiet.  But hey Mitt, you can prove Reid is wrong.

    Double dare ya.  

  •  As long as we are speculating... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Smoh, gustynpip

    Let's assume this "someone" who told Harry about Romney's tax returns exists - which I think is a fair assumption. People have discussed two major possibilities :
    a) The unnamed source is right, maybe has some evidence to back it up but nothing that can be used publicly and will never come forward. Reid, realizing this, makes the only remaining use for this juicy information - to stir up speculation.


    b) The unnamed source is wrong or only speculating and has no evidence. Reid, realizing this is possible, still goes ahead, figuring that worst case scenario is that Mitt releases his tax returns (unlikely) and proves his source to be wrong. Reid can fall back on, "hey, so sorry, I was deceived by my source." - as already discussed.

    But I am intrigued by two additional fun possibilities:
    c) The source is right, has evidence and WILL eventually come forward.


    d) The source is right, has pointed Reid and/or the Obama camp to the smoking gun evidence which will eventually be revealed.

    Both c) and d) would mean that Reid (plus/minus other Democrats) have decided to play out this drama like a serial novel, building up to, Oh- how fun! - an October surprise!?

    I agree these aren't terribly likely possibilities, but wouldn't it be nice to have "tax-mas" in October?

    "Never separate the life you live from the words you speak." - Paul Wellstone

    by isabel on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 11:07:54 AM PDT

  •  Liberals Are Never Satisfied..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They constantly complain about "spineless" Democrats.  But now here, on this site, they complain when one of our own takes it to them.

    None of Harry Reid's critics, including Reince Prebus, Lindsey Graham or Joe Lieberman, have seen Romney's tax returns either.  McCain & his vetting committee haven't seen any of his returns since 2007 either.  

    Hooray for Harry.  It's called politics, folks.  Finally a Dem w/ some backbone.  He's just speculating.  Is that a crime?  

    •  Not just speculation (0+ / 0-)

      This isn't just speculation.  Harry Reid claims to have an anonymous source for his knowledge.  That's a bit more than speculation.

      I just had a theory as to why he's going about it in this particular way.  I don't have any problem with the fellow doing this, I just recognize it for what it is.

      I think this kind of behavior is symptomatic of having a spine and I think it's mostly a positive thing.  I just wanted to make it clear what the potential drawbacks could be.

      •  Gotcha..... (0+ / 0-)

        I agree it is positive.  I just can't find a drawback to Harry Reid's comment.

        Republicans lied all weekend about President Obama trying to take voting rights away from the military in Ohio.  It's exactly the opposite, he's trying to restore early voting for everyone in Ohio.....not just military personnel.

        Now today they are running an ad full of lies about TANF (Temporary Aid To Needy Families).  In 2005 the Republican Governor's Association plus 29 Republican Governors, including Mitt Romney, asked for identical waivers they are now using to attack President Obama saying he's trying to drop work requirements for those on welfare.

        Harry's just providing a dose of badly needed medicine to the Republicans.  They need to open up & take their dose of what I hope will be a daily dose of just what the doctor ordered.  

    •  But McCain did see the returns prior to 2007 - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and guess who we've yet to hear attack Reid?  McCain.  Makes yoy kind of wonder why he wasn't on the talk shows on Sunday saying "I know that statement's false", doesn't it?

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 11:52:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Righteous indignation. (0+ / 0-)

    The teas can't do righteous anything because teas are The Anti-Righteous. Teas do rage - the same deliberately worked up maddog rage that gangsters put on.

    Alan Grayson's 'indignation' was accurate. Everyone knew it when Grayson said it. Later, those two notorious 2011 GOP primary incidents only affirmed the debased tea mindset.
    Hilary Rosen was correct, though she phrased her truth slightly incorrectly. (Hilary couldn't know whether Ann Romney relied on nannies to perform most childcare tasks.)
    Obama's "you didn't build that," is unobjectionably correct to anyone hearing the phrase in context, and in its verbally delivered format.
    Obama's "... they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or... " was obviously correct.
    Sane people continue to repeatedly have equivalent impressions.

    The teas' prefab 'indignant' reactions are what have been illegitimate.
    Teas do Illegitimate Indignation.

  •   (0+ / 0-)

    Only Romney, tax CPAs, and IRS know if Romney has paid zero taxes in recent years.
    IMO, the real issue is that tax evasion is legal because the evaders buy law and legislators to legalize misdoings. (Recent blatant examples: ALEC)

    ACORN was abandoned so quickly in the manufactured scandal, that the facts only came out after the damage was done.
    Yes, that was fraud. How have the fraudsters have escaped prosecution? Attorneys with jurisdiction crooked? 'Political cowardice/ Fixed' laws?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site