The theme of the Rec List today is deserved bashing of the Media, focusing on ignoring or distorting polls to show a "dead heat" or Romney ahead.
Allow me to join the press-bashing, but for their complete surrender to Romney on what should be a huge issue: Romney's Missing Tax Returns. The Media are aiding and abetting a cover-up that establishes a horrible precedent for disclosure by candidates.
Just for "fun," I googled Mitt Romney "Tax Returns" and here's what I got.
Lo and behold, the number one entry is Romney has lots to hide in tax returns, dated yesterday!
With great anticipation, I clicked and found (wait for it) a letter to the editor of the Jackson (MS) Clarion Ledger!
OK. Good for Mr. Robert R. Regl of Hattiesburg, Miss! (and for the Clarion Ledger for printing it). But below that on Google? Practically nothing in October 2012. Oh I did find a Forbes article from October 8, titled Romney's Return Suggests He Paid 57.9% In Taxes And Gifts To Charity. This hard-hitting piece concludes:
In a similar analysis of the Romneys’ 2010 tax return, they paid $15.6 million in taxes and gifts to charity on $30.2 million of productivity. Again, they kept less than half of what they had earned. Their generosity and tax burden is hardly the example of greed that advocates of greater government would have us believe. And because it doesn’t fit their narrative, they purposely distort it.
Tough stuff, I know.
But what is startling is that since September 21, 2012, when Romney released his (incomplete) 2011 returns and a bogus "summary" or prior years, there are almost no stories or hardly a mention of the subject. Let's check the epicenter of radical liberalism -- The New York Times today:
Let's see
-- There's a piece about how Obama's role in a film about the bin Laden raid is supposedly "bolstering" his image by editing.
-- There's Maureen Dowd feminizing Obama: "At the first debate, the president gave off such a feeling of ennui, he could have used a fainting couch."
-- There's a piece about declining standard of living and its effect on the election.
Yup -- The Times is sure slanted toward Obama.* Of course, nothing about Romney's taxes. An editor might say, "Well, there's nothing new on this." That's crap. There is much that still can be analyzed in what Romney has released. Even asking questions with no response is a story. They can ask surrogates about it. They can bring back David Cay Johnston, who I'm sure will have an interesting perspective.
But the absence of anything "new" is the biggest story. The Media has simply accepted that Romney will get away with hiding what candidates since his father have released -- substantial tax information. This, when Romney's tax plans will benefit him (and his family by abolishing the estate tax, etc.); when there should be a presumption that he took advantage of the Swiss Bank tax amnesty in 2009; when Obama has disclosed 12 years of returns.
This is a media outrage. Romney may be a national Rick Scott or worse, but the Media yawns. The tax return issue must be addressed.
*I'm referring to the Times news section, not the editorials, which do endorse Obama.