Feed the Political Animal

Washington Monthly depends on donations from readers like you.

Comments

• Emma on August 08, 2012 12:37 PM:

  I am sure that all the people who would lose their insurance and their retirement under a Romney administration will be properly impressed by your moral purity.

  It's all very good to try to hold on to principle, but when the playing field is so rigged that you can't win, and when you do (vide Barack Obama) the powers-that-be and their hangers-on dedicate their every effort at thwarting your success, maybe all you have left is... whatever works.

• ex-curm on August 08, 2012 12:39 PM:

  I am glad you are willing to discuss possibly bad things Reid has does, but I continue to wonder why you give so little attention to the criticism from the left and now via a book by a Newsweek writer, of Obama and drones and the policy of killing people including Americans without any Judicial or Congressional oversight. Newsweek, the New Yorkers and various websites all cover this, but you're largely silent.

• John on August 08, 2012 12:39 PM:

  I can't really disagree on this point, but Drum has also been going on and on about how he thinks it's basically impossible that Reid is telling the truth. I think that's the main thing that is pissing people off.

• Walker on August 08, 2012 12:42 PM:

  Your statement of Kevin's position is inaccurate.

  He is saying that Reid is "lying" because he has no evidence. He explicitly compared to Reid to birthers even though a birth certificate was clearly shown there (unlike certain tax filings). Unsubstantiated is not the same as lying in the face of empirical evidence. And that is part of the reason of the backlash against Kevin.

  There is a bigger problem here. Reid is basing his claim off word from an unnamed source. This is exactly what the media does every single day. No one has moral high ground.

• Rabbler on August 08, 2012 12:48 PM:

  Democratic moderates believe in pretense. How many pretenses are too many? This system is only holding together anymore based on a @#$%load of pretenses. It reminds me of The Masque of the Red Death.

• angler on August 08, 2012 12:50 PM:

  Having read Ed and Kevin for 8 years on various blogs, I'm willing to concede this one to them. It's a matter of principle and they have a right to them. Moreover Democrats are the party of moral virtue and Republicans are the party of immorality, always have been always will be.

  That said, I want Reid to keep the pressure on Romney, lie or no lie. I don't know if Reid is lying. Meanwhile I love the torture this is causing the Republicans as they confront a dubious claim that they can take down by releasing documents. After all, they have spent at least 20 years, going back to the Clinton era, demanding more paperwork form Democrats to disprove this or that allegation. They swear up and down the conspiracies are true and always want one more piece of paper to prove they are not.

• SYSPROG on August 08, 2012 12:51 PM:

  Read Kevin TODAY! He sees a 'glimmer of light' that Reid might be telling the truth. First off, this entire discussion has gotten off base. Reid said he had a source...maybe, maybe not. Instead of reinforcing the meme of 'dirty little liar' I have been reading the people that think this is probably true and WHY. But it is indeed 'pearl clutching' to ignore the two BIG stories of outright lies (no sourcing HERE) and to bemoan the fact that the Dems are better than the Republicans at 'not making stuff up'. I feel your pain...and then I look at the liars and results from 2010. Maybe it's time to stop pretending we're so pure and CALL THEM on their egregious LIES.

• Gummo on August 08, 2012 12:52 PM:

  We're up against a neofascist cabal who want to reduce America to a neofeudal vassal state of a handful of billionaires, and you're wringing your hands over one mischievous statement by Harry Reid?

  Sorry, Ed, but that is pretty much the definition of pearl-clutching. If those are truly your priorities, and the priorities of other Dem Village insiders, it explains why hate and nihilism are winning the war.

• lou on August 08, 2012 12:52 PM:

  Let us just hope that the final outcome is not the same as the end of the AWOL charges against GW -- the Dan Rather saga.

  Keep the focus on slick mitty and his need to deny and hide his past.

• castanea on August 08, 2012 12:53 PM:

  Sweet creeping Jeebus, Karl Rove is laughing at the way the left continues to engage in a circular firing squad.

  The obsessive need to display purity in politics, often at the expense of unity, is what gets liberals defeated.

  I recall the rant at the beginning of "The Newsroom," where Jeff Daniels' character asks, and I paraphrase, "You know why people don't like liberals? Because liberals lose."

  Why is it that so many otherwise intelligent people cannot understand that fact?

  Reid is Our Guy, and why the hell are we attacking Our Guy when he may very well be right? Honestly, some commentators on the left are as spineless as they like to portray Democratic politicians.

  Republicans/conservatives are bringing fascism to America and all you want to do is criticize our team? Anyone on the left who is criticizing Reid at this point is welcome to stay the hell out of my foxhole.

• T2 on August 08, 2012 12:54 PM:

  I don't get this discussion. Are we now being told that Harry Reid decided just to make up a lie about Romney's taxes and spout it? In other words, there is no "secret source" that knows about Romney's taxes - it is just something a US Senator made up for politics? Well, yes that is bad if true. But there is NO evidence that Reid did that. But even if he did, how is that worse than a guy, Romney, running to be president of the United States and putting out bald-faced, easily refuted lies each and every day now?
  On one level, Kevin Drum's for instance, there is no difference..they are both liars. Except for the fact no one has proven Reid made his charge up alone - there quite well may be a person who told him what he simply repeated. On the other hand, Romney's lie-a-day campaign is full of known lies.
  I highly regard Kevin Drum, but he has no evidence Reid isn't telling the truth. He is no different than Reid at this point, by his own reason. Just saying something with nothing to back it up. And lost in all of this is Romney's tax returns and the real reason behind his refusal to produce them. That's what Drum and the rest of us ought to be looking at.

• lichnor on August 08, 2012 12:56 PM:

  Some see this as moral, and others see this as practical.

  The choice before Democrats is this, "If the Referees(i.e. The Media) are not going to call obvious penalties/fouls(i.e. Lies) on your opponents, why are we still playing by the rules?"

  And it has come down to 2 camps. On one side is Drum(and yourself) saying, "I don't care what's on the line, I want our team to play by the rules."

  And on the other side is, "You don't care? Well let me tell you what's on the line....Social Security, ACA, environmental protections, the next Supreme Court justice, women's rights, sensible immigration reform, sensible taxation, Medicare, and on and on and on and on....and if the referees are not going to call any penalties, I am not going to roll over like that."

  Choose your side accordingly.

• bleh on August 08, 2012 12:57 PM:

  I've been a rather vocal critic of Kevin on this one -- poor guy's getting beat up; blogging ain't for sissies, that's for sure -- and because I think this point of view is misguided, I'll repeat a few criticisms.

  First, nobody knows what the truth is. Unlike, say, the Birthers, or worse, the Vince Foster affair, nobody has yet shown that Harry Reid isn't telling the truth. His critics allege that it's unlikely, and on that basis -- on the basis of their >opinion, they conclude he is lying. But to me, it's not impossible that somebody with a grudge, somebody who was indeed a Bain investor, perhaps someone disgusted with what Bain did under Romney, called up Reid and said exactly that. Maybe that's less likely than not, but it's not a sufficient basis to call Reid a liar.

  And secondly, we're talking about an allegation that Romney paid low taxes legally. The Birthers were talking about eligibility to be president -- outright electoral fraud on a grand scale -- and the Vince Foster theorists were talking about murder. There are degrees here, and even if Reid is lying, it's nowhere near as bad. It's simply not equivalent.

  We need to get back to talking about Romney's taxes -- and how he may or may not have paid little or none -- and stop all this wailing and rending of garments.

• JMG on August 08, 2012 1:00 PM:

  To agree with many others, the assumption that Reid is lying is as unsubstantiated as the charge he states was made to him by a third party. Deciding that Romney deserves the benefit of the doubt and Reid does not is either a matter of Republican partisan affiliation, or like Kevin, squishy discomfort when his side pushes the outside of the envelope on campaign tactics.
  If Reid made it up, shame on him. If his source made it up, shame on HIM. But until we know, shame on nobody.

• Aaron on August 08, 2012 1:00 PM:

  I think that Kevin Drum is worring about the speck in Jonathan Zasloff's eye while ignoring the log in his own eye. Kevin Drum has Just Made Stuff Up about Harry Reid's character because he still can't realize that very rich people pay less in taxes than we do all of the time, and that is is very easy for business owners to cheat on his taxes.

  I think that Jonathan Zasloff is right in this case that Kevin Drum had false equivocated two morally distinct lies. Kevin Drum's lies about Harry Reid are nowhere near as repugnant as, for instance, the lies Republicans made about the civil rights era.

• Michael Robinson on August 08, 2012 1:02 PM:

  Word.

• Diane Rodriguez on August 08, 2012 1:05 PM:

  T2 said everything I wanted to but better. The holier-than-thou high road argument doesn't wash with the facts.

  To Reid don't back down. To all those pearl clutchers, the pearls won't be much comfort if Romney gets into the WH. Seriously, do you think he will mysteriously sprout a moral compass upon entering the oval office?

• Gandalf on August 08, 2012 1:07 PM:

  It's not surpprising that liberals can be as morally bankrupt as conswervatives and republicans but at this point in time there are vtwo extremely pertinent facts about this whole Reis-Romney kerfluffle. One is that Romney ha snot released his returns for the last ten years like all modern presidential candidates have done. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that where there's smpke there's fire. If there wasn't something really egregious there he would have released those returns without any delay. Second Reid doesn't have to prove jack shit. He's not a liar just because someone sreams he is. Let Romney prove Reids a liar by releasing those returns.
  Now if there is something really damaging there but it's not like REid says it is ,He's accomplished a lot. And he he can just say gee I'm sorry. But look,look Romney's a cretin because of what he's done. It's a brilliant strategy.

• jjm on August 08, 2012 1:07 PM:

  For the life of me I cannot see why everyone automatically seems to assume Reid is lying.

  Does he have a track record of lying? Has he lied each and every day of his political life, as Romney has?

  I didn't think so.

  It seems to me a pretty sure bet that he has got the goods on Romney from a former Bain guy, and the 'liberal blogosphere' is just being self-defeating and downright silly.

  That blogosphere should be shouting with one voice; "Where are the tax returns?" or else asking (has ANYONE done so?) why John McCain is not calling Reid a liar.

• Altoon on August 08, 2012 1:08 PM:

  There's an extensive email on Talking Points Memo by a financial expert that lays out a very very plausible case for the next to no income tax payment by Romney. I find it hard to believe that Reid would flat out lie.

• Josef K on August 08, 2012 1:10 PM:

  That this is even a debate simply demonstrates how far around the bend our discourse has become. Its not a question of "moral purity" (as Emma says at 12:37 PM); its a question of whether or not our leaders are going to be guided by reality or fantasy. We saw the consequences of the latter played out between 2001 and 2008, and I'm not prepared for a repeat performance there.

  I don't want to believe Senator Reid's source is correct. Revolutions have been started for less mendacity. But I can't escape the fear that source is dead-on.

  And really, when you think about it, the onus is on Romney to prove or disprove this one way or the other. They're his tax returns, not Reid's.

• SadOldVet on August 08, 2012 1:10 PM:

  Ed...

  On what basis do you say that Harry Reid did not have someone (at least semi-reliable) tell him that Mittens has not paid income taxes for 10 years of tax filings.

  Is this high-minded, democrats have a different set of rules than republicans, never fight back by repuknican rules, a result of your DLC/DINO/Repuke-Lite background?

  I want to see Willard's tax returns! I want to know how he could legally get between $20-100 Million in an IRA when the max contribution per year is $6,000! I want to know about Willard's off-shore accounts and whether he has been gaming the tax rules! I want to know if he has participated in questionable tax shelters! I want to know if Willard has participated in any tax amnesty programs!

  I am sure that if Willard released his tax returns that even if they were 'legal' that a good portion of the ameriKan sheeple would be revolted by the means he did so.

• Texas Aggie on August 08, 2012 1:12 PM:

  I have to agree that "Lying for the Lord" is reprehensible, but the case in point is whether or not Reid is lying. Romney has assuredly been lying since the campaign began years ago. That statement can be supported by numerous instances where he deliberately made a false statement, not just spin, but a flat out lie.

  Whether or not Reid did receive such a phone call may be, and probably is, the truth. If someone is going to call it a lie, they have to come up with some evidence that he did not, in fact, receive such a phone call. Equating Romney's flat out demonstrable dishonest statements with Reid's statement that may or may not be the truth is a perfect example of false equivalence.

• James at Home on August 08, 2012 1:15 PM:

  Well you know the old expression, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." At least that is what Mitt Rmoney says every time he wants to get away with lying.

  Though actually I think that Harry Reid is telling the truth, and someone that knows Rmoney well, has told Mr. Reid that the Mittster has not paid income taxes for many years.

• BillFromPA on August 08, 2012 1:16 PM:

  The vile actions of the repugs from Whitewater to Vince Foster to Swiftboaters, ad infinitum, completely absolves Reid and any other Dem operative from any constraint. I applaud the defeat of any repug by any non-violent means until such time as the GOP obtains some decency and class, wich I don't expect to happen in my lifetime.

• Steve LaBonne on August 08, 2012 1:18 PM:

  If Harry were- not even lying, but merely misinformed- Mitt could make a monkey of him RIGHT NOW, TODAY by releasing the damned returns. Just as in a court of law, so in real life, we are entitled to make the obvious inference from the fact that he hasn't and apparently won't. And that's really all anybody with a three-digit IQ should have to say on the matter.

• LAC on August 08, 2012 1:26 PM:

  Romney is a POS liar - he has been getting a free ride off the backs of journalist hacks who either are afraid they will miss being invited to a Washington insider wingnut wine and cheese party or who are so busy positioning themselves as the premier couch fainter while penning a "both sides do it" screed, that his bullshit campaigning on a business he doesn't want to explain gets a light touch.

  Good for Reid! Maybe some of your media geniuses will take time out of your pearl clutching and Mt. Olympus moralizing to ask yourself how the muthf*** can someone run for office without basic transparency. Especially someone who has been running for office for years! If President Obama did this in 2008, he wouldn't have seen the inside of the White House.

• Mimikatz on August 08, 2012 1:28 PM:

  Why assume Reid is making it up? I have read a couple of plausible explanations involving Mitt lowballing the value of his Bain holdings and putting them in his IRA, then Bain partners per their agreement buy them back for multimillions a year which goes into the IRA and grows tax free. Mitt holds potentially losing stocks in taxable accounts and uses loses to offset his actual income. Also money is held offshore and is not subject to US taxes. Read at TPM and several Kos diaries. This would make sense, because Reid said a Bain person told him, and he would have had knowledge of how the agreement retiring from Bain was structured.

  Just because ordinary people don't know about these techniques doesn't mean they don't exist.

  And given the propensity of the GOP to lie each and every day, I'd cut Reid some slack here. He has been very clever, playing into Mitt 's inability to deal with challenges to his authority.
  

• c u n d gulag on August 08, 2012 1:29 PM:

  Yes, in the best of all possible worlds, there'd be no reason to lie.

  But, last I looked, this ain't that.

  I'm not going to get all huffy at Harry, because, after over 40 years of Republican bullsh*t - aka: LIES!!! - starting with Edwin Muskie's "crying," through Republican Senators and Congresspeople standing on their respective floors, and making sh*t up about the Clintons, to the "Swiftboating" of Kerry, to "YOU LIE" during the SotU speech, to the "Birther" bullsh*t by Republican politicians, I don't care if Senator Reid got his information from Otto Hizass!

  The Republican candidate won't, refuses to, give more than 2 carefully selected tax returns.

  This is a legitimate question, and needs to continue to be asked until Mitt either shows them, or wins or loses the election.

  Everyone's just in shock because after 40 years of Republican bullsh*t and lies, for once, maybe the shoe's up the other side ass!!!

• cwolf on August 08, 2012 1:30 PM:

  Harry didn't claim anything outrageous and there is no reason to believe he "made up" anything.

  WTF could be more believable than an assertion that a Bain insider told Harry that Rmoney skipped out on some taxes?

  After all, he didn't claim that Rmoney was Pokemoning a goat.

• MuddyLee on August 08, 2012 1:31 PM:

  Truth is good. So let's see the tax returns and see what the truth is. Too bad more big media types didn't hold Bush-Cheney to any "truth" standards when they lied us into the invasion of Iraq. And let's not forget the Vince Foster stuff promoted by crazy conservatives during the Clinton presidency. And let's not forget how Gore and Kerry's real military service - in the war zone - was belittled by the Bush-Cheney-Rove campaign when Bush was hiding out in the rich kids unit in the Texas Air National Guard (when he wasn't AWOL or working in repub campaigns). And don't forget the swift-boating of Kerry by crazy conservatives. Reid doesn't have a history of lying outrageously - Romney does.

• Mimikatz on August 08, 2012 1:38 PM:

  Here's the link to one plausible explanation for how Mitt did it. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/missing_the_key_issue.php?ref=fpblg

  Then all cleaned up in 2010 when the 10-year payback is done and he runs for Pres.

  26,728,175. Captcha gets Mitt's income for 2011.

• kindness on August 08, 2012 1:45 PM:

  WTF is it with you 'liberal' op-ed types? The issue isn't Harry Reid at all. The entire issue is whether or not Romney paid no or almost no Federal Income taxes at any point in the last 12 years.

  Harry Reid asks the correct questions although not in a way you 'liberal' op-ed types like.

  Mitt Romney made more than 400X the income I made in 2010. Romney further paid almost half the effective tax rate that I paid in 2010.

  The amount of taxes Romney paid IS THE ONLY REAL ISSUE here. The 'issue' of whether or not Reid lied is a Karl Rove fantasy.

• stevio on August 08, 2012 1:50 PM:

  Oh, I see. From the party that uses "unnamed source" as common as pass the butter, comes, "put up or shut up". I'd say to Romney and his ilk: "right back at cha!"

  It's way more plausible that Harry has a source than it is for Mitt to have paid taxes given his propensity of stashing of copious amounts of cash in foreign lands to avoid such things as taxes.

  This is soooo Roveian. If I were Harry I'd call a press conference and invite bozo to attend (with bis tax returns) and see who's lying. Given what we have all witnessed in politics of late Harry's source may be the one lying.

  Remember, the only thing Harry said was that he had "heard" from a Bain source. He didn't say he , himself, feels Romoney didn't pay taxes.

  Romoney can nip this in the bud , but won't because he has something to hide. Period.

• Tess on August 08, 2012 1:55 PM:

  Ok. For the sake of the "truth" argument, let's say that you (Ed) and (Kevin) are told by someone that used to work for Bain that he was sure Romney didn't pay any taxes. But, he asks that you never use his name or reveal his identity because of the risk to him. Do you report the story? Is is a lie if you do, even if you know it is a credible source?

  And, since we're talking about "morals" here.....maybe Reid has taken a great risk here to get to the truth. Do you think the Morman's are happy with him? The liberal blogosphere is running away from him and Reid could end up being a pariah over this. I realize no one sees Reid as a hero, but think about it. He just threw his integrity out the window and will forever be held up as a liar over this......unless, of course, he's right.

• mudwall jackson on August 08, 2012 1:57 PM:

  we condemn the republicans for being a bunch of amoral liars, so we think becoming a pack of amoral liars is somehow justifiable?

  bullshit.

  if we can't do better than that, why bother? if we just become karl rove clones who believe that winning at all cost is the only thing that matters, what have we gained?

  truth matters. ultimately, this is all about governing, and how can you govern without establishing some degree of credibility with those being governed? if we make up stuff up out of whole cloth during the campaign, why should anyone believe us afterwards if we say ahca is a good thing or climate change is real and demands action? you don't just wipe the slate clean after the election

  if the other side lies, hit back hard and hit back often. with the truth.

• Skip on August 08, 2012 2:00 PM:

  "we’ve abandoned all pretense of caring about the truth." That is pearl-clutching. Of course we care about truth.

  Question: how did Harry Reid violate The Truth?
  
  Question: What degree of Truth are we talking here anyway, gray area, black and white, what?

  Question: In what way are we changing the national debate with regards to Standing for Truth?

  Look, I know it's important to care about the truth. We're accountable for ourselves on an individual basis, and I am proud of these bloggers ethics. This issue isn't so local, though, it's national. There seems to be precious few rules the fanatical right and their corporate buyers haven't violated. The left is losing not just the political fight, but there is a free nation at stake here, one the right is fighting to gain control over.
  
  Maybe we all need to consider what our liberties are worth to us, enough to waltz in the gray area of truth, enough to play a difficult game a bit closer to the line? Or we just watch a nation go under while we keep our fingernails all tidy.

  Of course, we care about the truth, but Harry Reid, standing alone apparently, was willing to stand in the gray area. We desperately need more just like that because it isn't our personal integrity we're losing here, the stakes are much higher, and the damage will be to the national as a whole, not just to you and me.

• CK Dexter Haven on August 08, 2012 2:02 PM:

  I am in agreement with the dissenters here. Harry Reid repeated what he was told in confidence. Rather than the "some people say" employed by the GOP slime machine, he said "a credible person said". Kevin and you want to condemn him by making up a rule that nobody else has to follow about hearsay.

  The same people that called President Clinton a cocaine smuggling murderer and called President Obama an Islamic terrorist sympathizer are now clutching their pearls because Harry Reid repeated something someone said that is borne out by the facts we know (granted that we don't know many) and you are going to join them in their pearl clutching?

  Does anyone here know how to play this game?
  

• BillFromPA on August 08, 2012 2:02 PM:

  TESS, you say, 'I realize no one sees Reid as a hero..'

  You couldn't be more wrong, DKOS, TPM and thousands of those sites registered members have been praising Reid to high heaven for days on end, and Here's my 2 cents: 'Give 'em hell Harry!'

• thebewilderness on August 08, 2012 2:05 PM:

  There is a difference between repeating gossip and telling lies.
  Reid appears to have repeated gossip. Unless, of course, his source provided him with proof of the allegation.

  Framing is an amazing thing.
  Asking if he is lying instead of asking is it true, and then asking if it is ok for him to lie is absurd.

• TR on August 08, 2012 2:07 PM:

  With people like Kilgore and Drum at the forefront, I'm starting to understand why Democrats have been getting their asses kicked for the better part of three decades.

  The Republicans are trying to set the social safety net on fire, with very real ramifications for those of us who don't make a living writing for liberal magazines and blogs, and all you two can do is clutch your pearls and complain about poor form.

  Pathetic.

• T2 on August 08, 2012 2:08 PM:

  relating to Ed's UPDATE - IF the question is: if Reid is lying, is that bad in view of the fact that the GOP candidate lies daily?
  My answer is a lie is a lie. If a person lies KNOWINGLY to me...he's an asshole regardless if he is a Senator or former Governor.
  On the other hand, if someone tells me something they swear is true, and I tell someone else, and it turns out not to be true. I'm not a liar - gullible yes, liar no.
  In this case, there is no reason to believe what Harry Reid said was a story he made up. Unless he confesses. There is every reason to believe he was told that Romney didn't pay any taxes by someone who may or may not be telling the truth.
  done.
  And by the way, where are the tax records, Mitt.

• schtick on August 08, 2012 2:09 PM:

  Yeah, let's take the moral high ground here and run on principles. Only one problem. Principles don't put money in the bank, votes in the ballot box and principles don't win elections. The teapubs don't do anything except lie and Willard has done nothing but hide his time at Bain, hide his time at Salt Lake, hide his time as governor, hide his residence to run as governor, hide his money offshore, hide in France so he wouldn't have to serve the country that gave him millions, and he's now hiding his tax returns. Teapubs do nothing but lie and the dimwit dems want to go after Reid because he MAY be lying? doh! We can't afford to lose on principles again and let the teapubs finish flushing this country down the sewer.
  And now they are trying the swift-boat lie routine again with some flunky that says he went to Columbia and of course knew everyone there but didn't know Obama or never heard of him. The freaky media is owned and run by the teapubs and won't do their damned jobs called journalism and you people want to lose again because you have principles?
  GO REID!!!
  Where are your tax returns, Willard?
  

• boatboy_srq on August 08, 2012 2:09 PM:

  I was willing to go along with the crowd that says Reid should be slapped for telling fibs to make political hay.

  The trouble with that is that the story is now several days old, and while Reid's assertion that he has a source who told him about Romney's taxes may or may not be true, the Romney campaign has done everything possible short of actually admitting it.

  They've obfuscated.

  They've denounced Reid's statement without so much as a single page of evidence that Romney paid taxes.

  They've ranted and raved about "lying" as if lies were poison to political speech (conveniently forgetting the content of virtually the entirety of their campaign propaganda for the last - what, 18 months?)

  They have not done one of the two things that would have made Reid look foolish:
  1) release legal documents that would refute Reid's accusations;
  2) expose Reid's source and have him/her state on the record that s/he told Reid no such thing.

  In this circumstance, whether Reid is lying about his information and/or his informant is becoming, if not exactly irrelevant, certainly harder to evaluate, because the entire Romney campaign is doing their level best to give the accusations weight by not addressing them directly.

  I can understand Romney's desire for privacy. The trouble with that is that he gave it up the moment he ran for public office, and it's a little late to try to wrest it back. If Romney had the means to call Reid on the carpet as a bald-faced liar, it's arguable that he'd have used it by now; instead, we have continual finger-pointing and whinging from the entire Reichwing about what a lying meanie Reid is without any substance whatsoever to prove it - and by now if Romney et al want to make this go away, proof that Reid is in fact lying is fast becoming a requirement.

  I don't think Reid has much high ground here: he made an unsubstantiated accusation and has refused to name his source(s). Then again, unsubstantiated accusations by anonymous sources are what makes news, exposes plots and schemes, and brings down the corrupt (so long as it's done by journalists and whistle-blowers). But so long as Romney and the GOTea machine keep making the issue about how Reid's unmitigated gall to question a 1%er about his finances is just not decent, and not about how Reid is flat-out wrong, all the outcry just sounds more and more like spoiled entitled seigneurs whining about the oi polloi questioning their betters, and less and less like genuine concern that unsupported accusations are poisoning the public discourse. And the longer it sounds like the entitled whining, the more it'll sound like Reid's accusations are true - and Romney just doesn't want to admit it.

• gelfling545 on August 08, 2012 2:20 PM:

  I have not been aware of people accusing Reid of fabricating inflammatory statements prior to this incident. If he has not been given to making such statements in the past, why assume he has begun now? Also, weighing the respective reputations of Reid and Romney for honesty, whose is better?

• FlipYrWhig on August 08, 2012 2:20 PM:

  The desire for truthfulness isn't in itself "moral purity" or going soft in a no-holds-barred political battle royale. BUT But but. But. The problem I have with the progressive critics of Reid is that they've decided to go "meta" and worry about the worrisomeness of Democrats making such an allegation INSTEAD OF spending more time on whether the allegation is, you know, true.

  In other words, "If this is a lie, it's bad" is a self-congratulatory cop-out. Fine, so stipulated. Is it a lie? Not that Reid heard it, but that Romney did it? Let's find out. Then we can discuss whether Reid's behavior falls short of the standard we expect Democrats to uphold.

• exlibra on August 08, 2012 2:23 PM:

  Personally, I don't think Reid's lying, making stuff up or whatever. I think his unnamed informant does exist, and did tell him that R-money hadn't been paying any taxes for a decade.

  If Reid were just speculating, he'd have said something along the lines of "if Romney doesn't release his tax returns, people might think that..." That had been done quite recently, without raising any ire:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/the-mysteries-of-mitt-romneys-financial-records.html?_r=1&ref=contributors

  But Reid has stated, flatly, that he's been told R-money was delinquent and I doubt he (Reid) would have so adamantly stood by his original statement, had he no source at all, other than his fevered imagination. Whether Reid's *source* was telling the truth or just speculating is something else again.

• Mitch on August 08, 2012 2:24 PM:

  Republicans can lie all they want and insult Obama and other Democrats as much as they want. Hell, Repugs can even shout, "You lie!" at the President during an address - and get away with it, even though Obama was NOT lying.

  Dems can't even APPEAR to be standing up to the GOP without being crucified by the corporate media.

  Republicans can accuse Dems of trying to destroy America. Or make bold claims about their ideology that are against all emperical evidence. Or say that Obama does nothing but apologize for America. Or call Dems socialists. Or claim Sharia Law is taking over the country. Or that ACA is the most dangerous thing in American history.

  Republicans can attack Bill Clinton over Foster or Lewinski. Republicans STILL ride Al Gore for "claiming to invent the Internet" - even though he never did. Republicans can hound Obama for YEARS over his Birth Certificate.

  But just let one of the Dems insinuate that he's HEARD that Romney never paid taxes and suddenly the referees get called in for the DEMOCRATS playing unfair.

  What a load of shit.

  Even if Reid was lying it PALES in comparison to the lies and bullshit that fuel the GOP. Period. If he was lying then, well, he was doing his job: putting Mitt's feet to the fire.

  But like always, Dems will cower in submission in the face of the Republican's flustered sense of faux outrage.

  It's bad enough that the Dems can't call out the constnat lying of the GOP. It's bad enough that Dems always feel the need to extend the olive branch to the GOP. It's bad enough that Dems CONSTANTLY make sacrifices to scum like Lieberman.

  It's bad enough that even the biggest "victory" for the Dems in decades, ACA, is little better than recycled GOP ideas from the mid-90s.

  It's even worse that Dems ALWAYS eat their own. We attack the few Dems who are actually trying to WIN.

  So to hell with anyone who is attacking Reid over this. There is no evidence that he is lying. Even if he is lying, well, this is political hardball and a FAR less offensive lie than "Death Panels", to name just one GOP lie.

  And there is no evidence that Mitt Romeny can EVER tell the truth.

• Gummo on August 08, 2012 2:30 PM:

  What Mitch Said.

  Why does the entire pearl-clutching Dem Village establishment just ASSUME Reid is lying, anyway? Because the vicious sociopaths that make up the opposition say so??

  So they're more willing to take the word of known pathological serial liar Mitt Romney and his criminal surrogates over their own Senate leader? WTF??

  This is Stockholm Syndrome writ large. Village Dems will do ANYTHING to make nice with people who want nothing more than to humiliate and destroy them, but won't lift a finger to support their own.

• Judge 77 on August 08, 2012 2:35 PM:

  Mitch @ 2:24 PM, great post. "It's even worse that Dems ALWAYS eat their own" great line.

• Nick on August 08, 2012 2:39 PM:

  Most of the commenters here make me proud to be a Democrat! Kiss our fannies, Mitt -- release the returns you lying POS! Harry, you are the man! And -- REID NEVER SAID Romney paid no taxes! He said SOMEONE TOLD HIM THAT!

• JM917 on August 08, 2012 2:43 PM:

  Reid does not claim to be offering more than hearsay evidence about Romney's taxes. For Pete's sake, you'd think Harry said he had in his hand a list of 517 improper deductions that Willard took. He's not claiming to have seen Romney's tax return or to have been tipped off by the IRS. Hearsay evidence, no matter how "trustworthy" the informant may be, is properly inadmissible in court. Reid's claim simply is that someone (whom he trust to be credible) says that Romney hasn't paid federal taxes. Sure, Reid might have made up that claim and in fact no one exists who whispered such dire words to Harry in the dark of the night--but so what?

  The burden of proof is on ROMNEY to demonstrate that Reid and/or Reid's informant is wrong. Reid is simply trying to smoke the truth out of ROMNEY and is willing to take the heat from the metaphysicians of the MSM. I for one am thankful that Reid is doing this. He is, as someone here commented, risking his own reputation by making his charge, while protecting the anonymity of his informant (who, if revealed, might very well face serious retaliation from pro-Romney financial operatives).

  Sooner or later, Romney will either have to release his tax returns, all the way back to 1998 (before he left Bain) or face Obama's cross-examination in a presidential debate. Telling the truth on ROMNEY's part is the only way this mess gets resolved.

  It is entirely possible that Romney in fact did lowball--legally--his federal tax liability (and vastly inflate his IRA) by using all sorts of dodges and loopholes. As well, he may also have stashed millions in secret Swiss bank accounts until 2009, before finally taking advantage of the amnesty. Revelations that he engaged in such shennanigans could very well sink his candidacy, and if they come out before the Republican convention formally nominates him they could even sink his nomination. So Romney has every incentive to stonewall now and hope that the gazillions in Citizens United attack ads this fall will keep gullible voters in his camp.

  In these circumstances, the last thing we of the anti-Romney persuasion need to do is to make Harry Reid rather than Mitt Romney the butt of "controversy."

  @ Emma and a host of other commenters here get it exactly right.

  Ed, Kevin, and the WaPo should get off their moral high horses.

• MichaelF on August 08, 2012 3:02 PM:

  I posted this over at Same Facts and will do so here -- just a thought:

  Just a thought, and yeah, maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but why don't the self proclaimed fact checkers, political insiders, hangers-on, etc., who are in many/most cases affiliated with newspapers, magazines, journals, i.e., in some measure they ARE journalists, go out and, oh, I don't know, practice some journalism? Harry Reid said a source from Bain told him Mitt's little (income) tax secret. Well, it might actually take a bit of work, with perhaps a few doors slammed into their faces, a bit of ego bruising, but I doubt it's impossible to determine if Reid has any relationship, be it personal or business, with Bain insiders. After making this determination (which could be reported), you then try to get these people on the record. If they won't speak on the record, that can be reported, or perhaps these august fact-checker journalists could offer them anonymity as off the record sources.

  If I recall, a CNN reporter DID suggest Reid was credible, but I didn't follow up...but, then again, I'm not a journalist.

  One thing that I've seen over my lifetime (I'm 47) that's troubling is that the already rather cozy relationship between journalists and the people they're covering has really gotten into dangerous territory. Maybe I'm naive, but it really struck me when Tim Russert said in the Scooter Libby trial that he assumed conversations with politician were off the record, because at one time in the not so distant past I'm pretty sure the rule of thumb was the opposite.

• Salemdem on August 08, 2012 3:07 PM:

  I think that this blog post makes a good point that Reid shouldn't be able to make something up out of whole cloth. But I feel this, having a confidential source, is behavior that is respected by this blog and journalists in general. Why isn't Reid given the same latitude? Reid is doing the job of a journalist in this case.

  I would've tactically approached this differently, and suggested Reid make the point that there is no way to know if Romney paid taxes in previous years or if his off shore accounts and other tax aviodance practices successfully prevented him from paying anything. Raise it as a political question. But lots of dems are tired of the press not making these points, so I think he went further to increase the pressure on Romney that he is trying to weather. I think it has had some success, because as long as this is being discussed dems get to repeat over and over that Romney can resolve this completely by releasing his tax returns, but he refuses to be open with the American people that he seeks to represent.

• Big River Bandido on August 08, 2012 3:13 PM:

  This post is filled with the exact bedwetting, pearl-clutching goody-two-shoes nonsense that it purports to deplore, if I read it correctly.

  Only in the Democratic Party will one find detractors of hardball politics. That's why Democrats lose every policy debate — even when they win the elections that were supposed to decide those questions.

  I'm left to conclude that most Democratic voters don't want change or reform. They can't stomach what's necessary to get it to happen.

• Wapiti on August 08, 2012 3:18 PM:

  JM917 has it exactly right: Reid offered hearsay - clearly stating it in a manner that showed he knew it was hearsay, not an outright accusation - to put pressure on Romney.

  The resulting shitstorm and fingerpointing by Republicans makes it pretty clear to me that nobody really trusts Romney here. They have to attack Reid's credibility because Romney doesn't have credibility to spare, and Romney *can't* release his taxes to defend himself.

• Mitch on August 08, 2012 3:35 PM:

  Regarding Ed's update:

  "The whole point of contention involves those who think it’s okay if Harry Reid is in fact lying."

  That's an awfully big "if" there. Do you ever stop to think that, well, you/Drum/Politifact/whoever do not have any reason AT ALL to accuse or suspect Reid of lying???

  Do you ever think that by making such accusations, or even insinuating that such accusations may be correct, that you/Drum/Politifact/whoever are only making it easier for the GOP to blow this whole thing off?

  How many times do you think the GOP is going to use your words (out of context if need be) in support of their candidate/platform/ideology?

  Am I okay with Reid lying to score political points? No.

  But I am far LESS okay with self-described Dems attacking Reid for maybe sorta possibly perhaps lying. YOU HAVE NO REASON AT ALL TO BE ATTACKING HIS CLAIM. BY DOING SO - WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT HE IS LYING - YOU ARE SIMPLY DOING THE JOB OF THE GOP SPIN-MASTERS.

  Sorry for the Caps, but I want you to understand why this kind of thing is so dangerous. You are giving the enemy ammunition FOR NO REASON AT ALL. Why waste time at all on "Reid might be lying, so I am going to condemn him no. Just in case," are you TRYING to make the Dems look bad?

  Trust me, you don't need to. The GOP and it's media appendage does a good enough job of that. They don't need your help. Although they certainly want it.

  If it comes out that Reid is lying, THEN you can crucify him. Hell, I'll hold the nails while you swing the hammer.

  But unless and until such a revelation occurs, why don't you/Drum/Politifact/whoever please stop attacking Dems? And start asking Romney to prove that Reid's source is wrong.

• T2 on August 08, 2012 3:52 PM:

  we know Romney is not a man of principles (even his Faith allows him to lie in it's name) so saying he's not releasing his taxes on principle is obviously false.
  That is the story, not some story Harry Reid spread.

• thebewilderness on August 08, 2012 4:49 PM:

  Having spent years demonizing the poor for not earning enough to pay income taxes it is going to be embarrassing for the Republican candidate to be revealed as one who did not have enough earned income to pay income taxes.
  Particularly when he is advocating a tax plan that would reduce his taxes even further and increase those of the poor.

• Skip on August 08, 2012 4:50 PM:

  Thanks, Harry. You've made us Democrats take a hard look at where our priorities are. I am proud to say seems like more than a few liberals want to step up the game.

  I don't blame them. It's been damn tiring, being the right's punching bag these past 20 years, their scapegoat, their unwilling cover. To be shat on over and over again by our own countrymen and women so they can pretend to be bringing back some past America that never existed.

  How do you protect America if our best voices turn out to be conscientious objectors? How do you win the war against lies and propaganda aimed directly at you, without throwing a few punches and defending what’s right? Harry threw a punch and I support him.

  We Democrats have principles, but who is listening over the din of the Republicans shredding our reputation and our governing body’s functionability and destroying what we honor. When is it time to lay aside the luxury of high ground and unequivocally take back and restore that which the Republicans have taken from us? I’m talking about our pride.
  
  

• TommyinVA on August 08, 2012 5:05 PM:

  It is sad indeed , that during the most astonishingly dishonest campaign ever waged for the US presidency, that Drum and Kilgore are more concerned with maintaining there privaledged status within the cocktail weenie circuit.

• punaise on August 08, 2012 5:25 PM:

  Harry damn well better not be bluffing, that's all I can say. Based on his digging in, I tend to suspect he's got the goods.

• Doug on August 08, 2012 7:15 PM:

  Seems to me the question should be: Why does Kevin Drum NOT believe Senator Reid. What does Mr. Drum know about Romney's tax returns that the Senator from Nevada doesn't?
  Inquiring minds and all...

• Anonymous on August 08, 2012 7:15 PM:

  Aside from the question of wandering into a moral swamp where facts lose all meaning, if he is lying, it would be very foolish strategically. If Romney released his taxes tomorrow, and the worst was offshore accounts, what Romney will appear justly aggrieved and the Dems like outrageous smear merchants.

  Look how Trump's accusations blew up in his face when the BC was released, on the other hand look how Bush came off like a victim of false accusers over one doctored document when there remained a mountain of evidence that he screwed off from the NG.

• lb 22 on August 08, 2012 7:18 PM:

  Aside from the question of wandering into a moral swamp where facts lose all meaning, if he is lying, it would be very foolish strategically. If Romney released his taxes tomorrow, and the worst was offshore accounts, what was previously scandalous will seem mild, and Romney will appear justly aggrieved and the Dems like outrageous smear merchants.

  Look how Trump's accusations blew up in his face when the BC was released, on the other hand look how Bush came off like a victim of false accusers over one doctored document when there remained a mountain of evidence that he screwed off from the NG.

• Col Bat Guano on August 08, 2012 7:36 PM:

  Both Ed Kevin Drum pull the same stunt. First they denounce Harry Reid for his horrible lie which drags all good and pure Democrats into the mud and when it's pointed out they have no proof Reid is lying, they say, well he could be and if he is then we should condemn him. But your posts are already condemning him! You have jumped so quickly on the purity train that you left your credibility pants behind

• Dave on August 08, 2012 9:29 PM:

  Here's the big point for me: it's not like Reid accused Romney of some absurd thing like smuggling cocaine. He accused (rather, passed along an accusation) Romney of something that Mitt himself has admitted that he would gladly do. Romney has unabashedly stated that he pays as little tax as allowed by law, presumably that includes zero. Reid merely suggests that it has happened. Some experts have pointed out ways that it is entirely possible. This is quite another matter compared to the usual, seemingly spurious allegation.

• N.Wells on August 08, 2012 10:20 PM:

  Romney lies and lies and lies, whether he needs to or not. He also has a huge amount of money and he is being very cagey with all related details, not limited to his taxes. There's no hint of corruption or illegality, but he clearly pushes to get the maximum benefit for himself out of every situation, and isn't adverse to stripping pension funds, trashing companies to strip assets, and stiffing creditors, taxpayers, employees, and anyone in the vicinity to maximize his own profits. To someone of his wealth there are a huge number of options for legally paying insanely low levels of taxes. So given his unwillingness to cough up details, we can assume that there's embarrassing stuff in there. At this point it becomes irresponsible not to speculate, if only to punish him for trying to get away with limited disclosure.

  From Reid's side of things, he hasn't charged anything illegal or even unlikely. His later clarifications that he'd heard ten years and that it came from someone at Bain would seem pointless as a lie: "someone at Bain" seemingly adds plausibility but "ten years" doesn't, and he could have got exactly the same mileage out of saying, "I heard this rumor, so why doesn't Romney just release his tax returns and put all this stuff to rest if it's untrue?"

  In short, Democrats should get off Reid's case and echo him in asking, "What's Romney got to hide? Why won't he live up to standard releases of tax returns?"

• Peter C on August 08, 2012 10:30 PM:

  Thought experiment: what if everything Reid says is true? What if a Bain executive approached him in confidence with solid assurances that Romney paid no income tax? What should Reid do? Should he refuse to say anything since he had not been authorized to disclose his source's name? Should he disclose his source and voilate that consequence? Should he refuse to speak because the allegation had no proof (and could have no proof barring the sort of tax return disclosure which is commonplace these days)?

  Mitt and the Republican are proposing big tax cuts for multi-millionaires while Obama is proposing a tax hike on the wealthy. The issue is a valid one. Mitt is especially vulnerable since he personifies the very wealthy and his proposals benefit him personally.

  I think Reid is telling the truth. I believe he has spoken with a Bain official who has reason to know at least the overall character of Mitt's tax avoidance. I think it is likely that Reid agreed not to disclose his name.

  In this circumstance, I think I wouldn't want Reid to remain silent.

• Peter C on August 08, 2012 10:48 PM:

  I will be happy to condemn anyone 'making stuff up' when it is shown that they have. At this point, there are only assertions that Reid has made stuff up; there is no evidence that he has.

  And, what about Mitt's "put up or shut up" nonsense? Put up WHAT??? The name of Reid's source? So they can exact their revenge on him/her? The only one with dispositive proof on the question is Romney himself, and he's refused to 'put up'.

  I don't want Reid to disclose his source; if the source comes forward themselves, that's fine. But Reid assertion is only that he was told something he found credible. I have no reason to disbelieve that.

• James M on August 09, 2012 2:50 AM:

  I too think that T2 nailed it in his first post. Also, I would like to join Peter C in his 'thought experiment'. I think there is an excellent chance that Harry Reid is actually telling the truth, or at least something close enough to the truth that he can't be accused of 'simply making stuff up'.

  The reason is that is that Harry Reid is the Majority Leader of the Senate, still a pretty big deal even in this jaded day and age, and he made his claims on the Senate floor. Even if you think that Sen. Reid is a lying slime ball (and I don't) I have never heard him referred to as a idiot, and he has to know there is some chance that Mitt might actually be forced to release his returns. If this accusation were made of whole cloth, Mr. Reid, as a commenter above has noted, would lose all integrity.

  What I think likely happened is that someone associated with Mr. Romney did indeed tell Harry Reid that there was something so horrible in the candidate's tax returns that he could NEVER release them: maybe nothing illegal in any strict sense but something that would be seen as so 'rude, crude, and socially unacceptable' by the vast majority of U.S. voters that it would instantly destroy Mr. Romney's candidacy. Unless Sen Reid knew that the taxes contained such a bombshell, how could he make (and then double down) on such an inflammatory statement?

  Actually, what I find most interesting about this is that assuming Harry told the truth (and why shouldn't we as fellow Democrats?) it means that someone who should ostensibly be on Mr. Romney's side flipped and handed Harry the equivalent of a tactical nuclear device he could hurl at the Romney campaign. What could have made him/her do that?

• S_noe on August 09, 2012 11:59 AM:

  I reluctantly second the pearl-clutching for one simple reason: I think it's really unlikely that Romney paid no [income] taxes for ten years, which is what Reid says he was told. (I'm inserting the "income" because of the context - I.e., Romney's secret tax returns. He must have paid sales taxes etc., but that's nit-picking.)

  I'm sure there's all kinds of awful, off-putting stuff in his returns, but ten years of ZERO? I'd be fine with Reid putting forward a plausible claim using hearsay (assuming he's telling the truth about his source), but because the claim is so implausible, it really does take the tactic into show-us-your-birth certificate territory, as I see it. I have an ethical problem with an almost-certainly-false claim like that being made against an opponent, no matter how much the other side does it.

  Pragmatically, it gives Romney a bit more space to blow the whole thing off as not worth refuting, just because it's so unlikely to be (totally) true. (Or even mostly true, if you take the ZERO part as the notable part of the assertion - so, if Romney paid zero taxes over 6 years, the claim is mostly true.)

  tl;dr: I think Reid's source's assertion is exaggerated to the point of implausibility, and that Reid should have known better than to repeat it in its unvarnished form, for pragmatic and ethical reasons. (Taking Reid at his word about what he was told.)

  
  (I guess it's plausible that Romney practiced total income tax avoidance during SOME multi-year period long ago, before he gave a hoot about keeping up appearances? Maybe that's possible for rich executives with aggressive accountants. But he's been running for office for a long time, for gosh sakes :) - it seems really unlikely that he did what Reid is alleging recently enough that releasing the 10-12 years that's standard for candidates would prove Reid even mostly right.

  That said, I do my own taxes, and could be totally naive about how prevalent zero-tax-payment is among the uber-rich. But I see a lot of Reid defenders eliding the zero-tax-for-ten-years claim into something less sinister when they say Reid might be telling the truth, or think he's telling the truth.)

From the Blogs

Ten Miles Square

• Is Nuclear Winter Coming to the Senate this Summer? By Sarah Binder 05/20/2013 11:20 AM
• The Relevance of Statisticians to Researchers in Different fields of Social Science By Andrew Gelman 05/20/2013 11:14 AM
• Reform After the IRS Scandal? Don’t Bet on It. By John Sides 05/20/2013 11:06 AM

College Guide

• Fashion College, for Fun and Profit (and Just for Fun and Profit) By Daniel Luzer 05/20/2013 2:25 PM
• College Enrollment Declines, and That’s a Good Thing By Daniel Luzer 05/20/2013 1:59 PM
• The Importance of What You Measure By Daniel Luzer 05/17/2013 2:42 PM

Tilting at Windmills

• In praise of better government … Welfare for the Rockefellers … Whatever happened to truth in labeling?
• McCruzyism … Too big to jail … Wake up, Democrats
• Petraus’s demands … Fox News’s GOP ambitions … Washington’s merry-go-round

Get Your Free Interactive College Guide

Online or Mobile
Where does your school rank?
 

Follow WaMo

Facebook "Like" our Facebook Fan page.

Twitter Click to see a list of our Twitter feeds.