"Harry Reid recently sallied forth with a series of attacks on Mitt Romney that had the desired effect. It created headlines. It stirred up the anti-Romney base of the Democratic Party. And it really irritated the Romney camp."
"It has produced waves of condemnation because of the unsubstantiated assertions that Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade. Reince Preibus, head of the Republican National Committee, called Reid "a dirty liar." Democrats responded that this was a problem Romney brought on himself. All he would have to do is release his tax returns to end the dust-up."
"But of course, this is one dust-up that will never end. Because in modern politics it seems the goal is to constantly find ways to smear the opposition, facts and decency be damned. That's the reason the birther lie endures. That's the reason that John Kerry, whose military service was distinguished, could be besmirched by the "swift boaters" and a host of political opponents who hadn't anything like his record of service. And because both sides do it to one another, it is considered to be fair play."
Yes, this sanctimonious little hit piece was published at David Brooks TV-I mean CNN. Lately, CNN has come to define itself as what it's not. It's not MSNBC and it's not FOX, so this proves-it tells itself-that this means they're on the side of angels.
All CNN really lives for now is to prove that they're non-partisan. Fine, being non-partisan is one thing. Getting your facts right is another. CNN chooses the former. If it tut-tuts and declares that both sides need to behave themselves, it feels it's provided us good journalism. It's sorry ratings might suggest a different story, but, a la Dick Morris, it doesn't let failure shut it up.
"Support his policies or oppose them, no one is for one minute suggesting that Mitt Romney did anything other than obey the tax laws of the United States. The reason that Democrats want to see the tax returns is not because they think he did something wrong but because he did something that might look unseemly. Like he was a rich guy taking advantage of loopholes. That virtually anyone in his position would do so is irrelevant. It's all about the smear."
Actually, that's not necessarily true. We don't know if he did anything illegal or not as he hasn't actually released his taxes-that's the whole point. It seems too complicated to get such serious people as those at David Brooks TV to get that.
I don't get how all these people at the Washington Post, CNN, David Brooks, and Politifact, knows that Romney did nothing illegal much less knows that he never missed a year in taxes.
While none of them can mention Harry Reid's name anymore without adding the predicate "unsubstantiated" no one seems to consider that Romney's insistence that he "payed taxes, lots and lots of taxes" is also entirely unsubstantiated as are all the journalists like Rothkopf who insist on accusing Reid of a smear.
Now no self-righteous missive like Rothkopf's is complete without some nice concern-trolling thrown into the mix:
"I have voted Democrat all my life. I served in the Clinton administration and worked for a Democratic congressman on Capitol Hill. I will vote for President Obama. But I deplore these tactics."
Great, more unsubstantiated claims. We're supposed to agree because he claims to be an Obama supporter. Whether this is true or not really doesn't matter. His logic in this piece at least, is AWOL.
Anyway, this doesn't sound like an Obama supporter to me-at least not a very logical one:
"When the Obama team systematically goes after Romney for his business background, it makes sense as a political tactic, but it reveals deep insecurity about his case for re-election and it alienates the business community unnecessarily. As my old boss, the late Ron Brown, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, used to say, "You can't be for jobs and against the people who create them."
Who exactly creates jobs? Mitt Romney? He's provided no proof of this. Note how, while this fellow claims he's an Obama supporter, if the Obama campaign were to follow his anemic, punchless narrative, they'd be stuck in the trap Clinton got himself in when he did everything but endorse him, calling his business career "stellar" and that Romney definitely "meets the qualifications threshold to be President."
Of course, when Clinton said this, the Republicans oohed and aaahed, but it sure isn't much of a strategy if your goal is to beat Romney, rather than take him out to dinner.
Since then, the President has had too very good months and today's polls provided yet more indication that Romney is indeed floundering. He now trails by 7 in today's Reuters poll after a Pew Research Poll showed him 10 back.
And Obama has achieved all this without listening to Rothkopf or even David Brooks. Speaking over Mr. Sensible Center, listen to Rothkopf channel Brooks:
"America is facing unprecedented challenges. Our economy doesn't work the way it once did. It is growing more slowly. It is rebounding from crisis more slowly. It is not creating jobs as it has. It is not creating wealth for the population at large the way it used to. Inequality is growing. Our competitiveness is faltering even as competition is growing. Yet we have great opportunities before us."
"A new energy mix can free us of dependency on dangerous nations, create jobs and a cleaner environment at home. Our economy is well poised to lead a "Third Industrial Revolution," driven by high value-added manufacturing in which intellectual capital, the kind we create especially well, is the critical input. We protect that capital better than many of our competitors, too."
"We're in a position to remake our infrastructure, as must be done thanks to very low interest rates, if only we could come to understand the difference between spending and investing. We need to rethink our convoluted tax structure, our broken fiscal system, our corrupt campaign finance system and the way we defend ourselves and project our force worldwide. It is beyond arguing that we need to do something about gun control in this country."
"These are great issues calling for serious debate. And we actually have two candidates for president who are credible, serious men. But they are running a campaign that has the sensibilities and IQ of a typical middle school student council election. With the values of an episode of "Real Housewives" or "Big Brother."
This is all the concern trolling that you could hope to see in any Brooks post. As if he actually gives a damn about jobs, much less really wants a serious debate. Indeed as Krugman has argued, using personal attacks on Romney to make a larger point about policy has been very successful.
"The point is that talking about Mr. Romney’s personal history isn’t a diversion from substantive policy discussion. On the contrary, in a political and media environment strongly biased against substance, talking about Bain and offshore accounts is the only way to bring the real policy issues into focus. And we should applaud, not condemn, the Obama campaign for standing up to the tut-tutters."
I bet it really kills David Brooks to see that Americans now have more trust in the President to handle the economy than Mr. I Understand the Economy Because I Worked at Bain.
No comments:
Post a Comment