So, I just saw this on facebook
I'm not going to name the person who linked to it, mainly because I'm not trying to criticise him personally, but also because he's one of those facebook 'friends' I don't even really know. And that's also why I'm not taking this point to him directly.
Two very different approaches. And I'm not going to claim that the former represents all the left or the latter all the right. There are straw men being attacked from both sides as well as people engaging constructively. We'll only get more of the good debate if we demonstrate we want it.
The left says we need tighter gun laws. The right answers that criminals don't follow the law in the first place. The left replies that making it harder to get a gun will stop some criminals, even if not all of them.
The right says we need tighter border enforcement. The left answers, "Show me a ten-foot fence, I'll show you an eleven-foot ladder." The right replies that making it harder to sneak into the country will stop some illegal immigration, even if not all of it.
I simplify a bit by saying left and right, but this is probably a pretty good segmentation of society. Obviously, everyone is able to realize that an imperfect policy might still be desirable. If the choice is between accomplishing none of your objectives and some of them, you might as well take the partial win. Yet somehow, people still act as if, "Your suggested policy is imperfect" is a convincing argument.
There are other arguments to be made for these policies. Tighter gun laws may or may not reduce crime. Illegal immigration may or may not be beneficial for citizens. Let's engage at that level.
We don't know how much Romney paid in taxes from 2000-2009, the period for which Harry Reid claims (without any evidence) that he paid none.
But we do have Romney's tax return for 2011. How much did he pay that year? $3,226,623.
And we have Romney's tax return for 2010. How much did he pay that year? $3,009,766.
That's a total of $6,236,389 over two years. That's a lot of money, more than most people will pay in their entire lives. And how much did Harry Reid pay during those two years? We don't know. He isn't releasing any of his own tax returns.
“I don't think the burden should be on me,” he said. “The burden should be on him. He's the one I've alleged has not paid any taxes.” --Harry Reid on his anonymously sourced claims about Mitt Romney's taxes. I don't disagree that's the standard that's taken hold in politics -- sling mud, see if it sticks, guilty until proven innocent. I'm just surprised to see the Senate Majority Leader acknowledging it so explicitly. This claim is as baseless and about as implausible as were claims about Obama's Kenyan birth. And in both cases the subject of the rumors could have put them to rest by releasing some documents but chose not to. Of course, there are some differences:
Obama would be legally ineligible for office if the rumors were true. Romney has disclosed everything legally required.
I suspect Romney does have 'something to hide'. My guess is that in 2008, possibly 2009 as well, massive capital losses as the market took a dive led to minimal, maybe even zero, tax paid. Legal, but not something most people would understand. By contrast, I could never figure out why Obama refused for so long to release all his birth records. He was probably just annoyed at the stupidity of it all. (This might also be a factor in Romney's decision.)
The birther claims were believed by a substantial minority of Republican voters (23% per Wikipedia) and several prominent commentators but no senior elected Republicans. (There was some innuendo from some fairly senior figures, e.g. Bachmann, Palin, and a few quotes attributed but denied.) The tax claims are being made by the Senate Majority Leader. (So far, the White House hasn't officially joined in, but they too have piled on the innuendo.)
Of course, the other difference is the degree to which one set of implausible claims was treated as proof of the intellectual degeneracy of the right while the other is treated as just smart politics. (Just to be clear, I think both situations are evidence of bipartisan degeneracy.)
People quote each other out of context sometimes. For campaigning politicians it's a pervasive tactic. This crosses party lines and national borders. The usual response is to complain and provide the full context, which is then ignored by supporters of the first politician, while they simultaneously complain "Your guy did it too... and worse!"
Which is why I thought the recent back-and-forth over Obama's "You didn't build that" was really interesting.
That line was part of a speech by the President in Roanoke on 13 July. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that -- somebody else made that happen." Opponents jumped on it -- Obama telling the Wright brothers "You didn't built that", "That Nobel prize, you didn't earn that", the most interesting man in the world saying "I don't always build it myself, but when I do, Obama says others made it happen", etc.
Obama supporters and staff objected, saying the quote had been taken out of context. Eventually, the President himself responded with the following ad. Have a look. He says he's been taken out of context and proceeds to expand his argument, but he doesn't actually provide any more context.
FAIR went a step further, not just claiming lack of context but actually headlining a story "You Didn't Build That -- or Say It". But say it he did. And who was more than happy to provide the full context? The American Future Fund, a conservative non-profit.
