Burden of proof

 “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.)