Why the Democrats Need to Defend Mitt Romney Against Harry Reid
If you’re a Democrat who hates slander and McCarthy-style tactics for political advantage, then you have to call Reid out for lying about Romney’s taxes.
Here’s what I’d like to tell you: That Harry Reid is probably telling the truth when he says a little birdie told him Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes for years and years. That even if Harry Reid is lying, it’s OK, because Republicans say worse about Barack Obama. That even if Harry Reid is lying, it’s OK because Mitt hasn’t released his tax forms, so who knows what he’s hiding?
I’d like to tell you those things, because there’s part of me (and many liberals, I bet) that gets a brief, perverse pleasure watching Reid making evidence-free accusations against the GOP’s candidate for president. It’s nice to feel like our team is on offense for a change, right?
But here’s the problem: Reid’s allegations look and smell a lot like bullcrap.
Which means that Democrats have a choice: Stand with Reid and what appears to be a too-convenient falsehood for the sake of backing Romney into a corner? Or demand that their candidates and proxies try to adhere to objective, verifiable truth and some minimal standards of decency?
Read More: http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/08...
Top Opinion
-
BrianD3 2012/08/06 13:38:05
"replyEvil 1 to mich52 1 day ago Add+1 Reid is lying plain and simple"
Prove it or STFU moron.
Otherwise you're just another worthless troll looking to cause trouble..
Post your facts..
Post these facts you're talking about I can't find them.
LMAO @ a pathetic, lameass, hypocrite..
The only thing you should laugh at is yourself. But then again everyone else is doing that for you.
Recent example, in Missouri, a union official in St. Louis made an accusation to a state official (who had worked for the union prior to being appointed to state office) about a small outstate contractor.
Rather than doing a quiet investigation, that state official wrote letters accusing and implying the firm's guilt to other agencies with whom the firm had won contracts, strongly suggesting that those contracts be "terminated" or not signed.
No findings of guilt were ever found, and the firm finally got into court and did prove its innocence. However, that firm was stripped of over $1 million in contracts, many of its employees have lost their jobs, and its financial situation is perilous from all the legal fees. It is no longer able to compete in the market at the level where the union wanted them to be stopped.
Example two: a man who had run a small two person real estate sales office had lost his business due to a bank failure that led to the pulling of the note and foreclosure on a commercial project. As part of the bank's legal maneuvers, he was sued, b...
Recent example, in Missouri, a union official in St. Louis made an accusation to a state official (who had worked for the union prior to being appointed to state office) about a small outstate contractor.
Rather than doing a quiet investigation, that state official wrote letters accusing and implying the firm's guilt to other agencies with whom the firm had won contracts, strongly suggesting that those contracts be "terminated" or not signed.
No findings of guilt were ever found, and the firm finally got into court and did prove its innocence. However, that firm was stripped of over $1 million in contracts, many of its employees have lost their jobs, and its financial situation is perilous from all the legal fees. It is no longer able to compete in the market at the level where the union wanted them to be stopped.
Example two: a man who had run a small two person real estate sales office had lost his business due to a bank failure that led to the pulling of the note and foreclosure on a commercial project. As part of the bank's legal maneuvers, he was sued, but could not afford a lawyer and represented himself. He had a heart attack and needed heart surgery. A judge scheduled the hearing on the day after his surgery. An appeal, with a letter from his heart doctor, for a change in the hearing date was denied by the judge, who stated that, since he couldn't afford a lawyer to represent him, it was a waste of the court's time to hear his side of the case as he was going to lose anyway. The judge went ahead with the hearing as scheduled while he was in the hospital and issued a substantial judgment against the man, who was already in poverty.
Reid should be brought up on charges for making knowingly false accusations on the floor of congress while it's in session.