Rachel Maddow deconstructs the decades old pattern of Mitt Romney’s dance over his tax returns. I’m not a big fan of Maddow’s style — I find it grating — but that’s irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that this is thorough and analytical journalism. It tells a story and gives complete historical context for this ongoing conflict about Romney and His Taxes.
As it turns out Romney and his people lied, there’s no other word for it, about his filing as a Mass. resident when he was running for Governor there. They lied about it right up until the last minute, then ended up filing an amended return to maintain his eligibility to run for that office. They lied about it in exactly the same terms as they are now using —basically “trust us” — to defend against today’s accusations of Romney’s tax history.
In addition to all that, all the attacks now leveled at Romney, about which he is complaining, are exactly the kind of attacks he himself has used in past political campaigns against others;
He demanded that Kennedy release all his tax returns to “show the people what the biggest taxing Senator in Washington pays in taxes”.
He then went on to say that he (Romney) would release his own State and Federal tax returns “on the very day that Kennedy turns over his taxes for public scrutiny.”
Neither did, and Romney lost that race.
In his run for Governor, all his opponents released multiple years of returns, whereupon Romney switched his position, invoking Kennedy’s posture about a “right to privacy”, and declined to release his own, going so far as to try justifying his new position by taking an opponent to task for not releasing her husband’s tax returns (!!).
This is good journalism. It’s what journalism is supposed to be about. With luck you’ll find Maddow’s style less difficult than I do, but either way this is essential to watch.
Watch Romney’s responses. Watch his body language, the verbal tics, and tell me, a la Richard Nixon, if you’d buy a used car from that man. He’s lying. Again.
Ooops. Kind of hasty with the paste, wasn’t I. (A kind editor would delete that…)
Let’s try again:
***
Reid used up my goodwill toward him a long time ago; the last few drops of it went down the drain in the “9/11 Mosque” thing. But, in my inside-baseballish way, I have to admire the beauty of this move, purely on its technical merits (as Bob Costas would say when putting down some non-American athlete…) And it has technical merits that I, to my shame, would never has seen; it’s what’s called, admiringly, a “swindle” in chess, and it’s rare praise when that’s said.
Does Reid think his no-taxes-at-all charge could possibly be true? Of course he doesn’t. If anybody was lawyered up and fully accountanted when those returns were prepared, it would have been Mitt. The idea that he, of all people, would ever put his personal fortune at risk is simply too absurd to discuss.
But does Reid think his charge has legs? Hell yes he does, and he’s right (and I was way too dumb to see it…) He’s right because there are only two ways this can end.
One, Mitt stands firm and is seen, very publicly seen, to “punch down” and cover up (in the boxing sense, suggesting other senses…) This will hurt him. Really, really hurt him, and I don’t think he can afford to keep it up.
Two, then. Mitt releases a few years worth, proves he paid taxes, and tells us all how he just showed up Harry for the reckless liar he is. And gets a one or two day bounce for it, which lasts exactly as long as it takes somebody knowledgeable to analyze those returns and explain them on the news. From then on it will be, He made how much? From who? Doing what? And deducted what for what? And he wants to do what to my freaking taxes?
Now those will be legs. And Harry says, well what do you know, and goes back to being irrelevant, while a well-prepared chorus takes it up and makes sure we hear every damn detail over and over and over again.
So Harry gets this year’s Richard J. Daley Memorial I-Can’t-Stand-You-Comma-You-Sneaky-Crock-Of-Shit-But-Man-Was-That-A-Beautiful-Move award. Maybe this decade’s, because it’s been a long time since I handed one out.
Frank Bruni is scathing about Reid in the NYT – his argument is the “we shouldn’t be as bad as they are” one, which does have validity.
But tax returns are very important and to be honest I want to see more outrage on the part of the American people that Mitt feels he is just too damn important to release the same amount of information as anybody else.
It is arrogance on speed. In fact the whole campaign – incuding the major u-turns the candidate has made on really significant issues – is based on condescension to the American voter.
“This is good journalism. It’s what journalism is supposed to be about. With luck you’ll find Maddow’s style less difficult than I do, but either way this is essential to watch.”
This is exactly how I feel about Rachel. I admire her because she is smart and focussed and
really makes an effort to get things right. But her personal style is difficult.
I’ve only ever seen one other clip besides the above of Rachel Maddow, but I honestly don’t see what’s the problem with her style. Is it that she’s too “butch”? Would the style be as bothersome – difficult – if she were male? An honest question, I really do wonder.
Can’t agree, Elena. I don’t think it’s the amount of information but the information itself. Most pols make money in the ways we’d expect them to: book sales, speaker fees, partnerships in law firms they don’t really work for and, mostly, the usual blind trust or two. It usually adds up to a lot but it doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t know. Mitt’s returns would be quite a bit different.
Already, from one year’s return — a year in which he was already running for president — we know that he couldn’t pass up $77k for that horse. Think about it: he had to know that was 77 times what Joe and Mary Sixpack get for one of their kids, he had to know how he’d use information like that about any opponent he’d ever faced, and he went ahead and claimed it anyway. If there wasn’t a whole lot more where that came from, we’d have known all the details years ago.
Maybe it wouldn’t have mattered in some years. But it’s poison in a year when he simply has to sell the proposition that Obama is out to pauperize the wealth producers, is scapegoating people who are just like us except they’re forever picked on for their success, people who’ve been bled dry already and just can’t tolerate another pilfered nickel. That pitch can work in the abstract because everybody hates taxes, but never in the concrete.
Madame,
Right, There’s not much problem with her style when she really has something to say. But you get the same winking snark no matter what she’s got to back it up and that wears thin. Her favorite guest? Anna Marie Cox. They trade verbal tweets from one commercial to the next and man do they have a good time doing it.
Wow.
Just remembered how Maddow went all smarmy evangelical as soon as she got her own show. Used to like her when she was a guest among all the good old boys on MSNBC. But she’s now unwatchable: Bill O’Reilly unwatchable.
(Madame, for me it’s probably nothing more than the annoying embrace of cutesy irony in the service of propaganda: the irony is false, the cynicism is goal oriented and she’s not funny – or as smart as she thinks she is. I feel the same way about Bill Maher, who bores the snot out of me. Maddow’s smarter than Maher, but she’s just as wedded to a kind of celebrity that demands buffoonery. Anyway, it has nothing to do with sex or orientation or anything like that. It’s her embrace of Kardashian Kulture.)
Harry “Negro Dialect” Reid is the scum of the earth, but, yeah, he has a job to do. I don’t think any of this is going to matter in November.
I think I’ll be voting for Jill Stein. It’s too painful to vote for people I despise.
Okay, I think I get the style thing. Except for the very occasional clip on-line that someone’s linked to, I’ve not seen any of those TV talking heads, never even heard of Maddow until maybe a year or so ago. (Hadn’t heard of Kardashian either until fairly recently.) To me, she doesn’t seem any worse than any other of her ilk that I’ve seen a few minutes of here and there. None of them are particularly appealing, in my very limited experience.
I’ve completely given up NPR now because their “style” was driving me insane. Gunny, if the world comes to an end, I hope you’ll post about it here. Otherwise I might never know.
Good for you, Bim. I’ve heard that from a few people on various forums, they seem to like and respect her a lot. I don’t despise either Romney or Obama, but i can’t vote for either of them either.
Now i have no doubt that Mittens is definitely hiding things, and most likely lied as well. But i can’t seem to get worked up about it, i’m more concerned about what the current potus and his dodgy AG are hiding. Memos about drone strikes, Fast and Furious paperwork, finding the legal basis to produce 1+ million work permits from thin air, refusal to build any type of prosecutorial cases against financial fraudsters, etc. Things that many seem inclined to overlook, but would they still be inclined if it was the other dude making those decisions? Who knows, it may well be. And sure, Bush hid a lot too, with torture memos, among others. But i didn’t vote for Bush.
Bim,
Well, yeah. And there’s a reason for that, and it does have everything to do with Bill O and especially his shtick. After Jack Welch retired and any fool (except the fools at CNN) could see that Fox would become the unassailable niche-network, NBC made a business decision to become the anti-Fox. Probably they hoped for more market share than they got — hoped, that is, that all of us here would take to it the way the right takes to the real Fox — but they’re sticking with it anyway, at least for now. The “it” they’re sticking with being cheerleading with the occasionally useful fact thrown in. Because if it’s wrong to be Sean and Bill, then it must be right to be Sean and Bill for the other team.
In this way, Olbermann — a once-capable and enjoyable sportscaster; in other words, a pro who knows how to do what he’s paid for — became the anti-Beck, and lasted exactly as long as Beck himself did, whereupon he became an unredefinable embarrassment. And when Maddow joined that team, she joined that team.
I’m coming late to the conversation, but Nat, as usual, has cut to the quick at the top. Romeny really screwed himself up. He could have released his tax returns two years ago. If he had, by now he and his party would have figured out if was even possible to run for president with a set of tax returns like that hung round his neck.
Now no matter what he does he is going to have to eat shit pie until November. And no one wants to vote for a guy who is eating shit pie. It’s so…. undignified.
Bim, sorry cannot see how Maddow embraces “Kardashian Kulture”. Doestn’t ring true.
Cutesy irony, for sure.
Natasha, excellent excellent comments here.
Amy,
Thanks. I feel good about Jill Stein. Recently had a civilized argument with a close friend here in CA who said she’ll do anything to ensure Mitt doesn’t become president, meaning she’ll vote for Obama. I get that, but nonetheless feel that: a. it’s unlikely to make any electoral difference here in CA; and b. something needs to be done to give some hope to 3rd party candidates and those who are completely fed up with the Reids and Boehners and Axelrods and Corzines and Kennedys and Ryans and Roves and Bushes and Obamas of the world.
Bluth,
I’m not sure how badly Mitt “screwed himself up” here — not that this is an unscrewed place to be if you’re him, but that I’m not sure he could have avoided it two years ago.
Before he could get himself into this he had to get nominated, and that didn’t always seem like the slam dunk it turn out to be. Imagine how even the Presidential Idol we got might have turned out if Newt and Frothy could have gone significantly more populist on him than they did. (That’s not the kind of rich person we admire in this country…) Now pretend that Goodhair had turned out to be the heavyweight everyone expected: imagine that paragon nailing the hoity-toity Massachusetts elitist plutocrat every morning and the Mormon headline-buyer every afternoon. Facing that, I don’t see Mitt doing anything but trying to play our slightly better off neighbor like he did.
But you’re dead right about what the GOP should have done back then, and by “back then” I mean while they could still have anointed a Pawlenty or such, and by “they” I mean the pros who actually try to win national elections (Karl and all) not the ones who make a living out of being leaders-of-the-powerless-forsaken. They could have explained the price of poker before the dealing started and they had to go all in for one guy. I think that’s where the kool aid got drunk, and now it’s far too late to spit it out again.
Natasha,
Well said (of course) – the FOX/MSNBC remarks. I’m just bound to be frustrated, which is why I’ve basically quit TV. I’ve never believed in the value of American journalism, including the TV variety. It is by definition a least-common-denominator activity. Even the old-style stuff, with its pretense of prudence, dignity and measured intelligence, drives me nuts. No pining away here for the Golden Shower age of American journalism.
As crazy and uneven as it is, Pacifica Radio is about the only thing that doesn’t set me off. But even that would be easier to take if I had more of a conspiracy-theorist bent.
Elena,
A bit of hyperbole, no doubt, but it’s mostly just a way of saying that Maddow’s relationship to GE is not unlike Kim K’s relationship to E!
I don’t know. Maybe it’s possible to claim to hate something while embracing it, participating in it, promoting it. We all do this to some extent, but some do it more shamelessly than others. As I’ve always said, I liked Maddow – a lot actually – until she became a rather typical corporatist.
This isn’t to say I wouldn’t do it if given the chance, but no one’s offering.
I’m liking Stein also, and to my eye she’s the only marginally palatable menu item.
However Colorado is, supposedly, a swing state.
So depending on the Colorado polls in October/November, I might feel the need to go with the least unpalatable option that actually contributes to preventing a President Romney.
Like Bim’s friend, I’d hate to think I helped that grotesque little prick in any way at all.
Either way, a wretched situation.
On Maddow’s style; for me it’s simply a matter of overwrought and snarky theatrics in the presentation. I’m pretty sure it’s not gender/orientation based at all, and certainly nothing to do with being “butch” or any of that. I don’t even think of her as being butch, especially, and compared to the usual airbrushed and minutely groomed alternatives she’s actually rather refreshing from that perspective.
But then I married, and happily, a woman who changed the oil and filter in her own pickup truck and enjoys our trips gathering firewood, so there’s that, too.
It’s like the old biker/Hell’s Angel saying about appearances; “chrome won’t get you home.”
Bim -
In a perfect world i’d probably be voting for the likes of Jill Stein. Or even better, Bernie Sanders. I certainly put the longevity and health of the planet overall ahead of that of the people on it. Problem for me is twofold – the Greens tend to be a bit more socialistic than i can personally support (contradiction – Bernie? Bernie just flat out makes sense. He’s not a la la left wingnut.) Also – Jill has no experience and no backup. Not a chance in hell of seeing anything passed in congress. What i’d like to see – more green candidates at the state and local level. If she gets enough votes to get that going, then excellent.
Problem with third parties is the wingnut and purity factions. I’d like to see a green party approach the environmental issues from a free market perspective, and without Rosanne Barr. I’d like to see libertarians get over the purity stipulation (which is rich, considering Paul deconstructed is as pure as my left bollock). The plusses for the libertarian candidate for me are that there’s some concession to reality, which both the D’s and R’s refuse to deal with. Which is – we have deadly serious deficit problems, problems funding entitlements, many millions of folks not here legally, the financial costs of whom are essentially ignored by the other parties. And they’re not going to stop coming – we have a huge influx on deck from south and central America. The libertarian candidate has experience, and a decent chance of getting legislation passed, drawing from both the D’s and R’s depending on the issue. Also huge for me too – slashing the defense budget. And the weed legalization – not that i give a personal shit about weed, but freeing up the courts, prisons, and making some inroads towards ending the war on drugs.
What i’d like to hear more from them about – how exactly they expect the health care system to work – i’ve only heard sketches. If you want to get rid of the IRS and income tax, and tax only consumption, well, there needs to be a lot more specifics on that, and some numbers. If you want open borders, what is that going to do for social costs, and to the environment.
But what’s good about Gary and Jill, and what Gary has been saying – we need to open up new ideas for discussion. It’s not going to happen with the media and party lackeys we have now.
btw, if Squirrel shows up -
o / t but an interesting Graun article about journalism. Interesting comments too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/05/nick-cohen-cheating-authors-journalists
Gunny, you know that I know that you don’t have a problem with lack of chrome. I just wondered if the antipathy to her style might be an unconscious reaction (and not specifically yours but just in general) to a female who looks (to me anyway, from what little I’ve seen) quite different from other women in what I understand is called infotainment. Though I’d think it would put women off more than men, for some reason.
MM
No, I don’t think it’s primarily a visual issue at all.
On the odd occasions, in a motel or somewhere, when I’ve been where a TV was operating, I have found her to be every bit as irritating when just listening, as from the bathroom, say.
I do think she’s doing worthwhile work, and she’s pretty meticulous when it comes to accuracy.
Gunny –– It’s good to know someone’s doing worthwhile and meticulous work, because my main source of “news,” NPR, has become utter crap. Dumbed down and apparently working under the assumption that everything, even the most serious news stories, must be entertaining. The last straw was some asshole news program host laughing at his own “witticisms” over Libor. Haven’t turned it on since. Late at night I turn on the BBC World Service, but even it’s become strange – more like NPR! Egad.
OK, I turned up . . .
Dunno, really; AFAIK Hari didn’t actually invent anything spurious: I thought he used quotes/statements that had actually been made . . .just not to him. If I’m right about that, he was just being crap about attributing his sources to boost his own reputation, and of course, that’s fucked now.
Ditto Figes; again, AFAIK, he didn’t actually invent anything, just didn’t attribute it, or, if I remember rightly, misread/misunderstood some of his sources, which, in an academic, is even worse. Should have thought his academic reputation’s fucked as well. Mind you, never liked him; always thought he was one of those charlatan historians that’ve been cropping up the last few years, who I suspect strongly have been furiously plagiarising their graduate students’ research for much of the last ten years, turning it into pop history and getting themselves on the telly.
No names for the other two. . .but I think you can guess. . .Simon says Deniall ain’t just a river in Egypt . . .I’m waiting for those two to get their comeuppance.
None of that’s new; the classic example of this kind of thing 30 years ago or so was A. L. Rowse. Everybody in the academic community knew about it, and the only research students he had were social crawlers (he knew a lot of Dukes and Duchesses and so on, and made sure they all got fawning mentions for letting him have weekends in posh places, god it was sick); but he stayed an Oxford Fellow till he died.
There was actually a play on Radio 4 a few years back that blew the gaff, I presumed written by one of his few research students who’d a) had his research misdirected, stolen, and got totally screwed as a result. And who Rowse had wanted to screw, as well . . .He was persona non grata where I was a postgrad, thank god.
I had enough trouble then fending off predatory pensioner queers as it was — must have been the shoulder-length squirrel fur or something that got them going — without being pestered by him as well. (Something about ageing Oxbridge queers: their pickup lines were absolutely awful. Might have been a kept squirrel, if only I could have stopped myself giggling every time.) I actually did need something from him once, but was warned not to accept any invitations to pop over to Oxford for the weekend . . .I thought that was a bit extreme, but he did try it on, I took the advice, and never did get it.
Did you see that graun piece by Hari that one of the commenters linked to? About the neo-nazi Hari says he slept with, and and the radical Islamist he picked up in Finsbury mosque? If you believe that, can i offer you a bridge in Brooklyn?
I think Cohen’s point too, besides the journalistic fraud, was the making up of sock puppet identies as well. In Hari’s case, to alter the Wikipedia entries of other people (I do remember Polly T being one of them i think, and Monbiot). In the other guy’s case, it was on social media and Amazon reviews.
As to Figes – I remember a kerfuffle in the Graun awhile ago, i believe he had some dodginess going on with Amazon too…
Here we go –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Figes#Controversy_over_Amazon_reviews
Actually i’m stumped and clueless there.
But i did catch the post about a certain journalist-cum-mayor who got canned from a paper for making up a quote….
Oh shit, I’d forgotten about all the fakery like that. (Must admit, since I’m not interested in any of them, I probably didn’t pay enough attention.)
I only read relatively modern historians/biographers like I read detective stories. Don’t take them seriously. In a way, I quite like the current ‘entertaining’ style, but academically, they’re usually crap. (Don’t care how many primary sources they list in their bibliographies, when I know something about the period or the subject, I never see much evidence they haven’t mostly just lifted them from earlier and more seriously academic writers.)
Porn, one at least must be Nial Ferguson. About overhyped know-nothing windbag ‘historian’ on the planet these days.
Ok, i get it. The other is Simon Schama.
Haven’t read either of them, but isn’t Ferguson the guy who said how good the empire was for the likes of India and Africa?
Yes, and yes, porn.
Instead of doing the hard work of a proper historian, Ferguson, who is, one has to admit, a competent number cruncher, discovered it was much easier to play the neo-con pundit game and has made himself rich and famous by taking extreme positions which he never even attempts any longer to defend with any rigour. You could heat and light a large northern metropolis on his self-regard alone.
The other’s Simon Schama.
Elena -
Bad news for Farheed Zakaria.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fareed-zakaria-suspended-by-cnn-time-for-plagiarism/2012/08/10/f6315e96-e335-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html