Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had been getting pummeled reasonably hard for his recent, undocumented assertion that an anonymous Bain Capital investor told him that Mitt Romney “didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years”.
So who’s the political genius who decided the Romney campaign’s response would come from the candidate himself, and the response would be in the form of Mitt Romney going on Sean Hannity’s radio show challenging Reid to “put up or shut up”?
This seems wrong in so many ways:
- Reid was already getting hammered by the media for his statement.
- Challenging Reid is a job for surrogates—Eric Fehrnstrom, Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman—not the candidate.
- Going on Sean Hannity’s radio show to attack Reid makes Romney look weak. Go on “Meet The Press”, or “The Rachel Maddow Show”, or the CBS Evening News if you want to look bold.
- Challenging Reid ensures the daily news coverage is about Romney’s tax returns, not about Obama’s economy.
But the biggest mistake was Romney’s “put up or shut up” line. That’s a line to use when an opponent has been repeatedly ducking an issue for weeks or months. Like, say, Mitt Romney releasing his tax returns.
Not surprisingly, Reid—an amateur boxer in his youth—relished the opportunity to respond to Romney. In a call to Nevada reporters Reid said, “I don’t think the burden should be on me. The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn’t he release his tax returns?”.
Reid’s not the one running for president. Reid’s not the one whose 2010 tax return revealed he paid income taxes at a low rate of 13.9%…and revealed his use of offshore accounts in tax havens like Bermuda, Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Reid’s not the one who’s been running for president for 7 1/2 years and has had all that time to “clean up” his personal finances. Reid’s not the one who has the documents that can lay this whole story to rest.
“Put up or shut up.” I do not think that phrase means what you think it means, Gov. Romney.
Crossposted at: http://masscommons.wordpress.com/
“Put up or shut up” is probably the best team Mitt can do to get him through the GOP convention as the nominee. Will maximize the Republican partisans victimhood MO. But in their guts they’ll know they’re nominating a loser.
True dat. But it’s such an unfortunate phrasing, innit? Because the blindingly obvious rejoinder is “Put up or shut up” right back at Romney. I lost count of how many cnn.com commenters, for just one example, addressed a variation on that to the Mittster. The longer he whines about the tax return issue but refuses to release them, the worse he looks to the general public, and the longer legs it gives the story.
It’s consistent with Mitt’s bullying style. He reminds me more of the white guy “libertarians” than any other GOP demographic. The demographic that he’s fared worse with than the fundies.
You’re correct that whining about a story tends to keep the story more alive in the news than simply saying nothing. But pols view what to others looks like whining as efforts to put the story to bed. They do so because it’s effective with the MSM that bores quickly and moves on, particularly if the story is complex and/or lacks sex, drugs, etc. Mitt expects the tax return issue to die as it appeared to do for Theresa Kerry and Cindy McCain. Forgetting that they were the spouses and had not acquired their money from the candidates and Kerry and McCain lost. And bizarrely expecting his opponent to drop it.
I can’t wait for Mittens’ next rejoinder, “Senator, you just stop that or I’ll cut off what’s left of your hair!”
Or “Senator, stop displaying your envy over my wealth.”
The public and hence the MSM is interested in sex, drugs and money. Especially if the sex and money are illicit.
Tend to think that the MSM is more interested in sex and drugs than the general public. Seriously, do ordinary people care about Paris Hilton, etal?
Not many in the MSM have exhibited much curiosity much less done any work on the biggest financial scandals seen in this country and Europe in eighty years. So, would say that their interest in money is limited to how much of it they can personally get.
Ah, but Paris Hilton has money. Of course they don’t do the job on Corporate scandals, but they do do personal. i.e. Bernie Madoff and Michael Milken. More with Madoff because it was straight out fraud and misrepresentation which is easier to understand.