The first thing you need to know is that everything Mitt Romney is obligated by law to reveal about his finances he has revealed.
That's a fact.
A fact the likes of Politico's Alexander Burns (remember him) and the Washington Post's Greg Sargent leave out of their concern-trolling over what this Vanity Fair article written by Nicholas Shaxson just might mean for Mitt Romney.
WaPo:
Dems are circulating the magazine’s deep dive into Romney’s offshore accounts, tax loopholes, and carried interest. The article suggests that Romney is the poster boy for a kind of financial behavior that pushes the boundaries into “murky” and “gray” areas — words the article uses frequently — and sketches out the degree to which the Romney camp has not been forthcoming about the details of his financial holdings.
The Obama camp will use this to continue raising questions about Romney’s commitment to the middle class and whose interests he’d really represent as president..
Politico:
One of the themes of the VF piece is that while we know how Romney characterizes his finances and his taxes — Romney says he doesn't dodge U.S. taxes and operates his money within the bounds of the law — there's not enough information available to verify that publicly.
You can see exactly where this is headed, right?.
Though both Politico and the Post lie through the act of omission by not telling their readers Romney has complied 100% with financial disclosure requirements, what both are doing here (and you can expect the rest of the media to pile on) is laying the foundation for a media-narrative that will demand more disclosure from Romney. The tactic is an old one, for the media knows that the simple act of demanding this kind of information is in and of itself a way of making Romney look slippery and dishonest -- you know, like a rich jerk with something to hide -- which is exactly how the Obama campaign (and therefore Politico and the Washington Post) intend to define Romney.
There's no evidence of any wrongdoing on Romney's part in the Vanity Fair piece, just a lot of innuendo using words such as "murky" and "unsettling." Words the media never used after it was revealed the Obamas purchased their million dollar home with the "murky" help of Tony Rezko, who is now a convicted felon.
Moreover, once again we learn that both Politico and the Post are coordinating with the Obama campaign, which had a conference call today with reporters about -- you guessed it -- this very issue:
On a press conference call today, Obama for America National Press Secretary Ben LaBolt addressed the serious questions raised by Vanity Fair about the secrecy surrounding Mitt Romney’s finances.
What a good little lapdog media.
Something else the Post, Politico and the rest of the media won’t tell you is that the narrative foundation being laid here is being done so by a hardcore leftist and supporter of the Occupy movement, Vanity Fair's Shaxson.
Shaxson edits the "Tax Justice Network" newsletter, which is proudly affiliated with the Occupy groups in the United Kingdom.
Shaxson is a finalist for a UK award celebrating "radical left-wing writing."
Here are just a few posts in which Shaxson gushes over the Occupy movement: Here, here, here, and here.
Politico and the Washington Post and the rest of the media are so desperate to take Romney down for Obama, that they will lie through omission about Romney's full compliance with the already stringent financial disclosure requirements and not disclose the radical leftist political agenda of the author behind the article being used to smear Romney.
The media is already allowing Obama to openly lie about Romney's outsourcing. Now the media will use this tripe to -- without a shred of evidence -- seek to complete the Obama campaign's agenda to define Romney as a dishonest, slippery, scary rich guy.
You wait. This dishonest narrative is coming. What we're seeing today is Politico and the Washington Post coordinating with the Obama campaign to lay the pipe for more lies and more distractions from Obama's failed economy.
Politico and Washington Post aren't biased.
They're journalistic villains.
Big difference.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC
No comments:
Post a Comment