McCain keeps getting more transparent!


Wasserman Schultz adds ten years to his greatness: For our money, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was less than great on Fox News Sunday this week.

But the analysts came right out of their chairs when she uttered the highlighted howlers. John Roberts served as guest host:
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (8/12/12): The bottom line is, I'd like to know how many years of tax returns did Mitt Romney review and ask Paul Ryan to give him when he was vetting him for vice president? And is he going to require the release of those tax returns?

Barack Obama and Joe Biden have released 12 years of tax returns. Mitt Romney has released one and a partial view of a second one. His own father—

ROBERTS: John McCain released two.

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: His own father— No, John McCain released more than, released about 12 years of tax returns.

ROBERTS: John Kerry didn't release his wife's tax returns. I mean, you can make a lot of arguments what is appropriate in terms of—

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Spouses are not running for president. The major— Mitt Romney is the first major party candidate for president of the United States in modern times not to release at least 12 years of tax returns. It's unacceptable.
Wow. Is it dimly possible that Wasserman Schultz still believed the things she said? (We suppose it pretty much is.)

Roberts was right on the facts. In 2008, Candidate McCain released two years of tax returns. His wife released no full returns, although the family’s extensive wealth was contained in her returns. Candidate Palin also released two years of tax returns.

McCain released two years of tax returns. Is there any chance that Wasserman Schultz still didn’t know that fact?

As recently as a month ago, Tom Schaller (the analysts call him Terrific) said he couldn’t think of a major issue where our tribe is surfing fake facts.

We could think of several. Life in the tribe makes us blind.

(For PolitiFact’s review of that exchange, click here. Warning! The site is right on its facts.)


  1. The Real Unknown GregAugust 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM

    Oh, Bob.

    It's not that Wasserman Schultz was correct -- she was wrong.

    The point is, it doesn't matter.

    You should be focusing on the important falsehoods -- which are the ones propagated by the other tribe, of course.

    Bad, bad Somerby!

    1. "...important falsehoods ...."

      Who makes that determination?

      A problem with Democrats disseminating incorrect information is that it undercuts the false equivalency argument to the "everybody does it" claim.

    2. And it has the additional disadvantage of being not true.


    1. The Tax History site isn't perfect. For example, it does not include the 1975 return released by Carter during the 1976 campaign (one year only).

      It also omits the 1976 return which Carter released in 1977 as president, showing the he owed no tax.

  3. It's a shame, because all she had to say was that in the last 28 years, all but one other candidate -- a Republican, surprise, surprise -- has disclosed at least five years of returns -- and seven minimum after 1988.

    Of course, in political terms, what are the consequences of being wrong in detail but right in general thrust? Well, it keeps Romney's secrecy at the forefront of attention: "Whoops, my bad," says Wasserman, "there was one other candidate -- a Republican, surprise, surprise -- who didn't release at least five years. Or who disclosed less than seven years after the 1988 election. And none of them presented the tax issues that Romney does, like whether he paid any taxes in some years despite income of hundreds of millions of dollars, or avoiding U.S. taxes by hiding his money in offshore accounts, or advocating lower tax rates for the extremely wealthy. I apologize for my error, but the basic point remains."

    Something to be noted, corrected and perhaps criticized, but not something that should cause anyone to jump out of a chair, nor to justify a charge of "surfing in fake facts," i.e., lying deliberately -- unless all perspective has been lost in the pursuit of a specific narrative. Let's not forget, either, that while she should avoid factual mistakes as much as possible, it is Wasserman's job to promote one tribe over the other tribe. The tribes are in a formally declared and legally compelled war, and one will win and the other will lose. How does Wasserman's mistake compare, say, to the other tribe claiming, by a well-known and generally respected operative of that tribe, that Obama "stole $700 billion from the Medicare Trust Fund"? One is a mistake of nearly insignificant proportions, the other a committee-constructed and approved, and deliberately false, talking point

    1. "unless all perspective has been lost in the pursuit of a specific narrative."

      Bingo! Hard for some people to realize that they have become that which the claim to despise most.

  4. double punctuation guyAugust 15, 2012 at 4:52 PM

    Requiring our side to tell the truth is tantamount to making us abide by Marquess of Queensbury rules!! Why do you want Romney to win, Bob??

    1. The Real Unknown GregAugust 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM


    2. Requiring "our side" to tell the truth? Oh good grief! Nice try.

      But what Somerby does is apply a standard of absolute, unattainable perfection with the goal posts moving every day, then parses two primary sources -- MSNBC and the NYT -- for daily sins against his ever-shifting standards while proclaiming the loss of campaigns and the end of Western Civilization because they were uttered in the manner that didn't suit him.

    3. "What Somerby does is..."

      Insert your own hallucination here!

      Unparseable grammar a plus!