Why contempt for the media: False equivalence on Bain and Swift Boaters

Did Romney have involvement with Bain after 1999? The truth matters.

Back in 2000, George W. Bush made a discovery of enormous consequence: you could base a whole political campaign on claims that were flatly untrue, like the claim that your big tax cuts for the wealthy went to the middle class, or the claim that diverting Social Security funds into private accounts would strengthen the system's finances, and reporting would never point this out. That's when I formulated my doctrine that if Bush said the earth was flat, headlines would read Views Differ on Shape of Planet. - Paul Krugman

Proving Krugman right again today is Chris Cillizza:

The shoe has often been on the other foot.

Remember back to the 2004 presidential campaign where conservatives ' led by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ' effectively undermined Sen. John Kerry's (D) candidacy with a campaign that focused on attempting to discredit his military service in Vietnam.

Or to the 2002 Georgia Senate race when then Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R) ran ads featuring images of Sen. Max Cleland (D), a triple amputee, alongside those of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. [...]

Now, Democrats will insist that questioning Romney's business ties is different than questioning the military service of Vietnam veterans. But line-crossing is often in the eye of the beholder, and the aggressiveness Obama and his team have adopted is more important than the actual issue on which they have decided to fight.

This is horse race analysis of the worst sort. It does not even pretend to try and discover what the claims are or whether they are true. This is classic "views differ on the shape of the planet" coverage.

I can't speak for everyone, but my objections to the Swift Boaters was that they were liars, not that they were going after Kerry's service record. After all, like Romney and Bain, Kerry made his service a centerpiece of his campaign. If what the Swift Boaters claimed was true, and were not, in fact, lies, then no one could legitimately object. But their claims were not true. They were lies.

We know what Romney CLAIMS (at least now) about his supposed non-involvement in Bain between 1999 and 2002 and we also know there is a ton of documentary evidence, including sworn documents, that state that Romney was the CEO, chairman of the board, sole stockholder and was drawing a salary of at least $100K for his "service" to Bain. No one has seen Romney's tax returns for those years nor any minutes of Bain board meetings. At best, from the Romney perspective, the issue remains an open question. And the question is one Romney has the power to clarify. It is Romney who chooses not to answer the questions about Bain. It is Romney who has chosen not to release his tax returns. It is Romney who keeps the Bain issue going.  

The world is not flat because Republicans say so. The accuracy of the claims is more important than the decision to fight. Yet again we see why the media is held in such contempt.