I rarely disagree with John Stewart, but in this case I have to make an exception. In fact, I disagree with the whole meme that Harry Reids accusations are "below the belt" or somehow "not worthy of the political debate." Why? I would ask. This isnt like the "I dont believe the state of Hawaii short form" stuff. Rmoney has repeatedly had problems with tax evasion - such as the Utah/Mass residency issue that somehow went away because "he doesnt read what he signs." As Reid pointed out today, the level of disclosure we have gotten from Rmoney has been insufficient to be confirmed into nearly any cabinet position - and this guy wants to be president!
But there is more to it than just the fact that Rmoney has practically dared anyone to question his financial affairs. And, by the way, he has dared us. He is uber-rich, and that is enough. No one need know how that came to be or what kind of steward of those resources he has been. And, no matter what he says, the fact that he has been allowed to be a steward of tremendous wealth has been as much blessing as perseverance. Not everyone gets to "keep what they kill." Rmoney is fortunate to have been the recipient of great power and money. With that comes some responsibility to realize your good fortune.
But, according to Rmoney, no one is entitled to know anything about what he has thought of his role in American society before the election cycle. That is of course the very point of us needing to know. Any of us can sound like American loving, concerned citizens for a little while, but what did this person's role as a citizen of this country look like while he wasnt trying. Apparently it wasnt too flattering. Pres. Obama worked as a community organizer, activist, etc. (yes worked - lets not disrespect those in public service by demeaning the hard work that goes into it) While many see this as "not holding down a real job" I think it says that he was concerned about the state and nature of our republic, and the way in which all Americans partake of our economy, our wealth, and our freedoms. Rmoney has done the opposite. Making himself Rich (er) - asking what his country can do for him, not what he could do for his country. And he has done this by sending jobs overseas, avoiding taxes that would have lowered this wealth by only a few percent but helped us grow as a nation, and by lying on those tax returns for political gain in his governor bid. SO yes, the metal of the man is best shown when he DOESNT think anyone will catch him, or will even notice. Compare the two, I like who we have (but I digress). So point 1: we DO have the right and need to know these things.
Point 2: did Harry Reid "go low" by accusations that are beneath him? Well, Rmoney has refused to budge on this issue. And now, apparently there are sources that can attest to "irregularities?" So HR has said so. This "hurling of unfounded accusations" is really very little different from the use of moles by reporters. We woudnt expect a reporter to release his/her sources so why Reid? "Well he isnt a reporter" you say. Yes, but ultimately the result would be the same. The source would likely be ruined by the Rmoney campaign, Rmoney denies its truth and drives this guy/lady into the ditch, and we are back where we started. The source has very little to do with it since knowing who it is can not verify the truth of the claim. Only one thing can, and that is the underlying point of the HR statement. The faux outrage of the right is used to deflect attention, the tut tut finger shaking of the left is misguided. For months this has played out and with the full knowledge of everyone that there may be people that knew what is suspected to be in those returns - that Rmoney just isnt that "into" the U.S. And now someone has spoken - but wishes to be protected from the power that such money can wield. HR is simply the mouthpiece that has given voice to this. And Rmoney can easily put a stop to it by releasing his tax returns and saying "see."
Of course, if HR really wanted to be devious and beneath the debate, he could have said "it is too late now... tax returns can be altered by the super wealthy, without penalty" (which is apparent from the Utah/Mass incident). Had he actually gone all "birther" on them, then I might have conceded the point. But from what was said, I think he is right on point...