MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow descended into the Harry Reid (D-NV) controversy tonight over his unsupported claim that Mitt Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years.
She said, “There’s no evidence to disprove the allegation.”
When you make a charge, you, of course, have to back it up with evidence. The Senate leader did not. For Maddow to say it can’t be disproven only accentuates the serious mistake Reid made and doesn’t do much to enhance her credibility either.
Meantime, on “Anderson Cooper 360” tonight, former House Speaker and GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich finally acknowledged that there’s no evidence to back up the Mitt Romney campaign ad done by his Super PAC claiming that Pres. Obama wants to simply pay welfare benefits and eliminate the work requirement.
Cooper had to ask several times whether Gingrich thought the allegation was unfair and eventually, Gingrich took the honest path and admitted it was wrong.
However, on the other hand, Gingrich repeated his and others’ mantra, called Mr. Obama “the food stamp president.”
First, we’d love to see an end to name-calling. It is immature and in some cases crude. Second, the statement can easily be challenged. While the number of food stamp recipients has increased a little more than it did under Pres. George W. Bush, the circumstances are different. The recession’s worst years were under President Obama. That, logically, increases the need for food stamps.
3. When Gingrich first made the statement in January, Pres. Obama’s food stamp rolls had not caught up to Mr. Bush’s. Since then, the increase has topped what it was under Mr. Bush.
FACTCHECK.org reported it this way in January: “And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.
And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s. But again, reason #2 is the biggest part of why the numbers swelled.