How It's Done Dept.

With regard to the insane, slanderous, and entirely unsourced charges of tax fraud made by the Dishonorable Harry Reid (D, NV) against presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the Democrats' toothless attack dog is doing the only thing he and his ilk can contrive to besmirch Romney's reputation: demand that he prove a negative. Unfortunately, Romney has failed to respond with an adequately aggressive riposte -- yet another case of a Republican unjustifiably displaying more courtesy and civility than the Democrats assailing him -- which has emboldened the senile idiot from Nevada to "up the ante." This article, and the comments to it, should make plain how the course of this Democrat jihad is likely to run.

Here's the response I'd like to see:

"So you've accused me of multiple felonies without objective evidence and demand that I prove a negative, Senator Reid? Tell you what, then: Stay where you can be found. My lawyers are drawing up a federal slander suit against you at this very moment. Process servers will be hunting you down with the paperwork in no time. Then you can demand disclosure of everything you deem germane to the subject. But there are two ways that can work out. In the first, you demand full disclosure of my tax records, the court sees that the IRS has vetted them fully and found no evidence of wrongdoing, and a jury awards me fifty million dollars in damages from you. In the second, you realize that I wouldn't have filed suit against you if I had something to hide, decline to demand disclosure of my tax records, and I win by default -- and a jury awards me fifty million dollars in damages from you. Make your move."

Too angry? Too hyperthyroid? Not at all. The charges are far too serious to take lightly; to dismiss them lightly undermines Romney's perceived sincerity and integrity. A man who's been accused has the right to face his accuser in a public forum; see the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. An accuser who refuses to comply is for that very reason alone liable for damages, to compensate his victim for the stains inflicted upon his reputation and future prospects. But if the victim hesitates to claim the redress which is legally and morally his right, the accuser gains stature and credibility. That doesn't amount to proof of the charges, of course...but when appearances trend against one or the other parties to a contretemps of this sort, popular perceptions seldom demand "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

Romney must raise the stakes as sharply as the law allows, or these baseless charges will multiply like bacteria. Besides, it's time for a Republican who's willing to display a little fire in his own defense; it would reassure the electorate that he'll be willing to do what needs to be done to and with America's enemies.