Further Adventures of Pot and Kettle

While we’re on the subject of the Wall Street Journal editorial page disposing of its last shreds of credibility . . . .

James Taranto, the Journal’s most venomous columnist, specializes in lambasting the mainstream media for ostensible liberal bias, all while conveniently ignoring that he is himself an employee of the most mainstream — #1 in circulation, ahead of USA Today and the New York Times — newspaper in the country. He pretends he’s caught the AP, the commie outfit that supplies wire articles to papers in the reddest states of Middle America, revealing its anti-Romney sentiments:

The Associated Press’s Steve Peoples seems to think he’s caught Mitt Romney in another gaffe:

Romney is promising to reduce taxes on middle-income Americans.

But how does he define “middle-income”? The Republican presidential nominee defined it as income of $200,000 to $250,000 a year.

Romney commented during an interview broadcast Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

The Census Bureau reported this week that the median household income–the midpoint for the nation–is just over $50,000.

Taranto claims that, because the AP didn’t quote Romney directly — the candidate said “middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less” — the wire service “misrepresents the facts in order to score a partisan point against Romney.”

Romney was in fact attempting to defend his tax plan, which he has claimed (implausibly) does not raise taxes on the middle class. The problem is, the study by Martin Feldstein Romney cites to support this contention demonstrates that the only way to cut tax rates for the rich without hitting the middle class is to define “middle class” as anyone earning less than $100,000. For those making between $100,000 and $250,000, the loss of deductions and credits would lead to massive tax hikes. In that context, Romney’s remark is less an out-of-touch elitist assumption than an awkward error forced by his mathematically impossible tax plan. In the debate over taxes, $250,000 is defined by both Republicans and Democrats as the dividing line between middle class and upper income. Bizarrely, Taranto also faults reporter Steve Peoples thus:

Oh, and how does President Obama answer the question? Peoples again: “President Barack Obama has defined ‘middle class’ as income up to $250,000 a year.”

The problem with the AP is that it points out that, if Romney is an elitist, the president is, too? Hypocrisy would be painting Obama as a champion of the middle class while poking Romney for holding an identical position. The line quoted by Taranto is in fact the opposite of hypocrisy.

So is the AP attempting to “score a partisan point” by reporting the candidate’s own words? If so, the Wall Street Journal itself is in the tank for Obama. It seems Taranto doesn’t read his own paper (or perhaps he considers Journal owner Rupert Murdoch just another anti-colonial foreigner). The Journal’s Washington Wire blog posts, “Romney: Middle-Income Reaches to $250,000.”

For Mr. Romney, whose net worth could be as much as $250 million, it was a potentially awkward moment, one that could underscore perceptions among some that he’s a bit out of touch with average families’ kitchen-table concerns.

Median household income in the U.S. is just over $50,000 these days.

That’s an even more direct indictment of Romney than the AP article. Can we expect Monday’s Taranto column to blast his employer for engaging in class warfare?

Ironically, it’s a liberal blogger, not the conservative paper of record, who comes to Romney’s defense. New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait — who, if he merited inclusion in a Taranto column, would certainly be demeaned as “someone named Jon Chait” — nips the latest Mitt-the-elitist narrative in the bud. Chait’s post begins with a characteristic barb, but he goes on to offer a fairly lengthy defense of the Republican candidate:

Let’s stop this meme before it gets started. Mitt Romney did not say that a salary between $200,000 and $250,000 a year counts as “middle income.” I suppose you could say he asserted that if you used the truth standards of the Romney campaign — which allow you to clip phrases to change their meanings or even to present a person quoting something he disagrees with as his own position — but those aren’t truth standards I’d care to live by. What Romney actually said, in his interview with George Stephanopolous, was that he would not raise taxes on people earning below that level.

Oh, those biased lefties.

Of course, it would be a bit uncomfortable for Taranto to accuse the Journal of not being conservative enough — sort of like the far right jumping on Karl Rove, of all people, for insufficient ideological purity when it was revealed that he had urged the Komen Foundation to restore funding to Planned Parenthood. (As RedState’s Eric Erickson tweeted, “Ever had concerns about Karl Rove? Add this to the list.”) Maybe Taranto should take a break from media criticism and just stick to his usual tirades against Muslims, teachers and feminists. You know, all those people who — along with the AP, apparently — are bringing about the decline of Western civilization.