We wrote here about Glen Johnson, the reporter for the Associated Press who has been assigned to cover Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Johnson makes no secret of the fact that the detests Romney, and his articles on the candidate have been a succession of hit pieces. His most recent, this morning, is titled Analysis: Romney and Candor. Johnson's thesis is that Romney has a "candor gap," which is a nice way of calling him a liar.

But Johnson's evidence is remarkably thin:

When confronted with questions that might conflict with his message of the day or political record, the Republican candidate has shown a tendency to bob and weave or simply dismiss history. He has done so all year, providing an easy target for his opponents.

This past week, Romney did it again over questions about whether he was planning to air negative ads — in particular on the subject of illegal immigration — against John McCain. The Arizona senator has been surging in New Hampshire, where Romney is angling for back-to-back victories after a hoped-for win in this week's Iowa caucuses.

"I haven't made any decisions on what issue ads might come forward, down the road, but those aren't what we shot today," Romney told reporters on Wednesday. "What we shot today was just me to camera."

On Friday, his campaign went on TV with a new commercial, a so-called contrast ad that did not feature Romney speaking, but a narrator comparing his record to McCain's on immigration and tax matters. On Saturday, the campaign announced a second spot, focused entirely on McCain's immigration record. In between Romney also released a third commercial, criticizing Huckabee for increasing spending and pardoning criminals while he was governor of Arkansas.

The ads Romney mentioned to reporters — the "closing arguments" in which he speaks directly to Iowa and New Hampshire voters — have yet to air.

So, where is the evidence that Romney said anything that was incorrect, let alone dishonest? Johnson quotes Romney saying two things on Wednesday: 1) the commercial(s) shot on Wednesday were of Romney talking. Johnson offers no evidence that this statement was untrue, and implicitly seems to accept that it was accurate. 2) The campaign hasn't decided "what issue ads might come forward, down the road." Johnson seems to think this is contradicted by the fact that two days later, the Romney campaign started running ads comparing his record with McCain's. But it isn't. The decision as to which ads to run, and when, may well have been made in the interim. And, in any event, this is a ridiculous test of Romney's "candor." A candidate has no obligation to describe to reporters the television ads he intends to run in the future. Johnson should ask Hillary Clinton what ads she's going to be running next week, and see what kind of answer he gets.

Johnson continues with another purported instance of Romney's dishonesty:

Romney started the year with a similar example of candor deficiency.

On Jan. 8, when he staged a "National Call Day" to kickoff his campaign, he called a news conference to herald his unprecedented one-day take of $6.5 million. When the multimillionaire was asked whether he might spend his own money on his campaign, Romney said that scenario "would be akin to a nightmare," since he was relying on popular support for his campaign. He added that he reserved the right to donate, though.

In reality, Romney had already donated to his political committee at the time of the question. A campaign finance report he released in mid-April revealed he contributed a $2.35 million check by the time of his "nightmare" comment, starting the prior October.

He has gone on to loan a total of $17.35 million to his committee, although the total could be more. His next report won't be made public until mid-January.

Here, it is Johnson who is dishonest, not Romney. Johnson implies that on January 8, Romney said that he would put none of his own money into his campaign, because that would be "akin to a nightmare." But this makes little sense; Romney has plenty of money and it would be "akin to a nightmare" only if he spent much of his fortune by self-financing his campaign, like Ross Perot.

It is surprisingly difficult to find out exactly what Romney said would be "akin to a nightmare," as the exchange was not reported in full, as best I can determine, by any news organization. But from a number of sources, it is obvious that Romney did not say that he wouldn't invest any of his money in his campaign. Rather, he said that he wanted to limit the money he put in as much as possible.

The closest I've seen to a verbatim account of Romney's comments on January 8 comes from Marc Ambinder:

Romney, who is very rich, said that he intends to spend "as little as possible" of his own money in the campaign. "It would be akin to a nightmare." But "I'd always reserve the potential" of writing a check if circumstances warrant, he said.

This is consistent with what the Washington Post reported about the National Call Day event:

After that event, Romney punctuated that message, telling reporters that it would be "akin to a nightmare" if he were forced to contribute much of his own money to his presidential effort.

So Glen Johnson tried to make Romney look like a liar by misrepresenting what he said on January 8. Romney never said that he wouldn't put any of his own money into the campaign, nor did he say that he had not already done so. The "nightmare" would be if he had to put too much of his own cash into the campaign. There could be a story here about Romney's success in fundraising, or lack thereof, but there is no story about his candor.

Some of Johnson's attacks on Romney's credibility are incomprehensible. Thus, he writes:

In his new ads against McCain, Romney also looks past his own record on tax cut and immigration matters.

He criticizes McCain for twice voting against Bush administration tax cuts, although while governor at the time, Romney told members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation he "won't be a cheerleader" for proposals he did not agree with. "But I have to keep a solid relationship with the White House," The Boston Globe reported in 2003.

This is frankly bizarre. There isn't any inconsistency. Johnson's attempt to turn Romney's comments into a contradiction is, to put it politely, a non sequitur.

Johnson claims that Romney showed a lack of candor when he referred to the Kennedy/McCain immigration bill as involving "amnesty." This is, of course, a matter that is hotly disputed. I personally think "amnesty" is a fair characterization of the Z visas contemplated by Kennedy/McCain, but whether one agrees with that terminology or not, the idea that taking the opposite side of the issue shows that Romney is a liar is ridiculous.

In the entirety of his long article, Johnson comes up with only one instance that could possibly show a lack of candor: Romney's statement in Keene, New Hampshire that he has been a hunter pretty much all his life--i.e., once when he was 15, and a second time last year. Obviously, Romney got carried away on the stump and made his experience sound greater than it is. But if that's all Johnson can come up with after Romney has spent almost a full year giving speeches nearly every day, Romney is an extraordinarily honest man. Taking Johnson's coverage as a whole, it is clear that Glen Johnson and the Associated Press, not Mitt Romney, are the ones that are willing to twist the facts to push a political agenda.

To comment on this post, go here.