Sunday, October 12, 2008

A Last Gasp, I Hope

It is the most gorgeous Sunday morning, early autumn. We've been keeping the windows open, and it's a little cool in the house this morning. I went out and mowed the yard and hardly broke a sweat.

We're not a political web site, I personally am not especially partisan and don't understand a lot about what goes on in the smoke-filled rooms, but you can't help paying attention as the national conversation unfolds, especially as it relates to the battles we have fought in our own county. We are lucky to live in a place where people are good and open-minded, open-hearted, they may not understand why you are the way you are but they accept it and trust that you're being honest about it. But even in Montgomery County there are a few people who can't do that, people who feel it is their duty to attack differences. They think their narrow way of life is the only acceptable way to be.

In the past few weeks we have seen something bizarre happening on the national stage, something that reflects and magnifies what we have seen in our county over the past few years. The Republican candidates have begun to attract crowds of people who believe that it's all right, even funny, to talk about murdering the Democratic candidate for president. The Republicans have insinuated that Brack Obama is a terrorist, or at least "pals around" with terrorists. I saw a video of people going into a rally, and the interviewer asked them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a terrorist?" And a lot said yes. He asked them why they thought that. "Look at his name," they said.

It's as simple as that. He has a weird name, a foreign-sounding name, an Arabic-sounding name, and that makes him a terrorist. He's different from us. That's all it takes.

These are people who can't tell the difference between reality and a cartoon.

I have a friend who divides the world into two kinds of people. Some people assume everybody is similar to them and are surprised when they discover differences. Other people assume that everybody is different and then are surprised by similarities. I'm more like that second kind. You've heard me say before, I wouldn't even want other people to be like me. I'm not sure I could stand to be around myself, and I wouldn't recommend thinking this way, it's not only frustrating but mostly ineffective.

But some people expect everybody else to think the way they do, act the way they do, feel like them. And when you don't it annoys them. These people put a lot of pressure on one another to conform -- they may call themselves "individualists" or whatever, but they do it in unison. And when you get them together in a crowd it is possible to stir them up emotionally by pointing out someone who seems to differ from them.

The Republicans are struggling now, nobody wants to have four more years of embarrassment and failure like the last eight. At first the candidates tried to distinguish themselves from the current regime, but it didn't work very well, so now they're going the other way, they're working the crowd in ways that you hoped no American would ever do. Interestingly, the name "George Wallace" has come up quite a few times recently. You hoped we wouldn't go back to that, but you were overly optimistic.

It's hard to imagine how this was supposed to work. Here's Gail Collins in the New York Times Thursday:
The Republican campaign strategy now involves sending their candidates to areas where everybody is a die-hard McCain supporter already. Then they yell about Obama until the crowd is so frenzied people start making threats. The rest of the country is supposed to watch and conclude that this would be an enjoyable way to spend the next four years. Dear Old Golden Dog Days

While I was writing this, someone pasted a good quote into a comment here. Frank Rich has an amazing column this morning, in the NYT, where he talks about fears that Barack Obama will be assassinated:
At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of "Treason" and "Terrorist" and "Kill him" and "Off with his head" as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option. The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama

We have seen, in our little suburban county, the anger of those who demand that everybody should be like them. They turned on our school district when the board voted to teach students about sexual orientation without preaching against homosexuality, and the exact same people turned on the County Council when they voted to adopt a law granting equal rights to people regardless of gender identity. One tiny gang of angry people has created quite a bit of turbulence here and cost quite a bit of money, fighting against the diversity that nature has blessed us with. We remember a leader of the Republican Party standing up in a County Council meeting and shouting "Heil Hitler," then saying "Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature," because the Council had just voted to prohibit discrimination against transgender people. The fear, the anger, the hatred have been bubbling along at a low boil in communities like ours across the country, and now it is spilling over at these campaign rallies.

The good news is that it's not working. The haters are still a minority in our country, but my God, look how powerful they have become! We have a two-party political system, and they have taken over one of the parties at the national level. You hope their effect will wane, that people will go back to taking care of their own business, and there are signs that the Bush years have taken the wind out of their sails, but there is still a lot of residual hatred in the country. I hope this presidential campaign will go down in the history books as the last gasp of an element that America will not be proud of. In the meantime, Frank Rich is right: doing nothing is not an option.

61 Comments:

Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I'm pretty sure some crazed Republican is going to take a shot at Obama once he's president. As it becomes increasingly clear that Mccain's going to lose his rabid followers are getting increasingly hostile.

October 12, 2008 1:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/10/another_mccainrev_moon_tie.php#more

In addition to the previously revealed relationship between McCain adviser Charlie Black and the Rev. Moon -- Black was involved with setting up and inviting people to the now-infamous Moon coronation ceremony in a Senate office building in 2004 -- it has now come to light that McCain was on the board of the U.S. Council for World Freedom, one of the many front groups founded by Moon, in the early days of his political career.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom was an offshoot of Moon's World Anti-Communist League, an organization with ties to right wing dictators and former Nazis all around the world. Investigative journalist Robert Parry has documented these ties, as have Scott and Jon Lee Anderson in their book,

October 12, 2008 2:00 PM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

FIRST: Interesting use of Rev. Moon and the word "Freedom". I've learned that the words 'freedom', 'liberty', and 'truth', among others, are red-flag words when issued by those on the conservative side of the spectrum. For instance, the way they use the word 'freedom', it means they'll keep me and all other transgenders out of the restroom that matches my gender presentation (if they find out that I was born male.) That's 'freedom'?

SECOND: I'm reminded of how the budding conservatives in my grade school, junior high and high school gained and maintained control -- find the weak and terrorize them. This also sent a message to all the other students who were not so motivated to rule at any cost - don't get involved or you're next. Of course, displaying nascent problems with gender identity, I was targeted for their terror.

I found the only thing that worked to stop the near-constant harassment was to fight back - HARD.

I got no support from most of those students thankful they were normal enough to not be targeted directly. But my standing up and fighting back eventually paid off. They left me alone, and counseled other newly-arrived like-minded bullies to do the same. And I achieved a modicum of peace.

My point is that the rest of us must stand up to the 15% of our population who are enabling and participating in this modern-day internal reign of terror. For to not stand against them will only enable them.

October 12, 2008 3:16 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Jim writes, ostensibly with a straight face,

We're not a political web site, I personally am not especially partisan and don't understand a lot about what goes on in the smoke-filled rooms...

Jim, thanks for the laugh...

October 12, 2008 3:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Oryn, if you need a laugh there should be no shortage for you, all you have to do is look in the mirror.

October 12, 2008 4:14 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Priya Lynn grunts,

Oryn, if you need a laugh there should be no shortage for you, all you have to do is look in the mirror.

LOL...how old are you? Pre-teen? or just a ever so slightly arrested in development teenager?

So, are you looking forward to an Obama Administration? I know I am...I am fairly confident that it will provide more than enough spectacle to assure an ever increasing number of the American electorate will experience "buyers regret".

I am not big on mirrors myself...only look at them in the morning when I have to shave, and clip the nose hairs. Sorry to disappoint...

October 12, 2008 4:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm glad to know you clip your nose-hairs, Orin. Far too many people omit this basic item of hygiene.

rrjr

October 12, 2008 5:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As the prestigious Gallup poll clearly indicates, Obama's lead continues to dwindle and the descent is increasing in speed. Four days ago, it was an 11 point lead, then 11 again, then 10, then 9 and, today the lead has shrunk to 7 under revelations of corruption (Rezko), voter fraud (ACORN), support from terrorists (Ayers), and sympathy for anti-Americanism (Wright & Michelle).

It seems America still requires its President to have some minimal qualifications like a record and some accomplishements.

You see, it should actually be harder to be President than get into college.

October 12, 2008 5:16 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Robert observes,

I'm glad to know you clip your nose-hairs, Orin. Far too many people omit this basic item of hygiene.

Yes, yes...and now, in an increasing awareness (mostly brought on by having a wife and two teenage daughters), I have my ear hairs (not many, but just enough) trimmed whenever I get a haircut. Still, I refuse to pluck the gray hairs from my scalp...too late to start, and if I did I would be half bald.

October 12, 2008 5:20 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Anonymous writes of the ever decreasing numbers in support of an Obama Presidency. Yes, they are going down, but it will not be enough to recover, or to elect a flawed Republican ticket.

Still, four years will be enough time for Americans to experience enough regret that perhaps they will exercise a tad more caution before falling for another pol promising political salvation (whether that comes from the left or the right).

October 12, 2008 5:25 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Priya Lynn prognosticates,

I'm pretty sure some crazed Republican is going to take a shot at Obama once he's president. As it becomes increasingly clear that Mccain's going to lose his rabid followers are getting increasingly hostile.

I understand the orgasmic pleasure such a left-wing phantasmagorical wish must leave you with, but as this evil would only bring on more evil of such a wide-scale as to make most decent people shake, I will only pray every day for President Obama's safety.

Herein is the difference between liberal and conservative; one asks what will give them the partisan advantage, while the other asks what is good for everyone.

October 12, 2008 5:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for saying it, Orin.

Never have I been more sickened by liberals than in the last week as they have begun to display their hope for racial animosity, violence and assasination.

All this when the election appears theirs to lose.

Hate to think what they'd be doing if their candidate seemed in danger of losing.

October 12, 2008 6:02 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Anonymous writes,

Thanks for saying it, Orin.

Never have I been more sickened by liberals than in the last week as they have begun to display their hope for racial animosity, violence and assasination.

All this when the election appears theirs to lose.

Hate to think what they'd be doing if their candidate seemed in danger of losing.


To be truthful both sides have regrettably engaged in this sort of idle talk and speculation. Now that it appears that the Republican ticket is going down in flames, it is the right-wing talk that is getting ugly. What is interesting is that when it was the left-wing it seemed that anyone hardly noticed (even when it came from elected officials), but now that it is over zealous campaign stop attendees, the MSM seems to have at last taken notice.

Both sides would do well to read and re-read Lincoln's address,
The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions, found here,

http://www.teachingamerican
history.org/library/index.asp?document=157

which is as relevant today as it was 170 years ago.

October 12, 2008 6:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the ever decreasing numbers in support of an Obama Presidency. Yes, they are going down, but it will not be enough to recover, or to elect a flawed Republican ticket"

it's not any more flawed than the Democratic one; indeed, they are fairly equivalent except on the Dem side, the inexperienced one is at the top of the ticket

why can't they recover? they've picked up 4 points in five days with 7 to go and the election is 3 weeks off; seems we hit the x-axis before then

"it is the right-wing talk that is getting ugly"

like how?

btw, you're right that Obama's election will be a blessing in disguise for the conservative groups; he'll obviously be another Jimmy Carter if he wins

it'll be a cheerless disaster; look for a lot of "national malaise" speeches

October 12, 2008 8:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The first poll of the day is out and the Zogby poll, known for its accuracy, shows the same decline in support for Obama that has been detected by other polls.

Yesterday, Zogby had Obama leading by 6 and today the lead is 4. That's a disintegration of a third of Obama's lead in one day. At that rate, we'll have a tie when the final debate begins on Wednesday.

My friends....Barack Obama will lose.

Experts remain doubtful that the Obama campaign can do anything to reverse the doubts the electorate has about him.

Says pollster Zogby, "If we see that lead going down again tomorrow, we are talking a horserace,"

October 13, 2008 5:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Republican candidates have begun to attract crowds of people who believe that it's all right, even funny, to talk about murdering the Democratic candidate for president."

No, there aren't "crowds of people" doing this.

It's a lie meant to demonize McCain supporters.

"But even in Montgomery County there are a few people who can't do that, people who feel it is their duty to attack differences. They think their narrow way of life is the only acceptable way to be."

And the name of that group is TTF. They keep trying to pass laws to tell you who to associate with and how. And teach public school students that their view of sexuality is fact.

CRG, which remember has advocated no laws but simply resisted the imposition of liberal beliefs on others, feels comfortable allowing everyone to make their own decisions without governemental interference.

"The Republicans have insinuated that Brack Obama is a terrorist, or at least "pals around" with terrorists."

Obama has indeed "palled around" with at least one terrorist. Ayers only escaped prison when his case was thrown out because of procedural mistakes by the prosecutor.

It boggles the mind how someone can say that we need to pour massive amounts of military expenditures into Afghanistan to find a guy who bombed the Pentagon and bring him to justice when he had a fundraiser thrown by a guy who did the same and escaped punishment.

btw, those of you who think Obama is going to pay for his proposed increase in spending by surrendering in Iraq, did you know he's planning to spend the same amount in afghanistan?

also, there will be no middle class tax cut (wink-wink)

"But some people expect everybody else to think the way they do, act the way they do, feel like them. And when you don't it annoys them."

That's true.

Have you ever seen how annoyed TTFers get when someone disagrees with them.

"The Republicans are struggling now, nobody wants to have four more years of embarrassment and failure like the last eight."

Yeah, who wants that?

Let's elect someone with no experience and no accomplishemnts just to make doubly sure we don't suffer any more embarassment and failure!

"Interestingly, the name "George Wallace" has come up quite a few times recently."

Yes, it is interesting what leaps of imagination liberals will perform in a desperate hope to relive the sixties.

October 13, 2008 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is interesting is that when it was the left-wing it seemed that anyone hardly noticed

You're kidding, right Orin? Did anyone on the "left-wing" use terms like "Treason" and "Terrorist" and "Kill him" and "Off with his head" as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets? NO! It was the use of such ugly languauge by the right-wing that made people everywhere sit up and take notice.

October 13, 2008 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pick a poll, any poll. Yesterday's ABC/WashingtonPost poll shows Obama ahead by 10. Fantasize all you want about the minor up and down ticks. The overall trend is clear.

The rest of the GOP besides our local right-wing showernuts, is worried about McShame's campaign. AOL news reports:

GOP Worries About McCain's Strategy
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP

INDIANAPOLIS (Oct. 12) - Three weeks before the election, Republicans are growing increasingly concerned about John McCain's ability to mount a comeback, questioning his tactics and even his campaign's main thrust in a White House race increasingly focused on economic turmoil....


As of this morining, AOL's poll with that article show that 65% of respondents rate McCain's campaign strategy as "Poor" and 62% think his chances of winning the election are "Poor."

The country does not want a career long deregulator who said the fundamentals of our economy were strong the very morning he finally realized we are in a financial crisis.

Too little, too late.

Obama is the change we need.

October 13, 2008 8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The new Old Gipper
By Scot Lehigh | October 10, 2008

HERE'S A NOTION so heretical I hardly dare voice it.

What if Barack Obama turns out to be the Old Gipper?

The new Old Gipper, that is.

Many a stalwart Republican knight has tried to don Reagan's storied mantle, of course.

George H.W. Bush ran on Reagan's legacy. Bob Dole obligingly pledged to be "another Ronald Reagan if that's what you want." Spurning the presidential patrimony of preppy Poppy, George W. Bush made the Gipper his model.

This year's GOP contenders jousted jealously for the Reagan role. Phlegmatic Fred Thompson cast himself as Reagan's easygoing heir. A rhapsodic Mike Huckabee signed up former Reagan impresario Ed Rollins, who promptly proclaimed him "the next Reagan." Mitt Romney, who, vexingly enough, hadn't planned far enough ahead to revere Reagan during his actual presidency, executed one of his patented pirouettes, declaring himself a retrospective Reaganite. Rudy Giuliani boasted of his days in the Gipper's Justice Department.

John McCain frequently cites Reagan as his hero. In her vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin even appropriated one of Reagan's resonant rebukes, chiding "there you go again" when Joe Biden put forth the outlandish suggestion that the immediate Republican governing record was somehow relevant to this campaign.

So if Obama is indeed the new Reagan, why, it would be political kingdom shaking, the modern-day equivalent of the unassuming, overlooked Arthur of legend sliding the sword from the stone.

I don't mean to suggest that Obama is like Reagan in policy terms. Heaven forfend. That would appall both Reagan and Obama fans. But Obama does seem to be creating the Democratic equivalent of the Gipper Gestalt, the Dutch Dynamic, which led to . . . the Ronnie Tsunami.

Folksy, funny, and infectiously optimistic, Reagan was an accomplished communicator. Less witty but more cerebral,
Obama does seem to be creating the Democratic equivalent of the Gipper Gestalt, the Dutch Dynamic, which led to . . . the Ronnie Tsunami.

Folksy, funny, and infectiously optimistic, Reagan was an accomplished communicator. Less witty but more cerebral, Obama is also a compelling speaker, with a Reagan-like faith in the power of ideas. Just as the charismatic Reagan did in running against an opponent with a nasty streak, Obama radiates a basic likability.

And certainly 2008 is starting to look a lot like 1980, the year Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.

Back in those troubled times, Carter, leading an administration viewed as inept, had worn out his welcome. People clearly wanted to vote the incumbent and the governing party out, but weren't quite sure about the challenger.

Reagan, they were told, was a scary figure. A warmonger, even.

Then the two debated. Seeing the avuncular Reagan on the stage, Americans concluded he wasn't the radical ideologue of caricature, and that he'd make an acceptable alternative.

Lingering doubts resolved, he won in a landslide.

Voters now face the same basic question about Obama, says Democratic pollster Peter Hart. To wit: "Would [he] be somebody I could feel safe and comfortable with?"

Hart thinks Obama is crossing that threshold. "With two solid debate performances, Obama has conveyed that he knows what he is talking about and that he has a temperament that makes people more assured they are not just taking a roll of the dice," he says.

Indeed, a CNN post-debate poll found that not only did voters consider Obama the winner, they also said he seemed like a stronger leader during the encounter. Further, by an astounding 65 percent to 28 percent, they called him more likable than McCain.

With things moving Obama's way, the McCain-Palin campaign has apparently decided its best shot at beating Obama is to try to delegitimize him on character issues. That explains Palin's ludicrous attempt to turn Obama's regrettable but distant relationship with former violent extremist William Ayers into a case of "palling around with terrorists."

But just as it was difficult to view Reagan as a warmonger after seeing him debate, so is it hard for fair-minded people to watch Obama soberly discussing issues and seriously entertain the notion that he harbors anti-American sentiment or is a crypto-radical.

Which means that as the campaign enters its closing weeks, McCain and Palin may just be accomplishing something H.L. Mencken would have considered impossible: going broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

October 13, 2008 8:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

AOL news reports:

"PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 12) - Pennsylvania hasn’t voted Republican for president since 1988. Democrats have increased their registration numbers here by more than a half-million over the past year, and Barack Obama has a double-digit lead in the polls.

Yet John McCain's campaign continues to signal that it intends to contest the state and its 21 electoral votes to the end. It is a high-risk, high-return endeavor: Pennsylvania represents a costly gambit, one that siphons resources from must-win states such as Ohio and Florida, but a win here would enable McCain to lose a few other states that George W. Bush carried and still capture the White House."


RCP reports Pennsylvania polling average:

RCP Average 09/27 - 10/11 -- 53.6 39.8 Obama +13.8

The McCain campaign has to hold a rally in Virginia Beach today to try to prevent Virginia from turning blue.

Real Clear Politics shows that Obama is leading by 6.3% in this formerly red state. And with news like this, it's no wonder:

McCain Campaign Fires Virginia GOP Figure Over Racially Offensive Column

DANVILLE, Va. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain (web|news|bio) 's campaign has ousted a prominent Virginia GOP figure after he wrote a racially offensive newspaper column mocking a potential Obama administration. A McCain spokeswoman said Bobby May was dropped this week from his job as McCain's Buchanan County campaign chairman.

May wrote in his column, "The (clarified) platform of Barack Hussein Obama," that if the Democratic senator was elected he
would hire rapper Ludacris to paint the White House black and change the national anthem to the "Black National Anthem." The column originally appeared in The Voice, a local newspaper. May has worked on dozens of state Republican campaigns, including those of former gubernatorial candidate and Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling and U.S. Rep. Virgil
Goode.

October 13, 2008 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pick a poll, any poll."

OK, the Reuters poll has Obama's lead at 4 today, down from 6 yesterday.

Trend toward McCain.

"Three weeks before the election, Republicans are growing increasingly concerned about John McCain's ability to mount a comeback, questioning his tactics"

Typical vague story by a biased press. Could we have a few more specifics?

"The country does not want a career long deregulator"

Why not? It is becoming clearer by the day that the Wall Street meltdown was caused by regulators pushing the mortgage industry to lower their standards to expand home ownership to lower income people.

"who said the fundamentals of our economy were strong the very morning he finally realized we are in a financial crisis"

The economy was actually doing well at that point. The shutdown of credit is rippling through the economy now and causing problems.

Even now, though, unemployment, inflation and interest rates remain historically low. McCain's statement was basically true at the time.

One has to remember that the low tax environment of the Bush administration allowed our economy to weather many catastrophes over the last seven years. 9/11, antrax, Katrina, Iraq all caused little economic suffering.

What has finally brought that to an end is the Democrats tinkering with the mortgage industry.

October 13, 2008 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could we have a few more specifics?

Well sure, all you have to do is click on the link I provided to the AOL article to read the specifics in it. If you don't like to click, maybe you'd rather cut and paste this URL into your browser. Knock yourself out.

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/gop-worries-about-mccains-strategy/208681?icid=200100397x1211334282x1200706081

the Wall Street meltdown was caused by regulators pushing the mortgage industry to lower their standards to expand home ownership to lower income people.

No it wasn't. It was caused by the financial industry taking the risk of those bad loans and cutting it up into unrecognizable parts like "derivatives" and "credit default swaps" which they sold to each other. Try to keep up, read this.

The economy was actually doing well at that point. The shutdown of credit is rippling through the economy now and causing problems.

You'll lie about anything, won't you AH? Are you really stupid enough to think Bear Stearns, Fannie Fae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman Brothers had been "actually doing well" the day McIDon'tUnderstandEconomics said that?

One has to remember that the low tax environment of the Bush administration coupled with Bush's binge spending, intended to drowned our government in the bathtub, instead drowned our economy in the bathtub when it took the Clinton surplus and turned it into a pile of debt to China that our grandchildren will pay off.

October 13, 2008 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well sure, all you have to do is click on the link I provided to the AOL article to read the specifics in it."

Your point is pointless because you didn't back it up. Don't make some vague statement and then tell us to look elsewhere. I've looked before and, more often than not, it means you've misrepresented the story.

"It was caused by the financial industry taking the risk of those bad loans and cutting it up into unrecognizable parts like "derivatives" and "credit default swaps" which they sold to each other. Try to keep up, read this."

Derivatives and credit default swaps were never regulated. No one deregulated them. Mortgages need to be marketable. The problem is that too many bad loans were made.

"Are you really stupid enough to think Bear Stearns, Fannie Fae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman Brothers had been "actually doing well" the day McIDon'tUnderstandEconomics said that?"

Those financial firms aren't the economy. Their share of the GDP was not that high.

"One has to remember that the low tax environment of the Bush administration coupled with Bush's binge spending, intended to drowned our government in the bathtub, instead drowned our economy in the bathtub when it took the Clinton surplus and turned it into a pile of debt to China that our grandchildren will pay off."

Surpluses aren't good, CBTS. that means the government is taking more of our money than they need and depressing the economy. Bush had to spend money to clean up the messes Cliton made.

Obama, unrestrained by Congress, is planning a trillion dollars in new spending including escalating the war in Afghanistan. Newt Gingrich won't be there to stop him like he did to Clinton.

Obama has an economic plan last tried by Herbert Hoover: raise taxes during a recession. It will prolong the recession, perhaps until a replacement for Obama can be found in 2012.

October 13, 2008 10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't make some vague statement and then tell us to look elsewhere. I've looked before and, more often than not, it means you've misrepresented the story.

Hey, the GOP are your people, if you don't want to read about them, don't! My "vague statement" was a DIRECT AND ATTRIBUTED QUOTE from the AOL story about GOP discontent with McShame's campaign tactics. Had you bothered to read it, you'd find some GOP strategists would have wanted McShame to go negative sooner, others have suggested other tactics.

Surpluses aren't good, CBTS...Newt Gingrich won't be there to stop him like he did to Clinton.

You are too funny. Half the time you say the surpluses were the result of the hard work of the Gingrich led-GOP during Clinton's administration and the other half you say they "aren't good." As soon as you make up your stupid mind would you please let us know which it is?

Surpluses are indeed good just like savings are good. When you have a nest egg saved up and trouble comes along, you are prepared to handle it, instead of having to mortgage your children's future to save the day.

That ABC/Washington Post poll cited above reports:

Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle [ITEM] - (Obama) or (McCain)?

The economy

Obama 53, McCain 37


Obama is the change we need.

October 13, 2008 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As the prestigious Gallup poll clearly indicates, Obama's lead continues to dwindle and the descent is increasing in speed. Five days ago, it was an 11 point lead, then 11 again, then 10, then 9, then 7 and, today the lead has shrunk to 5. That's similar to today's Reuters poll showing a 4 point lead. The average of today's Gallup and Reuters polls, prestigious, and known for accuracy, respectively, is 4.5%.

Looks like McCain is doing something right. Regardless who you think won the debate last week, it's seems the point where the election turned in McCain's direction.

October 13, 2008 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of the last six polls released, half have Obama's lead slashed to five or less. Two-thirds have his lead as six or less. The Washington Post poll is an obvious outlier from an obvious Obama supporter.

That staccato rhythm you hear throughout the land is the sound of knees knocking at Obama campaign offices everywhere.

October 13, 2008 11:40 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Wyatt,

I hope you have the ear of Steve Schmidt and Co., though I know that's not possible. Let's hope McCain keeps it up. Not only will he be crushed, but his career in the Senate will be over. All he has is his reputation, which will be in tatters.

October 13, 2008 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Half the time you say the surpluses were the result of the hard work of the Gingrich led-GOP during Clinton's administration and the other half you say they "aren't good.""

Gingrich's contract with America forced a balanced budget and the agreement for no new spending without having it paid for.

When revenue turned out higher than expected, Clinton refused to refund the money to the people through tax cuts.

October 13, 2008 12:28 PM  
Blogger Hazumu Osaragi said...

Go to http://www.intrade.com/ and look at the futures markets for Pres. McCain and Pres. Obama. There is some SERIOUS money to be made by BUYING Pres. McCain futures contracts, currently 23.3BID/23.9ASK If you buy these contracts and McCain wins, this contract will close at 100 and you will be paid off handsomely at $4 for every $1 you invested.

Similarly, you can also make some real money SELLING Pres. Obama contracts (78.3BID/78.4ASK) When Obama LOSES, the contract will close at ZERO, and the contracts you sold will be worth FOUR TIMES whatever money you put up.

Or you can trade in the Republican President or Democrat President contracts market.

This is an Irish bookmaking site. You play with real money -- YOURS. When you win, your contract (bet) will be paid off in US dollars, credited back to your credit card (less transaction fees.)

Put up or shut up!

October 13, 2008 12:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like McCain is doing something right. Regardless who you think won the debate last week, it's seems the point where the election turned in McCain's direction

It must suck to be you. Your timing continues to be impeccable: impeccably bad.

Just in the past few minutes, Gallup has released its latest daily tracking results. Obama's lead is back to 10 points, 51-41.

In addition, in other new polls out today, Obama now leads by 8 in Missouri (per SurveyUSA) and in North Dakota (!!!!) by 2. He also leads by 8 in Ohio and by 12 in Pennsylvania, per Marist College. We'll have to see what Rasmussen's latest wave of swing state polls looks like, but I can't imagine it's going to be good for your guy.

I'll give ya this: you're nothing if not persistent. Wrong, consistently wrong, and pretty ignorant to boot, but persistent nevertheless.

Have a nice day.

GA

October 13, 2008 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, Geek Anon (GA), that 10 point lead you refer to is for all registered voters.

Gallup has a different number for likely voters.

Obama has signed up legions of voters who will turn into couch pumpkins on that magic day in November.

Gallup knows that and has a seperate poll for likely voters.

October 13, 2008 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Put up or shut up!"

sorry, hazagi, i'm taking option C

October 13, 2008 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Washington Post poll is an obvious outlier from an obvious Obama supporter.

On you are obviously spinning like an obvious child's toy.

The ABC/Washington Post poll (Obama +10) is an outlier right along with the latest Gallup poll (Obama +10 RV and + 8.5 LV)and Newsweek (Obama +11). These three polls are not outliers, they show the trend.

October 13, 2008 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's your favorite group from the 70s, CBTS, the Spinners?

The Newsweek poll is based on information four days old, the Post's is two days old. We're talking trends here. btw, the Post and Newsweek have common ownership and incompetencies. So, the outlier trend is 11 four days ago, 10 two days ago and 8.5 today.

The polls with information that is up-to-date and released today have Obama's lead as 4, 5, 6 and 8.5.

Gallup, the only current poll at 8.5, is now the outlier.

Your man is fading faster than a water mark on a summer sidewalk.

October 13, 2008 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In an address before several supporters at his campaign headquarters in Washington, GOP presidential hopeful John McCain says he'll "whip" Democratic rival Barack Obama's "you-know-what" in their last debate Wednesday.

October 13, 2008 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, Geek Anon (GA), that 10 point lead you refer to is for all registered voters

Must be nice to exist in fantasy land. Recognizing that a traditional LV analysis based on past voting behavior is probably not going to work this year, Gallup also did a separate LV analysis without such a screen.

Obama 53, McCain 43. Reading comprehension is obviously not a strong suit for you.

And if by the use of "geek," you mean "poll geek," well, guilty as charged. It's a lot more intellectually honest than cherry-picking favorable polls and trying to create false ideas of "momentum" based on statistically insignificant variations in polls from day to day. So yes, I'm a geek, but you're a fraud. I'll take geek over fraud every day of the week, pal.

October 13, 2008 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're both, GA.

The LV analysis holds. Truth is, fewer RV than usual will vote this year.

The Gallup poll diverges from others released today with the most current polling included.

They had an outlier moment.

Happens to the best of 'em!

October 13, 2008 3:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fewer RV than usual will vote this year

What is that based on, Wyatt on Polling?

Lordy me, you are a transparent fraud. And a sad one, too, wasting all of that Republican spinmeister talent trying to convince a local blog audience of your inherent superiority, when all you're actually doing is showing your ignorance. You can't even pick a theme and stay with it for more than a day, because the ground keeps collapsing underneath each successive attempt to deny the obvious.

Persistent, though, I'll still give you that. Kind of like a dinner guest that won't take the hint and just leave already. Know what I mean?

GA

October 13, 2008 3:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fewer RV will vote than normal because their ranks are filled with people Obama has signed up by any means possible including ACORN fraud

Obama's chances for election victory are about the same as a rat dropped in terrarium with a boa

October 13, 2008 4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(Oct. 13) - Over the past few weeks, Tina Fey's stock has gone through the roof thanks to her 'Saturday Night Live' impressions of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

The Emmy winner says she's enjoyed playing the gun-toting hockey mom on the sketchy-comedy show.

"Election time is always good for [SNL] and this is a bonkers election. And that lady is a media star. She is a fascinating person, she’s very likeable. She’s fun to play, and the two bits with Amy [Poehler], that was super fun," Fey tells TV Guide.

But will she continue to play Palin if she wins the election?
"We're gonna take it week by week. If she wins, I'm done. I can't do that for four years.

And by 'I'm done,' I mean I'm leaving Earth," the '30 Rock' star says."

October 13, 2008 4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Sarah Palin and her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President.

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Palin is a post turtle.'

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle.'

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain.

'You know she didn't get up there by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know what to do while she is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with.'

October 13, 2008 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this was on one of the news blogs on Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment... thought I would share.

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of Athenian Republic some 2000 years earlier: “A democracy is always temporary in nature: it simply cannot exist as a pemanent form of government.”

“A democracy will continue to exist up until the time voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.”

“From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the world’s greatist civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.”

“During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacence to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage

Professor Joseph Olsen of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 presidential election:

a.. Number of states won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
b.. Square miles of land won by Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
c.. Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million; Bush 143 million
d.. Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties by Gore:13.2; Bush 2.1

Professor Olsen adds: ‘In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country.

Olsen believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some 40% of the nations population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

If you think Barack Obamas Change is going to help with free medical for all and taxing anyone making over 250,000 who already pay 46% of all federal income tax, think again.

The total income tax paid in 2004 was $832 billion. Those earning $75,000 or less paid $182 billion (22 percent) and those earning more than $75,000 paid $650 billion, or 78 percent of all taxes. Further, those earning $200,000 or more paid $389 billion in taxes, which is 47 percent of all taxes paid.
For those of you keeping score that means the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans paid nearly half of all the taxes. And now consider this: The wealthiest 2 percent of Americans pay an average of $322,000 in taxes while the remainder of taxpayers (98 percent of them) pay an average of $3,037. That is a pretty big difference.
Barack Obama is going to INCREASE Social Security tax by raising the cap from $102K, to $250K, This is a tax increase, Capital Gains tax increase form 15% to 28%, When your Parents retire and sell there home for Capital Gain they will lose over 1/4 of the value to taxes. This will also cause a large # of investors to cash out to avoid paying the tax and could really disrupt the market. The companies that we are going to tax will pass these increases onto the consumer ( YOU and ME) It may not be a actual Tax increase but something will increase. Call it whatever you want, this is economics 101. America has been living outside it’s means for a while now, 50% off blowout sale, have your credit card ready, 0 down and no payments for a year, everyone approved, drive it home today, America is a sucker for deal. And if you find you can’t afford the payments, just blame George Bush.

October 13, 2008 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barack Obama is going to INCREASE Social Security tax by raising the cap from $102K, to $250K

Strike one. Only those making more than $250,000 will see their Social Security taxes go up. From the Obama website:

Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).

Capital Gains tax increase form 15% to 28%

Strike two. Again, only those making more than $250,000 will see their capital gains taxes rise.

From today's Los Angeles Times:

"Obama would also extend most of Bush's tax cuts, but he would require families earning more than $250,000 a year to pay income and capital-gains taxes at the levels they were in the late 1990s."

When your Parents retire and sell there home for Capital Gain they will lose over 1/4 of the value to taxes

Swing and a miss, strike three! Current law only taxes capital gains on the sale of a primary residence in excess of $250,000 (for single individuals) and $500,000 (for married couples). No one is suggesting changing those laws.

Take a seat on the bench there, slugger. Better luck next time.

GA

October 13, 2008 6:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Barack Obama is going to INCREASE Social Security tax by raising the cap from $102K, to $250K

Strike one. Only those making more than $250,000 will see their Social Security taxes go up. From the Obama website:

Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee)."

If you have a dual working income family, husband and wife, each making 125K, under the bush tax plan right now, the second person with the bush tax cuts is working for a parsley 40K of extra income(by the time you consider medicare, ss, state tax, federal tax). Under Obama's plan that goes to 25K. Just enough to pay the babysitter. Obama's message to professional working moms is very clear : STAY HOME.

October 13, 2008 6:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on -- the reference to "those making over $250,000" refers to each individual employee, not to married couples. Those in your hypothetical scenario will not pay more, only those individuals who themselves actually make more than $250,000. And it will be phased in over "many years."

Strike four.

October 13, 2008 8:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Rasmussen polls. Even GOP Scott Rasmussen couldn't spin up winning #s for McCain.

Florida Obama 51, McCain 46

Missouri Obama 50, McCain 47

North Carolina Obama 48, McCain 48

Ohio Obama 49, McCain 47

Virginia Obama 50, McCain 47

OK, Wyatt, what now?

Wait, let me spare everyone the long back and forth.

But those polls are more than 15 minutes old, and they were taken on Sunday, and everyone knows that Republicans are in church on Sunday, and dontcha know there's momentum for McCain, and that was an outlier, and hey, did you see that one poll that says what I want it to say, but only if you hold it upside down and squint really, really hard, and . . . . .

Thanks for that deep insight, Wyatt.

GA

October 13, 2008 8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GA

All those states show movement in McCain's direction.

Thanks for putting them up. It's a big relief to see McCain closing in on all the swing states.

Poor Obama.

I think he should get Harry Reid's job.

October 13, 2008 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In an attempt to fire up some volunteers in Virginia, and his slumping presidential campaign, McCain promised, "We're going to spend a lot of time and after I whip his you-know-what in this debate, we're going to be going out 24/7."

McCain also said, "We're a couple points down, OK, nationally, but we're right in this game," McCain said to cheers. "The economy has hurt us a little bit in the last week or two, but in the last few days we've seen it come back up because they want experience, they want knowledge and they want vision. We'll give that to America."

October 13, 2008 9:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama is planning to tax about a trillion from the wealthy and send a check to people who pay no taxes. Taking a cue from the gay agenda folk, he redefines terms. Calling these payments tax cuts, he disguises a mass redistribution of wealth.

Why didn't Vladimir Lenin think of that?

Socialism: let's run it up the flag pole again and see who salutes this time!

"One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered."

October 13, 2008 9:27 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Aunt Bea wrote

You're kidding, right Orin? Did anyone on the "left-wing" use terms like "Treason" and "Terrorist" and "Kill him" and "Off with his head" as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets? NO! It was the use of such ugly languauge by the right-wing that made people everywhere sit up and take notice.

The Left used language that is morally indistinguishable from rabble talk at political rallies. What did distinguish the Left-wing variety though was that it was elected officials, not political rally low-lifes, that spoke of riots, violence, and social upheaval IF their candidate lost.

Look, I agree...any sort of talk along these lines is morally reprehensible, indeed it is to entertain evil. I have said this for years (at times to the point of sounding like a broken record)...even while those on the liberal-left have been pushing the boundaries of what is properly defined as decent, and all in the name of freedom of "expression".

So, why now the surprise?

October 13, 2008 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Orin, what do you think Mccain's chances are in Colorado?

Everytime I look at likely finish line scenarios for the electoral college, I keep coming to the conclusion that CO is the one state McCain must get to go over the top.

Strangely enough, its nine votes may represent the swing state.

Any hope out there?

October 13, 2008 10:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bruce Wayne's source

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

October 13, 2008 11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow, brilliant internet sleuthing!

now, you can go to the Wall Street Journal and read it all again since I posted the entire article

or you can do something worthwhile, like address the issues raised

Obama's "tax" proposal are actually income redistribution and a step toward the full steam ahead socialism that was such a failure in Western Europe

but to expect from a fellow with a past of radical associations and no real record to judge

October 13, 2008 11:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Socialist" Charges from Bailout Republicans
By Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON -- Since George W. Bush became president, the Republican Party has presided over massive, out-of-control government spending, converted a federal budget surplus into a half-trillion-dollar deficit, and looked the other way while Wall Street's greed and stupidity turned the hallowed free market into scorched earth. Now the party has to watch as a Republican president orchestrates the biggest government intervention into the workings of the private sector since the New Deal.

Can any Republican candidate claim with a straight face to represent the party of small government? For that matter, can any Republican candidate plausibly explain what the party is supposed to stand for these days?

It's pathetic to hear right-wing talk radio blowhards try to associate Barack Obama with "radical" or "socialist" views when a Republican administration is tossing aside "Atlas Shrugged" and speed-reading "Das Kapital."

The Federal Reserve even announced Monday that it will make unlimited quantities of dollars available for currency swaps with the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank, as these institutions scramble to keep major commercial banks from failing -- and potentially taking U.S. banks with them. None of Bush's Cabinet members could be heard sniffing about the effete irrelevance of "Old Europe."

This attitude adjustment is necessary, mind you. The question isn't whether some kind of drastic, frankly socialistic measures are needed to save the American economy, but which ones -- buying up toxic mortgage-based investments (as the White House said it would do), buying up the troubled mortgages themselves (as John McCain wants to do), or pouring money into selected banks and taking part ownership (as the White House now says it will do). Sitting back and letting the dire situation correct itself is not an option, because the market's phoenix-like solution begins with self-immolation.

Politically, though, there is at least some justice in the fact that a Republican president has to deal with this Republican-made crisis. That little piece of irony isn't worth $700 billion, but so far it's all we're getting.

After eight years of the Bush administration, the Republican Party -- to put it bluntly -- is a mess and a fraud.

There is an intellectual case to be made for the economic philosophy that the party purports to represent. I disagree with it strongly, but I respect its integrity -- in a way that this administration and the Republican leadership in Congress clearly did not.

The Republican Party said it believed in free and unfettered competition, but it picked winners and losers through a system of crony capitalism. All it takes to make my point is a name: Jack Abramoff.

The Bush tax cuts, which heavily favored the wealthy, showed that the president and his allies in Congress didn't believe in progressive taxation. I think that's outrageous, but the administration goes further and actually seems to prefer a regressive tax scheme. That's the only explanation I can think of for why hedge fund managers making hundreds of millions of dollars a year pay taxes at a lower rate than their chauffeurs.

Now that it's election time, the party -- as usual -- is trying to convince Americans that it stands on the side of the little guy. Sarah Palin has been trotted out to convince everyone that the party cares deeply about the eternal roster of cultural issues -- God, guns, gays, abortion, etc. If McCain and Palin were elected, the party would doubtless return these issues to the storage locker until the next election, at which point they would be dusted off once more.

Oh, and isn't the Republican Party supposed to stand foursquare against intrusions on privacy? Then why were Republicans so unmoved when it was revealed that the Bush administration had been conducting unprecedented surveillance of Americans' private electronic communications?

When Ronald Reagan was president, I had a sense of what ideas and principles his party stood for. When Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America" brigade took Washington by storm in 1994, I knew what they believed -- loopy though it was -- and what they hoped to accomplish. I defy anyone to give a coherent explanation of what today's Republican Party, under George Bush and now John McCain, wants to do except perpetuate itself in power.

When a political party reaches the point of lurching incoherence, the most effective cure is a good, long spell in the wilderness. Americans should help Republicans out by sending them home to get their act together.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/socialist_charges_from_bailout.html at October 13, 2008 - 10:12:59 PM PDT

October 14, 2008 1:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eugene Robinson....

what else is there to say?

a card-carrying, certified moron

there aren't socialist charges against Obama

there are socialist proposals by Obama

he wants to not only tax the rich more and the poor less, he wants to take money from the rich and give it to the poor

problem is, with a friendly Congress, this radical will have no restraint

October 14, 2008 1:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a newly released poll, the IBD/TPP survey has Obama's lead dropping to 2 points.

Obama's campaign was apparently standing on a sinkhole.

October 14, 2008 8:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on -- the reference to "those making over $250,000" refers to "each individual employee, not to married couples. Those in your hypothetical scenario will not pay more, only those individuals who themselves actually make more than $250,000. And it will be phased in over "many years.""

Strike four.

BS, sweetie, this is my scenario and I am very familar with the tax ramifications.

If you do MFJ, it absolutely applies to the total income, and they even phase out the deductions for your kids.

And AMT kicks in...

You end up paying the govt about 1/2 your income right now in taxes (when you add them all up).

And of course, any assistance for paying for college for those kids is also phased out.

So if indeed obama is talking about treating the income seperately, that woudl be an entirely different treatment than the rest of the tax code.

Of course, didn't they pass the domestic partners law in maryland ? So I suppose you could get divorced and refile as domestic partners....

or one parent could quit. Why work for that second salary if the govt is going to tax it away from you ?

Obama will destroy the concept of a professional working mom. It is not worth it anymore, those parents are working to give that extra income to everyone else's kids. they are both working to save the money for themselves and their kids....

October 14, 2008 10:05 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The GW/Battleground tracking poll has Obama's lead increasing to 13%. Mccain was asked for comment but couldn't be heard over his crying.

Even the Reuters/Zogby poll bad anonymous was recommending has Obama's lead increasing by 50%. The average of polls has Obama's lead at 7.4%, far higher than the 5.3% it was when bad anonymous was assuring us Mccain was turning things around. Sucks to be you bad anonymous.

October 14, 2008 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, there you go AH. Why debate the issue when you can denigrate the writer, instead? At least Mr. Robinson signed his name unlike the Anonymous writer at the WSJ.

WSJ Anon actually cited data analysis by the Heritage Foundation, the same right wingnut outfit that played games with statistics with data from the Bruckner and Bearman study in an attempt to get the data to agree with their unfounded belief in abstinence-only education. We could have no better model of the benefits of abstinence-only sex education than Bristol Palin, a mother-to-be during her senior year of high school with her high school drop-out sweetheart boyfriend she plans to marry next summer.

So tell us why you think chauffeurs should be taxed at a higher rate than the people they ferry around. Let's hear your reasons why you think people who make less money should pay higher taxes than those who make more money.

We could have no better example of the benefits of Bush's and his GOP-led Congress's tax-cut and spend philosophy than our present economic situation. See U.S. Forces Nine Major Banks To Accept Partial Nationalization and let us know what you think.

October 14, 2008 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So tell us why you think chauffeurs should be taxed at a higher rate than the people they ferry around."

Well, we have to see some examples because that's a generalization. If it sometimes happens, a few reasons why it's appropriate is because they are earning different types of income, the people being ferried around are doing things to benefit everyone by creating jobs and, even at the varying rates, the people being ferried around are paying the vast majority of the taxes and basically paying for most of the benefits the rest of us enjoy. Everyone, including chaffeurs, should pay something. Everyone should have equity in our country.

October 14, 2008 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So tell us why you think chauffeurs should be taxed at a higher rate than the people they ferry around. Let's hear your reasons why you think people who make less money should pay higher taxes than those who make more money."

Not if the people being ferried around are being paid in W2 income, they are paying far more taxes then the people doing the ferrying. My example of working mom and dad is built using the tax tables. Just a straight calculation. They pay in taxes almost 1/2 their income now, and Obama will make that more than half. which will most definitely cause Mom and Dad to question what the heck they are working for....
I tried to paste the spread sheet but I don't know how to embed it, or I would.

October 14, 2008 5:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home