KCRW's Left, Right & Center 10.10.08 Show
UPDATED 10.17.08: I am including a link to a brand new article on the blog of The Center for Public Integrity about ACORN. I think it is valuable to read for those who are concerned about allegations concerning ACORN in light of the recent news, comments on our blog and comments made by Senator McCain at last night's debate. I hope you find it useful.
ELECTION ’08: ACORN, Stuck Between a Law and a Hard Place
By Sarah Laskow | October 16, 2008, 11:09 am
"For a program that exists as an alternative to screaming talking heads, there sure are a lot of that activity on this blog. Is there anyway that individuals can just email each other if they are going to take over the blog, particularly with insults. There is a link to do that."
I AGREE WITH STAN H WHO POSTED THE COMMENT ABOVE. AT SOME POINT, THE ARGUMENTS BECOME PERSONAL -- AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IT'S TIME TO TAKE IT OFF LINE. I HAVE WRITTEN PRIVATELY TO A FEW PARTICIPANTS -- NOW I AM PUBLICLY ASKING YOU TO PLEASE MODERATE YOURSELVES AND STICK TO ISSUES, NOT PERSONAL ATTACKS. IT'S TURNING OTHERS OFF AND WE WANT THIS TO BE A FORUM FOR INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION, NOT VENOM AND VITRIOL AND PERSONAL POINTS OF HONOR. I DON'T WANT TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DAILY POSTS. THINK FIRST, THEN WRITE. AND IF YOU MUST BE NASTY, SEND EMAIL.
THANKS.
The President goes on TV to tell the public not to panic – and the Dow drops 450+ points. I can’t even begin to summarize today’s show – a whole lot of smart, heady and elevated talk about free markets, capitalism, Adam Smith, the role of government and everything we need to be thinking about to revive the global economy for the next 20 years. A real knockout of a show – there will be cheers and many jeers following Bob’s choice of words about Gov. Palin…don’t blame me, we don't censor the pundits -- blog about it!
PS: Matt mentioned a website during the show it is www.rgemonitor.com
Comments
I'm not sure that there is any point in tussling back and forth about the election anymore. Where I live, we've had early voting for over a week, and I am 90% sure that an Obama victory is a foregone conclusion at this point. I'm not particularly pleased about it, but there it is.
I was a solid McCain backer prior to the financial implosion.
My confidence has eroded so that I think that I am 50/50 on McCain now.
There's a 1 in 3 chance I'll end up going for Obama.
If I am that reticent now, then I cannot imagine McCain getting any major positive movement (failing some cataclysmic event) with the undecideds.
PS: If you're wondering about my math, there is a 1 in 6 chance that I'll just leave that portion of my ballot blank.
BOB: ENOUGH WITH THE MCCAIN MORTALITY SCARE MONGERING
I forgot to put this up last week...
An actuary at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that McCain has a 94.5% chance of surviving a 4 year term in good health.
Click here for article
Shame on you for playing ignorant/naive partisan in your parry to Arianna on the vile hate speak coming out of McCain Palin rallies.
For you to equate an Obama supporter having over-heated adoration for their candidate with a Palin / McCain supporter calling a U.S. Senator and Democratic candidate for President a "traitor", a "terrorist", and calling for someone to "Kill him" would be laughable were it not so obscenely simple-minded.
These are unprecedented, dangerous times, Tony. Your tone-deaf take on this very real situation, seems completely out-of-character for a right-of-the-aisle pundit whose opinions I have always found thoughtful and well spoken, even if I disagreed with them.
This was a very low moment for you Mr. Blankley. Again, shame on you.
I'm not talking about finger-pointing or anything. I just mean that it's an "only Nixon could go to China" moment. A far right-wing president is authorizing the largest step toward nationalizing the banks in history. But nobody could rationally accuse George W. Bush of being a socialist. It doesn't even enter the debate.
Now, if this crisis had come to a head four months later, in February 2009, and newly-sworn-in President Obama had initiated a bailout including buying up equity in the banking industry, it would have totally different politically. The conservative voices in America would shout "communist!" and perhaps even block the effort out of partisan spite.
The same economic reality would be there, and the same remedy would be on the table, but politically it is actually easier to get traction and bipartisan consensus when there's a conservative president in the Oval Office.
And by the way, the more I hear about this crisis, the more I think the current bailout plan is only the beginning. I'm making a prediction: that the government will have to nationalize the banks to get this to turn around.
Tony Blankley is way off base to compare a mob's death threats against their political opponent to the adulation of Obama supports for their candidate. The former is illegal, for one thing. Mr. Blankley, how would you feel about your apologist remark if someone actually did kill Senator Obama as a result of this fanaticism?
What is John McCain playing at? Is he so covetous of winning that he's willing to incite a violent uprising? Is this how he would treat Congress, or deal with world leaders? Is John McCain willing to burn the nation in order to rule it? Doesn't this seem like a scene out of "Animal Farm" or "Lord of the Flies?"
I've read that a few GOP leaders and respected conservative commentators have already condemned the negativity of the McCain campaign and specifically the dangerous rallies this week. I want more GOP leaders to speak out. This is completely out of hand.
I'm not sure which saddened me more today, the news or Robert Scheer's choice of words in describing Governor Palin. I understand that he's frustrated with the nation's situation. However, this program is not the place to use vulgar names as such.
Re the rest of the show... I know I've been occasionally critical of Matt Miller in the past but no criticism this time. Very lucid and insightful points and I could definitely hear an element of crisis in his voice, with which I could relate. There's nothing like having to decide whether to cash out your life savings fifteen minutes before the closing bell to wake you up.
The unfortunate nature of American political campaigns is there's always a mud fight, but the mud always flies in both directions. The nature of McCain/Palin's attacks on Obama about Ayers, ACORN, and others is comparable to Obama's attacks on McCain/Palin. One only has to watch how the ladies on The View treated Obama (Barbara Walters almost unzipped his pants) compared to their vicious attack on McCain (Barbara looked like she was going to throttle him). The LRC clan has to go no further than Bob Scheer's rant about Palin in this show; why is McCain's selection of Palin so repulsive when Obama's credentials and foreign experience is not so far from hers? Political attacks just seem more repulsive when they are against the candidate you favor and they seem more justified when they are against the candidate you are against. It's your personal responsibility to clear the mud away and see the truth, don't just take Arriana's word for it.
As I said before, mud only sticks if there's some truth behind it, the rest falls off. If Obama wants to quell the "vicious attacks," he has nothing more to do than be open and truthful. Thus far, he has revised his story with each new revelation and has fallen back on his pat answer of, "He's not the person I once knew." People don't need to concern themselves about whether Obama is a closeted terrorist plotting to overthrow the government with Ayers. They should question the voracity of his honesty, however. If he is less than truthful about major portions of his life, then how will we ever be secure that he will keep the campaign promises that Matt waxes poetic about at the end of the show?
In response to: "Ocraz, should we infer that you bring a six-sided die with you into the voting booth? (Just kidding -- please take this as friendly ribbing.)"
I'm not offended. I imagine that I may seem to be talking about numbers too much :)
I often worry that in representative democracies voters can be too easily persuaded by emotional appeals or affinities for the personality traits of those running for office, and so I do the best that I can to eliminate irrelevancies by assigning points for policy positions, past performance, and things that I think are rationale bases for decision making.
I don't use a die, but when the relative importance of issues changes because of current events (as has just happened) or candidates change their positions on issues (as often happens), I need a piece of scrap paper to see if it tips things one way or the other! (That's not a joke.)
"I thought that you'd be interested in reading this transcript from NewsHour that represents my feelings.
DAVID BROOKS: The last 60 days of any campaign, even for those of us who love politics, tend to be depressing, because they get into the gutter. I think both campaigns have been misleading, exaggerating.
I think the McCain campaign has been more misleading and exaggerating. Obama has said things which I think are blatantly untrue, where he said John McCain said yes to -- when you make $5 million, you are rich. McCain never said that seriously. Obama ran an ad today saying John McCain hasn't changed since he join the Senate in '82, that he doesn't know how to use a computer. I don't any of us as journalists would that as the factual truth. Those things are just not true.
So, I think both campaigns are trading untrue charges. They enjoy their own lies. They get furious at the other.
JIM LEHRER: Enjoy their own lies?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
I mean partisan people -- this is the narcissism of partisan. You get furiously outraged at the other campaign's lies, and you love your own. Nonetheless, I do think it is fair to say that the McCain campaign ads have been more egregious than the Obama campaign's'
Maybe that isn't directly relevant to your argument RIGHTGUY, but it seemed at least reminiscent.PS: There were some missing words in the transcript- I just cut and pasted it.
Rightguy keeps trying to shovel this nonsense that "both sides" are "guilty" of "vicious attacks" and make everything accusation or political point each side is trying to make "equivalent."
But fair minded people see very clearly how different the rightwing attacks are from that of the leftwing.
The strategy is obvious. When someone is covered with mud because they've been wallowing with pigs (just an example, not name-calling), they have no problem throwing mud at someone with a clean suit on. In fact, they hope the guy with the clean suit starts throwing mud back.
Because then they can say "see, everybody's dirty."
But it's not going to work this time. The American people are wising up to these hateful, petty, nasty, ugly political rightwing games.
Maybe I should have read the earlier comments before leaving that last one. I had been thinking about the statements of the campaigns or their ads, or maybe supporters who attempt character assassination (e.g., Obama supported violence in Kenya, or McCain abandoned POWs in Vietnam). I haven't heard that McCain or Palin have been encouraging violent rhetoric. I've been feeling discouraged about the race lately and cut down to mainstream print news.
I'm not aware of the incident you guys seems to be referring to. I thought you were just talking about generic smearing of candidates. I'd have thought that I'd have heard of it if anyone were flirting with violent imagery or hate speech or whatever.
link to AP story
Hmmm....because I am suggesting Obama is clean and McCain has been resorting to ugly politics, then I'm "coming dangerously close to zealotry".
Really? Do you really believe that? Let's not be drama queens.
1. When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.
2. One woman shouted "traitor" when McCain told voters Obama would raise their taxes. Volunteers worked up chants from the crowd of "U.S.A." and "John McCain, John McCain," in an apparent attempt to drown out boos and other displays of negative energy.
3. In two events this week, warm-up speakers at GOP rallies have used Obama's middle name, Hussein, to seed doubts about the Democrat, a tactic meant to draw attention to the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim, as well as to belittle him. "On Nov. 4, let's leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened," a sheriff told Palin's Florida rally. McCain once stepped forward directly to denounce that tactic. This week, his campaign merely issued a lukewarm criticism that tried to score a political point in the same breath: "We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November."
4. Some of the frustration at McCain's rallies is from people who want the candidate to go harder after Obama. In Waukesha, when a voter begged McCain to take a more combative tone toward Obama, McCain instead talked about the financial crisis. "Could I just say very quickly, yes, I'll do that," McCain said. "But I also, my friends, want to address the greatest financial challenge of our lifetime with a positive plan for action."
I grant that McCain could take a more aggressive approach to the negativity of his supporters, but I don't think that this is the same as inciting violence.If Sheer wants to harp on McCain's age as a factor then the fact that Obama is still having trouble quitting his smoking habit should be a factor too?
Many members of my friends and family have suggested doing things to Pres. Bush which would have gotten them investigated by the secret service if they wrote it down and sent it in the mail (and which would have violated the Geneva Convention if they actually did the same things to enemy soldiers).
“Now, the American public itself almost demands there be a kind of gladiatorial element. They want Obama to go in there and gut McCain..."
(but he continued by saying, "They want to see him smite his opponent in the election with a real muscularity.”
I've lost track of the times that Chris Matthews has talked about "knee capping" one's opponent.
In both of these cases, it was plain that the language was allegorical.
How many posts are you going to throw up tonight Ockraz? Now you're replying to your own replies.
This is my last for the night, unless anyone lies about something: I found the podcast this week fairly dull. Matt, for once, definitely carried the podcast this week.Tony was just talking nonsense: "when does Obama disavow him having been called the alpha and omega--the Jesus of politics?" Isn't that a rightwing mocking attack started by Hillary?????????
But I found most of the final thoughts very on point:
Homerun: I agree totally with Tony's assessment of Obama's tendency to coast when he has a lead. (However, there are times I've wanted him to hit McCain hard in the debates where he instead took the opportunity to present a vision for the country...his instinct was better).
Triple: Arriana. I agree that Bimbo wasn't the best term to use. Unethical would have been a better characterization of her. But the metephor of her being a blank slate for rightwingers -- a kind of billboard for posting the latest Roger Ailes smears -- was very illuminating.
Double: Bob. He's totally right that McCain betrayed moderate Republicans and decent people anywhere by choosing Palin. Somebody who gives credit to a witchdoctor for bringing her to power.
Swinging for the fences but hitting a squibbler to first: Matt, after doing so well, offered the kind of silly talk that if echoed will sink Obama faster than Tony can regurgitate his rightwing talking points.
I think that everyone should take care however, that this is an area fraught with cultural sensitivities.
On the one hand, I want to stress that (especially for people who can remember the political violence of 40 years ago) there is legitimate concern about the safety of Sen. Obama. I don't want anyone to think that I'm trying to be dismissive of their fears- I'm not, and I found the article about the rallies both alarming and depressing.
On the other hand, there is another issue as well.
Despite the fact that I live in a small city in Indiana, since Gov. Palin was nominated for VP, I have heard a lot of people around our campus make references to 'red necks', 'white trash', and other names that have made me very uncomfortable. If angry college students can yell out threatening things about the President at anti-war protests (This has happened here just within the last year.) and no one takes notice of it, then we should be careful about what assumptions we make about angry rhetoric from people we assume to be disaffected rural white voters.
We have to make generalizations every day, and most of them are probably harmless. This is not the case when race, class, and hate are involved. I am worried because we can't err on the side of assuming that people's motives are innocuous, but we also don't want to assume that people are bigots when they may just be stirred up over the election.
"Barry made me do it!"--Ockraz
But I think you may have made a Fruedian slip.
I MADE THAT COMMENT TO Stan H not to Ockraz.
So, thanks for outing yourself. You obviously are posting with more than one screen name. Not against the rules, I guess.
But, like Palin, highly unethical.
-Sarah
In response to : Hmmm....because I am suggesting Obama is clean and McCain has been resorting to ugly politics, then I'm "coming dangerously close to zealotry". Really? Do you really believe that? Let's not be drama queens.
Of course I believe that. When I congratulated you for being akin to a Left version of Rove, I had assumed that you had the cynicism about your own side that would be appropriate. That you may be a 'true-believer' willing yourself not to see your own sides failings is scary.
PS: If Hillary started the meme about Obama being a political savior, then how can it be right-wing? The first time I remember hearing about it was after Oprah's memorable introduction of him in the primaries. Incidentally, for some reason, it is super-strong in Germany! Does anyone else watch Zakariah's show on CNN and remember when they talked about that?PPS: I don't know about the collective pronoun, but (with all due respect) when it comes to your being a drama queen, I think that that ship has sailed :)
A little late with the "drama queen" thing and not very strong. Try to keep up.
I'm anything but an idealogue or zealot. I want Obama to win because I think the rightwing has taken over the Republican Party for the worse, just as they took over and are destroying the true spirit of Christianity.
Are Obama's politics closer to the philosophy of Jesus than McCain's? I say quite emphatically, "yes!" Is Obama Jesus? Will he turn water into wine? I'll let you and Tony debate that nonsense.
But, compared to McCain's policies, Obama's policies will heal the sick (healthcare) and feed the poor (lower taxes on 95% of Americans).
Wow.
1. If I were posting under two names, then it wouldn't have been a Freudian slip. It would just have been a memory lapse. If I accidentally referred to something you said as a 'Democrap' talking point, then that would be a Freudian slip. [I plead exigent circumstances and an attempt at humor lest anyone to take me to task for that!]
2. You already made a fuss over my using a screen name (for reasons only known to you) and I told you that my name is David and not Stan.
3. I didn't say that you made me do it. I said that I did it because of you. The way that I remember it (I don't have a photographic memory, and I want to have breakfast soon so I'm not going to go looking it up.) is that you criticized me and two others (neither of whom was Stan as I recall) for being long-winded. I've never made the transition from e-mail to im's well because of the emphasis on brevity and I thought that shorter individual comments might be more appropriate here- but that linking them as responses showed that they followed the same thread (given a lack of subject line).
4. Ask Stan if we're the same, if you don't believe me. (Are you really that conspiracy minded? I used to think that it was some sort of tactic or odd flourish on your part.)
And do you know why Obama's campaign doesn't try to smear McCain for all of the mistakes and associations of his earlier life?
A, because it's not relevant except to counterpoint unfair attacks.
and
B, because in Christianity we have a little thing called "forgiveness". If someone says they're sorry or they refute the actions of someone they've met or known, we Christians don't put ourselves above God. We forgive and go on. We don't try to smear people with exaggerations and inuendo.
If the Rightwing really are the moral Christians they claim, they would stick to the issues and quit lieing.
Barry, I'm going to shut up for awhile because I think i made my point. And, I just heard McCain admit to Obama's decency and I watched him stand up to some rightwing crazies.
Thank you, Sen. McCain. I think it's probably too little too late, but i appreciate it and admire you for it. I just wished i believed your supporters felt the same way.
Now, dog gone it, if we can just get some of those policies a little more compassionate, we might not have to drive anymore witches out of town.
BD: A little late with the "drama queen" thing and not very strong.
I absolutely think that you are needlessly dramatic. Do you read your own comments after you post them?
BD: I think the rightwing has taken over the Republican Party for the worse, just as they took over and are destroying the true spirit of Christianity.
Gee- that's certainly not overly dramatic! Are you going to hold forth on the 'true spirit of Christianity' now? What a treat!
BD: Obama's policies will heal the sick (healthcare) and feed the poor (lower taxes on 95% of Americans).
Maybe you're still thinking of Stan. I've told you that I prefer Democratic policies on health care and taxes. I don't have your confidence that Obama will be able to do what he wants on those issues given the current economy. Furthermore, your point about 'Christian' thinking and healthcare ignores that Obama's policies support the terminating of about 750 thousand innocent human lives in our country annually. I'm not a theologian like you (actually, I'm an atheist), but even I can see how this is troubling to Christians. It is troubling to me! How it is that you would have us believe that opposition to those policies is destroying Christianity is something that may be comprehensible only to you.
And if you wanted to say that McCain's campaign has been dirtier than Obama's- then I acknowledged that in the NewsHour comment- BUT- if you want tomaintain that Obama has run a clean campaign or that he didn't get his hands dirty rising up through the ranks in Chicago politics, then you really are an ideologue or a zealot or just plain delusional.
Listening to McCain's recent rallies, I heard people frustrated with HIM because they feel he has not been aggressive enough on confronting Obama on his radical past.
In my memory, the most pointed Obama threat televised to date is Rev. Jackson volunteering to castrate Mr. Obama. Isn't Jackson an African-American democrat?
Now you're starting the same old tired lies now? Really, who do you think is reading this message board who hasn't watched any of the debates? Other than hard core Republicans, who do you think you are going to fool?
As you know, Obama plans to raise taxes for only 5% of Americans. And, as you rightly pointed out, those tax rates will occur due to the expiration and non-renewal of the Bush Tax Cuts.
So, it will depend on Congress. If they don't want the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, they can over-ride Obama's veto.
You're just a liar, Ockraz. Every post convinces me of that.
Obama is also in favor of letting the Bush Tax cuts expire, which will raise everyone's taxes, income, capital gains, and death. So hold onto your hat.
Recall an Obama interview where he was told that each time the capital gains tax was cut tax revenue increased and when the tax increased the tax revenue went down? Obama said, "Oh really." The moderator then queried, "So do you still want to raise taxes?" Obama says, Yes, because it's fair."
In the last debate, Obama conceded that he may need raise the taxes in the face of the poor economy, which harkens back to his revelation that increased taxes do bring in less revenue and are bad for the economy.
You bemoan tactics that your compatriots use themselves and then call anyone a liar who points the fact out to you.
Your guy is going to win the election- why do you insist on being so contemptible when you're winning. It is people like you who are constantly courting rancor who make it so difficult to return to any kind of unity after an election. I've been spending less time with political media lately so that I won't be upset after the election. I can live with either candidate, but people like you just get me angry.
Maybe you're not a liar- maybe you're just a deluded dolt.
I don't understand why you say that that means that poor people would end up paying more in taxes. You can certainly contend that there income might decrease, but I don't see why what they pay in taxes would increase.
Second, if a person who makes less than the required amount to pay taxes works at a job where they have a retirement plan, the money in the retirement plan will be taxed when it is taken out at capital gains rates. So even though raising capital gains tax will really sock it to those evil rich wall street investors, it will also have an effect on the poor. Those Wall Street investors will most likely hide their investments in foreign accounts anyway, so we won't really sock it to them.
Third, there will not be sufficient money to finance Obama's healthplan by using electronic medical records, my group has invested 500 thousand in a computer system five years ago and it's effect on reducing costs is zero and it's still more cumbersome than using a pen and paper. Economist have found that "closing corporate loopholes" will not be sufficient to cover the healthplan costs. This all means increased payroll taxes, everyone pays those.
Fourth, the government will take the pennies from your eyes when you die, instead of one penny Obama wants both. Death taxes affect poor people more than rich people. Rich people have ways to hide their money in trusts, such as the Kennedy Family Trust, and poor people don't, so they get stuck.
There's more at stake than just income taxes, even though that's where most of the arguments focus.
This all be a moot point, if someone flushes now that the economy is in the toilet.
Sure, Ockraz. You're side is slinging mud and telling lies at every opportunity, and I'm the problem. Got it.
Believe it or not from all my typos, I actually have a journalism degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia, one of the top j-schools at that time. Graduated with honors. But I didn't fit in because my politics weren't Left-enough. I didn't fit in. As a student journalist I had the opportunity to interview the likes of John Ashcroft and the late Mel Ashcroft. I attended countless hearings about bills trying to be passed by groups on every point of the political spectrum. I learned to respect all points of view. But I also learned that there is no such thing as objectivity in politics.
As a student intern I worked for Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri. I got the internship because of an honors poli-sci class i was taking. During that class I correctly predicted Bush and Dukakis as the candidates to emerge from a crowded field. While working in D.C. i even met Dan Quayle during a campaign rally. What I learned had nothing to do with either party--i learned that the Senate as an institution is little more than a incumbent re-election factory, literally. There are subways under the ground and countless offices dedicated to nothing but generating constituent letters, newsletters, radio shows, etc., and shipping out certificates, photos and gifts. I don't know how many hours i spent working the Signature Machine on Sen. Bonds' "personal" correspondence. And i saw the daily talking points memos that came over the fax machine.So, I don't need any lectures from you about politics.
While serving in a Muslim country on a military intelligence base, my commanders taught me one thing. There wasn't a war at that time but there was quite a bit of terrorism directed at individual soldiers and sailors at that time. And since I had a Secret Security clearance I read dozens of daily terrorism briefings. So again, I don't need any lectures from you. I served my country. Our commanders at that time kept drilling one thing into us: you can only fight the guy in front of you. You can't win a war or defeat terrorism by yourself.
So, that's what I'm doing on this message board with less than 100 posts a week. I'm just fighting the enemy that's in front of me. I can't answer all the lies that are being unfairly made against a decent, family man--Obama, but I can refute the ones you guys make here.
And just to finish this boring lecture, I learned something else when I worked for a nonprofit education group for ten years: manipulating a corporate board is not an art but a science. So, it's very easy for me to understand how all these executives and CEOs were able to legally rob their shareholders.
So, instead of middle class working stiffs like you and me fighting over tax cuts for the wealthy, we should be working together to throw these bums out. We can fight the issues after the election, but 8 years is enough. Don't you think?
If Obama is the miserable failure you think he is, then you guys can come back in 2012 and support Palin.
What do you think?
Don't quote me on this, but I have heard that Obama is not truly promoting a permanent tax cut, he wants to provide a single tax refund, but the tax rates will remain the same. If true, it's essentially bribing the constituency. This would be in keeping with his proposal to provide a one-time $300 stipend to people on social security during the democratic primary...You vote for me and I'll give you $300. To remain fair and non-partisan, you could also compare it to McCain's repeal the gas tax for the summer.
Just listen to what George Soros has to say and then maybe we can move forward with a discussion on where we can go from here..
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.htmlHere's a site that does that: http://www.taxfoundation.org/candidates08/
Personal income tax:
Obama's plan maintains the Bush tax cuts for the lower tax brackets (up to income of $173K). Obama would roll back the Bush tax cuts for the two highest tax brackets, restoring the Clinton-era tax rates at that level (increase from current 33% to 36% on income $173K-366K, and increase from current 35% to 39.6% on income $366K+). I think it's clear this includes no increase for low-income and middle-income people, and an increase only for people who are truly higher-income.
Obama's plan also eliminates all income taxation for seniors making under $50K.
McCain's plan simply maintains the current Bush tax cuts.
Corporate taxes:
Obama's plan eliminates capital gains taxes for startups and small businesses.
McCain would cut corporate taxes from the current 35% to 25%.
Tax Reform:
Not many specifics from either candidate, except that Obama would instruct the IRS to provide a pre-filled tax form to many taxpayers.
Coincidentally, this was a recommendation of the Taxpayer's Advocacy Panel in 2007 (my father served on the TAP). It would save a lot of money and hassle for many Americans who have simple taxes, and reduce mistakes and the cost of processing taxes. But not surprisingly the tax preparation industry (e.g. H&R Block) is against it.
Estate Tax:
Obama: 45% tax on estates over $3.5M ($7M for couples).
McCain: 15% tax on estates over $5M ($10M for couples).
Social Security Payroll Tax:
McCain: no change from current system; SS tax is 12.4% for income up to $102K, then zero tax for income over $102K.
Obama: same, but add new 4% SS tax for income over $250K, taking effect after 2018.
AMT:
McCain: phase out AMT (I'm in favor of this).
Obama: extend AMT patch. This is the same thing we've been doing for several years, and because the Senate did this so late in 2007, the IRS had to reprogram its forms. What a mess! We should just eliminate the AMT.
Capital Gains Tax:
McCain: maintain current 15% tax on capital gains and dividends.
Obama: increase rate to 20% tax on capital gains and dividends.
Other:
Each candidate has a set of tax credits and increases to dependent exemptions and so on.
Sheer continues to be a despicable old crank.
He says that Obama should be at 90% in the polls and then suggests that since he isn't it's because of racism. Disgusting.
Sarah Palin is a "Bimbo"? Can't you find someone else to represent the "left" other than someone whose views are so far out in left field that the buses won't even go there?
As far as his flacking for Interest rate controls, which bank is trying to offer loans at 40-50%? Maybe for non-secured short term personal bank loans for someone with bad credit so who cares?
Here's how I'd like a true leader to react:
Crowd: "Obama is a traitor! Off with his head!"
McCain: "Now, hold on, sir/ma'am. I have to pause my speech to address that comment. We don't think that Senator Obama is a good choice for president, but he's still an American and a good man. He's doing what he thinks is right. We disagree with that, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. That's what America is about. We live in a country dedicated to freedom and liberty, and that's what makes us strong. That means that even when we disagree, we have to get along. Respect one another. Protect one another's rights. If we don't do that, we've lost what America stands for. Anybody who wants to take away another American's rights, will have me to answer to. Is that clear? Now, back to my ill-concieved and meandering economic policy."
That would be the message of a leader. McCain and Palin were silent during most of the angry comments, which is not leadership. It's tacit approval of the anger and the threats.
I got this lovely e-mail from my father this morning. Lovely. He's serious, so he's believing all these rightwing lies.
I guess it wouldn't make any difference to point out to your father that George W. Bush has a much closer relationship with the Bin Laden family than Barack Obama has. :-) GWB's first oil company, Arbusto Energy, received a $50K investment on behalf of Salem Bin Laden, elder half-brother to Osama Bin Laden.
The first thing you learn in politics is not to argue with people who will never change their mind. I could provide my dad with an encyclopedia of facts. It's not going to work. He's retired and worried about his 401K. He's looking for someone to blame, and the last person he wants to blame is himself and the support he has given to Bush's policies. He, like many Americans, trusted Bush and still does, simply on cultural grounds.
By the way, I was born in 1965. He named me after Barry Goldwater, who lost in 64.
That goes both ways.
That's precisely my point- you are acting as if I (and 2 or 3 others) are your enemies. While I don't feel that way about people who disagree with me politicaly, I do come to feel that way about people who snipe at and insult and challenge the integrity of people merely for holding the same views that I have. Your choosing to treat people as enemies makes them such- That is a problem for decent fair minded people- but apparently not for you.
You can make all the personal attacks you want. If you lie, I will make sure it's pointed out.
I don't care if you counterpoint every sentence of mine in every post.
I don't care if you like me, respect me or even ignore me.
I'm not going to let people like you dehumanize me.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops wrote a statement on voting called 'Faithful citizenship' that can be downloaded from: http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/
Catholics, and others, should read it. One note: near the end section 89 reads:
As Catholics, we are led to raise questions for
political life other than “Are you better off than
you were two or four years ago?” Our focus is not
on party affiliation, ideology, economics, or even
competence and capacity to perform duties, as
important as such issues are. Rather, we focus on
what protects or threatens human life and dignity.
You are accusing me of personal attacks?!
You dehumanize yourself with your own rhetoric.
I tell you what Barry- if calling someone a liar who isn't one counts as lying- then you are personally responsible for the vast majority of lies on here.
RG: One survey showed that 95% of the people consider themselves to be middle class regardless of their income level, which is why every politician is for the middle class.
I've noticed that myself :) I find it kind of amusing.
RG: Second, if a person who makes less than the required amount to pay taxes works at a job where they have a retirement plan, the money in the retirement plan will be taxed when it is taken out at capital gains rates.
I thought that Obama had said that the capital gains tax increase would include some sort of 'means testing' (I think that's the right term.) so that people who were below a set level for annual income wouldn't be affected.
RG: Third, there will not be sufficient money to finance Obama's healthplan by using electronic medical records... This all means increased payroll taxes, everyone pays those.
I agree that he doesn't account for the funds he needs here- but why payroll taxes? Isn't it more likely that he'd just run up more debt instead? That's the sort of thing I meant when I questioned his raising taxes on people who aren't well to do (if you consider $250K as the 'well-to-do' line).
RG: Death taxes affect poor people more than rich people.
That's not consistent with what I heard on NPR. I don't remember the exact number, but I thought that estate taxes only affected people who left over a $1M or so.
You probably know more about economics than I. Even though it was a major gaffe, I identified with McCain when he said that he needed to know more about the economy. It always seemed to me that there were so many variables involved and so much capacity for irrational behavior that it wasn't a real science, and I never found it very interesting.
Stop making person attacks if you don't want to be accused of making personal attacks. How bout that?
As for the "life" issue being promoted by a self-described 'atheist' your lates erratic post is a lot to believe. But I will take you at your word that this is a real concern for you.
First of all, Obama believes that it's a woman's choice to decide what to do with her body. That doesn't mean he's pro-abortion. He's not. Biden put it best when he said he accepts the Catholic teaching about when life begins but recognizes it's not something that is scientific. When a soul is born can never be proven scientifically, as any good Atheist knows, and it's a religous teaching. Biden doesn't believe religious teaching should be legislated.
My personal belief is that God put the baby in the woman's body on purpose. He didn't put it on her shoulder or in an egg that could be taken from the woman and sat on inside a government icubator until it hatched. By putting the egg, then the fetus inside the mother, God gave the mother the decision and the power. I am personally against abortion and support policies that both discourage abortion and encourage life. Abortion is and should be a difficult decision, not one that is made casually.
Rich people have always had access to safe, discreet abortions and always will no matter what the law is. They can simply travel to wherever in the world it's safe and legal.
We don't need to oppress women again or kill doctors who provide this medical service.
Doesn't Obama say that of you have an income <$250K, then your taxes decrease? From what you said, it sounds like that isn't true if your income is above $173K.
BK: Obama's plan also eliminates all income taxation for seniors making under $50K.
Does that include capital gains taxes?
Do you know what the minimum amount is before estate taxes are levied? I thought that it was a lot.
BK: Obama - add new 4% SS tax for income over $250K, taking effect after 2018.
If it takes place after his administration would end (even assuming a 2nd term), then isn't it meaningless?
BK: McCain: maintain current 15% tax on capital gains and dividends.
Obama: increase rate to 20% tax on capital gains and dividends.
Is that regardless of your annual income?
On LRC, Matt said something about increasing SS payroll taxes hurting small businesses, but I don't know what he meant. Can you explain?BD: Stop making person attacks if you don't want to be accused of making personal attacks. How bout that?
BD: As for the "life" issue being promoted by a self-described 'atheist' your lates erratic post is a lot to believe. But I will take you at your word that this is a real concern for you.
BD: First of all, Obama believes that it's a woman's choice to decide what to do with her body. That doesn't mean he's pro-abortion. He's not.
BD: Biden put it best when he said he accepts the Catholic teaching about when life begins but recognizes it's not something that is scientific.
BD: When a soul is born can never be proven scientifically, as any good Atheist knows, and it's a religous teaching. Biden doesn't believe religious teaching should be legislated.
BD: My personal belief is that God put the baby in the woman's body on purpose.
BD: He didn't put it on her shoulder or in an egg that could be taken from the woman and sat on inside a government icubator until it hatched. By putting the egg, then the fetus inside the mother, God gave the mother the decision and the power.
BD: I am personally against abortion and support policies that both discourage abortion and encourage life.
BD: Rich people have always had access to safe, discreet abortions and always will no matter what the law is. They can simply travel to wherever in the world it's safe and legal.
BD: We don't need to oppress women again or kill doctors who provide this medical service.
PS- thanks for the explanation :)
Wow, you're all over the place Ockraz. But I think I made my points fairly clearly.
When a soul comes into the body is a religious teaching, not a scientific one.
Religion is personal; it's not a state or federal issue.
I think most people agree with me on that, at least, so I'm not sure what we're actually arguing about.
If we're arguing about which party will work to defeat Roe v Wade, on paper that is clearly the Republicans.
But the Republicans elite, who are primarily driven by financial considerations, don't really care about abortion either. Like I said before, the wealthy will get their abortions one way or the other.
But as an intern in a Republican office 20 years ago, i tried to get them to pusht he Abortion issue. I had done a Pro-Life research thesis in my honor poli-sci course. Everytime I raised the issue they coaxed me in another direction.
Of course, I have changed my view of Choice over the years even though personally i'm still opposed to abortion.
As far as Means testing distributions from IRA/401k, how do you decide "means"? Since in retirement your income may be only from your IRA/401k, you could be fairly wealthy but only take a small amount out of your retirement in a given year or you could have a huge retirement savings from having led a frugal life and decide to take out large sums per year to enjoy retirement.
I think saying it effects "poor" might be an overstatement but it does effect people who are middle class and working hard. If a person dies who owns a large amount of assets (for example, a couple of hardware stores worth $2Million) this could force heirs to have to sell assets or take a huge loan in order to pay the tax(several $100K) if there isn't that much in liquid cash laying around because many small business owners put all their profits into their business.
The exemption used to be larger for farms but some family farms can be worth millions, especially if their farm in in proximity to a growing city.
BD: Wow, you're all over the place Ockraz.
Most elected officials don't even pay attention to their Party Platforms. Platform statements and primary elections are time when the base of a party argues among themselves over their policy beliefs and ideals. It's quite natural and appropriate for candidates to argue they are the best person to pursue those ideals and that they best represent their party and have the best chance to win.
It's equally natural for both party's to move to the center during the general election. Moving to the center is just another way of saying that you are trying to get the non-party members or "independents" to vote for your side. If they already agreed with everything the party believes, they'd be Repubican or Democrat already.
That's why it's so bizarre that instead of moving to the center, like Obama has done, McCain chose to take a hard Right. He did this most overtly by choosing pro-life superstar Palin even though she represents the most extreme wing of the party.
How is that being a maverick?
BD: I think I made my points fairly clearly.
I dont know what tell you except that i was pretty clear. Very few people on the planet support abortion. Most people are opposed to it. But they think it should be the woman's decision not yours, Ockraz. Is that really so hard for you to understand? Or must everything be intellectualized?
So, riddle me this: Is the day-after pill actually a form of abortion? Is birth-control bad, too, in your opinion? How can the Catholic Church be opposed to something that prevents something else they are opposed to?
If you want to intellectualize and dehumanize it, what would happen if the whole world adopted the Catholic position on abortion? Don't you think China already has enough people? What about India? Will there be enough resources to support everyone? Won't fights over the world's limited resources just continue?
BD: Most elected officials don't even pay attention to their Party Platforms.
Of course they do! The platform is created by the advocacy groups that make up the coalition which is the base of the party. Anyone who wants the support of their base has to try to make them happy, and the platform is their wishlist.
More to the point- you seem to characterize my political views as erratic because they incorporate elements that are traditionally advocated by groups that don't get along. My point was that those groups tend to cooperate in large part because we have a two party state and they are thrown together in a struggle for power. They aren't natural allies, so why should a free thinking person pick views that belong to the left or the right when the left or the right isn't intellectually coherent?
As far as the judges go, you mentioned the NRA earlier. The most recent court decision -- which i agreed with -- basically made it up out of whole cloth.
They basically ruled that individuals have the right to own arms for personal defense and hunting, but that this right was not unlimited. They said it's ok to regulate guns but not to forbid them.
Scalia had to go back to English history to justify his ruling.
BD: It's so bizarre that instead of moving to the center, like Obama has done, McCain chose to take a hard Right. He did this most overtly by choosing pro-life superstar Palin even though she represents the most extreme wing of the party. How is that being a maverick?
It isn't. McCain's being a maverick endeared him to centrists in the past (like you), but it also estranged him from elements of the base. Given the climate this election cycle and the unpopularity of the war, he needed the base and couldn't count on the centrists who used to support him.
It was a calculated political move to try to win the election, and if it hadn't been for the financial crisis, it might have worked.
When the election was about foreign policy, he could have won. When it was about the price of energy, he could have won. When it became about real estate investments and global finance and credit markets, his candidacy imploded. I wouldn't bet on him winning at ten to one odds, and I'm still not sure I'm going to vote for him.
#1) I think that everything should be intellectuallized. The more so the better. As a Bright (the preferred term- 'atheist' defines you as something you aren't, not what you are), I think that we are animals, but not MERELY animals. Our intellect makes the difference. Politics suffers not from to much intellectualizing but too little. ('I'd have a beer with candidate X.' or 'Candidate Y seems really cool.' too many people vote on this nonsense.)
#2) You are not opposed to abortion. Why do people insist on this stupid trope? Look, I'm dry (a teetotaller), but that doesn't make me against liquor. If I wanted to bring prohibition back then I'd be against liquor.
What does it mean when you say that you are against abortion? That you won't have one? That you'd council others not to have them? You are in favor of keeping it available to those who want it. That's not being against it. You just personally dislike abortion (I guess).
The correct term (though not the one usually used)- is 'right to life', not pro-life. Everyone says pro-life, but that doesn't really tell you anything. (Who is against life?) By the same token, pro-choice is meaningless (school choice; choice to own guns- to legally use drugs- to marry whomever you choose?). Sometimes people say 'abortion-rights', and that makes a lot more sense.
You are a supporter of 'abortion-rights' and an opponent of a 'right-to-life'.
"Very few people on the planet support abortion."
That's just sloppy semiotics masquerading as ideology.
BD: what would happen if the whole world adopted the Catholic position
BD: How can the Catholic Church be opposed to something that prevents something else they are opposed to?
BD: What would happen if the whole world adopted the Catholic position on abortion? Don't you think China already has enough people? What about India? Will there be enough resources to support everyone? Won't fights over the world's limited resources just continue?
BD: Is birth-control bad, too, in your opinion?
That's a leap! I can believe that human life shouldn't be disposable, despite not believing in god, but why would I care two shakes about gametes?
You said before that when human life begins hasn't been decided. I think that that is something that (as Mr. X would say) you pulled out of your rear. However, gametes aren't human life. They aren't humans. (Unlike fetuses, they lack half of our genome.) They don't even meet the traditional criteria for life. (Fetuses can grow, and as long as they are healthy they can reproduce.)
The most important point (IMO) is one you still haven't addressed. Why are you assuming that abortion is a church/state issue. I believe in freedom of conscience as an absolute. (In an earlier age, people who thought as I do could have been persecuted for it, after all.) Where's the connection to abortion? Is euthanasia a religious issue too? It is controversial in pretty secular cultures in Western Europe.
When I brought up abolitionism, I meant it. You're employing the genetic fallacy here (which I guess is an improvement over your constant ad hominem attacks). Just because the genesis of an ideological movement was tied to religious groups, doesn't mean that there is anything essentially religious about the ideology. The right-to-life movement is led largely by Catholics and Evangelicals, but the abolition movement was led originally by Quakers, Methodists and Baptists. You're probably familiar with the 'Am I not a man and a brother' medallions. There is no reason why we could not see people today with 'Am I not human and a child' buttons instead of the little feet pins. Both movements are political and (despite finding strongest support in churches) not essentially religious.BD: As far as the judges go, you mentioned the NRA earlier. The most recent court decision -- which i agreed with -- basically made it up out of whole cloth.
Well then, you and I are at least consistent in this regard. I didn't agree with the ruling. You favor judicial activism, and I don't. I think that it is anti-democratic.
In the case you're mentioning, I think that the strict interpretation of the intent of the 2nd amendment would grant that there is a right to gun ownership, but the right is politically motivated (In other words, it isn't about defense against crime.) I don't think that the 'only in militias' argument is legitimate, because my take is that the founders were concerned not just with defense against foreign enemies, but also against domestic tyranny. I think that it was specified as a right to safeguard against a state which would render citizens unable to physically resist their own government should it become tyrranical. Therefore, since the D.C. ban allowed ownership in the home if you had a 'long gun' and it was trigger-locked (or disassembled), then it should not have violated the second amendment.
Barack Obama took a moment this morning to thank John McCain for attempting to rein in his angry crowd yesterday. “Senator McCain tried to tone down the rhetoric,” Obama told a rally in Philadelphia today. “I appreciate his reminder that we can disagree while being respectful of each other.” McCain had asked his crowd to exercise such respect and quickly cut off a supporter who called Obama “an Arab terrorist.”
You brought up the comparison to slavery. It is wrong to hold a human being responsible to another against their will. That idea could be applied to an unwilling woman who finds herself bearing a child. The reason the abortion issue is so intractable is that it places the freedom of two human beings in opposition to one another. Individual freedoms are non-negotiable and inalienable, so we're at a permanent stalemate.
Here's another metaphor: suppose you receive a phone call from a hospital. A young child is dying of a disease, and you have been determined to be the only suitable donor of an organ that will save the child's life. Would you do it? I'm sure you would. Many people would be happy to do so.
But is it right that the government makes it mandatory that you give up an organ? You must undergo surgery, submit to a painful hospital stay, perhaps lose job opportunities, etc. Oh by the way, did we mention that you're required to pay for this operation, too. Shouldn't you have the freedom to choose in this situation? Even if your choice may lead to the death of another human being?
Another nuance to the abortion issue is that many of the most vocal people in the Pro-Life movement also oppose family planning education, availability of birth control, public assistance for pre-natal and post-natal care, and support for adoption services. All factors that are proven to reduce the number of abortions.
If people who oppose abortions were practical instead of ideological, they should promote programs that reduce the demand for abortions by supporting real alternatives. This suggests to me that the Pro-Life movement is more religious in origin instead of political.
I support Pro-Choice. We cannot resolve the tie between the unborns right to live and the woman's right to choose when and if she bears a child. Since that's a tie, we must decide based on other grounds. Our society supports individuals' rights in many cases, such as freedom of religion, freedom to vote, innocent until proven guilty, etc. I count a woman's right to choose if she will bear a child among these kinds of individual freedoms. Society and government must not have the power to impose that choice on the individual woman.
There have been inappropriate things said by third parties about McCain too, that he's old or crazy or whatever. But the things said about Obama aren't merely unfair, they're false. The pointed accusations that Obama is a Muslim aren't merely false, they're racist. Every time Obama is referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama" on the media or when introducing a John McCain speech (as happened twice last week) is not only perpetuating a false rumor that Obama is Muslim (or at least foreign), but it unfairly casts all Muslims as villains, and that's pure bigotry.
John McCain denounces this kind of rhetoric only sporadically, and a very lukewarm fashion. My belief is that privately, he is disgusted by the racism, but his campaign message handlers, like Steve Schmidt, have told him to let it happen. It actually does help him, among certain voters at least, to allow xenophobia to go on.
How about Madonna flashing a picture of McCain and Hitler together?
Just because Obama's campaign says they're not attacking McCain doesn't make it so.
Neither is Obama responsible for Madonna's provocative messages. There's no reason to believe that the Obama campaign had anything to do with her diatribes.
If you're going to hold Obama responsible for what Madonna says, I guess we should hold John McCain responsible for the rhetoric of other entertainers who make their living from shock value, like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. I'm not suggesting either would be appropriate -- my intent by making that comparison is to show clearly how inappropriate that would be.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
Why should Obama be asked to retract Lewis' statement? Lewis is a member of the HOR and McCain is a big boy and if he wants a retraction he should ask of it from Lewis himself.
Also, I am not sure that McCain deserves a retraction anyway. He is doing exactly what Lewis said he was doing and that is he is fomenting hate at his rallies. While he doesn't control his mobs, he does control the rhetorical lead up to when he asks the question, "Who is Barack Obama?"
Before that question gets asked, Palin has given her speech where she links him to a known domestic terrorist, but doesn't mention that he only met the guy on a board set up by Annenber (a republican) to improve education in Chicago, then says that Obama doesn't share our values and lets the listeners connect the dots that if he pals aroudn with Ayers, and he doesn't share our values, and we heard in the introduction his middle name "Hussain", then Obama must be a terrorist. So when John McCain asks the question, "Who is Barack Obama?" he is begging for that answer "A terrorist!" because his speech writers set it up that way.
They want to have plausible deniability. John McCain never said Obama was a terrorist. It is the uncontrollable crowd that did. Let's not all be so naive here on the LRC blogs. This is very good rehtorical manipulation on the part of the McCain/Palin speech writers so bravo to them for being so manipulative. However, this is exaclty how hate speech begins. This was true for Wallace, David Duke, when he woudl speak to his non-KKK crowds and even for Hitler.
Do I think that McCain is as prejudiced as Wallace, Duke or Hitler. Absolutely not. I actually think he is, or was, a decent guy. However, I think he wants to win at any cost and he is putting aside his ethical compass and has put himself on a slippery slope of accepting an ever increasing level of hate mongering rhetoric.
In the end, I think it is a mistake as I think it will energize his base, but turn off the independents.
Ockraz, again I think everything I said was very clear. You're trying way to hard to slice and dice everything I say. I can't imagine anyone else is reading your counterpoints to me--I'm only scanning through them myself.
It's simply a fact that being Pro-Choice doesn't make you Pro-Abortion, hence the name, pro "choice".
How's that any harder to believe than a Pro-Life Atheist, which you purport to be.
We have seen plenty of HATE from the left.
Michelle Malkin lists tons in one blog post:
The Atlantic Photographer posting pictures of McCain with blood and fangs
Sandra Bernhard fantasizing about Palin going to New York and getitng gang raped.
The Madanna McCain, Hitler comparison.
Abort Sara Palin stickers
The democratic underground website filled with plenty of hate
But some yahoos call Obama some bad names at a McCain event and the press goes unhinged. Yet they go out of their way to avoid pointing out and out hate coming from the left.
What about all those left wing protesters?
McCain=War criminal?
Protesters arrested with feces?
But it's only the right wingers that get any notice.
I am Stan H and am not Ackraz, Barry Dalton, Right Guy or Mr. X
For a program that exists as an alternative to screaming talking heads, there sure are a lot of that activity on this blog. Is there anyway that individuals can just email each other if they are going to take over the blog, particularly with insults. There is a link to do that.
I am very concerned about the ugliness and anger which we are seeing out of the Republican rallies and postings on blogs, particularly those that contain demeaning names for Obama, Obamassiah, O-bam-bam, Obomanation, Obambi, a new one on this blog bacarama bin laden. Ot many references to him as "litttle," starting perhaps with Limbaugh's "little black man child." And of course the repetition of his middle name Hussein which is also the name of the high negative leader about whom we are embroiled in a 2 wars in Iraq. You may have seen the lady from West Virginia on the Daily Show who said "I don't like Hussein." Plus all the booing, cries of traitor and off with his head. And all the may stream of consciousness narratives that these people construct out of straws, most recently how the Dems, Obama and Acorn caused the economic meltdown, and these narratives about Ayers and Obama which are trying to unleash all the sixties social conflict and negativity. And all the stuff about how Obama is a Marxist, socialist radical instead of a cautious Ivy Legaue lawyer whose nuanced ideas put people to sleep (try to make a sound bite out of his 12 point health care plan).
This is really an issue about the role of the so called conservative Republican "base" whose virulent emotional energy has empowered Republican victories, and particularly Bush's. McCain was not their candidate, and his first need after winning the nomination was to get them on board. That is why he picked Palin, the self described "pit bull with lipstick," to rile them up with her demeaning attacks. Generally the candidate has surrogates such as the VP candidate do the negative stuff while he stays looking presidential. However, McCain also needs to separate himself from Bush, and from those elements of the "base" that turn off independent voters, and to make his case that he is a new kind of Republican leader given the disasterous experience of Bush's 8 years. And McCain has never been a "base" kind of guy although he supported Bush 90% of the time. That may make you a maverick in Republican circles where party cohesive party discipline has been the road to power. He may not like or want to encourage that level of emotionality. But the base is not happy, and that leaves him in a quandry.
For all the talk about reaching across the aisle, it is hard to imagine any positive response from these people, even to McCain, let alone Obama. Democracy is in trouble under such situations. We need to ask why society produces so many people like this, perhaps by being demeaning and devaluing within a society that operates by demeaning and devaluing, and where the only way out is to devalue and demean others. What kind of democratic system can you have when people are that unwilling to participate in a larger society?
"Bimbo" was not the right term for Scheer to use for Palin
What we see in the Ayres controversy is the same pattern as we did in the Wright controversy, initial denial and partial, orchestrated answers. Unlike Wright, Obama cannot come out and give a speech about race relations in America, can he give a speech about being more understanding about a guy who still would like to bomb the capital? Obama's only defense is to make the McCain campaign's accusations appear vicious and baseless.
The crux of the matter is not, why did Obama pick Ayres? We should be asking, why did Ayres pick Obama? We know Ayres still carries his radical opinion of America and it is only reasonable to conclude that Ayres would select someone who shared his views to head the distribution of his foundation grant and to do a campaign fund raiser for. Can we honestly say that Bill Ayres, unrepentant terrorist, would host a campaign fund raiser for someone who does not share his view? The simple answer is, no.
How can you refute the video evidence? If calling Obama a scary Arab who pals around with terrorists is not hate-speech, what is it?
I wait on the edge of my seat for your reasonable and rationale response.
You can lean back on your seat now, Barry.
If you cared at all about facts, you would know that it was a Reagan pal who funded the board which Ayers was only an advisor to and which Obama chaired for awhile.
The funder of the board was publishing magnate Walter Annenberg, a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain.
Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Journalism, and a host of other mainstream folks.
Among the groups funded by the board were:
Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.
I'm sorry. Are once again promulgating the lie that Obama is a Muslim?
"because she couldn't recall the word Muslim"
I'm still on the edge of my seat, waiting...
We were talking about how Palin, primarily, and also McCain inflamed tensions that led to the event and other events you described. Even today I saw a photo of a man at a Palin rally carrying a monkey doll with Obama's name on it.
But I suppose this shouldnt be a surprise.
The McCain/Palin ticket is the first in American history in which both candidates were found to have violated ethics standards by a legislative body controlled by their own party.
McCain, of course, was admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee "for exercising 'poor judgment' for intervening" with federal regulators on behalf of Charles Keating.
And now Palin has also been found to have violated state ethics laws in Alaska by a Republican legislature.
The nation has had 102 major-party tickets covering 51 presidential elections over more than two centuries. And this has never happened before.
We better start some more distractions...
Thank you for not being sarcastic.
First, who cares that Palin wanted a bad cop fired after he tazered a kid and drinks on the job and threatened her family.
Second, the democratic, independent prosecutor in the Keating affair still says that McCain should have been dropped from the investigation, but the committee that should be listening to their independent prosecutor failed to heed his recommendation because the other four senators were all democrats. It was one of the few times a senate committe went against the advice of their own independent prosecutor.
So let's get back to why Bill Ayers had a close relationship with Obama.
One wrinkle on the Ayers controversy is that this guy may be a model of what we better hope happens in Iraq, namely people engaged in violent militancy lay down their weapons, get involved in nonviolent political activity to further their political aims and beliefs. For all this talk of him being an "unrepentent terrorist" he is a professor, has gotten civic awards in Chicago and no one has accused him of blowing up anything for decades. Whether he denounces violence in theory (most Americans and both candidates do not) he has certainly abandoned it in practice. Plus he was never even convicted of any violence, although it appears the government harmed its case against him by its own misconduct, which might also tell us something. So it seems like he may be a model ex-offender, another thing America could use more of given its incarceration rates which are among the highest in the world.
Again this narrative that Ayers is some kind of James Bond villain mastermind pulling Obama's strings seems like fantasy, These boards they were on were filled with high profile academics, business people and lawyers. I have been on a couple of low profile boards involving jail ministry and community work and I am sure there are some ex-offenders involved. That doesn't mean I endorse the crimes they committed. At most Ayers raised some money for Obama's early campaign, donated $200, and will probably vote for him. He and everyone else has one vote. All politicians including Obama and McCain come into contact with some people who are or at some time have been up to no good. The whole politics of denouncing someone (past subjects in various presidential campaigns include Farrakhan, Sister Soulja, Playboy Magazine, various talk radio hosts, and most recently extent Rep. John Lewis) to prove that you are ok is oversimplistic and hypocritical.
It seems like the right is trying to nitpick Obama's memory ("We don't care that much about what happened. Not us. We just want to know if he is telling the truth.") in order to unleash the passions about the sixties that have dominated politics ever since. Maybe they hope the photo of Ayers in his Weather Underground days will stir the passions the way the photo of Willie Horton did for Bush I. But he's not the same guy, any more than anyone else is.
Today columnist David Brooks, usually a reliable conservative pundit, suggests that the Republicans have hurt themselves by doing "class warfare" (which of course they usually accuse the Democrats of doing) pushing away the educated part of their traditional constituency, suburban business people. Still the race remains amazingly close given how badly Bush has done and how few of McCain's "maverick" votes were in subjects of concern to voters. I guess Obama is a tough embrace, even you ignore his cultural differences. In anxious times, you want a leader who is strong, smart but also feels peoples pain and might think twice about causing it. Clinton gets some ridicule about this, but he was more successful in showing that human side than Obama has been.
An intersting part of the last show was talking about the economic future and how the way we run the financial system might change (Miller gave a long paen on this.) It was all somewhat vague as there was more talk about Adam Smith and ancient theories of capitalism. Those were all written before there were derivatives and CDOs, although there have long been bubbles and heavy doses of irrationality in markets. Could you reserve 5 minutes or so to talk about some more details?
It wasn't a Democratic Board. That's just not true. And she fired a member of her cabinet, I believe. Not her "board." And he was a Republican.
In any case, the bi-partisan committee said Palin violated ethics laws, but that she was permitted to fire her staff for any reason, even an unethical one.
I'd like to appologize for any insults I've made against anyone. I will try to not make personal attacks or points of honor in the future.
In fact, I may vote for McCain, because I know what it's like to be a maverick now. Nobody seems to like me -- Left, Right or Center. Even "the man" has privately and now publicly scolded me.
I confess I just don't get it. I don't see how anything I've posted would keep others from posting. Most of my posts are fairly short and can just be skipped over.
Constructively, I think it would be a great idea to limit how many posts anyone can make per day. I also think there should be a word limit. That's just my 2 cents.
I'll try to keep it clean and impersonal in the future so as not to scare anybody away from this great podcast, which I really enjoy even if they have been squabbling a lot lately.
You should read Bill Ayers' own blog clarifying his statements and condemning terrorism. Obama has also made clear statements that he strongly condemns the violence committed by the Weathermen, as he does all violence. You shouldn't believe all (or perhaps any) of what you hear on Fox News.
By comparison, John McCain was a very close friend of Charles Keating, received $112K in political donations from Keating, and accepted trips on Keating's jets (McCain paid for the trips later, when things got sticky). McCain played a minor role in Keating's S&L fraud crime, which cost the taxpayers more than $3 billion. John McCain was cleared of wrongdoing, but mildly rebuked, by the Senate Ethics Committee.
The response to Fox News obsessing about Bill Ayers is, not surprisingly, for opponents to bring up Charles Keating, complete with exaggerations similar to those used in the claims of an Obama-Ayers relationship. So I'm surprised McCain supporters want to bring up this issue of past criminal associations, because if anything, McCain had a much closer association with Charles Keating than Obama had with Bill Ayers.
John McCain has admitted that the Keating episode was the greatest mistake of his life, and that should be enough for us to trust that McCain learned a lot about Senatorial ethics from the affair. In fact, McCain devoted a lot of his career to ethics reform in years after that.
So people can reform and make amends for their mistakes, can't they? The Obama-Ayers issue is a dog that won't hunt. It's a distraction.
By-the-way, just because I'm conservative, doesn't mean that I develop my views from Fox News. It is presumptive and of a restricted view point on your part.
Why don't you go to National Review and read through some of Stanley Kurtz's articles. At least he is basing his articles on researching the documents instead of what Obama's campaign is feeding him like the NY Times.
Yes, I agree. After I worte that, I thought
Nowhere in that linked blog was Bill Ayers condemning what he did in the 60's and 70's. He didn't say, "I was wrong." I got the impression that he considered all US use of force to be 'terrorism' which is what he condemns.
Interesting quotes:
He seems to justifies his violence in part because the Vietnam War itself was so violent and unjust, which to my mind is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right.
This reminds me of an interview I heard with a veteran journalist (I recall it was Seymour Hersh). He said that he's interviewed a lot of people who did criminal acts, but none of these perpetrators ever feels they did anything wrong.
In any case, none of this should reflect on Barack Obama. The claim is guilt-by-association claims against Barack Obama for working with Bill Ayers twenty years after Ayers perpetrated violent acts. I think McCain supporters should think twice before going down the guilt-by-association path.
Again, we should question why, when Ayres continues to express his radical views, did he choose Obama to manage his grant funds for 10 years and gave him a coming out party for his first political activity. Ayres would not support someone who did not share his views and that's very troubling to me. The fact that Obama purposefully hid his association and continues to do so is troubling to me.
So far, trooper-gate has gotten much more investigation and press time than the Obama-Ayres association. The least that should be done is to impartially investigate this association and for Obama to freely come forward with all information.
Rightguy, you can work the refs all you want. you can fool the moderator with how intellectual and respect you pretend to be.
But you are lieing. Why don't you just stop it and talk about the issues?
The issues:
1. McCain has repeatedly lied during his run for the presidency.
2. Palin is a rightwing, religious zealot who was prayed over by a witchdoctor and in turn credited him with her election.
3. McCain and Palin have both been convicted of ETHICS VIOLATIONS - whether that was unfair in your little opinion is irrelevant.
4. McCain will give more tax breaks to the very rich while Obama will reduce taxes for the rest of us.
5. McCain and Palin hope to end Roe v Wade and criminalize women in trouble and the doctors that help them.
6. McCain has been erratic in his reactions to the economic crisis, literally changing his mind and his public positions daily. "Suspending his campaign", which he never did, was just a cheap political gimmick.
7. McCain is a neocon. He cheerleaded the unneccessary invasion of Iraq and said it would be easy...he now says he knew all along it would be difficult.
8. McCain bragged repeatedly during the primaries how much he supported Bush all the time. Now, he wants to throw Bush under the bus. Just because Bush is willing to eat his treads, doesn't make it honest.
9. McCain has horrible temper that is not suitable for the presidency. There is too much evidence for this to ignore.
10. McCain has associated with and is still actively supported by countless rightwing radicals and racists.
ShanH, I know you and I aren't pals, but you seem an honest broker. Instead of buying into this hokey Ayers argument than even the McCain has dropped for now, can you tell me the "real deal" on McCain's gambling? If he really does have a big gambling problem, why isn't there more about it in the media? Why are the protecting McCain?
Federal law and Senate rules require all income to be reported on annual financial disclosure reports. The Senate Ethics Manual states that winnings, such as those derived from a lottery or a game show, are gifts that must be reported as income. Knowingly filing a false report is a crime punishable by up to five years in jail.
Nevertheless, Sen. McCain reported no income derived from gambling on the personal financial disclosure reports he filed with the Senate between 2000 and 2007.
In contrast, other members of Congress, including Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) all reported winnings on their financial disclosure reports.
Given Sen. McCain’s long history of gambling, the fact that he never included gambling income on his financial disclosure forms suggests he is either the unluckiest gambler ever or, more likely, he failed to report the income.
Given McCains ethics convictions in the past, shouldn't the Senate Ethics Committee investigate whether Sen. McCain deliberately failed to report gambling winnings? Shouldn't this be done BEFORE we elect this guy?
Shouldn't it be turned over to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation? Gambling is controled by organized crime, isn't it?
Check out the Wall Street Journal analysis of Obama's 95% tax cut. It's on line from today's issue.
It explains the difference between tax credit and tax cuts.
When has McCain been "convicted" of ethics violations? Not in the keating 5 scandal.
From the New York Times: "During a 14-month Senate ethics investigation that ended with his exoneration..."
I see the logic: give tax credits for specific expenses, because not everyone has the same expenses, and so not everyone has the same need for help. It's what Obama referred to as the "scalpel" -- identify the areas of greatest pain and give help there. It's better than giving everyone the same tax cut, on the logic that a tax cut across the board would still be inadequate to help some people, while giving too much relief to people who don't need it as much.
I also see the logic in phasing out the credits for people with higher income. Why give assistance to people who can already afford their expenses?
But the marginal tax rate graph shown in that article demonstrates that some tweaking in the phase-out formulas is needed, to avoid creating a disincentive for people to raise their income.
Likewise, Sarah Palin has not been convicted of anything at this time, but last week's report found that she violated Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. It's not clear from the media reports whether that's an actionable offense. I wonder how that's going to play out.
www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/us/politics/28gambling-web.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=McCain%20Gambling&st=cse&oref=slogin
The Palin thing just doesn't hold my imagination. The Trooper in question should have been fired and I really don't care if she fired a member of her cabinet. It just doesn't come across as corruption to me.
I've heard several "talking heads" compare the economic situation of the last few weeks to the Great Depression.
Here's a question for discussion:
I've heard several "talking heads" compare the economic situation of the last few weeks to the Great Depression. Consider that WWII got the U.S. out of GD. My question is would it have helped or hurt our economics if the U.S. passed a draft bill for the present war?
Personal story: A relative of mine runs a store and does taxes for some low income people who work there. One young single mother is a hairdresser and lives with her Mother (who works at the store). The Young lady quit her job part way through the year to keep from earning too much money so she could get her EIC (Earned Income Tax Credit) because if you earn too much you can loose the credit. When she got the credit refund she spent it on spa treatments(much to her Mothers dismay).
I am not saying that all or even most EIC recipients do this but that's the problem with the EIC, it's just free money to poor people who may not be very good at managing money to begin with. A proposal was made years ago to change the EIC so that it would be paid out monthly but that proposal was shot down. I think that was a great idea and would have helped the poor.
Looking up effective marginal tax rate in Wikipedia leads you to what is called a "Welfare Trap," which has a net effect of keeping the very people you want to help down. Obama's tax plan fits the explanation of a Welfare Trap perfectly. This is troubling because during the Saddleback debate Obama cited his greatest mistake to be opposing welfare cuts during the Clinton administration and how he now saw that it proved beneficial in the long run. Either Obama does not understand that his tax plan sets up the economically disadvantage for the same trap or he doesn't care. If it's the former, he has poor judgment. If it's the latter, he is proposing his tax plan as a election bribe.
Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz. was one of Keating's most loyal friends in Congress. DeConcini set up a meeting with five senators and the regulators investing Keatings crooked S&L to demand they leave Keating alone. Keating was McCain's biggest contributor and fundraiser.
McCain had previously paid Keating back by co-sponsoring "a resolution to delay new regulations designed to curb risky investments."
Even if loyalists would forgive McCain for the first meeting, (where he sat silently as improper demands were made), even conservative Republicans were disturbed by McCain's attendance at the second meeting.
Together, the five had accepted more than $300,000 in contributions from Keating, with McCain receiving the most.
On Oct. 8, 1989, The Arizona Republic revealed that McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators.
The paper also reported that the McCains had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat. McCain, of course, didn't pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.
"You're a liar," McCain said when a Republic reporter asked him about the business relationship between his wife and Keating.
In McCain's book, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain confesses to "ridiculously immature behavior" and adds that The Republic reporters' "persistence in questioning me about the matter provoked me to rage."
Among the Keating Five, McCain took the most direct contributions from Keating. Because of McCain's friend, taxpayers lost more than $2 billion on the bailout.
McCain said: "It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."
DeConcini said: "Thanks to the three Democrats on the committee and perhaps with the help of Senator (Jesse) Helms (R-N.C.), however, the charges remained in place for all the senators under investigation."
McCain owns up to his mistake this way: "I was judged eventually, after three years, of using, quote, poor judgment, and I agree with that assessment."
Source: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/mccain/articles/2007/03/01/20070301mccainbio-chapter7.html
One of the main causes of the Great Depression was that an unsustainable economic boom was essentially paid for "on credit," adding to immense debt.
This matches the pattern we've seen in the 2000's, where both the government and consumers added to their respective debt at unprecedented rates. The sub-prime housing debacle is part of it, but one could argue that the whole practice of home equity borrowing is too.
Also, George W. Bush did something else unprecedented: he waged an expensive war at the same time as making huge tax cuts, but he didn't ask the American people to sacrifice their lifestyle to support the war effort, as was done in WWII. So Bush has paid for both the tax cuts and the war by borrowing, in the same unsustainable way that consumers were doing.
So while the WWII wartime economy gets some credit as a remedy for the Great Depression, the War in Iraq more closely resembles the cause.
Further to the discussion as to what has caused the meltdown, I recommend Bill Moyers interview with George Soros, from last week.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10102008/watch.html
According to Mr. Soros, the housing crisis was a mini bubble and when it burst it detonated the big bubble which had been building for some 25 years .
This has the ring of truth for me. I could never get my head around the idea that the housing market alone could have been the cause of this credit collapse.
Apart from the mortgage backed assets, there were many other overleveraged, poorly backed financial instruments that precipitated the ultimate crash. All because of reduced regulation and poor oversight over many years, but escalating over the past 8 or so.
Even Bob Dole, not known for being soft-spoken has confirmed McCain's erratic personality.
Dole told Larry King that McCain "does have a... I guess you could say temper. But I always sort of rationalized that because the poor guy had been locked up" in a tiny cell for six years.
McCain himself admitted it in 2002:
In McCain's book, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain confesses to "ridiculously immature behavior" and adds that reporters' "persistence in questioning me about the matter provoked me to rage."
These are not isolated incidents, and McCain shouldn't get a pass just because he's admitted to it. Does OJ get a pass if he admits he did it? Of course not.
In any case, it's not the kind of circumspect, responsible behavior I would like to see from the president or vice-president in the White House. We've seen what happens when the VP feels free to do his own will, without regard for laws or public appearances. The results include holding prisoners without due process at Guantanamo, or moving them to other countries through extraordinary rendition. The outing of Valerie Plame. The fraud that led us into the War in Iraq.
A bigger issue was tight monetary policy by the Fed in the late 20's and early 30's was being being used to fight inflation but the problem was that the late 20's and early 30's was a period of deflation (remember you mentioned high Dept., deflation is your enemy if you are in debt.). Had the Fed used a loose monetary policy during this time many bank failures could have been avoided and we may have just gone through a recession.
What we are seeing today is the Fed going out of it's way to save banks. Matt Miller said in the Show that he favored the takeover of banks as we are not about to see. My concern about it right now is the arbitrary way it's being done, there doesn't seem to be any rules to which bank to save so that creates uncertainty.
Yes we waged a war but a difference between now and WWII is in scale, even with the war, our defense spending is only about 4% of GDP. The US went into debt in the 2000's but not just because of a war, lots of other spending has occurred, and you can blame bush and Republicans for that and it would be fair. The national Dept is high now but not anywhere near where it was in WWII and since the Iraq war is not the main cause.
I didn't catch a lot of it. What I was wondering was whether the secondary, credit card bubble is yet to come. Something's fishy, that's for sure.
I've heard some people attribute the malignant nature of the bad mortgages as "poisoning the system." That is, even though there were only a small percentage of bad loans, they were bundled with good ones, which then tainted the entire bundle. Since the loans in each bundle were highly mixed and remote for the original lendor, it was impossible to separate them. As a result, banks began refusing all such bundles.
Seems like it's the economist's hour, with each and every person coming out with their own theory. I suspect the most accurate appraisal was that we are still debating the cause of The Great Depression, so how can we completely understand the dynamics of our current dilemma?
Another top McCain aide is in the news today--William Timmons--for questionable ethics and dealing with terrorists for profit.
But, in Republican world, if you do something for profit, I suppose it's ok:
"The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government."
"Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism."
This is not guilt by Association--this is a dude McCain hired to oversee his transition team when he wins.
He's a close friend and confidant of John McCain.
He's from Pittsburgh's Steel Valley. He was raised in veterans' public housing in
Erie, Pennsylvania. He earned a scholarship to Harvard College,
where he paid his way through with construction work, played intramural
baseball and football, and graduated with honors in 1967.
He served as an infantry staff sergeant during the Vietnam War.
He earned the Bronze Star, National Defense Service
Medal, Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, Vietnam
Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.
He served as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives
(1983–1995), Governor of Pennsylvania (1995–2001), and the first U.S. Secretary of
Homeland Security (2003–2005).
This is who John McCain passed over for Sarah Palin.
This is putting country first? How so?
She is a member of the Republican Party.
In 2001, she was named one of "The 30 most powerful women in America" by Ladies Home Journal.
She is the first woman to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate and the first Republican woman to
win election to the Senate by defeating an incumbent. She was the first in Texas history to poll more
than four million votes.
She received her J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1967. She was the first female
onscreen newswoman in Texas.
She's a U.S. Sentator.
She was passed over my John McCain for Sarah Palin.
Is this putting country first? How so?