Everybody aboard the McCain-Palin Express to the land of cognitive dissonance. As our government scrambles to keep the country’s largest insurance company, AIG, from collapsing, John “I’m always for less regulation” McCain is calling for more government regulation.
“Now hold on,” you might say.
Isn’t this the John McCain who, told the Wall Street Journal “I am a fundamentally a deregulator,” just a few months ago?
Or, hasn’t John McCain been out on the campaign trail arguing that tax cuts and less regulation are the keys to fixing our economy?
Or, isn’t one of McCain’s top economic advisers Phil Gramm – the guy who call Americans, “a nation of whiners,” and authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to strip regulations that could have helped prevent this mess?
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 177 words in story)
digg it
Campaigning in Golden, Colorado, Barack Obama delivered a speech today on the current economic crisis, blaming the McCain-GOP failed policies while laying out his plans to bring about “change that will make a difference in your lives.”
Dishing out some good old fashioned populist indignation, Obama called for “an end to the broken system in Washington.”
McCain’s Economic Philosophy has Failed for 8 Years
Obama: America is Prosperous when All Americans Can Prosper
FULL TEXT OF REMARKS AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY: CONFRONTING AN ECONOMIC CRISIS
Folks, it’s VERY late in the game. Voting actually begins October 1st! We on the Left need to get with the program and realize that we don’t have an “election day” in the US, when half the states begin voting in earnest on October First!!!
There’s More…
:: (41
Comments, 1589 words in story)
digg it
(This is a less fancy-pants way of making my key argument in my earlier diary, “Walking And Chewing Gum”–we’re not reality-based when it comes to campaigning, and we need to be. Maybe this will get more of a response. – promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Only one guy's opinion, but what seems to be missed in the comments about what “Obama should do”, is to look fairly ruthlessly at the process of campaigning. The Republicans seems to really have made a science of campaigning. Take a look at this David Brooks article
While I disagree with a lot of what David Brooks says, I do think there is a valid history traced –
There’s More…
:: (23
Comments, 672 words in story)
digg it
A lot of useful, interesting ideas have been expressed here and elsewhere regarding Sara Palin and this race. It is often times difficult to keep our biases at bay in such matters. As a lifelong Democrat and political junkie, my biases are strong. As a budding social scientist (Ph.D. candidate in International Studies), my desire to keep my biases out of it are also strong. And as a 43-year-old American, my desire (if not ability) to use the Force to avoid going over to the Dark Side, also strong, it is.
So this is my attempt to divide this campaign into the Good (optimism), the Bad (Pessimism) and the Ugly (things we don’t want to admit to.)
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 476 words in story)
digg it
You think McCain is going to “Change” our anti-middle-class Government because he says he will? You think Palin isn’t tied to Lobbyists as well? Think again, folks and check out this video:
Now visit McLobbyists.com and get the whole story on the John McCain gamble… and after you do, direct the folks you know who need convincing there, too.
We have 58 days left until the election and it is becoming clear that McCain is getting an advantage out of playing dirty. I’m not talking about playing tough, or having an advantage in the facts, or showing off the qualities that would make a great President. I’m talking about playing dirty: that is: lying, misstating, obscuring and doing anything he can to keep discussion away from the issues and on an Obama who doesn’t exit but has been created by the Rovian disciples who are running the Republican Show.
Here is what is most frustrating about this situation. The Press KNOWS that this is what is being done, yet they spend their time pushing the “pig-lipstick” issues, rather than evaluating the proposed solutions to the economy or the actual statements on foreign policy from either candidate.
The reason for this MUST be because it is what the audience is ready to eat up. Television journalism, for instance, really goes for ratings to survive, and ratings means number of viewers. Therefore, if we get 12 hours of discussions on whether or not Obama was insulting Palin when he said that the Republicans’ making claims to creating change was like “putting lipstick on a pig… but it’s still a pig.” Easily, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe alone, this used up two days of discussion which might have focused on issues.
I’m afraid the only solution for so little time left is for the Democrats to start fighting just as dirty as McCain. It wouldn’t be hard, it just has to be done.
Over the past couple of days, both John McCain and Sarah Palin have asserted that Palin knows a lot about energy, especially as it is related to national security issues, because she is governor of Alaska which “produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.”
McCain has repeated this claim. Apparently, they have been using it for at least a week. It is going to be one of their talking points. It is a lie.
More below the fold
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 142 words in story)
digg it
Is the McCain attack ad on Obama and kindergarten sex (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v… )underhanded? Of course it is. I imagine that even McCain supporters might be embarrassed by it – particularly if they know that the purpose of the bill in question wasn’t to teach kindergarteners about sex, but instead how to avoid sexual predators.
But getting mad at McCain about it seems to me to be missing the point.
Perhaps an analogy might help. Let’s say you’re at war, and an enemy soldier shoots you in the back. Was this an “underhanded” decision on their part? Sure, maybe, but it’s also a smart decision if they want to survive. Expecting them to politely inform you before they fire so you can face them head-on wouldn’t be very wise. The better question, understanding the context of war, would be to ask why you had your back turned to the enemy.
Obviously politics is a lot like war. And while I’m not endorsing McCain’s underhanded move, I also think it’s pretty foolish to whine about it, given the context. In politics – particularly when you’re fighting against Republicans – you should expect that you’re going to face a lot of underhanded attacks. Obama can’t prevent attacks like these but he does have a lot of control over how he responds, and whether his responses are truly effective.
Read Obama spokesperson Bill Burton’s response and tell me how effective you think it really is:
“It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls – a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.”
Now, if you’re an Obama supporter, you might be happy with this response. After all, you probably already thought McCain’s charges were ridiculous. However I think that weak responses like these help explain why Obama is in danger of losing this race.
McCain: You want to teach kindergarteners about sex.
Obama: No I don’t. I have children. Your friend agrees with me. You have no honor.
Audience: What a sputtering whiner.
There are really several problems with this response, which has multiple threads and is inherently defensive in nature. The riposte is tacked like an afterthought on to the end, and it’s rather weak. Saying a politician has no honor is sort of like saying that he swears. Most people expect it, so it’s a boring attack. More importantly, there’s no real outrage in this response. You’ve just been accused of what many people would consider gross perversion – you want to teach their young children about anal sex and pregnancy. This is an outrageous accusation, and if it’s untrue, many of us would expect to see some outrage on your part. If there’s no outrage – if this idea doesn’t seem to upset you – then the truth of the details isn’t so important because you’ve confirmed the substance of the charge with your reaction.
Rather than issuing a press release by a spokesperson, it would have been better if Obama had responded directly and forcefully – and emotionally – in a live televised press conference.
An even more effective step would be to take the initiative by attacking forcefully in return. This might be a good ad:
Unshaven middle-aged white guy speaking to the camera: “I don’t know what child molesters like me would do without John McCain. Child molesters don’t often have friends in such high places. Usually we get by because children don’t know enough to run away, but Sen. Obama voted for a bill that would have helped them avoid molesters like me. Thank goodness we have friends like John McCain. The more he attacks Obama, the more people will learn to leave us alone and let us do what we do best.”
Is it outrageous? Sure. But it has a lot more truth in it than McCain’s ad has, and if you really want to cut through the noise, you have to be a little outrageous. That’s why McCain’s ad is likely to be so effective.
I understand why Obama wouldn’t want to run an ad like this, even if I don’t agree. But that fact that he’s taken this attack so cavalierly, yawning about honor in some low-grade press release, helps explain why this race is so close – and may help explain Obama’s eventual defeat.
Today, Obama said, “I don’t care what they say about me.” What a wimp thing to say when you are battling the dirtiest campaigner we have ever seen in our lifetime, Karl Rove.
Here is what Obama should be saying: McCain is a weakling. He is a political weakling, afraid of his own convictions. We have seen him time and again since he started running for president give up his position to whoever yelled the loudest. He caved to Bush on the tax cuts for the wealthy. He caved to the extremists on immigration reform. He caved to the extremists and kneeled down for Falwell. And he caved to Bush on torture.
McCain has no backbone when it comes to standing his political ground. The straight talk express goes straight in one direction until John McCain gets scared, and then it backs up and goes in the opposite direction.
It’s too bad that a man of such strength in the Vietnam War is such a weakling when it comes to politics. McCain can’t take the heat for his own convictions. It’s a real shame to watch him cower in the face of political pressure.
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 223 words in story)
digg it
Why are outright false ads even allowed to be aired? Even after they are debunked as false, they continue to air, the longer the run, the more (in both quality and quantity) voters at large become convinced it is fact.
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 613 words in story)
digg it
McCain continues to turn off media folks who used to hold him in respect…
Mike Murphy, Joe Klein and even Mark Halperin have singled out the “piggy/lipstick” attack on Obama as being a real low in the campaign. And now even Andrew Sullivan joins in.
Here are highlights from his post on McCain’s integrity:
For me, this surreal moment – like the entire surrealism of the past ten days – is not really about Sarah Palin or Barack Obama or pigs or fish or lipstick. It’s about John McCain. The one thing I always thought I knew about him is that he is a decent and honest person. When he knows, as every sane person must, that Obama did not in any conceivable sense mean that Sarah Palin is a pig, what did he do? Did he come out and say so and end this charade? Or did he acquiesce in and thereby enable the mindless Rovianism that is now the core feature of his campaign?
So far, he has let us all down. My guess is he will continue to do so. And that decision, for my part, ends whatever respect I once had for him. On core moral issues, where this man knew what the right thing was, and had to pick between good and evil, he chose evil.
—
And when he had the chance to engage in a real and substantive debate against the most talented politician of the next generation in a fall campaign where vital issues are at stake, what did McCain do? He began his general campaign with a series of grotesque, trivial and absurd MTV-style attacks on Obama’s virtues and implied disgusting things about his opponent’s patriotism.
And then, because he could see he was going to lose, ten days ago, he threw caution to the wind and with no vetting whatsoever, picked a woman who, by her decision to endure her own eight-month pregnancy of a Down Syndrome child in public, that he was going to reignite the culture war as a last stand against Obama. That’s all that is happening right now: a massive bump in the enthusiasm of the Christianist base. This is pure Rove.
—
McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States.
So what does it mean when a conservative columnist and blogger (and frequent television pundit) comments this way on the character of someone he used to support? During 2007, in a long column, Sullivan said:
As such, I’ve made my decision. I’m backing McCain. Further, I hope that Obama takes down Hillary and clinches the Democratic nomination. A McCain/Obama race would be one about policy, not personalities, and would be a unifying event, not a polarizing one.
Well, here we are, under two months to the election, and even a conservative columnist feels like he stepped in something filthy.
The Obama doom and gloom vibe is not rooted just in poll numbers, though those are fairly bad, and it’s not so much the ‘surprised leftist’ complaint that he has ‘tacked right’ in recent weeks and months (he actually hasn’t, he was already there (but that’s another, deleted by Peeder diary)).
No, it’s the smell of fear, insecurity and typical Dem conventional wisdom. The vice president thing showed the real Obama (one I’ve been talking about for months (in many many deleted by Peeder diaries)), an insecure guy very strictly obedient to wuss party conventional wisdom. The recent sky-is-falling was “They say WE’RE WEAK ON FOREIGN POLICY!!!!” and so (showing poor judgment even there) Obama chose the insider-as-parody Biden.
Then McCain and his advisers, showing good strategic judgment, chose a candidate who resonates with and amplifies McCain’s maverick theme. (Biden resonates only to the sound of his own voice.) Obama should’ve chosen as McCain did, a candidate like Bill Richardson who resonates with and amplifies Obama’s (apparent) ‘ethnics r the shit’ message.
Spengler, an asshole over at atimes.com, sums up:
McCain’s choice of vice presidential candidate made obvious after the fact what the party professionals felt in their fingertips at the stadium extravaganza [Obama’s acceptance speech] yesterday: rejecting Clinton [well, Spengler is wrong on a lot of things] in favor of the colorless, unpopular, tangle-tongued Washington perennial Joe Biden was a statement of weakness. McCain’s selection was a statement of strength. America’s voters will forgive many things in a politician, including sexual misconduct, but they will not forgive weakness.
That is why McCain will win in November, and by a landslide, barring some unforeseen event [again, imho Spengler is wrong here and with the economy sucking so bad this still looks like a close election]. Obama [has] a fatally insecure personality. American voters are not intellectual, but they are shrewd, like animals. They can smell insecurity, and the convention stank of it. Obama’s prospective defeat is entirely of its own making. No one is more surprised than Republican strategists, who were convinced just weeks ago that a weakening economy ensured a Democratic victory. . . .
McCain doesn’t have a tenth of Obama’s synaptic fire-power, but he is a nasty old sailor who knows when to come about for a broadside. Given Obama’s defensive, even wimpy selection of a running-mate, McCain’s choice was obvious. He picked the available candidate most like himself: a maverick with impeccable reform credentials, a risk-seeking commercial fisherwoman and huntress married to a marathon snowmobile racer who carries a steelworkers union card. The Democratic order of battle was to tie McCain to the Bush administration and attack McCain by attacking Bush. With Palin on the ticket, McCain has re-emerged as the maverick he really is.
As I said, Spengler’s an asshole: McCain’s as much a maverick as James Garner was, i.e. he plays one on TV (well, in that lame-ass movie with Jodie Foster too). And Palin’s ‘reform credentials’ are all bullshit. But, anyway, Spengler’s right about McCain refurbishing his image and Obama messing up his (the article also goes into Spengler’s psycho-analysis of Obama, which is a worthwhile read imho).
FAIRLEFT’S Predictable ADVICE TO OBAMA:
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 266 words in story)
digg it
A friend of mine sent this idea. I think it’s fabulous for Obama supporters and more generally for the interests of informed democracy. Apologies if it already exists, but if it doesn’t, and you know someone who’s interested and can implement it, please do pass on. If it does and you can share the link, would be appreciated.
I had an idea, and I think it might be a good one.
I’m tired of hearing politicians argue about whose tax plan will benefit the most Americans. In this election we have both candidates promising tax breaks to the middle class; most Americans have no way of fact-checking, so they end up just guessing based on the candidate’s personality, party affiliation, etc.
Why not have an online tool that can estimate your annual tax bill under each candidate’s plan? In other words, you would type in your annual income (or fill out an easy, 5-10 question survey) and you’d get a little spreadsheet: here’s your approximate tax bill right now, here’s what it would be under Obama, here’s what it would be under McCain.
I understand it might be hard to research both plans and reduce them to simple formulas like that, but even if it just gave you a ballpark figure it would be worth it.
I’m also aware that people would accuse the calculator of being biased, inaccurate, etc. But if enough people were using it, economists and other experts would weigh in and (I hope) reach a consensus. In any case, at least it would raise the level of discourse a little.
I’m sending this message to the candidates and to news organizations in the hope that someone will give it a try. If this sounds like a good idea to you, send it to your candidate or your favorite news source. And if you know anyone that you think could work on a tool like that, send it to that person!
This is a follow-up on some of the discussion in the comments.
So the Republican party is in a pickle. When most of the country wants to get out of Iraq, Republicans tell us what we really want is “victory”. Most of the country wants universal healthcare coverage, Republicans tell want to give us “market solutions”. Most of the country doesn’t want free trade, so the Republicans tell us to support “open global markets”. In every case, in order to hide the fact that Republican positions are out of step with Americans, they have to cover up what their positions are – or outright lie – in order to confuse voters. (See Lieberman, Joseph – “Nobody wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do”.)
And then there’s the question of reproductive rights. McCain is on the record – he would appoint judges who would overturn Roe V. Wade.
McCain knows in order to win he needs both the fringe right-wing base to be energized, plus enough crossover voters (Regan Democrats, Hillary Democrats, independents, liberal Republicans if there are any left, etc.) to be competitive in key states. By selecting Sarah Palin, who would oppose abortion even in the case of rape and incest, as his running mate it appears he has accomplished the former, but Palin presents a potential double-edged sword.
Partly due to his media-bestowed title of Mavericky Maverick of Mavericks, and partly of his own political maneuvering and image-making, there is still a perception today that John McCain is pro-choice, even among progressive voters, even among pro-choice women. A significant number of his supporters self-identify as pro-choice. While the media seemed enthralled – at least for a day or two – with the idea that Sarah Palin would appeal to former Hillary voters, this appears less and less likely, as her rhetoric has been based on fiery, ideological identity politics, very specifically designed to activate the theoconservative voter. As Palin has become the rallying call (not to mention the de facto head of the ticket, at least in view of the base), the question of Roe vs. Wade will likely come up in the debates and McCain will have a little harder time avoiding the question.
But McCain-Palin will try to blur the issue, because, well, they have to.
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 573 words in story)
digg it
ST. PAUL – Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska introduced herself to America before a roaring crowd at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night as “just your average hockey mom” who was as qualified as the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, to be president of the United States.
Ms. Palin’s appearance electrified a convention that has been consumed by questions of whether she was up to the job, as she launched slashing attacks on Mr. Obama’s claims of experience.
“Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown,” Ms. Palin told the delegates in a speech that sought to eviscerate Mr. Obama, as delegates waved signs that said “I love hockey moms.” “And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 746 words in story)
digg it
Obviously, if Barack Obama had a pregnant 17-year-old daughter, there’s no question that conservatives would be blowing every available dog whistle on the subject of fallen African American females and the moral disintegration of “urban” communities.
But progressives should think very carefully before exploiting the fact that Bristol Palin is pregnant. Americans do not want to see this girl humiliated on national T.V. And while there are obvious points to make about the absurdity of abstinence-only sex education (and the fact that a young woman had no choice but to carry her child to term and get shot-gun-married to a boy-husband), I think it will appear very unseemly if Obama surrogates make political hay out of this private matter.
Let’s also remember that, as progressives, we are better than our gynophobic adversaries. Bristol Palin has nothing to be ashamed of and has no reason to submit herself to the judgment of the the community elders. She is not accountable to the public for her personal actions and decisions. She has a long life ahead of her and I hope and trust that she will grow up to be a better woman than the reactionary and corrupt ogress that is her mother.
McCain: Oh God, I’m in trouble here. The Democrats put on a star pack rock show and I am looking at Bush, Chaney and an unknown who is more qualified be a beauty pageant contestant than vice president. Why couldn’t you let me have the Jew? I wanted the Jew. I thought that you would like that pick. Anyway we are going to tank here if Bush or Chaney speak and my running mate is likely to make it clear that she does not even know where Afghanistan is. Can you help me out here?
This should be our refrain, our only talking point about the selection:
Who chose Palin?
Well, it certainly wasn’t John McCain.
McCain only met Palin once, six months ago. Unlike every other major party VP nominee in recent memory, Palin did not meet McCain for a final interview before her selection. A few weeks ago, she wasn’t in the running at all. The scandals and unorthodoxies involving Palin — she flip-flopped on the Bridge to Nowhere and even raised sales taxes on her small town to pay for an overpriced boondoggle — show that the McCain campaign didn’t vet her. The McCains and Palins looked visibly awkward together, not even speaking as they went their separate ways on a brief shopping trip in Ohio yesterday. McCain is on record as saying he wanted a running mate with whom he had a strong personal relationship — and who was ready to be president.
This was clearly not his pick. So again: Who chose Palin?
Was it Dick Cheney? Or Karl Rove? Or maybe James Dobson?
There are four major advantages to pursuing this line of attack:
There’s More…
:: (4
Comments, 364 words in story)
digg it
She doesn't even conform to the lines McCain is trying to rewrite as a Maverick. She is like an albatross. Are they trying to lose? She doesn't toe a line of the old McCain, she isnt like the New McCain who existed till last week, and she's not the NewNew McCain trotted out this week. The GOP has powerful women, prepared women, why not Hutchinson? or Dole? or … Wow, this does not demonstrate good judgment.
Would no one agree to be on his ticket? That this is an embarrassment is apparent already. Its like a surreal movie by John Waters. He isn't well.
Honest to god, does it need to be said outloud, this is not a ticket that inspires confidence. Pawlenty respectfully declined? Mitts wouldn't do it?
The only thing I can think of is that this the Republican party, recognizing it is going to lose, and tryi8ng to put the party in safe mode, holding the wings together,. They aren't going to win, so they are banking their coals, trying to make sure the factions don't break up during the Obama landslide. In 8 years, Im sure they say 4 to themselves, they will still be a fundamentalist and business coalition, hoping to take power again.
This is more about keeping the Christian right in one basket for the next battle, trying to stop Obama's coalition from forming working relations with the Faith communities.
Thinking the McCain campaign had this done so they would eat into HRC's primary support is for the media, not for the votes of pumas. This isn't about HRC its about protecting the fracturing GOP.
There will be no bounce for the McCain convention.
McCain strategy: win election by exploiting Democratic primary divisions and crass gender politics
My take: This will fail. McCain is ignorantly falling for the same conventional wisdom as so many in the media – but his assumptions are false, false, false.
The CW narrative goes like this: “Obama and Clinton had a nasty primary fight, and lots of white Democratic women (‘PUMAs’ and their sympathizers) are skittish of Obama as a result. Even if Clinton’s speech this week began to reassure these women, they can still be peeled off, by appealing to McCain’s incredible Maverickosity so that they ignore their Democratic Party instincts, and by appealing to their desire to elect a woman to executive federal office, an opportunity they were denied by Obama’s defeat of Clinton.” Sounds scary, right?
Too bad my good friend Mr. Actual Polling Results tells me a different story.
(full analysis, reader poll, and additional McCain strategies and rebuttals below the fold!)
There’s More…
:: (8
Comments, 974 words in story)
digg it
At first I was worried because I knew that once Barack chose to go with Biden that McCain would select a woman. But Palin pales in comparison to Clinton on many fronts not least of which is the fact that she can’t give a speech. Was it a roll call? Anyway… I’m not worried. It’s H E R oism not HEEROism. Barbie wants John McCain as president and, OH ma Gosh world peace! She better learn fast…
Here is a Palin campaign add where she is endorsed by every Democrats Favorite Ted “Going to Prison” Stevens!
Following the premise of Head of State, McCain chooses Sarah Palin as his running mate, undercutting his own arguments for his own selection, but (possibly) opening new doors for the party’s future.
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 1004 words in story)
digg it
Today is the Old Man’s 72nd Birthday and he’ll be announcing his VP in Dayton, Ohio. Word is he has had trouble filling the 10,000 seat venue for the announcement.
We are wondering how he’ll respond to all the specifics that Obama hit him with last night. Maybe he’ll use his status as a POW forty years ago as an excuse for the pit the Republicans have put America in.
The Wall Street Jounal highlited McCain’s plan to steal Obama’s spotlight in Denver this week:
Republicans Plan to Grab Some Denver Limelight
This angers me and shows McCain’s jealousy. The smart, good looking, young guy is popular now and McCain can not handle it. Well sorry John, but that is absolutely the wrong way to handle it. There is an unwritten rule that candidates allow each other to carry on their convention in peace, but McCain is the master of breaking rules and he has cajoled the media into allowing him a free pass to do it!
I suggest that we, the progressive movement, take it upon ourselves to show John McCain that breaking rules has consequences. During the Republican Convention find a busy street corner near you and take some friends with Obama gear and demonstrate for Obama. Get signs, tee shirts, flyers… whatever. If you do not have anything find your local office and go pick the stuff up, print it off from the ‘net, or make your own!
Make this a nationwide demonstration from sea to shining sea. Show the American people in every state, county, city, highway, and block that Obama will be our next President. We are members of the largest grassroots movement in American history.
The RNC is September 1-4
Join Us On Facebook at
Grab McCain’s Convention Spotlight
I was amazed last night watching Chris Matthews’ show on MSNBC to hear a Hillary supporter saying she would be voting for McCain because Obama won the Democratic Primary. I was amazed because anyone who looks at the Old Man’s record will see that he is totally against the rights of women to have any personal control over their own lives.
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 559 words in story)
digg it
The clearest indication I have seen to prove that voting for McCain is the equivalent of voting for a third Bush administration is this video from the Larry King Show in 2001 that The Jed Report has put out on the web:
There’s More…
:: (0
Comments, 375 words in story)
digg it
I argue that the extra $1.7 trillion dollars of debt incurred under President Bush amounts to a $6.052 trillion dollar tax on your ‘children’ over the course of 43 years of employment, via interest payments on the extra Federal debt that was incurred. The McCain connection is because I expect McCain to do absolutely nothing about reducing the Federal debt, and, in fact, expect him to increase it. The American public stupidly falls for the line that “deficits don’t matter”, and Republicans get a pass on financial profligacy, all the while eager to make hay about tax cuts. If McCain is going to blabber about not raising taxes, he should be happy to explain
1) whether, in fact, he is really going to slap taxes on children, via deficit spending, the way Bush did
2) what he is going to do to cut the taxes that Bush’s financial mismanagement have already, in effect, been applied to children via deficit spending.
Saying that you’re for tax cuts, while really raising them on your children, effectively transferring them, is fraudulent.
I originally posted this at Democratic Underground. I estimated quantities per capita.
I don’t stand by the numbers, not being a financial guy and not willing to track down specifics. I will say, though, I noticed today, at http://www.ohdave.net/2008/06/… , that Bush II added federal deficit is actually $3 Trillion. The situation may be much worse than I’ve calculated.
