Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps, for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be. – William Hazlitt
Madam President, the amendment before the Senate is a very simple one. It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases … and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in nature. […]
The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly.
Who said that? John McCain. In 1993. You know, when he was still standing up for the American people. Not when his party was footing the bill for his VP’s wardrobe to the tune of $150,000.
Now, a certain regular here will say something like “they’re both so bad”. Which is true to a degree. But this is just patently wrong. This crap defense that the clothes will be donated to charity is bull. Really? All the clothes purchased for the Palin kids and Todd Palin are going to be taken back from them and given to… who, exactly? And if that was always the intent, how stupid does your campaign staff have to be not to use that as a selling point? Seriously, how hard is it to say “Gov. Palin’s clothes for tonight’s debate were purchased at a union shop and will be donated to the Salvation Army after the event.” Bam! You got union points and a photo-op the next day.
Face it, you got caught; suck it up, apologize and move on. Don’t bullshit us with some idiotic story about charities and donations? Nevermind that the purchase of those clothes may actually be illegal under US Tax Code. Oh, and the best part? Guess who pushed that section of the tax code into law?
Idiots. I don’t want McCain to win, but this is pathetic. At least stand for something. At least have the balls to tell your party when they’re wrong, not repeat the same stupid excuse and defend an apparent violation of a bill you sponsored.
Senator McCain, I wanted you to be the nominee in 2004. I wanted to vote for you so badly then. I even watched you this season, hoping you really weren’t the stooge for the Bush administration that you appeared to be in the years following, hoping I could vote for you this time. But I can’t, and I’m getting close to giving up on Republicans in general.
I really believe that you think you’re doing the best thing for the country. But by allowing the political players to game the public in an attempt for votes, you’re sacrificing every shred of integrity and, dare I say it, status as a maverick you’ve built over the last 20+ years as a Senator.
Not so surprising for a newspaper to do so, but it is pretty surprising to see this newspaper do so. The Tribune has never before endorsed the Democratic candidate for President. In fact, its history as a staunchly conservative newspaper makes this endorsement even stronger.
The endorsement itself is a litany of how McCain has failed to capture the hearts of anyone but the most obtuse of Republicans, from his shifting policy on taxes to his selfish choice for Vice President. It is also a first-hand view of the experience and abilities of Obama from the paper and staff that have watched his political career from the beginning.
Whatever your leanings, it’s a cogent argument and a heavily-weighed endorsement; read it here.
Too lazy to research candidates for the Presidency on your own? Then let a Flash cartoon from ABC News help you out. In 20 or so questions, a cartoon that lets you choose between quotes from the candidates will animate the way to your deicision for who to vote for as we decide the leader of the free world.
Or, yah know, you could read up on them. Just a thought.
Taxes. We all pay ‘em and we all hate ‘em. Both candidate have set forth their tax plans should they be elected. The Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank, crunched both campaigns’ numbers. Business Week (hardly a lefty publication), has the details.
Len Burman, a former Treasury tax official who is now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute [ed. part of the Tax Policy Center], says if Obama’s proposals—which include plans to rescind the Bush tax cuts on couples making more than $250,000, close corporate tax loopholes, and tax private equity earnings known as “carried interest” as ordinary income—were adopted in 2009, for example, married couples with earnings in the lowest quintile of the population would see their aftertax income rise 5.8%. Those in the next quintile would see an increase of 4%. Those breaks would be paid for by those with high incomes: the top 1% of taxpayers would see aftertax income fall 8.4%.
Under McCain’s proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.
And the middle class? Yeah, we all get a 0.7% increase with McCain and a 4% increase under Obama.
And how about that deficit the Bush administration is leaving us?
[Under Obama] those moves would bring an estimated additional $734 billion to the Treasury over 10 years.
…
… McCain’s combined proposals would slash tax revenues by an estimated $253 billion over the 10-year period.
Brilliant. An income increase for the richest of the rich and no meaures to increase revenue to the Treasury. Of course, as the article points out, this is all based on their plans being implemented as promised, which rarely happens. So what’s the value in this kind of analysis?
“It gives us some sense of their view,” says Burman.
Frankly, I just don’t get this. What is McCain thinking? I understand the reformer angle, I get the play for the gender vote, I get the youthful Mom demographic thing. But, seriously, this is a politician not ready for federal office. You can’t harp on Obama’s inexperience and then turn around and choose a first term governor from a small (population-wise) state (47th least populated) and expect no incredulity from voters. I mean, come on; her previous job was mayor of a town of 5,469 people (as of the 2000 census). For my Michigan friends, that’s about the same as having the mayor of Zeeland (2000 census population of 5,805) get picked as the VP candidate.
As Rogers Cadenhead points out, this also someone who has demonstrated extremely bad judgement with regard to not only her own life, but the life of her unborn child. All you parents, would you trust someone with the well-being of the entire country who risked her own child’s life for the geographic location of its birth?
Hopefully, though, she knows what a Veep does now. (She didn’t two months ago.) I really hope there’s something more to this choice, because right now, it feels like an impulse buy.
Yeah, that exactly the kind of crazy we need in the White House.
Categories
You Know What Part
This is a 2D-barcode containing the address of our mobile site.If your mobile has a barcode reader, simply snap this bar code with the camera and launch the site.
RSS
Twitter