Watership Down

Poll Dancing

I don't like to follow polls too much, had my heart broken too many times the last 8 years, but this is incredibly bad news for John McCain:

Daily Kos: Big 10 Battleground Polls: McCain In Big Trouble:

Indiana	Obama 51%	McCain 41%
Iowa	Obama 52%	McCain 39%
Michigan	Obama 58%	McCain 36%
Minnesota	Obama 57%	McCain 38%
Ohio	Obama 53%	McCain 41%
Pennsylvania	Obama 52%	McCain 41%
Wisconsin	Obama 53%	McCain 40%

John McCain is Pinocchio

Can anyone get this to look better? I can't seem to get it, but you get the concept...right?

taxesayersiraqreformacorneconomy

Will the real socialist please stand up?

Years ago I wrote this:

First to summarize the exchange of letters between Obama and McCain (from georgia10's post):

Obama:

I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support.  Committee consideration of these matters through the normal course will ensure that these  issues are discussed in a public forum and that those within Congress, as well as those on the outside, can express their views, ensuring a thorough review of this matter.

So McCain blows-up because Obama won't sit on his precious government-committee (instead wanting to work on real legislation):

Dear Senator Obama:

 I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again.

And:

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Funny how "anti-big-government" McCain's writing is full of jargon and confusing sentence structures (a sign of his growing senility?) while Obama's is clear, to the point, and respectful:

[I] am puzzled by your response to my recent letter.  Last Wednesday morning, you called to invite me to your meeting that afternoon.  I changed my schedule so I could attend the meeting.  Afterwards, you thanked me several times for attending the meeting, and we left pledging to work together.

 As you will recall, I told everyone present at the meeting that my caucus insisted that the consideration of any ethics reform proposal go through the regular committee process.  You didn't indicate any opposition to this position at the time, and I wrote the letter to reiterate this point, as well as the fact that I thought S. 2180 should be the basis for a bipartisan solution.

 I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response.  But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing.  The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.

 Sincerely,

 Barack Obama
 United States Senator

So, let's get this strait,  the Republican Party for the past five years has been:

• Rushing to war with Iraq.
  
• Fucking up that war.
  
• Living a life of unabashed decadence.
  
• Violating every imaginable ethics-law.
  
• Living off of pork (something McCain supposedly fights so hard to stop).
  
• Untold amounts of unwarranted spying on American Citizens with no meaningful judicial review.
  
• Systematically destroying the environment.
  
• Bribing columnists to promote their failed education policies.
  
• Celebrating McCain's birthday while Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans.
  
• Ignoring any real steps toward energy independence.
  
• Ignoring the impending Medicare crisis in order to dismantle Social Security.
  
• Outsourcing torture (which McCain has failed to stop).

And John McCain is upset that Obama won't sit on a government-committee? It's interesting that he's so worried about "bi-partisan" reform while his entire party is corrupt to the core.

John McCain strikes me as more socialist than Barack "won't sit on my government taskforce" Obama, as does taking public financing (while breaking the rules of your own campaign-finance bill), as does calling for the government purchase of speculative mortgages.

Obama has run against Bush

Why else would he have ran for Senate in 2004, the unlikely winner of a hard-fought Democratic primary, and decide to run for President now?

As for the "town-halls" that McCain is so fond of, who tried to postpone the first debate in an unprecedented gimmick?

McCain has always had it out for Obama, almost always because Obama wouldn't sit on this or that committee (omg!!) or handicap his huge financial advantage, a rarity for Democrats, because of tremendous grass-roots support to combat the right-wing smear machine (Obama wants to raise your taxes and teach your five-year olds about sex!).

Debate Ramblings

Obama can be such a wimp sometimes, clearly a civil man not used to the knives-out politics which is the reality under which he must work to change America.  When asked about the campaigns negativity he flounders for answers in polls and pundits, instead of expressing personal insult at John McCain's ads claiming Obama's only legislative accomplishment was sex-education for kindergarteners.  Nor does he directly confront McCain's usual "spread the wealth" spin, some history on income taxes:

History of top rates

• In 1913 the tax rate was 1% on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7% on incomes above $500,000.
• During World War I the top rate rose to 77%; after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 25%.
• During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again. In the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the top rate was 75%. The top rate reached 94% during the war and remained at 91% until 1964.
• In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA).
• The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets).
• During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.
• The top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA).

It's expected that during war and depression the rich are called upon by the Government to pay for the wars that supposedly keep us safer, and invest in our education, healthcare, and infrastructure.  Let's stop pretending money spent by our government goes to some vacuum in space instead of back to American citizens and businesses in a more responsible manner than our bail-us-out banking CEOs.

Rambling to the right

"Senator Obama is measuring the drapes, and planning with Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi and Senator (Harry) Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq," McCain said. "But you know what that they forgot? They forgot to let you decide. My friends, we've got them just where we want them." -John McCain

So according to Republican John McCain, Democrats will begin balancing the budget, invest in our country's education, medical access, and alternative energy industries, reverse decades of eroding labor rights, and will save us $10 billion by letting Iraqi's take responsibility for their country's security.   

Why McCain won't go there (but hopes his surrogates do)

Because John McCain's ties to Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi are far tighter than Barack Obama's to Tony Rezko.

Debate thoughts

Barack Obama is Herbert Hoover? The Hoover who's "other electoral liabilities were Hoover's lack of charisma in relating to voters, and his poor skills in working with politicians."   Compared to the this Presidency Republican Hoover looks like a genius, and definitely knew more about the economy than John McCain, whom by his own admission doesn't understand the economy.  Floundering for answers in jokes and false attacks on Obama's healthcare and tax plans.

Message to John McCain: You are running for the most powerful government position in the world, it's expected that you will talk about what you do as the President of the United States Government.  McCain seems to lay blame for all the US Congresses' past failings on the freshman Senator from Illinois.  Obama hasn't proposed any middle class tax cuts (when we're running record deficits because of Republican spending) since being in the Senate for less than 4 years, but he did work with Rich Lugar to actually stop the spread of nuclear weapons and increase government transparency with Tom Coburn.

And maybe Obama deserves to take some hits on voting for the 2005 Energy Bill, but I'll tell you how Congress really works:  John McCain was in the majority Republican controlled Senate, they didn't need his vote. If they needed his vote there would have been some barely discernible "compromise"  with the White House that made John McCain seem reasonable and then vote for the "compromise".

I'm waiting for the Hardball transcript to post and blast Chris Matthews, Props the Republican who wanted to talk about the issues and not the "most amazing statement ever" while Sarah Palin all but incites riots against Obama.

Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave

Leave it to John McCain to announce his support of the worst bailout option last night.

Big Tent Democrat nails 'em right and left

John McCain is: "erratic, angry and desperate."

John McCain is: "is reckless, feckless, [and a] blithering idiot"

On the economy:

With the global stock markets getting slammed (the Dow is down 660 points as I write), it is clear that the Wall Street Bailout was not enough or really about the real problems we face. We need HOLC and we need a new New Deal.

And Jeralyn catches Sarah Palin:

Shameless, clueless Sarah Palin, speaking at a Florida rally today, did her Obama the terrorist-sympathizer schtick, leading one supporter in the audience to yell "Kill Him!"