Biden vs. T.V. Anchor:
This is one of the most tendentious interviews of a political candidate I have ever seen. Despite his reputation as a gaffe-prone blowhard, I think Biden handled the questions, and the questioner, very well.
Biden vs. T.V. Anchor:
This is one of the most tendentious interviews of a political candidate I have ever seen. Despite his reputation as a gaffe-prone blowhard, I think Biden handled the questions, and the questioner, very well. |
To be honest, I don't see where he looks bad. Tough questions (though it feels like she's reciting talking points, but so does the entire media) and he handles them fine. What are we supposed to see in this interview that's so bad?
Are you joking? is this a joke? or is this a real blog post?
heh.
I think he handled the questions pretty damn well, too. (and I'm not voting for Obama, either). Looking forward to the remarks following this post about whether Palin could have answered as cogently.
She might as well have asked, "have you stopped beating your wife?"
If "spreading the wealth around" isn't shorthand for socialist, then I don't what is.
OTOH, I do understand they're anticipating being able to make the trains run on time...
She all but said that Obama was a communist. The guy's economic policies are certainly pretty far left wing, and he's got socialist/statist impulses, but that does not a communist make.
The troubling aspect of this is that questions like that -- is your candidate a Marxist? -- crowd out the legitimate questions about Obama's economic policies. It's a shame.
It is only as socialist as the Clinton tax scheme is socialist.
In view of Obama's comments in the debates and on the campaign trail, questions like "aren't you essentially an advocate of redistributionist policies?" strike me as more legitimate and pressing than the usual "what flavor of koolaid will you introduce first?"
Agreed, the interview was tendentious, but Sarah Palin has endured how many of those without the McCain campaign cutting off the networks.
I guess the difference is the Obama campaign just doesn't know how to deal with an interviewer who doesn't approach on his/her knees, with slobbering, mindless devotion and lob softballs at them. Perhaps this interviewer deliberately overstated the case to see what reaction she'd get.
Don't get me wrong, Biden did well considering the circumstances. Given his propensity for verbal implosions, I was surprised, actually.
My point was that the campaign's reaction doesn't look all that great, especially in the context of the fawning kid-glove treatment they've been getting for the last few months. One station throws a couple of hardballs at them and they take their toys and go home? Ridiculous.
Dan Rather
GHW Bush
Any Reagan interview (Oh thats right he cut off the Media - good for him)
And I don't know - but I just saw Brian Andrews make insipid opinionated remarks off interview about Palin and McCain during the supposed granting of access
Someone asking tough questions?
AN ATTORNEY BRINGING THAT UP!
As has been pointed out many times, Obama's characterization of "tax cuts" is pretty laughable. Sure, there are some who actually pay income taxes, who will receive a tax cut from Obama. OTOH, 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes and yet will receive a "tax cut." Pray tell how something can be cut or rebated when it isn't paid in the first place (by 40% of taxpayers).
Before you say it, talking about the payroll taxes is sophistry. Those are specific taxes that go to specific programs and aren't usually part of the government's general revenue. Providing a "tax cut" for those portions (payroll taxes) necessitates taking money from the general revenue to cover the money lost to those programs. And guess where that money comes from? Those that pay federal incomes taxes.
The "modestly graduated" is funny also. 40% of Americans pay ZERO in federal incomes taxes. I can't tell you how many times more the higher brackets pay in taxes, because anything times zero is zero! So, wow, u're right, there really must not be much of a difference in tax rates for the rich and poor under the Bush tax cuts! Afterall, the rich pay have a tax rate that is zero times higher than the bottom 40%.
There is a large difference between giving back money to people who actually pay federal income taxes and giving money to those who don't.
There is no intelligent life here, Jim
http://www.wftv.com/video/17712615/index.html
There is a large difference between giving back money to people who actually pay federal income taxes and giving money to those who don't.
The Earned Income Tax Credit has done that for years, since 1975, after being signed into law by President Ford. Hardly a new concept.
"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.
An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary."
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
If the campaign blackballed the network in other ways, then that of course is a different story.
Is this going around conservative blogs to attack Biden? Really?
And just for fun let me again remind all the critics of refundable tax credits that not only do we have the EITC, and not only did Milton Friedman himself advocate a negative income tax, but McCain's health plan is based on refundable credits. If you don't like them, fine, but don't act like they are tools of the devil only being used by Obama.
This is pretty damn useless in learning anything about the interviewee and is also stale and boring to watch. Sure Biden did fine, but he wasn't really tested here.
Glad someone pointed out the EITC. FWIW, doesn't McCain's health plan include a tax credit that might end up putting money in people's pockets, even people who don't pay income taxes? And don't people who don't pay income taxes still pay social security taxes? I know that many conservatives have said that those folks should have some of that money back to invest as they wish, and the money all goes into the same pot more or less...
There was a time when "spreading the wealth around" was considered kind of a Christian thing to do. The Old Testament certainly seems to be no friend of accumulated wealth, since all debts are forgiven and all property goes back to the original owners every jubilee. And of course there is the NT idea where of those to whom much is given, much is expected.
Some will argue that "I earned it all; none of it was given to me." Fair enough, depending on your faith perspective. Some would argue that all good things come from God, and that whatever gifts and talents you have and the ability/ambition to use them wisely and productively to accumulate wealth also comes from God, thus more is expected of you than those less talented and productive.
I know that I'll get shot down very convincingly and fairly shortly on both of these points, because I recognize that almost everyone who posts here is smarter than I am, or at least better informed on these issues and much better at arguing their positions and pointing out the weaknesses of others. That's one of the reasons I rarely post. Nevertheless, I wanted to put this out there for what little it might be worth.
Best regards.
The campaign did cut off the station entirely. From the Orlando Sentinel:
"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.
Thanks. Yeah, that is petulant, and pretty stupid to say. There are only about 9 days left in the campaign. If you don't want to do another interview with that station, cancel Mrs. Biden's and just don't schedule any more.
Your point that regressive payroll taxes "don't count" just doesn't make sense. These people getting tax cuts DO pay taxes out of each and every paycheck. END OF STORY.
By the way, bitching about help going to the middle class sounds a whole hell a lot less persuasive when people, through no fault of their own, are struggling to get jobs and you have huge bailouts going to banks run by extremely well-educated and privileged Wall Street bankers.
When the government guarantees that Citibank will only have to absorb X amount of losses, but no more, to facilitate the acquisition of Wachovia, I do not understand how that is not "spreading the wealth" to Citibank executives and shareholders. Does that make Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson a socialist, a Marxist, or a communist?
The bottom-line is that those with very broad definitions of socialism one cannot avoid having their Republican friends also picked up as well. Guess what. People who don't pay taxes also get to use and benefit from things like public roads, police and fire protection. Is that socialist? Well then, under that definition, socialism is a moderate policy. In fact, the only sensible policy. We aren't going to make all public infrastructure off limits to individuals who do not pay individual fees.
All taxes and all government inherently and always redistributes wealth in some way. Now, it can redistribute wealth to a few, it can "concentrate wealth" (i.e. corruption, giving lucrative jobs to cronies, government contracts to cronies, etc.) or it can can "spread the wealth" (i.e. public highways, public parks, police and fire services, public schools, free school lunch for children from lower income families.) Tax cuts which primarily go to upper income individuals is an example of government policy that concentrates wealth. Obama has stood his ground and said he doesn't regret his remarks. Good for him! He is being intellectually honest and firm in the face of those who would absurdly twist his words. He is a Democrat with spine. You have to admire that. If Obama would were to back down, it would only make it as if though these intellectually vacuous attacks have some legitimacy and force.
The bottom-line is this. These word games, calling people names like socialist, just are not enough to win elections anymore. It is not being bought anymore by the American people. You are going to have to talk about policies in a much more deep and specific way to make your case, instead of superficially gravitating towards labels. Thank you Ronald Reagan for helping defeat the Soviet Union! We can finally have a rational discourse on these issues. You can attack Obama for being a socialist for talking about "spreading the wealth." Fine. But, under that extremely broad definition of socialism, John McCain and pretty much all mainstream Republican politicians are going to be caught in that net too. You have to admit that if you are intellectually honest. A broad definition that encompasses everyone in the mainstream simply does not have any sting.
Using words to scare the American people is much less effective when they have something more concrete to fear in terms of lost jobs, inability to change jobs they do not like, worries about their mortgages, and the future of their children and the ability of their kids to get an education. I hope that after Republicans get creamed in this election they go back and realize that they have to address the concerns of the American people with more than ridiculous attacks and guilt by association charges. Instead, they should come back with constructive and concrete policy proposals. Characters assassination and name calling is no longer enough to win elections. The political age dominated by the low-life and intellectually dishonest tactics of the Karl Rove's and Lee Atwater's of the political world is over.
After this election, I hope to see the Republican party put itself together in an intellectually respectable manner and actually challenge the Democratic party in a substantive and intellectually defensible manner. That would be much better for the American people. Until Republicans do this, they deserve to be out in the political wilderness.
Well, they have:
Milton Friedman was a socialist! He must have hated freedom, America, apple pie, and puppies. What else could explain his advocacy of this "spread the wealth" policy?
This is a great example of how an overly broad definition of socialism catches everyone in the mainstream in the net.
President Ford was a socialist!
Wikipedia gives the impression that Friedman advocated for it as a temporary replacement for all other public welfare programs, on the way toward eliminating public welfare programs altogether.
Wikipedia gives the impression that Friedman advocated for it as a temporary replacement for all other public welfare programs, on the way toward eliminating public welfare programs altogether.
I'm not sure negative income tax was to be temporary. These ideas were floating around in the late '60s. Big government was seen as bad, and the thought was, rather than run a huge bureaucracy, just give money, minimize the administration costs. Poor people would make the right choices as to how to spend the money.
I don't think Friedman intended it as temporary. See here for one discussion.
I might be wrong, but Wikipedia is not the most reliable source for anything remotely controversial, and it is hard to imagine that Friedman believed that the NIT, once in place, could be easily repealed.
"The policy he was promoting with the comment was a return to the Clinton tax policies for incomes over $250,000. That is not "socialism." It's a modestly graduated income tax system."
I agree that calling Obama's tax plans "socialist" is plain silly. But it's inaccurate to contend that all he's doing is calling for a return to Clinton tax rates -- which would entail an 3% or so increase in marginal rates for incomes over $250K (BTW, taxable income or gross?) But in addition to that increase (which I think is what you're talking about) Obama proposes to raise (eliminate?) the cap on income subject to the self employment tax. That would add another 15+% to the increase in the marginal rate for the self employed small business person. Is the result still simply a "modestly graduated" tax structure? I guess folks could reasonably disagree about the characterization, but no way is it simply a return to "Clinton rates."
Also,mr. Biden, why do you love terrorists so much?
These are excellent questions, and I believe the Palin/McCain campaign should continue to push them right up to the election.
You fail to understand the important difference between payroll taxes and income taxes. I explained the difference in my post, and won't bother again.
Obama dramatically changes what anyone has previously understood to constitute a "tax cut" to make his blatant welfare policies more acceptable. For example, after Obama has provided "tax cuts" that not only eliminate the bottom 40%s payroll taxes, what next? Why not "tax cuts" that go against what they pay in sales taxes? After all, that is technically a "tax cut." You may totally agree with such proposals, that's fine. But it isn't what people have previously understood to constitute as tax cuts.
Biden: For the last eight years, the wealthiest people in our country have received a disproportionate share of the tax breaks. We want to "spread the wealth around" by allowing the middle class to also benefit from government largess.
Interviewer: OK, moving to the next question. Doesn't Obama hate puppies?
Biden: no, and I'm not sure what that question has to do with anything in the national discourse.
Interviewer: I'll move on to the next question. Does Obama hate kittens?
Biden: No. Our campaign looks favorably at both puppies and kittens.
Interviewer: You know who else loves puppies and kittens, William Ayers.
Biden: That's it. We're not going to talk to you anymore.
Interviewer: How long have Obama been afraid of answering tough questions?
For a very small percentage of small businessmen. And note that Obama also has tax breaks for small business. The vast majority will come out ahead.
America has among the lowest income taxes in the world. Compare to England, Germany, and Japan. We have lower taxes -- particularly in the highest brackets -- than any of these countries. And do I need to mention that these countries are hardly third-world communist slums? True, Obama wants to raise taxes for the top two brackets. However, we would still have lower tax rates than any of these economically powerful countries.
Further, America's top two brackets are currently taxed at the second lowest rates in the past 60 years! See here. Obama proposes to "raise" them to the -- wait for it -- third lowest rate in 60 years. Gasp!
I understand that many of you find the "socialist" label helpful because it energizes the base and scares the uninformed, but perhaps you should face reality -- unless you are prepared to define any tax hike as socialist, then Obama is most certainly not socialist.
If you're so scared of socialism, we might as well get rid of police, fire departments, roads, etc.
Here's a better idea. Let's PRIVITIZE all of them, so instead of just having the BENEFIT of these services, we can pay a monthly fee for a CONTRACT with the police department, or fire department.
THAT'D be a great idea.
I don't know enough to judge, so you guys may be right.
But even if Friedman wanted NIT to be permanent (or thought it would be), the point that he advocated it as the lesser evil to replace all other public welfare programs adds some useful context for me since it's more consistent with my general sense of Friedman.
Link to an interview where either McCain or Palin's interviewer was as adversarial and biased as the Biden interviewer at issue in this thread.
To compare this to, say, Katie Couric, is simply absurd.
In 2007
If you made Paid
25,000 3,363
50,000 8,930
100,000 22,111
200,000 52,068
300,000 84,074
So what is my 'fair share'? Do I get extra services from my govt for my extra contribution?
Seems to me that I'm paying way more than my fair share.
I used to not care much about it. I didn't care for how my money was often wasted, but I figured it as a cost of doing business.
Now I feel insulted by Obama and others saying I haven't been paying my fair share.
Just look at the Gibson interview of Palin. Not only was it biased, it used a quote completely against context to trip her up. It was far worse than the interview linked in this post.The only difference was that it was more effective propaganda, because it was more subtle a hit piece.
The media is in the tank for Obama, et al. The attention given one silly local reporter who overdoes it in the other direction just testifies to how unusual it is for the Democrat candidates to face tough, or unfair questions.
The "problem" with Palin's interviewers, especially the meeeeean Katie Couric, was that they had a tendency to ask follow-up questions. That makes it much more difficult to get away with reciting talking points.
Fortunately for Biden, this interviewer didn't understand the issues she was asking about enough to challenge any answer he gave. She had a list of questions (really her own talking points) to ask and not much else.
And I'd always thought "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was a quote from John Smith of the Jamestown settlement, not Karl Marx, although I may be mistaking it for a quote along similar lines.
Nixon had a negative income tax proposal in about 1970. His plan was to do away with most welfare agencies and their overhead, and was also promoting it as a way to do away with the intrusive nature of the welfare system. By giving everyone a certain minimum income through the IRS, you would not need caseworker's for example and do away with the entire welfare apparatus. (I read a bunch of the Nixon administration's literature/propaganda on it at the time and may have it in a box around here somewhere, or not.)
Obama's proposals do not include the part about cutting government, or attempting simplify things, but will only further complicate the tax system.
You can read about the concept from a Canadian perspective at the following site
http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/ssrgai.htm
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
Seems kind of like "From each according to his ability, to the government according to its needs."
G'night.
Because he is not doing anything nearly as radical. He is just tweaking the marginal tax rates, and adding a few tax credits.
Why, no politician is more well-qualified to lie to the American public without missing a blink. He can keep a straight face no matter what.
I understand the distinction. I just don't care. I think it has no real moral force. Payroll taxes, like income taxes, does in fact result in a redistribution of wealth.
You shouldn't assume that just because someone rejects an obviously vacuous distinction you desperately thrust forward, that they do not understand what you are trying to say.
That said, Saturday Night Live did a good parody of Joe Biden tonight, with him cheerfully spouting apocalyptic gibberish while John Murtha was comparing his constituents to the hillbilliees from Deliverance. Joe does have a tendency to let his mouth travel well in advance of his brain, and they didn't have to tweak him all that much to produce the parody.
Politicians should be asked hard questions. And I'm sick of them being given softball questions all the time. But this is just round after round of "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. Biden did a fine job of dealing with it, but that interviewer (who clearly got her "questions" from Rush Limbaugh) should never be allowed on TV again.
See comment at 11:03 PM re cancelling further interviews, and look at Biden's eyes, and comments about not knowing who writes your questions, and no one except the extreme right wing of the Republican party would think Obama trying to turn US into Sweden.
He handled some tough questions well for a few minutes? Wow. Go tell Robert Bork.
The reporter didn't even ask him about his plagiarism in 1987 and in law school.
I think Joe (and Barack) need a few more tough questions.
Did Friedman himself ever say it was the "lesser evil" or is that something you are inserting to satisfy yourself that he agreed with you one everything?
No one edited his answers. No one used false quotes against him. No one edited the video tape. No one took him out of context. No one pissed and moaned about his wardrobe or his hair plugs. No one has asked to see his kid's birth certificate. Thin skinned much, Obama campaign?
Honestly, I see where Biden was coming from when he asked whether the "how is that not Marxist?" question was a joke. What a nut, this woman ... I feel for you, Orlando.
Adam Smith, like Milton Friedman, was obviously a socialist!
... By the way, I think the "is Obama trying to make the United States into something like Sweden?" question is fair. At least in the abstract it's fair. But following on the heels of the preposterous "How is that not Marxist" question, I don't think anyone but the most strident McCainite was still treating this as a serious interview.
Interviewing skills, Lesson 1: after you've asked a ridiculous question, even your subsequent sensible questions will not be taken seriously.
The extent to which the platform of the Democratic Party of Obama and Biden matches the platform of the Communist Party USA is telling. Go see for yourself.
Quoting from Milton Friedman:
That's from the chapter on the alleviation of poverty in Capitalism and Freedom, and I haven't taken anything out of context. Milton Friedman advocated a permanent negative income tax, whatever Wikipedia says.
This is why the Social Security Trust Fund is b.s. Currently, revenue from the "Social Security payroll tax" exceeds Social Security's obligations. If the payroll tax were really dedicated to paying for Social Security, the government would save the extra for the future. Instead, however, it just spends the extra money on something else.
In other words, the idea that payroll taxes pay for specific programs is bunk. Money is fungible.
You're kidding yourself.
Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the far Left New Party in Illinois:
* * *
Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. ... By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.
Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement. ... Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to. The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.
Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists. As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals. Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?
* * *
Compare:
Here's the platform of the Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
And here's the platform of the Communist Party USA.
They look like they came out of the same organization, don't they?
That's not surprising. As discussed above, Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the far Left New Party in Illinois.
And here's the platform of the Communist Party USA.
They look like they came out of the same organization, don't they?
Metro1, what strikes me is how moderate the Communist Party's platform is. Raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour? End racial profiling? Really radical stuff!
1. When lefties call Republicans fascists, I stop listening.
2. When righties call Democrats marxists, I stop listening.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?
Clearly, you're an Anti-American plant sent here to make the communists seem moderate. But we're on to you.
--PtM
So you're advocating political hate crimes. I see no reason not to take you seriously. Have the VC authors pulled your commenting privileges here yet and reported your IP address to the FBI? I would if it were my blog. (But then, if you're who I think you are, you're already banned at my blog.)
Prof. Bernstein: The questions were aggressive, but if anyone was "tendentious," it was Biden. Other than expressing disbelief that the reporter had the nerve to dare challenge him (i.e., to do her job), he didn't actually respond to the substance of her questions, and instead simply repeated whatever memorized talking point came marginally closest.
I agree with several commenters that the reporter wasn't quick on her feet — if she had been, she'd have pointed out Biden's obvious attempt to recast his remarks about Barack Obama being tested within six months and needing the specific support then of Barack Obama's supporters into a tame, disingenuous "Every new president is tested" meme. That's tantamount in this context to simply lying about what he said, but it's another Obama-Biden Official Talking Point™ alrighty.
Call me when a reporter asks this of Palin: "You advocate strong militarism and an all-encompassing patriotism which elevates the needs of the nation above the needs of its people. How is that not fascism?"
1. What is the moral difference, if any, between Bill Ayers and the 19 young men who perpetrated 9/11? Apart from the fact that the latter were far more succesful than the former, is there any moral difference between the two?
2. Given Obama's associations with Ayers in the past -- which treated him like an honored citizen with something valuable to contribute to public policy, and this even after Ayers' infamous interview with the NY Times published on 9/11 -- how can Obama bring any moral authority as President of the United States to the War on Terror?
Agreed. A significant portion of the commentors on political blogs fall into one of two groups:
1. Those who seem to always be looking for the ghost of Joe Stalin under their bed,
and
2. Those who seem to always be looking for the ghost of Adolph Hitler under theirs.
Perhaps when this campaign season is over, both groups could throw a pajama party and compare notes. They could invite the aficionados of the Illuminati Conspiracy to join them. Someone could film the get-together as a documentary: Ferocious Dust Mice--The Fight for America's Extremes.
That's because all of the interview questions were skewed and based on faulty premises. In Journalism 101, when they get to the part about "loaded questions", this video should be shown.
Biden, of course, deftly handled each question by attacking the premise. After a few rounds of that, he mocked the clear bias of the questions.
Interestingly, when this same interviewer interviewed McCain recently, the first question out of her mouth, posed in the same "tough" tone, was why the McCain campaign wasn't going after Obama hard enough on ACORN. Just saying....
Interesting, Loki. I appreciate that. Turns out, though, sleeping's restored my memory to better condition. I was actually thinking of Paul of Tarsus in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, by way of John Smith of Jamestown: "if any man will not work, neither let him eat."
I'm in agreement with many here that the difference between a legitimate tough question ("You propose N, but X, Y, and Z strongly indicate N is unable to succeed, and A, B, and C indicate N will have undesirable consequences 1, 2, and 3. Why, then, do you continue to propose N?") and a tough-because-it's-loaded question.
And I'm still not seeing the inherent downside to being more like a country full of Valkyries, Vikings, and vodka.
Any takers on just how much Palin would have been reamed by the press had she made the US "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon" claim?
Any takers on just how much Palin would have been reamed by the press had she made the US "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon" claim?
Much of that is rebated through the EITC (that was the purpose to make sure the poorest didn't pay too much social security taxes)
Obama wants this to be just a grant from me to others
That sounds to me like advocacy for a flat tax "in proportion to the revenue" rather than a progressive rate like the current system.
Here is Melancton Smith's table, slightly modified to include percentages.
In 2007
If you made Paid
25,000 3,363 13.5%
50,000 8,930 17.9%
100,000 22,111 22.1%
200,000 52,068 26.0%
300,000 84,074 28.0%
This is the effective total rate, rather than the marginal rate.
Just an FYI -- while it's probably not too big a problem here, any discussion of US tax policy needs to start with whether or not your audience understands how tax brackets work.
A surprising number of people believe bracket rates are retroactive, that is if 60k is the cutoff between 20% and 25%, that making 60,000 dollars means you pay 12,000 in taxes, but make 60,001 dollars and you pay 15,000.
That little misunderstanding has come up enough that I think it should preface any discussion on income taxes in the US.
Barbara West is married to Republican strategist Wade West. Wade West is "a popular consultant for political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet." In addition, West has made multiple campaign contributions to the Republican Party.
Shame on the campaign for not sniffing this out before hand and dealing with it in advange
Nope. For me it was CNN's, Drew Griffin's interview with Sara Palin, asking why Conservative writer Byron York had characterized her as "incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, or all of the above." --- an obvious falsehood to those who actually read Byron York.
What's scary is that there will be a percentage of the television-addicted voter bloc that use Griffin's mistake in their political assessment.
Doesn't have much bearing on this Biden interview. But I believe something within our media outlets has certainly been removed.
Having said socialist, terrorist, Muslim plant then crush the Republicans in the general election . . . that's priceless.
The difference is the government is not assuming the means of production for the banks. That is to say, the U.S. government will not be staffing these businesses with thier own, manage the business, or "run the business".
Shhh. . . wait until he's elected!
The US will eventually liquidate all of the assets purchased?
Also if you have 2 children married or head of household and make 17,300 per year you get 4,716 tax free so the social security is in essence refunded as well as a bonus of 20%
Obama wants to increase this benefit - some say to 50%
Sooo, someone making 17,300 would possibly get over 7,000 more direct from the FEDS tax free under Obama
A Single man right now making 25,000 is going to pay 1,900 in social security and a little more in Federal taxes so about 4 grand
According to the 1040A DOING IT IN MY LITTLE BRAIN a family of 4 making 29,000 pays 0 in Federal Taxes, 2100 in social security taxes and gets an EITC of 2106 so their total tax burden is 2100 FED&FICA minus 2100 EITC in 2007
Under Obama they would be getting 3150 and not paying any social security or any taxes in 2008 not too shabbby
Can I have Democrats for 1,000?
Buying the Presidency WHOOHOO
So if you are a family of 4 making 50,000 under Obama you stand to be saving all your taxes and all your social security and about a 1,000 thrown is as an xmas bonus.
Thanks for the intellectual honesty, so rare this close to election day.
Your stock has risen in my book this election season, just as much as Lindgren's has gone down.
Since you're such a stickler for accuracy, I want to remind you that you have still not corrected various statements you made that are "tantamount … to simply lying." Even though I pointed them out in detail.
Here's a question I would like to ask you, McCain, Palin et al. What is the moral difference, if any, between Bill Ayers and Eric Rudolph?
A few days ago, Palin refused to call Rudolph a "terrorist" (video, text). Righty blogger Rick Moran thinks this is a form of "moral cowardice." What do you think?
Speaking of elastic morality: Eric Rudolph put a bomb in a gay club. He said it was his duty to fight "the homosexual agenda." Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." He also blamed 9/11 on "the pagans, the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and lesbians." Aren't these statements a form of moral support to Rudolph? In 2006, McCain delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University. Isn't that a form of moral support to Falwell? Why does McCain pal around with someone who provides moral support to an unrepentant terrorist?
And something else you might not know:
Speaking of people who have issues with "the US government:" Palin has various close associations (video, video) with the organization that was founded by, and which glorifies, the man who said this:
Vogler, the founder and hero of AIP, was apparently interested in certain things that may not have been strictly legal. For some strange reason, he was killed "in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad."
And I haven't even mentioned McCain's friend Liddy, who was involved in multiple murder plots.
IOKIYAR.
Griffin apologized, and York accepted the apology.
On the other hand, York has no trouble promulgating an obvious falsehood put out by the McCain campaign (see here and here), and there is no correction or apology in sight. Not McCain, not from York, and not from Lindgren, who helped spread the falsehood.
It takes a great deal of mental flexibility to claim that a progressive income tax is socialism, and nationalizing banks is not.
Everyone working as their own contractor would most definitely prove one thing: people would be more sensitive to what they actually pay the government for all of these "services".
It'd probably have a profound effect --- people would finally have a sense for what they'd shell out each quarter, instead of just depositing a bi-weekly paycheck and getting a "refund" (pfffttt) at the end of the year, never truly understanding what they actually earned.
The Obama campaign's response is instructive, however. An Obama administration would be secretive and disdainful of anything resembling a free press; non-lapdogs need not apply. Basically, it would be a Nixon administration in donkey drag. From each according to his abilities... Indeed.
Never claimed progessive income tax is socialism. My reply shows that, clearly, the U.S. government is not taking over the means of production for all banks.
By all means feel free to show me how these nationalized banks will be staffed --- will it fire everyone first and re-staff the banks with government-badged workers? Or just the current entire bank employee roll becomes "government worker"?
Good luck...
I seem to recall McCain canceling a Larry King interview because King's CNN colleague, Campbell Brown, refused to play Wolf Blitzer with McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds.
And as for MSNBC, both Palin or McCain refuse to go on that network's evening programs . . . in fact, I think only once has a McCain spokesman been on any of them.
So Obama's campaign canceled further interviews with a questions that were talking points with a question mark at the end.
Life's tough. Get used to it. Anyone offended by the Obama camp's approach can know what it's like to be a non-kool-aid drinking American during the past 8 years of Bush/Cheney.
What this indicates is a failure on your part to distinguish between "A is bad" and "B is good."
For what it's worth, they're both socialist. You're welcome.
Yeah, because Bush's approval rating is sky high and the media treats the administration as if it's the second coming of FDR.
Oh, wait.
Why? I was under the impression that the argument is "how much" to redistribute and about giving a "tax cut" to 40% of people who aren't even taxpayers.
Really? You think giving a commencement address at a school named after a guy who supported another guy's violent act = Obama palling around with Ayers?
I suppose in your view that also means that when Cheney spoke at my law school graduation I somehow became a war criminal.
Nice job, rofl . . .
Yes, Prof. Bernstein is in the bag for Obama.
"A few days ago, Palin refused to call Rudolph a "terrorist" (video, text). Righty blogger Rick Moran thinks this is a form of "moral cowardice." What do you think?"
This is an inaccurate statement. Williams never explicitly asked about Rudolph and never mentioned his name (based on the text you provided)- you mentioned his name.
I think you're talking about the refundable credit for medical plans, since that's what Obama's referred to in the past. The answer to your question is "no", since that part of his plan is inseparable from his change to remove the deduction that made employer-provided care especially tax-privileged. The net result is to make health care less dependent on keeping your current job, and therefore hopefully more portable.
Nope. It's not Christian or Jewish to spread other people's wealth around.
-Wm
Hysterical to think that the right wing thinks this comparable to Katie Couric's gotcha questions like "What are some Supreme Court decisions other than Roe v Wade that you disagree with"
The questions I really want to hear are those trying to figure out just what these competing" tax plans actually entail. I have read what each candidate represents is his tax plan, and as yet have not the slightest clue what I would be looking at come April 15th of each year. under either plan.
One thing that adds further confusion is that each candidate proffers health plans so inexorably intertwined with their tax plans that for all intents and purposes treating them as separate and distinct issues only adds to my confusion.
In view of many of the above comments, I do not believe I am alone in being confused.
Do people think this was a "tough" interview?
It wasn't. It was an idiotic interview. West turned a bunch of worn talking points into "questions." She asked nothing meaningful about foreign policy, the bailout, health plans, etc. Her question about taxes was boilerplate GOP rhetoric. She demonstrated no knowledge of any serious issue. She didn't follow upon anything, mostly because none of her questions were worth following up on.
If I were a McCain supporter I'd be disgusted by this interview.
Actually, the answer to the question is "Yes."
Not everyone gets employer-provided health insurance, yet everyone will get the refundable credit. So it's plainly true that McCain's plan will put money in the pockets of people who pay no income taxes.
Of course, it's not wicked "socialism" when McCain proposes it.
But from the description I've seen of how these things are done, both interviewer and interviewee probably deserve to be cut some slack. Apparently the campaign sets up a block of time where local channels each get about 4 minutes, and the candidate has to do a whole bunch of them back to back. This doesn't really allow much opportunity for followups, and it must be absolutely mind-numbing for the candidate.
To be fair, the exact answer concering aborition clinics that Palin gave was (the video is here):
Her second response ("I would put in that category . . .") is, of course, the answer she wanted to give to a question that wasn't asked. Apparently while bombing an abortion clinc isn't terrorism, it is "unacceptable."
But, according to the FBI, terrorism is "the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (page 5).
Sounds like terrorism to me.
The interviewer could have rephrased the questions of Biden and come off softer and slyer, but the fact is that the questions she asked are being asked by real people in flyover country. And no one in the Washington press corps has the stones to ask questions like these. Instead we get a confrontation between David Corn and some workers in which he insults them as only a Liberal can.
The interview's jarring because her questions are nuts. Obama's talking about raising the top rate three points, and she asks why that isn't Marxist. Why isn't McCain's (shelved, but still disturbing) proposal to cap the salaries of executives at bailed-out investment banks at $400K Marxist? That's a lot closer to being a reasonable question.
Regardless of rate, my question is what is fair? It appears to me that the guy making 300k is paying 10x the amount that the guy making 50k is. What more does he get for that?
When the guy making 300k goes to the store to by apples, he pays the same that the guy making 50k pays. Not only that, but he doesn't pay progressively more for subsequent apples.
So what is fair? How is it 'unfair' that the guy making 300k is paying 'only' 84k? How is he not paying his 'fair share'?
We had three presidential debates. Two of them had journalists asking the same questions to each of the candidates. So were those questions tough or were they softballs? If they were tough, then you can't complain that Obama hasn't been asked tough questions. If they were softballs, then you can't complain that the press is too tough on McCain.
"the questions she asked are being asked by real people in flyover country."
One of the debates was townhall style, whereby the people in flyover country had an opportunity to ask these 'tough' questions, and either they did or they did not. If they did, then I don't know why you are complaining, and if they did not, then people obviously are not really asking these questions anywhere.
As for what the fly over people are thinking, the rural people across the country are now giving a slight edge to Obama.
As for the interview, I'm not concerned about it. If conservatives want to ciruculate among them themselves and feel good about the 'tough' questions, it's not moy concern. It isn't changing anyone's opinions.
That's a horrible example.
Even if we had a flat rate of 17.9% (what the 50k level is paying) the person making $300k would STILL be paying 6x the amount the man making $50k is.
Why is that a horrible example? Explain how 8x is not enough? I'd love a flat rate...that would be one step towards real fairness.
I'm calling BS confirmation bias on all of these comments.
Sure, liberal commentators have opined about Bush being fascist, but can you name any instance where a reporter was granted an interview with Bush or Cheney and directly asked him "how is that not fascism?"
You're talking about "apples costing the same" and people getting the same service regardless of what they pay.
That was the bad example. If you carry the analogy into taxation it implies being in favor of charging numerically identical amounts to people regardless of taxation. It's just math that if you make more money, you'll pay more taxes in any percentage based system.
I see nothing wrong with a flat tax in the abstract, but it simply will not exist. The primary assumption of most flat tax plans is that we remove most of the "loopholes" that we give as part of a graduated system.
But we run up against the cold hard fact that if you take 10% of a poor person's income, you're hurting them much more than someone who has more discretionary spending.
So it's a plain fact that in any tax system some people will be exempted. Even if we say it's the poverty line, people will end up exempted because not only is there no political will to force people to starve or be homeless to pay their taxes, it's just not a good idea.
Then, voila, we're back to a tiered income tax system, even if it's "flatter" than it was.
Why is this disturbing? Why should an executive who led a financial institution into such a disaster that the company had to be bailed out at taxpayer expense receive a salary greater than that of president of the United States? It is time for corporate shareholders to veto by whatever means these stratospheric corporate salaries. There are plenty of people capable of managing any corporation on a salary of $400,000.
This is a local news reporter/talking head, not a national or nationally syndicated talking head. When local news types interview national political figures they very often make one of two mistakes, they either 1) ask obsequious, softball questions or 2) attempt to ask more probative, more penetrating questions but fail to address the issue and the question in a manner that can be more aptly framed within a ten or twenty or thirty second sound bite.
That's not intended as a caustic criticism of local news types, Biden, for all his gaffe prone ways, is still a national political figure exercised in the ways of sophistical media b.s. Did anyone expect Biden, in the interest of underlying truth, to correct this local questioner and admit Obama's campaign had in fact paid ACORN $800,000 during the primaries? Or that there is in fact pronounced ideological and political sympathies between ACORN and the Obama/Biden ticket? Of course not, this isn't about veracity, it's about sophistical media pretense.
Then tax all at same percent.
I'm not sure why you are arguing. I'm saying that given our current system, no one can reasonably say that I am not paying my 'fair share' when I pay 8x what someone else does unless they've radically redefined 'fair'.
Here is a hypothetical...
Person 1 makes $20,000 per year and pays 5%, or $1000 in taxes.
Person 2 makes $1,000,000 per year and pays 1%, or $10,000 in taxes.
Would you say this must be fair because person 2 is paying
10 times more than person 1??
The only way to avoid massive redistribution through the tax system is a head tax, but you can't even come close to paying for national defense that way, let alone the rest of government.
Joe Biden: "In what respect Barbara?"
Well that is not the case. My question stands with REAL numbers, why should I pay more? Why am I not paying my 'fair share' and then some, already?
Like McCain's estimation that $5M is middle class, calling someone worth about $100M a small-business owner just shows the McCain campaign doesn't get it. If these valuations are correct, Joe the Plumber will never be a small business owner.
This seems to indicate that Biden is more Gaffer prone when given softballs. He actually did pretty well with this.
The preponderance of the national MSM is one reflection of the bullshit and mephitis in general that has passed for reporting this election cycle. Prominent bloggers present another contrast. Yet a local news reporter's tendentiousness is called out as reflecting "the most tendentious ... I have ever seen."
Priorities and perspective. Amusing and revealing.
Republicans have a network that's slightly less biased than the rest of the media and the left has the entire rest of the leftwing media, the arts, the academy ...
I'd rather it not happen, but if Obama wins, there will widespread buyer remorse, because like most socialist governments, they are very hard to dislodge once they get their hands on all the trappings of power.
compared to national corporations, cindy mccain is a small business owner. she owns a beer distributorship in arizona. her beer distributorship is not going to challenge Exxon or Microsoft anytime soon - or even any mid-cap company.
do you spend your time looking for small-minded criticisms of footnotes about Republicans? Where's the birth certificate from the hospital in "Hawaii" where Obama was born? Doesn't it bother you that Biden has a repeated history of plagiarism and dishonesty? He was almost expelled from Syracuse Law School for his plagiarism. He dropped out of the 1988 Presidential campaign due to his repeated plagiarism (while he was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee ... conducting hearings on Robert Bork). The plagiarist judging the judge. Focus on these big issues before you start sifting through the weeds.
Well... yes.
An unmistakeable symptom of ODS. Get treatment immediately, metro1. Your sanity is at stake.
Focus on these big issues before you start sifting through the weeds.
You think plagerism committed in law school 40 years ago; forgetting once to give credit for quote in a speech; or chasing a chimera of a birth certificate are the BIG ISSUES--bigger than the collapse of the economy and the financial system, bigger than health care, bigger than the wars? Please. GMAB.
Regarding Biden, the voters of Delaware don't seem to think it was important. Concerning honesty, please be specific (with sources; gaffes don't count)--Biden may be gaffe machine, but I haven't heard that Biden committed perjury.
My point is that the McCain campaign hasn't understood its target audience. Most voters aren't part of the same economic class as the McCains. So they think somebody who is worth $5M is middle class. Of course Hensley &Co. is a small business compared to an international corporation, but it's not when compared to the mom and pop businesses that drive the US economy.
The right needs to let go of Robert Bork. If the right thinks the Fairness Doctrine is bad, then they would disown Robert Bork immediately. He favors wide-ranging government censorship and rejects most of the developments in democratic thought over the past 300 hundred years. See Ilya Somin's VC posting from May 28, 2008 and his related paper on this subject. He may have been treated badly, but it is still a good thing he never made it to the Supreme Court. America would be worse off if he did.
;)
You mean 300 hundred years = 300 years not 30,000 years.
Sorry Asher, the questions being asked by the MSM and people like you are considered nuts by the rest of us.
Someone out there may consider you the authority on what questions are nuts, but from what I have read of your comments here; you may want to refrain from calling other’s comments “nuts.” You appear to be a few fries short of a Mappy Meal.
From Barbara West's website "I am married to Wade West, an international media consultant to politicians, professionals and organizations."
She did the best she could given her spouse's qualifications:
"West's media communication and fundraising skills have made him a popular consultant for Republican political candidates ranging from local elections, to more than 85 members of Congress and members of the President’s cabinet.
Wade West is also a Republican donor. West donated $250 to the NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. He gave $500 to Will McBride a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Florida. As well as $500 to John Mica and $1,000 to Richard Keller both GOP congressional candidates in Florida."
I love your assumptions, they are both funny and sad. Funny in the respect that your childlike faith on the “journalistic” profession is not shared by an increasing portion of the American people. As evidence, please note that the leading exponent of your brand of journalism has just had its bonds rated junk, which correspond to the product printed on its pages.
Sad in the respect that we should be cheering the slow death of a once important part of society; a part that was once designed to shine a light on malfeasance and lies.
The fact is that the questions asked were all designed to discuss the Liberal view of where the country should be headed. Can you point to any questions that would cause discomfort to Mr. Obama in the so-called “debates?”
I would love to hear candidates asked what they believe should be the maximum that anyone should be required to pay in taxes as a percentage of income.
I would like to hear a debate on the second amendment.
I would like to hear questions on the proper response to terrorist attacks on the United States or its forces overseas.
I would like to have candidates debate the First Amendment regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
I would like to hear candidates tell us their position on the legal rights of infants who are born alive despite the best efforts of an abortionist.
They would be considered “nutty” questions by people like Asher and the members of the media who conduct these debates. But they are questions being asked by lots of people who view the answers to these questions as an important indicator of who they should vote into office.
Why should an executive who led a financial institution into such a disaster that the company had to be bailed out at taxpayer expense receive a salary greater than that of president of the United States? It is time for corporate shareholders to veto by whatever means these stratospheric corporate salaries. There are plenty of people capable of managing any corporation on a salary of $400,000.
Maybe it is time for shareholders to do that, but it's not time for the government to start regulating how much people make. The bit about the President is an absurd rhetorical gambit. If anything, what it tells you is that the President should make a lot more. Maybe that's why most of our presidential candidates are talentless hacks, McCain included.
I see that Barbara West is getting the Joe the Plumber treatment. Classy on so many levels.
Why is understanding a person's biases so bad? Lord knows the candidates get even worse treatment. The fact that her husband is a Republican Party official certainly is relevant. Just like knowing Campbell Brown's husband is Dan Senor, former Bush Administration Iraq PR flack.
You must not watch White House Press Conferences
Priorities and perspective. Amusing and revealing.
So, Michael, what specifically are you implying about David Berstein's "priorities and perspective" and what about them is "amusing" and/or "revealing"?
1. As discussed above, Palin came nowhere near supporting Rudolph, who was not even mentioned by name in the interview. Indeed, she said that bombing abortion clinics was unacceptable, although in her view not necessarily terrorism. (It seems that she views 'terrorism' as meaning making war on the U.S., as opposed to simply using violence to advance one's political ends. I don't agree with that, but that is besides the point, Palin is clear that either way such violence is criminal.) So Palin is far from treating domestic terrorists (anti-abortion or anti-gay terrorists) with anywhere near the respect Obama gave Ayers. To the contrary, her answer indicated that they would be treated like criminals, which they are.
2. The Falwell thing is a complete dodge. Falwell has never advocated violence in the name of his theological views. He does believe that God punishes those who go against his will -- a view which is mainstream theism. So I don't believe for a minute that Falwell ever gave any kind of support to abortion clinic bombers of gay-club bombers. In Falwell's view, what is permitted to God is not permitted to man.
3. The above applies all the more so to McCain, who merely gave some credence to a supporter.
So the bottom line is your attempt at the
"So's Your Mother" defense failed utterly. Left unanswered is my three points: (1) Ayers is morally equivalent to the 9/11 perpetrators -- both used organized violence to advance their political aims and to make war on this country; (2) Obama has treated Ayers with an enormous amount of respect, a virtual public citizen and hence (3) Obama has forfeited any moral leadership on the war on terror.
Friedman used the term "least bad" in reference to any taxes, and intended the NIT as an alternative to all public welfare programs, as Johnny Canuck mentioned (thanks, Johnny).
I am not trying to reconcile Friedman with my own beliefs, but rather with his other statements.
Congratulations, you've set the scale for the most boring debate ever. If you bothered to look into the issues you already know the answer to every question you pose.
Both candidates would give a long answer that basically amounts to "depends," and then launch into promoting their own tax plans.
Both candidates have publically stated they now agree with the proposition that the second amendment protects an individual right. However, neither candidate would touch currently existing federal firearms law, and neither candidate has the political will or ability to force local areas where gun control measures are widely supported to go back on their positions. If you're talking about a theoretical academic debate *yawn.*
seriously? have you not watched any of the debates? is this really a question of the candidates not answering the question or you not hearing the answer you like?
Both candidates will say they agree with the general principle of seperation of state . Obama might be cogent enough to throw out the phrase "excessive entanglement" and McCain would probably say something to bolster support among the religious right.
Both candidates are clearly going to say that a child born alive is alive. I already know what you're referring to with this and it's been fully explained elsewhere. Obama would follow up with his talking point on leaving an exception for the life and health of the mother, and McCain would probably say something about having helped to pass the federal partial birth ban.
On the socialist Obama: Of course he's a socialist. He believes, does he not, in government control of the means of production? Or does he? Damned if I know. It does seem to me that he believes in government control of the distribution of wealth. That's a kind of indirect socialism. So is the government injection of money into banks in a fashion that the banks are not free to reject. My thought is that saying "socialist" is using an old term for something new, and that the something new might be a kind of socialist corporatopoly.
On taxes: The idea of "fair" taxation is a joke in this country, as I suppose it is in most. We can't even agree on what "fair" means, as can be seen in the comments here. But we do see a significant portion of the economy being "underground." We do see large corporate entities regarding their tax departments as a kind of profit center. We do see that nobody really thinks it's fair. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that Obama wants to make sure that his constituency gets a positive share of the unfairness rather than a negative one. What we need, I think, is a constitutional amendment providing that no individual can be required to pay more than X percent of his gross income in federal income tax. Maybe we can agree on that, at least.
On the health plans: all I know is that any time government money is injected into the equation, prices go up or quality goes down. I get the impression that the only reason that medicare continues to work at all is that enough doctors are willing to endure financial losses that most other professions would never accept. So it does seem to me that a single payor plan would be disastrous after a while.
You keep stating that you pay more in ABSOLUTE numbers, which you imply means you must be paying more than your fair share... I'm trying to tease out what you mean by "fair"? According to your logic using absolute numbers, even a flat tax would be unfair. If I am wrong, and you think a flat tax is "fair", then you must really stop using absolute numbers... you are either confused or being intentionally misleading.
The point isn't what I think is fair. However, I have always favored a flat tax system even when I was making much less than I do now. I think it would be *more* fair than the system we have now.
However, given that what is proposed is raising the already higher rates that some of us pay, it is incumbent upon proponents of such tax policy to state why that is fair?
Again...simple question. Just how much *is* may 'fair share'?
I didn't mean that you personally are making that claim, but obviously the claim is being made. Including in this thread.
So since McCain supports the bailout, then he's a socialist, right? So how is he something other than a hypocrite for accusing Obama of being a socialist?
Good point. It's not equal. It's worse. Because there's no proof that Ayers ever killed anyone, or supported anyone who killed anyone (other than themselves). On the other hand, Rudolph actually killed two people and injured at least 150 others.
I didn't make "an innaccurate statement." I said this:
Brian Williams used the phrase "abortion clinic bomber." Those words are essentially a synonym for "Eric Rudolph." Do a google on those words, and you'll get a bunch of links about him.
This kind of reminds me of how Rove sometimes said he never mentioned Plame's name. The idea here is that he 'only' said 'Wilson's wife.' And we're supposed to be too dumb to realize that "Valerie Plame" and "Wilson's wife" are essentially synonyms.
Or it could be you're trying to use a kind of ignorance defense: Palin had no idea how to interpret the words "Bush Doctrine," and she also had no idea how to interpret the words "abortion clinic bomber."
Rudolph is a terrorist, by any sane definition. One of many people who applied that word was Gonzales:
Likewise for Ashcroft:
Likewise for Freeh, head of the FBI:
But unlike Gonzales, Ashcroft, and Freeh, Palin refused to say that Rudolph was a terrorist. Because she knows how her base feels about Rudolph:
Domestic terrorism? IOKIYAR.
As I explained, it doesn't matter that his name wasn't mentioned. What's important is that she refused to say that someone who bombs an abortion clinic is a terrorist. And she made very pointed use of the word "innocent." It doesn't take an Einstein to understand that this was a dog whistle to her base. To them, the people who step inside an abortion clinic are anything but "innocent."
Wrong. She absolutely positively did not say that "bombing abortion clinics was unacceptable." She said this:
Are we supposed to believe that she views abortionists as "innocent?" Of course that's not what she believes. And it's not what her base believes.
If so, that means she's painfully ignorant about the basic meaning of a very important word. That would be a very alarming misinterpretation of the word, much more alarming than not knowing what "Bush Doctrine" means.
Palin definitely did not say "such violence is criminal." She only said it's "unacceptable" when targeting "innocent" people. But we know she thinks abortionists are very far from "innocent."
Falwell essentially said that gays deserve to die. This is a form of moral support to Rudolph. And he also just got some moral support from Palin.
Joe Biden committed plagiarism during his campaign for the 1988 Presidential election multiple times.
His plagiarism and dishonesty are a lifetime, repeated habit.
She the New York Times articles on Joe Biden's multiple instances of plagiarism.
* * *
"Senator Joseph Biden's repeated lifting of language from other people's oratory, and allegations that he plagiarized while in law school, remain troubling and mystifying...
Senator Joseph Biden's repeated lifting of language from other people's oratory, and allegations that he plagiarized while in law school, remain troubling and mystifying...
As generations of teachers keep saying, plagiarism is theft. Considering their content, the Biden speeches sound like grand larceny. For instance, in a California speech last February, Senator Biden adopted almost word for word what Robert Kennedy said in 1968 about the gross national product: ''It doesn't measure the beauty of our poetry, the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debates, the integrity of our public officials.'' (Emphasis supplied.) Lifting that language trashes the very values he was urging.
What makes Senator Biden's behavior mystifying is recklessness. It's one thing to misappropriate someone else's words. It's another to take passages so clearly someone else's that you're likely to get caught. That's true of the Kennedy quotes and even more so of the Senator's abundant lifts of highly personal thoughts about ancestry from Neil Kinnock, the British Labor Party leader....
The misappropriations are troubling for another reason. Hackneyed political oratory gives voters one measure. But Mr. Biden claims to be a candidate with something to say and asks to be measured by that standard. By passing off the words of Neil Kinnock or Robert Kennedy or Hubert Humphrey as his own he deprives voters of his thoughts and his words. His message, counterfeit, clanks...
* * *
Here's more on Joe Biden's history of repeated plagiarism from the New York Times.
Median household income, 2005: $31k ($41k).
Number of churches listed on the county web site: 67. Number of synagogues: 0. Number of mosques: 0.
Bush's victory margin in 2004: 34% (12%). Think McCain/Palin is going to win this county? You betcha!
Here are the words that Palin said a few days ago in North Carolina:
Is she talking about "the kindness and the goodness and the courage" displayed by the citizens of Murphy, NC, who apparently kept Eric Rudolph hidden and alive for five years while the FBI was looking for him? Because if you kill people with a bomb, that's only "unacceptable" if your victims are "innocent," right?
2. Given Obama's associations with Ayers in the past -- which treated him like an honored citizen with something valuable to contribute to public policy, and this even after Ayers' infamous interview with the NY Times published on 9/11 -- how can Obama bring any moral authority as President of the United States to the War on Terror?"
Yes, I'm sure Biden would be speechless at such a TOUGH question. Then he would break into tears, fall down to his knees and beg for forgiveness, now that your question clearly shows him the error of his ways.
On Barbara West: If she doesn't want information used against her, then perhaps she should rethink putting it up on her friggin WEBSITE!
No, it's actually much worse than you think, J. Studies have been conducted upon people who murdered gay people and are now behind bars, many on death row. (Frontline did a terrific doc on this several years ago, and I taped it). Many of these men (always men) killed gay people because they believed that they were doing 'God's work.' Where did they get the notion that killing gays is a good thing? From their religion, which often taught them that gays are not natural, hated by God, a plague upon humankind, etc.
Once convicted, about half have expressed remorse over killing a person because they are gay. But chillingly, about half have no remorse at all, and indicated that they would kill a gay person again if given the chance. All of them cite religion as the excuse for their actions.
Can the blame for the murders be laid at the feet of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and countless other ministers? (Not to mention other forms of violence against gays) I don't think so. I believe every person is accountable for their actions, and they should know right from wrong. But on the other hand, we can certainly blame these guys for creating a hostile environment in the first place.
In Washington, we have seen an alarming number of attacks against gay people recently, and a few have died from their injuries. One would think that we can find ways to reduce violence against any people for any reason, and one way would be by lowering the rhetoric against gays.
Rudolph clearly believes that he was doing 'God's work.' And there are many indications that more than a trivial number of people support him. One indication is that he survived in the woods for five years, even though the FBI was offering an award of a million dollars. Another indication is the number of statements that can be found expressing support for him. ADL has a nice collection here. Stuff like this:
Re: Rudolph's terrorism. No argument from me--my point was that Palin contradicts the FBI definition of terrorism, finding abortion clinic bombings merely "unacceptable" though under the FBI's definition they clearly are. In fact, I like your posts, since you link to sources, unlike many here who merely make assertions.
Keep up the good work!
Re: Biden's plagerism: Again, is this a BIG ISSUE (as you asserted earlier), relative to the economy, the war, health care, etc. or is it someone's personal pecadillo? And as you note by linking to a 1987 NYT article, it's old news. Yawn.
Given the stakes of this election, I am sure the Republic will survive.
The questions were perfectly fair. The station is being punished because the answers to the questions, if honestly made, would show Obama is a socialist, and because Biden and Obama can't make a false denial that won't be seen as an evasion.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
No, I am sure that Biden would figure out a slick way to weasel out of answering the question.
Now that you have given the snarky answer, care to try your hand at a serious answer?
I understand. I should have made it clear that I was just adding support to what you already said.
Thanks for the kind words.
Not just that. It will also be claimed that you posted a bad link, and you posted in the wrong thread. There's another thread on that subject.
Can you picture the outrage? Rush and Sean would be jumping out of their skin. Drudge would be running a triple siren. Every hour, McCain would release a new web video juxtaposing Obama's words with pictures of terrorism victims.
Like I said: IOKIYAR.
Now that you have given the snarky answer, care to try your hand at a serious answer? I showed that your claims about what Palin said are flat wrong.
"Palin refused to call Rudolph a "terrorist"
and:
"Brian Williams used the phrase "abortion clinic bomber." Those words are essentially a synonym for "Eric Rudolph." Do a google on those words, and you'll get a bunch of links about him."
This isn't about google. It's about making a clear delineation between what Brian Williams asked and what you state Palin refused to say. There's a difference between the two. Palin was asked about an abortion clinic bomber, and when I search google, I found several names of people who bombed abortion clinics.
You hold VC posters to posting accurate information with citations when they are making representations as fact, and I applaud that. Understand that some VC posters will endeavor to hold you to that same standard.
Let me repeat, the sum total of your answer is the proverbial "So's Your Mother." Your only defense of Obama is to try to show Palin is just as bad -- mainly by twisting her words out of context, and making dubious attacks on Jerry Falwell.
But I won't play that game. My question stands: can you defend Obama's moral standing to combat terrorism without referencing anyone on the right (Palin, McCain, Falwell, etc.) From what I see here, the short answer is: NO.
Please consider these two statements:
A) Eric Rudolph is a terrorist.
B) Someone who bombs an abortion clinic is a terrorist.
There is no meaningful difference between those two statements. Palin was handed an opportunity to say A, B or both. She very pointedly chose to say neither. That's what matters.
As usual, you're missing the point by focusing on a very minor feature of the situation. I think your complaint is that I accused Palin of refusing to say A, instead of accusing her of refusing to say B. What difference does it make? Her "moral cowardice" is the same, either way.
You're doing a nice job of proving that you can't find any non-trivial problems with the statements that I've made. You're also doing a nice of proving that you have hard time recognizing the difference between a trivial issue and a substantive one.
Rick Moran has a long track record as a righty blogger. I'm comfortable with his description of the matter, even though your trivial complaint also applies to what was said by him:
The one who is "twisting her words out of context" is you. According to you, she said this:
Really? Show us where she said that. Are you really claiming that she views abortionists as "innocent?"
And explain why it's OK with you that she refused to call it a form of terrorism, even though Gonzales and Ashcroft described it that way. Then again, maybe it's OK with you that she literally doesn't understand the meaning of the word "terrorism." Choose your poison.
Jukebox, still waiting for a response.
So an abortion bomber could be prosecuted under this law and receive heavy punishment without being labelled a "terrorist," although I would agree that in most instances the person is a terrorist.
Yes. There is no basis to question "Obama's moral standing to combat terrorism." There are plenty of people besides Obama who have treated Ayers "like an honored citizen with something valuable to contribute to public policy."
You should tell us how you feel about Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina. He serves as the Ex-Officio Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the University of South Carolina, where Ayers holds the title of "Distinguished Scholar." We haven't heard a peep out of Sanford, condemning Ayers, and condemning the decision to grant him this title. I wonder why. Maybe you should consider the possibility that it's because Ayers has actually done some good things.
In 1997 Ayers won Chicago's "Citizen of the Year" award. So the third-largest city in the country is obviously a hotbed of radicalism.
There are many differences. Here's one. WUO made efforts to evacuate their targets, so that only property, not people, would be damaged. Accordingly, no one has ever proved that they hurt anyone (other than themselves).
Let us know when you're ready to start answering the questions you've been ducking.
"You're doing a nice job of proving that you can't find any non-trivial problems with the statements that I've made. You're also doing a nice of proving that you have hard time recognizing the difference between a trivial issue and a substantive one."
No, I'm trying to help you be more accurate in the statements you make on VC. Again, if you're going to hold people to certain standards about the issues they discuss on VC, that may also happen to your discussion of the issues.
"Rick Moran has a long track record as a righty blogger. I'm comfortable with his description of the matter, even though your trivial complaint also applies to what was said by him"
You seem to be saying that because a "righty" blogger wrote something it adds an air of legitimacy to what you wrote. I'm more interested in what you say on the matter. You don't have to figuratively point to Rick Moran's opinion on a topic, and jumping up and down, explain "See! See! He thinks the way I do!"
It would be good if you could show an example of me raising a complaint about anyone, anywhere, with regard to something as trivial as the complaints you're raising.
Rudolph is an abortion bomber. Gonzales, Ashcroft and Freeh all said he was a terrorist. Why wasn't Palin willing to say it?
"It would be good if you could show an example of me raising a complaint about anyone, anywhere, with regard to something as trivial as the complaints you're raising."
It appears this is your way of saying you don't have to be accurate in what you post because you consider it trivial. I believe you writing "Palin refused to call Rudolph a 'terrorist'" is more than trivial because it was one of the central themes to your post. We'll agree to disagree.
That sentence was indeed 'the central theme of my post,' but the fact that I said "Eric Rudolph" instead of "abortion bomber" is completely immaterial.
You haven't even made a pretense of attempting to demonstrate that the distinction between the terms "Eric Rudolph" and "abortion bomber" is something other than utterly trivial (it's like Rove claiming it matters that he said "Wilson's wife" instead of "Valerie Plame"). For the purpose of Palin's interview, and the purpose of this discussion, the terms are interchangeable. The word for what you're doing is pedantic.
Well, in jukeboxgrad's defense, I must say that even if what he raises is trivial, it really isn't. After all, Obama didn't wear a flag label pin for a while, and that had lots of people upset and kept whining. "Why does he hate America so much that he won't wear the flag?"
I also noticed that during the televised debates, Obama wore the flag, but McCain did not. Where was the outrage then?
Of course, there was none. Being trivial is okay for Republicans, but not for Democrats.
"Of course, there was none. Being trivial is okay for Republicans, but not for Democrats."
When jukeboxgrad post items and represents them as fact, when they are not, I think that's a bit intellectually dishonest.
And I always thought the flag thing was a bunch of nonsense, you bring up a good example.
If a candidate's (Biden's) honesty is not a "big issue" - I'm not sure what is. How can you rely on a candidate's promises to address any of the problems you list if he has a history of repeated plagiarism and dishonesty (as does Biden)?
I'd respectfully suggest that taking the position that a candidate's honesty is not a "big issue" will not win much support for your candidate or your Party.
What's "intellectually dishonest" is pretending that there's any meaningful difference between the terms "Eric Rudolph" and "abortion bomber."
I'd respectfully suggest that making a big fuss about "honesty" is not going to get you very far. It's incredibly easy to find Republicans pointing out what a "politically opportunistic liar" McCain is. And Palin is creating a very similar track record for herself.
If a candidate's (Biden's) honesty is not a "big issue" - I'm not sure what is. How can you rely on a candidate's promises to address any of the problems you list if he has a history of repeated plagiarism and dishonesty (as does Biden)?
I think it is a matter of degree and seriousness. There is a light-years worth of difference between Biden's 40-year old laws school plagiarism/quoting out of context/non-attributions in speeches than, say, Richard Nixon's subversion of the Constitution or LBJ's lies about Tonkin Gulf.
I don't consider plagiarism to be dishonesty on the scale as a perjurer. Yes, it's something you shouldn't due but it certainly is forgivable. Biden certainly has not cashed in his office, like many of his Senate colleagues (current Presidential candidates excepted, of course. Besides, Biden isn't running for President; when the President tells the VP to jump, he/she responds "how high?" (unless you are the current VP, then the roles are reversed.)
If this is the best you can do about Biden's "dishonesty," that's pretty weak.
The preponderance of the national MSM is one reflection of the bullshit and mephitis in general that has passed for reporting this election cycle. Prominent bloggers present another contrast. Yet a local news reporter's tendentiousness is called out as reflecting "the most tendentious ... I have ever seen."
Priorities and perspective. Amusing and revealing.
"So, Michael, what specifically are you implying about David Berstein's "priorities and perspective" and what about them is "amusing" and/or "revealing"?" JosephSlater
The comment, following the links, speaks for itself. Simply put, it presents a study in contrasts in terms of how evidence is taken note of, weighed, assessed - or, elided or dismissed or rationalized away. In terms of what it reflects for any one individual, who's to say? But in general terms, it certainly reflects something about how the empirical, rational, intuitive, etc. evidence is approached and then dealt with in more definitive terms.