I thought many of the attacks on both sides were probably false. Here is one such but I'd be willing to bet that an equal number of backers on both sides are willing to lie for the goal of spin:

W. Bush was mostly rhetoric and non-specifics compared to Obama. Clinton was too busy defending himself and attacking back at Bush Sr. to put forth specifics. Reagan was never one to put forth policy specifics in his campaigning.

Obama's campaign web pages alone have more information than any winning campaign has ever made available to the public. How many winning campaigns in the past have planned large changes to tax rates but told you in advance how much more or less a specific income/investment level/household size will pay under those plans?

It's not like McCain will be able to get his legislation through anyways.

If all the stories and reports on the Palin/McCain split coming out are accurate it's going to make for a fun post election meltdown.

Just a few more fringe nutjobs.

Pretty painful Biden interview.

I love the look he gives as she asks the last question...my thoughts exactly.

Good to watch for a few chuckles.

Compare that to the McCain interview by the same woman. I wonder who she's rooting for.

The comments to this on Christianity Today (evangelical site) has, so far, been unanimous against this, using words like "appalling" or " shocking".

Did they forget drive-thru abortions?

Focus on the Family Action is not the Dobson group, right? Names are way too similar.

Never mind, looks like the same group.

Anyways, they forgot the part about the satanic prayers before lunch at school

My favorite part in that letter was the section saying that in four years there would be a three year wait for certain surgeries. Didn't realize that there was that much pent up demand for subsidized surgical procedures. :)

It is the same, but this was sent from another corporation they set up to be able to send these kinds of things out.

That's a beyond pathetic interview. This isn't cable news. As a reporter/anchor for local TV, you should feel an obligation to leave your obvious bias at the door before you go on public airwaves.

Definitely dumb - similar to the "Bush will start WW3/invade entire middle east" stuff we heard in '04.

Actually almost exactly the kind of stuff I heard when I was going to a conservative Bible college during the first Clinton election.

It would be interesting to see, if predictions hold true, a re-definition of an electoral landslide. We already know that winning by 1% popular vote and 1 electoral vote are spun as a "mandate". Electoral landslides are on the order of 500+ to 20-30something - like with Nixon 72, Reagan 80, Reagan 84 and LBJ 64. Will 375-163 be spun as a landslide?

I seem to recall reading that 350 EVs is considered a "landslide" victory.

FWIW, I don't think we'll see that this time around.

Traditionally, a 10% win in the popular vote translates into roughly a 350-400+ EV total and is considered a landslide. Now clearly 400 EVs is, graphically, a landslide, but is beating your opponent by 10% really a landslide? If the result is, say, 55-45, there's still almost half of the country that didn't vote for you.

Sort of like getting 49% of the votes and calling it a mandate.

I'm glad the DLC died. The DLC existed as a forum for folks who thought the Democratic party could win elections by a) going center or right-of-center, regardless of principles and b) liked to win campaigns tactically, i.e. by focusing on a battleground state or two they could flip to put them just over 273 EVs.

Clinton may have been a centrist, but he wasn't a progressive. More accurately he was an opportunist and a self-aggrandist (probably not a word).

Obama's not a centrist nor a leftist, but is a pragmatist and progressive.

Also, it's not accurate to say Obama's not taken his party on. People want to point to his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate for this, but during his time there the Democrats were unified in opposition to George Bush. How many opportunities did he have, really, to "stand up to his party"? Arguably McCain had more, especially over the past 4-8 years, but we all know how that has gone.

And anyway, if you look at Obama's record in Illinois, it's a picture of a guy who routinely was at odds with the "machine", especially after getting obliterated by Bobby Rush early on. He also had a record of pragmatically securing cross-party support for initiatives.

It's of note that in the primary for his Senate bid the machine backed not one but two successive candidates instead of Obama. It wasn't until he secured the nomination that the machine really swung into support behind him.

Its because the DLC for so long steered Democrats away from tax debates that Clinton era tax levels are now called socialism. The DLC allowed conservatism to play as the voice of the people.

The DLC was all about the Democratic party winning elections first and foremost, and screw having a platform that shows a clear contrast to the opponents. Thats no better than the Republicans are right now, no thanks.

"self-aggrandist" may or may not be a word but it certainly is a polite way of saying what Bill Clinton really was.

If taking on the "machine" and getting obliterated by it were considered badges of honor (i.e., good fighting evil), what does it say that such evil is now working for you?

God forbid that anyone should ask tough questions. That's one of the many problems with modern politics - style points matter more than being held accountable for the increasing powers, expenditures and deficits of the federal government.

So you weren't a fan of President Clinton?

Asking tough questions is one thing, grandstanding through ridiculous comparisons is another. (Why not ask McCain/Palin how they compare to Mussolini?) Not to mention she soft balled McCain. She not only soft balled him, asked him questions to put his opponent in a negative light.

I have a love hate relationship with Carville/Clinton/Clinton. I think the nation is much better off that Bill became president, but I think their campaigning style and choice of politics also put the nation/progressive politics back in many ways.

IMO, George W Bush was elected in response to the fact that the Clinton camp decided to focus exclusively on hitting back to win elections, instead of putting more focus towards progressive issues and ideals.

Oh I'm all for tough questions and agree we need to say more of them, but you can't in anyway say that she was looking for answers. She was wording the questions to intentionally be as inflammatory as possible and in several instances they really weren't even questions.

I'll give her credit for at least allowing him to answer where a lot of people would shout them out or interrupt, it was actually almost eery her complete lack of emotion. She was a robot in it. It wasn't tough journalism, and I think it's pretty tough to try and portray it as such. She could care less what the answers were, she just wanted to make sure she got to ask the questions how she wanted. Actually from the way she did it, I'm not even sure it's how she wanted, but more how they wanted her to ask them because she seemed disinterested in the whole process.

I love the fact she used Sweden as the country Americans are afraid we're going to become if Obama/Biden is in charge.

I wasn't defending her approach or questions, it was just a general comment how much control over the press (and the voting population) both campaigns have had during this election cycle.

Clinton was never a progressive, so I don't think he necessarily cared about setting progressive politics back. I think he also knew that without that campaigning style that even coming out of a recession, Bush would have won a second term.


I strongly disagree. Bush won for a couple reason. One was Gore was scared to use Clinton on the trail. Second was that Gore constantly was "overhandled" instead of sticking to being himself (the entire "earth tones" portion of his campaign doomed him). And Third, Bush focused on being a "compassionate conservative". Of course we know he wasn't, but this country is, in essence, a 3rd way country, which basically is Clintonianism or Compassionate Conservatism... except when they get pissed (as in Carter or Bush II).

So, I think that in order to even begin to sell far right or far left policies you need someone charismatic and things in the crapper. So Reagan can be elected in 1980, but probably no other time.

i wonder if those were the actual guys from the original commercials? one of them looks familiar from the old ones.

The guy watching the stock market crash is definitely the same one from the original. I had seen him several times on shows milking the "whaz up?" line. I cannot remember the rest of the guys in the commercial, but I would guess those are all the originals due to the "views expressed" note at the end.

they all look familiar to me.

Would that be considered endorsements from Joe Sixpacks?

I think you are right, the taxes structure that exists today is huge compared to what existed during Hoover's administration.

Obama does not say what he will increase the corporate tax too, only that he promises to do so and make a specific tax he calls "windfall tax". Below is the current corp. tax structure. McCain wants to set it at a flat 25%. One thing Obama does not realize is that corporations pass their tax on to consumers in their price (includes reducing cost of production) of goods and services. They will either outright cost more or the quantity and quality of what you get will drop for the same price.

I think the real point is raising taxes as we look at a possible depression is stupid and completely ingnores what we should have learned from the past. I think obama lives in a world of revisionist history. Although he has learned one thing very well, more money helps win campaigns. That is why he backed out of his promise to accept public financing. The one promise that would actually show you are a change agent. Every step of the way he has shown he is politics as usual. Oh well, on this one we will get what we deserve.

And McCain wasn't lying when he said the US corporate tax is 2nd highest in the world. People point to loopholes, but the answer is close the loopholes and lower the rate. I actually consider Obama's action on the corporate tax rate to be highly disappointing.

Yes, but the evil liberal media and the morning-"news"-show-turned-anchor was mean to Sarah Palin and asking horrible gotch questions.

SI

:+1:

I find it relatively frightening that the majority of the general public actually applauds the move to raise the upper tax rate when a far more lucrative blow (in regards to income for the government) to corporations would be to remove the loopholes and credits and leave the tax rate where it is. There's been some kind of disconnect in understanding of how the current tax code works where the public assumes that an increased tax rate will hurt only the wealthy. That's not necessarily the case.

However, IMO, you would have an equal explanation about how the closing of a loophole that's existed for X amount of years = a backdoor Tax increase and will cause said companies to increase prices, cut jobs or move overseas....its a no win situation.

Just like we have with W, right? Or was he better than we deserved?

Yes, but the current method lacks transparancy as there is almost no way to determine the actual tax rate on most big corporations and the wealthy. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, the practice of two balance sheets is very common at this point. If you take out a lot of the behind the scenes works, at least you have a much better chance of determining the actual effect of a tax increase/decrease. I agree that a change for the better may be painful in the short term, but it's time for most Americans to get over their fear of painful changes. Nothing comes easy.

FWIW....I pay an accountant a few thousand dollars each year to play the exact same game I'm discussing. If they create a simplified code, I likely wouldn't pay any more of a tax increase than what I'm paying my accountant to resolve this whole mess.

Regardless, IMO, Our government needs the ability ro fund a complete overhaul of our infrastructure including grid and energy drain. This will take either a shift of monetary assets or more income from taxes (or donations I guess).

No one ever or very rarely is FOR raising taxes when it effects themselves hence my statement that if there was a motivation to close a loophole that's existed, because it would sound better to voters (ie. you or the company itself) the company would hire a shit ton of lobbyists to either stave off the closure, or create a different but similar loophole

AND one of the side effects will be the political marketing, whether truthful or not, to the public about how Bill 234.432.566b is actually a tax that will hurt the economy, cost jobs, raise prices, etc. So the public will never get the true evaluation of said tax changes and be confused until after it's been passed or rejected.

Take for example the arguments between camps about the actual effects of the tax plans for both. The statements you see from the camp itself touts the gains and benefits but the other camp points out the downfalls and 'true' effects. Which to believe? The public doesnt know but the only thing for sure to know is that those effected by the change will strategically attack it until the raise the chances of it's failure (it may still pass).

We know one thing for sure, the tax system as it is now is broken BUT the fix is where the rub is. There is NEVER a 'good' time to raise taxes according to the person being effected and it will be sold to the public in the ways we see now on TV and in articles.

I don't want to say this is easy, but using a good chunk of military $$$ and resources would be optimal.

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, but Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida all appear to now be statistical dead heats judging from the polling information released on 10/26. All 5 of those states were considered as pretty good bets for Obama as of late last week, but they are all now only a point or two Obama lead.

Honestly, this shouldn't be a surprise to most in this thread. The polling data appears to be much more in line now with what the insiders in each campaign have reported. Another place to look for similar corrections in the state polls is in Pennsylvania. Don't be surprised if the 11 point lead reported on 10/22 shrinks significantly in the latest polling data released sometime today. Any correction likely has less to do with any noticable voter gain/loss by either candidate and much more to do with a correction of the voter weights in that state's polling.

A change in thinking regarding how those contracts are awarded for the military would save millions alone. An across the board military spending cut as Barney Frank has suggested over the weekend is a very short-sighted approach to the situation. The focus should be on the root of the problem, which is preferential awarding of military contracts. McCain has mentioned several times the aircraft contract award earlier this year that saved our government a ton of money. The gist of the situation was that the American contractor was passively blackmailing the lawmakers. They had a much more expensive contract than the overseas competitor, and laid all kinds of threats at the feet of the government officials about how they would go after the lawmakers if they decided to take the cheaper alternative. Congress did the right thing and took the cheaper alternative. The losing company then proceeded to attack lawmakers about costing jobs in America. However, once the level of lobbying and manipulation hit the press, the company's cries fell on deaf ear.

If Congress was just smart enough to pick the best contracting deal (within reason regarding quality) rather than listen to the lobbyists and their payouts, they'd save the country billions of dollars. Barney Frank is a prime example of people who claim that something is broken when they're the prime reason it's broken.

I thought all 5 of those states had been very very close through any polling I had seen lately. The fact that Indiana and North Carolina are even in play should be pretty troubling for any McCain supporter.

You spin one way, I spin the other.

Not sure why it's considered spin. As I mentioned, I seriously doubt that any poll movement has anything to do with a swing to more McCain voters. There's been a lot of fuss in recent days even in the mass media about the polling weights, even to the point of being discussed on some of the Sunday morning political shows. A correction in those polls is pretty likely.

Indiana and North Carolina aren't the only obvious state concerns for McCain. Also, not sure why you say it's a supporter issue. It's a McCain issue.

There's really no clear evidence of these races tightening. Most of them are close, but they've been close for a couple of weeks. Only in IN have there been swings out of the MOE, but the numbers vary so greatly I have no idea what to expect.

NV: Three of the last four polls have shown a 4 or 5 point Obama lead.

MO: Out of the last six polls all of them but one had it between Obama +2 and McCain +1.

FL: Four of the last six polls have been between Obama +1 and McCain +1.

NC: Five of the last six polls have been tie to Obama +4.

IN: This has truly been all over the map. In the last four polls it's gone from Obama +10 to McCain +7. The Obama +4 from SUSA has a demo you'd like, 37/37/23.

Any polling that says.....

-Democrat and Republican voters will show up in equal numbers
-23% of Indiana voters are independent

.....has a lot of explaining to do. I'm not sure why you'd think I like that weighting. It's horribly inaccurate from where I stand.

It's a McCain supporter issue because it is bad for McCain, who they support. That's like saying I shouldn't be upset when a Saints player gets injured because that affects the Saints, and I am only a fan of the team, not a member of the team. A true, but pointless, observation.

Also, I assume by "correction" you mean "change." Anyone who pretends to know how the demographics will break down in this election and how the polling weights should break down to reflect that is fooling themselves.

And there is fuss about polling weights in the mass media because they need something about which to speak to make this seem like a horse race. "Obama is still comfortably ahead" will eventually get people to change the channel to King of Queens re-runs.

It is wrong to assume that CNN, etc. cares more about reporting the truth than about keeping viewers tuned in.

Finally, FWIW, I still think that this will be a close race.

More telling is that McCain is only up four points in Arizona. That'd be a nice one for Obama to win just for style points.