WTF? They can't pick a day where there is no World Series? He can't air it at 7:30? Really?

So, apparently a bit more info out there about Joe...

Beat the Press Archive | The American Prospect


I confess that I do a lot of work in tax policy, so this irritates me on a personal level...

But I reckon more than anything, this whole example boils down to a massive misunderstanding of the general concept of a "tax bracket," where people somehow believe that if they make one dollar over the limit of a lower bracket, they get saddled with some monstrous new tax burden on all their income. That simply isn't true -- not in the current tax system, not as it ever has been, and not as anyone meaningful is proposing it to be. Tax brackets apply to the income in that bracket.

Bottom line... if Joe the Plumber is going to make $280K in income himself free and clear after all costs from running that business... and if he has decided that an extra $900 in taxes makes it impossible for him to go on with that business, then it sounds like his business plan is basically a house of cards anyhow. Far more likely is that this guy and his worries represents, yet again, just an empty political device being spun out of control to try to score points, regardless of the reality.

One of the moments in the debate that I enjoyed: Obama leaves McCain slack-jawed during a supreme burnination:



Bonus "my friends" for full points.

dola...

And nice post, Quik -- it's frustrating to see the McCain campaign continue to try to snow less mathy voters when they know their approach inaccurately portrays the tax system. Still, playing on fear is kind of their strong suit.

In an interview on CBS after the debate he told Couric he doesn't make 250,000, but it doesn't matter because Obama will soon raise taxes for those above 100,000.

And the circulating yet unconfirmed rumor is that Joe the Plumber isn't even registered to vote. As the robot devil says, "How delightfully ironic"

+1

Under McCain, his taxes go down, so you need to double that savings (at least).

While that still doesn't hinder his business, individual impact isn't really the intention of tax cuts/increases, right? Most Americans won't really notice the difference in taxes no matter who's president. The difference, depending on your point of view, is whole of the tax cuts/increases - do you want those billions spent by consumers in the economy or by the government on programs?

Obama loves to talk about tax cuts on the middle class. If the numbers for Joe the Plumber are miniscule, what are we talking about at a lower income level for 1-2% differences between McCain and Obama?

McCain is just a Bush populist conservative. If the Constitution Party weren't theocrat racists, I'd probably vote for them. As it stands now, I might not vote at all this year. It's just such a blah slate of candidates and after moving, I'm not really interested in the races below the federal level. It's a crap year when the only candidate I can find my views aligning with most are two of the most left wing candidates. (They apparently opposed federalized health care and a few other things that I support and are policies they effectively find common ground with the Libertarians on.) No way I can hold my nose and vote for a "former" statist in Bob Barr, either.

Well, if you're going to focus on little things like that...

First, I read that CNN had a panel with 40% democrats, 30% republicans and 30% independents voting on the results. I'm sure if Fox News had 40% republicans, no one here would have an issue with that. :rolleyes: Obama is winning and doing very well, the only thing that will help McCain at this point is a perceived unfairness by the media and that above spread will invigorate the right for weeks now. Is there really a need to "stack the deck" for Obama at this point?

Next, on small businesses, everyone is all focused in on "Joe the Plumber". As I said earlier, the problem isn't "Joe the Plumber" or "Bob the landscaper" making between 150-250K. Those people *maybe* employ 1-2 people and don't have a ton of revenue. The problem is "Jim the general contractor" or "Greg the utility electrician" who employ 10-50 people, bring in $2 million+ in revenue and will now be looking at a pretty substantial tax hike (esp if they choose to invest). A lot of these guys pay themselves 80-90K in salary, but they file as some type of corp/partnership and have to pay taxes on the full business revenue. So, you could focus on "Jim the general contractor" personally getting a tax cut of a few hundred dollars from Obama while his business pays an extra thousands in taxes. These are the people who will lay off workers if they get hit with a larger tax burden. Then, that 40K electrician that Biden likes to talk about can enjoy the extra $500 in "tax cuts" from Obama while he's unemployed because the business he worked for got a tax hike and he was the casualty.

Again, I think McCain will do his own amount of damage from a health care and deficit standpoint, but this idea that small business are in the clear under Obama's tax plan is hogwash. A very large number will be looking at fairly substantial rate hikes, increases in cap gains if they choose to invest in the market and a real possibility of increased layoffs/lower economic spending.

In their defense, the 40-30-30 split does (more or less) reflect actual voter registration splits...

Geez, even Fox does the 40-30-30 when they do similar polls because thats the actual breakup of people in America! Not only that but most major independent polls do the same. Too many right leaning people in this country want to see a bias in media outlets even in instances where there isn't one.

Maybes its not the media that biased, but America? :)

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" ;)

SI

As other people have said, the 40-30-30 is the current partisan breakdown in the country. Also, if they were trying to stack the deck for Obama, I doubt they'd mention the partisan breakdown about twenty times before releasing the poll results as they did. They stated several times that there were more Republicans than Democrats in the sample. And Obama won huge among independents anyways.


Of course, if the middle class continues to get weakened, then Joe isn't going to have many customers that can afford his services and the 40k guy will be unemployed anyways. However, the money from Obama's tax cuts will almost all go right back into the economy (as opposed to McCain's, where a large portion will be saved), and improve businesses like the one Joe has, which will offset any taxation that he'd have to pay. Furthermore, Obama is giving a 50% health care credit so Joe can provide health care to his employees, which he probably wants to do if he wants to attract quality plumbers to work for him.

If you're interested in a flame war with a bunch of disgusting people who think otherwise:

Salary Expectations - Actuarial Outpost

LOL - so "Joe the Plumber" is releated to the Keating's???

Niiiiice.

Those folks clearly have no concept of reality. Even in the way things have changed since the 1990s.

I guess I look at the point of the panel after a debate is to give impressions on who won the debate. If we're going to have a 10% lead for Obama, then it's going to be tough to see who actually won. IMO, there's a difference between a national voting poll and a panel to see who won the debate.

So, giving a middle class family an extra $300 in tax cuts is going to help them better afford Joe the plummer? The middle class tax cut under Obama is pure pandering. Most goes to people who don't even pay taxes and the ones that do get next to nothing back (esp when you consider the issues listed below).

How do you figure? A vast majority of Obama's spending is on his health care plan, spending on public education and subsidizing college tuition. I'd be interested in seeing how that money helps the economy as much as leaving it in the hands of private small businesses.

Here's a question. Let's say Joe offers strong health benefits to his 10 employers. Then, Obama comes in with his plan and Joe says "Hmm, Obama is now offering a health plan he says is great. Plus, I'm now paying thousands in higher taxes from his rate/cap gains hikes. So, instead of paying the $10-15K for health care for my 10 employees, I'm going to pay his $4000 fine and let them get on Obama's plan. That will save me the money I am losing in the tax increase."

I think A LOT of small business will go that route and (with Obama's national health care system) they now have cover. They can simply say "hey, you in the media have been telling us how great Obama's plan is, why get upset when we send people to it?".

I don't see larger businesses dropping coverage, but I could see a ton of small businesses dropping coverage as a cost savings and putting more burden on the federal government for health coverage. We'll basically be creating a "20s to 40s" level medicare system as more and more small businesses get out of providing health care.

McCain's Lame October Surprise: Joe, The Right-Wing Loon - The Jed Report

see, i don't have a hard time believing McCain was aware of the connection - that would be a pretty big coincidence

Shrug. I think it's meaningless to find out who won the debate based on a distribution of people that don't match the electorate. Maybe McCain does better with an even split, but so what? That's not the situation he's facing.


I dispute the "no taxes" line that gets trotted out. Maybe alot of the people don't pay federal income taxes, but they pay plenty of other taxes which make up a large portion of their income.


I'm talking about the middle class tax cuts. That money will immediately be spent on the things the middle class person needs. The extra money that McCain is giving to CEO's probably won't have the same effect. However, to answer your scenario, the money that people save on tuition and health care would also likely be put right back into the economy.


I missed the question here? I guess I would say in response that small businesses are competing with employees, so they'd have incentive to go after a health plan that would provide even better coverage than Obama's plan. If Joe is offering health care, he can probably get away with paying his employees a lower salary than someone else who doesn't offer said coverage. If Joe drops his coverage, then he'd probably have to raise wages to keep his employees, since they're now going to get covered no matter where they go.

All the polls I've seen of independents ONLY show that Obama won the debate by about an average of 55/30, roughly.

Which is about the same as the CNN and CBS polls, which included a Dem/Rep 40/30 split.

Feel better?

I'd rather be paid more, than get employer provided health insurance.

Well I would too if McCain is going to tax me on the health benefit anyways.

However, I think it depends on the quality of the employer provided health insurance. I've had good plans and bad plans. Right now, I have a REALLY good plan. Someone not offering health insurance would have to offer me about $10k more for me to leave.

That doesn't even cover it. Right now hundreds of billions of FICA taxes are going into the general fund. Some portion of FICA taxes are de facto income taxes.

That's a good point made earlier. Joe needs to clarify about the $250k. If the cost of the business is $250k, then I highly doubt it's annual revenues are $250k. If so, then please tell me how I can get in on that deal!

I think it's pretty clear by now that Joe never should have been part of this national discussion anyway. If we're going to have a real discussion about "working people" or even "family businesses" or the like, and which candidate's policies would treat them more suitably -- that would be great. But that's not what this device was about.

Personally, I think there's a lot of weakness in the Obama tax proposal. I think it's fiscally irresponsible, and I think the presentation of the "soak the rich" philosophy is rather dangerous to the public discourse, in large part because that argument really never has an endpoint. A "tax cut for nearly all of you" plan is election-year pandering... maybe good for winning elections, definitely bad for the country.

But that's not the grounds for the attack here. McCain and company seem dead set on playing ball on Obama's terms, and trying to make this absurd argument that the people getting tax hikes from Obama's plan -- people with taxable incomes or more than a quarter million dollars a year -- are really struggling middle class working stiffs just like the "Joe Sixpack" we keep hearing about. That simply won't resonate. Talk about job creation, fine. Talk about incentives for success and rewards for achievement, great. Talk about fiscal responsibility if you dare. But if the name of the game is class warfare, you simply can't afford to come across like you are genuinely on the side of the millionaires.

From a strategic perspective, John McCain (version 2008) is a complete nightmare. He wants to be a maverick who bucks his party and then plays to the deepest and ugliest elements of the party's base at the same time. And by doing a little bit of everything but nothing in particular, he doesn't give anyone save for the most ardent partisan anti-Democrats any clear reason at all to vote for him. With an eight-year incumbent administration of his own party toiling under near-historic low approval ratings, that simply won't work.

Shoot that motherfucker.

Arles says that.

Then GOP officials do this: Inland GOP mailing depicts Obama's face on food stamp | Inland News | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California



Again, I implore those of you good guys on the inside of the GOP, like Arlie, with actual good ideas for the country--PLEASE TAKE YOUR PARTY BACK FROM THE NUTJOBS AND ASSHOLES.

I'm a liberal and even I don't want to live with a Dem White House with a supermajority in the Senate and a 50 seat advantage in the House. But it isn't like the GOP is leaving the country with much of a choice.

Take your party back, guys. I miss it.

Can someone explain to me why they would do that in California? Uh, McCain isn't winning California. You're making the GOP look bad without any possible gain.

They should send those to Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Philly. I am sure they would play well there.

Interesting fact check artiucle from CNNMoney about how many small business would actually be taxed.

But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor.

OMG, that is such a train wreck thread. The people not believing a single person can live "comfortably" on $40k a year. I was raising kids, paying on a house, a car, buying food and clothes on $45k a year. My wife started working this year, and that helps a lot. :)

There is still a big issue here. First, it's not just 500 employees for all small businesses (there's also an income level that allows people with 700-1000 employees to still be classified as small business). Still, that's just a minor clarification.

Those 480,000 small businesses referenced in the story employ a vast majority of the people. If you have one food distribution small business who employees 400 people, that one business probably employs more than most of the other 34 million combined (when you discount the owner). Saying that "98% of small businesses make less than 250K so don't worry about the tax hit" is like saying 95% of people who go to the doctor are fine without surgery - so why worry about the other 5%? Those remaining 2% of small businesses are what employ people, encourage investment and really pump life in this economy.

Now, I fully admit that the demagoguery by the McCain camp on Obama's plan is ridiculous. Everyone isn't going to be on food stamps or in the depression from it. But, I do think that some of these tax increases could have some pretty significant "unintended consequences" - especially when you look at job creation, wage level and even health care benefits.

My point here isn't that no one will find health care. My fear is that a majority of small business who offer health care (esp in those 480,000 making over 250K) will decide to stop and push the burden to the federal government. Even if people get solid coverage from Obama's plan (which I am still dubious on once we realize the cost), having a large portion of working American shift from employer based health care to government sponsored health care is something that worries me. Much like public education, the costs are going to continue to increase as more people get herded into this system and we could be looking at additional tax increases on people making as little at 50K to cover these costs.

All that said, I still would prefer to have Obama in the White House at this point. He strikes me as someone who would pause and think about this if (hopefully when) a debate begins on these policies. My fear in this election is that everyone is so focused on troopergate and Bill Ayers and Keating/9 houses that a lot of these plans are going unchallenged. Then, you throw in a Pelosi House and Reid Senate and there's a good chance a lot of this will pass without much of a debate (esp if democrats make more congressional gains, which I expect they will). So, let's survive these final 3 weeks and once Obama wins (which is fairly certain at this point), I hope we can look into some of these plans and decide if it's a good policy to give a pandering middle class tax cut or if we should be really increasing capital gains when people are turning into Ebeneezer Scrooge and pulling money out of the market and putting it under mattresses.

I am not blaming McCain or Obama for the shift in focus, I am just frustrated as I think there are some good beginnings in Obama's plans, but that they will never get properly flushed out once he gets elected. I really wish there were conservatives out there who could hold back the hyperbole for a bit and really get a debate on these policies going. McCain is pretty much done, so we need to make sure the repercussions on the Obama plans are understood and explained before they get rubber stamped in 2009. We will be in no place to suddenly realize negative items after the fact given the state the economy figures to be in at that point.

A lot of that depends on where one lives. It is definitely possible though.

I'm holding out the shred of hope that when the Republicans get utterly crushed in the elections (I've resigned myself to the fact that we're going to get 4 years of ass-raping at the hands of a democratic president + congress at this point), the party crumbles and rebuilds on their Old Ways.

I did that for many years when I was young. Now, medicals bills would eat that extra money like Cookie Monster with bag a Chips Ahoy. Good medical benefits are definitely worth a little less salary.

I give up, I can't take the political adds anymore. I wanted McCain over W 8 years ago. Based on that I started this in the McCain camp.

I have not seen one ad from McCain that tells me why he would be a good president or even what he stands for. While Obama's have only given me slightly more at least there is an occasional attempt to say a few ideas. Most importantly to me is the idea that he wants to keep jobs in this country and not reward companies for out-sourcing (on a side not it is rather funny how some of those who are strongly in the Obama camp jumped on me in a thread a while back saying this needs to happen but have no problem with it now).

With that said I hope this is not a mistake but we need a change (hopefully it's not a case of the devil you know being better than the devil you don't know). Barring a major change over the next couple weeks I WILL be voting for Obama. Hopefully his talk about keeping jobs here is not just lip service and he can try to do something about it. If he keeps that promise I will also vote for him in 2012.

Hopefully this decision does not cause hell to freeze over, pigs to fly or the earth to implode.


Okay, I got that off my chest and said it. I feel much better now.

Kind of the opposite of what happened with Bush for his second term. He focused his campaign on Kerry's character and won. But when he tried to get people behind his policies after the election (i.e. privatizing social security), he failed because he did not spend any of his election time arguing for those issues.

In contrast, Obama has been all about the issues and using the copious free media of the election to lay out his plans. So, if he wins, he will have already done a lot of the convincing he needs to do to get things through. And, he will be able to govern with a mandate on his issues instead of a mandate based on "I'm not John Kerry."

And I agree with you that, because the GOP has not been attacking his issues with the same vigor with which they have attacked his character, the plans that he does pass (if he wins) will not be as bi-partisan as they should be.

I currently live very very comfortably on $40k a year, and that's in a very nice area of Atlanta (Dunwoody).

I don't doubt that some people struggle to raise a family on $300k, but that's because they're idiots that can't spend, save, invest, or budget wisely.

People just have different standards and things they feel they're entitled to (that's part of the cause of the housing bust). Especially when kids are involved.

If you're in the northeast, have three kids, live in suburban Boston, feel you need a luxury SUV, a smaller luxury car (for "safety" of the kids, of course), 3 bedrooms, a big yard, pool, private schooling for all 3 kids, some people to help with the kids and house, summer camp, a couple of big vacations for 5 every year, a couple of nights out at good restaraunts every month....$300k suddenly isn't all that much.

Nobody needs any of that, of course. But it's a damn good thing that some people think they do, it's what keeps our economy growing.

Sweet jumpin' Jehosaphat! Are people really that stupid? Check her comments:



Yeah, it is clear putting Obama's face on a bill with fried chicken and watermelon wasn't an attempt to offend anyone.







I'm not a racist! I have good friends who are black!

It's not totally racist cause she didn't include collared greens and chitterlings as well.

at least that's the type of food my black friends used to eat.

Joe in the Spotlight - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

Ouch! Explains his hang-up on tax policies. I saw an interview with him today talking about how he hates Social Security and wants it to go away. Campaigns really need to vet their examples better.

ROFLMAO

I think what I find funny is that I think MLB is willing to do it in the hopes that they'll have a good lead in and can get better ratings!

sounds like my boss. and yet he's claiming that our lil company is in dire straits because our net profits aren't high enough - *eyeroll*

In reading the comments on cnn to the "Joe the Plumber" issue, I see nothing but condescending, hypocritical arrogance. We have had 8+ years of obnoxious arrogance. Are we going to just be trading one type of arrogance for another? That would really suck.

Well, again I don't think Obama has said anything negative about Joe, so I don't see why these comments would be pertinent to how he runs the White House over the next 4-8 years.

I'm sure many of the comments have been over the line. Having said that, many of the criticisms of "Joe" have been fair game. He presented himself to Obama, and the McCain campaign presented him to the American people, in a manner that was very misleading.

I think social security ought to go away too. But I wouldn't go on TV and talk about it. Unless I was hoping to leverage that as an audition to get a talking spot on some right wing radio station. And even then....not worth putting yourself out there like that to turn into a 15-minutes of fame sideshow.

The comments had little to do with "Joe" specifically but overall tone and attitude about others. Many people linked the right-wing religious and political zealots to Bush, as if he said those things himself. The same should hold true for Obama. The president is only as good as the consent of the govern and if the govern acts like a bunch of condesending, hypocritical asshats, then it reflects poorly on their leader - especially if we are just trading one type of arrogance for another.

As the US presidential campaign enters its final weeks, both the Republican and Democratic candidates are hitting the swing states.

But misconceptions and rumours abound and many voters have their facts about the candidates all wrong. Some believe that Democrat Barack Obama is a Muslim, for instance.

Casey Kauffman talked to some Republican supporters after a rally by Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, in Ohio.

Absolutely un-fucking-believable. :mad:

"we're not"

heh

At least most of the people in those videos will be dead in twenty or thirty years.

Did he say Al jezeera? :)

MSNBC is showing the Al Smith Foundation dinner in New York tonight. McCain just went and now it's Obama's turn.

Apparently Letterman presses McCain about his friendship with G. Gordon Liddy tonight. It's about fucking time someone asked him that. Can't wait to see what he says.

whoa - that's some quality ignorant racist rednecks there in Ohio. WOW

Obama is laughing at his own jokes. The audience doesn't know what to do...because he's really hitting them hard. All of the absurd stuff that's been said about him...it's like he's really having a good thing.

It's also obvious these guys don't write their speeches for tonight, because it's almost like their engaging the material for the first time.

Nice to see Letterman enter the political arena after his "grilling" of Obama last month with such hard-hitting questions as "Have you ever put lipstick on a pig" and "what's it like to be on the cover of Time and Newsweek".

I'm certainly not claiming that Letterman's unbiased, although him and McCain have gotten along before. It probably wasn't a good idea for McCain to piss Letterman off by outright lying to him earlier.

Either way, don't you think McCain should have to answer questions about his relationship with Liddy?

I don't think a late night host ought to exhibit so much hubris to assume that he somehow has credibility as an unbiased, hard hitting news man. But if it's his show and McCain is going on because he needs all of the free media he can get right now, then he's gotta play ball the way Dave wants to play it, I guess.

I'm guessing if he hadn't blown Dave off a couple weeks ago he would have had similar kid gloves. Now, he has to face the jester's wrath.

I'm not sure if it's already been posted but Sarah Palin will be appearing on SNL October 25.

McCain was great at the Al Smith thing, the Hillary Clinton joke and reference to "that one" got the whole room cracking up, Obama and Clinton included.

That's true, I forgot about the blow-off. After the debacle on the View, it's a shame that political candidates both can't go to late night/morning entertainment shows and let loose a bit. Instead, McCain has had to be "on guard" in nearly every entertainment interview while Obama gets fawned over for being sexy and on the cover of magazines. It just comes down to treated both candidates equally. Either they can both come on and joke, or you grill them both. I'd actually prefer the former but don't really care as long as the treatment is consistent.

as Fidatelo pointed out - I think if McCain hadn't disrespected Letterman he'd have gotten the goofy questions too, but Letterman is of the "i won't be shown up by this guy" mindset. and he's absolutely within his rights. he's entertainment, not news-tv. if he wants to focus on different things with different people that's his right.

who even watches all those late night shows anyways? really??

My thing is if this media is so in the tank for Obama, then why aren't they drilling McCain on his own seedy associations? G. Gordon Liddy plotted murders, kidnappings, election fraud, and said to shoot federal agents in the head. McCain calls this guy a patriot, but he doesn't get asked about it? McCain has a lobbyist who previously did lobbying work for Saddam Hussein, but he doesn't get asked about it? McCain announces an endorsement from the wife of William Annenberg of Annenberg Challenge /Obama-Ayers fame, but he doesn't get asked about it? McCain was on the board of the World Anti-Communist League, a group with an anti-semitic history, but he doesn't get asked about it?

I keep hearing about how the media is in the tank for Obama, but that doesn't make sense given their refusal to press McCain on any of these, while asking Obama about every single one of his associations. I'm glad that someone is finally asking McCain about Liddy. Sure, it would be better for a real newscaster to do it, but something is better than nothing.

If they ask about every associations within 6-degrees of a politician, the campaign would last for 17 years and there would be no room to talk about real stuff (if you think what politicians say is worth much). Associations like Wright is one thing, but not Ayers, nor anyone else that happened to have been in the same room together or was a friend of a friend or company/lobbyist connections. Every lobbyist/consultancy/think-tank have done business with every leader and country in the world, whether directly or indirectly. We're not isolationists so if they start playing that game, why not bring up connections to South Africa, Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? Same thing with government connections - everyone knows everyone else because it's a big pie to share. It's all a stupid game, esp. those who feel the need to play it or keep egging it on.

That doesn't really answer the question, though. I'd be happy if none of the questions had been asked. But Obama has been pressed on numerous associations. That's already out of the bag. I'm just wondering why McCain doesn't get asked about any of his associations. That's fine if you want to argue that certain associations don't matter, but McCain hasn't been asked about any of them. And all I hear is that the media is so liberally biased and in the tank for Obama, but that doesn't make sense given their refusal to ask McCain about anything, but pressing forward with all sorts of questions about Obama.

One always hear (or don't hear) what they want. It's a perception game, esp. for those that have an emotional investment in the outcome.

For the record, i haven't brought up any of this previously, except maybe with Wright, don't remember. I don't care what gets asked or not because no one is or will address the real need to reign in the federal government's powers, expenditures and deficits. I just find it comically petty to talk about what is or isn't happening when we only have a tiny exposure to all what is going on or has happened.

Okay, I'm going to call bullshit on that. Sure, I have a bias and I'm invested in the outcome. But I think it's pretty hard to objectively say that McCain's connections have been analyzed as much as Obama's. Maybe someone asked McCain about Liddy and I didn't hear about it. Maybe it didn't get reported by any of the major networks or news organizations or talk shows or blogs (both liberal and conservative) that I follow. I think it's unlikely.

Maybe someone, somewhere asked McCain about Liddy. But it certainly hasn't got the same attention or coverage, and I just don't see how anyone could honestly argue otherwise.

I agree with why Letterman did it. I don't think it was him being biased int he election, it was him still pissed off about McCain not doing his show because he had to rush back to Washington only to stay in NYC for the rest of the day and night. Letterman was pissed the night it happened and went on and on, this was somewhat expected from me and pretty funny to see.

Another stupid move by McCain going back. He shouldve let it die and be on a backburner way far away but instead he scratches the scab off. Stupid.

McCain completely froze on the Liddy question. Dave was nice enough to give him a commercial break so he could come up with a response.

The Al Smith dinner - the jokes sound good. Good to know. :D

Political Punch

The thing with Obama is that he doesn't have much of a track record or established history. Associations mean more when you don't have a 20-year record in the senate to fall back on. There's a great parallel in the McCain ticket with Palin. Palin has been lambasted for these extremely tenuous ties to the Alaskan independent party, her old preacher and other associations (much like Obama has).

If you look closely, Biden and McCain have numerous "bad" associations you can point to over their 20+ senate campaign. Yet, no one touches them because people know these guys. They have a record of votes/bills/activities that shape our opinion. With Palin and Obama, it's the great unknown. So, for the same reason that everyone is excited about Palin and Obama (fresh face, new ideas, young, attractive,...), people are also unsure of who they really are. You may think it's unfair, but I didn't see too many democrats complaining when Obama made his run in the primaries based on the "blank slate" phenomena of him being all things to all people. Now, people are beginning to wonder if he really can be that and it's an opportunity to bring up questions about his prior associations. I don't think the treatment of Palin and Obama has been fair (esp on Ayers and Alaska Indep party), but I can understand why both sides tried these tactics.

You could come out tomorrow and show that Biden or McCain sat on a board with some nazi extremist and no one would really care. These guys are old fossils who's character was established back when Palin and Obama were learning their ABCs. But, if it came out that Palin or Obama sat on a board with a Nazi extremist, it would be very damaging as we just don't have much to go on in the form of track record.

Arles hit the nail on the head.

If I am interviewing a candidate for a job, and I get a recommendation from an employee that I work with, how that employee performs is going to have some weight on the decision. If the guy is a total jackoff, it is going to hurt. If the recommendation comes from my best employee, it is going to carry significant weight.

Two parts Cool, and 8 parts WTF.. someone decided to recast this election into.. the 60's Batman show....

http://www.iheartchaos.com/wp-conten...ll41195415.jpg

Might have something to do with this making the rounds before the last debate on a few political sites.

You make good points, but none of that really addresses what I was talking about. I keep hearing that the media is in the tank for Obama, but they've given McCain plenty of room to air his attacks on Obama, without going after him for connections that are at least as odious as the Ayers thing. I guess my argument is that if they're in the tank for Obama, then they're doing a really bad job of it.

Furthermore, even if they don't ask McCain about all of those connections, I think the Liddy one is at least pertinent since it is a comparable situation to Ayers, which McCain's campaign continues to bring up. And the way McCain thinks of Liddy is certainly very different from what Obama thinks of Ayers.

Yup. Great that this is the face of America we are showing the world, no?

I give them credit for having the guts to attach their faces to their comments.

Doesn't change the stuff that came out of the people's mouths - although it does make you question whether they represent anything more then 4-5 nutjobs...

That was my thinking as well when I heard "al jezeera". If you're looking to present Americans in a bad light then it woulkdn't take much to come up with half a dozen nuts. I think the source of that video means you should take it with a certain amount of scepticism.

Just to be fair..they also endorsed Clinton, Gore and Kerry..

Al Jezerra English

Not sure if anyone caught Saturday Night Live last night, but I thought this was priceless:

The opening item of the "Weekend Update" newscast had Amy Poehler summarizing the current presidential race thusly:

"Last night marked the third and final debate between Joe Cool and Yosemite Sam."

I've never seen SNL on here and it sounds like a great show. What network is it on and do they upload the shows to the web?

But then again - to balance out that scepticism - it is Ohio - the cesspool of the country (still :rant: at Ohio).

NBC.com

Here's a story in Hawaii that's relevant to the current Presidential campaign promises. Hawaii is ending their universal child health care program after only 7 months. The main reasons were budget overruns due to many people dropping their privatized health care (that they could afford) in favor of the free government-provided health care.

FOXNews.com - Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care After 7 Mos. - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

This goes to the basis of the main problem with any government provided health care. Anyone who believes that Obama will be able to create a bill to provide health care for everyone without major abuse and cost overruns is living in a fantasy world. It's a wonderful idea in principal, but there are millions of Americans that are going to say 'Me too!'. FWIW, I don't think there's any way Obama could justify the increased spending anyway given the economy, so it's probably not a situation that will even occur.

Cost control would be a much better target of the government. There's all kinds of wasted expenses by both government and consumers that could easily be brought under control if someone really wanted to do so.

Here's an interesting poll number from the AP: Obama with a 2-3 point lead. But that's not even the interesting part. Obama holds that lead with a party weight of the following: 40/27/21 (Dem/Rep/Ind). That's just nuts. Obama should be winning by a bigger margin than that at that party weight. Something's funky here........

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/electio...ine_101308.pdf

Obama's doing the smart thing here. He's got to make sure his supporters don't take the current lead for granted........

Obama warns Democrats mistakes could still bring 'defeat'

Here's an article that discusses some of the things that we've discussed this week regarding the weighting of polling data and how much trouble polling firms are having finding the right balance........

Some Surveys Indicate Tighter Presidential Race - WSJ.com