Larry King is still on the air? I thought he was given a mercy removal 5-10 years ago.

My personal take on it is that he's been the head of a campaign that went mano y mano against the Clinton political machine and was able to come out on top. It wasn't blind luck that happened. Plus he has demonstrated an effective leadership style during the post-convention campaign. He seems to put thoughts behind his decisions, and isn't afraid to explain how he arrived at a decision.

I haven't seen anything like that from the Palin camp.

Thanks.

Add to that, for decades Obama has been involved in politics affecting thousands of people. Community organizer in large cities could easily be seen as more relevant to national politics than small-town Alaskan mayor..

Fair or not, many also see Governor of Alaska as a job far less relevant to the rest of the nations politics than other governorships. (And to Congress...)

From 2005: The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

The 40% number is kind of silly since it counts kids (who obviously aren't earning income and aren't paying taxes). By the Tax Foundation's estimate, 15 million households don't have tax liability (and the Tax Foundation is not exactly a neutral source on this). The unemployed obviously don't pay taxes, but are counted in the number. The number also doesn't include other taxes (FICA, sales tax, etc.). When you look at the IRS's numbers, over 90% of the non-paying households earn less than 20,000 a year. I think it is reasonable that those people don't pay federal income taxes, but maybe I'm just crazy that way.

For those who missed it: the 30-minute spot, minus the live feed at the end of the original.

when you put it that way i don't really have any problems with it JG

A John Galt sighting!

wow scary palin in this clip i just saw on cnn (i'm paraphrasing):

"we need more energy from here in America. And we can do that, because God in his wisdom has seen fit to give us that energy."

uhhhh...keep your god-shit out of the political arena whackjob. god had nothing to do with it.

Past Presidents and political figures from Washington to Lincoln would take great offense at your rant.

It was the first thing google gave me when I asked how many americans payed income tax, I was just trying to help DT out. I am not interested, nor have I ever been, in a flat or regressive tax system.

We often hear that sort of statement here (Australia) and what they mean is that many people pay taxes out of their income but also receive payments from government in various forms (rebate on child care sort of thing, health insurance etc) and the net result is that 40% (or whatever) receive more or equal to what they pay in taxes and therefore have a net tax rate of zero or less.

So, taxes are paid but cancelled out by various rebates.

Most other countries, certainly Britain and Australia, have reformed the tax system so that a "consumption tax" (value added tax in Britain, a goods and services tax in Australia) have taken over much of the tax burden from income tax. Such a tax avoids the arguments over "income redistribution", everybody (including the unemployed and pensioners) pay tax when they "consume" and the rich's efforts to avoid tax with their various schemes are countered.

At first this seems to load the tax burden on the lower end of society because it's a flat rate tax but because the rich's schemes are to some extent foiled the figures have seemingly worked out that the bottom end doesn't in fact take on any greater share of the burden. There is still a graduated income tax but it's no longer as onerous as it was.

It also has the advantage of being a far less painful way of paying tax (without affecting the amount paid). As a self-employed worker I know the pain of having to write out a cheque for several thousand dollars whereas paying an extra 3 dollars on a restaurant bill, an extra ten on a food bill, a couple of extra for a haircut doesn't hurt nearly as much. In fact it quickly blends in into the accepted cost of living.

Even in the recent US debates I have seen it suggested the US should follow suit, remove state sales taxes and cut federal income taxes and replace with a federal consumption tax.

Any state with a sales tax will not agree to turning it over to the Feds.

see - i have no problem with invoking it in places where it makes more sense "god bless you all and god bless america" is fine. "god put the oil here so that america would be great" is just intellectually vapid

The states here were convinced because the federal system hands over from the consumption tax an amount equal to the loss in sales tax. It took a lot of negotiations but it happened in the end.

I don't think there is much pressure to change the US tax code in any dramatic way.

And, for those who missed his unscripted views on redistribution of wealth and the courts:

The You Tube clip has some damning audio evidence of Barrack Obama saying some really radical things and they choose to end it with a 10-second clip of Joe the Plumber? Are you fucking kidding me?

You're drinking the wrong Kool-Aid, Vic. Obama's doesn't have poison in it.

I'm enjoying feeling positive about a candidate for the first time in my voting history. I can likewise sympathize with those voters who feel mostly as if they are opposing a candidate, rather than supporting their own, from my own experience in the last two elections.

The video says not available to me. Assuming it is the same video that has been making the rounds about Obama's statements about the courts and redistribution, I'm completely baffled why he said anything radical. A variety of blogs seem to be reading in between the lines. Even with the odd editing, Obama is simply restating a common argument that courts were a trap for civil rights groups (see The Hollow Hope). And he stated that civil rights groups failed in many ways. Nowhere did he advocate a normative argument for redistribution through the courts. Drudge started this strange interpretation, but I just don't get it.

If you actually posted a different video, then ignore my comments.

That lovely little part at the end was just random audio from someone else. It is not Kay Hagan. In fact, it would be very surprising if it was Kay Hagan, considering she is deeply religious and even used to be a Sunday School teacher.

This is disgusting and sickening, and Dole is amazingly standing by it. (Even Chambliss eventually backed away from his Cleland ad.) Stuff like this absolutely infuriates me. I'm giving the max I can afford to Kay Hagan.

Anyone happen to know why both Wyoming and Mississippi are voting on both their Senators in the same year?

yeah, I brought this ad up a page or two ago. Absolutely sickening.

Missed the Obama variety hour/half hour last night, so I watched it this morning. That was very well done. I didn't know what to expect, but it was good.

I watched the first 15 minutes or so and thought it was well done as well. Very Hollywood-ish (and I'm not saying that in a bad way). I liked the fact that what I saw of it, he didn't attack McCain...he laid out his plans and built himself up.

That being said, I didn't feel sorry at all for the people whom they showed going through hard times.

A fascinating video. It raises the question (though perhaps for another thread considering its scope) as to whether it would in any way be possible for an atheist/agnostic to be elected president/senator/congressman - or, indeed, anyone but a mainstream christian.

They each had one seat up for re-election and then lost the other senators (who were replaced by appointment in Wyoming and special election in Miss.).

Sen. Thomas of Wyoming passed away and Sen. Lott of Mississippi resigned.

It's interesting that most foreigners (like me? :) ) consider Obama to be the better candidate of the two, despite Obama's plan to reduce outsourcing jobs to third world counties (like my job? :) ).

Two points you failed to mention regarding those polling numbers in Florida and Ohio.....

1. McCain is leading in those Florida numbers despite the majority of those votes coming from Democratic voters.

2. The early vote in Ohio was largely driven by ACORN. It shouldn't be shocking at all that it is leaning Democrat at this point. Also, anyone who compares early voting this year to early voting in years past is making a mistake. The requirements in many states to vote early have changed quite a bit from past years. The demographic of those votes is likely to be significantly different.

Interesting? I'd say that's more like predictable (in a broad global sense, not you specifically).

I mean, hell, I'd like to see Colonel Klink in charge of Al-Qaida. Seems only natural that you don't want anyone competent in charge of the opposition or even a competitor.

The Obama campaign has got to be hoping that the LA Times holds its ground and does not release the Obama tape. From someone who has seen the tape, there's an election-altering comment from Obama on that tape. It makes complete sense why the LA Times won't provide a transcript now given this information. Obviously, he wasn't thinking that he'd ever be running for president when he made these comments...........

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/200...t-release.html

You really think so? I'd say he could rape a goat with a pitchfork at this point & still win. It's not as though there's a shortage of fools in this country who agree with his general sentiment in that quote.

Interesting article from Time. They discuss the lengths that the Obama campaign has to in regards to restraining Biden's gaffes.....

Hidin' Biden: Reining In a Voluble No. 2 - TIME

After attending several Jewish parties/functions while on the East Coast, I can tell you with great certainty that hell hath no fury like a Jewish woman scorned. :D

Wow. That is just the "us against them" mindset that Bush has been cultivating since the invasion of Iraq that has alienated the citizens of countries that are staunch allies of the US.

I really am glad that Obama seems to have this election wrapped up.

We need more comments like this in this thread. :D

Like I said, nothing surprising about that.

Would you also like us to add some other earthshaking revelations such as "the sky is blue" and "water is wet"?

from that site:

Quote:

Why believe the tip

Quote:

? While I receive a lot of tips and links, I seldom publish them. This particular email address has provided accurate and unique information in the past, as I noted above. No one else reported the information and I found it to be accurate in the past. As I said, take it for what it's worth.

Sorry, but you're going to have to show me more than one anonymous source off of a blog to convince me that those are actual quotes.

TBH I think the real reason probably lies somewhere in-between. It wouldn't surprise me if he said something like that - because you know what - Israel has no god-given right to that land (although the genocide quote is a bit over the top). He also however reportedly (reportedly by CNN now mind you) said that Israel + the Palestinians need to find common ground and work out their differences. Is that really such a horrible thing?

Oh, and the Khaledi guy was NEVER a PLO spokesman. He has come out and said that himself - as a scholar he was interviewed about them, and spoke ABOUT them, but never FOR them.

Absolutely. I put the link up for that reason. With that said, if there's anything even close to that on the tape, we'll find out about it eventually. I posted it for what it was, which is a rumor at this point.

He can say all he wants to CNN, but if these quotes are attributed to him, it's a major problem. You just don't say things like this when running for office.

we dont know what he said or didnt say, etc. We can do this all day, perhaps you shouldve made your text in red.

Well, that's it. McCain's sewed up Florida!

Now for those other 8 swing states he needs....

How is the US Government opposition or a competitor to other countries? We're not talking about sports here.

You're the one who's too much of a pansy to put your money or pride where your posts are. :)

If I need to explain that one to you, we probably aren't going to be finished by election day.


Nope. We're talking about matters far more important.

If the video of Obama saying "Kill Whitey" didn't sway the electorate I doubt this will.

You do if you believe them ... AND if you can get away with them. Like I said, as much as it sickens me, I don't believe this would affect the outcome one bit.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fact check: Is Columbia professor Khalidi a ‘political ally’ of Barack Obama? « - Blogs from CNN.com

Here's a fact-check on this Khaledi-thing.

If there is an honest to goodness videotape of Obama saying that Israelis have committed genocide against Palestinian people and that videotape has not gotten out to the media by hook or crook, then the Clinton and McCain campaigns are guilty of gross political malpractice. Hell, that tape would have even made the Alan Keyes senate race competitive.

It is much more likely that someone heard about a secret video tape and, upon realizing that it would not be released, decided to make up some over the top quotes and hope that people ran with the rumor. Maybe even make it a red alert.

And the idea that Obama made these quotes before he thought he would run for President is delightfully naive. Does anyone really beleive that he has not had national political ambitions until the last couple of years? Apparently, he was talking about running for president in kindergarten. Even if Obama hates Israel, he had to know not to say anything about it on the record.

That's a cheap bit of denial, jon. Even those who do not see the US as either "opposition" or "competition" - and there are many - prefer Obama to McCain. Essentially because:

1) we do not share the horror you guys have of "liberal" views
2) Palin looks like a disaster just waiting to happen
3) Once you remove McCain's military heroism which, while admirable says little about his suitability as a president, he is far less impressive than Obama in those qualities important for that role

Even though Australia could well be better off with McCain because of his superior commitment to global trade and therefore the FTA between the US and Australia, most Australians see Obama as the better choice from a non-partisan point of view.

Of course CNN would say that, because they are in the Dems back pocket!

I just thought I'd try things from the other side now. It's a little stupid, I'll be honest.

JPhillips, thanks for posting that O'Reilly electoral map a couple pages back. Solid gold.

Whether he's an ally would be immaterial when compared to comments coming directly from Obama. A presidential candidate undermining a prominent ally is a significant development. As McCain rightly pointed out, if the shoe were on the other foot, McCain would be facing intensive questioning on the comments. Not only that, but the video and transcript would have already been released.

The one thing that struck me and I was curious about was that in last night's Obama TV Show he said that he would offer tax breaks for anyone making less than $200,000. Up until then wasn't he using $250,000 everywhere? Anyone know a reason for the discrepancy?

Conservative prediction = bias.
Liberal prediction = truth.

I guess this is where most of the people in this thread and I differ. I believe both contain bias. You'll pardon my even-handed treatment of the information.

Then you're no better off in terms of common sense than we are here apparently. You'll have to understand if I don't exactly find that comforting.

But hey, at least I can still crack a joke or two while sitting on the brink of the worst disaster in the history of my country, the low water mark of over 200 years (granted, a fraction of a second in the global timeline). That ability ought to be worth something somewhere.

200,000 to 249,999 will have their taxes remain the same. Anything under 200,000 drops, 250,000 or over goes up.

Wow. JiMG is a total drama queen. I thought Republicans were supposed to be tough. Mr. "Step on Their Throat" apparently doesn't like it when his throat is about to get stepped on.

Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Surprised McCain hasn't used the two numbers to create confusion/doubt in people's minds.

No, we're simply not utterly blinded by commitment. Obama ticks all the boxes while McCain only ticks a few.

Incidentally, you happy with Palin as potential c in c? I would have thought you would be horrified by the idea.

I guess the Australian people just have a different definition of 'non-partisan' than most people. To each his own.

That's a telling statement. That "Australia would be better off" gets trumped by charisma and positive, feel-good vibes.

Wow, you must either live in a hut in Athens or never have taken a history class in your life to think that Obama being elected would be the worst disaster in the history of our country. At least you can take refuge in the fact that Sonny saved your flag, thus avoiding the worst disaster in the history of Georgia (Sherman would be proud).

No less that what we had in that dolt, Dan Quayle. But no one remembers him.

There is a preference for Obama even amongst many "right-wing" Australians.

We can see beyond a simple economic self-interest.

Here's an article from one of our local newspapers. I think it's a good read. It does well to elaborate on my feelings (and most likely how other foreigners feel) regarding the two candidates.

The two Americas - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

I would guess it's about 80% of Australians for Obama and would not be surprised if it's something like that amongst Brits. It isn't even remotely close.

Of course, of course. Thank you for being the voice of Australia.

MBBF lecturing people on being even-handed is like Bobby Knight lecturing people on being even-tempered.

FIXED

No worries. Start now.

Yes, noting that bias exists in all polling, rather than just some information, is a horribly controversial statement..

You may now hang me from a Los Angeles rooftop.

And intellect. And level-headedness. And fair-mindedness.

First of all, a crapload of current State polling (this especially for MBBF):



Conclusions:

Arizona is actually probably not in play. Hope McCain didn't spend too much on those robocalls there.

Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are probably lost for McCain.

Of those, Colorado & New Mexico were Bush states in 2004. Since CO has 9 EVs and NM has 5, that's a swing of 28 EVs, putting McCain at 272 and Obama at 265 (Bush won with 286 and Kerry lost with 251), assuming nothing else changes from 2004.

However, Iowa went for Bush in 2004 and is now Safe Obama, and has 7 EVs. That takes us to McCain at 265 and Obama at 272. Since 269 is needed to win, if we assume CO & NM stay Likely Obama, it's over.

NOTE: I'm missing an EV somewhere, these numbers add up to 537. Aarrgghh....

The battleground states are currently Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia.

All of these states went for Bush in 2004. If we forget about CO & NM for a moment and take Obama with Kerry States (251) + Iowa (7), we have 258, so he needs another 11 EVs. Nevada doesn't do it, because there are only 5 there, but the next lowest are IN & MO at 11 EVs.

Bottom-line: If Obama holds all of the Kerry States and Iowa (almost certain at this point) and flips any one of Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia or (Colorado + (Nevada or New Mexico)), he wins. While there are other states that are tossups (Montana and North Dakota, for instance), I think it's safe to assume that if they go Obama, he'll already have won one of these 6 battlegrounds.


We are, however, no longer living in the 18th or 19th centuries.


I agree. It's an easy thing to bitch and moan about (and I do my fair share of that as well), but I don't think we're set up for a truly dramatic change. I think it's unlikely, for instance, that the U.S. government is going to be able to negotiate a new kind of consumption tax with all 50 states as Mac notes Australia did.

Ideally, I think we'd be best off to simplify the tax code for lower-earning individuals and close loopholes for corporations and higher earners.


"At all"? Really? Two stood out to me:

1. The cost of medications for a condition like Rheumatoid Arthritis forcing someone back into work after retirement is a real shame. How does one guard against this?

2. It's a crime that a special needs teacher needs to work several jobs to make ends meet.


Absolutely they can, especially for the House, from specific districts. I'd also bet a Senator from the Northeast or Northwest can (and maybe has) been elected who's effectively agnostic.


It ain't over until the fat lady sings. After 2000 and 2004, I'm not going to consider it over until the votes are counted.

Merely reflecting the polls, Mizzou

:)

I'm sure the polling distribution is wrong on those polls too.

I'm not playing devil's advocate, jon, it's a serious question. What do you think of Palin as potential c in c?

Thanks for the polls. I'll head out to geek out over the numbers. :D

As far as the two examples you cite, that's the way it is. It's not a crime for people to have to work extra jobs because they don't make enough in one job. That's their chosen occupation and they knew the situation going into it. As far as the medication goes, it's not an easy problem to solve, but Obama pointing it out without any true solution on how to fix it doesn't make it go away.

Agreed on the votes. Anything can happen.

It was certainly "wrong" if they were looking for a McCain lead ;)

Humorous that Pennsylvania actually seems to be moving AWAY from McCain. The more they see of him and Palin, the less they like it.

Nice article. Thanks to the wrong kind of man coming to power, America has definitely not put its best foot forward over the past 8 years. Now our country has a great chance to correct itself and get back on course.

We're unable to assess that as the polling specifics were not provided. :D

You seem to always fail to grasp my points. Oh well.

Yes, lots of people are excited about choosing their occupation of working at Wal-Mart and a second job at wherever.

It has nothing to do with the lack of good paying jobs in other sectors, or the vanishing of good paying jobs in their field, or the inability of people to afford to live off the retirement promised to them.

No.

Prediction based on data=valid
Prediction based on dreams=not valid

Iowa, Oregon, New Mexico, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin all swing states?

It is what it is. What do you expect me to do, go into denial mode or something? Not my bag, sorry.

The downfall of nations is something that occurs throughout history, even I'm not arrogant enough to believe the US is somehow entirely immune to that. I'm not going to lie, I hoped I wouldn't live to see it but I'm also not going to ignore the possibility either. And in this case, not only the possibility but what I'm convinced is the virtual certainty of it.

Nothing short of a miracle will prevent an Obama victory next week, and nothing short of a miracle will find the US a legitimate world power after four years of that. He's a clueless empty suit who has shown me virtually no hint of having the common sense or discernment needed to survive on the world stage. He's the embodiment of everything every enemy we've ever had has dreamed of, duly anointed by a coalition of proverbial useful idiots. It's the utter disaster of the Carter administration with exponentially greater prospect for disaster since there seems to be little reason for hope for a recovery afterwards.

Because frankly if we've sunk to the depths to elect this sack of shit we don't really belong at the top of the global food chain anyway, we've collectively devolved so far that we aren't capable of handling the position. That's ultimately the real problem and why I don't see much reason for hope at this point. I mean, McCain was the chosen alternative for crying out loud, and that's not exactly an stellar alternative. Infinitely preferable in this case, but still a tragic indictment of our condition. Obama is just the most glaring sign of how low we've sunk, not the only indication by a long stretch.

As for toughness, that will come into play with regard to individual survival in the years to come. But no amount of "toughness" could have saved The Titanic from going under, the damage was fatal. All that was realistically possible was to hope to be among the few survivors.

Miracles do happen still -- whether next Tuesday or in a relatively short time after -- so technically speaking things are not entirely hopeless. But when you're down to miracles being your only hope, the odds aren't exactly looking good. That's not a lack of toughness, that's being realistic about the situation.

No problem. Just to clarify, I'm not calling you out with that post. You had just said yesterday that you wanted to see newer state polling, and I just wanted to say "here it is now". Enjoy! :D


Yeah, that's not my point, though. To me, it doesn't seem right that we, as a society, value these occupations so little.

Heh.

We managed to survive the others, I believe this one is fatal in terms of being a legitimate world power. And a continued existence as a second rate irrelevancy is as good as it being dead as far as I'm concerned.

Not true, actually. After further investigation it appears the type of steel used to construct the Titanic became somewhat brittle at low temperatures and this (along with substandard rivets) made the ship much more likely to suffer fatal damage from the impact. Better steel and better rivets may very well have kept the Titanic afloat.

Yes, I'm just disagreeing with you here for the sake of it. :D

Hmm. I think I now understand what the article I posted earlier meant by saying McCain represented imperialist America.

I'm a numbers geek. Anyone with two accounting degrees has to be a glutton for punishment. :)

Yes, but monetary value doesn't always mirror importance. The same parts of our society that allow us to be the superpower also create inequities. But that doesn't change the fact that we are still a country of great opportunity.

I watched a 2 hour show about that. Interesting stuff.

It seems you now have a sense of the feeling some people felt after W was elected.

Why would Obama be any worse than, say, Carter was?

I don't think there's any question that the US' hegemony will be challenged later this century by China or India but that will not be the fault of Obama but of population comparisons. Militarily it will be some time before the US is challenged and that will come regardless of the colour of government.

Nah, it's actually a reasonably valid point (and along the lines of what had me debating the use of the analogy before I typed it) ... except that she didn't sail with the proper strength of steel and standard quality rivets. If she had, then you're at least possibly spot on that the damage didn't have to be fatal.

But just as she faced the Atlantic with what she was fitted with, we don't get to face the ramifications of this election in an "if only" scenario, we're stuck with the substandard materials that are actually on the ship in reality.

America's time as a superpower is going to come to an end regardless of who we elect.

Sure, except they're largely the useful idiots I was referring to earlier, so I'm hard pressed to have been bothered by that then or now. And FTR, I'm quite cool with them having the exact same lack of sympathy for me that I have/had for them. I give very little quarter & expect none.