Tax, lies & videotape

There is so much double-speak, exaggeration and flat-out lying going on in politics right now that it's hard to know where to begin discussing it all.

Part of the problem is that one man's truth is another man's BS. In our polarized and increasingly self-segregated society, many of us in America have started choosing what realities we wish to accept. There's one reality going on over on Fox News, for example, while another, completely different reality exists on MSNBC. The version you choose to accept as "real" will likely depend on your political party affiliation, race, socio-economic level and education, among other things.

It seems to me, however, that there could be one topic on which the right and the left should be able to find common ground: taxes. I was thinking about this after watching the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC last night.

Part of her program was dedicated to a discussion of the Bush tax cuts. She explained why those cuts are due to expire at the end of the year (answer: that was the intention all along, since there had been no provision made to pay for them when they were signed into law and so a 10-year window was stipulated as part of the plan), and she explained how it doesn't seem likely that the GOP will have enough votes to force an extension. But the main point she made was that both the Democrats' plan and the Republicans' plan will leave most Americans' tax levels the same, or nearly the same, as they are now. The only groups that will see significant changes in their tax rates, should the Bush cuts expire, will be those making upwards of $500K per year.




The chart Maddow referenced originally appeared in the Washington Post, and is the handiwork of their economic columnist, Ezra Klein. Here's a better view of it. Go ahead - don't be afraid, give it a good look.



So, it's pretty clear that the extension of the Bush tax cuts WOULD HELP NO ONE, other than the very highest earners in America. Anyone making less than $500,000 a year should have no problem with the Obama plan, which allows the cuts to expire for the top earners but keeps the cuts in place for everyone else. And, unless you are in one of those very top income brackets, I can't understand why you'd support any politician who is still fighting for the tax cuts for the top 2% to remain in place.

As for the politicians themselves, I have no clue as to how they can go out in public and say, with a straight face, that letting these cuts expire will have a negative effect on the economy. Especially after they all ran campaigns based on fiscal responsibility, and reducing the deficit, and all that good stuff. You'd think they'd understand the simple concept that the deficit can't be reduced by allowing such huge tax breaks to continue. And yet, there was Mike Pence, a Republican congressman from Indiana, yammering away on Christiane Amanpour's show this past Sunday about how raising taxes on the rich won't really help increase government revenue, anyway. In fact, Pence upped the ante by claiming that revenues actually go down when taxes go up.

Only problem is, he's completely wrong about that. As reported by PolitiFact this week, the idea that tax increases don't correlate to increased government revenue is false. Pence, and all the other conservatives beating this particular drum, are simply not reflecting the facts accurately, and those on the right who parrot their party lines are seemingly oblivious to how far off these politicians and pundits really are.

I find it amazing - stupefying, really - that the American public as a whole isn't seeing this thing the same way. I get why politicians have to peddle this baloney, but I am finding it impossible to comprehend how all the non-millionaires that make up the bulk of the GOP's base could be so supportive of what their side is trying to pull.

As I watched Rachel Maddow's show, I realized that the folks who most needed to see it wouldn't even be watching. They'd be busy seeking out their version of reality over on Fox. But I found myself wondering if it would make any difference at all for conservative voters to see that chart, and to have a clear picture of exactly what we're talking about here when we discuss these Bush tax cuts. Would what seemed so obvious to me be as apparent to them, or would they find some basis on which to reject it? Would they have their own chart, drawn up by someone who's not part of the "lamestream media", which told the opposite story about who would benefit from the tax cuts?

It can be both maddening and wearying to contemplate these things, especially in the political environment in which we find ourselves at the moment. With a newly divided balance of power in Washington and with so little incentive for either side to give ground, with polarized voters and with an overload of dueling statistics and sources of information, how can we hope to figure anything out? It has long been said that the only two sure things in life are death and taxes, but I think we've actually found a way to narrow that list down to death alone.

Tax, lies & videotape

Reality check

This has been a dizzying couple of weeks. The ups and downs of the financial crisis and of the attempts to repair it are coming fast and furious. Congressional bickering and finger-pointing has left us no closer to a solution than we were when this whole mess started. And during this turmoil, the candidates have been struggling to find the right angle to take. I've seen a lot of criticism directed at both McCain and Obama, although McCain is getting the lion's share of it. It didn't help him to make such a big stink about how he has been "stepping in to solve problems for the American people", when the bill he was trying to lay claim to got defeated later the same day, causing a massive plunge on Wall Street.

I think the media, and most voters, are truly missing the point here. The candidates are both correct when they try to stress the urgency of the situation, and the need for some feasible agreement to be reached as soon as possible. For each day that the issue remains unresolved, the money crunch worsens and the effects are being felt in businesses and households all over the nation. But the problem comes when we expect the candidates to come up with the answer. Reality check - neither McCain nor Obama has been sworn in as president yet. In case you forgot, there is still a guy named George W. Bush residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and he's got a lease there until January of next year. This is HIS problem right now, and it is HIS job to rally the administration and Congress to work out a deal. His failure to do so is the problem here, so laying the blame for the bailout's defeat on either candidate is a bogus move.

What, exactly, do people expect McCain and Obama to do right now? They are senators - no more and no less, and both have been removed from the day-to-day business of Capitol Hill for months now as they campaign for the presidency. How, exactly, are they responsible for leading Congress to the answer for all our nation's economic woes? After a crash that was years in the making, it is unrealistic to look to either one of them to solve it all in a week or two. They have both voiced their belief that an agreement on a plan is urgently needed, and they have tried to encourage their colleagues to find some common ground. But for either of them to interject themselves into the process in a greater way would be inappropriate right now, and probably none too helpful, if the events of the past several days are any indication.

The McCain campaign has alleged that Obama has been "watching from the sidelines" during this crisis, and has not done enough to rally support for the president's bailout proposal. Reality check - during yesterday's vote on the bailout plan, 60% of House Democrats voted in favor of the bill, while only 37% of Republicans did so - despite the McCain camp's insistence that "It's really Senator McCain who got all parties around a table to hammer out a deal". The truth is that Congress is not focusing on the needs of the presidential candidates right now - many of them have their own election bids to worry about, and pissing off their constituents is not on their agenda. They do not answer to McCain, or Obama, and to add the presidential race into the mix is a distraction from the task at hand.

It's time for the media and the public to recognize that the leadership on this particular issue needs to come from the White House. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. Bush and his cohorts, after years of alienating and disappointing everyone around them, have fallen into the lame duck zone, where their powers of influence are virtually nil. Still, we cannot lay the responsibility for a solution to the bailout issue on the presidential candidates. Not yet, anyway. When one of them is elected, he will need to get his shit together pretty fast and take action to clean up this mess on a long-term basis. But for now, the immediate concern is the short-term needs of the market and of Americans who are scared and strapped for resources. Reality check -the president and the leaders in Congress must be the ones to step up and make something happen. It's time for everyone to get off the partisan blame train and admit that, even if it's tough to do, a plan is needed and the time to pass one is now.

[digg=http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Don_t_blame_McCain_or_Obama_for_bailout_s_failure]

Reality check

Peek-a-boo, I see you...

Well, I was wrong, and I couldn't be happier about it. Right after the debate on Friday, I felt, as did the majority of the mainstream media, that the result was a tie. But over the past couple of days, the results of some post-debate polls have been released, and what do ya know - most Americans felt that Barack Obama won. Nearly every poll taken over this weekend showed a clear edge for Obama as a result of his debate performance, and that even includes the right-wing goobers over on Fox News. I've watched debates and debate coverage for a long time, and to me, this situation is rather remarkable. We all know how the media spins things, and how voters' opinions usually reflect whatever they've heard on TV or on the radio. But this was different. The media didn't even call a winner in this debate. And yet, without being told what to think by the pundits and talking heads, the people declared a winner. They spoke up and said that one man impressed them more than the other, and the man they preferred was Obama.

I have to tell you, folks - I am feeling pretty good about this. Better, in fact, than I've felt in a long while. On my best days I think I'm a realist; on my worst days I think of myself as a cynic. And I am particularly jaded when it comes to the subject of politics. But the numbers are showing me that things may not be as bad as I ususally assume they are. So how did people manage to come up with such a positive assessment of Obama's debate performance?  Well, I've got a theory about that, and it all has to do with visibility.

Up until the debate, the McCain campaign was doing their best to control the way the candidates were seen by the American public. In order to spin their own image to people, they repeated certain lines and catch phrases (Maverick! Reformer! POW!) at every stop and in every speech in an attempt to solidify the mythology of the McCain/Palin ticket. They cut off press access and have held virtually no interviews or press conferences on the campaign trail (on the Straight Talk Express, no less...irony, anyone?). They especially protected Sarah Palin from speaking to the press until it was impossible for them to do so any longer. To spin a negative image of Obama, the McCain campaign created a slew of attack ads, most of which were dishonest, distortional and disgusting. They attempted to control what voters saw about Obama. And based on these ads, voters could very well have believed that Obama was dangerously inexperienced, an advocate of comprehensive sex education for 5-year-olds, and that he also intended to raise taxes on working-class familes and turn our health care system into a vast federal bureaucracy.

The debate changed all that. For the fist time in this race, viewers got to see McCain and Obama side by side, without the spin of ads or media commentators. They saw John McCain refusing to look at his opponent for an hour and a half. They saw him continue his streak of distortions and half-truths as he repeatedly misrepresented Obama's positions. They saw him trot out names and dates from the past 26 years of his life in Washington, but they did NOT see him admit any responsibility for his contributions to the current downturn of the American economy, or for his errors in supporting a rushed invasion of the wrong country in the Iraq war. They saw him unable to convincingly fend off claims that his policies are direct continuations of Bush's policies. They did NOT see him mention the middle class - even once - and they did not see any evidence of the big reforms he's been talking about on the campaign trail. They saw McCain himself, separated from the cheering crowds and the red, white and blue filter of his ads, and they weren't too thrilled by what they saw.

But more importantly, they saw Obama - many of them, no doubt for the first time. Many expected to see an empty suit, an angry radical, or an overblown orator. But they saw instead a man who looked and sounded ready to lead. They saw him graciously pointing out those ideas on which he and McCain both agreed. They saw him remaining focused, confident and consistent. They saw his strong grasp of problems and solutions, people and places, and  ideas for the future of our nation. They saw someone who has the ability and the willingness to utilize both diplomacy and military action, as well as the temperament to know when each approach is appropriate. They realized that they had no reason to be afraid of him, even though he looks different and has a foreign-sounding name. Obama was no longer an unknown quantity. And this simple act of seeing Obama for themselves, rather than through the lens of McCain's campaign, made all the difference.

There is still plenty of time for things to change, and McCain has shown us how much he loves shaking things up with a curve ball every so often. Maybe in his desperate attempts to win, he'll actually hit upon a gimmick that works and win back some support. In any case the race will likely remain close, right down to the wire. But no matter what, I am delighted to know that, at least for now,  my fellow voters are looking beyond what they've been shown by the news media and by the ads, to see the possibilities that Obama is offering this country. He's not perfect. Nobody is, especially politicians. But maybe he does have the ability to undo some of the problems that have been dragging Americans through tough times. Maybe he does have the good judgment to make the right choices when we most need him to. Maybe he does understand those of us in the middle class, and maybe he does care enough about what we are going through to make helping us a bigger priority than taking care of corporations and lobbyists. Maybe he's OK after all.

And that, my friends, is what hope is all about.

[digg=http://digg.com/politics/Polls_show_Obama_won_1st_debate_why]

Peek-a-boo, I see you...

Debate: tied on performance, but Obama wins on facts

Very nice of Senator McCain to join us for the first debate last night, although I realize it kept him away from solving the economic crisis for us. Seriously, in hindsight, how overblown was his whole display this week? Now that it's all over and done, did that debate REALLY stand in the way of anyone doing anything that needed to be done in Washington? And during the time McCain WAS in Washington, did he contribute anything at all to the progress Congress were already making on the problem?

Oh well, that's last week's issue...now it's time to move forward and look at the debate itself. I feel that both men performed well, and that neither made any major mistakes that would give their supporters reason to change their minds. There were certainly stylistic differences, most notably the fact that McCain never engaged Obama directly, and acted as if his opponent wasn't standing right on the same stage with him. Obama did try to address McCain directly, and also tried to point out that he was in agreement with McCain on certain points. This is a tactic that I feel could've gone either way; some may perceive it as being too concessionary and others may see it as diplomatic. I personally feel it was a sign that Obama can handle and acknowledge opposing points of view, which is a positive trait in my opinion. But I do feel that Obama had a few opportunities to really hammer McCain, particularly during the economic discussions, and he held back more than I would have liked. I guess he is waiting to do the heavy hitting during the next debate, when the economy will be the focus.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that both men scored some solid points and neither surprised me in any way. I'd be very surprised if there was any major shift in the polls as a result of this debate. However, I really do expect to see a more lopsided result in Obama's favor after the economic debate - it was clear during last night's exchanges that Obama had a major advantage on that subject and that McCain will be hard pressed to come off as well once the financial crisis is the focus.

As usual, I am more about substance than style. So, even though the two candidates were pretty evenly matched on the effectiveness of their performances, I do feel that a more important factor than how things were said is the actual content of their statements, and how accurate those statements were. FactCheck.org has already posted their analysis of the facts presented in the debate, and - surprise, surprise! - McCain didn't do as well with that as Obama did.

If you visit the site, you'll see the details and can find their in-depth summary. But to boil it down for ya, here's what they found: McCain made 4 times as many outright false statements as Obama, and several other mistakes that, while not 100% false, were definitely off-base and not 100% true either.

1. Obama stated that Henry Kissinger, one of McCain's advisers, had advocated negotiations with Iran, without preconditions. McCain disagreed. A videotape of Kissinger speaking during a panel discussion, which took place only days before the debate, shows that he is in fact in support of meeting with Iran without precondidtions. In fact, another video of an earlier forum shows Kissinger expessing the same sentiment again. After the debate, Kissinger issued a statement specifying that he did not think the President should meet in such negotiations, but Obama made clear in the debate that he would follow accepted diplomatic protocol by starting negotiations with lower-ranking officials before he would become involved himself. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE. OBAMA'S STATEMENT: TRUE.

2. McCain claimed that Obama had voted to increase taxes on those making $42,000 a year or more. This was a resolution which was mostly addressing whther or not to let the Bush tax cuts expire, and it is a resolution which Obama supported. However, the specific language in the resolution stated that this referred to a sinlge non-homeowning taxpayer, whereas this did not apply to families or couples filing jointly. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

3. McCain claimed that Admiral Mike Mullen had specifically described Obama's proposed ideas regarding a timetable for withdrawal of troops in Iraq as "dangerous for America". Mullen did say that timetables set without taking into consideration "the conditions on the ground" would not be advisable, but he did not specifically comment on Obama's plan. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

4. McCain said that earmarks had tripled in the past 5 years. This is incorrect. Earmarks have actually gone down between 23 and 24 percent during that time frame. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

5. McCain, while discussing wasteful earmarks, said that $3 million had been appropriated for a study of bear DNA. This is correct, HOWEVER, what he didn't mention is that HE VOTED IN FAVOR of the bill which made the appropriations for that study. So there was more to that story, but technically...MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: TRUE.

6. Obama said that the current Iraqi budget surplus is $79 billion. This is incorrect; although some projections had set the surplus at that amount, current information indicates that the surplus amount is closer to $60 billion. OBAMA'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

7. McCain stated that the US pays $700 billion a year to buy oil from other countries. this is inaccurate; the actual amount is approximately $536 billion. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE:

8. Obama said that his tax cut will cover 95% of Americans. this is not technically accurate; his cuts will apply to 95% of families with children, and 81% of taxpaying households overall. OBAMA'S STAEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

9. Obama said that under McCain's proposed tax plan, employers would be paying taxes on the health care benefits they pay to employees. This isn't correct, but the truth is actually worse...under current law, workers do not pay taxes based on the dollar value of their health insurance benefits. Under McCain's proposed tax changes, workers WILL pay taxes on the dollar value of their employer-provided health benefits. Still, as far as accuracy goes... OBAMA'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

10. McCain claims that Obama intends to turn health care over to the fedral government. this is inaccurate. There will not be mandated health care for any group except for children Federal health care options for all othe Americans will be expanded but will not be mandated. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

11. McCain told a story about Eisenhower's letter of resignation, written in case the Invasion of Normandy would have failed. Eisenhower did write a letter accepting responsibility in case of failure, but did not offer to resign. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

12. Obama discussed reducing our troops in Iraq within 16 months. He had previously said that all troops would be withdrawn within that time frame. This shows a shift of position, so...OBAMA'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

13. McCain claims that Obama does not consider Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (which he mistakenly referred to as the "Republican Guard") to be a trrorist organization. Obama has in fact named the as a terrorist organization on more than one occasion. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

14. McCain called Obama "naive" for his call that both parties show restraint after the Russian/Georgian conflict. Obama did say this, but the characterization as "naive" is debatable, since the official statement from the White House used the exact same language and called for "restraint on both sides". This is certainly an opinion rather than a fact, but fairness dictates that MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

15. McCain bragged about saving taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a Boeing contract that he felt should not be awarded. This is true. HOWEVER, what he did not mention is that there was later an investigation into whether the bidding process for this contract was handled unfairly. Seems there may have been some self-interest involved in the way McCain fought the Boeing contract, rather than a concern about protecting taxpayers' money.As it turns out, people who are now McCain advisers were lobbying for Boeing's rival, EADS/Airbus, to win the contract. McCain himself wrote to the Department of Defense to advise against checking into "improper subsidies" which EADS/Airbus may have received. P.S. - EADS/Airbus has contributed $15,700 to McCain's presidential campign. Again, there's more to this story, but technically...MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

16. McCain claimed that Obama is opposed to storage of nulclear waste. Obama is not opposed to storage of nuclear waste but does want storage to be safe. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

17. Obama claims that McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy proposals. This is inaccurate. McCain stated that he had not voted against any such proposals, and laughed "No one could be opposed to alternative energy". However, he is also wrong. The fact is, McCain has voted against alternative energy proposals 11 times. SO... OBAMA'S STATEMENT: FALSE, and MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: FALSE.

18. McCain and Obama discussed the role that Obama's subcommittee plays in Afghanistan policy. Both stated different aspects of this committee's scope, and both were technically correct. SO...MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: TRUE and OBAMA'S STATEMENT: TRUE.

19. McCain claimed that he broke ranks to vote against sending Marines into Lebanon in 1982. However, Marines had been sent in August of 1982, 3 months before McCain was elected in November of that year. In 1983, Ronald Reagan signed a bill which would authorize a deployment of 18 months for Marines in Lebanon, and McCain did break party ranks to vote against this bill. MCCAIN'S STATEMENT: NOT EXACTLY TRUE.

If ytou're keeping score, here's the final totals:

MCCAIN: 8 false statements, 5 not exactly true statements, and 2 true statements

OBAMA: 2 false statements, 3 not exactly true statements, and 2 true statements

Based on this, I think Obama wins on truth, and to me, that's more important thatn style. Next up: Palin faces off against Biden...I am practically drooling with anticipation...roll on October 2nd!

Debate: tied on performance, but Obama wins on facts

Where's the beef?

 

Remember the Wendy's commercial from the '80's, with that old lady yelling, "Where's the beef?" I can't help thinking the same thing after the fiasco on Capitol Hill yesterday. John McCain calls off the debate, the campaign and everything else, because he thinks going to "Warshington" and finalizing the bailout bill is more important than anything else. But he forgot to make a plan for what to do AFTER he got there, and he ended up doing and saying nothing helpful all day. If ever there was an example of the old saying, "If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem", this was it. There was no guidance offered and no insight shared, and the day ended in frenzied media glare and bitter partisan bickering. What happened? Where was the input he seemed so desperate to share with his fellow Congressmen and women? WHERE'S THE BEEF?

This is just typical McCain -style over substance. Want to boost your sagging campaign numbers? Bring in Sarah Palin - she looks good and has instant surface appeal. Sure she's a bit inexperienced and not too great with the issues, but if nobody asks too many questions or watches too many YouTube videos of her in church, she will dazzle the base. Don't have a great track record or any new ideas to run on? Just throw some negative ads on the air...deflect attention from your own inadequacies and pray that most people won't bother to fact-check your empty accusations against your opponent. Want to look like a hero during a time of national crisis? Announce that solving the problem is your number one priority, then make a big show of abandoning everything else to focus on just that one problem.

Except, after all that "country first" rhetoric, he hasn't actually contributed anything to the process. He seems to think this is grade school and that someone's taking attendence. But you don't get points just for showing up to the meeting. If he really does want to get this task done, then he has to participate - offer some ideas, guide his colleagues, SOMETHING, especially after he painted himself as someone who just HAD to be involved in fixing this problem. If he has anything constructive to add to the debate, then what is he waiting for? Now is the time to show his hand, before we all decide that the whole incident was nothing more than posturing and pandering to revive his poll numbers.

Wasn't he the guy who prides himself in reaching across the aisle and supporting bipartisan solutions? Didn't he tell us he had the experience to lead in a time of crisis? Hadn't he been chiding Obama for what he called "inaction"? In fact the McCain campaign ran ads about Obama's supposed "inaction" this week..and FactCheck.org already posted a response showing why the ad was full of crap (what a surprise!) Well, last time I checked, there was no hand extended across the aisle to Democrats by Senator McCain - in fact, he couldn't even get his own party to come together and agree on a plan. He failed as referee when the fighing broke out and the discussions broke down. He still has not presented his own outline of what he wants the plan to include and how it should look. His statements to the press and in the meetings yesterday, by all accounts, were generalizations about being "optimistic" and indicated no clear direction or strategy. He flailed his way through the meltdown last week, and he seems to be flailing his way through this process as well. OK Senator - you wanted in on this and you said you were ready to roll up your sleeves and get something done. So...WHERE'S THE BEEF???

I'm sure today will be another day of drama and turmoil, and it still remains to be seen whether or not the debate will happen tonight as scheduled. But at this point, the first and most important question to be answered is, when is John McCain going to do what he said he came to Washington to do? Or will this turn into yet another campaign promise that gets broken before the campaign even ends?

Where's the beef?

Beyond belief

Just when I thought that things could not possibly get any more insane than they already were in the worlds of politics and finance...today happened. Yesterday, I said this situation in Washington was turning into a circus. Today, I realize I may have been too generous in my assessment. At least you know what to expect in a circus - some animals, some clowns, some crazy stunts performed without a net as the audience holds its breath...oh, wait. That sorta is what today was like, when you get right down to it.

I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime. I have to ask: if you're a McCain supporter, just what the hell exactly is it that you're supporting at this point? I mean, do you even know what the hell your candidate is supporting? Because after he spent the day riding in on his white steed to rescue the economy, nobody seems to know what he was there for. People IN HIS OWN PARTY could not explain to reporters what McCain's position actually is. Does he want to see a modification of the Paulson plan? Does he want something else altogether? Does he want a glass of warm milk, a blankie and a nap? There's no way of knowing, because he STILL hasn't taken a stand or made a statement that explains his specific concerns or criticisms on the bailout plan. After bringing the race for the White House to a grinding halt, forcibly party-crashing the proceedings on Capitol Hill, and pissing off David Letterman, there has been no result, no progress, no clarity. NOTHING.

I am at a complete loss. How can he still have people of sound mind who would vote for him? I cannot, for the life of me, understand it. After this past 2 weeks, he appears to be something more than people may have bargained for. They wanted a maverick, and he really was one once. But now? Well, now he's just a loose cannon - a schizophrenic shape-shifter who changes gears so rapidly and recklessly that you can hear the engine grinding from miles away. Careening like a geriatric pinball from talking point ("The fundamentals of our economy are still basically strong") to talking point ("America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system"), contradicting himself in ways that cannot possibly be ignored or explained rationally. Throwing out half-baked ideas, one after another, in a desperate attempt to sound like he's being decisive - let's form a commission! No, wait - let's fire the head of the SEC! Oooh, no, I got it - we should try that newfangled "oversight" thingy I've heard so much about! Yeah, that's the ticket!

This is not what should happen. This man has sold himself as the man with the plan, the one who could get things done, the reformer, the bipartisan enabler, the voice of experience and know-how. I ask you, in all honesty and in all seriousness: have his judgment, his demeanor, his actions, his words, his entire response to the economic meltdown, impressed anyone as being good enough? With so much at stake, and with so little room for error in the way this is handled, does it make ANYONE out there feel better to see how confused and erratic McCain's message has been? I don't know...I can only speak for myself, but this guy has me scared shitless. I know Obama's supposed to be the one with no experience, but McCain has failed spectacularly at his attempts to play the role of the capable leader in a time of crisis. The way he went from cluelessness about the true scope of the problem, to the other end of the spectrum where panic reigns and the sky is falling, just boggles the mind. And the childishness of suggesting that the debate should be called off, and that if things weren't resolved to his satisfation by Friday night, he wasn't gonna show up - well, that's just the most inane thing I've heard in a long time. To dictate to his opponent, the Debate Commission,  all his hosts in Mississippi who spent so much money, time and effort preparing for this event, and the American people that this debate could only go forward with his say so...it is arrogant, presumptuous and outrageous, and one of the least presidential statements he could possibly have made.

I know there are voters who still -STILL! - feel he is the best choice to lead our nation out of its current circumstances and into better times. But based on this past couple of weeks alone, I don't think those people are basing their vote on McCain's abilities as much as they are basing it on a dislike of Barack Obama. There is nothing scarier than the idea that people would knowingly and willingly choose someone who is already screwing things up in Congress (they had a bailout deal in play before he showed up today), before he even gets elected, just to avoid voting for someone like Obama.

You know what, folks? Obama's not a Muslim. He's not a terrorist. He doesn't hate white people. He doesn't support extremists or radicals. He has known, and even worked with, people who have dubious views or conduct (just like John McCain). He himself has never shared those views or engaged in that sort of conduct (unlike John "Keating Five" McCain or Sarah "Troopergate/Witchcraft" Palin). He is a legal US citizen. His middle name is Hussein. He comes off as a bit too cocky sometimes. He has not been in Washington as long as his opponent has. He is liberal. He is black. And all things considered, he is the better choice in this presidential race, so put your country first and get over it.

Beyond belief

The greatest show on earth?

That's it. I surrender. I've been MIA for several days now, just trying to keep up with the changing winds of this presidential race, and the economic crisis, and life in general. I would sit down to start a new blog post, and literally, within 5 or 10 minutes, I would hit "refresh" on my news browser and find that some new development had...well...developed. And whatever I had already written was suddenly obsolete, as a new pile of crazy came tumbling out of the sky.

Folks, I submit to you that this past couple of weeks have transformed this country in the worst kind of way. We are no longer looking at Washington or Wall Street. What we are now looking at is a nation that has become the biggest reality show in the history of mankind. We've got the loopy cast of characters, we've got the smackdowns between rivals, we've got the entire world tuned in 24/7, choosing their own "bad guys" to hiss and "good guys" to root for, and alternately laughing and crying at the drama of it all. The only thing we're missing is for Flavor Flav to show up and start mackin' on Sarah Palin.  

I love this country. I was raised to believe that it is a nation born of a courageous struggle for freedom, liberty and equality. But when I see the circus that has sprung up in the wake of the Wall Street meltdown and the bitter race for the White House, I am disgusted. The ringleader seems to be John McCain, as he encourages the chaos by changing his stance day to day (sometimes even hour to hour), and juggles platitudes, accusations and distractions in the center ring while fire shoots out of his ears, trying desperately to ensure that the spotlight stays on him at all times, by any means necessary.

Today's display was the most desperate yet, as McCain threatened to pull his participation in the first presidential debate this Friday night, so he could go to "Warshington" and hammer out an agreement to save the financial world. This, despite the fact that everybody who has already been in Washington, working on this bill for the past several days, doesn't really need him there.

Senator Chris Dodd, the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show this evening after President Bush's speech. He called out McCain for pulling yet another 180:

"I'm delighted that John is expressing himself on the issue. I've heard from Barack Obama on numerous occasions over the last number of days, calling...I know he's talked to Hank Paulson, and so he's been deeply involved and interested in how this is progressing. I've never heard from John McCain on the issue. That's why I'm delighted he's expressing some interest, and I'm a little concerned that while we're meeting - in fact, tomorrow morning at 10 AM, Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate are sitting down to try and finalize some of these particular points; we had a long meeting today, the Democratic Caucus in the Senate - and I'm just worried a little bit that sort of politicizing this problem, sort of flying in here...I'm beginning to think this is more about a rescue plan for John McCain than a rescue plan for the economy. So we're going to meet  tomorrow apparently at the White House, late in the afternoon, but candidly, a lot of us have been working for five straight days, around the clock, and I haven't heard a word from John McCain".

As for the House Democrats, Rep. Barney Frank (Financial Services Committee Chairman), summed it up in one sentence. Referring to McCain's threat to cancel his participation in the debate unless an agreement is reached by Friday night, he said, "It's the longest Hail Mary in the history of football or Marys".

So McCain tries to act as if he is transcending the political games, and putting his country first by suspending the campaign and postponing the debate while he attends to more pressing matters. When in reality, he has not even attempted to participate in the efforts to get a bill passed before now, nor has he even had a position on the issue that was consistent from day to day. He sputters, spins, and does what he can to keep changing the dialogue from the dismal economy (which is also dismal for his campaign) to...well, anything else at all.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has been constant and calm, true to his past voting record and to his plans and proposals, refusing to pander or to backpedal. He remains assured and assuring, and he acts like someone who expects to deal with these types of crises as president and is unafraid to do so.

The circus is getting louder by the minute, with new dirt about McCain's campaign staff being discussed every day and McCain shouting at the top of his lungs to drown out those discussions; with poll numbers slipping and McCain turning up the volume on new attack ads; with the media scrutinizing him and his running mate and McCain disparaging their journalistic credibility...the noise is beginning to overwhelm those of us who are trying our best to pay attention.

Yet in the midst of this unholy din, Obama is resolute. He is cautious. He is thoughtful. And instead of panic, he is offering a steady presence and a real hope that Congress can agree on a bill that will satisfy both the needs of the marketplace and the needs of average Americans. It's hard to believe, but it is his quiet response that seems to be cutting through the noisy blasts from McCain's camp and reaching the ears of voters. Polls taken over the past several days indicate that most Americans trust Obama's ideas on the economy, rather than McCain's. In addition, Obama picked up the electoral lead for the first time in key battleground states like Michigan, Colorado and Pennsylvania.

Of course, this is all subject to change again in the next 5 minutes or so. I guess we'll all have to tune in to "As The U.S. Turns" tomorrow to find out if the debate will go on, if Congressional agreement on a bailout bill can be reached, and if Flavor Flav and Sarah Palin will live happily ever after. Don't touch that dial...

The greatest show on earth?

McCain is the Madonna of politics

OK, I know I said that my next post would focus on the current economic freakout that we're all dealing with, but I started putting it together and realized that there were so many facts to check before I posted anything. I am all about getting it right as much as possible, but the situation is incredibly complex, and going back in time to figure out how it happened and who fell asleep at the wheel is a long process. I reckon the world can wait another day or so for my 2 cents on that subject. :-)

 

So in the meantime, something else occured to me. While I've been watching the candidates react to the week's economic events, I've noticed a real distinction between them. Barack Obama has not wavered on anything he's said on the campaign trail, or even on anything he said or did during his terms in elected office. He has been consistent, confident  and clear on his positions,  with a focus on outlining some specific actions he intends to take to address the issues we face (including job growth through the development of new industries like renewable energy and stem cell research, tax relief for all families making less than $250,000 per year, support for fair pay for women and minimum wage earners, and a reinstatement of pay-as-you-go federal budget rules - click here to read more about the PAYGO rules).

John McCain, on the other hand, has found himself struggling to explain his position, offers little or no detail to clarify his economic plan, and often contradicts both his past voting record and his recent campaign rhetoric. He wants desperately to distance himself from the Republicans who have run the economy for the better part of the past eight years, and this is understandable - aligining yourself with the guys who set the stage for the biggest economic crash in America since the 1930's sure isn't a good idea in an election year.

The reinvention of John McCain makes me think of another prominent American who has based her entire career on changing her image - Madonna. In fact, I realized that you can actually use Madonna's songs to illustrate the key points about John McCain's candidacy. I know it sounds weird, but go with me here, people...

LIKE A VIRGIN

It appears that John McCain wants to pretend the past 26 years of his Washington career never happened, and that he is politically born again - a blank slate, pure as the driven snow, just waiting to bring an untainted agenda to the White House. This idea of casting off his past record is merely an attempt to fool the public into trusting him as an agent of "reform". He has been banking on the assumption that most voters are either too ignorant to know better, or that they have short memories. Unfortunately, he may be right. But he wants nothing more right now than to convince us all that he is truly a "maverick", someone who stands up against the Republicans and doesn't blindly follow their party line. Sort of like...oh, I don't know...a DEMOCRAT or something. He hopes we will ignore his 26 years as a Washington insider, and all those ties to the administrative blunders of the past 8 years. We should look upon him not as a part of that failed system, but as an outsider...someone fresh and new, whose greatest asset is not his past legislative record but rather the promise of future greatness. You know, like that Barack Obama guy!

During this campaign, John McCain has repeatedly asked us to follow him to Bizzaro World, where everything is the opposite of what it usually is. His campaign has shifted from a focus on "experience" to a focus on "change". He has publicly vowed to run "a respectful campaign", and then sunk to running what have been called some of the "sleaziest ads" ever seen. He hyped up his "Straight Talk Express", promising to demonstrate transparency in his campaign by allowing extensive access to the press...instead, he has kept them at bay and hasn't held a press conference for 35 days now, favoring staged rallies instead. He seems to be gunning for a world record in flip-flopping; this week alone, he called the economy fundamentally "strong" and declared a state of economic "crisis", he went from being a deregulator to a champion of government oversight, and he agreed with the governmental AIG bailout right after expressing his disapproval of that bailout. It makes your head hurt, it really does. Who knows - if he keeps pushing this line long enough, there may be people out there who buy his retooled image as someone who really can bring change to Washington - even though HE IS Washington.

FORBIDDEN LOVE

The one thing that's crucial to McCain's rebranding is separating himself from George W. Bush. But that's not so easy to do when you've been in bed with the guy for the better part of a decade. I mean, seriously...McCain's lipstick is all over Dubya's collar (not that we want to get into more "lipstick" analogies right now).  He has criticized the Bush administration, vowing to "right the wrongs" done by the president - BUT he supported Bush consistently during the past 8 years and voted with him more than 90% of the time. More important than his past acceptance of Bush's policies is his failure to outline how he'd change them in the future. Both Democratic and Republican strategists agree that there is no discernible difference between Bush's stand on every single issue (including the economy, the war on terror, health care, education, etc.) and McCain's stand. If they've been so closely alligned for so long, how can we believe that McCain won't be just four more years of Bush?



LUCKY STAR

Throughout this race, John McCain has only seen a surge in his poll numbers once...after the start of the phenmomenon known as "Palinmania". Sarah Palin's initial impression on the public was sensational, and created a great deal of enthusiasm and interest where there had been little or none. But in the weeks since her nomination, the bubble has started to deflate. And guess what? We're right back where we started, with the candidates neck and neck in most polls, and McCain's solo campaign appearances being greeted with small, respectful crowds. Only when Palin joins him is there any sign of the excitement that was on display at the Republican convention. With several long weeks left before election day, and more information about Sarah Palin's past track record coming to light on a regular basis, it's highly possible that the Palin factor may have already peaked and begun its inevitable decline.

DIE ANOTHER DAY

On the subject of Palin, need we remind ourselves that McCain is a 72-year-old man, with recurring health problems? And that next in line for the presidency is...Sarah Palin? Just sayin'.

LIKE A PRAYER

Man, if there's a better title to describe McCain's economic policies, I can't think of one. In the face of monstrous market upheaval, billion-dollar bailouts on the taxpayers' dime, crisis-level issues in real estate, banking and insurance, rising unemployment, falling value of the US dollar, and multiple other signs of trouble in America, John McCain's plan is...well, we don't exactly know WHAT it is, because he doesn't actually know what it is yet either. As his senior policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said on Tuesday, "I don't think it's imperative at this moment to write down what the plan should be." This is an actual quote, people! I can't make this stuff up! So on the same day that our nation was reeling from the Wall Street meltdown, this guy tells us that an actual, spelled-out plan, with details and stuff, isn't really a necessity right now. Heck, let's leave that fancy-pants type of stuff to the intellectual elitists, like that Barack Obama guy! Sweet baby Jesus in a peach treee...and we thought McCain was throwing the ultimate Hail Mary pass by choosing Palin as his veep. But no! He was saving the best for last - a Hail Mary pass for the economic future of America! Whatta maverick!



I dunno, folks...I know McCain's a Gambler, but he just Can't Stop digging himself Deeper And Deeper into a hole every time he opens his mouth. All these 180-degree turnarounds are Causing A Commotion, and he's not giving me too many reasons to Justify My Love. Papa Don't Preach - it's high time for an Act Of Contrition after all you've gotten wrong. I realize it's Human Nature to be in denial about your past mistakes, but seriously, dude...you're definitely Guilty By Association. And in November, we'll be teaching you The Power Of Goodbye.

McCain is the Madonna of politics

It just doesn't add up

Well folks, you know I'm pretty passionate about the things I believe in. But I also hope you know that I don't believe in things blindly. I am a sensible individual and I always prefer more information, rather than less, when making any important decision. That's why I'll check multiple sources and round up the facts before I take a stand.

I would like to believe that my fellow Americans are doing the same thing, especially with regards to the presidential election. This happens to be the most important decision we're called upon to make as Americans, and nobody should take it lightly. Yet I have to assume that some people out there are failing to look at the facts, because I've been crunching some numbers and they just don't add up.

There's a helpful site called pollingreport.com which lists the results of polls taken by all the major polling and news organizations, and categorizes the results by topic (Iraq war, economy, health care, etc.). It is non-partisan and doesn't analyze or comment on the results - it simply reports them and adds no spin at all. When you look over the info on this site, you start to get curious about the fact that John McCain is currently tied with Barack Obama in some polls, and ahead in others. Because on nearly every major issue, John McCain disagrees with the majority of Americans.

Want some stats? Chew on these:

• With regard to national security, 59% of those polled say that they favor a timetable for withdrawal of our troops from Iraq (ABC News poll). A majority of Americans -51% - also said they favor increasing the number of troops sent to Afghanistan (AP/GfK poll).  Obama has strongly supported both the timetable and the increased focus on Afghanistan for months, while McCain has resisted both until fairly recently. He still refuses to fully advocate the timetable for Iraq, despite the fact that evn the Bush administration has now accepted this idea. In addition, Obama was one of the few governmental figures who warned against the Iraq invasion from the beginning, stating that "even a successful war against Iraq will require U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." McCain, even after years of military misdirection in Iraq, has continued to state that Iraq is, and should be, the central front of the war on terror.

The decision to go to war in Iraq was one of the biggest decisions George Bush had to make as our president, and it was arguably the biggest mistake he could have possibly made - one which hinged on faulty intelligence as its premise, redirected our military efforts away from the actual al-Quaeda network, had no exit strategy, resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and helped cause the disastrous economic downturn which continues to snowball out of control daily. When people say they want a leader who will make an effective commander in chief, it seems important to point out that Obama would have made better choices for our military agenda in the war on terror than John McCain.  ADVANTAGE: OBAMA 

• Most voters, in polll after poll, say that the most important issue in this election is the economy. And, in poll after poll, more voters say that Obama would do a better job at handling the economy than McCain. Specifically, regarding taxes, 51% of Americans say that those making a lower income are currently paying too much in taxes, while 63% say that those in the upper income bracket are paying too little. Finally, 73% say that corporations are paying too little in taxes (all results from Gallup poll data). Obama has clearly stated his plan to lower taxes for 95% of Americans, while rasing taxes on those making over $250,000 and on corporations. John McCain plans to keep the current tax policy imposed by George Bush, which, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, would favor the highest earners and corporations. Just recently, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that he didn't agree with McCain's proposed tax plan, stating "I always have tied tax cuts to spending...I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money."  ADVANTAGE: OBAMA


• Another hot button topic is health care. In a poll conducted this summer, 66% of Americans said it is more important for the government to provide health care coverage, even if it means raising taxes (ABC News poll). And in another poll, 67% think that the federal government has the responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage (Gallup poll). Obama has long stressed his support for funding programs to make health care more widely accessible and affordable. John McCain has instead advocated a tax credit which Americans would use to purchase their own coverage, however he suggests credits which would be woefully inadequate to cover the typical family's needs (his proposed credit is $5,000 per year for families, while the national average for insurance premiums is $12,000 per year). ADVANTAGE: OBAMA


• In this campaign season where cultural and social issues are being so prominently highlighted, the topic of abortion rights has come up regularly. In a recent poll, 70% of Americans say that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest; 73% say that abortion shoild be legal in the mother's life is at risk; and 53% say that abortion should be legal in cases where the fetus is diagnosed with a fatal birth defect (Fox News poll). Across the board, in numerous polls, most Americans say that the Roe vs. Wade decision should remain intact. Obama supports choice. McCain does not, stating on his campaign website, "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned...However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion." McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, also opposes abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA


• In a world which is increasingly unstable, our Social Security program is an important issue for many current retirees and for all those who are concerned it might not be there for them in the future. Under current guidelines, payroll taxes (which go toward Social Security) are only taken from the first $90,000 of a person's annual income. In a recent poll, 63% of Americans say that they favor increasing payroll taxes by applying them beyond the first $90,000 in income. (CBS News poll). Obama advocates such an increase, but only for those who make more than $250,000 a year. John McCain currently opposes the increase in payroll tax, although he has flip-flopped on this issue several times. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA


• Finally, gun control has been an important point for many voters, particularly those in the heartland states. Americans do want to see a decrease in violent crimes, and their feelings on gun control echo this sentiment. 86% of Americans favor a waiting period between the time someone buys a gun and the time they receive the gun (CNN poll). 67% favor a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons (ABC News poll). And 54% generally favor stricter gun control laws (Quinnipac University poll). Obama advocates strict enforcement of current gun laws, and some expansion of gun control focused on criminals and the mentally ill, while retaining the rights of sportsmen and those law-abiding citizens who use guns for self-defense. McCain is a proponent of the NRA and broadly defends both gun owners and the gun industry. Specifically, as he mentions on his campaign website, he opposes the very issues most Americans support -waiting periods for those who purchase guns, and restrictions on assault rifles. ADVANTAGE: OBAMA

 

It seems fairly cut-and-dry...on the issues, Obama agrees with what most Americans say they believe in, while John McCain is distinctly out of step. So why is Obama having trouble in getting and keeping a clear lead over McCain?

I hate to say it, but I think it comes down to simple ignorance of the facts. People often rely on sound bites and political commentary when shaping their opinions. And you just won't get the whole story from sound bites, or from the opinions on Fox or MSNBC. It takes time to sift through the sources and get to the facts, without filters or spin, and most people aren't willing to invest that kind of time into the process. If more people had a grasp on where the candidates stand, I think the vast majority would agree that Obama is on the same page they are with regard to the issues.

The scary part about this is that this ignorance is a willful ignorance. People form a preference based on superficial reasons (Sarah Palin's personality, for example, or Obama's skin color) and then they take in only those bits of information which support their preference. They don't listen to reason, they don't research the facts. They just hear the spin and let it make the decision for them. And so we might end up with a president whose position on nearly every major issue is contrary to the positions most American voters hold.

I want to believe that Americans are better than that, and that they can see things for how they really are and not what the ads or the pundits say they are. I want to believe that they will take their task as voters too seriously to fall prey to shrewd marketing or media manipulation. I want to believe that they love this country too much to make their decisions based on personality or race, rather than on what the candidates can and will do to make America better for all of us. Unfortunately, based on the current polls, I could be wrong.

It just doesn't add up