All Things ProCain

[Balta1701]

McCain disagrees with the SCOTUS decision from today. From a strategic standpoint I'm not sure I understand what he's doing, and it also pretty much contradicts what he's said in the past. He's supposed to be trying to shed the McSame image FFS, not endorse it.

 

I guess it will fire up the GOP base who don't want liberal judges appointed to SCOTUS, but did they really need that motivation to vote against Obama? They won't win him the election, the independents will.

Here's what you've missed though...this goes along with the way McCain has been for years. He's against torture as long as no one really asks him to do anything about it. He raises his hand against torture in the Republican debates, but when the White House is trying to encode something in the law that legalizes what they've done at Gitmo and allows for use of evidence obtained through torture, he comes through for them with the Military Commissions act that tries to allow exactly that. He's against people being tortured and specifically says the U.S. shouldn't ever waterboard anyone, but when the Congress votes on a bill that would force the CIA to follow the Army's field manual descriptions for interrogation (and therefore bans torture and waterboarding and that sort of thing) he votes against the bill and supports the veto of it that the White House does, so that the White House can order exactly what he's decried.

 

This is the game McCain plays on this issue. The media never calls him on his actual actions or votes, because he's the brave sailor who was actually tortured and therefore always raises his hands up when a Republican debate is asked which of them oppose torturing prisoners, so he keeps voting to allow torture while decrying it when he's asked about it publicly.

[lostfan]

I think my post probably belonged in the GE thread btw... Oh well

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/20...onzalez-seizure

 

Obama VP Committee Member Helped Enable 2000 Elian Gonzalez Seizure

Photo of Tom Blumer.

By Tom Blumer | June 13, 2008 - 13:14 ET

 

Now that Jim Johnson has quit Barack Obama's vice-presidential candidate selection team, maybe somebody, anybody, in the media, instead of making "He's havng a bad day" excuses, might focus on the questionable judgment of Barack Obama in having Eric Holder serve on that team.

 

Besides his already-known role in facilitating the Clinton pardons, including that of fugitive billionaire financier March Rich, there's the matter of former Clinton Administration Deputy Attorney General Holder's involvement in the Elian Gonzalez case in 2000.

 

As the April 23, 2000 edition of the Media Research Center's CyberAlert noted at the time, Andrew Napolitano of Fox News charged that the early-Saturday seizure of the then 6 year-old Gonzalez flagrantly disobeyed a ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

In response to a question from Fox News anchor Jeff Asman, Napolitano said the following (bolds are mine throughout this post):

 

The order issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals four days ago .... said once the INS chooses the guardian, and the INS chose Lazaro Gonzalez (Elian's paternal great uncle -- Ed.) to be the guardian, and an application for asylum has been made by the guardian, the INS can not change the guardian and that’s exactly what they did here."

 

Asman: "So is this executive overreach?"

 

Napolitano: "This is more than executive overreach. This is contempt of the circuit court of appeals order. This is a high class kidnapping is what it is, sanctioned by no law, sanctioned by no judge..."

 

In an interview later that morning, Napolitano left Holder speechless (also available in the fourth item at this link):

 

Napolitano: Tell me, Mr. Holder, why did you not get a court order authorizing you to go in and get the boy?

 

Holder: Because we didn’t need a court order. INS can do this on its own.

 

Napolitano: You know that a court order would have given you the cloak of respectability to have seized the boy.

 

Holder: We didn’t need an order.

 

Napolitano: Then why did you ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for such an order if you didn’t need one?

 

Holder: [silence]

 

Napolitano: The fact is, for the first time in history you have taken a child from his residence at gunpoint to enforce your custody position, even though you did not have an order authorizing it.

 

Earlier in that interview, as noted in a different CyberAlert item on the same day, Holder showed that he wouldn't admit the truth, even when in plain sight:

 

Napolitano: When is the last time a boy, a child, was taken at the point of a gun without an order of a judge. Unprecedented in American history."

 

Holder: "He was not taken at the point of a gun."

 

Napolitano: "We have a photograph showing he was taken at the point of a gun."

 

Holder: "They were armed agents who went in there who acted very sensitively..."

 

Here is Alan Diaz's Pulitzer Prize-winning photo depicting how Elian Gonzalez was "was not taken at the point of a gun" (larger picture is at link):

 

Someone should ask Barack Obama if he is at all bothered by Mr. Holder's inability to even recognize when someone is being taken at gunpoint, and how, among all the possible vice-presidential selection committee candidates out there, Mr. Holder was still deemed so deserving. Don't expect that question any time soon.

[southsider2k5]

Let the swiftboating begin!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine...amp;oref=slogin

 

And what about Mr. McCain? Disaster. Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?

 

Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. That’s what he tells us.

 

Why would you doubt him? He’s a graduate of Annapolis. I know a lot of the Annapolis breed. Remember, I’m West Point, where I was born. My father went there.

 

So what does that have to do with the U.S. Naval Academy down in Annapolis? The service universities keep track of each other, that’s all. They have views about each other. And they are very aware of social class and eventually money, since they usually marry it.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/06/15/media-...urity-proposal/

 

Media Misses Historic De-Linkage in Obama Social Security Proposal

Filed under: Economy, MSM Biz/Other Bias, MSM Biz/Other Ignorance, Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 11:52 pm

 

Press coverage of Barack Obama’s Social Security proposal in Columbus, Ohio last week made many of the usual mistakes any time there’s a story about the government’s “third rail” program. But in this case it missed what would be a historic de-linkage of payments made into the system from benefits paid out.

 

First, here are the key paragraphs from the Cincinnati Enquirer’s coverage of Obama’s speech (bolds are mine):

 

Sen. Barack Obama promised senior citizens Friday that as president, he would protect Social Security benefits and provide universal health care.

 

To extend the life of Social Security, Obama proposed applying a payroll tax to annual incomes above $250,000, affecting the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans. The Democrat also proposed eliminating income tax for any retiree making less than $50,000.

 

….. Obama said it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax “on every dime they make,” while millionaires and billionaires pay it on only “a very small percentage of their income.”

 

….. The total Social Security tax rate of 12.4 percent is now evenly divided between workers and their employers. The workers’ 6.2 percent payroll tax is applied to all wages up to $102,000 a year, which covers the entire incomes of most Americans.

 

Under Obama’s plan, the tax would not apply to wages between that amount and $250,000.

 

But all salaries above the $250,000-a-year amount would be taxed under his plan, Obama said.

 

The “a payroll tax” reference in the first bolded item in the excerpt gives the impression that the rate of any payroll tax applied to annual incomes above $250,000 might be something other than the current 12.4% (6.2% paid by the employer, 6.2% withheld by the employee, or the entire 12.4% paid by anyone who is self-employed). But references to “the payroll tax” on the “Seniors & Social Security” page at Obama’s campaign web site and in his “Seniors Fact Sheet” (a PDF available at the “Read the Plan” link at the bottom of the “Seniors & Social Security” page) make it clear that there has been no contemplation of changing the current rate:

 

While the first bolded item in the excerpt also claims that the tax would apply to the “wealthiest” 3% of Americans,” the article’s full context clearly indicates that the Obama proposal is actually targeting “the 3% of Americans with the highest annual earnings.” That is not an unimportant distinction: A person who makes over $250,000 a year and spends it all is not “wealthy”; a person making less than that amount who consistently saves and is a reasonably successful investor could be very wealthy.

 

But the big omission in the coverage was the Obama proposal’s abandonment of this following formerly immutable fact: As onerous as the Social Security tax has been in its relentless march up the salary hierarchy, those paying in could take minor consolation in the fact that their Social Security retirement benefits, should they live to see that day, would be slightly higher with each additional dollar of taxable earnings.

 

Social Security currently calculates old-age benefits by looking at all taxable wages earned during a person’s working career. After adjusting each year’s earnings for inflation that has occurred during the intervening period, it takes the highest 35 years of taxable earnings and calculates a person’s “Average Indexed Monthly Earnings” (AIME). The higher the AIME, the higher the benefit.

 

“Millionaires and billionaires” (actually, as noted, “high earners”) don’t pay into the system once they hit the current maximum taxable earnings amount of $102,000, but they also receive no additional benefit. How that is “unfair” is a mystery.

 

Further, most of the rich, along with many seniors whose earnings and wealth barely make them middle-class, are penalized once they reach retirement. That’s because of tax legislation first passed in 1986 and made worse 1993. If their income from other sources during retirement is “too high,” they must pay federal income tax on either 50% or 85% of their Social Security benefits. If anything, the system taken in its entirety is already unfair to high earners, along with many other retirees.

 

But Obama’s proposal would go much further, severing the earnings/benefit linkage for the first time in the 70-year history of Social Security. The payroll taxes collected from those whose earnings from work is greater than $250,000 would simply be a Robin Hood wealth transfer from the highest-earners to others. Team Obama surely does not plan to provide for additional benefits for the highest earners. Obama would, most likely irretrievably, turn Social Security into just another welfare program.

 

The Obama plan, with the exception of the “donut hole,” is in fact a re-run of the unlimited Medicare tax passed in 1993 — only much, much larger.

 

In 1993, the earnings ceiling for Medicare taxation was removed. In case it makes anyone feel good (why it would, I don’t understand), someone with earnings from work of $1 million pays $29,000 a year into the Medicare system ($14,500, or 1.45% of earnings, paid by the employee, with the same amount paid by the employer; or the entire 2.9% paid by the self-employed). High earners are propping up the still-tottering Medicare system with no hope of ever receiving anything resembling proportional benefits.

 

The Obama plan would make the Medicare tax increase look like child’s play. Instead of paying $12,648 per year into the system ($102,000 x 12.4%) and at least getting an incremental benefit increase, someone with earnings from work of $1,000,000 would now pay in a whopping $93,000 more ($750,000 in earnings above the “donut hole” times 12.4%) — and would get nothing in return.

 

It would nice if the press would give concrete examples of the financial impact of what Barack Obama is proposing in this and other areas. It’s not really that difficult. Better yet, perhaps the media could put a hold on its non-stop hero worship long enough to ask Obama how the economy will be able to grow if its highest earners see their take-home pay and spending power cut by 9%-12%.

[southsideirish71]

Let the swiftboating begin!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine...amp;oref=slogin

 

Gore Vidal is the same mope who stated that the Japanese wanted to surrender, however we didnt listen because we really really wanted to nuke them. He is a wacko that has a large tinfoil hat.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Iraq saved Latin America? We’re seeing a major shift in Latin America.

 

GORE VIDAL: Well, I’m something of a fan of Chavez. He’s just what certainly Venezuela needed, and he’s continuing in a sense the reforms of Castro. But you must remember, I know too much about media to be taken in by anything that most people read about Castro. “He’s got people in prison!” But yeah, a lot of rich people lost their money, and they’re very angry, so they exaggerate his crimes. But he never came up with Abu Ghraib. We did that, because we were fighting for democracy everywhere. So important to bring all this League of Nations together.

Edited June 16, 2008 by southsideirish71

[southsider2k5]

I guess Obama is scared to debate McCain... McCain wanted 10 townhall meetings, and instead has proposed just one, and that was on the 4th of July. In football, this would be known as the prevent defense.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...-townhall_N.htm

 

Candidates differ on desirable debate format

Updated 14h 2m ago | Comments769 | Recommend11 E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this

 

 

SCHEDULED DEBATES

 

Sept. 26: First presidential debate, University of Mississippi (Oxford, Miss.)

 

Oct. 2: Vice presidential debate, Washington University (St. Louis)

 

Oct. 7: Second presidential debate, Belmont University (Nashville)

 

Oct. 15: Third presidential debate, Hofstra University (Hempstead, N.Y.)

 

 

 

By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Like many presidential candidates before them, John McCain and Barack Obama are having a debate about having debates.

 

Although both presidential contenders insist they are willing to hold more joint public forums than those hosted this fall by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, they are at an impasse over questions about the number and format of the events.

 

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for McCain, said Sunday that the presumptive Republican nominee feels that Obama, his Democratic counterpart, has "completely rejected" plans for a series of joint town hall meetings by proposing to hold one on the busy Fourth of July holiday weekend.

 

"Their campaign is definitively saying 'Thanks but no thanks,' and Barack Obama knows it," Bounds said.

 

McCain, who is behind Obama in some national polls, has proposed a series of 10 weekly sessions leading up to the presidential nominating conventions. Obama campaign manager David Plouffe countered Friday with a plan for two pre-convention encounters: a town hall over the Fourth of July and "an in-depth debate on foreign policy" in August.

 

The Democratic convention runs Aug. 25-28 in Denver and the GOP meets Sept. 1-4 in St. Paul.

 

Together with the three commission-sponsored debates in the fall, "that package of five engagements would have been the most of any presidential campaign in the modern era," Plouffe said in a statement. McCain backers accuse Obama of trying to set up the only town hall meeting on a weekend when most Americans will be focused on family.

 

"Barack Obama requires more preconditions to meet directly with John McCain and American voters than he does with Iran's (President) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," Bounds said.

 

Both campaigns say talks are at a halt, but there's considerable outside interest in bringing the two candidates together for summertime meetings. Friday, the families of former presidents Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson offered to host town hall meetings next month.

 

The proposal calls for town hall meetings at the Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan presidential libraries in Texas and California, respectively. An audience would be chosen by an independent polling organization to ensure a cross-section of political views.

 

"Ronnie always believed in the importance of face-to-face discussion on key issues that affect the American people," said former first lady Nancy Reagan in issuing the invitation. Reagan hosted two GOP debates at her husband's library.

 

Former first daughter Lynda Johnson Robb echoed that sentiment, saying her father "would be proud of this opportunity for Americans to embrace a Scripture verse he quoted often: 'Come, let us reason together.' "

 

The bipartisan debate commission has sponsored debates for the major-party tickets since 1988. It is headed by Republican Frank Fahrenkopf and Democrat Paul Kirk, both former national party chairmen.

[Balta1701]

I guess Obama is scared to debate McCain... McCain wanted 10 townhall meetings, and instead has proposed just one, and that was on the 4th of July. In football, this would be known as the prevent defense.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...-townhall_N.htm

This was one of those proposals that the "Underdog" makes to try to make the "Front-runner" look bad. As a classic example, I'll give you John Kerry saying in 2004 "Let's debate once a week until the election". If the front-runner accepts, then it hurts him because instead of going out and campaigning, holding events, rallies, etc., he's spending all his time either preparing for the debates or actually being at the debates, and meanwhile it helps the underdog because it's giving him a ton of free media even if he doesn't perform that well. On the other hand, if the front-runner doesn't accept what is again an absurdly large number of events (deliberately so btw) then the underdog can attack him for not wanting to debate as often.

[kapkomet]

I guess Obama is scared to debate McCain... McCain wanted 10 townhall meetings, and instead has proposed just one, and that was on the 4th of July. In football, this would be known as the prevent defense.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...-townhall_N.htm

I LOVE that line.

 

In fact...

 

[southsider2k5]

This was one of those proposals that the "Underdog" makes to try to make the "Front-runner" look bad. As a classic example, I'll give you John Kerry saying in 2004 "Let's debate once a week until the election". If the front-runner accepts, then it hurts him because instead of going out and campaigning, holding events, rallies, etc., he's spending all his time either preparing for the debates or actually being at the debates, and meanwhile it helps the underdog because it's giving him a ton of free media even if he doesn't perform that well. On the other hand, if the front-runner doesn't accept what is again an absurdly large number of events (deliberately so btw) then the underdog can attack him for not wanting to debate as often.

 

The irony is that he was perfectly willing to debate Hillary until he got into the lead as well. Then again, this is the candidate of change, so why would we expect him to do things differently than people in the past right? Same old s***, different day.

[lostfan]

Prevent defense, lol that's a good one. But 10 debates, has that ever been done before?

[NorthSideSox72]

Its all negotiating. There will be at least a few debates. Bush and Kerry did, what, four or so? I'd bet these two do around that many. If Obama truly avoids them entirely, or only does one, then I'll be disappointed too. But I doubt that happens.

 

[lostfan]

Its all negotiating. There will be at least a few debates. Bush and Kerry did, what, four or so? I'd bet these two do around that many. If Obama truly avoids them entirely, or only does one, then I'll be disappointed too. But I doubt that happens.

There is no way that Obama avoids McCain entirely. Just not happening.

 

Also McCain knew full well that Obama would say no to 10 debates. It's all strategy and negotiation like you said.

[EvilMonkey]

There is no way that Obama avoids McCain entirely. Just not happening.

 

Also McCain knew full well that Obama would say no to 10 debates. It's all strategy and negotiation like you said.

Yeah, but the one he wants, he wants to do on the 4th of July? C'mon.

[lostfan]

Yeah, but the one he wants, he wants to do on the 4th of July? C'mon.

There's going to be more debates when this is all said and done. McCain wants to do it in a way that makes McCain look good and Obama vice versa. Obama's not going to deliberately let McCain play to his strengths against him, that'd just be damn silly. McCain threw the first punch, so Obama's gonna counter, McCain will counter again etc. Wash/rinse/repeat until November.

[southsider2k5]

There's going to be more debates when this is all said and done. McCain wants to do it in a way that makes McCain look good and Obama vice versa. Obama's not going to deliberately let McCain play to his strengths against him, that'd just be damn silly. McCain threw the first punch, so Obama's gonna counter, McCain will counter again etc. Wash/rinse/repeat until November.

 

Yep. Jimmy Carter the second is going to do it the way that it has always been done.

[lostfan]

Yep. Jimmy Carter the second is going to do it the way that it has always been done.

I don't see how that's a negative though or why somebody would expect that of all things to be "changed." That's just a reach IMO, might as well criticize him for wearing a suit everyday too. He still has to do certain things and "play politics" if he wants to get elected, he can't just be all half-assed and then expect people to vote for him just because he's "different." That's like saying "Alexei Ramirez can't be any better than Juan Uribe, they both use black bats!"

[NorthSideSox72]

Yep. Jimmy Carter the second is going to do it the way that it has always been done.

I keep seeing this Carter parallel used. Makes no sense to me, beyond the fact that they are/were both crusaders for the poor, and want to see the tax code move more towards progressive. Beyond that, they are night and day.

 

[southsider2k5]

I keep seeing this Carter parallel used. Makes no sense to me, beyond the fact that they are/were both crusaders for the poor, and want to see the tax code move more towards progressive. Beyond that, they are night and day.

 

I keep seeing the GWB 3 comparision made too, and it makes just as much sense to me. Obama is out there proposing lots of the samethings that failed during Carters time, and since that is the tone here, I figured why not.

[lostfan]

I keep seeing the GWB 3 comparision made too, and it makes just as much sense to me. Obama is out there proposing lots of the samethings that failed during Carters time, and since that is the tone here, I figured why not.

I think the Carter comparison is from people who think Obama is a nice guy who means well but is going to be an ineffective leader, just like Carter was.

[kapkomet]

I think the Carter comparison is from people who think Obama is a nice guy who means well but is going to be an ineffective leader, just like Carter was.

Not me, anyway. It comes straight from looking at his policies.

[lostfan]

Not me, anyway. It comes straight from looking at his policies.

And you look at his policies, and you figure he believes he's doing the right thing, but you think said policies are going to be ineffective or otherwise bad.

[kapkomet]

And you look at his policies, and you figure he believes he's doing the right thing, but you think said policies are going to be ineffective or otherwise bad.

I think ineffective and otherwise bad is about right. "Socialism" (read: redistribition of wealth) is just not something I'm too interested in, and that's pretty much all he's about.

 

[Balta1701]

Its all negotiating. There will be at least a few debates. Bush and Kerry did, what, four or so? I'd bet these two do around that many. If Obama truly avoids them entirely, or only does one, then I'll be disappointed too. But I doubt that happens.

Bush and Kerry did 3, and those 3 debates were LEGENDARY in terms of how scripted they were. There were something like 32 pages of rules. The candidates weren't allowed to address or question each other directly. The cameras weren't supposed to stay locked on the candidate that was speaking and couldn't show the reactions of the other candidate. The candidates weren't allowed to be filmed from behind. And on and on.

 

During the primary season, how many times, especially towards the end, did we hear about how tedious the debate schedule was getting?

[GoSox05]

I think ineffective and otherwise bad is about right. "Socialism" (read: redistribition of wealth) is just not something I'm too interested in, and that's pretty much all he's about.

 

.

I heard if elected he will put up statues of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels all over DC, but seriously to say his policies are socialist or he is a socialist is way overblown. Most socialists I know don't like him. They aren't going to vote for him because he's not a socialist.