RSS
TwitterThe Announcement That Made History
05 Nov 2008 No Comments
in Politics, Web Tags: election, Obama, Politics
I also find it telling that I found out watching a comedy television show while monitoring the election on the major networks’ websites.
Want A Laugh? The Ann Arbor News' Non-Endorsement
27 Oct 2008 No Comments
in Politics Tags: Ann Arbor, dutch, election, endorsement, plaatsvervangende schaamte, Politics
I would to introduce you to one of my favorite Dutch phrases: plaatsvervangende schaamte. Here’s how to pronounce it (no, that’s not me).
So, what does plaatsvervangende schaamte mean (if you haven’t clicked that link above)? It means “place exchanging shame”, or, the shame I feel because you aren’t ashamed of what you’re doing. You know, like when you’re friend is singing terribly but thinks they sound like a pop star?
Or, say, when you’re the biggest newspaper in the most liberal town in the state, and you can’t even find your dignity to choose a candidate to endorse for one of the more important Presenidential races in history. Yet that’s what I feel today for the editorial board at the Ann Arbor News.
Granted, this is the paper that twice endorsed George W. Bush. But, today less than 2 weeks before the election, the AA News endorsed… no one. In 816 words they managed spit out every Republican talking point, most of the Democratic points, a smear or two, and still say absolutely nothing.
As one commenter put it, this is the “coward’s way out”, which indeed it is. We haven’t subscribed to the News in many years and I see there’s no reason to give them another look. What a waste of an opportunity and potential.
Plaatsvervangende schaamte.
The McCain Campaign Enters the Self-Parody Stage
23 Oct 2008 No Comments
in Politics Tags: election, McCain, Palin
You just can’t make this stuff up:
Madam President, the amendment before the Senate is a very simple one. It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases … and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in nature. […]
The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly.
Who said that? John McCain. In 1993. You know, when he was still standing up for the American people. Not when his party was footing the bill for his VP’s wardrobe to the tune of $150,000.
Now, a certain regular here will say something like “they’re both so bad”. Which is true to a degree. But this is just patently wrong. This crap defense that the clothes will be donated to charity is bull. Really? All the clothes purchased for the Palin kids and Todd Palin are going to be taken back from them and given to… who, exactly? And if that was always the intent, how stupid does your campaign staff have to be not to use that as a selling point? Seriously, how hard is it to say “Gov. Palin’s clothes for tonight’s debate were purchased at a union shop and will be donated to the Salvation Army after the event.” Bam! You got union points and a photo-op the next day.
Face it, you got caught; suck it up, apologize and move on. Don’t bullshit us with some idiotic story about charities and donations? Nevermind that the purchase of those clothes may actually be illegal under US Tax Code. Oh, and the best part? Guess who pushed that section of the tax code into law?
John McCain. (See Section 313, para (b), sub-section (B)) [see also: original Senate bill, overview of S.27, bill's complete history]
Idiots. I don’t want McCain to win, but this is pathetic. At least stand for something. At least have the balls to tell your party when they’re wrong, not repeat the same stupid excuse and defend an apparent violation of a bill you sponsored.
Senator McCain, I wanted you to be the nominee in 2004. I wanted to vote for you so badly then. I even watched you this season, hoping you really weren’t the stooge for the Bush administration that you appeared to be in the years following, hoping I could vote for you this time. But I can’t, and I’m getting close to giving up on Republicans in general.
I really believe that you think you’re doing the best thing for the country. But by allowing the political players to game the public in an attempt for votes, you’re sacrificing every shred of integrity and, dare I say it, status as a maverick you’ve built over the last 20+ years as a Senator.
As Christopher Buckley said, “I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.”
The Chicago Tribune Endorses Obama
17 Oct 2008 No Comments
in Politics Tags: election, endorsement, McCain, Obama
Not so surprising for a newspaper to do so, but it is pretty surprising to see this newspaper do so. The Tribune has never before endorsed the Democratic candidate for President. In fact, its history as a staunchly conservative newspaper makes this endorsement even stronger.
The endorsement itself is a litany of how McCain has failed to capture the hearts of anyone but the most obtuse of Republicans, from his shifting policy on taxes to his selfish choice for Vice President. It is also a first-hand view of the experience and abilities of Obama from the paper and staff that have watched his political career from the beginning.
Whatever your leanings, it’s a cogent argument and a heavily-weighed endorsement; read it here.
The Stupid Vote
08 Oct 2008 No Comments
in Made Me Laugh, Politics Tags: Daily Show, election, John Oliver
ABC News: Match-o-Matic
16 Sep 2008 No Comments
in Politics, Signs of the Horsemen Tags: election, McCain, Obama, Politics
Too lazy to research candidates for the Presidency on your own? Then let a Flash cartoon from ABC News help you out. In 20 or so questions, a cartoon that lets you choose between quotes from the candidates will animate the way to your deicision for who to vote for as we decide the leader of the free world.
Or, yah know, you could read up on them. Just a thought.
McCain tax plan rewards the richest of Americans
10 Sep 2008 No Comments
in Politics Tags: election, McCain, Obama, Politics, taxes
Taxes. We all pay ‘em and we all hate ‘em. Both candidate have set forth their tax plans should they be elected. The Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank, crunched both campaigns’ numbers. Business Week (hardly a lefty publication), has the details.
Len Burman, a former Treasury tax official who is now a senior fellow at the Urban Institute [ed. part of the Tax Policy Center], says if Obama’s proposals—which include plans to rescind the Bush tax cuts on couples making more than $250,000, close corporate tax loopholes, and tax private equity earnings known as “carried interest” as ordinary income—were adopted in 2009, for example, married couples with earnings in the lowest quintile of the population would see their aftertax income rise 5.8%. Those in the next quintile would see an increase of 4%. Those breaks would be paid for by those with high incomes: the top 1% of taxpayers would see aftertax income fall 8.4%.
Under McCain’s proposals, by contrast—including an extension of the Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers, a corporate tax cut, and a larger reduction in estate taxes than Obama would support—far more of the benefits would go to the top. If his plans went into effect in 2009, married couples in the bottom fifth of the population would see aftertax income go up just 0.2%, while those in the next quintile would see a 0.7% hike. But those in the top quintile would see a bump up in aftertax income of 2.7%.
And the middle class? Yeah, we all get a 0.7% increase with McCain and a 4% increase under Obama.
And how about that deficit the Bush administration is leaving us?
[Under Obama] those moves would bring an estimated additional $734 billion to the Treasury over 10 years.
…
… McCain’s combined proposals would slash tax revenues by an estimated $253 billion over the 10-year period.
Brilliant. An income increase for the richest of the rich and no meaures to increase revenue to the Treasury. Of course, as the article points out, this is all based on their plans being implemented as promised, which rarely happens. So what’s the value in this kind of analysis?
“It gives us some sense of their view,” says Burman.
Exactly. And that view is pretty telling.
Where the candidates stand on *gasp* issues
08 Sep 2008 No Comments
in Politics Tags: election, Politics
Good read for those who couldn’t care less about race and gender.
Part 1: Examining key differences between Obama and McCain — Newsday.com.
A Note to All by Anne Kilkenny
06 Sep 2008 No Comments
in Politics Tags: election, Republicans
I hadn’t seen this email yet, but it checks out (surprisingly). I’ll put the highlights here, but read the whole thing (especially if the addition of Palin to the McCain ticket made you rethink your vote). This was written by a Wasilla resident and long-time acquaintance of Sarah Palin, Anne Kilkenny. This has also been verified by Snopes.
CLAIM VS FACT
o “Hockey mom”: true for a few yearso “PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
p “NRA supporter”: absolutely true
o social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
o pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
o “Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation.
o “Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska.
No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
o political maverick: not at all
o gutsy: absolutely!
o open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
o has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
o “a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
o fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
o pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
o pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents.
o pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
o pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.