In April, on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, voters in this Philadelphia suburb were finding plenty of fault with both Barack Obama and John McCain. Many were preparing to — and soon did — vote for Hillary Clinton, helping her to a decisive victory in this state.
This week, those voters are part of a mass movement to Obama, driven by much greater familiarity with the Illinois senator’s views and by a pronounced distaste for McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin.
The striking shift in Montgomery County, often a bellwether, makes McCain’s task of recapturing Pennsylvania from the Democrats look almost like Mission Impossible.
Robert Stutz, a recently retired hospital administrator, was, like many of his neighbors, skeptical of both the eventual nominees when they were on the primary ballot, “so I was mostly listening to Hillary at that point.” But he’s been impressed with Obama’s health-care plan and says that McCain virtually disqualified himself with his vice presidential choice. “I can’t imagine putting Sarah Palin in a position to be president of the United States,” he said.
Well Mr. Broder, I guess we’ll just gloss over the fact that Bush lost PA in 2000 and 2004 (and presumably Montgomery Co. as well) yet still won both elections….
I think it comes down to OH, VA, FL, NC – those states McCain has to win.
[blockquote] Montgomery County, often a bellwether[/blockquote]
There’s something fishy about this. Kerry won Montgomery Co. Pa 56% to 44% in 2004 and Gore won it 54 to 44.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_county_pa
I think McCain has not run a particularly good campaign. Granted, I think he is taking a hit with the economic downturn which I don’t think is really fair. I don’t think Obama is any strong on the issue. But due to the fact that people see the economy as Bush’s fault, thus, Bush=Republican=McCain. Again, I don’t think this is accurate, but that’s just the cards McCain’s campaign has been dealt, and he hasn’t played the game with that hand very well.
Personally, and this is my own cynical pet theory, but I think the TV era Presidential elections come down to one fickle question: Who looks the most Presidential? Whatever is meant by Presidential, I will leave to your own definitions as I don’t have a completely coherent definition myself.
I would argue the definition is something akin to what a former justice wrote on, shall we say, adult entertainment. “I can’t describe it, but I know it when I see it.” I think the same is true of how someone does or does not “look Presidential.”
McCain just doesn’t look presidential a lot of the time, especially with his snide remarks in the debates about Obama not understanding things and his rather frantic reactions to the 700 billion bailout vote.
Obama on the other hand is quite good at it. While I am not going to vote for him, I think for that superficial reason alone, he will win. Call me Machiavellian, but that’s how I see it.
Agreed.
When I asked a friend why she was voting for BHO, she said “Because he SOUNDS presidential. It will be nice to have a president who sounds like a president.”
grrrrrr.
Sadly Mr. Broder is probably right. Polls don’t matter too much in June. But with three weeks left to election day they do matter. Sen. McCain is the victim of bad timing and circumstances. Right now I think the election is Obama’s to loose.
yah, i was just thinking this morning how much i really admire mccain; his old self came shining through when rabid right wingers were stating that obama was an arab and a terrorist; mccain did what was right and stood against it. i would vote for him except that disaster of a vp and the scary possiblity that she could be pres; that shows a startling lack of good judgement on mccain’s part and something i cannot risk, especially when it comes to supreme court noms. although biden is also a disaster, obama is young and looks in decent health-the odds are with him on that. too bad for mccain, he is a sincere and decent person.
Magnolia, McCain’s mother looks to be going pretty strong at 90+, so I think he will be around for a while. Regardless, I believe Palin’s experience and personal values, especially on abortion, make her far more qualified than Obama. Obama has done nothing, nada, zilch. His state is an economic disaster and rife with corruption. His public school system is one of the worst in the country. Obama could not fill out a job application for a government security guard position that required a background check due to his past associations. The military and veterans almost universally support McCain. I wonder why? Probably because they can’t fathom saluting Obama. And I am especially wanting McCain to fill the Supreme Court vacancies, as he will probably nominate qualified, honest and decent people, not left-wing judiciary activists.
Polls can never be trusted. Especially this year, with all the added variables of race and gender involved, polls can really, really not be trusted. The primary reason?? People lie to pollsters. I have always believed this ever since Truman won in ’48. Especially in “the heartland,” people tend to feel it is just no one else’s business how they are going to vote, so. . . not only do they not tell anyone, but they will lie to anyone with the audacity to ask. Polls just don’t represent what actually is, out there.
I’m sorry to say I must agree with Archer on this. I’ll be voting for Sen. McCain, but I fear the odds against winning are virtually insurmountable. Hard to win against all of the money Sen.Obama is raking in and with the national media solidly behind him. I hope I’m pleasantly surprised come 4 November. If Sen. Obama wins, the only hope will be that the shambles he makes of this country in four years will enable Gov. Palin to win the presidency in 2012.
God help us if any of the conservatives on the Supreme Court die or retire during an Obama presidency and with Democrats in power in both houses of Congress! It’ll be bad enough with all of the Federal judgeships the Democrats have refused to fill with President Bush’s appointees now to be vacant and waiting to be filled with leftists.
I’ll tell you who doesn’t “look presidential” — Sarah Palin. “You betcha” “wink wink” “Joe Sixpack.” Strange, I always thought Joe Sixpack was a derogatory term meaning “Joe slob who comes home from his job (if he has one) with his belly hanging over his belt and drinks a six pack of beer.” When did the term suddenly mean “a regular working class guy”?? I find it both condescending and offensive.
Can you seriously see this woman meeting with foreign leaders or military leaders or conducting the business of the office of President?
Intrade (see http://www.intrade.com) has Obama by a mile – and has had for weeks. Hard to see how enough people will change their minds for Intrade – and the vote – to change accordingly.
No jokes about market intervention, please.
“When did the term suddenly mean “a regular working class guyâ€?? I find it both condescending and offensive. ”
That’s the only meaning I’ve ever known for “Joe Sixpack.” I think it may go back to the early 80’s and the “Reagan Democrats” but I’m not sure. I know we used the term in this way in my poli sci classes at college in the late 90s.
Sarah Palin conducts the governor’s office of Alaska well enough.
CATHOLIC Mom, Obama might look “presidential” but he also advocates pulling a viable baby from his/her mother’s womb and doing away with him/her. THAT doesn’t look very “presidential” to ME.
“Because he SOUNDS presidential. It will be nice to have a president who sounds like a president.â€
Oh, how nice. One can be a crook, but it’s ok to be a crook as long as one looks good being a crook.
Even if I felt that way I don’t think I’d announce it to my friends or anyone else. Something about artichokes…
:-/
I think Gov. Palin looks very presidential. I note how she drove the oil interests in Alaska to share some of their wealth with the Joe six-packs of Alaska. As far as I am concerned, she’s got The Right Stuff in spades. Way more so than nothing-but-talk Obama.
#2 – it’s a fallacy of some sort, considering Montgomery Co. is not a “bellweather” for much of anything, as far as I can tell. The real bellweather is Missouri, which has gone for the Presidential winner every time but one since 1904. McCain of course needs this state too. Nevada has also been a predictor, which McCain also needs. Right now both of those states, as well as NC, OH, VA, IN and FL (I would think each these needs to go for McCain) are tossup:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=5
Satan was described as an angel of light, a great deceiver. Obviously a smooth talking con man who led (leads) unwitting souls to eternal damnation. Yes, very “presidential talking”.
Please note: The comment was made that for good or ill people in this country tend to vote for whoever “looks presidential.” I said nothing about who I’m voting for or who I think anyone else should vote for. I said that personally to me Sarah Palin comes off as incredibly bush league.
Let’s try to remember Christian charity here, even for people we may not like and won’t vote for.
No offense Catholic Mom, but if I needed someone to send in to negotiate with Putin, it wouldn’t be Bush (“I looked in his eyes and saw his soul”), Obama or Biden. You may see “You betcha†“wink wink†etc. I see someone who would end up with the Russian pipeline.
There’s a reason she’s known as “Barracuda.”
Actually, the only real “training” for the office of President of the United States is the first term of a two-term presidency. That is to say, there is no such thing as a “trained and ready” first-term president. The Senate doesn’t do it. A governorship doesn’t do it. So, Palin is as good as any choice we have. The problem is – – we don’t have much of a confidence-building choice, at all, this year.
#21, you neglect the most important factor in Obama’s success – the media is by and large IN THE TANK for him…..
#19 Why? Because she’d call up Putin’s boss and harass him unmercifully until Putin was fired?
Matt – the only thing McCain has done the last several months is be a Republican – the media picked Obama long ago (just ask Hillary Clinton) and nothing will keep them from building him up, not investigating legitimate concerns, and belittling anyone running against him.
#23 – heh – good come back.
No, we just see her differently, don’t we? I think she’s tough and sharp and you think she’s an airhead. I guess we’ll never know – McCain is going to get swept – it’s just a matter of how bad.
Wow, Matt – I guess we do see the world differently – I don’t remember the media piling on Kerry at all, far from it. Now, they didn’t hold him in reverence like they do Obama, but they definitely hoped he would win. I agree McCain has not run a good campaign for whatever reason – but the only poll that really counts is the one taken on election day through the voting booth (just as long as ACORN hasn’t gotten there first) – so we’ll just have to see.
#26: “blaming the media for giving Bush a pass on everything while at the same time piling on Kerry every chance they got. ”
do you remember that Texas Air National Guard fiasco with CBS? Talk about trying to sink Bush with an absurd forged document…..
Matt – but my comment is relevant to your statement:
since I don’t see that the media piled on Kerry. McCain has run a poor campaign, and that, combined with the overt media bias for Obama (which I don’t think most reasonable people will disagree with – I could be wrong) means that it will be difficult (but perhaps not impossible) for McCain to win. We will all know Nov. 5, God willing.
I’m an Australian, and so obviously I’m not a voter, but I’ve watched this election pretty closely. I confess I’m still amazed by the enduring pro-republican sentiment by conservative Christians as exemplified on this forum. Evidently almost the whole world agrees with me if the poll on http://www.economist.com/vote2008/ is any guide.
Bush won the last 2 elections with an understandably strong endorsement from evangelicals – he was a professing Christian and opposed abortion, a key ethical issue for Christians. However, what is his legacy? An illegal and imoral war in Iraq with huge loss of life and so many with life long physical and emotional scars – and not just Americans. (Unlike others I won’t blame him for the current economic disaster, though I’m sure his economic policies contributed.)
What does McCain offer? He professes a Christian faith too but did seem very awkward in expressing it in his interview with Rick Warren at the Saddleback Forum. (I’ll concede that older folks can be more reticent in expressing their beliefs.) His widely reported hot temper is a concern, and using a very offensive word (that denotes a part of the female anatomy) to put down his wife is appalling, especially in public. Those things reflect character. His economic plan is a continuation of the conservative Bush doctrine – tax cuts which disproportionally benefit the wealthy. That doesn’t sound like “looking after the widows and the poor”, and as Dr Phil would say – how’s that working for you?
The remaining issue that I can understand is very important for Christians in this election is abortion. As a Christian I’m certainly not pro-abortion (and as a retired anaesthiologist I refused to anaesthetise patients for abortions even though my stance caused some inconvenience in one of the hospitals that I worked). However I do understand that banning abortions won’t stop them. All it does is makes them [i]much[/i] less safe for those many women who would resort to “back yard” abortionists. It’s also fair to acknowledge that those who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion – no one likes abortions! Both sides of politics must find ways to make abortions unnecessary by improving sex-education, supporting women with unwanted pregnancies (not stigmatising them) and presenting adoption as a more attractive alternative. Of course abstinence is what pleases God (outside marriage), but how many of us have honestly remained virgins until marriage? I suspect not that many. Our kids need to be educated and prepared even though they profess faith and plan to abstain from sex.
Can a pro-choice candidate really be so abhorrent when compared to continuing and exaggerating the social inequalities that are the inevitable consequences of more tax cuts for the rich?
ps: In the interests of keeping this post as short as possible, I’ve refrained from mentioning universal health care – something that most western countries take for granted and for which we count our blessings. (Anyone watched Micheal Moore’s [i]Sicko[/i]?)
McCain is an old 72, not a Ronald Reagan 72. He’s also a member of the same party as a president who is not particularly popular thanks to two apparently endless low-grade wars and an economy that is in the ditch. Also, how many other people besides me are offended by his smirky, arrogant putdowns of people who dare question his immigration policy? “The dirty, dangerous jobs Americans won’t do…,” what planet is this man from? He seems to go out of his way to put down the white working class. Maybe that’s why he always looks so uncomfortable around Gov. Palin.
McCain (whom I like) looks like a shadow of his former self.
He is getting very geriatric and should have stayed out of the race. And if I had his ear, I’d tell him that there are going to be so many chickens coming home to roost over the next four years that the last place he’d want to be is the White House.
#2, I can’t imagine what your friend was thinking when saying “he SOUNDS presidential’. Obviously couldn’t have listened to the ‘sweet potato pie’ video clip from last Saturday in Philly. That is not the sound of presidential.
And #32, being a gracious American, myself, I will refrain from ripping apart your unsolicited and inaccurate musings on the USA federal election. I will only add how thankful I feel to live in the one Australian state that recently had the intestinal fortitude to not re-elect its parasitic Labor government (under which I had labored for lo these past seven years, so I know), and to bring in a Liberal/National coalition. It was most interesting to listen to the members of my study group at church recounting the reasons they had voted against Labor. The USA could really use an electoral system of preferences, to avoid unfortunate outcomes such as a Democratic win in Nov. would be.
That must be why Obama is becoming clearer on his socialistic economic plans, and what he thinks of small business owners and taxation:
[blockquote]Outside Toledo, Ohio, on Sunday, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was approached by plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, a big, bald man with a goatee who asked Obama if he believes in the American dream.
“I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year,†Wurzelbacher said. “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?â€
Obama said, “First off, you would get a 50% tax credit so you’d get a tax cut for your healthcare costs….. if your revenue is above 250 – then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.â€
Responded Wurzelbacher, “the reason I ask you about the American dream, I mean I’ve worked hard. I’m a plumber. I work 10-12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American dream.â€
“Well,†said Obama, “here’s a way of thinking about it. How long have been a plumber?â€
Wurzelbacher said 15 years.
Obama says, “Over the last 15 years, when you weren’t making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you’d actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you’ve become more successful through hard work – you don’t want to be taxed as much.â€
“Exactly,†Wurzelbacher said.
Obama continued, “But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks who are making less than 250, they may be working hard too, but they’re being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I’m doing is, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever, 60 or 70. Under my tax plan you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you’d be paying lower taxes, which means you would have saved…Now look, nobody likes high taxes.â€
“No,†said Wurzelbacher.
“Of course not,†said Obama. “But what’s happened is that we end up – we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than 250. We haven’t given a break to folks who make less, and as a consequence, the average wage and income for ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is – I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect the disagreement. I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too.â€
Wurzelbacher said it seemed as though Obama might support a flat tax.
Obama says, “you know, I would be open to it except here’s the problem with a flat tax is that if you actually put a flat tax together, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we’ve got, you’d probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax. I mean that’s the value added, making it up. Now some people say 23 or 25, but in truth when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you’d have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on. And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent.â€
Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and [b]I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody[/b].â€[/blockquote]
[i]emphasis added[/i]
Socialism, plain and clear. And he doesn’t care about small business owners getting soaked by higher taxes, he simply considers it ‘redistribution of wealth’. By the way, the plumber was on tv and said Obama’s comments did not soothe him at all, in fact it scares him to death!
source: surprisingly from an [url=http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html]ABC News Blog[/url]
“I said that personally to me Sarah Palin comes off as incredibly bush league”.
I guess you’d prefer she look like William F. Buckley.
🙂
#34 – the press loved McCain in 2000 because they did not like Bush. Had McCain won the nomination they would have devoured him. And I agree McCain has not run a good campaign, it’s one reason I was a Romney supporter, I think the latter was more up to the task……
It won’t be over till it’s over. I frankly heard one of the well-placed Obama talking heads saying that unless Obama has a solid national lead of at least 8 points, he’s in danger of losing.
FTR, today it was five points:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Sorry, I meant #4, not #2 w/r/t the ‘sounds presidential” comment.
Anyway, thank you #38, for reporting the whole exchange which made it easy to read and consider on the spot. This is exactly the problem. And I note that in it the candidate doesn’t sound too impressively Presidential, either.
It’s very worrying how many Americans who know better seem still inclined to lose their nerve in the face of the MSM’s and NYT’s unapologetically activist journalism. Most Americans probably don’t even know what the Fabian Society is but it and its associates are out to commandeer this US election if possible. Its ‘Socialism by stealth’ approach was derived from the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus who advocated methods of harrassment and attrition, rather than full-on belligerence, to win against the Carthaginians (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society) Harrassment and attrition describe quite well what the MSM and NYT activist reporting is intended to effect.
But what they are telling you does not reflect what the rest of the world actually thinks! Many would be surprised to read the sympathetic coverage of Palin’s campaigning along with her values that, e.g., some Australian newspapers are giving.
Catholic Mom, you need to know that Catholics around the world are not rolling over to the pro-liberal policies that American Democrats are pushing in this campaign. The conservative Premier that Western Australia just elected, for example, is a Catholic, not of the Biden variety.
#39 I heard William F. Buckley’s son just endorsed Obama. [But I didn’t realize what a bad pun I’d made until after I posted it. :)]
“Most Americans probably don’t even know what the Fabian Society is but it and its associates are out to commandeer this US election if possible” —#42
Take care to safeguard your precious bodily fluids.
AngusJ [#32]: You make good points. But in the case of some commenters, you’re up against invincible preconceptions.
And what might those preconceptions be, #45?
Catholic Mom,
How about let’s start a joke:
What do you get if you cross Sarah Palin with William F. Buckley?
And now you’ve all seen the debate, and I haven’t.
McCain is not a great candidate; that’s why so many Republicans wanted somebody else. The press loved him as long as he was the guy occasionally working against his own party and with Democrats. (Oddly, Bush did the same but they never loved him.) Now that McCain is the nominee, of course they don’t love him any more. They prefer the Democrat, and it should have been clear to everybody that they would.
Nonetheless, we can’t blame this fiasco entirely on press bias. Matt is right; McCain hasn’t run a great campaign. He has numerous issues he could have used effectively, and didn’t.
I don’t entertain any real hope of an Obama loss, but I do want to point out that polls have been all over the place. Opinions are not solid, and the polls have widely varying estimates of who will actually turn out to vote. I suspect it’s closer than many people think. Close doesn’t count, of course.
I regret I don’t have the tiny.url but here is the strongest reason why no believing Catholic or evangelical could support Obama:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama's Abortion Extremism_.xml
His extremism and complicity in kiling the unborn are simply evil.
With regard to the 4th paragraph of angusj’s comment #38:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVkMTM0YzI0NjQ4MTZiNTkyMGM3MTIwYTVlNDJlMzM=&w=MQ==
I don’t know what state you live in but you must be aware of the 23-17 decision by Victoria’s legislature to allow abortions up to 24 weeks, just made last week. This was in spite of much work by pro-life people including a visit by American Gianna Jensen, who *was* a saline abortion at 30+ weeks, who made a wonderful speech in Melbourne. (Perhaps that helped keep the term limit lower?) Bill Muehlenberg and others are now writing effectively on this tragic result for Australian society. W/r/t the US election, there are many who decry ‘one-issue’ voters focussing on abortion, but the article I linked above helps make clear why it is a crucial issue. Many women face very lop-sided advice when told of a pregnancy that will bring problems. I often wonder what would have happened if when the water broke at 25 weeks, I had been living in Australia with its socialized system instead of a Chicago suburb and in an HMO. As it was, in the US hospital I was confronted by both mid-wives and perinatologists who went into great detail about the dangers we faced, and included in their offers of medical assistance that delivering the baby – presumably induced – prematurely [i]with intent[/i] was an option. I have only God to thank that in my fright and confusion his grace helped me think straight and decide for life. Yesterday was our son’s 18th birthday and though he was still 12 weeks premature in the end, overall he turned out fine. But many women don’t even know they can depend on God’s grace, and yet there are thousands of women who have had abortions who testify to all the types of emotional, mental and even physical havoc it has caused. It may not be true that no one is really pro-abortion, only pro-choice, because very often and more as time goes on, the choices offered leave out the one for life and a woman has to know in her own soul what the right thing is to do for herself and her baby.
There is one possibility that I haven’t seen mentioned yet, and I wonder if anyone has thought of it. In the past weeks, the McCain campaign has been on a rather gentle but constant slide, downhill. There seems to be less enthusiasm (excepting palin), less focus on issues that could have really made a difference.
McCain is 72. The economy is tanking, and nobody imagines that it won’t take literally years to get us out of this economic debacle. I seriously wonder whether McCain hasn’t thought about all this, in the quiet of the night, and decided: “Why in the world would I want to be remembered as the President that presides over the demise of the Republic? I don’t need this. Obama can have that legacy.”
I seriously think there may be something to this.
#51, McCain as a one-term President who used the veto to drastically cut non-entitlement domestic spending could be a historic success. His opposition to earmarks and pork spending is the one thing I heartily endorse about him. This looks like the right time to have such a President, and it looks like exactly the wrong time to have Congress and the Presidency in the hands of dedicated spenders. the second option is what we’re likely to get.
Albany, OK I’ll bite. What DO you get when you cross Sarah Palin with William F. Buckley (perish the thought.)?
[b]libraryjim[/b], you excerpt in #38 makes me even [i]more[/i] enthusiastic about voting for Obama (maybe because I make significantly less that $250k/yr, like 95% of other people). Thanks for sharing that. If that makes me a socialist, I’ve been called worse.
#54, if we have gotten to the point where taking money from other people because we want some of it is the point of public policy, we have lost the American dream. It used to be, when we talked about tax policy, we were talking about how best to fund needed public projects, with the understanding that people who earn a lot of money can afford to pay a higher percentage in the interests of the public good. (The top 5% of wage and salary earners already pay by far the most federal taxes.) Obama’s statement to Joe the Plumber amounts to frank redistribution of wealth as his objective. He wants to take Joe’s money and give it to somebody else because Joe has been too successful.
Catholic Mom:
I was asking…but I’ll give it a try.
Answer: Firing Line with an actual gun.
How about a brilliant conservative patrician who is good looking and has the common touch?
#57
I agree about the brilliant part. There is a difference between common and crude, however. Obama is much more honestly connected with the “commoner’s” needs. Palin lost me with the “common touch” when I found she abused her office to persecute a “common” trooper for petty family reasons. That’s a mentality we cannot promote up. It will be the IRS and an “enemies list” next.
Albany+, as opposed to the Presidential candidate who has tried to get Justice Department charges filed against campaign ads he didn’t like, and whose allies in Missouri law enforcement tried to intimidate radio and TV stations running ads they didn’t like, and whose minions in Chicago tried to prevent a critic from speaking on the radio, even though his own campaign had been invited to send a representative to speak also?
Albany #56 Not bad. 🙂
The objective is not redistribution of wealth, it is to maintain (or increase) provisions for the poor and marginal and to reduce the tax burden of those who can least afford it. It’s a fairly, you know, Christian theme to look out for the poor. If providing social services and reducing taxes on those with lower incomes could both be done without increasing taxes on the wealthy, I’d be all for that, but you can’t do it all. Cutting social services is not an option (IMO many of them need increasing), so if there must be taxes, the larger burden (and we’re only talking about 3% on income over $250k) should fall on those who have more.
As in Obama’s example, a lower tax burden for those making less than $250k leaves them with more money to invest and grow their own businesses, eventually joining those in the higher bracket.
Scott K, Obama’s objective of an income tax cut for 95% of the population is impossible, since 40% don’t pay income tax anyhow.
If we were down to the bare minimum of social services and necessary government functions it would be different. But we’re not. If Obama were to promise to end earmarks including his own $1 billion from his first three years as a Senator and to end the huge varieties of Federal pork spending you might have a good argument. As it is, I tend to take him at his word. He wants to take Joe’s money and give it to somebody else. And Pelosi wants to send another $300 billion after the $700 billion already authorized as a “stimulus” which will be to a great extent more pork. Poor Joe.
#62
Amen, Katherine!
Well you don’t see me endorsing Pelosi, the stimulus, or the bailout. Or pork barrel spending or earmarks in general. I’m just talking about general tax policy. The widening income gap in this country and the increasing number of people living in poverty is something we should be ashamed of.
The poor are certainly going to suffer the most in this economic downturn, Scott. What perplexes me is how you think electing Obama and a Democratic Congress at the same time will do anything to improve our economic condition. Their policies could make it worse, following the example of Hoover. Raising tax rates and shutting off free trade are exactly what we shouldn’t do right now.
I’m taking orders for a new bumper sticker that will say: “Don’t blame me. I voted for McCain.” Maybe I’m just old fashioned and not cool. I think that if Obama is elected, it will be both a social and economic disaster. Big government will be the rule of the day. Taxes will go through the roof. We will be encouraging an entitlement society. Millions of jobs will be lost. But it won’t matter, as we can all just get on unemployment and welfare. I hope I am wrong.
The salient Scriptural references here are Matthew 26:11, where Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 15:11. Deuteronomy 15 has everything to do with my personal responsibility for the poor. Obama and his ilk are not necessarily wrong, just misdirected, and only to an extent: there wouldn’t be such a rush to redistribute wealth if I took my personal responsibility to implement Deuteronomy 15 completely to heart. So, shame on me for not doing so. If I don’t want Obama to reach into my pocket, I better step up and do what the Lord commands me to do.
[i]Oh, and he’s not a plumber. [/i]
Tap-dancing like Sammy Davis? Oy. Say it ain’t so, Joe!
Matt, you said, “Too late. It has already happened.” Well, if Obama is elected, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.
Maybe other people don’t want to publicly express their opinion because of things like this:
Right the typical left tactic. If someone says something subsantial that disagrees with your position — tar and feather them and run them out of town on a rail, and dig up as much dirt on them to ruin them as much as you can.
If someone you agree with does something underhanded, under-report it and hope it will go away or go unnoticed until AFTER the election (Mark Foley’s replacement, for example, and Barak’s antics and associations, and ‘missing’ documents and history).
And people wonder why there is such animosity towards the Mainstream Media on the part of ‘fly-over country’.
There is a great article by Randy Alcorn:
[url=http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-cool-obamas-pro-abortion-stance.html]Not Cool: Obama’s Pro-abortion Stance, and Christians enabling him[/url]
Well worth the time to take to read it.
Two further questions:
Joe “the Plumber” asks Obama one question that isn’t liked. And so he’s interviewed on every news cast. Where are the interviews with ‘unrepentant terrorist’ Bill Ayers? Shouldn’t the press be all over him finding out the truth behind his relationship with Obama?
and
Has there been any investigation to Obama’s claim that McCain supporters yelling ‘kill him’ at a McCain-Palin rally? From what I hear, it’s a totally made-up story with no basis in fact.
Matt – the Secret Service has determined there was no call in Pennsylvania to “kill him” and that the only mention they could find was by a reporter, no one else heard anything like that. Now I admit, partisans on both sides can get too on the fringe (you did see the Palin t-shirts that were being worn by Obama supporters, didn’t you? I won’t link because they’re too disgusting, but you can find them in the Internet if you want verification) but let’s not keep hammering rumors. Of course, Toledo Democrats are now trying to run “Joe the Plumber” out of business – as though the man, and not Obama’s answer to his question, is somehow suspect. Boy, I can’t wait until this election is over.
Branford,
Me, too!
Re [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/16/politics/2008debates/main4526503.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline]”Joe the Plumber”[/url]:
[blockquote]But his story clearly caught on with McCain’s crowd. Some supporters held signs saying: “Joe the Plumber for senator. Undeniably qualified to clean up Washington’s waste.” [/blockquote]
It’s rather ironic that Republicans want an unlicensed plumber to clean up Washington’s waste. Sounds like Bush all over again.
Ah, there you go again, #82, opining on someone else’s nation’s issues.
But I am puzzled what relevance the standards of conduct of this Joe have to the pertinence of his question and the answer given to it. I don’t think they are directly related, as if one has to be ‘qualified’ to have insight into some important issue. The point remains that responding to the question, the Democratic candidate stated candidly that he would favor ‘redistributing the wealth’. Many, many Americans do not wish the government to make those decisions for everyone.
Regarding the needed reform of Washington – well, wasn’t Jesus, after all, just an ‘unlicensed prophet’, to the Pharisees?
Matt – Sen. Obama approached “Joe the plumber” – and I agree with TACit, it doesn’t really matter who asked the question, what matters is Obama’s answer. I don’t think this guy is now a political tool of the McCain campaign – I think he’s an American citizen who asked someone running for office a legitimate question, the politician gave an answer that is now causing him problems, so the media is now going after the citizen – as someone else said:
and
I’m not saying Sen. Obama is doing this – but his partisan supporters certainly are.
Obama clearly demonstrated there that he does not understand the concept or the plan for the Flat Tax (aka Fair Tax). If he had gone to the [url=http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer]web site[/url] he would not have made such a stupid statement.
“Ah, there you go again, #82, opining on someone else’s nation’s issues” —TACit [#84]
What a silly piece of selective indignation! As though blog commenters contented themselves with minding their own business.
“What a silly piece of selective indignation!”
Many right-wing Americans have opinions aplenty about other countries and do not hesitate to voice them. Indeed, they have such negative views of the rest of the world—and so little personal experience of it—that the haughtiness and scorn just dribble out.
Of course they don’t actually intend to insult our Global South brothers and sisters.
Wait, lemme get this straight…
Mr. Obama asked him the question…
Mr. Obama brought it up in the debate…
But discussion about JtP is Mr. McCain’s fault?!?!
(Rubbing my neck, strained from the whiplash of leftist logic…)