I'm catching up on some blogs and came across this hilarious post-debate line by Varifrank:

SO - we no longer ask our Presidential candidates any questions that involve the military?
[...]
Three debates and I don't get any answers on these and many other important issues, I get the equivalent of what it feels like to have two used car salesman run back and forth and "ask their manager" if they can get me a "discount on the price for the undercoat" ( an undercoat that I don't want or particularly need, but will be forced to take to get off the car lot with my wits and my wallet mostly intact.)

Heh.

Also, two tax posts, since I just lurve talking about taxes.
One, from Kim du Toit, on what John McCain should say.
Two, some nuts and bolts on the Obama plan from a The Corner reader.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 156 words, total size 1 kb.

John Murtha, classy as ever.

Mr. Murtha said it has taken time for the state's voters embrace a black presidential candidate.

"There's no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area," said Mr. Murtha, whose district stretches from Johnstown to Washington County. "The older population is more hesitant."

Hogwash. My grandparents live right over the border in small-town Western New York. My 83-year-old grandmother is most likely voting for Obama.

Quit pointing out imaginary racism, Democrats.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama's proposed tax credits:

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.

We're so far from the concept of a "safety net" here that it's sickening. And there's more, as The String Beans say:

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

So both poor and rich people have a "disincentive to working harder" under the Obama tax plan. Boy, that sounds like a winner for the future of America.

(via CG)

Posted by: Sarah at 02:50 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

We've all seen the clips of how stupid McCain voters are.
But all Obama voters are genuises, right?

(via Ace)

Posted by: Sarah at 02:33 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Watching this makes me feel sorry for Joe Biden. Joe who? I wish people of multiple economic and ethnic backgrounds had been interviewed. I bet the results would be the same. I fear that many people can only think on an iconic level. They vote for names and images, not ideas. They know more about celebrities and sports teams than their rulers. Such ignorance is a luxury only possible under a benevolent government. In a totalitarian state, the whim of the leader determines life or death. Is Big Brother for or against Eurasia today? One had better know ... or else. Comply or die.

Posted by: Amritas at October 15, 2008 09:31 AM (+nV09)

2 Amritas, I think you mean Tom Bidden.(wink)

Posted by: Sarah at October 15, 2008 10:21 AM (TWet1)

3 I really enjoyed this, and was gleeful, but would venture to say that these were soundbites from about 15 interviews they did, where perhaps only these 3 gave such responses, and the other 12 were perhaps a little bug-eyed and said not such nice things to the interviewer. Lols...I especially loved the support that Palin got from them...that was sweet! I would also venture to say that there are many who aren't voting for Obama merely because he is black...and I am not talking about Republicans...I think there are a few Dems who fit that bill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs&eurl=http://thatbeegirl.blogspot.com/ Far more telling to me was when Penn and Teller's people got those 400+ signatures at the enviromentalist rally in Washington in support of banning water. That was truely pack ignorance mentality.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at October 15, 2008 11:14 AM (irIko)

4 CaliValleyGirl, I agree that the Obama-Palin supporters were probably cherry-picked out of a larger sample. If one looked around, one might find McCain supporters in favor of cutting taxes for 95% of working families and VP Joe Biden. That YouTube clip is depressing and disgusting. Sadly, there are probably McCain voters who "think" like that. H2O must go? Sign me up!

Posted by: Amritas at October 15, 2008 12:36 PM (+nV09)

5 WOW.

Posted by: MaryIndiana at October 20, 2008 05:21 AM (SRyvm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ruth H was right in her comment saying that she will have a hard time accepting Obama as her president since there has been so much voter fraud. I too am dumbfounded at the shenanigans that have been uncovered and the general apathy towards it. Rachel Lucas has the scoop.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm concerned about the little things that reveal Obama. Thomas Sowell explains why the little things matter:

Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character. For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike.

Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike? Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the President of the United States.

It would be hard to imagine any of Ronald Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades-- whether Republicans or Democrats-- who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands.

This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.

(Found via CG)

Posted by: Sarah at 03:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

8:20PM Obama makes me want a cigarette, and not in that nice afterglow way.

I thought tonight's debate was phenomenally boring. I couldn't tell you at all "which one" I thought won or lost. I think McCain did well in some areas but he didn't wow me, and since I can't stand anything that comes out of Obama's mouth, I am not able to objectively assess his performance.

I can tell you what I thought the most egregious moment of the night was. The candidates were asked whether health care is a "privilege, a right, or a responsibility." McCain said it was a responsibility; Obama said it is a right.

Health care is a right.

Do people have just a completely different understanding of what the word "right" means than I do?

You never have the right to someone else's labor or money. And that's what national health care is. If you cannot afford it, you will need to take money from someone else in society to apply it to your health care.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to free speech, to practice your religion, and to assemble.

As Leonard Peikoff says, you have a "right to action":

Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

The scary thing to me is that Obama came right out and enumerated health care as a right, and that no one will call him on it or argue it. It made my jaw drop.

You know, in every debate, they repeat the same talking points. And we can discuss the nitty gritty of policies, and who will give tax cuts to whom, and whether we need a surge in Afghanistan, but I am far more interested in these little revealing statements. I was blown away when Obama said that we're "spending money on tax cuts," and I'm blown away again tonight to hear that he thinks health care is a right. These are the statements that expose a fundamental difference in worldview between Obama and me.

Obama thinks that Americans have the right to other people's earnings. He believes in redistribution of wealth. I find this remarkably frightening, and all of his policies stem from this worldview.

What I don't understand is how people are undecided. I have to imagine that the undecideds are people who just haven't been paying attention, because the difference in worldview between Republicans and Democrats is staggering.

Definitely read Peikoff's Health Care Is Not a Right.

MORE:

Vodkapundit quips:

7:52PM Obama says McCainÂ’s health care plan will give with one hand and take from the other. Which might well be true. ObamaÂ’s plan, however, will give with one hand andÂ… stuff will just appear in it. Really.

And:

7:58PM Obama: Health insurance “is a right.” We our endowed by our Creator with a really sweet no-co-pay plan from Aetna, and maybe some free speech. At least I think that’s what Jefferson wrote.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:22 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 4 kb.

I have been invited to liveblog the debate tonight at Chuck Z's place.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

As we get within a month of the decision, I find myself revisiting Dean Esmay's pledge from 2004.

I tend to hold to a rather odd doctrine myself, which is that partisanship is supposed to stop at the water's edges: we can argue as loudly as we want about domestic policy, but we do our best to speak with one voice once we get past the nation's shores. Old-fashioned and crazy I know, but it's just how I see the world. There was a time in America when if you'd spoken of the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt as a liar, a traitor, and a warmonger during World War II, accused him of engineering the Pearl Harbor attacks, referred to our war over there as "Roosevelt's war" (as a few dipshit Republicans did back then) you might well have gotten yourself a bloody nose even in the most Republican counties in America.

Because debate all you want but, once a decision is made, partisanship should stop at the water's edges. At least so far as I'm concerned.

Now here is my interesting question: I've made myself some friends among conservatives by speaking this way. But I do find myself wondering: how many of you on the right will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November?

I don't want to hear why you think it won't happen. Indulge me: pretend it might. How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"

I'm genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."

That's my pledge. How many of you will take a similar one?

As I face the idea that Barack Obama might become my husband's boss, I wonder if I can uphold the same pledge I made to be respectful to John Kerry. I ought to be able to do it; it's not like Kerry's meeting with the Viet Cong is any less heinous than Obama's relationship with Ayers.

Good heavens, that just gave me pause. Why do the Democrats keep nominating people who consort with the enemies of our country?

Four years removed, I am having a hard time conjuring the gut feelings I had for John Kerry. It feels now like I dislike Obama more than I disliked Kerry back then, but I doubt this is true. Is there really any difference? (Well, the Obamessiah stuff is pretty unsettling.)

I can't promise that if Obama is elected I will like it. However, I will pledge to try to be respectful of the office of the presidency. I can, as MAJ Winters said, "salute the rank, not the man." I will write against Democrat policies, but I pledge that I will never call Obama names or compare him to a chimp, as classless people have done for the last eight years.

But really, it makes me sick to think I might have to do this.

P.S. This pledge in no way prevents me from laughing at stuff like this.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:57 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 633 words, total size 4 kb.

Best comment I've seen so far about the debate:

Buford Gooch: CNN and ABC already had focus groups of “uncommitted” voters saying it was Biden by a landslide. I think too many of them mistook “uncommitted to candidate” for “uncommitted to an asylum”.

And am I the only one who had a problem with this answer to which long-held view Biden has changed?

BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.

And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.

That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.

I think Biden got this exactly backwards. Judges are not supposed to rule based on ideology; they rule based on constitutionality. No one else seems to be talking about this one, so maybe I am overreacting. But it simply doesn't matter what changes Biden would or would not like to see. The only thing that matters is what the Constitution says. It just seems to me that this is a gross misunderstanding of the judicial system.

Of course, he didn't do so hot on the legislative branch either.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:37 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

Some may say that it was the shot of HCG, but I beg to differ.
I think Sarah Palin made me ovulate.

More tomorrow, but hellz yeah.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:45 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

From The Corner:

I just watched the Palin-Couric Supreme Court exchange. It strikes me that Palin's critics and defenders are both right. The Supreme Court question was a bit "pop quiz." What was trying to be gleaned here? Palin is not a lawyer or Supreme Court historian. But she could have said that, and then elaborated on her judicial philosophy. She could have discussed how court rulings have influenced policy she's had to carry out as governor, for example. But that on-camera confidence takes practice to acquire. And in the beginning, its really hard.

I heard the exchange too, and I knew exactly what Sarah Palin was doing. She was searching her brain for the right answer, the best answer. I know because I do it too, every time I sit on a panel at SpouseBUZZ or the Milblogs Conference. My body tenses when a question is directed at me and all I can think in my brain is "Don't say something dumb, please let me know the answer." And my moderators aren't out to get me!

In Las Vegas last week, Guard Wife asked me which SpouseBUZZ posts get the most comments. I got a deer-in-headlights look on my face and wracked my brain as quickly as I could to come up with what I thought was the right answer, the factually correct answer. I wanted to answer the question well.

The politician's trick though is to just open your mouth and start saying whatever is tangentially related to the question you've been asked to steer the conversation to what you want to talk about.

Sarah Palin apparently hasn't mastered that trick. But I don't really see why that is a bad thing.

If someone asks her which Supreme Court decision she doesn't like, I want her to really search her brain and come up with one. I don't want her to just start flapping her gums around the question.

Here's what happened at the beginning of the first presidential debate:

LEHRER: Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?

First response to you, Senator Obama. You have two minutes.

OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, and thanks to the commission and the University of Mississippi, "Ole Miss," for hosting us tonight. I can't think of a more important time for us to talk about the future of the country.

You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

And although we've heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.

And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?

So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I've put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.

So he spent at least a minute in a two-minute answer saying absolutely nothing. And then McCain does the same baloney, and then Lehrer has to come back and re-ask both the candidates to answer the fricking question. That's how politics works. You do everything you can not to answer the question.

Sarah Palin hasn't figured that out yet. That's why some of us are OK with her.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:18 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.

First, Peter Kirsanow at The Corner on Obama's final thoughts about what a crappy country the US is.

Second, apparently the family of the soldier whose bracelet Obama wears asked him to stop wearing it. Ouch.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I'm not black. Heh. So this kind of stuff weirds me out.

What If Obama Loses?
African-Americans thought he had no chance—then they started to believe. Now they fear defeat.

"The conversation had to change to 'How do we change our futures now that we have someone who might actually care about us in the race?'

So no other president cares about black people. Man, I didn't know Kanye was taken as gospel. Newsflash: the policies that are good for "American" people are good for all people.

The quotes in this article are just depressing to me:

"I've never forgotten that he is a smart, articulate black man with a smart, articulate black wife," says Linda Wright, 34, a nurse's assistant from Houston. "You think white people were just going to turn over the keys to the most important job in the land without a fight?"

"I'm going to be mad, real mad, if he doesn't win," says Daetwon Fisher, 21, a construction worker from Long Beach, Calif. "Because for him to come this far and lose will be just shady and a slap in black people's faces. I know there is already talk about protests and stuff if he loses, and I'm down for that."

Fisher's comment about something vaguely "shady" echoes a common concern that the election will somehow be stolen rather than won. "I know a lot of things can stop Obama from winning, and it's not just lack of votes," says Marilyn Higgins, 36, a mail carrier from Detroit.

I've never thought these things about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin for being women. Never. I wouldn't have voted for Hillary Clinton even if she was my aunt because of her policies. Gender sure isn't going to sway me.

The comments on the article are interesting and varied. But here's one that confuses, like I wrote a while back, opportunity with results:

Comment: What most white people don't seem to understand is that this country has always said to the world that anybody can be president in the United States, yet the majority of Americans have proven that they don't truly believe that by the way they've voted all through this country's history. This country is made up of people whose ancestry originated from every corner of the globe, yet it's history of presidents has yet to reflect that. How can you go spouting to the world that you're the land of opportunity for everyone and wanting to import your way of life to the entire world when you are illustrating that only white, mostly rich men are allowed to have all of the opportunities.

Translation: How dare you say anyone can be president and then vote for the person you think is best suited instead of the person who matches your color/gender/hometown? I love that last bit: "allowed to have all the opportunities." That seems a gross misunderstanding of the word "opportunity."

I too am nervous that my candidate might not win. It has nothing to do with what color he is. But I won't be out protesting if he loses.

This stuff doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:03 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 3 kb.

It didn't go as well as I'd hoped.

The first thing that Obama said made me want to throw something at the TV. I cannot stand it when people say that we are fighting two wars. We absolutely are not; we are fighting one war on two fronts. That is a pet peeve of mine that makes me want to tear my hair out when I hear it.

And I didn't fare much better throughout the rest of the debate.

Part of it was this:

Repetition may bore political junkies, but it helps candidates connect with casual voters--as do memorable (if corny) anecdotes.

I didn't learn anything new during the debate, and I thought often I came up with a better argument than McCain did. Though my arguments were decidedly less PC and probably couldn't be repeated on TV without redacting several swear words.

I thought Obama looked better, and since I have no faith in the competence of American voters, I fully expect them to vote for who looks better, so I am disappointed in the debate.

But I did enjoy Obama's closing remarks about how his Kenyan father wouldn't dream of setting foot in 2008 America and would've rather emigrated to France or somewhere less unilateral. That plays real well, so keep that up please, Obama.

But other people around teh internets aren't as pessimistic as I am, so maybe it wasn't that bad.

UPDATE:

Read what Varifrank says about RISK.

Also, I love this paragraph of his that he wrote before the debate:

I dont care if McCain walks out begins to channel the ghost of Jim Morrison, drops his pants and takes a big whizz on stage shouts "I AM THE LIZARD KING!!!,because even if he did do that, I'm still voting for him. Quite frankly, if he does do that, I will probably send his campaign money. If he also turns around smacks Jim Lerher to the ground and calls him "a commie punk", I'll fly to Manahttan and wear a "MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT" sandwich board in Times Square and ring a bell and hand out campaign literature to the New Yorkers like those "end is nigh" folks.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.

I just saw the preview of the movie W. Yeah, um, I'm not going to go see that. But all I could think of was how Laura Bush must feel. I can't imagine how I would stay composed if anyone made a movie like that about my husband. I would tear Oliver Stone limb from limb. Michael Moore too.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:37 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

So I have a hot date Friday night for a debate that may not happen. Bummer.
I'm with Powerline on what this may mean.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:01 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

I've mentioned before that I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I knew deep in my bones that I was a Republican, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for George Bush because I thought he was far less experienced than Al Gore and that mattered to me. Excelsior!

So I got to thinking today...I hope there are Democrat voters out there who think like I did in 2000, because now the tables are turned. I hope there are Democrats who know they are Democrats but can't bring themselves to vote for Barrack Obama because he's far less experienced than John McCain.

Of course, the twist ending to all of this is that I was wrong about George Bush and I think he ended up doing a far better job than Al Gore would've done. I'm not sure I could ever get my brain to believe that Obama could do a better job than McCain, but if Obama is elected, I sure hope he rises to the challenge.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

This made me laugh out loud. I remember seeing it on SNL years ago, but I had forgotten how funny it is. Thanks, Oda Mae!

McCain Sings Streisand!

Posted by: Sarah at 03:29 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

I caught parts of the Obama interview with Bill O'Reilly, but since I already know I'm not going to vote for him, I didn't go out of my way to hear what else he has to say. So I was surprised when Oda Mae sent me this Jacoby article with a quote I didn't hear the first time around.

Well, I guess I'm just not very neighborly.

"If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to pay a little bit more? That's neighborliness." If that is Obama's rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it's no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude.

"Neighborliness." Perhaps that word has a nonstandard meaning to someone whose home adjoined the property of convicted swindler Tony Rezko, but extracting money by force from someone who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't is not usually spoken of as neighborly. If Citizen Obama, "sitting pretty," reaches into his own pocket and helps out the waitress with a large tip, he has shown a neighborly spirit. But there is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to compel someone else to pay the waitress that tip.

Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference?

Posted by: Sarah at 04:07 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.