U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[KukriKhan]

Oh the irony.

We can only hope you're also good at the gold-y, silver-y, copper-y, and paper-y.

[CountArach]

We can only hope you're also good at the gold-y, silver-y, copper-y, and paper-y.

[Koga No Goshi]

So yes Koga both candidates are misleading the people about tax cuts, the current economic and public debt assumed by the government does not equate to a reasonable expectation of a cut on income tax.

Redleg, first off, well thought out post.

However, I think that factoring in things like sales tax, which vary from state to state, and which no candidate will be summarily raising across all states, is a bit of an off-topic bit of information to bring in when we are discussing their tax plans. California, for instance, has an 8.25% sales tax rate which has been around for years, and that is likely to go up because of rather severe state level deficit problems. However if my sales tax rate jumps to 9% or 9.5% next year, that is something between me and Sacramento, not something evil Obama did to raise my taxes. Our state financial problems have long preceded the Presidential campaign.

Second off, I do not believe anyone has been going around telling people you will get a calculated x in income tax cuts under Obama. It's been pretty much the opposite, a slew of doomsday scenarios either where people just say their taxes are going to go up (under unspecified circumstances and unspecified levels of increase) to wild accusations unsupportable from a comparison of all non-speculative information about the candidates that retirement accounts are going to be seized, gutted or nationalized, that there are really all kinds of secret built-in back doors so that "actually" someone making 60 or 70k is going to be taxed like someone making 250k, etc. etc. etc.

I think the only point "my side of the aisle" has been making on that topic is, that when choosing between the candidates, screaming that the world is ending and taxes are going to be smacked up the wazoo under Obama is completely untrue for a very large majority of us-- unless the denizens of this forum are vastly better paid than a normal cross section of the U.S. population.

[Koga No Goshi]

From Seamus:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Case FOR John McCain:

McCain has demonstrated, repeatedly, his willingness to focus on problems and resolve them. He does this regardless of party affiliation and without seeking to redesign the wheel. For example, McCain was instrumental in the normalizing of relations with Vietnam, concluding that it was time to let the past be the past and create a working relationship which was beneficial to both nations. If anyone had a right to hold a grudge, it was he. He pushed past that and worked to bring about normalization. As a leader in the Gang of 14, he worked to preserve what he considered an important aspect of Senate procedure -- the filibuster -- while pushing for nominees to be considered and reviewed as quickly as possible. He ignored the standard party mantras on campaign financing and worked to craft campaign finance laws that minimized the impact of corporate monies and political action committees. McCain was among the first to seek better oversight/business practices from the Fannie and Freddie corporations, years before the incident reached meltdown (his effort was defeated). McCain isn't much of a conservative on many issues, but he does seek to resolve problems and prefers solutions that aren't high cost in reaching those goals.

On foreign policy, McCain has playe a role in international discussions and been involved in normalization of relations with Vietnam, discussions on Mexican-US relations, and defense and security concerns for more than a decade. McCain enjoys a high degree of credibility with the US military. He does not have a reputation for weakness or appeasement -- good characteristics at any time -- but equally he does not have the reputation of being a warmonger. He has supported military action on several occasions, but has often criticized decisions to use force. Once they're deployed, however, McCain is very solid about supporting the troops and maximizing their chances for victory. He would pursue the war on terror, though probably with a different tone of operations, and would not let up pressure on Al Queda and its support networks. McCain would, however, bring a different tone to the process. He has been outspoken in his criticism of harsh interrogation measures and has asserted that greater coordination with our traditional allies would be part of his approach.

He is also intensely aware of what its like to be broken -- to face real harship and to know that you, by yourself, were incapable of besting that situation. He may have been a hot-shot aviator, but he learned that he didn't have all the answers -- but that answers could be found working with others and by sticking persistently to your focus on the common problem.

I'm not McCain's biggest fan -- many of his choices conflict with my view of what's appropriate for America as he is NOT a dyed in the wool conservative -- but McCain fixes his mind on a problem and works to get a resolution to happen. We could do a lot worse.

Seamus,

Thanks for (finally!) a proactive support of McCain instead of a derision of the "mindlessness" of anyone supporting Obama. ;)

I can't really say anything you said was at all wrong, though I think (as someone who is not a McCain supporter, naturally) that a lot of the things you give him credit for are just qualities of good politicians, period, and are qualities in relative abundance across the parties (such as both Obama and Biden working across the aisle on many issues.) The one nitpick I would make is that McCain's wholehearted endorsement of Iraq calls into question not his dedication to the troops per se, but the credibility with which one can cast a vote in confidence that he is not going to run our foreign policy regarding terrorism in an identical mold to the Bush Administration. In that regard, voting for him is very much a leap of faith; there is little to go on besides his somewhat late-game retooling of his campaign as trying to swipe the "change" title and saying things will be different, but not necessarily giving many details in the "how" department, especially regarding Iraq, where in the debates, he failed to say much other than "bringing the troops home with victory."

I think your argument is quite rational and realistic. I would submit though (not to you personally, but as a general statement regarding the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread) that nearly everything you said about McCain, is equally the reasons many people are supporting Obama. We might repaint the qualities a little and call them "temperament", "character", "calm headedness", "clear headedness" etc., but we're basically talking about the same "go in, work on a problem and resolve it, putting aside party if you have to, and don't do rash destructive things" qualities we want in a candidate.

I would add also that in the case of Obama, he espouses not just a temperament or personality but a vision and message that many Americans actually believe in-- we're not just defending it because it comes out of Obama's mouth, but because (many of us-- not all) are progressives who've lived under 8 years of an admin about as regressive on every issue important to us as you could dream up. Long-neglected problems in our society like healthcare and education and outsourcing, which few people up until now have been willing to really do anything about other than use them as carrots on a stick or try to turn them into new millennia wedge issues, are finally being talked about in a big and direct way, with actual plans to back them up. And throw in a lot of conservatives or Independents who, while not really enamored completely with either major party's platform or ideology, simply feel that we've spent 8 years spending a lot (effort, money, manpower, political capital) on things that haven't worked out very well for most people, and little to nothing on things that affect a lot of everyday people's livelihoods or opportunity and quality of life.

So, to make a long story short, I wish that everyone would look to Seamus's post as a model of how we can talk about our disagreements.... instead of "pfft, you're clearly just brainwashed to support that guy and you will defend anything that comes out of his mouth." IMHO it makes the person saying that look bad, and completely urinates on the level of discussion.

[Tribesman]

The status of forces agreement was passed by the Iraqis.

Wow someone likes to invent "facts" don't they Xiahou .
The status of forces agreement has not been passed, in fact they still havn't agreed on a final draft to put to the legislature to see if they will pass it .

[Banquo's Ghost]

Seamus, your post was a thoughtful and excellent argument for Senator McCain.

Obviously, I have no vote in this election, but those are most of the reasons why, in the early stages, I would have considered putting my support in his direction (had I said vote).

Unfortunately, two decisions - one chronic, one acute - made me change my mind. The former is that Senator McCain has not run as himself. He has allowed his essential decency and "difference" to be hijacked by the worst of the Republican party machine. His campaign has been shameful in the way it has occluded his great strengths, enumerated in your post, to pander to the lowest denominator of the "base". (How delicious it is to describe the repulsively anti-intellectual wing of the Republican party as "the Base" and have them think it a compliment).

He has, in effect, committed the sin of many military men - he has fought the last war. The 2004 campaign was about splitting America even more deeply by mobilising the Base and frightening enough of the other citizens to tip the scales. This election has seen the citizenry quite frightened enough, and heartily tired of division. McCain was exactly the right man to choose for such a mood - as we all recognise, had the GOP chosen any other nominee the election would have been over months ago.

But he was advised to run the Bush campaign of 2004. To pander to the ever shrinking group that think the United States are about fear rather than hope. Despite this, his essential strengths have shone through enough times to keep him in touching distance of the White House - an incredible feat that deserves some honour.

His acute mistake was rooted in this campaign error. The choice of Sarah Palin was monumentally foolish. The America she believes she owns as "real" is a withering rump. It is an America that believes in regulating people's morals rather than their hopes. It "thinks" in monosyllables and assesses a leader's worth in terms of his ability to share a beer. It is the America of Other, of Division, of McCarthyism. It is an America that has often existed in history, but like Frankenstein, Bush dug it up and re-animated its rotting corpse for his own ends; and the Monster has ravaged many an innocent in its incoherent rage. The citizens have finally seen that twisted visage now representing their nobility, their ideals, their liberties and they wish to see it consigned back to Hell.

Senator McCain would be just the man to do it, but he has allowed himself advice that casts him as the electrical contractor come to fix the mains. He has chosen a running mate whose only appeal is to put lipstick on the Monster in order to make the sloughing flesh more appealing. Senator Obama meanwhile, is leading the mob of villagers and provided them with torches.

I understand from various sources that McCain wanted to choose Senator Lieberman as his vice-presidential choice. This would have been typically brave of the man, and had he done so, I suspect the polls would be right the other way round now. He would have cast himself as the healer he undoubtedly is, and underlined the truth that split government - a bipartisan Republican president with a Democratic Congress - is the American way, and historically the most effective form of that country's government. The pygmies around him could not countenance it however, for what would the Base think?

He was persuaded to choose division and a woman so clearly unsuited for office it would be hard to caricature further. He was persuaded to run a campaign utterly counter to his own beliefs and strengths.

A man so easily persuaded to make cardinal errors against his own values and judgement is not a man to be President. That is why he should not be elected, in my opinion.

The great tragedy for Senator McCain and the world is that he was amongst the first victims of the Monster back in 2000. This time he has embraced it willingly, and it carries him to another doom.

Had he been elected president in that fateful year, both America and the world would have been different places, and I suspect he would be about to retire as one of the greatest and most well-loved presidents of history. Such is Fate's whim.

[Gregoshi]

Nice posts by Seamus and BG regarding McCain. Seamus' describes what I'd hoped for McCain. Unfortunately, BG's - in words much better and clearer than I could have composed - describes how I feel about McCain after his dreadful campaign. Thank you gentlemen.

[Redleg]

Redleg, first off, well thought out post.

However, I think that factoring in things like sales tax, which vary from state to state, and which no candidate will be summarily raising across all states, is a bit of an off-topic bit of information to bring in when we are discussing their tax plans. California, for instance, has an 8.25% sales tax rate which has been around for years, and that is likely to go up because of rather severe state level deficit problems. However if my sales tax rate jumps to 9% or 9.5% next year, that is something between me and Sacramento, not something evil Obama did to raise my taxes. Our state financial problems have long preceded the Presidential campaign.

Actual I believe it is on topic, because it has an impact upon how people have to spend what income they do have, and is a tax that is collected by a government that has direct impact on the individual. Yes the President does not have any influence on sales tax, but you can not deny that it is a tax that has to be paid, and has an overall effect on the individual.

So when speaking of how people are taxed by the different levels of government - it has to be considered into the equation. You can disagree, but to do so seems wrong because I am trying to paint a picture of how all taxes impact on our income regardless of our income bracket.

I do see your problem because not all is controlled by the Federal government in wanting to use this type of calculation, but I am speaking of a total tax rate, not just what the federal government controls. The reason for this is to show what a percentage point increase does to the average american regradless of their income.

In fact because of the shortfalls in income to many city, county, and state governments because of the economic situation I beleive that the people making less then 30K will be hit hard by the local governments in the increase of taxes that will be coming from that direction because of the economy

Second off, I do not believe anyone has been going around telling people you will get a calculated x in income tax cuts under Obama. It's been pretty much the opposite, a slew of doomsday scenarios either where people just say their taxes are going to go up (under unspecified circumstances and unspecified levels of increase) to wild accusations unsupportable from a comparison of all non-speculative information about the candidates that retirement accounts are going to be seized, gutted or nationalized, that there are really all kinds of secret built-in back doors so that "actually" someone making 60 or 70k is going to be taxed like someone making 250k, etc. etc. etc.

Neither candidate has made a campaign based upon raising taxes, which is my point. However when one looks at what the government has to spend over the next four years, one can assume from that, that the Federal government is going to have to raise taxes. If an individual understands how income is taxed, and at what levels - one can figure out that the groups that pay over 95% of the current income tax will have a tax increase unless the government finds another way to increase the intake of funds to pay for the outlays.

All other means of gathering inlays also have an impact on the average american weather it is direct or indirect. Income tax is the main direct impact.

Now I dont like the negative campaign McCain is running about the taxes under Obama, because he has also campaigned on lower our taxes. It makes him a hypocrit, because he is also promising to increase government services to the people, but is not explaining how it will be paid for.

So once again I have to say that both candidates are incorrect in thier campaign promises to lower taxes, and are doing it to gain votes. The Republicans will use scare tactic more so then the Democrats regarding this issue which I believe is you point. But I dont believe either candidate will actually lower taxes, and my own analysis is that the govenment has no choice but to raise taxes. Hopefully its only 1 or 2 percent of income, but it can be as high as 5 or 6% for all income groups that end up with an adjust income of over 30K.

I think the only point "my side of the aisle" has been making on that topic is, that when choosing between the candidates, screaming that the world is ending and taxes are going to be smacked up the wazoo under Obama is completely untrue for a very large majority of us-- unless the denizens of this forum are vastly better paid than a normal cross section of the U.S. population.

Well the current tax structure and studies I have seen indicate that just under 40% of the population makes less the 30K in adjust gross income that meets the criteria for above 15% income tax. This is the group I believe both will attempt to prevent from seeing an increase in taxes.

The remaining groups will not be safe from a tax increase in my humble opinion, I do believe they will attempt to limit the impact on the two income groups lower then 128K under the current tax scheme to less then a 2%.

The comments of Biden and Richardson seemly confirm this opinion because they continue to adjust downward the income group that is going to be affected by the tax increase.

So my prediction is that regardless who wins office - we will see a no more then a 2% of income tax increase for those who make between 30K to 128K adjust gross income, and that those who make more then that will probably see a 3-5% increase initially, after the first congress after the election completes its session for the 2010 tax year.

I just dont see a tax cut in our future regardless of who wins.

[m52nickerson]

I just dont see a tax cut in our future regardless of who wins.

The problem with not giving the tax cuts promised or raising taxes will hurt very bad when election time comes around again.

[Redleg]

The problem with not giving the tax cuts promised or raising taxes will hurt very bad when election time comes around again.

It was one of the things that cost Bush 41 an election back in 92.

With the current debt of the government and the planned expenditures of both candidates, a tax increase is coming in the next four years, I just see it happening as soon as congress meets after the election.

In fact I would have more respect for the candidate that actually runs on a realistic platform of getting the government out of debt. However neither of them are running such a campaign they are both running on promises to cut taxes and to increase government services.

and that doesn't add up to me.

So pick a candidate, neither of the two major candidates currently running will be able to bringe a balance budget back into the government unless they reverse themselves on a campaign promise. Be it an increase on governemnt services or a tax cut, one of the two will not happen based upon the current outlays of the government versus its intakes unless the government continues to spend the nation into greater and greater debt.

But I am willing to bet that Obama if elected will insure that the bottom 40% of wage earners do not see an increase in income taxes, however I do think he is wrong about the rest.

Same thing with McCain, I dont see him reducing taxes across all income groups either.

Both Candidates will probably try to leave the current income tax structure below 68K the same or a small percentage lower, and the other 30 percent or so will see a tax increase

[m52nickerson]

It was one of the things that cost Bush 41 an election back in 92.

With the current debt of the government and the planned expenditures of both candidates, a tax increase is coming in the next four years, I just see it happening as soon as congress meets after the election.

In fact I would have more respect for the candidate that actually runs on a realistic platform of getting the government out of debt. However neither of them are running such a campaign they are both running on promises to cut taxes and to increase government services.

and that doesn't add up to me.

So pick a candidate, neither of the two major candidates currently running will be able to bringe a balance budget back into the government unless they reverse themselves on a campaign promise. Be it an increase on governemnt services or a tax cut, one of the two will not happen based upon the current outlays of the government versus its intakes unless the government continues to spend the nation into greater and greater debt.

But I am willing to bet that Obama if elected will insure that the bottom 40% of wage earners do not see an increase in income taxes, however I do think he is wrong about the rest.

Same thing with McCain, I dont see him reducing taxes across all income groups either.

Both Candidates will probably try to leave the current income tax structure below 68K the same or a small percentage lower, and the other 30 percent or so will see a tax increase

I disagree. I think if Obama get elected we will see cuts close to what he has purposed. The fact that he will increase taxes at the top will let him do this. It will come at the sacrifice not starting some of his plans in his first few years. McCain would have to deal with a strongly Dem congress, less likely to get what he wants.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Seamus, your post was a thoughtful and excellent argument for Senator McCain.

Obviously, I have no vote in this election, but those are most of the reasons why, in the early stages, I would have considered putting my support in his direction (had I said vote).

Unfortunately, two decisions - one chronic, one acute - made me change my mind. The former is that Senator McCain has not run as himself. He has allowed his essential decency and "difference" to be hijacked by the worst of the Republican party machine. His campaign has been shameful in the way it has occluded his great strengths, enumerated in your post, to pander to the lowest denominator of the "base". (How delicious it is to describe the repulsively anti-intellectual wing of the Republican party as "the Base" and have them think it a compliment).

He has, in effect, committed the sin of many military men - he has fought the last war. The 2004 campaign was about splitting America even more deeply by mobilising the Base and frightening enough of the other citizens to tip the scales. This election has seen the citizenry quite frightened enough, and heartily tired of division. McCain was exactly the right man to choose for such a mood - as we all recognise, had the GOP chosen any other nominee the election would have been over months ago.

But he was advised to run the Bush campaign of 2004. To pander to the ever shrinking group that think the United States are about fear rather than hope. Despite this, his essential strengths have shone through enough times to keep him in touching distance of the White House - an incredible feat that deserves some honour.

His acute mistake was rooted in this campaign error. The choice of Sarah Palin was monumentally foolish. The America she believes she owns as "real" is a withering rump. It is an America that believes in regulating people's morals rather than their hopes. It "thinks" in monosyllables and assesses a leader's worth in terms of his ability to share a beer. It is the America of Other, of Division, of McCarthyism. It is an America that has often existed in history, but like Frankenstein, Bush dug it up and re-animated its rotting corpse for his own ends; and the Monster has ravaged many an innocent in its incoherent rage. The citizens have finally seen that twisted visage now representing their nobility, their ideals, their liberties and they wish to see it consigned back to Hell.

Senator McCain would be just the man to do it, but he has allowed himself advice that casts him as the electrical contractor come to fix the mains. He has chosen a running mate whose only appeal is to put lipstick on the Monster in order to make the sloughing flesh more appealing. Senator Obama meanwhile, is leading the mob of villagers and provided them with torches.

I understand from various sources that McCain wanted to choose Senator Lieberman as his vice-presidential choice. This would have been typically brave of the man, and had he done so, I suspect the polls would be right the other way round now. He would have cast himself as the healer he undoubtedly is, and underlined the truth that split government - a bipartisan Republican president with a Democratic Congress - is the American way, and historically the most effective form of that country's government. The pygmies around him could not countenance it however, for what would the Base think?

He was persuaded to choose division and a woman so clearly unsuited for office it would be hard to caricature further. He was persuaded to run a campaign utterly counter to his own beliefs and strengths.

A man so easily persuaded to make cardinal errors against his own values and judgement is not a man to be President. That is why he should not be elected, in my opinion.

The great tragedy for Senator McCain and the world is that he was amongst the first victims of the Monster back in 2000. This time he has embraced it willingly, and it carries him to another doom.

Had he been elected president in that fateful year, both America and the world would have been different places, and I suspect he would be about to retire as one of the greatest and most well-loved presidents of history. Such is Fate's whim.

Wow. I suspected that I'd get a "hammer" back at me for posting a pro-McCain piece -- I didn't expect it from my Irish Ghost....et tu Brute?


Let me address your two "shortfalls" in reverse order, and then connect them all to the larger issue that you raise (knowingly or unknowingly I can't tell; but since you use your cerebrum rather well, I am going to guess the former).

Palin's choice was political and designed to garner support among the GOP base. McCain HAD to do something along these lines in order to garner key GOP support. He wanted a woman, and someone with youth, in order to add/convey a sense of energy that he, one-on-one with Sen. Obama, lacks. Palin seemed to have little baggage, wasn't too doctrinaire as a conservative, and had a bit of the "Reagan Westerner" style that appeals to so much of the GOP base. Was she the most qualified choice? I doubt it. What they didn't prepare for -- but should have -- was the fact that whoever was selected as VEEP nominee was going to be hammered by the media (who can't go after McCain's quirks the same way as the man was literally tortured for his country) as the VEEEP nom is fair game. To add to this, his campaign went for surprise value and did not allow the media advance notice to prepare and evaluate her. The media views this as their "right" in our political system and they were NOT happy to be cheated. They've been looking for ways to belittle her since. Given her lack of experience and somewhat cavalier governance style, they've been able to find ammo. I don't believe Gov. Palin is nearly as bad as people make her out to be now, but there were probably other choices that would have had fewer negatives and the Campaign staff mis-played the media.

On to your "chronic" concern; which I will use to get at the point that I think you were alluding to.

McCain is being forced to play in a two party game -- when he doesn't really belong to either one.

McCain has to run a campaign that caters to all elements of the GOP. Fear and negative tactics appeal to the "bloodsport" instinct among one's own fringers, who view the opposition as enemies to be crushed rather than opponents (true of both parties). It is easy to slip from legitimate efforts to poke holes in your opponent's record into the fear-mongering mode, and the loudest voices in your party will eat it up and yell for more.

McCain, I believe, was willing to adopt some of the more classic conservative positions on economics because he wasn't really an econ guy in the first place. He's not comfortable with the social conservatives except on the abortion issue.

Ultimately, he is trapped into being the nominee of a party that he agrees with only 4 times in 5. In an ideal world, he and Leiberman would have formed a viable third party in 2007 after Leiberman was re-elected despite being ousted from the Dems. They'd both be happier and they'd both be able to pursue the political philosophy they prefer [non-aggressive but fairly right wing FoPo; mildly traditionalist but not much legislation for traditional social values; mixed economics largely aimed at keeping the status quo running with some slight improvements].

To do this, however, would have been suicide. The laws, funding apparatus, election balloting and everything else are set up to preserve the two-party approach.

What you're decrying McCain for, then, with your "chronic" reference, is his unwillingness to tell a significant slice of his own party to shut the up. He's not fighting the "last war," he's fighting the fight that the constraints of his party are forcing him towards. He tried to take things a new direction in 2000 and Bush handed him his lunch. McCain learned then that if he was going to get to be President, it would have to be on GOP terms.

Stunningly enough, despite a flawed campaign, an electorate that's in the mood for a new face, AND the economic kerflaffle that became the "October surprise," McCain still has an outside shot at winning. If he does, it will be with 48% of the vote that just happens to be in the right Electoral College mix and he'll be saddled with all of the "you're not really the one we wanted" crap.

So, if he wins (and noting the fact that the GOP will NOT be running much of Congress anyway) I'd say his best bet would be to drop out from the GOP, FORM that third party, make Leiberman party chairman, and start establishing a new political voice with 4 years from the bully pulpit with which to do so. He'd change USA politics forrever that way. Besides, barring some unbelievable turn of events for which McCain, as president, gets "savior" status, the GOP will not nominate him again even if he wins. This is his last moment.

Having a 3rd party of quasi -Centrists might be useful to us all politically. As long as we don't end up balkanized like the Knesset, it might be very positive.


Thanks, Banquo, I needed that. You can go back to haunting Scots royalty now....

[Redleg]

I disagree. I think if Obama get elected we will see cuts close to what he has purposed. The fact that he will increase taxes at the top will let him do this. It will come at the sacrifice not starting some of his plans in his first few years. McCain would have to deal with a strongly Dem congress, less likely to get what he wants.

So you dont think that Biden and Richardson are speaking correctly as they lower the income level that is probably going to be hit.

Obama stated 250K
Biden stated the threshold would be 150K, and then made another statement that those making between 150K and 250K wouldn't get a tax cut nor would they get an increase.
And reportly Richardson has said something else that the threshold would be 150K for the tax cut. Everything else above that amount would net a tax increase.

The story has shifted over time by those who represent the candidate.


Now then here goes the crux for me, how is Obama going to pay for the increase in governmental services that he is purposing and how is the government going to pay the debt that has been assumed in the recent bailout package, the conducting of the two wars, and the spending that the government has been doing over the last 8 years?

I dont believe the current plan will net the needed inlay of funds into the government to fund the requirements, especially given that the government is wanting to cut taxes on income.

Now if one takes a look at how of the taxes paid by those making less then 150K contribute to the net inlays of the government, you might find a surprise that demonstrates that this purposal is smoke and mirrors to garner votes. Should those making more then 250K pay more taxes then others? Some say yes others say no, it all depends on the position of the individual on how they feel about progressive taxes. I am not against progressive tax when its applied correctly with limited loopholes.

But then you also agreed with me - that if he does indeed do the tax cuts the campaign promises of the candidate will most likely have to be postponed or canceled.

So in essence campaign promises that the candidate knows he can not keep are misleading and an attempt to garner votes, this is the very thing that is wrong with our politicans, pandering to the voters with no ability to actually do what they state. As I said earlier both candidates are using this tactic when it comes to tax cuts, and negates it as an issue for me to measure when voting for a candidate.

[Xiahou]

So, if he wins (and noting the fact that the GOP will NOT be running much of Congress anyway) I'd say his best bet would be to drop out from the GOP, FORM that third party, make Leiberman party chairman, and start establishing a new political voice with 4 years from the bully pulpit with which to do so. He'd change USA politics forrever that way. Besides, barring some unbelievable turn of events for which McCain, as president, gets "savior" status, the GOP will not nominate him again even if he wins. This is his last moment.

Having a 3rd party of quasi -Centrists might be useful to us all politically. As long as we don't end up balkanized like the Knesset, it might be very positive.

That would actually be a great outcome. I doubt it will happen, but we can hope...

Really, I think McCain winning the primary was a fluke that was a result of a perfect storm of circumstances involving different factions of the GOP base being pulled different directions. Eventually, all that was left was McCain. He didn't win so much as he was the last man standing. Parties never nominate someone that far to the center. It would've been the equivalent of the Democrats nominating Lieberman instead of throwing him out of the party. Similarly, Lieberman would have seen little support from the Democrat party unless he ran to the left and did whatever he could to appease their base.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Obama has a funny habit of "accidentally" saying he'll cut taxes for "americans making under 250,000". That's for families only...individuals making more than 200,000 will pay more taxes. Now the republicans take that plus this:

"Spreading the wealth was not -- he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just -- that was put in by George Bush, people making an average $1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic -- they're going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of $1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." (WNEP-Scranton, Interview With Sen. Joe Biden, 10/27/08)

And this:

"What Obama wants to do is, he is basically looking at $120,000 and under, among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those." (KOA-AM, Interview With Gov. Bill Richardson, 10/31/08)

And are mass spamming emails and forum posts with the subject "250,000...200,000...150,000...120,000...WHERE WILL IT END"

A non paranoid reading of those quotes would lead you to a different conclusion though. You have to be convinced that "demo-crats want to take all my money" to go for the slippery slope nonsense.

[m52nickerson]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So you dont think that Biden and Richardson are speaking correctly as they lower the income level that is probably going to be hit.

Obama stated 250K
Biden stated the threshold would be 150K, and then made another statement that those making between 150K and 250K wouldn't get a tax cut nor would they get an increase.
And reportly Richardson has said something else that the threshold would be 150K for the tax cut. Everything else above that amount would net a tax increase.

The story has shifted over time by those who represent the candidate.


Now then here goes the crux for me, how is Obama going to pay for the increase in governmental services that he is purposing and how is the government going to pay the debt that has been assumed in the recent bailout package, the conducting of the two wars, and the spending that the government has been doing over the last 8 years?

I dont believe the current plan will net the needed inlay of funds into the government to fund the requirements, especially given that the government is wanting to cut taxes on income.

Now if one takes a look at how of the taxes paid by those making less then 150K contribute to the net inlays of the government, you might find a surprise that demonstrates that this purposal is smoke and mirrors to garner votes. Should those making more then 250K pay more taxes then others? Some say yes others say no, it all depends on the position of the individual on how they feel about progressive taxes. I am not against progressive tax when its applied correctly with limited loopholes.

But then you also agreed with me - that if he does indeed do the tax cuts the campaign promises of the candidate will most likely have to be postponed or canceled.

So in essence campaign promises that the candidate knows he can not keep are misleading and an attempt to garner votes, this is the very thing that is wrong with our politicans, pandering to the voters with no ability to actually do what they state. As I said earlier both candidates are using this tactic when it comes to tax cuts, and negates it as an issue for me to measure when voting for a candidate.

Senator Obama has been consistent in saying that people who make under 250K will not see there taxes increased. According to the "tax calculator" on his site those who make under 200K will see a tax cut.

It is true that some of the Obama's plans may have to be delayed, but that does not mean that he is going back on his promises.

The current financial crisis does not suddenly mean we have to cut deficit spending in one year. I think we will see an increase in spending initially. Once the economy recovers some that deficit can be brought down.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So, if he wins (and noting the fact that the GOP will NOT be running much of Congress anyway) I'd say his best bet would be to drop out from the GOP, FORM that third party, make Leiberman party chairman, and start establishing a new political voice with 4 years from the bully pulpit with which to do so. He'd change USA politics forrever that way. Besides, barring some unbelievable turn of events for which McCain, as president, gets "savior" status, the GOP will not nominate him again even if he wins. This is his last moment.

I don't see a snowballs chance in hell of McCain winning this election. Yes, according to A single poll of the popular vote today he is within the MOE, but if you look at the electorals he is sunk. Lets all remember that the national popular vote has nothing to do with the election. We might be seeing 50-45 split, but I'd wager that the electoral outcome is somewhere insane - like 25% or more difference in Obama's favor. I'd bet a similar landslide to Reagan. Of course, if there is a Bradley effect anything similar to what occurred on a regular basis during the dem primaries, McCain could theoretically win the Popular - but again, snowballs chance in hell of winning the election. It has been absolutely over for a week and arguably over for 2 months.

At least a confused centrist will be the one that is humiliated in this Republican holocaust. This gives us an excuse not to try it again for a while. Centrist scapegoating.

[Hosakawa Tito]

The last couple of pages have included some very well written and thoughtful posts. I applaud your efforts. No matter who wins let us hope there will be a real sea change and improvement in attitude and cooperation between both parties to do the right thing. I think this has been the longest and most bitterly contentious campaign in living memory.

[Hooahguy]

aye- very well written posts!

now, im going to post something Neal Boortz said in his bi-weekly newsletters:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

AT LEAST KNOW WHO YOU'RE VOTING FOR -- A CHALLENGE

The election is now eight days way. If you've made up your mind for Obama; or if you're trying to noodle through some of the things he's been saying on the campaign trail, this should help. I've taken four statements that The Chosen One repeats at almost every campaign rally. Now these statements are pretty powerful ... if unchallenged ... and we know that the MoveOn Media isn't exactly what we would call "eager" to challenge God's Candidate on any of these issues.

So, here we go again .. this simple talk show host (right wing, hate-filled shock jock, I believe they call us) is going to use some basic logic and the ability to actually read newspapers to catch you up to speed on just what the Big BO is saying here. Now if you're educated in our wonderful government schools you may find this challenging. Stick with it. In spite of what the government has done to you, you can generate some new brain cells that will help you deal with this stuff. It would also help if you got your campaign news from somewhere other than Saturday Night Live.

Here we go, front and center with Barack Obama!

"I'm going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans."

This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.

And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."

It used to be that when the government walked up to someone who had just received their paycheck and said 'Gimme some of that," and the government then gave that money to someone else who had not earned it; that was called welfare. Now apparently you can't get welfare if you're working ... so we'll just call it income seizure and redistribution. Under Obama a couple earning, for example, $70,000 and owing no federal income taxes at all will get several checks from Obama's federal taxpayer-funded treasury. These checks will be called "tax cuts."

So .. for those who don't pay taxes, here are some of the "tax cut" checks you'll be getting from The Chosen One. I'm taking some literary license here and replacing the words "tax credit" with the word "payment." That literary flourish brings us much closer to the truth. Here are your goodies; come and get 'em:

* A $500 "make work pay" payment.
* A $4,000 payment for college tuition.
* A payment equal to 10% of your mortgage interest
* A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you put into a savings account up to $1000.
* A payment equal to 50% of the amount of money you pay for child care up to $6000.
* A payment of up to $7,000 if you purchase a "clean car." By that Obama means an environmentally correct car.
* Plus ... an expansion of the earned income tax credit .. increased payments on top of your earnings if the government doesn't feel you are earning enough.

There you go ... Obama's "tax cuts." Sounds pretty good, doesn't it. Well, I guess it is, if you're not too successful it IS pretty good. Remember, the harder you work the lower these payments get. Barack Obama's tax plans are all about punishing success and rewarding failure. He understands that if it weren't for failures, Democrats would be scrounging in the alleys for votes.

It's rather ironic that the Obama campaign will go to the mat with critics over the definition of "socialist," but feel absolutely free to change the definition of "tax cut" to anything that suits them.

"95% of small businesses won't pay any more taxes."

Once people started hearing that the very people that Obama wanted to raise taxes on are the people we depend on for jobs, The BO campaign had to come up with a line to neuter the "small business" argument. Barack Obama knows he's in trouble if the voters find out that 70% of all extant jobs are in the small business sector and that 80% of all new jobs are coming from small businesses. So, Obama comes up with this line about 95% of small businesses not paying any more taxes under his plan.

Here's the trick. Let me illustrate reality with a simple comparison. Let's say that we have 1000 small businesses. About 950 of them, that would be 95%, employ one or two people each for a total employment figure of 1,200. Now let's assume that the other 50 businesses employ anywhere from 20 people to hundreds of people for a total of about 250,000 workers. If someone comes along and says 95% of small businesses won't be affected by his tax increases, how do you feel? You know that the tax increase is going to slam those businesses that employ 250,000 workers, while leaving the 95% of businesses that employ just 1,200 people alone. Quite a deal, huh. Aren't you impressed?

The point here is that it's not the percentage of small businesses your tax increases hit, it's the percentage of small business employees. Unfortunately that nuance is lost on the majority of voters educated by the government, and the MoveOn Media sure isn't going to take the time to explain it to you. Obama's tax increases are going to hit the small business owners who employ the most people. They are the ones that make the most money. These business owners are going to respond to the tax increases one of two ways. They'll increase prices -- which hit all of us -- or they'll cut expenses. Their number one expense? Personnel. Vote for Obama, say TTFN to your job. Makes perfect sense to me, but then I was government educated too.

"John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time."

First of all, George Bush doesn't cast votes in the U.S. Senate, though McCain and Obama do. The best way to judge how they vote is to see how often they vote with their respective parties. You might want to get those nuisance resolutions proclaiming the need for a colonoscopy every once in a while out of the way. That would leave some key votes for you to consider. The Congressional Research Service did the work. They looked at votes for Obama and McCain on KEY issues. The results? Barack Obama voted with Democrats 97% of the time. John McCain voted with the Republicans 79% of the time. Now .. just sit on your hands and wait for the MoveOn Media to report that one. Sit on your hands, but for God's sake don't hold your breath.



"John McCain wants to tax your health insurance benefits."

He's right, but here's the rest of the story. Let's say that you and your brother work for different companies. Your company provides you with health insurance. Your brother has to buy his own. Your boss gets a tax deduction for the cost of your health insurance. Your brother does not get a tax deduction for the cost of his health insurance. In effect, he is paying much more than you are for the same policy. Not fair. There's a reason for this. For decades government has wanted to coerce you into getting insurance through your employer. This gets you acclimated to the idea of someone else -- someone besides yourself -- is responsible for your health care. The end result is that the government, in effect, subsidizes the cost of your health insurance, but not your brother's. Now McCain has this idea of a $5,000 tax credit for every family to pay for their own health insurance policy. To make this work everyone has to start from the same starting line. Remember, you're subsidized, your brother is not. So McCain takes away the tax deduction your employer gets for your health insurance. There ... now we're all of equal standing when the $5,000 tax credits start coming out.

Now that wasn't too hard, was it?

Now .. just in case you've read something here, heard something on my show or gathered some information from some other source that might cause you to switch your vote from Obama to McCain ... just remember. You're a racist. There is only one reason NOT to vote for Barack Obama, and that's if you're a robe-wearing, cross-burning Klansman. Just so you know. You're going to have that on your conscience.

REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH

Now that brings again to Obama. You've heard, haven't you, that a 2001 Chicago Public Radio interview of then Illinois State Senator Barack Obama has surfaced. In that interview Obama says that it was a tragedy that during the civil rights era the Supreme Court didn't pursue "redistribution of the wealth." Here's the relevant portion of the interview if you care to hear it for yourself.

We've really made some progress here. Well, I guess that the left has really made some progress. We now have a presidential candidate who talks openly of increasing taxes not because the government needs the money, but because the people who do have the money don't actually deserve it and there are other people out there who need it more. Sorry folks, but facts is facts. Redistribution of the wealth is a basic tenant of Communism. To whatever degree you support a forced redistribution of wealth you are a Communist. Simple as that.

The warning signs have always been there. In his book Dreams from my Father Obama writes of a relationship he had in is late teens with someone named "Frank." For some reason Obama doesn't include his last name. Obama refers to Frank as "a poet" who was full of "hard-earned knowledge." He also says that Frank had "some modest notoriety once." Yeah, I'll say. Frank was Frank Marshall Davis was a member of the CPUSA. For those of you who don't like acronyms, that's Communist Party of the United States of America. Frank Marshall Davis ... some mentor, don't you think?

For all of you suburban housewives and country clubbers who think that you are just so, like, enlightened for voting for Obama, it's time for your wake up call ... though I don't know if it will help:
Barack Obama's core belief is that we belong not to ourselves, but to government. We are tools that the government is free to use to bring about what Obama calls "economic justice." The fruits of our labor belong to government ... and government can do with them what it pleases.

Now if this is your philosophy, then vote for this guy. Then every time you draw a paycheck why don't you drop him a line and ask him how much of it you can keep to care for your family and plan for your own future and how much he would like to have to redistribute to someone who sat on their butt while you were busting yours. After all, you voted for him.

AND HOLD ON TO YOUR PENSIONS WHILE YOU'RE AT IT

Some interesting happenings last week. Argentina proposes seizing all private pensions. The purpose? That would be to redistribute all of that money to people who actually need it more. Now I've exhausted my Google capabilities trying to identify this person, I believe it was Barney Frank, but some leading Democrat last week said that the pensions belonging to some evil CEOs would be the first to go. That's just the beginning folks. Mark my words, because I want the "I told you so" on this one, after Obama is sworn in you are going to see an attack on privately held pensions and 401K plans. There's about four or five trillion dollars out there, and the Democrats want their hands on it to further their redistribution schemes.

FINALLY, A REPORTER WITH SOME ONIONS (WELL, FIGURATIVELY ANYWAY)

A TV reporter in Central Florida actually asked Joe Biden questions that we have waited so long for the MSM to ask ... and the Obama-Biden campaign isn't pleased. Last Thursday, Barbara West conducted a satellite interview with Joe Biden. You can watch the interview here.

West asked Biden about Obama's "spread the wealth" comment. She quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden whether Obama's comments were Marxist. Biden's response: "Are you joking?" West also asked Biden about his comments that Obama would be tested by an international crisis early in his presidency. His response to that: "I don't know who is writing your questions."

It doesn't matter who is writing the questions, Joe. What matters is that these are the questions that many Americans have been wanted answers to ... but nobody has dared to ask.

In fact, Biden was so upset by the interview, that the Obama campaign canceled an interview with Jill Biden, Joe's wife, because it was unhappy with West's questions.

Here's what the Obama campaign had to say about the interview. Notice how the Obama campaign has reacted to radio and TV stations that run unflattering ads or ask tough questions � ban them, ask the Justice Department to get involved, get a hold of their advertisers. This is just the beginning, folks.


"There's nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public -- not misleading the American people with false information. Senator Biden handled the interview well; however, the anchor was completely unprofessional. Senator Biden's wife is not running for elected office, and there are many other stations in the Orlando television market that would gladly conduct a respectful and factual interview with her."


"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."

So by asking these questions, West is deemed "unprofessional." How about those reporters who reported on Sarah Palin's children, or her days as a beauty queen? Those reports are not unprofessional, but when you ask a Vice Presidential candidate about tax policy ... THAT is unprofessional.

[Redleg]

Obama has a funny habit of "accidentally" saying he'll cut taxes for "americans making under 250,000". That's for families only...individuals making more than 200,000 will pay more taxes. Now the republicans take that plus this:

So are you saying because its "accidently" that he doesn't mean what he states?

And are mass spamming emails and forum posts with the subject "250,000...200,000...150,000...120,000...WHERE WILL IT END"

A non paranoid reading of those quotes would lead you to a different conclusion though. You have to be convinced that "demo-crats want to take all my money" to go for the slippery slope nonsense.

A non paranoid reading of those quotes is that the story could have different end results based upon what each individual has stated.

But given your statement I could assume your attempting to claim I might be paranoid - which would be incorrect since I forsee a tax increase coming regardless of what either candidate has stated. Especially given the state of the federal budget.

But then I remember what Bush Sr. stated and what had to happen to insure that the government was able to meet its obligations after his initial election.

There is a striking similiarity between his campaign about not raising taxes, and what is happening in this election.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

aye- very well written posts!

I agree, very well written! Do you perhaps have something well written to share with us? You do! Awesome.

now, im going to post something Neal Boortz said in his bi-weekly newsletters:

This Obama promise has already been pretty much debunked in the media. The problem is that it hasn't been debunked on the Black Entertainment Television network or on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight. Until these television outlets bring forth the facts most of Obama's supporters won't know the truth.

Lol, just as soon as McCain's promises are debunked on a special edition of "the price is right".

And what is the truth? The truth is that almost one-half of working Americans eligible to vote don't pay federal income taxes in the first place. This brings forth the interesting question of how do you cut taxes for people who don't pay taxes. What Obama has done here is change the definition of "tax cut."

According to the most recent IRS statistics for 2006, some 45.6 million tax filers—one-third of all filers—have no tax liability after taking their credits and deductions. For good or ill, this is a dramatic 57 percent increase since 2000 in the number of Americans who pay no personal income taxes.

Tax Foundation estimates show that if all of the Obama tax provisions were enacted in 2009, the number of these "nonpayers" would rise by about 16 million, to 63 million overall. If all of the McCain tax proposals were enacted in 2009, the number of nonpayers would rise by about 15 million, to a total of 62 million overall.

Listen to the slightly lighter kettle calling the slightly darker pot black!


Ienjoyed the well written article you posted so much I've been inspire to continue the tradition of this thread by posting a video of michael moore ranting for an hour straight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnrLloO7nFQ

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So are you saying because its "accidently" that he doesn't mean what he states?

I'm saying he sometimes intentionally simplifies his plan when he talks about to make it more appealing to people.



[/quote]A non paranoid reading of those quotes is that the story could have different end results based upon what each individual has stated.

But given your statement I could assume your attempting to claim I might be paranoid - which would be incorrect since I forsee a tax increase coming regardless of what either candidate has stated. Especially given the state of the federal budget.[/QUOTE]

Don strikes me as a bit paranoid about it. A non paranoid reading of those quotes would, for example, take into account that bill richardson is the governor of new mexico while obama is soon-to-be president of the united states and therefore a more reliable source for specific numbers

[Redleg]

I'm saying he sometimes intentionally simplifies his plan when he talks about to make it more appealing to people.

So are you saying that its okay for a politician to mislead people in order to garner votes?

A non paranoid reading of those quotes is that the story could have different end results based upon what each individual has stated.

But given your statement I could assume your attempting to claim I might be paranoid - which would be incorrect since I forsee a tax increase coming regardless of what either candidate has stated. Especially given the state of the federal budget.

Don strikes me as a bit paranoid about it. A non paranoid reading of those quotes would, for example, take into account that bill richardson is the governor of new mexico while obama is soon-to-be president of the united states and therefore a more reliable source for specific numbers

Indeed Bill Richardson is the governor of a state, and has been campaigning for Obama, just like Biden is the VP nomiee, campaigning with Obama. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that both men speak with some or complete knowledge on what the plan is?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So are you saying that its okay for a politician to mislead people in order to garner votes?

Now where did I say that

Indeed Bill Richardson is the governor of a state, and has been campaigning for Obama, just like Biden is the VP nomiee, campaigning with Obama. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that both men speak with some or complete knowledge on what the plan is?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnE-YJ---GI

[m52nickerson]

Indeed Bill Richardson is the governor of a state, and has been campaigning for Obama, just like Biden is the VP nomiee, campaigning with Obama. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that both men speak with some or complete knowledge on what the plan is?

No it would not. We have seen people on both sides make statement that had to be corrected by the candidates.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Here is Peggy Noonan coming to all the right conclusions about this election. I was worried that she would pull a Chris Buckley, but she is an actual Conservative where Buckley is a daddy's boy college liberal.

I see in this article the only remaining case for John McCain.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Obama and the Runaway Train

The race, the case, a hope for grace.

• By PEGGY NOONAN

The case for Barack Obama, in broad strokes:

He has within him the possibility to change the direction and tone of American foreign policy, which need changing; his rise will serve as a practical rebuke to the past five years, which need rebuking; his victory would provide a fresh start in a nation in which a fresh start would come as a national relief. He climbed steep stairs, born off the continent with no father to guide, a dreamy, abandoning mother, mixed race, no connections. He rose with guts and gifts. He is steady, calm, and, in terms of the execution of his political ascent, still the primary and almost only area in which his executive abilities can be discerned, he shows good judgment in terms of whom to hire and consult, what steps to take and moves to make. We witnessed from him this year something unique in American politics: He took down a political machine without raising his voice.



A great moment: When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd "I have no comment," or "We shouldn't judge." Instead he said, "My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to.

There is something else. On Feb. 5, Super Tuesday, Mr. Obama won the Alabama primary with 56% to Hillary Clinton's 42%. That evening, a friend watched the victory speech on TV in his suburban den. His 10-year-old daughter walked in, saw on the screen "Obama Wins" and "Alabama." She said, "Daddy, we saw a documentary on Martin Luther King Day in school." She said, "That's where they used the hoses." Suddenly my friend saw it new. Birmingham, 1963, and the water hoses used against the civil rights demonstrators. And now look, the black man thanking Alabama for his victory.

This means nothing? This means a great deal.

John McCain's story is not of rise so much as endurance, not only in Vietnam, which was spectacular enough, but throughout a rough and rugged political career of 26 years. He is passionate, obstreperous, independent, sees existential fables within history. His self-confessed role model for many years was Robert Jordan in Ernest Hemingway's novel of the Spanish Civil War, "For Whom the Bell Tolls." Mr. McCain, in his last memoir: "He was and remains to my mind a hero for the twentieth century . . . an idealistic freedom fighter" who had "a beautiful fatalism" and who sacrificed "for something else, something greater." Actually Jordan fought on the side of the communists and died pointlessly, but never mind. He joined his personality to a great purpose and found meaning in his maverickness. In his campaign, Mr. McCain rarely got down to the meaning of things; he mostly stated stands. But separate and seemingly unconnected stands do not coherence make.

However: It was a night during the Republican Convention in September, and two former U.S. senators, who had served with Mr. McCain for a combined 16 years, were having drinks in a hotel dining room. I told them I collected stories of senators who'd been cursed out by John McCain, and they laughed and told me of times they'd been the target of his wrath on the Senate floor.
The talk turned to presidents they had known, and why they had wanted the job. This one wanted it as the last item on his résumé, that one wanted it out of an inflated sense of personal destiny. Is that why Mr. McCain wants it? "No," said one, reflectively. "He wants to help the country." The other added, with almost an air of wonder, "He wants to make America stronger, he really does." And then they spoke, these two men who'd been bruised by him, of John McCain's honest patriotism.

Those who have historically been sympathetic to the Republican Party or conservatism, and who support Barack Obama -- Colin Powell, William Weld and Charles Fried, among others -- and whose arguments have not passed muster with some muster-passers, go undamned here. Their objections include: The McCain campaign has been inadequate, and some of his major decisions embarrassing. All too true. But conservatives must honor prudence, and ask if the circumstances accompanying an Obama victory will encourage the helpful moderation and nonpartisan spirit these supporters attempt, in their endorsements, to demonstrate.

There is for instance, in the words of Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty, "the runaway train." The size and dimension of the likely Democratic victory seem clear. A Democratic House with a bigger, more fervent Democratic majority; a Democratic Senate with the same, and possibly with a filibuster-breaking 60 seats; a new and popular Democratic president, elected by a few points or more; a Democratic base whose anger and hunger have built for eight years; Democratic activists and operatives hungry for business and action. What will this mix produce? A runaway train with no one to put on the brakes, to claim a mandate for slowing, no one to cry "Crossing ahead"? Democrats in Congress will move for innovation when much of the country hopes only for stability. Who will tell Congress of that rest of the nation? Mr. Obama will be overwhelmed trying to placate the innovators.

America enjoyed divided government most successfully recently from 1994 to 2000, with Bill Clinton in the White House and Newt Gingrich in effect running Congress. It wasn't so bad. In fact, it yielded a great deal, including sweeping reform of the welfare system, and balanced budgets.
Whoever is elected Tuesday, his freedom in office will be limited. Mr. Obama is out of money and Mr. McCain is out of army, so what might be assumed to be the worst impulses of each -- big spender, big scrapper -- will be circumscribed by reality. In Mr. Obama's case, energy will likely be diverted to other issues. He will raise taxes, of course, but he may also feel forced to bow to a clamorous base with the nonspending items they favor: the rewriting of union law to force greater unionization of smaller shops, for instance, and a return to a "fairness doctrine" that would limit free speech on the air.

And there is this. The past few months as the campaign unfolded, I listened for Mr. Obama to speak thoughtfully about the life issues, including abortion. Our last Democratic president knew what that issue was, and knew by nature how to speak of it. Bill Clinton famously said, over and over, that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." The "rare" mattered. It set a tone, as presidents do, and made an important concession: You only want a medical practice to be rare when it isn't good. For Mr. Obama, whose mind tends, as intellectuals' minds do, toward the abstract, it all seems so . . . abstract. And cold. And rather suggestive of radical departures. "That's above my pay grade." Friend, that is your pay grade, that's where the presidency lives, in issues like that.
But let's be frank. Something new is happening in America. It is the imminent arrival of a new liberal moment. History happens, it makes its turns, you hold on for dear life. Life moves.
A fitting end for a harem-scarem, rock-'em-sock-'em shakeup of a year -- one of tumbling inevitabilities, torn coalitions, striking new personalities.

Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." And so my beautiful election ends.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

[CountArach]

Lol, just as soon as McCain's promises are debunked on a special edition of "the price is right".

I wouldn't count on it. Rich Fields and Drew Carey stand to win too much money from McCain's tax plan.

[Koga No Goshi]

Obama stated 250K
Biden stated the threshold would be 150K, and then made another statement that those making between 150K and 250K wouldn't get a tax cut nor would they get an increase.

Worth pointing out, yes, that the overwhelming majority of us are well under this threshold? There are a lot more people than just the 40% making around 30k adjusted, and then 150-250k+.

[Redleg]

Now where did I say that

That is why it was asked as a question. When someone over simplifies their explanation I have discovered in my professions in both the military and the civil sector that they are attempting to mislead or prevent you from fully understanding the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnE-YJ---GI

[/quote]

I dont watch youtube - show it in print if you want me to see it.

[Redleg]

No it would not. We have seen people on both sides make statement that had to be corrected by the candidates.

Show me in print where Obama has corrected both men.