Now that the Clintons are firmly in the Obama camp, Bill needs to give a few lessons to Obama on how to poke the bear with a smile on his face. On several occasions during this week's debate, McCain was clearly on the verge of exploding. All it would have taken was just a little stirring of his boiling pot and he would have lost it. I kept having day dreams of McCain tearing off his lapel mic, throwing it down on the desk and stomping off, but instead, Obama remained cool and calm, as always, and took the high road most of the night.
I'm torn, because this is one of the things I like most about Obama. I look forward to our nation being lead by a calm, educated, rational (for the most part) thinker who actually listens, considers, seeks input, and is clearly willing to admit he doesn't know everything before flying off and firmly declaring his next stubborn intention.
But just once I'd like to see McCain lose it and show his true colors. His temper is no secret and as long as we're deciding our next president based on ridiculously irrelevant factors, one's ability to maintain self control actually sounds pretty important. Why won't Obama just push him a little closer to that edge?
I mentioned this to a colleague the morning after the debate and he noted that Obama can't risk appearing to be "the angry black man." I hadn't thought of that, but it sure made sense once he said it. After all, look at what the media (yeah, those dirty liberals) did to Michelle! People still think she's angry and I suppose this is what scares me the most... that the "Bradley Effect," a euphemism for racist ignorance, will render the actual election a lot closer than the polling shows. The special edition of SNL tonight noted this rather succinctly when a Jesse Jackson character on "SNL News" quoted a poll saying 87% of Americans said they would, in fact, vote for a black man. The follow up question was, "Really?" and the numbers were almost a reciprocal... with only 25% saying they would. Under the cover of the voting booth curtain, I'm afraid we're still a lot more racist than we like to believe.
But back to the debate. There were so many easy pitches to hit that Obama just laid off of I almost wanted to scream. Seriously... that question about why you think your running mate is more qualified to run the country? If I were McCain, I would have asked if I could just pass on that one! Obama had the perfect opportunity to note how his own experience (which makes him seem like a seasoned old pro when compared to Palin) was a favorite topic of McCain's up until Palin was selected, but instead he simply replied with "we'll let the American voters decide."
PUHLEASE!
And how many times do we have to go over the Bill Ayers thing? If you get your news from anyone other than Hannity, you must know by now how ridiculous McPalin's claims are regarding the work Obama did on a bi-partisan committee that just happened to include Ayers as well as several noted Republicans. Why aren't the Republicans on that committee included as having run around with terrorists?
And ACORN? Apparently they're a real patriotic organization when they register Republicans, but when they register Dems, they're cheaters and liars. McCain was their keynote speaker at an immigration event in Florida in 2006 and has supported the grass roots organization fairly consistently up until very recently. Perhaps his newest backers don't like the organization made up primarily of low and middle income American citizens. The membership apparently isn't patriotic enough these days.
Then there's the Palin record that McCain spoke so much about... her tax cutting record?... that's not how most Wasilla residents who are still paying for the hockey arena that seats more people than live in the town see it. And what was that bridge going to cost taxpayers?
Which brings me to another question I've been pondering... Republicans often accuse Dems of saying "trust us to spend your money." And with that, I've often seen the point. But after the last seven years... and throughout the Reagan-Bush era, the alternative seems to be "trust our rich friends with your money and maybe some of it will make it back down to you." That too has some theoretical validity, but practice has proven over and over again (a 12 year stint for Reagan-Bush and now nearly 8 more) that it just doesn't work. Under Republicans, not only has government expanded, but it's cost more than ever. That's not technically a tax increase, but we're paying for it no matter what you call it. Over the last 7 years we've seen that the true difference between Repub and Dem economic policy is that while Dems tax and spend, Repubs just spend. The fact that all that spending will somehow have to be paid for by taxpayers will be ok as long as it's not called a tax increase.
Call it what you want - if it feels better for you, I'll pretend it's not really a tax increase - but when the American public pays off the debt this Republican administration has racked up, it's a tax... on us and our kids and their kids.
And finally, Joe the (not a) plumber. I don't care if the guy's got a license or not. What really pisses me off is the idea that a real guy and a purely hypothetical problem were all presented as actual as though Obama actually yanked the American dream from this guy who apparently didn't even take high school accounting. If a two-employee business is really clearing $250 grand a year, then they should be taxed at a ridiculous rate. The tax will teach them to hire a better accountant or give themselves better salaries (you know, expenses that reduce their profit) Every small business with half a brain knows the business itself never makes a profit, let alone $250k.
And speaking of distorted interpretations of tax plans, Parade magazine ran an article this weekend headlined "How much will you pay?" Note the last word in that headline: PAY. The most prominent text in the article was a table that actually listed how much taxpayers in each category would SAVE, not PAY. Most folks (those making less than $250k a year) make out far better under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan, but if all you read is the headline and the table, just the opposite appears to be true. Is this the kind of LIBERAL media trick folks are always talking about? Yep, for 95% of Americans and even a slightly higher percentage of small businesses, the Obama plan represents a tax cut. So if that's what you're looking for and you don't earn McCain-type money, O's your man.
I don't think I'm done quite yet, but I'm tired of this again.
Luth,
Out.
No comments:
Post a Comment