In response to my post about John McCain’s strange “performance” at the debate, a commenter here suggested that I try to counter an “exposing” article about Obama. That’s a great idea, “Dude”, I’ve actually been training for this.
Here is my regimen:
On my morning commute, I listen to a combination of Thom Hartman, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (I’m a chronic channel flipper). To be honest, I know Hartman makes me a smarter, more informed semi-Democrat but Rush and Beck bring some of the most absurd commentary in the business. It’s pure comedy and it wakes me up, but prolonged exposure to such idiocy makes me angry, so while in the office, I just listen to Air America on the Internets when I’m not in meetings or editing. Then my evening commute is the best! Seriously. Depending on how early or late I leave the office… I might get to catch the end of Sean Hannity but I’ll usually get to hear most of Brian Sussman with sprinkles of Michael Weiner “Savage” and lately I’ve been loving Laura Ingram. On the weekends, I listen to re-runs and if I’m lucky, I get to hear “the babe in the bunker” Barbra Simpson! While all these talking meatballs are great entertainment, they usually offer the same rehashed talking points, the same fake rage, the same hate and the same negativity when it comes to American politics.
But I also love right wing websites. A few of them really get my goat: Conservapedia, NewsMax, NewsBusters, Drudge and of course Human Events (I’m even on their mailing list). I read many sites daily. I also watch Fox News. The point I’m trying to make is that I have a steady stream of anti-Obama plugged directly into my dome.
So “Dude”, I’ve read the “exposing” article you mentioned and I found it quite boring actually. First of all, for an article to be some sort of ex-pose-eh it needs to actually expose something new. With a title like “The Case Against Barack Obama: Part 1″ published by Human Events, I’d at least expect to hear an some outlandish claims about terrorists and dead babies. This article makes no damning claims, and presents no strong case against Obama. It’s a whole lot of incomplete parsing, spinning and cherry picking. The writer, Larry Elder, makes two weak points:
1. Obama’s tax plan is bad for rich people and therefore bad everybody that the money supposedly trickles down to.
2. Obama wasn’t appalled by Rev. Wright using Sharpeville and Hiroshima as two examples of injustice and that means he’s bad.
Larry begins his article like this:
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama promises to “cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers.” That’s not possible.Why? More than 30 percent pay nothing in federal income taxes.
Larry knows that federal income taxes are not the only kind of tax. While he’s right that a large chunk of people (usually poor people and single mothers) don’t pay income taxes, that does not mean they’re off the hook from payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc, etc, etc. His next paragraph argues that “tax credits” are not “tax cuts” but let’s be honest here, if we pay less taxes, nobody gives a shit what Larry calls it.
Larry goes on:
Republican candidate John McCain should tell people in real, human terms how hiking taxes on the so-called rich affects us all. My friend Nina is a self-employed interior decorator. She just met a prospective married client, whose husband works in the entertainment industry. The client may pull the job because of Obama’s impending tax cuts. Nina makes well under $250,000, lives in an apartment, has no maid, and drives a midsize non-luxury car.
But the couple she hopes to get the job from face a tax rate of 39.5 percent plus increased Social Security taxes, on top of higher taxes for capital gains and dividends.
How can Larry expect McCain to communicate something that he has failed to communicate himself? This hypothetical is vague but what he’s trying to say is that a modest increase on taxes the apparently rich “client” from the entertainment industry will endure on their stock market investments (non-existent in this economy) is so crushing that they will no longer be able afford Nina’s services.
BULLSHIT.
Larry doesn’t tell you that most corporations (including small businesses) don’t pay any Federal income taxes at all either but that doesn’t bother him, Larry thinks corporations and the ultra rich need more tax breaks so he quotes people who feel the same as him but never cites any sources and he never mentions how this flawed ideology has worked out so far.
Trickle-down economics don’t work! The “redistributing the wealth” argument is as lame as shouting “communist!” in an old-folks home. Libertarians say Democrats are punishing the rich for being successful and giving the money to the poor. They also claim enriching the rich is good for the small business. After 30+ years of the rich getting richer, the poor have only gotten poorer. Smarter people call this “wealth condensation”.
As for the Rev. Wright portion of Larry Elder’s article. It’s a tired, old waste of my time. Don’t give me guilty by association claims, give me something of substance. And look who Human Events has as writers:
Oliver North - convicted criminal behind the Iran Contra affair and drug trafficking in the U.S.
Monica Crowley - plagiarist
Ted Nugent - washed up rock n roll psychopath
Chuck Norris - a bad actor, worse writer, not bad at Karate, has a pretty funny infomercial
Ann Coulter - the worst deadhead of all time, a racist, offensive cunt
Pat Buchanan - Racist anti-semite
(my mailbox)
TAGS: air america, Barack Obama, debate, drudge, ep, Fox News, John McCain, Laura Ingram, limbaugh, mccain, obama, ploy, Politics, right wing, sean hannity, spin, Sussman, talking points, thom hartman, website
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
