mccain goes negative. in early august?
 

somewhere, sometime over the past few days i saw one of the new mccain adverts attacking obama.
it seemed to me particularly primitive---and to have nothing to say.
i mean nothing.

here's a context article:


McCain brings in 'The Bullet' as White House race turns nasty | World news | The Observer

what's curious about this is its timing.
why late july/early august to roll out these first adverts?
seems to me that they're geared at television, at the talking head crowd, the opinions of which apparently determine what many free-thinking americans are able to freely think about the next election, in that free-thinking kinda way.

but that do you think?
why now?
have you seen the adverts?
what do you make of them?
are they effective?


but my "partisan" underlying question--what really bewilders me---is:
how on earth is this a "close election" before it's really started and after 8 years of george w bush?

what do you think it shaping this sporting event/election?

McCain really has no choice if he intends to remain a viable candidate. If he does not get aggressive he will remain the "Green Screen " candidate, and very few are motivated by boredom.

McCain has yet to figure out where he needs to stand on issues of importance, and cannot afford to commit for fear of future changes in his positions. Thus, it makes political sense to focus the attention on his opponent in a negative attack phase at this point.

McCain has very little charisma, and many voters have grown up in the entertainment age. He is facing someone that seems Charisma incarnate and is well advised to tarnish the golden child if possible. Any lessening of Obama popularity can be considered a lifting of McCains.




Soon enough, the Democrats will begin the Tit for Tat....I would recommend McCain do as much damage as he can before that begins, as there are many dusty skeletons awaiting the light of day.

McCain used to have loads of charisma. But it seems to have gone the way of the Hupmobile. He gave it up in an exhange with the devil (actually, Evangelicals). He was the alt-GOPer. A badass for the buttoned down crowd.

He seems to be so much better at running against his fellow republicans. I agree with Tecoyah, this is probably his best chance to get some traction.

I believe the timing was absolutely directed at deflating Obama's Berlin boost. The McCain ads were (IMO) effective as they are once again within the margin of error (in most polls). I don't see the ads as particularly "dirty", but there is a thread of truth in the messages. This can be an advantage to Obama where it forces him to close gaps in his message, clarifying details may have previously overlooked. These perceived gaps may be why the race is so close. Obama needs to supply more substance to his rhetoric and interact outside of scripted events. He is starting to shift in this direction and hopefully depending less on speeches filled with platitudes. He only has this race to loose... struggling to close the deal is a growing concern.

My god, is that myth still around?

Anyone who is still mouthing the "Obama == no substance" talking point just isn't listening to the man's speeches.

The feel-good soundbites that make it into the news AREN'T all that happened in the speech, you know!

(Aside from this remark, otto, I generally agree with your post.)

I understand your sentiment, but I'm only pointing out that these perceptions still exist among many conservative leaning voters... rightly so or not. For Obama to widen his lead, he needs to sway a number of these folks soon. It's August and the traction he's looking for has not yet materialized. Still, anything can happen.

C'mon Ratbastid, you've surely seen many races where the old white guy hammers myths about the young black challenger into 51% of the people's heads. McCain is working hard to do that.

Apologies for stepping in on your comment to ratbastid...

I agree with the idea of building a myth to gain the minds of at least 51%... but I've yet to see McCain promote racially based propaganda. Not to say it will never happen... we've seen unfortunate gaffs by misguided surrogates or enthusiastic supporters on both sides. Who's to say that their motivation was encouraged or not, but it will be hard to pin racial attacks directly on the McCain campaign. This is an area where Obama may take caution when citing not looking like other candidates. The conservative pundits and operatives are ready to pounce.

McCain's campaign has been using the attack ads since mid July.

I have not seen any of these advertisements. Granted, I only watch CNBC and Discovery - not really the place for political advertisements.

What I don't understand is why McCain has been so quiet for the majority of the election. Maybe I hear less from him because I'm in California.

The problem is that McCain is spending a lot of time in artificial town hall meetings. Even though many of these meetings are in liberal areas, they're still stacked with conservative yes-people. It makes sense that liberals in liberal areas aren't really bombarded with McCain. Not only that, but if you live in an area as progressive as I do, everyone is talking about Obama (or Batman).

Obama is not clear, consistent or specific on the issues and is becoming an increasingly easy target for negative ads. Just today, I was reading some newspapers and we now find Obama in support of off-shore oil drilling (sort of), his promise to tax the "rich" and give tax relief to everyone else is false (his capital gains rate is going to 28% impacting more than the "rich" in addition to other things in his plan), he is going to give gas price relief by forcing oil companies to pay everyone $1,000 (I guess not realizing the cost will be passed on to consumers, and further hurt domestic companies), he complains about Exxon's profits but no comment on his buddy's, Warren Buffet, company (both have net profit margins of about 10%), and now he wants to give Florida and Michigan delegates full voting privileges at the Democratic Party convention ( Now that he has the nomination secured, I bet that was a tough decision).

How can McCain not go negative? Obama is proving to be an empty suit. What does the man really stand for? What is he willing to stand for? The talk about "them" wanting to scare "us" because of his name or his face, gee he needs to get a clue - he scares me because he is to political and his words have no substance!

the question of viability in late july-early august is kinda interesting--i would think that launching this ad campaign now is a de facto act of desperation--this because one would expect post-nomination bounces for both candidates as a function of the saturation coverage each convention will get---so the conclusion is that the campaign handlers must feel as though they have to act now in order to preserve the possibility of this bounce.

the adverts that i've seen are remarkably crude, relying basically on repetitions of 2 or 3 memes: "experienced enough to lead?"--"will raise your taxes"---"raise your taxes"---"freak out now and avoid the rush"....a kind of pavlovian relation to the republican demographic is at play, it seems. conservatives appear to be profiled as voting entirely out of fear. which is curious if you compare that to other aspects of the right worldview, like on global warming, say...

what worries me about all this is indicated by the weight attached to obama's overseas junket, which seems to me bizarre---a point at which the sporting-event election moved away from any contact with issues or positions and retreated entirely into the world of image. does obama look on camera to have a particular attitude and what does that attitude which appears by the way he carries himself or the soundbytes selected say about the image that "we" have variously constructed about obama and which forms--apparently--the basis for "our" voting.

very odd.

Agreed, other-rb. Obama's main crime right now is appearing too presidential.

It still all strikes me as farcical. Don't get me wrong, a lot of what Obama says is pleasing to my ears, but it seems like the stage is set and the play is going. A very wise friend of mine once said, "Obama vs. McCain, two candidates committed to the least change that the elite are willing to concede." McCain is just a little more committed to not changing anything than Obama, so when Act 2 got started it was up to McCain to compensate for this obvious flaw by throwing out red herring after red herring to try and distract people. It's the same election we've seen a dozen times before.

It appears to be working. Polls indicate a virtual tie with some having McCain slightly ahead. Like Roachie, I also thought it was a bit early. But then again, it's not that far off. Interesting strategy. I do find it to be a turn off and the negativity from McCain has me almost all the way in Obama's camp. He would be wise to pay attention to conservative independent swing voters like me.

So you decided to come and post a nice list of right-wing talking points for us? Let's go ahead and knock 'em down, just for fun.

The Early Word: Obama Open to Drilling Compromise - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

He doesn't support off-shore drilling. Read his actual quote:

That's not support, that's willingness to compromise.

Your score: 0/1

Where does he promise to tax the rich? Again, read what he *actually says*, and his *actual* positions, not rightwing sound bites.

For instance:

Media Matters - Who misrepresented Obama's tax plan? Anyone? Anyone? Ben Stein

You score: 0/2

It's called a windfall tax. You know, a tax on the windfall profits oil companies have been making lately. This one is actually up for debate (and his hotly debated by economists). Some economists claim that all corporate taxes should be abolished, because the costs are inevitably passed onto consumers anyway. Many claim that taxes on oil + gas companies fall into this category, because demand for gas is inelastic. This has historically been true, but with the gas prices shooting up this summer, demand *has* fallen, so maybe demand isn't as inelastic as we thought. But, since this is a debatable point, you can have some credit.

Your score: 1/3

Oil and gas companies are making record profits while consumers are paying out the nose. Some people are unhappy about that. No one blames Exxon for making money, but taxing windfall profits isn't exactly a crazy notion.

Your score: 1/4

True, but so what? It's a bone to toss to help party unity.

Your score: 1/5

Wait a sec - so, after carefully observing Obama and his positions, you've decided he has no substance and doesn't stand for anything. Or...not so much. You've had the same line against Obama for months, with no substance behind it. What's kindof surprising to me is that you've missed the actual issues that I might consider as hits against Obama. He opted out of the public finance system after he said he would make use of it. He failed to oppose the warrantless wiretapping and amnesty for telecoms after he pledged to do so.

Of course, those aren't exactly reasons to vote for McCain instead. McCain's problems with the public financing system are well-documented. McCain has always supported Bush's expanded surveillance powers, warrantless wiretapping, and telecom amnesty.

O'Bama? He look Irish to you? They're always after my lucky hope!

He could be Irish.

I agree about the desperation. The risk is that it makes Obama the centre of attention and moves McCain even further into the background when the guy's already got a charisma problem. The handlers may also be worried that coverage of the conventions will be less than in the past.

I just went through a wide swath of rural Wisconsin today. Not a single McCain yard sign. No bumper stickers. On the other hand, in '04, there was plenty of W crap. This struck me as i was going through a little red neck burg and seeing only Obama signs. Polls are one thing, but getting the organisation moving & the party behind you is another. This type of active support is not coming together for McCain. I get the impression that his organisation is on its ass.

This is a state that malevolent incompetence incarnate made very close in '00 and '04. There are enough Main St. Republicans, backwoods red necks, right-wing Catholics, kooky new Christians, rich farmers, and paranoid-xenophobic types in deindustrialised/deindustrialising towns like Racine, Kenosha, & Janesville to keep things interesting. And yet McCain isn't getting much traction. I think he's doing especially poorly with the Main St. types.

Anyway, if McCain can't do as well as Bush did here, I don't give him much of a chance.

He may be indeed magical...
From Obama "the Magic Negro" http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19"

Wiki reference on "Magical Negro" highlighting the white-guilt effect. Magical negro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think this flies. For one, Obama is accused of being "not really black" or somehow unrepresentative. You wouldn't say that about the magical negroes listed as examples in the wikipedia page. Folk wisdom, earthiness, simplicity, and links to a vital social network allow the magic negro help white folks in trouble. "Obama" as defined by the right cannot do that because "Obama" lacks organic connection to what is supposed to be his community.

Second, he's not magic. He's just a politician, but a very good one. He has an extremely effective campaign. Nothing magical about it.

I would love to go point to point with you, but your assumption regarding "right-wing talking points" suggests that you would be dismissive of any point I try to make. But it has been a while since I have engaged anyone here, so I will give it a shot, granted superficial at first - but we will see where it goes.





If he does not support off-shore drilling why would he compromise on the issue? We currently have off-shore drilling, is he going to take actions to stop off-shore drilling entirely? Other nations are drilling closer and closer to our shores, what is he going to do about that? What exactly is the problem with off-shore drilling?



There are some threads on tax policy and tax avoidance strategies employed by "rich" people so I won't repeat most of the things already posted. The single biggest fallacy in the logic employed by the "tax the rich" liberal mindset is that they seem to think that the top wage earner class is static (doesn't change). The 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% largest wage earners this year will be totally different in five, ten, fifteen years. Tax policy is based on wages, wealth is measured by assets.

The small business owner who started his business from scratch, sacrificed, paid taxes every years, made payroll every pay day for his employees, worked 80 hours a week for 25 years, never took vacations and has now got his business to a point where he is comfortable (perhaps netting $250,000 per year in income), who now is retiring and need to sell his business - he will get hit with exorbitant income taxes and on top of that pay about 30% of his capital gain under Obama's plan. Wow! So much for hard work, sacrifice, doing the right thing and trying to live the American dream. Gee, those evil rich people.



You are awfully kind. But the point was that any additional tax on oil companies will get passed to consumers. The average profit margin is going to stay at about 10%, no matter what Obama does..


What about the windfall taxes paid by a company like Exxon. Look at their income statement, they pay more in taxes than they make in profits! Details, details! The government has been collecting more and more from Exxon, what are they doing with that tax money? However, it seems the liberals want Exxon to be less profitable, paying less in taxes. Perhaps they want foreign oil companies to make all the profits and take those profits overseas. That doesn't seem like a win-win scenario to me, does it to you?


What about the principle behind the whole issue? If the two states failed to follow the rules, and there are no consequences why would any state follow the rules the next time? Why did he change his stance on this issue? Is he showing us and the world what kind of leader he would be?



I admit to using hyperbole, I am sure Obama has some substance in his words. However, I think he is a borderline socialist trying to run to the center to get elected. I think that is dishonest.

Well, the points your quote are *exactly* the talking points McCain and his people are using, and I personally find most of them highly disingenuous. So, maybe you came up with these points completely on your own, but it seems more likely to me that you're carrying their water for them, either on purpose or just because you heard them and they sounded reasonable to you. A very little bit of research on my part shows how unreasonable most of them are, so...

Because he understands that compromise is part of governing. Sometimes you have to give up things you want in order to achieve more important objectives. He knows he almost certainly won't have a filibuster-proof majority in congress, so he's going to have to negotiate. He thinks he might have to allow offshore drilling, but *in exchange* for some concession from the republicans in congress - like, say, cash to fund alternative energy research.

Other nations are drilling closer and closer to our shores? Which ones? China?

What is the problem with off-shore drilling? I think the fact that you have to ask this question shows how really terrible the MSM is. They talk about the issue as a case of political football, but I've *never* seen anyone in the MSM say why off-shore drilling might be bad. Try the wikipedia article for a start. The reason the areas in question are protected is because they are close to shore - as in 'right off shore', not deep in the Gulf of Mexico. Any oil spills from those rigs will wash up...on the Gulf Coast. You don't have to be a nutty environmentalist to object to this - people live there, and tourism is a huge part of the local economy in many of these areas. Not to mention the environmental costs.

It's an oft-repeated lie (including by McCain) that Katrina and Rita didn't cause any major offshore oil spills. This simply isn't true - Katrina and Rita together caused some of the worst spills ever recorded. See this story along with several others. So the next time a cat-4 or cat-5 hurricane comes through after the oil rigs McCain wants to allow go up, it's almost inevitable that similar spills will occur - and the oil will wash up right on shore. How much of a penalty will the oil companies incur? Very little. They'll probably be involved in some cleanup efforts, but cleanup after a major hurricane is going to be almost impossible. Will they lose even a significant fraction of the profits they plan to make? Certainly not.

Now, every time there's a potential risk compared to a potential reward, we have to make a judgement call and decide if the risk is worth it. Up until now, we've decided that the risk is not worth the reward. Even now, any oil produced in these offshore areas isn't going to come onto the market for another 10 years. The effect on gas prices is projected to be less than 6 cents a gallon. Is that worth the risk? I think not. Obama agrees. As I said above, he did say he would consider compromising on this issue. I'm not sure if that's such a good idea, but it might be necessary to get anything done at all.

I don't see how this is true. Obviously there is some turnover. Obviously people grow older, become more (and sometimes less) successful. But I don't see that the group of 'rich' people turns over every 10 or 15 years.

Simply not true. These tax policies don't suddenly kick in at 250,000 - the higher tax is on income in *excess* of $250,000. The Tax Policy Center recently release a report (warning: long PDF) comparing the two plans in detail. And, I just happened upon this very nice graphic which explains things pretty well. It looks pretty accurate to me based upon the tax policy center analysis. Your hard-working $250,000/yr business owner will pay approximately...no more taxes under Obama. Capital gains taxes are on a similar scale, so I wouldn't expect him to pay much more there, either.

Here is a good rebuttal of some of the other specific distortions of Obama's tax plan that are floating around.

Now, Obama's tax plan *does* increase taxes by quite a bit on the very, very wealthy. Honestly, they can afford it. Now, I'd of course be happier if no one had to pay any taxes at all. But that's not the way it works. If we're going to tax people, I'd prefer that the people who can afford it most bear most of the burden. And people making more than $2.87 million dollars a year can afford it.

Would it surprise you to know that the top marginal tax rate between 1936 and 1980 ranged between 70% and 91%? It surprised me. And yet the country wasn't destroyed by this horribly unfair policy.

What really concerns me about both Obama and McCain's tax policies is the fact that neither of them balance the budget. I think that's something we *have* to do, soon. Now, we probably can't balance the budget in the middle of a couple of wars, and a major financial crises. But to me, that's a good reason to not start wars, and to have proper regulation so we don't have avoidable financial crises like this one.

Guess who I trust more to not take us to war, and to be in favor of reasonable regulation?

The points thing was a little tiny bit snarky, wasn't it? ;-)

The 'taxes will be passed onto consumers' is really an argument against *all* corporate taxes. As I said before, that's a debatable point, and I frankly don't have the economics chops to debate it properly. *However*, I still think the windfall tax is a good idea. First, it provides a much-needed cash infusion to working-class people without further breaking the budget (like W's tax rebates). If these costs are passed on to consumers, it will be a gradual process, and give people time to continue to adjust to a high-gas-prices world. Which we'll *have* to do. Cheap gas (and yes, we still have cheap gas prices) won't last forever. We're going to have to change our habits. Easily accessible oil *is* going to run out, sooner or later. Remember the 'Peak Oil' thing? It's still coming. Higher gas prices are inevitable, we're going to have to adjust. However, government can make itself useful by providing cushions to precipitously rising gas prices and by helping us transition to alternate energy sources. Obama is in favor of both of these policies.

Look at Exxon's income statement? Ok.

"they pay more in taxes than they make in profits" is demonstrably false. I'll assume that by 'profits' you mean Income Before Tax ($70 Billion in 2007). And by taxes you mean Income Tax Expense ($30 Billion in 2007). So, no, they pay about 43% tax on their income. High, but not really out of line with what many Americans pay.

Other than that, I can't really make sense of your argument. Obama has never said that Exxon shouldn't make money. Taxing a company doesn't automatically make those profits disappear and re-appear in some Foreign company.

I agree that this is going to cause problems for the democrats in 2012. It's pretty clear that he changed his stance as an appeal to party unity, giving them something that won't have any real effect (for this election, anyway) to help heal some of the divisiveness from the primaries. It tells me that he'd be the kind of leader that is willing to compromise to get what he wants, especially when the compromise doesn't really cost him anything.

Calling him a 'borderline socialist' isn't hyperbole?

He's a liberal. Sure, plenty of people like to call liberals socialists. We're used to it. To my mind, he's been a fairly centrist liberal all along. Being willing to compromise to get what you think is important isn't 'moving to the center'.

Now, on the FISA issue, I can see *that* as moving to the 'center' (more like ultra-right-wing), or at least appealing to it, and frankly, it pisses me off to no end. If he had done that before the primaries, I probably would've switched my vote to Hillary right there (not that it would've mattered). But we've got the candidates we have, not the ones we would like to have, and Obama is entire worlds better than McCain on *every* single issue that matters to me.
-----Added 5/8/2008 at 02 : 46 : 21-----
An Irish President?! Hey, it worked in Blazing Saddles!

Wait...no...that's not quite right.

I don't have much time, and I will get back to the points you have made. However, I just want to point out that, Exxon, in the second quarter of 2008 paid $11.4 billion in "other taxes and duties" and they paid $10.5 billion in income taxes totaling $21.9 billion on their record profits of $11.6 billion. This does not include the the $9.5 billion in sales taxes they collected for the government. Here is a link to the SEC 10Q filing. I understand your point, but to me a tax is a tax.

[url=http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408808000104/r10q080508.htm]Exxon

I'm not sure what falls under 'other taxes and duties'. Are these taxes that the US government levies? State taxes? Taxes from outside the US? There's nothing to indicate what they are.

I suppose that most of these taxes were paid by their customers via higher prices. Someone once said "businesses don't pay taxes, people do". Whenever I hear polititians (including Obama) talk about windfall profit taxes or taxing big business, I assume that we are the ones who will actually be paying them.

That is the nature of capitalism folks. You pay for all sorts of shit you might not like or want. Hate sports on TV? Too bad, you pay for it. Stupid sitcoms? Same deal. You pay for lobbyists, bribes, junkets, PR, junk mail... It's all part of doing business the capitalist way. Enjoy.

Here is a Wikipedia link on Excise taxes.

Excise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with flstf, corporate taxes are generally passed on to consumers. If you look at the historical profit margins in the oil industry during periods of relative competitive markets the profit margins don't deviate much. This means that incremental increases in costs (including taxes) are passed on to the consumer.

I also found this bit of trivial. In 2004 Exxon paid as much in in income taxes as the bottom 50% of taxpayers.

Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion - Seeking Alpha

Again, these taxes are actually paid by those who consume oil and gas, but it further shows how the liberal desire to punish the "rich" and corporations is actually regressive and has a bigger impact on the middle class and the poor.
-----Added 6/8/2008 at 02 : 18 : 41-----
This is regarding the turnover in the top income earners in this country. I guess, I should first ask if you except the general demographics trends of income by age?

Generally, people are born making no taxable income. Then in their 20's and 30's they enter career paths with little experience at the low end of pay grades. Those who start businesses usually put their savings into the business and it takes time before the businesses get established and start making profits.

In a person's 40's and 50' they normally reach their peak income earning years. This is also the time when they accumulate assets and savings. this is also the time when they pay the most in taxes. Most of the people in the top 1%/5%/10% of income earners are going to be in this category.

When a person reaches 60+ they start to slow down on income production and start to live off of their savings and assets. The taxable income for this group drops dramatically.

So, outside of exceptions, like entertainers, sports figures, Bill Gates, Micheal Dell or trust fund babies (i.e. people like Ted Kennedy) normal people fit this general pattern.

However, even if you look at sports figures for example, the top wage earners is not static. With the exception of a few, like tiger Woods, an athlete will get one or two big contracts and is done in terms of peak earnings. In fact in football, veterans find the contracts of unproven high drafted rookies to be offensive.

The same can be said for socialism, hate crack whores who spit out babies like a pez dispenser, while having the governmet pay for it all from your tax money? Too bad, lifetime welfare leeches, you pay for it. Endowments for art that is piss in a jar, you pay for it. Sharpe James' freezer full o money, yep you payed for it.

Its all part of the socialist way, good luck with that, let me know how you make out.

what socialism are you talking about? sounds mostly like a series of features of the american capitalist system that you don't like and that you call socialist as a synonym for "i dont like em." you might as well call these features "orange" if you don't like orange. or "broccoli" if you don't like that.

it is, in fact, that ridiculous, what you wrote.

RB, is welfare a socialist or capitalist program? If it were a true capitalist program it would be called, get off your friggen ass and find a jobfare. It would be well it doesnt look like that piss in a jar is selling, can you say would you like fries with that?

When the government has to take care of you that is called what? Capitialism?

Difference, of course, is that the welfare crack whore is a myth. But apart from that, yeah, it's exactly the same thing.

Ask an American entrepeneur like Lee Iacocca.

Red was Irish.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m.../blkwhtred.jpg
-----Added 7/8/2008 at 03 : 09 : 29-----



Myth?

Yes, it's a myth.

Is crack a myth?

Do you think a crack addict can hold job?

To say that women on welfare have babies to get more welfare so they can turn around and spend the money on crack, while they live in government sponsered housing, and usually sell their food stamps for .50 to the dollar is ridiculous. To say that doesnt happen at all is just being uninformed. Do a social observation experiment and go live in a ghetto for 1 year.

Intersting article on stastics More Damned Lies and Statistics: CHAPTER ONE

To get back on topic, it was only a matter of time before McCain went negative. We have about 100 days before the election. I'm surprised it took this long and that the negativity is as light-hearted as it is. At this point in 2004, the Swiftboaters had already reared their heads.

To stay off topic (sorry Jazz): the MYTH of the Welfare Queen was first foisted upon us by Ronald Regan as an effort to scale back social safety net programs. There's no doubt that there are cheaters in the system, but they're not the majority or even a very significant minority. But you mention welfare to a right-winger, and what comes right out of their mouth is the single-mother-eight-child-family-eating-caviar-driving-a-cadillac nonsense that's been debunked a thousand times. That said mythical mother is now on crack is a regrettable but timely addition to the myth.

TO RETURN TO TOPIC: There's concern these days that Obama isn't further ahead of McCain, but I'm not worried. To get public funding, McCain has to spend up his primary earnings before being formally nominated, which is what he's doing. Obama's still way ahead of him war-chest-wise, and is saving his pennies for later in the year when the campaign's really on. Any poll points earned now are basically feel-good points and don't mean much for the actual election.

I don't think he had much choice, but his camp could have done better.
Obama played the race card with his fictitious "he doesn't look like the other presidents on those dollar bills" that he pointed at McCain with.
Once that came out, all bets were off.
Kerry tried that with Bush, making claims Bush had vested interests in the logging industry during a debate. That shit don't work and there's no reason why anyone should have to go on the defensive when it happens.
Politics= hit me, I hit back harder, even if I look ridiculous taking the swing.


/me writes in her vote for Colbert.

Here you go Rat, a debunking of your debunkin, so it is really not a myth, from the hallowed bible of the left NYT.

Big Spender Is Charged With Fraud On Welfare - New York Times

His life style was dazzling: a $4,000-a-month apartment on the 37th floor of Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, a small fleet of luxury cars, membership in a health and racquet club, chief executive of his own business. Just last Monday he was negotiating to buy a $5 million English manor house on Long Island Sound.

But yesterday, as 63-year-old Herbert Steed walked out of his polished brass-and-marble lobby, past the rosewood table with a vase of lovely autumn flowers and the doormen in livery and white gloves, detectives were waiting under the canopy to burst the bubble and arrest him -- on welfare-fraud charges.

Since March, in what authorities called one of the most stunning welfare deceptions on record, Mr. Steed was said to have illegally collected $176 every two weeks in home-relief benefits, claiming that he was living at a little flat in Springfield Gardens, Queens, and had no assets and no job or income.

What Mr. Steed failed to mention, investigators and prosecutors said, was his tour-operator business and the $800,000 he was accused of taking from 225 Ghanaians for a trip to the World Cup games that he did not provide; or the $27,000 he paid in advance for a six-month lease on his tower apartment; or the Lincoln Continental, the Cadillac and the Lexus, or his prospective new home in Rye.

"The $3,000 in welfare payments he collected just about covered his health club dues," the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert M. Morgenthau, said in an interview. "We've seen some wild ones, but for sheer brass, for chutzpah, this has to be right up there at the top."

The suspect was tripped up, Mr. Morgenthau said, when authorities arrested him on charges of bilking the Ghanaian tour group -- and found a welfare identity card in his possession. The cards are used by welfare recipients to prove their identity and collect benefits at check-cashing and other authorized outlets, since welfare checks are no longer mailed out by the state.

Mr. Steed, who was described by investigators and prosecutors as a scam artist with a record of convictions for theft and fraud in state and Federal courts, was arraigned in Criminal Court yesterday on charges of grand larceny and filing false information with welfare authorities. The charges are felonies punishable by up to four years in prison on each count.

Acting Justice Herbert J. Adlerberg of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ordered Mr. Steed held without bail for a hearing on Oct. 21 after prosecutors argued that they believed he was still hiding $700,000 from the Ghanaian deal, and that he had jumped bail after a 1984 Federal mail-fraud conviction and disappeared for nine years until being found and extradicted from Europe last year.

Beyond the allegations against him and statements by investigators and prosecutors on his purported wheelings and dealings over the years, little was known yesterday about Mr. Steed, who chose not to appear at the bail hearing. Susan Lask, a lawyer who represented him, did not return a telephone message.

It was unclear, for example, why a suspect engaged in million-dollar deals and with hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets would have bothered to collect $176 in welfare every two weeks. Mr. Morgenthau said it seemed to be a matter of habit, not need. "He was willing to rip off people with money and he was willing to rip off people without money," the prosecutor said.

Richard Finkelstein, director of the bureau of fraud investigations in the city's Department of Human Resources, said there were 1.1 million welfare recipients in New York City -- 144,000 new cases last year alone -- and that 20,000 investigations in the last year had prevented 6,000 bogus claims and led to the arrest of more than 300 people on fraud charges.

Most cases of welfare fraud involve the filing of false information by the prospective recipient. Last August, a woman who collected welfare under 15 different names and for 73 fictitious children pleaded guilty to charges that she had illegally collected $450,000 from 1987 to 1994.
In many cases, computers are being used to ferret out recipients who are illegally collecting welfare payments in more than one state. Recently, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Vermont have agreed to compare data to search for fraud.

And the administration of Gov. Mario M. Cuomo last summer agreed to let New York City and some suburban counties take electronic fingerprints from some welfare recipients in an effort to fight fraud in which applicants use assumed names to collect benefits in more than one place. Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has strongly favored finger imaging and said a system would be set up next year.

Mr. Morgenthau, who also favors the fingerprinting process, said Mr. Steed filed for home-relief benefits last March, saying he lived in Queens and had no employment or income. He reaffirmed these assertions to the Human Resources Administration last month when he was routinely recertified for benefits.

"In fact," Mr. Morgenthau charged, "the defendant was the chief executive officer of Gamair Tours Operator, Ltd., and had moved into the Trump Tower on July 1, 1994." He said investigators learned Mr. Steed, working out of an office at 122 East 42d Street that was little more than a mail drop and phone answering machine, had received $800,000 from the Ghanaian tour group on June 8.

"The defendant did not declare this income in his H.R.A. recertification paperwork and he did not inform H.R.A. of his Trump Tower address, thus receiving benefits to which he was not entitled," Mr. Morgenthau declared.

Besides acquiring his luxury cars and paying $27,000 in advance on a six-month lease for his one-bedroom apartment in the tower at Fifth Avenue and 56th Street, Mr. Steed took out a membership in the New York Health and Racquet Club, and began negotiations to buy an 11,000-square foot English manor house in Rye, with two swimming pools, a wine cellar and 935 feet of frontage on Long Island Sound.

It was unclear, investigators said, whether Mr. Steed actually intended to buy the house or had something else in mind. "He was trying to enter into a business with the owner," an assistant prosecutor, Sarah Mariani said. "It involved exporting cheesecake to Africa."

Ms. Mariani, chief of the prosecutor's welfare fraud unit, said Mr. Steed's record dated to 1958, when he was convicted of attempted grand larceny in New York City. In 1976, she said, he was convicted of criminal contempt in Nassau County, and in 1984 pleaded guilty in Federal Court in Manhattan to mail fraud in a scheme to steal $273,000 from the Hoover and Hertz companies and American Airlines.

Although his passport was seized in 1984, Mr. Steed jumped bail and fled the country, Ms. Mariani said. She said he lived in Africa and Europe until being found in Amsterdam and extradicted to the United States in February 1993. He then served a six-month term in a Federal prison in Michigan, she said.

The grand larceny charge involving the Ghanaians, for which Mr. Steed was arrested on Aug. 8, is still pending in Manhattan Criminal Court, Mr. Morgenthau said, adding that the case was taking time because of difficulties in getting witnesses from Ghana.

Detectives said Mr. Steed had an early morning workout at his health club yesterday and was arrested after returning home and changing into a business suit. Afterward, residents entering and leaving the tower said they did not know him, but two doormen did.

"He's 63?" said one. "He didn't look 63."

"He stayed in shape," said the other.





Sure it's a myth. I like the set of balls on the woman in yellow.

One really good welfare cheat isn't a debunking, dude. In fact, what was stated in that article had nothing to do with Ratbastid's statement of 'myth', which was as a reply to the crack-smoking baby-making money grubbing welfare recipient.

Anecdotal fraud cases, however dramatic, don't constitute a debunking.

Of course fraud happens. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the knee-jerk rightwing response to any mention of social safety-net programs that goes, "Oh great, now I'm paying for irresponsible freeloading cheats living high on my hog!" when that's VASTLY not the case.

This proves my point:
Of 1.1 million recipients, there were 6000 bogus claims. That's 0.005%, roughly.

Also, the fact that living benefits come to $176 every two weeks should be SHOCKING. You really think people are living well on that?? In New York City??

reconmike provides the exception that proves the rule. Mr. Steed was not popping out babies to receive benefits so he could buy crack.

Reagan's whole point was to create a division between races in order to secure fear-based votes. He took a page from the Jesse Helms playbook. The problem is those people, the single mother drivin' her caddy to her crack dealer, right before she bets the rest her welfare check on a sure thing at the track. Them. The other people.

It's great for those who buy whole hog into anecdotes. However, anecdotes do not equal data.

Reagan himself was overheard saying, "I love simple people, they're so happy with simple answers."

poppinjay says in a more polite way than i was going to what is happening with the conservative mythologies around crack.
it is clearest to me if you note that there is no parallel set of conservative memes about crank, which would enable a preservation of graphics (one letter difference) and a redirect of petit bourgeois resentment--but strangely it has never happened.

Thus began the great stupidification of the American conservative movement.

Op-ed from yesterday's NY Times (yellowing mine):

1.1 million? What does NYC's welfare population and 1 million lesbians have in common? 2 million people who don't do dick!

So in a city with 8+ million people 13% of them are on the governments tit?

I will find a crack whore baby poppin welfare collecting conviction for the nay-saying myth believers.

Find some DATA.

If you want to make your case valid, I would strongly suggest you find more than one.

After a lawsuit against the town of Bordentown, NJ (which had required its local welfare recipients to work for the town in exchange for their checks) was shot down, the federal government sought to enforce its own version of "Workfare"(c.1995).
Cities such as New York jumped on the bandwagon immediately. Unfortunately, advocacy groups denounced the notion of "working for cheap", stating it would flood the job market with "droves of hungry people, making it easier for employers to depress wages."Source
Lawsuits abounded and the Workfare program is, for all intents and purposes, dead.
Some of the rules do still apply, though. There is a limit on how many children a woman can have and still receive any increase in benefits. They have to report to social services (although those departments are so woefully understaffed and underskilled that fraud continues to be an issue).
The stereotype of some crack smoking, baby popping woman just sitting around waiting for her check is just that-a stereotype.
We anxiously await the data to confirm it.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Poverty is a joke to the right-wing.

Evidently the solution to high unemployment is to yell at the lazy bums to get jobs. :rolleyes:

...so how about that ol' McCain going negative in August. Can you believe that?

"Doggies", as Uncle Jed used to say to Jethro.

there's a way to link up the recurrence of the old conservative myths about poverty and the content of mccain's adverts--they speak to a desire for simplified images of a simplified world at the center of how conservative ideology operates. the desire for simplicity apparently overwhelms the need to data---it's about a kind of intuitive resonance, the appeal, and not about an actual description of the world--and this resonance seems to me to be about producing an illusion of controllability (on social questions) and its reverse in victimization (on matters like taxation). if you put these together and think about the image that is produced, it is of the impotent authoritarian martyr----this is of a piece with market ideology to the extent that "free markets" are understood to be guided by some invisible hand, which is apparently a moral agent, such that the economically dominant are possessed of more inward virtue than are the less dominant---which loops back into the stereotypes concerning poverty.

all fine tuned through demographic research on radio and television audiences.

there's an assumption of spectatorship in all this as well, so that the impotent authoritarian/martyr is explicitly a projection that enables the other projections, with the projector sitting in a chair somewhere, listening to the radio like the old days of the 40s, making up faces for the shadow, or watching shit blow up on television while the voice over informs of the "real meaning"....

The audacity of these people, trying to follow the example of their local, state and federal leaders.

When did I ever say I was right-wing? I can not recall ever saying so, I do recall saying I was a Libertarian. Oh I see, by my stance on people leeching off of others, with no intention of ever getting off the government's tit, makes me right-wing.

Evidently if your able-bodied you should be out looking for work instead of drinking a 40 on your section 8 stoop at 11 am.

I did find plenty of numbers also here are just a few though,

It's Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco, Stupid!

http://www.fordschool.umich.edu/rese...df/appam98.pdf
Now from the second quote, if 15% of NYC welfare recipients are addicted to something that make 150,000 people on welfare and on some kind of drug/alcohol. If half are women that gives us 75,000. How many of those women would you say have children?

EDIT: Never mind. I gotta remember not to talk religion with the religious.

Please resume your "McCain goes NEGATIVE!?!? Dum-dum-dummmmm" talk.

True this is a McCain bashing thread let me start a Crack whores sucking dick for rock while pregnant thread.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Was Obama not going negative when he introduced race in his Berlin speech on July 24, then followed by his dollar bill comment in a later speech?

“I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city.”

Looking at the front page of factcheck.org is telling when it comes to who is honest and has integrity. Counting up the number of incorrect facts or flat in some cases flat out lies the score board is the following:

Obama: 2
Mc'Cain: 7

In addition if you look at the magnitude of the distortions Mc'Cain's ads seem to be much bigger distortions and in many cases they are flat out lies. Mc'Cain is dishonest and willing to sell his morals in order to win. This is exactly the type of person we don't want in the white house, 8 years of this is already put the country at the breaking point. 4 more years and this nation will self destruct.

That strikes me as being a lot less direct than what we're seeing from McCain. "That's not change I believe in" (btw, I do a great mccain impression) is direct enough so that everyone understands he's mocking Obama. Obama is mentioning that he's the first black man who's had a shot at the oval office. He's right, too.

By the way, we've recently started watching Battlestar Galactica from the beginning around here, and the girls have nicknamed Colonel Tigh "John McCain". I think that's awesome. He's an awfully negative dude.

Oh, just you wait, rat. The McCain comparisons will continue to multiply.

I saw the McCain celebrity spot on TV last night. I thought i was seeing an Obama ad before the raise taxes on the middle class bit came on. Then there was McCain looking like a mummy at the end.

I think the subtext of the ad is Obama is It.

Shitty ad.

I also thought he resembled John McCain. Colonel Tigh is AWESOME!! He has one of the best character arcs. I don't think John McCain is negative. For more on Colonel Tigh read on:

*Spoiler tag*
He is the best friend of Adama and one of my favorite characters on the show. Yeah he made some mistakes but he always faces up to them and accepts responsibility and accountability. Plus he was the key leader in the resistance movement on New Caprica. It's eerie how the parallels between him and McCain are. How he was tortured in Cylon prison. Colonel Tigh is awesome. *End Spoiler Tag*

JORG! He said "recently started watching"! How about some spoiler tags?!

I firmly believe that John McCain is one of the five.

Don't worry about it--I'm frequently too dense to be spoiled.

I do seem to have an agenda to take this thread off-topic, though... :|

So say us all! Sorry about that, I did try to put in some sort of spoiler alert. The thing is, if you're gonna compare the two beyond a superficial level, you need to have all the info to do so. BSG kicks ass by the way.

:shakehead:
So say we all.

/threadjack, BSG nerd