mccain goes negative. in early august? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 08-04-2008, 03:18 AM

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:

Quote:

McCain brings in 'The Bullet' as White House race turns nasty

The ailing Republican campaign has turned aggressive as it deploys an expert attack squad to wound the Democrat favourite

=======
The first warning sign was delivered in a phone call nine days ago, when John McCain's new senior adviser, Steve Schmidt, held a conference call with worried senior Republican party figures.

Schmidt told them that they would soon see McCain go on the offensive against Barack Obama. Some tough TV ads were coming, he warned. It was no lie. The first ad came barely 24 hours later. Others followed, and soon the US presidential election erupted into its most vicious fight so far. Both sides traded insults over patriotism, racism and allegations of becoming negative. It dominated the front pages and cable news shows, and there is little sign that the storm will abate quickly.

Many pundits saw the move as a sign of desperation from a McCain campaign humbled by Obama's triumphal world tour, behind in the polls and written off by some commentators. But the truth is very different.

McCain's aggressive strategy is a deliberate and well-thought-out ploy. It was developed and implemented by a coterie of advisers brought in last month who are protégés of the Republican political guru Karl Rove. Schmidt, who learnt his trade with Rove, heads the group and is now guiding the campaign.

The strategy is intended to turn McCain's ailing presidential bid around and give it a firm focus: one mostly fixed on attacking Obama. Schmidt and others believe they can do to Obama what the Republicans did to John Kerry in 2004.

'They know how to win a presidential election. If you can show a candidate's basic flaws, that is one way to win,' said Steve Mitchell, a Republican political adviser and chairman of Mitchell Research. McCain's new advisers believe they can define Obama in their own terms and leave him as damaged goods in the eyes of the electorate. If that sounds like a hard-headed, unpleasant, negative strategy, that is probably because it is. But Schmidt and his allies have also started to give Republicans the one thing that Obama had seemed to be monopolising - hope of winning.

Steve Schmidt is known as 'The Bullet'. Part of that is to do with his bald-headed appearance, but it is also as much to do with his hyper-aggressive political style. He was promoted to run McCain's campaign at the beginning of last month, after he and several other aides went to McCain and warned him that his presidential bid was in dire trouble.

McCain took the warning to heart and placed Schmidt in charge of the day-to-day running of his campaign operation. It was a bold move, but Schmidt is one of the rising stars of Republican politics. The New Jersey native cut his teeth under Rove and in the Bush White House. He ran the 2004 Republican war room that was responsible for taking down Kerry. He also worked hard on getting conservative judges through the process of appointment to the Supreme Court. Then he guided the re-election campaign of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to victory.

Schmidt has been joined by other key figures from the Rove-era Bush White House. They include the formidable figure of Nicole Wallace, a Bush campaign spokeswoman in 2004, and Greg Jenkins, a former Fox TV journalist who once worked for Bush's campaign. The group has sought to tighten an operation that was floundering under its previous leadership. They have also given it a sharply negative edge.

However, such a strategy is not without risk. Much of McCain's huge appeal to the middle ground relies on his popular reputation as a military hero and a decent man. Excessive negative campaigning could hurt that valuable political commodity. 'This is a first for McCain. This is a very different strategy to see in a McCain campaign,' said political scientist Tim Hagle, a professor at the University of Iowa.

The tactics have certainly caused despair among some McCain allies. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a close friend of McCain and former strategist, broke his silence to label recent attack ads comparing Obama with celebrities like Britney Spears as 'childish'. He also said another ad, which criticised Obama for not visiting wounded US soldiers, was 'inappropriate'.

But such grousing is unlikely to worry the new team. They are far more concerned in recovering from months of campaigning in which Obama has emerged as the clear favourite to triumph in November. McCain is behind in most polls, lacks the glamour of Obama, faces an unenthusiastic Republican base and has much less money.

However, the team is tackling all those issues, not least with last week's ads. The first, dubbed 'Troops', aired last Saturday and attacked Obama as caring more about going to the gym than meeting the military. In a move of marketing genius, it was first aired as part of a news story. When it was finally shown in a paid-for slot - on a TV channel in Denver - it immediately became a talking point. It was broadcast on TV, radio and newspaper websites. Yet, in its first 24 hours, it only aired about six times as an ad.

The same happened with the second ad, 'Celeb'. Although Spears and Paris Hilton appeared only for a brief second, their inclusion guaranteed massive media coverage. But this ad also revealed the Karl Rove-style thinking behind McCain's campaign. It is a truism of Rovian political tactics - inherited by Schmidt - that you attack an opponent's strength. For Obama, that is his charisma and ability to generate huge crowds of enthusiastic people. The ad tried to turn that into a disadvantage. It was a tactic that worked superbly against Kerry in 2004, when the Republican war room - led by Schmidt - undermined Kerry's record as a Vietnam war hero.

There are also signs that the McCain campaign might be tapping into feelings about the often fawning coverage of Obama. US late-night talk shows are starting to mock Obama's campaign. David Letterman recently delivered one of his trademark 'Top 10' lists on the subject of signs that Obama had become overconfident. They varied from 'Had head measured for Mount Rushmore' to 'Offered McCain a job in gift shop at Obama presidential library'. The Daily Show's Jon Stewart joked that Obama's trip to Israel was so that he could visit his birthplace in Bethlehem. Indeed, within the McCain camp itself the nickname they have given Obama is 'The One'.

Away from the jokes, there is also a belief that some hard realities, and even harder tactics, could burst the bubble of good press that has surrounded the Obama campaign since he beat Hillary Clinton to the Democratic nomination.

Many Republicans believe that the controversy surrounding the Rev Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, will return to haunt him. That would inject race into the campaign in ways that were hinted at last week. When McCain's camp recently accused Obama of playing the race card, it was the first time the subject of his skin colour had directly come up. Many Republican strategists believe that McCain is most likely to benefit from that. 'The more race comes into the debate, the less likely it is that Obama will win,' said Mitchell.

That contention is not proven. But prominently airing the Wright issue in the final month of the campaign would surely test that theory. McCain's camp is unlikely to bring up the Wright issue, but there are many Republican surrogates who will probably do that job enthusiastically. Again, the echoes of the campaign that derailed Kerry are troubling for Democrats. 'Come October, Wright's name recognition is going to be 99 per cent,' said Mitchell.

That could be true. US elections are often dogged by predictions of an 'October surprise', but in 2008 the 'surprise' against Obama may turn out to be very predictable.

Yet Barack Obama is no John Kerry. Obama's campaign has run a ruthlessly efficient response team to the McCain attacks. They have set up websites that address many of the criticisms and Obama has not hesitated to fight back, often within hours or even minutes of the latest assault. In 2004 Kerry was often accused of dithering before responding. In 2008 Obama and his team do the opposite.

But last week's attacks did rattle the Obama camp and led to some strange pronouncements. Robert Gibbs, a senior aide, retreated from Obama's assertion that Republicans were pointing out his race. 'Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue,' he said.

That contradicted Obama's own comments, where he explicitly stated that his opponents were using his background to attack him. 'What they're saying is... he doesn't look like the other Presidents on the currency,' Obama said repeatedly on recent campaign stops in Missouri.

That outbreak of disunity adds to nagging doubts over Obama's performance in the polls. He has enjoyed several months of positive press coverage, whereas McCain has been ignored or ridiculed for a series of gaffes.

But Obama's lead is still narrow. In the RCP National Average of polls, he is ahead by just 2.6 points. The picture is similar in key battleground states like Colorado, Ohio and Virginia, where he is ahead by only a few points. McCain is actually ahead in other vital states, like Florida and Missouri.

'It is surprisingly close,' said Tim Hagle. 'Some people, especially in the media, think that Obama is now like Hillary Clinton at the start of her campaign. That all she had to do was just turn up. Well, we know how that turned out.'

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?

tecoyah · 08-04-2008, 04:29 AM

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.

Poppinjay · 08-04-2008, 04:38 AM

Quote:

McCain has very little charisma

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.

ottopilot · 08-04-2008, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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?

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.

ratbastid · 08-04-2008, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

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.

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.)

ottopilot · 08-04-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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.

Poppinjay · 08-04-2008, 07:19 AM

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.

ottopilot · 08-04-2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

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.

Willravel · 08-04-2008, 08:10 AM

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

genuinegirly · 08-04-2008, 08:18 AM

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.

Willravel · 08-04-2008, 08:33 AM

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).

aceventura3 · 08-04-2008, 10:14 AM

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!

roachboy · 08-04-2008, 12:10 PM

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.

ratbastid · 08-04-2008, 12:21 PM

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

Willravel · 08-04-2008, 02:06 PM

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.

jorgelito · 08-04-2008, 05:27 PM

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.

robot_parade · 08-04-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Obama is not clear, consistent or specific on the issues and is becoming an increasingly easy target for negative ads.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Just today, I was reading some newspapers and we now find Obama in support of off-shore oil drilling (sort of),

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Bama

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Mr. Obama told The Palm Beach Post’s Michael C. Bender. “If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

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

Your score: 0/1

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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),

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by O'Bama

In fact, Obama has said he would not raise the capital gains tax on individuals with income of less than $250,000.

You score: 0/2

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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),

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

he complains about Exxon's profits but no comment on his buddy's, Warren Buffet, company (both have net profit margins of about 10%),

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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).

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

Your score: 1/5

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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!

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.

Willravel · 08-04-2008, 06:47 PM

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

jorgelito · 08-04-2008, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

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

He could be Irish.

guyy · 08-04-2008, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

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.

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.

ottopilot · 08-05-2008, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

He could be Irish.

He may be indeed magical...

Quote:

Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

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

guyy · 08-05-2008, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

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.

aceventura3 · 08-05-2008, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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

Your score: 0/1

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?

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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..

Quote:

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

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?

Quote:

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

Your score: 1/5

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

robot_parade · 08-05-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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..

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

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

An Irish President?! Hey, it worked in Blazing Saddles!

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

aceventura3 · 08-05-2008, 03:49 PM

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

robot_parade · 08-05-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

flstf · 08-06-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

guyy · 08-06-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

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".

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.

aceventura3 · 08-06-2008, 10:03 AM

Here is a Wikipedia link on Excise taxes.

Quote:

Excise duty is a tax levied on the producer of certain goods, commodities and activities. It is a separate tax from VAT, and is different from it in that VAT solely affects the consumer (although, naturally, the consumer also indirectly pays the excise, as it is included in the eventual sale price of the product). The excise duty can account for as much as half the price of the goods subject to it, and sometimes more.

The Oxford Dictionary gives the origin of the word to be the Dutch accijns, itself presumed to originate from the Latin accensare - "to tax".

What is interesting about excise tax is how vague it actually is - it would be difficult, if at all possible, to find a precise definition explaining what it is that categorizes goods subject to excise tax. Lists of such goods are readily provided by governments, and it is possible to guess at what might be the motive for grouping such goods together; however, no explicit, formal definition is provided:

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.

Quote:

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

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-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by robot_parade

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.

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.

reconmike · 08-06-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

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.

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.

roachboy · 08-06-2008, 03:53 PM

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.

reconmike · 08-06-2008, 04:05 PM

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?

ratbastid · 08-06-2008, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

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.

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

guyy · 08-06-2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

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

Ask an American entrepeneur like Lee Iacocca.

Sun Tzu · 08-06-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

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

Red was Irish.

-----Added 7/8/2008 at 03 : 09 : 29-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Difference, of course, is that the welfare crack whore is a myth.

Myth?

ratbastid · 08-07-2008, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Myth?

Yes, it's a myth.

Sun Tzu · 08-07-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

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

The_Jazz · 08-07-2008, 05:39 PM

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.

ratbastid · 08-07-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

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 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.

ngdawg · 08-07-2008, 05:53 PM

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.

08-04-2008, 04:29 AM	#2 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	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. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

08-04-2008, 07:19 AM	#7 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	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. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

08-04-2008, 08:18 AM	#10 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	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. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

08-04-2008, 10:14 AM	#12 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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! __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

08-04-2008, 12:10 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-04-2008, 08:10 AM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	McCain's campaign has been using the attack ads since mid July.

08-04-2008, 08:33 AM	#11 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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).

08-04-2008, 12:21 PM	#14 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Agreed, other-rb. Obama's main crime right now is appearing too presidential.

08-04-2008, 02:06 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

08-04-2008, 05:27 PM	#16 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	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. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

08-04-2008, 06:47 PM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	O'Bama? He look Irish to you? They're always after my lucky hope!

08-05-2008, 03:49 PM	#25 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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 __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

08-06-2008, 03:53 PM	#31 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-06-2008, 04:05 PM	#32 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	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? __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

08-07-2008, 05:39 PM	#38 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

08-07-2008, 05:53 PM	#40 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	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.