Can You Spell Potato?

Joe Biden has his Dan Quayle moment. The only surprise, since Joe is "The GaffeMaster" is that MSNBC actually aired this clip.



Maybe SNL can get a skit together by Saturday of Joe trying to count the number of letters in words.

Read The Full Post!

Patriotism

Evidently, patriotism is in play this election season. Instead of challenging the other candidates patriotism, though, Joe Biden has decided to challenge a group of peoples, those earning over $250,000 per year.

According to Joe, it's time for them to pony up and pay their fair share. It would be, according to him, the patriotic thing to do. He even invokes Catholic social doctrine of taking care of those who need help the most. Can you imagine a GOP candidate invoking church doctrine as a reason to do anything?

That 250,000 level equates to approximately the top 5% of income earners in the country. According to the Treasury Department, that group currently pays 57% of the (income) tax bill for the country, while earning 33% of the income. The bottom 50%, the folks who are supposedly getting squeezed out pay only 3% of all income taxes.

So exactly how much more in taxes would be "Patriotic"? How much more money does Joe Biden think the folks who are already footing the bill for our society should pay?

The better question is, if the Obama-Biden team is going to raise taxes on them, do they think they'll actually take in as much as they project? The Department of Treasury figured that without the 2003 Bush tax cut the upper five percent of earners would pay 52% of the tax bill. After that tax cut they actually paid 57% of the bill, even though they supposedly got the most benefits from it.

Conversely, if you jack their taxes up, they will shelter money, and pay less in taxes. Capital Gains are a prime example of this, since it's an easily avoidable tax, just hold the asset and you don't pay it.

While the Democrats have claimed the new rate of 15% took too much burden off the wealthy, reported capital gains income after the last round of cuts went UP by 154% over the next 3 years. Since the markets only rose by 13% in that time, a good market can't explain the whole increase. The real explaination is that the rate became low enough to make it worthwhile to sell investments earlier and reinvest the money, or to sell them and spend the money.

Raising it to the level that Obama wants, 25 percent, removes a lot of the incentive to roll those investments, and won't increase capital gains tax receipts, it will decrease them. It ends up removing a large amount of investment income that is used to fuel economic growth.

I'm pretty sure that if Obama-Biden get the tax hikes they want, they'll find that a lot of the folks they are trying to hit will say "Screw Patriotism, I'm keeping my money".

Read The Full Post!

Shake the Elitist Tag?

I got a laugh today, reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page (from yesterday) while getting an oil change.

A lady by the name of Lynn Forester De Rothschild wrote a piece called "Democrats Need to Shake The 'Elitist' Tag". I'm sorry, but when Barack Obama is getting lectured by a lady named De Rothschild, who's a lawyer and CEO of a private investment firm, about being an elitist, I find it funny. It's kind of like having (the late) George Carlin tell you to quit clowning around.

She is actually correct in what she says, but she should have used a pen name for the article. Democrats in particular, and the left in general, do need to shake that tag. But it's a hard one to get rid of.

The problem is elitism implies that they are smarter than everyone else; and if you ask them they will tell you all about it. Obama has been doing it for months on the campaign trail. His party's surrogates have been doing it for years, long before Al Gore lost in 2000.

A great example of liberal elitism is Roger Ebert's issues with Sarah Palin (h/t to Charlie):

And how can you be her age and never have gone to Europe? ... Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a hopeless provincial. ... Palin is a shallow, chirpy person with those vaguely alarming eyeglasses. Now her fans all want a pair. Remember back when women wore glasses that departed their ears in plastic swoops and swirls? My theory is, anyone who wears glasses that look weird is telling me something I don't want to know. I trust the American people will see through Palin's facade, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.

Hey Roger, I've gotten to be her age, and only went to Europe because Uncle Sam thought it would be a nice detour on my way to Long Beach, California. I could have afforded to go more recently, but thought it more important to put money into my home, and my kids education.

A whole lot of people that the Democrats and liberals supposedly care about; working stiffs; reach 40, or 50, or 60, and can't afford to visit Europe. According to Roger, that makes them hopeless provincials.

Ms. Forester De Rothschild makes a good point, that part of John McCain's appeal to the folks slightly left of center is that he could be an elite, but refused to become one. He came from a good family, with a famous father, yet he abandoned using that when he was a POW. Many folks don't realize he could have come home quite quickly, because of his name, but refused.

With Barack Obama we get reminded not of his deeds for and towards others; with the exception of his hazy 'community organizing'; but of what he did for himself. That's a sure sign that you are an elitist.

When you haven't reached 50, but you have written two books, about yourself, it's hard not to be seen as an elitist snob. And he wonders why he's having a hard time connecting to Mr & Mrs Middle America.

In not too many weeks we'll be holding an election. The Democrats should be worried that the middle class they want to appeal to so badly, mostly through bribes and giveaways, will decided that they like the idea of a war hero and moose hunter better than the editor of the Harvard Law Review and a 35 year Washington insider.

Mr. Middle America probably used to dream of flying fighter jets, and shooting moose. His wife probably knows the pressure felt when trying to raise a family, hold a job, and still get dinner on the table, all the while dealing with the neighborhood gossip mongers.

None of them probably thought of getting a Harvard Law degree and being stuck in the Senate for 35 years.

*********************************
Update from Yesterday's Post on ABC's Palin Interview.

Time Magazine's online poll question today is

Do you agree with Sarah Palin that the US should go to war to defend Georgia if necessary?

This, as was much of the Gibson interview, is a distortion of her actual position, and takes the answer to a hypothetical question and turns it into an absolute position.

Remember, she answered that IF Georgia was admitted to NATO AND Russia attacked, yes we would be required under the treaty to help defend them. Here actual position on circumstances as they are now is that economic pressure is the best way to get Russia to back off.

Read The Full Post!

Is Plagiarism Contagious?

One now has to wonder if Joe Biden's plagiarism is a contagious disease. NewsBusters has a great piece up showing that Barack Obama's entire rant prior to the "Lipstick on a Pig" line was lifted from Tom Toles cartoon in the Washington Post on September 5th.

It will be interesting to see if this makes it into the mainstream media, or if they decide to ignore it. My guess is they will ignore it, unless it gets enough play from talk radio to force the issue.

It did come up in today's Washington Post political chat with Anne E. Kornblut, she didn't answer the question of whether it was going to be a problem, but at least acknowledged it happened. Hopefully someone from The Wall Street Journal, or better, the Washington Post, since it was their cartoon, will follow up on it.

Or, maybe the Centers for Disease Control should look into the idea that plagiarism is a PTD (Politically Transmitted Disease), and quarantine those who seem to be afflicted.

(H/T to Charlie)

Read The Full Post!

Running Scared

It's getting fun to watch as "The One" finds out that he may need to scratch January 21, 2009 out of his anointment appointment book.

White women and independents are flocking over to the McCain Palin ticket, and Joe Biden won't be helping by telling people that her being elected would be step backwards for women.

Barack Obama is in full defensive mode, not knowing how to react to the media that's suddenly being somewhat warm to the opponent, and realizing that a novice senator with no record, and a 35 year Washington insider aren't exactly "change agents".

The problem for him is his lack of a record is starting to show. While Palin can claim some legitimate (and some questionable) reform victories in Alaska, and McCain has a record of bucking his party, Obama's campaign folks claimed are grasping at straws for anything that might look like reform.

Sunday David Axelrod got caught with his pants down by Chris Wallace of Fox News, when he claimed that Obama's support of ethics reform and nuclear non-proliferation were items that "went against his party". Wallace was kind enough to point out to him that both of those items were passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, no roll call needed. That's not reform, that's following the herd.

While Obama has decided that Alaska keeping the "bridge to nowhere" money is bad; even if it's now being used for needed infrastructure improvements instead of the bridge; he voted for that money, twice.

My guess is that in the next 3 to 4 weeks we'll start seeing McCain ads about earmarks, that Obama will have to defend himself, and fellow Democrats against. Remember that in 2006 one of the hallmarks of the party taking over congress was that earmarks would get cut down.

Instead, last year Obama asked for $330 million, including money that went to the hospital his wife works at and companies represented by Joe Biden's lobbyist family members.

Read The Full Post!

Can Sarah Survive?

So, this weekend's big Kos created controversy, Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter has all the headlines today.

For those who missed it, and I don' t know how you could, I think the weather channel interrupted hurricane coverage to talk about it; Daily Kos writers claimed that Sarah Palin's youngest child is actually her daughters child.

Turns out it's not true (like much of anything you read on Kos is), and that Palin's daughter is in fact pregnant right now. The moonbats on the left, have gone nuts screaming about the hypocrisy of a "family values" person having a pregnant teenage daughter. Which is actually funny. Hypocrisy would be if she encouraged her daughter to have an abortion. Helping her daughter deal with an obvious mistake, and not tossing her aside is the definition of family values.

Keep in mind the folks who are screaming kicked John Edwards off of the platform in Denver when he admitted to his affair. And replaced him with Bill Clinton. That's hypocrisy, and a hilarious twist.

Back to Palin. Do I think this is something that could torpedo her as the VP choice? No. In fact, I think if the far left isn't careful those pissed off Hillary voters are going to take 3 steps to the right and defend Palin.

These are folks who were horribly indignant about the treatment Clinton got during the primaries, labeling a lot of it sexist, some of it rightfully so. They were more ticked off when the agent of change picked a 35 year DC insider white male as his running mate.

Now, as they watch the party try and attack another woman and destroy her, enough may get ticked to swing the election the "right" direction. Barack Obama, to his credit, knows this and has told his campaign the Palin daughter, and all children, are off limits.

In fact one slip of the tongue on the subject would flash up so many bad memories of the primaries for women in the Democratic party that Obama would probably have to behead the offending person to calm them down. Joe Biden, are you listening?

There is in fact, a new blog out there, the Sarah Palin Sexism Watch devoted to tracking the sexist remarks in the media about the Governor. It's already quite lengthy, with such luminaries as Campbell Brown going insane over the "choice" of Palin to raise a family and run for VP.

By the way, if you think it is okay to ask Palin why she's running for VP with young children and a pregnant daughter, make sure you ask Joe Biden why he didn't resign from the Senate when his wife died and he was left to raise two young sons.

Read The Full Post!

McCain's Pick

I'm sure that John McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin, isn't the most qualified person he could get on the ballot this year. What I am sure about is that she scares the hell out of liberals. All you have to do is start reading their editorials about her pick, and you can see by the speed at which they degenerate into name calling they are bothered.

Gail Collin's of the NY Times thinks that Joe Biden now has the throw away line of the year "I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton". The problem for Biden is that Palen may well respond to that line, with something like "You're right, Senator. I've held real jobs, didn't carpetbag my way to a Senate seat, and never made $100,000 in one day of trading."

Liberals are afraid because, as they know, Joe Biden is a gaffe machine. He might have been able to get away with a cheap shot at Mitt Romney's religion, or hair, or whatever. But if he produces another 'Indian's at 7-11' shot towards Palin he may find himself on the bitter end of 150 million scorned female tongues.

Liberals are bothered because McCain could already run on a platform of being bipartisan, and reform minded, and has legislative accomplishments to back it up. Obama can talk about change, but has no legislative record to show that's what he is about. Palin brings that reform spirit, a record to prove it, and an outside the beltway presence that Joe Biden can't fake, or plagiarise.

The Democrats are making a big deal of her lack of foreign policy experience, which is valid, and claim it negates any claim that Obama is too inexperienced. The problem with that is Obama is the guy in the decision making seat on their side of the fence, Palin isn't. Biden's "experience" consists of chairing a committee that doesn't make policy, it second guesses it for the most part.

The other side of that coin is Palin holds executive experience that none of the other 3 have. No, it's not a great deal of it, but it's more executive decision making experience than her counterpart, who's been holed up in the Senate for 35 years.

Palin's also done something that neither Obama or Biden has, she's stood up to the party big wigs. Senator Frank Murkowski put her on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and she promptly started an ethics investigation into the state's GOP chair. She also took on the GOP's Attorney General in the state, who ended up resigning.

Say "Ethic investigation" around Obama and he suddenly knows nothing about anything and never met anyone. If you say ethics around Biden he says the plagarism wasn't his fault.

Palin may not be the person most of us were thinking of as a running mate, but she may well prove to be a good one.

Read The Full Post!

The Neophyte and the Plagarist?

So, the neophyte candidate, the man who is all about "change", and making Washington different picks a 35 year DC insider, who aborted one of his own White House runs due to charges of plagiarism to be his running mate?

Exactly what gets "different" with Joe Biden as VP over Dick Cheney. Dick is connected to big oil, Joe to big credit, specifically credit card companies. Cheney supposedly thinks of himself as the smartest guy in the room. Biden will tell you he's the smartest guy in the room.

Joe's big kick to the Obama campaign is foreign policy. But what experience doe he have running foreign policy? None, he's run a committee that deals with it. But it's not like he's spent any time actually making decisions concerning it. If that's the qualification Obama was looking for there are probably a dozen folks left over from the Clinton State Department who have actual foreign policy credentials to help his campaign.

There are already tons of MSM outlets parading around Joe's greatest gaffes, just from 2006 to this year when he was running for President. The 529's will be hauling out the tape of the 1988 campaign to help him out here shortly.

Sorry Barack, but the choice you made wasn't the best one out there. It'll further alienate the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) crowd who thinks Hillary should be VP, unless you forgot, Biden was Pro-War when it came to Iraq, which will get you questioned by the nut-roots. You complain about big banks and credit card companies screwing the little guy, and pick someone who's been horribly friendly to them his entire time in DC.

I'm not sure where the logic came from in this choice, other than Biden is older and has more "experience" the problem is, it may not be the right experience.

Read The Full Post!

Happy Memorial Day!

It's Memorial Day Weekend, the unofficial start of summer. And it was 48 degrees at my house last night, not exactly "summery" weather.

I'll be out of town for the weekend, though I may still post a thing or two since I have to take the laptop and catch up on missing paperwork for the boss.

If you are traveling, be safe. If you aren't, I hope you are enjoying the weekend with family and friends.

Monday keep in mind why this is "Memorial Day" weekend, and remember those who gave all so that we can bbq, water ski, and picnic this weekend.

Now here's a little "light reading" from the Wall St. Journal's editorial pages this week.

From Friday's Potomac Watch, Kimberly Strassel wrote about "The Obama Learning Curve" when it comes to foriegn policy. Joe Biden attempts to come to Obama's defense on the same page with "Republican's and our Enemies" but omits every lesson of appeasement over the last 30 years, since the original Iranian Hostage Crisis. Not a surprise, since those lessons paint the Obama strategy as a new folly in foriegn policy.

Biden's opinion is a direct response to a Wednesday piece by Joe Lieberman, "Democrats and Our Enemies" which asks, "How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?"

Contrast the two and what you see is Lieberman giving an honest assessment of his party and it's move left. Biden's piece like the standard Democratic Party (or MoveOn.Org) lines of the last 7 years, with no real answers, or solutions, but instead whining about everything being W's fault.

Finally if you skip everything I recommended above, read Paul Ryan's (R-Wi) "How To Tackle the Entitlement Crisis", which outlines his legislative initiative "A Roadmap for America's Future". Ryan points out that, left unchecked an unchanged, which is the easy road for our Congress, by the time his kids reach 38 government spending on entitlement programs will consume 40% of our economy. That's not 40% of our taxes, we're past that point already, but 40% of GDP. In otherwords, current spending isn't sustainable.

Ryan; who should be John McCain's running mate come the convention; asked the CBO to provide him the required tax numbers to balance the budget under the assumption that no economic feedback occurred from tax increases, and that increasing taxes was the only way to balance the budget. The result was we'd need an 88% tax bracket, and the lowest bracket would have to be 25%. He based his roadmap on getting rid of that insane tax requirement.

Ryan knows that his plan will go no where, and admits it. What he hopes is that providing the rest of congress an honest assement of the state of entitlement spending might spur them to take honest steps to address it.

Read The Full Post!