Today on Blogcritics
Home » Ten Points of Attack for McCain

Ten Points of Attack for McCain

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Modern day debates have devolved into one line zingers and memorable attack lines instead of actual policy discussion. People's attention spans are too small to digest a 90 minute discussion on issues. It was evident that while interesting, the first debate was disappointing due to its lack of memorable lines or a clear winner. Sen. McCain needs to sharpen his attack with short sentences that cut and see through Obama's soaring rhetoric.

Ten points that McCain and Palin might consider using in the next debates and ads:

1. Sen. Obama has a tendency to stay on the sidelines on tough issues. There is an overt effort to avoid ruffling feathers. May it be in the Illinois state Senate where he voted 'Present' on tough issues such as punishment for gang members or may it be in the gang of 14 to resolve the gridlock over judicial nominees or the recent bailout negotiations where he could have easily gotten involved to forge a bipartisan deal. Instead he chose to stay outside the loop and make statements from his teleprompter while McCain was in the midst of things – for better or worse.  That is what a President is supposed to do. Take the lead and be in charge.

2. Sen. Obama is in the enviable position of saying whatever he wants with minimal risk of being proven wrong because there is no paper trail or a record to match his words and actions. He has voted to raise taxes 94 times and yet now he says he will cut them and Americans are supposed to take his word for it. There is the slimmest of records of bipartisanship and no record whatsoever of standing up to his party and yet we're supposed to accept his words at face value that he will work with both sides.

His 'bipartisanship' includes a law to 'keep lose nukes out of the hands of terrorists'. What does that even mean? It is as controversial and tough as congratulating Michael Phelps on his Olympic achievement. Who would be against keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists? Bipartisanship implies working with the other side to do what is best for the country and in that process you invariably alienate people from both parties. It can be safely assumed no feathers were ruffled when this loose nukes bill was forged.

3. On taxes Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. This is an interesting concept since 95% of Americans pay little or no income taxes. So his tax 'cut' is essentially a welfare program where he will handout rebate checks to people that don't pay any taxes. This is a clever way to hide yet another spending program.

4. On Iran and other rogue nations, Sen Obama wants to talk to them directly. He owes an explanation about what he will say to them. What is the brilliant argument he has in his arsenal that will convince these despots to give up what they're doing? What will he say face to face that cannot be conveyed through high level diplomats or allies that have relations with these countries?

5. There is no proof that he keeps his word on his promises. Sen. Obama was opposed to offshore drilling until the political winds changed and now he is for it. He was against nuclear power and now he is for it with reservations. He was against FISA until he voted for it. There seems to be a pattern of shifting with the polls and public opinion. It shows lack of conviction and raises the issue of trust (not patriotism but trust). Can he be trusted to keep his word when he keeps changing his mind to tell people what they want to hear?

6. Sen. Obama wants the government to take over healthcare and eliminate choices for consumers. He wants to hand over something as vital and important like healthcare to the government that took five days to get water to hurricane victims or the government that can't secure our borders or even handle toll booths efficiently.

7. Sen. Obama has voted with the Democrat leadership 97% of the time. This means he has voted with Harry Reid almost every time – the same Reid who said the war is lost long before the new strategy was even implemented. He voted with the same Nancy Pelosi who has taken over the Congress and run it into the ground. The current Congress has accomplished practically nothing and is even more unpopular than Bush. It is concerning that Obama agrees with such overt partisans every single time. It also proves that bipartisanship is only a punch line for Sen. Obama.

8. Sen. Obama has yet to answer for his running mate's plan to divide Iraq into 3 countries. That would have been disastrous and yet no one has asked them about it. Is that the kind of judgement we need? Obama has also to provide an explanation for asking almost a million dollars for everyday he has been in the Senate in earmarks and Joe Biden's ties to lobbyists and MBNA bank. We still don't have a clarification about Obama's ties to Fannie Mae and the donations from Fannie to his campaign. Both Obama and Biden also owe an explanation on the vote to keep the bill that included the infamous 'bridge to nowhere' alive.

9. Obama has consistently avoided being pinned down on social issues and no one knows what kind of judges he will appoint to the Supreme Court. He has said that certain questions are above his pay grade. This shows yet another unwillingness to take on tough or controversial issues. There is no 'present' button on the President's chair and there is no paygrade above the President's.

10. He has promised to take on 'politics as usual' and change things, yet there is no record of Obama taking on anyone in Illinois or trying to change things there. His political mentor is under an ethics cloud, the Governor is under investigation and the Mayor of Chicago is a walking mascot for cronyism and corruption. Sen. Obama has no record of standing up to any of these people.  There is also no evidence of him taking on the Democrats in Congress. He never called for Congressman Jefferson or the Mayor of Detroit to resign after their respective scandals and neither has he joined those who are calling for Charlie Rangel to step down from his position after his recent embarassment over tax evasion (even the New York Times called for him to step down). Yet he promises to change things once he is President – sorry if we don't take his word for it.

The times are too challenging, too tough and too complicated to give over the reigns of the country to a freshman Senator with no major legislation, no executive experience and no perceivable convictions that stand the test of time. This is no time to try something new without knowing what that new will do once in office. Are you willing to roll the dice, take the risk and find out?

Powered by

About Krutic

  • Cannonshop

    Um, need to see your source on Point 3, Krutic, somehow I don’t think I’m in that top five percent.

  • Cannonshop

    And on Point 7. I’ve heard different percentages bandied about- from 80% to 93%, unless you’re parroting “talking points”, you need a cite here.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I think Krutic is a bit off on #3. It’s more like the top 50% who pay all the tax. He may have been confused because as I recall the top 5% pays 80% of all taxes.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    No matter how you slice it, BHO’s pledge to “cut taxes for 95% of Americans” is bullshit, if for no other reason than that he also proposes to raise the capital gains tax rate, which will effectively raise taxes for the more than 50% of Americans who own securities in their 401Ks.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Does this orthis and the fact that he lied about the timeline in his book matter to all you McCain supporters? especially those of you so interested in Moral Values?

  • Cindy D

    RE item #3 in the article: Handing out welfare checks to people who don’t pay taxes? Please explain what the hell you are talking about. The tax cuts are for tax payers. Making up facts doesn’t count Krutic.

    and post #4:

    OBAMA IS NOT RAISING TAXES FOR THOSE MAKING UNDER $250K…NOT INCOME TAXES, NOT CAPITAL GAINS TAXES.

    Obama Clarifies Scope of Capital Gains Tax Hike

    Here is a large, colorful chart that spells out the differences between Obama and McCain Tax Income Policy.

    Obama’s tax cuts for a good deal more than 60% of the population are substantially more than McCain’s.

    I can’t imagine this excludes you Krutic.

    Let me add that if you do in fact make more than $2.87 million, Obama isn’t going to help your tax situation.

    If your income is less than $111,000 you will get a bigger tax cut from Obama.

    McCain gives puny cuts to a good deal more than 60% of the population and gives huge cuts to those at about 1/2 million – 2 1/2 million and above.

  • Cindy D

    make that Income Tax Policy

  • Clavos

    Cindy,

    Even according to your link, the capital gains tax will go from the current 15% to 20%, regardless of income level.

    That means that everyone who holds securities (now more than 50% of Americans) will have their taxes raised. Period.

  • Cindy D

    Obama voting record on taxes

    McCain Campaign and RNC distort Obama’s record on taxes

    “…by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, McCain and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he’s voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That’s consistent with what he’s said he’d do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.”

    Krutic: You can look that up on realitycheck.org factcheck.org

  • Cindy D

    Quotes are from my link above Clav.

    ABC News’ Teddy Davis, Arnab Datta, and Rigel Anderson Report: Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., top economic advisors announced on Thursday that he is seeking to raise the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent for those Americans making more than $250,000 per year.

    “The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20%…

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Cindy, good luck. For some reason, everyone who is voting for McCain believes he is privileged somehow and that he pays too much in taxes, even those who make under 30,000 a year. It is all part of the delusion. Just like middle class in American means anyone making from 20 grand to 150 grand. (they did a study some years ago where people self described themselves as such) That way, we are ALL middle class here in the good old US of A! Yahoooo.

  • Cindy D

    It is all part of the delusion.

    Lisa,

    It amazes me. I mean if people simply want to vote for Republicans, no matter what the fuck they stand for, then why don’t they just admit that.

    Instead, they’ll twist reality into a pretzel in order to believe that this somehow benefits them.

    These people somehow identify with the rich. It’s something our culture seems to ingrain in people.

  • Krutic A

    Agreed, # 3 is confusing.
    My point was, 95% of Americans do not pay taxes, Tax paying Americans is a lesser percentage than that.
    So the ones that do not pay any, still get a ‘cut’ – which is a spending program since they will receive a rebate check and not see a decrease in their taxes since a certain percentage of working Americans do not pay any Federal income taxes.

  • jacksmith

    Bush, McCain can run. But they cant hide anymore.

    What ever congress does to try and fix our stunning economic catastrophe needs to be done very carefully. Congress needs to take their time, and be sure of what they are doing. Whatever is done needs to be sharply focused at helping, and protecting the best interest of the ordinary Americans. In particular the vast American middle class. 700 billion dollars is a lot of the peoples money to spend to bail out a bunch of corrupt Bush loan sharks.

    When have you ever known any government plan, or project to only cost what the government said it would. Remember the war in Iraq. Bush and his so-called advisers said it would only cost you about 80 billion dollars. But we now know that the war in Iraq will cost you, and your children, and your grand children over a trillion dollars, and still counting.

    So if 80 billion can end up costing you over a trillion dollars. How much could 700 billion end up costing you. Any math wizards out there. I come up with 9 trillion…:-(

    My fellow human beings, just as I warned you ahead of this catastrophic economic meltdown, I must now warn you that what is ahead has the potential to be even more catastrophic than what we are going through now. The worlds geopolitical landscape has been booby trapped by the Bush McCain administration and their republican allies in congress. These booby traps are poised to spring at any time.

    Fortunately the Worlds Nations have been blessed with many excellent leaders (except the US) who have been careful, wise, strong, and self-restrained in dealing with the provocations, and antagonism’s of the Bush, McCain administration.

    Barack Obama and the democrats are your best hope now. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best you can, and vote for them like your life, and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. Because it does. You will not survive 4 more years of Bush McCain.

    JACK SMITH – WORKING CLASS…

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    I am completely convinced that Tina Fey could debate Biden and no one would know the difference.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Lisa,

    Although I am far from “completely convinced” of many things, it seems likely (a) that Tina Fey would be given more favorable attention by the media, and (b) that one of the Three Stooges (were any of them still alive) could successfully debate Senator Biden. On further reflection, one of them could still do a pretty good job, by letting Senator Biden debate himself. What would really be fun would be an Obama/Biden debate.

    How Governor Palin does against Senator Biden will be very interesting. I look forward to watching.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    …least of all biden…

  • Alec

    What a tiresome bunch of nonsense about taxes.

    Right now, today, this minute, under the tax crap that Bush has pushed, a family of 4 making $250,000 in wages pays about $36,000 more in taxes than the same family of 4 who earns $250,000 in capital gains and qualifying dividends. Rathole conservatives will try to rationalize this by suggesting that a person who earns money from investment income should be rewarded more highly than a person who earns income from wages, but it is the purpose of the market, not the tax system to reward taxpayers.

    The imbalance favoring the investor class over ordinary income earners creates a huge incentive for business owners to come up with gimmicks that will let them sell their business and accrue capital gain income as opposed to operating the businesses and hiring people.

    I get invitations to tax seminars with strategies for cutting worker salaries and hours to boos the value of a business so that it can be sold at maximum profit.

    The current tax system is riddled with other crap that gives large advantages to some wealthy folks over people who work for wages or who have small businesses.

    And of course, die-hard conservatives seem to think that the Iraq war and the $700 billion bailout will pay for itself, or worse, that more tax cuts for the wealthy will somehow make the economy zoom. Of course, many of these people think that the world is 6,000 years old.

    Look at this another way. Bush promised that if you all passed his tax cuts, the economy would boom, there would be more jobs and higher wages, and unicorns and lollipops.

    Didn’t happen. What else you got?

    By the way, although Reagan did pull a flim flam with his trickle down nonsense, a part of his philosophy about taxes was sound. He advocated reducing the corporate and the individual tax rates and reducing the gap between capital gains and ordinary income rates so that people would make decisions about investments and starting businesses on their merits, and pay less attention to schemes which would convert ordinary income into capital gains income.

    Bush and his cronies deeply believe that capital gains should not be taxed at all (in 2008 the first tier of cap gain income will be taxed at 0%) or get strongly preferential treatment over ordinary income.

    Also, by the way, I am not in love with some of the tax policy of the Democrats, especially when they blather nonsense about “targeted” tax cuts.

    But by every reasonable measure, the Republicans declared class war on the middle class and largely won, mainly by scaring them with lies.

    For example, they like to talk about death taxes cheating surviving spouses out of their meager inheritances, but their is an unlimited spousal deduction, so this is impossible. They talk about family farms being lost, but no family farm has been lost because of inheritance taxes, while many thousands of farms have been lost to rapacious commercial farm interests.

    The Democrats big problem here is that they need a Ross Perot who can explain simply and clearly (even with a chart if necessary) how Republican policies have hurt the average wage earner and will continue to do so.

    Clavos — to say that people will be taxed on income in their 401K plans is just nonsense. But everything you write about taxes is uninformed.

    RE: Even according to your link, the capital gains tax will go from the current 15% to 20%, regardless of income level.

    This is not true now, and not true under Obama’s plans. You clearly have no understanding of the idea of a MAXIMUM capital gains tax rate.

  • Clavos

    But everything you write about taxes is uninformed.

    Thank you alec…

  • Clavos

    to say that people will be taxed on income in their 401K plans is just nonsense.

    It certainly is, alec. But I didn’t say that. I was talking about capital gains taxes. Apparently you’ve never had an asset appreciate in value and been charged tax on the gain when you sold it? At some point, when withdrawn, even assets held in a 401K will pay cap gains if they’ve appreciated. The taxes due on 401Ks are only deferred, not eliminated.

    Capital gains taxes are not charged until the cap gains are realized; i.e. the securities are sold. I didn’t say anything about income.

  • Cindy D

    RE# 13

    Krutic,

    Agreed, # 3 is confusing.
    My point was, 95% of Americans do not pay taxes, Tax paying Americans is a lesser percentage than that.
    (and the rest of the post)

    I’m afraid that this doesn’t clear anything up for me.

  • bliffle

    But Clavos, Alec is correct.

    For example, you cite the fact that so many people own stock (if only thru their 401k or some other mutual), but clearly they own so little stock that any cap gains tax change will be insignificant to them.

  • bliffle

    jacksmith says:

    “Remember the war in Iraq. Bush and his so-called advisers said it would only cost you about 80 billion dollars. But we now know that the war in Iraq will cost you, and your children, and your grand children over a trillion dollars, and still counting.”

    It’s worse than that. Rumsfeld scoffed vigorously at a reporter who asked if it would cost $30billion or even $50billion.

  • http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/39420/joanne_huspek.html Joanne Huspek

    I guess no one remembers the tax kick back of this spring. That really gave the economy a shot in the arm, didn’t it? I don’t think we got a check, but if we did, it went straight to next year’s taxes.

    To me, you could switch the names of the candidates and it will all come down to the same thing. Does it really matter who anyone votes for? The end result will be the same.

  • bliffle

    Jeez, remember when $50billion seemed like REAL money?

    That was before the neo-republicans followed their Champion Spender, W, into DC.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Remember Senator Everett Dirksen? He said, A billiom here, a billion there, and soon you’re talking about real money.

    I think that was about thirty years ago, at least.

    Seemed funny at the time.

  • Clavos

    but clearly they own so little stock that any cap gains tax change will be insignificant to them.

    It’s all moot, anyway, bliffle. If we wind up spending $700 billion to bail out the banks, we’re ALL going to wind up with a hefty tax hike, even if bho gets elected.

  • Alec

    Clavos: RE: It certainly is, alec. But I didn’t say that. I was talking about capital gains taxes. Capital gains taxes are not charged until the cap gains are realized; i.e. the securities are sold. I didn’t say anything about income.

    You’re still wrong. You don’t understand how these plans work. The plan participant is not liable for taxes, capital or otherwise, that result from the trading that goes on the securities held within these plans.

    You may be confusing pension plans with mutual fund distributions.

    Also, you are not clear on the distinction between realized and recognized gains.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    If your income is less than $111,000 you will get a bigger tax cut from Obama.

    That’s a frighteningly low cutoff, Lisa. It puts a good chunk of the middle class in Obama’s target zone.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    Alec,

    The plan participant is not liable for taxes, capital or otherwise, that result from the trading that goes on the securities held within these plans.

    As I said before, he is liable at withdrawal, unless rolled over into another (IRA) plan. At some point, after age 59 1/2, he will withdraw and keep the funds. At that point he’s liable for taxes. And, many boomers are at that point, and are beginning to withdraw their funds.

    If you put $10K into a 401K and it grows, while in the 401K, to $100K, you won’t pay taxes on it as it grows and while it remains in the 401K, but when you start withdrawing the funds, you will definitely owe taxes on it.

    A portion of my income for the past several years has been from realized capital gains (not from a 401K, however – I never had one of those). I definitely know the difference between recognized and realized gains.

  • Alec

    Dave – RE: That’s a frighteningly low cutoff, Lisa (If your income is less than $111,000 you will get a bigger tax cut from Obama). It puts a good chunk of the middle class in Obama’s target zone.

    Really? In 2006, only 8.7% of tax returns filed had an AGI (adjusted gross income) between $100,000 and $200,000. Only 2.3% had AGI between $200,000 and $500,000. I don’t think this counts as a “good chunk.”

    By the way, I used AGI instead of personal income or household income because these other measures may include income that is not taxable. But even here, only about 10% of households have household income of between $100,000 and $150,000.

  • Alec

    Clavos – RE: As I said before, he is liable at withdrawal, unless rolled over into another (IRA) plan. At some point, after age 59 1/2, he will withdraw and keep the funds. At that point he’s liable for taxes. And, many boomers are at that point, and are beginning to withdraw their funds.

    In general, distributions from these plans are taxed as ordinary income. In other (slightly fancier words), “the CHARACTER of any gains (including tax favored capital gains) are transformed into “ordinary income” at the time the money is withdrawn.” (hat tip to Wikipedia, ’cause it was faster than looking it up in the IRS Pub 17).

    Of course, since you are talking IRAs, things can get even crazier. Qualified distributions from Roth IRAs can be TAX FREE. This includes all accumulated increases in the value of the Roth IRA.

    Now what, again, was your point about the taxation of capital gains?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Alec, she didn’t SAY that she was referring to AGI, that does at least raise the limit a bit higher.

    That aside, I still don’t see any justification for raising taxes on the productive elements of society.

    Dave

  • bliffle

    Dave is wrong again:

    That aside, I still don’t see any justification for raising taxes on the productive elements of society.

    High earners are NOT the most economically productive elements of society. Their Marginal Propensity To Spend is lower than the lowest earners in society. Thus, when taxes are lowered for them, and taxes increase for the least paid, as must happen, discretionary income is moved from the class with the highest Economic Multiplier to the class with a lower Multiplier.

    Surely you remember this from Econ 102, don’t you?

  • Alec

    Dave – RE: Alec, she didn’t SAY that she was referring to AGI, that does at least raise the limit a bit higher.

    AGI is the more reasonable number to use as a starting point because it allows for easier comparisons across income groups. People are NOT taxed on household income, and taxable income is not useful for a lot of technical reasons. By the way, this suggests that both Obama and McCain are being imprecise when they talk about income thresholds and taxation, but I don’t have to follow their imprecision.

    RE: That aside, I still don’t see any justification for raising taxes on the productive elements of society.

    It is a weird fallacy that higher income people are necessarily more productive. I’ve reviewed tax returns for farmers who have millions in assets and inventory, but relatively small amounts of taxable income several years running.

    Again, I give Reagan some props here for trying to make aspects of the tax system more fair. It is not as easy as one might think to figure out who is being more productive.

    And people forget that even during periods when the top marginal rate was in excess of 70%, plenty of people made tons of bucks and employed millions. I am not suggesting that we go back to those days, but the conventional wisdom of an easy correlation between tax rates and productivity does not stand up to scrutiny.

  • Cannonshop

    #13
    Krutic, Source, Please? I want only to know how you come to your 95%??

  • Cindy D

    RE #29

    Dave,

    I am not sure if you actually meant to address me or what you mean by a cut off. But since you quoted my post, I’ll answer.

    I didn’t say that you would get no tax cut if you made more than $111,000.00 (If this is what you meant by a cut off). I just said your tax cut would be BIGGER from Obama than McCain. Unless Obama gives out a stimulus payment that is.

    If you make between $112,000.00 and $160,000.00 Obama will cut your taxes 2.1% and McCain 2.5%–for an average of $2204 cut with Obama vs $2614 with McCain.

    However, if you add say a stimulus check of $500 single or $1,000 then Obama puts you ahead in that particular tax year.

    Obama’s cuts reach to those making $226,000.00 and his increases begin at $603,000.00.

  • Cindy D

    Clav,

    At some point, after age 59 1/2, he will withdraw and keep the funds. At that point he’s liable for taxes. And, many boomers are at that point, and are beginning to withdraw their funds.

    I’m not sure if you know that Obama intends to nix income tax for seniors making $50k and under.

  • Clavos

    I’m not sure if you know that Obama intends to nix income tax for seniors making $50k and under.

    I am.

  • Cindy D

    I messed up #37 a bit. The unless Obama gives out a stimulus payment applies to those making $112,000 and $160,000.

  • Baronius

    Krutic, a couple of your points touch on the theme of leadership. You’re completely right on this. Obama hasn’t been a leader of the Democrats or a bipartisan leader. He didn’t lead in Illinois, and he isn’t leading in Washington, especially during this credit crisis. I think that McCain should hammer away on the point. It’s one thing to have limited experience, it’s another to have been ineffective in the few positions you’ve held.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Gwen Ifill, the moderator of the Palin-Biden debate set for Thursday, appears to be “in the tank” for Senator Obama. According to an article in WorldNetDaily,

    “The moderator of Thursday’s vice-presidential debate is writing a book to come out about the time the next president takes the oath of office that aims to “shed new light” on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and other “emerging young African American politicians” who are “forging a bold new path to political power.”

    It seems that the McCain campaign hadn’t a clue about this until yesterday evening. One might wonder why the campaign wasn’t told by PBS.

    Even if the moderator bends over backwards to be scrupulously fair, the taint will persist. If Governor Palin does poorly (as some folks seem to anticipate), then the perceived bias of the moderator (whose book might well sell better if released when President Obama is inaugurated than when President McCain is inaugurated) will provide an excellent justification. A new moderator should be found, ASAP.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Cindy D

    Even if the moderator bends over backwards to be scrupulously fair, the taint will persist. If Governor Palin does poorly (as some folks seem to anticipate), then the perceived bias of the moderator (whose book might well sell better if released when President Obama is inaugurated than when President McCain is inaugurated) will provide an excellent justification. A new moderator should be found, ASAP.

    And if the McCain campaign doesn’t insist on this (and Palin falls flat on her face again), some might be left wondering why. It would certainly make a convenient excuse.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Gwen Ifil’s political leanings were well known before information about this book came out. I doubt it’s much of a surprise to McCain. She generally does a pretty good job of putitng her personal politics aside and being objective. I wouldn’t worry too much if I were the McCain campaign.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Looks like the right is grasping at straws to explain Palin’s expected poor performance. No doubt the footage of a journalism major unable to name a newspaper or magazine she reads have got them panicking.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    El Bicho, re Comment #45

    Assuming that you are right correct, why set the debate up so that it will be so easy to do so?

    Dan(Miller)

  • Cindy D

    That is obviously the result of unfair editing!

    I am sure that Palin can read, even if she does have to move her lips.

  • Clavos

    It doesn’t matter how well (or poorly) any of them do in these debates; few, if any, of the public will be swayed one way or the other by the debates, pollsters notwithstanding.

    Those who favor a candidate will vote for him/her even if he/she farts out loud during the debate. Those against, won’t, even if the candidate does extremely well. Left wing dems won’t vote for the reps regardless of what they stand for, and right wing reps won’t vote for a dem. As for the “centrists,” none are dead on the center; they lean one way or the other, and will vote accordingly.

    The pollsters are in the business of selling an unending series of poll results to both the campaigns and the media. For that reason alone, they will keep the suspense at a high level, with see-sawing polls and tight rankings.

    It’s called marketing.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Cindy D,

    Yes, but why are you sure that Governor Palin can read? I have heard of several people who managed to get baccalaureate degrees without being able to do so.

    As to moving her lips, sometimes mine become uncontrollable when I read inane stuff. And, hell, I can read and rite write; sometimes, I can even do so simultaneously.

    Perhaps during the debate Governor Palin should be given a copy of a NY Times article and asked to read it, just to determine whether she can do so and whether she moves her lips.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Cindy D

    NORAD SHOOTS DOWN PALIN’S CLAIM:

    Remember last week when Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin if she really thought that being able to see Russia from Alaska was evidence of foreign policy experience and Palin was like, “Yah, sure, Vladimir Putin flies over and we keep watch, dontcha know?” Well, even that flustered response was, let’s be polite, inaccurate:

    When Russian bombers approach American airspace and U.S. Air Force fighters are scrambled, Sarah Palin’s phone doesn’t ring.

    The Alaska governor has no command authority over the guardians of U.S. airspace despite her recent suggestion otherwise.

    “She doesn’t have any role in that process,” Air Force Maj. Allen Herritage, spokesman for the Alaska North American Aerospace Defense Command, told the Daily News.

    “The commander does not call the governor,” noted Herritage. But I’m sure she hears about it on the news a little later. And that’s gotta count for something, right?

    Hopefully, she watches the news. Probably not likely on the night My Name is Earl airs.

  • bliffle

    Some might claim that it’s in Palins favor that PBS has a FEMALE moderator. So, wouldn’t Ifill be biased in Palins favor?

    None less than William Clinton has declared that gender is the issue, not race! On the View: you can look it up.

  • http:://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Being a fellow female may make Ifil feel that she has license to hit Palin harder than she might if she were a man. But as a Washington insider I’m sure Ifil despises Biden just as much as everyone else, so I doubt she’ll cut him any slack.

    Palin’s main strength going into this debate is that Biden is a loudmouthed idiot. Nothing she does is going to cure him of that problem.

    Dave

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Considering the debates are set up by a commission of Democrats and Republicans and both campaigns have to reach agreements cries of any unfairness fall flat.

    Surely the McCain campaign had to know about Ifill’s reaction to Palin at the convention, which was in the video posted in the WND article you linked to, and the percentages certainly suggest that a black woman is more likely to vote for Obama. If they didn’t know either, they should show the accountability that McCain wants out of people and quit their jobs.

    Expecting the worse, the McCain campaign is spinning the debate before rather. Yet, another example of how poorly the operation is running.

  • Clavos

    Yet, another example of how poorly the operation is running.

    Which really doesn’t matter.

  • Krutic A

    A lot of GOP insiders are now getting antsy and they want McCain to attack. McCain, like Obama is not natural at attacking. He does not like it.
    Palin is the attack dog.
    The McCain camp has kept her in a bubble and its not working out well. She is natural at attacking and free media interviews in prime time are a great way to get your point across. They HAVE to start letting her go to radio talk shows, cable news and online chat interviews, etc.
    It will be interesting to see if she is on the offense in the debate.
    Baiting Biden to say something moronic would be a good strategy.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Which really doesn’t matter.”

    It does if he loses

  • Clavos

    It does if he loses

    Only to him. It’s not going to change any “minds.” What few are out there…

  • Cindy D

    when he loses

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I’m loving this. Expectations are so horribly low for Sarah Palin that uttering the words, “Thank you, Gwen,” will cause a 15 point spike in the polls and most of the stupid, Lemming-like American public will fall for it because they’ve been led to believe Sarah Palin is nothing short of a female buffoon. I look at Biden and all I think is MBNA, Capitol One and any other financial institution incorporated in the State of Delaware. Somehow the buffoon is preferable.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Daniel Miller

    Clav,

    Many thanks for finding the video. Should they record again, I have a modest suggestion:

    Barack loves me, this I know
    For my mommy (daddy) tells me so.
    Little ones to him belong,
    We are weak but he is strong.
    Yes, Barack Loves me . . .

    I notice that it is now available on a BlogsforJohnMcCain site. So, I guess pulling the video wasn’t a vast right wing conspiracy after all

    Dan(Miller)

  • Cindy D

    I have a personal tribute page to Sen. McCain because he was so “presidential” in explaining his actions as being part of a group who apparently finds this sort of thing amusing and in asking the rest of us–because we are not members of this inside group–to accept his humble apology if he offended us (including, of course, some of us who he knows have lost children).

    What a wonderful guy.