Instant Reaction: McCain Delivered the Steak, Palin Delivered the Sizzle
September 4th, 2008 at 11:32pm Kevin Patrick
And that is how it should be.
The Democrats have it backwards.
Advantage: GOP
The rhetorical flourish at the end was very nice. Excellent crescendo in the back half of the more substantive and workmanlike speech.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, RNC08, Republicans
65 Comments
1. Phil | September 5th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Delivered the Steak and Sizzle, more like the Bull and the Sh#@. Sarah P. talked about a bunch of nothing the entire time she was up there. If I wanted a comedian as the VP i’d rather see Ellen D. up there…she’s funny. Our nations situation is no laughing matter, it’s serious business and we need leaders who will get us going in the right direction. Both McCain and Obama talk of thing that neither of them will probably be able to accomplish, but McCain is all of the sudden talking change and he’s been in the Senate for the past 8 years, agreeing with Bush on 90% of the issues as he year by year tore our country apart. The sad part is people are so caught up in all of the bull, that they are forgetting that forclosure rate is at a all time high and rising, gas, and electric is outrageous, global warming is getting worse, and we are still fighting a war that Republicans have given a different reason damn near every year on why we are there. Come on, please don’t be so naive and ignorant. America fell for the lies two times with Bush, don’t do it again!!!
2. cam | September 5th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Phil,
One thing is for sure. With all that free time she had being mayor of Wasilla she had a lot of time working on her stand up routine from the compilation of e-mail jokes she collected on the government dime.
Seriously, you hit it on the head. America, look, over there, its a Palin.
3. Kahn | September 5th, 2008 at 1:13 am
Phil, Bush does not have a vote in the Senate. And Obama skipped or voted “present” on almost anything the least bit controversial.
One vote he did make was one to cut off food, water, ammunition, fuel, and armor to troops in combat. You proud of that one Phillie boy?
4. Kahn | September 5th, 2008 at 1:14 am
cam,
speaking of jokes - your penis pictures are in.
5. Chuckasaurus | September 5th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Don’t go pointing out how the Messiah hasn’t done anything.
We’re supposed to be focusing on Sarah Palins experience, remember?
Obama’s lack of experience, and lack of a backbone when it’s time to vote, are not to be spoken of.
6. Mark Noonan | September 5th, 2008 at 1:38 am
You lefties really gotta grab a clue and realise that your attacks on Governor Palin are backfiring…you’ve gone from looking merely nasty to looking really stupid. That speech she gave was simply fantastic and your best bet is to acknowledge it and attempt to attack on substance, not on your absurd talking points.
7. Obama08 | September 5th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Had the Democrats shown that video “World Stood Still,” Hannity and Rush would go ballistic.
RNC:
The Finest War Porn Available
8. Catfish | September 5th, 2008 at 2:12 am
you mean the vote against funding which mccain himself missed (isnt that worse than “present”) and urged his fellow senators to vote down? THAT vote Kahn? Thought so………and then a small penis joke!!!!! BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!…..douche
9. bongoman | September 5th, 2008 at 2:29 am
So now it’s no interviews for Palin, just scripted speeches? You’re kidding, right? All that sizzle and she’s not going to be allowed off the leash?
I want to know what library books she sought to have banned? Did she have them burnt?
10. New Conservative | September 5th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Wow you guys need to get a clue. Palin went over amazingly last night. McCain did a good job tonight. I wouldn’t be surprised to see us up five points on Sunday or Monday.
http://thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
11. Thrower | September 5th, 2008 at 2:54 am
I thought it was a great speech from a great man. I was sorry to hear it panned by so many people. It was a statement on his life and his beliefs, and he earned them the hard way.
We are all poorer for the fact that he didn’t beat Bush in the 2000 primary. Either Gore or McCain would have been light years better than Bush. But I think he is over, and even the partisans on this board are eagerly awaiting the Palin era despite the fact that they know virtually nothing about her.
Let me make a prediction to those who think she will be an attraction to Hillary voters. These two women will soon embark on a death struggle to determine who will be the first woman president and neither will play fair. You can expect Hillary to fight for Obama as if her political life depends on it because it does. Every rock in Palin’s history will be overturned in the next couple of election cycles, and every public statement she makes will be noted and filed. If she wins, she will be the most thoroughly vetted candidate ever.
I think McCain will be more than a footnote in history. That a man could endure all he did and still be a leader in putting the Vietnam experience behind us says volumes about his character. It is unfortunate that he had to burn so many crucial bridges to win the nomination.
12. FactCheck | September 5th, 2008 at 4:32 am
attack on substance,
Well, there wasn’t any substance. That’s the problem. There was definitely some lying, though. You seem rather fired up by them, too. Is that all it takes for you? A pretty lie? You’re quite the easy one.
13. WhatChange | September 5th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Here’s the difference. McCain/Palin are without fear. The Dems, the liberals, their cultists and their Euro worldview are completely afraid to print CARTOONS of the evil Mohammad and his ideology.
They will use absurd reasoning to deny that, but it’s there for all to see. Cut and run, the war is lost, the surge won’t work, and of course, don’t print the cartoons, but hide under your wife’s skirt. Pathetic.
14. WhatChange | September 5th, 2008 at 5:06 am
That should read biggest difference. They’re also socialists. Bin Laden put it best when he threatened anyone not voting for known coward Francois Kerry. Obama was 2nd best when he stated he will meet with any tryant without preconditions. And the cultist cheer.
Cowards, socialists. Blame America first.
McCain/Palin 08.
15. bongoman | September 5th, 2008 at 5:34 am
LOL - didn’t you know there’s a muslim with a beheading knife under your bed!!!! Be afraid! Be very afraid!
16. Retired Spook | September 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Every rock in Palin’s history will be overturned in the next couple of election cycles, and every public statement she makes will be noted and filed. If she wins, she will be the most thoroughly vetted candidate ever.
I don’t have a problem with that as long as they do exactly the same to Hillary. Her past defines the term dirty laundry. She needs a freight car to hold all her baggage. If you think that the American people are going to pick someone who came up through the Saul Alinsky school of politics over someone who came up through the PTA, then you don’t have a very good understanding of the average American.
17. coulterfan | September 5th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Palin delivered the sizzle. . . you’re right about that. But there was no substance.
McCain delivered neither. While his speech was a harsh indictment on the Republicanism of the last 8 years (I bet Bush, DeLay, et al LOVED those lines. . . and there was very little applause), he offered no specific proposals. Sure, there was lip service to education and helping the working/middle class. But his ‘policies’ were a laundry list of the same policies of the Bush administration! He even stole some of Bush’s lines (’education is the new civil right’)! In contrast, Obama offered very specific proposals- this GOP convention was all about McCain the man who spent over 5 years in a POW camp. While an impressive story about his character, this does nothing to address the problems that Americans are facing today.
Ironic that the GOP has criticized Obama for being all talk, no substance. Yet it is the Democratic party which set forth the bold policy proposals. The Republicans have put up NO specifics, but instead run a Wingnut Governor with no foreign policy experience who is unavailable for interviews/press conferences. Talk about no substance!
Speaking of interviews, did you see the first part of the Obama interview on “The O’Reilly Factor”? Parts 2,3,4 air next Mon-Weds and part 1 was last night (available on FoxNews web site). I think Bill was pretty impressed by Obama- if you want to see who can deal with substantive issues, you owe it to yourselves to watch the interview.
This election won’t be close. . . The GOP couldn’t even fill XCEL Energy for their convention (not even on the big Palin night)! Some of the delegates were seen falling asleep during McCain’s speech. . .Meanwhile, Obama
had over 80,000 people at his acceptance speech!
18. coulterfan | September 5th, 2008 at 8:34 am
>>I don’t have a problem with that as long as they do exactly the same to Hillary. Her past defines the term dirty laundry. She needs a freight car to hold all her baggage. If you think that the American people are going to pick someone who came up through the Saul Alinsky school of politics over someone who came up through the PTA, then you don’t have a very good understanding of the average American.<<
Umm, Spook. . . Obama won the nomination. Running against Hillary won’t do the GOP any good- they have to run against Obama.
Just like Palin is not running for the Presidency. Her pitiful attacks on communities are a distraction and Obama will not be sidetracked. He is running against McCain, not this new right-wing Palin celebrity.
I was disappointed by the GOP convention. I expected to hear the sort of specific policy proposals that we heard from the Democrats last week. Instead, I heard about McCain’s POW experience again and again. Sure, the McCain camp railed against the corrupt Bush administration (but did not mention him by name), but offered no specifics as far as WHAT they were going to change about the Bush era.
19. Greg-O | September 5th, 2008 at 8:38 am
“Never murder a man when he’s busy committing suicide.” - Woodrow Wilson
The reaction of the Left to a woman who has risen to the heights that they claim to have wanted for women, now bring out the long daggers to destroy it. Reminds me of what Biden tried to do to Justice Clarence Thomas.
Equally amusing are the cosmopolitan snobs who scoff at the value of being a Governor of a small population state such as Alaska, but were eager to support a Governor of equally small population Vermont just 4 years ago.
20. Kahn | September 5th, 2008 at 8:48 am
“So now it’s no interviews for Palin, just scripted speeches? You’re kidding, right? All that sizzle and she’s not going to be allowed off the leash?”
ahhh, right out of the playbook and almost word for word as predicted by Rush. The convention is just wrapping up. And it took a year of cajoling to get Obama in front of O’Reilly.
What a lame excuse for thinking.
Oh and yes, actually voting to not supply the troops is worse than not being there.
21. Kahn | September 5th, 2008 at 8:50 am
No substance? So increased drilling for oil AND natural gas is not substance? Dozens of new nuclear plants, not substance?
Tell me, just what exacltly is the Obama/Biden position on new nuclear plants. Try to boil it down to yes or no.
22. coulterfan | September 5th, 2008 at 8:50 am
>>The reaction of the Left to a woman who has risen to the heights that they claim to have wanted for women, now bring out the long daggers to destroy it. Reminds me of what Biden tried to do to Justice Clarence Thomas.<<
Do you expect women to vote for someone just because she’s a woman? Do you expect African Americans to agree with Biden just because of his race?
How condescending and patronizing is that?
BTW, Howard Dean has been active in VT politics for much longer than Palin in AK. Further, he did PRESS CONFERENCES, released POLICY PROPOSALS, and did INTERVIEWS and DEBATES.
Quick. . . name 3 policy specifics which would set a different course for Americans if they elect McCain/Palin versus Bush/Cheney. Americans consider the economy, health care, and foreign policy to be the big issues facing them this election cycle. How would McCain/Palin REFORM the Bush policies in each of these areas? Please, be specific.
On a related note. . . STEAK, yum! I’m going to throw a couple porterhouses on the Weber tonight for my wife and me. I think I’ll serve a nice California Zinfandel and some braised chard, as well as a baked potato. Now, THAT’S substance!
23. Kahn | September 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Oh - so on the interview talking point. I see some liberal shows and outlets refusing to talk to Palin. Oprah is a good major example.
So? You want to talk to her? Talk to her or shut up. LIBERALS control almost all the media outlets. Lets see how that works out.
Oh and coulter, Palin has been on the ticket a week.
So was that a yes or no on nuclear?
24. coulterfan | September 5th, 2008 at 9:01 am
>>No substance? So increased drilling for oil AND natural gas is not substance? Dozens of new nuclear plants, not substance?
Tell me, just what exacltly is the Obama/Biden position on new nuclear plants. Try to boil it down to yes or no.<<
Okay. . . You got me. . . DRILL for MORE OIL was the ONE idea. Not very long-term and not very visionary, but that was their ONE ‘big’ idea. Yet they make no promises that this will lead to energy independence, they make no promise as to how much this will cut oil/gas prices for consumers, and they make no mention that the profits from our oil will go into the coffers of BIG OIL (even though it would be drilled on Americans’ public property).
In contrast, Obama/Biden have a plan to get us off of MidEast Oil in 10 years. McCain/Palin don’t even make that promise, let alone promise that drilling will cut gas prices at all.
BTW, Obama favors new nuclear power plants. But we need to work out a national plan to dispose of the waste, which is why the long term plan is to have 20% of US energy produced by solar/wind/geothermal power. And this is why he will spend 150 Billion dollars over 10 years to develop these clean technologies. And before you talk about Federal spending, this is less than we spend on Iraqi infrastructure in one year!
And please clarify. . . where does McCain want to store the Nuclear waste? Is it in Nevada at Yucca mountain, contrary to what the folks in Nevada want? Is he open to a nuclear waste site in Arizona as well (it certainly didn’t sound like it)? What about Alaska? Isn’t the problem that NOBODY wants a Federal nuclear waste site in their own backyard?
25. coulterfan | September 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am
>>So? You want to talk to her? Talk to her or shut up. LIBERALS control almost all the media outlets. Lets see how that works out.<<<
Even Karl Rove is complaining about her being unavailable for interviews on Fox! And it’s a stupid GOP talking point that ‘libruls’ control the media! Look at the corporations which control the media, they are all run by conservatives! But they always blame the messenger- just like the Clintons did in the 90s (and Clinton still did during the primaries).
If the news is so ‘librul’, then why did they allow the media to trash Clinton for getting a BJ day after day? Why did they let the Swift Boat Liars on the program day after day? Why were they FAWNING over Palin?
Here’s a secret, buddy: the media is in it for the RATINGS! Obama can draw large crowds and audiences, which mean HIGHER RATINGS and MORE AD REVENUE! Likewise, Palin is currently getting BIG RATINGS, so expect the press to want to interview her. The Swift Boat Liars and George W Bush got the ratings in 2000 and 2004, so the coverage of Kerry was negative.
Plus, the public feels that they have a right to hear her positions on the issues. . . since she would be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, after all.
And it was a ‘yes’ on nuclear power (check his record in IL, he was criticized by liberals for his support of nuclear power). But he also has long-term solutions which would make America energy independent in 10 years. . . McCain/Palin have no such plan. Do we really want to elect more politicians in the pocket of Big Oil?
26. A-10 | September 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am
coulterfan,
“But there was no substance.” “The Republicans have put up NO specifics”
Lies. Funny, I specifically heard both GOP candidates talk about using all methods to battle the energy crisis: oil, gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal. Senator Obama is opposed to drilling anywhere for more domestic oil supplies. He is against nuclear power. Gov Palin negotiated a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states after in languished for 30 years. That’s specific. That’s taking action.
I will concede, however, that Senator Obama was very specific about his top recommendations: we all must inflate our tires and get a turn-up. Earth to Senator Obama, my tires are always properly inflated and my car does need to be tuned, ever.
The GOP budget plan: Keep taxes low and cut spending. Senator Obama’s plan: Raise taxes. Tax the “rich” even more. Suck the blood out of those filthy capitalists. We’ll tax them for every last dime. Fix Social Security? Sure!!! We’ll just tax the “rich” somemore. The liberal mantra: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps, moving, tax it some more.
Oh, and he’s specific about spending. His proposals will add nearly $1,000,000,000,000 to the Debt. If that has too many zeros for you liberals, that is a TRILLION DOLLARS.
Senator Obama is the king of rhetoric. All talk, little substance. What substance there is, is frightening. Why did you think they needed that elaborate set with the styrofoam Greek columns? To distract the lobotomized masses. “Pay no attention to the man behind the podium. Look at the pretty columns.”
“(it is) the Democratic party which set forth the bold policy proposals.”
Bold and insane. Tax, tax, tax. Spend, spend, spend. Negotiate with terrorists. (which comes natural for Senator Obama with his close friendship with a unrepentant terrorist) Work towards energy independence within 10 year, instead of know. Oh, I forgot, you all be good boys and girls and go home and inflate your tires.
The only things inflated are Senator Obama’s resume, his head, his lead in the polls, and his worshippers belief that he can win this election.
I might point out that when he ran for the State legislature, he had to resort to dirty tricks to get elected. He had his minions challenge every signature on nominating petitions. It frustrated his opponents so much they withdrew and he ran basically unapposed. When he ran for the US Senate, he again had to resort to dirty political tricks to get elected. His backers had sealed court documents released which resulted in his most formidable opponent withdrawing. Alan Keyes moved to Illinois just so there would be someone for him to run against.
In just the last seven days, we have seen the depths the Donks and their accomplices in the MSM will stoop to in playing dirty politics.
They call the GOP candidate a “stewardess”, a “beauty queen”, “unvetted”, “inexperienced”, a “bimbo”, and that’s just the names that are fit to print. They attack her family. They lie about her experience and her record.
Why, because they know the McCain/Palin ticket is more mainstream that the Obama/Biden radical, liberal, Socialist agenda. And its Mainstream America that wins elections.
27. coulterfan | September 5th, 2008 at 9:46 am
>>And its Mainstream America that wins elections.<<
One true statement in all that BS.
The GOP couldn’t even fill the XCEL Energy Center, which is MUCH smaller than the Pepsi Center, not to mention inVesco.
Sorry, McCain/Palin are going to LOSE big time. And you will lose more seats in both the House and the Senate.
28. A-10 | September 5th, 2008 at 10:06 am
“The GOP couldn’t even fill the XCEL Energy Center, which is MUCH smaller than the Pepsi Center, not to mention inVesco.”
Hmm, a quick check on the internet and we find: XCEL Energy Center seating capacity for Hockey & lacrosse - 18,064. Pepsi Center seating capacity for Hockey & lacrosse - 18,007.
How can this be. You told me the XCEL Center is MUCH smaller, when actually the seating capacity for the same type of event is LARGER. (I’m going to assume that both venues can seat the same amount taken up by the hockey ring or lacrosse field since they are exactly the same size in both arenas.)
And I’m not impressed that the Donks could give out tickets to passers-by to go to the Reichstag, I mean inVesco Stadium, to watch Senator Obama boviate. Its again, flashy style vs down-to-earth substance.
29. A-10 | September 5th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“hockey ring” DUH. It should be hockey rink. Don’t want to insult any hockey moms.
30. Rich | September 5th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Thrower- Clinton can not be president unless Obama loses. Eight years from now Clinton will be a memory. If I were McCain, I would have Palin do interviews with Oreilly after the softballs he gave Obama last night.(Even though he got Obama to flip on the surge, which will be a devestating commercial im sure is in production as we speak). I also would start a huge backlash agains Oprah for blocking her from the show. After Oprah takes the heat and loses half of her viewers, she will agree begrudgingly to have her on. Then i would say Palin has scheduling conflicts and not go on the show, because she will not get a fair shake.
31. Thrower | September 5th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
In eight years Clinton will be younger than McCain is today. And she will be a major player in government between now and then.
32. FmrMarine | September 5th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
A-10
Talk about an EMPTY suit!
Before graduating from Columbia University in 1983, Mr. Obama had written to civil rights organizations and to black elected officials looking for work. No one wrote back.
He worked brief stints at two different jobs, but unemployed two years later, Mr. Obama answered an advertisement for a Chicago grass-roots organizer. With the devastating demise of the steel industry, Mr. Kellman was trying to work with blacks in the city and whites in the suburbs to salvage manufacturing jobs. Mr. Kellman, who is white, was looking for a black organizer to assist him.
33. FactCheck | September 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Do you expect women to vote for someone just because she’s a woman?
Well, yes, they do. Hence the Palin pick.
She’s tough! She’s a barracuda! She’s a pitbull with lipstick! She’s…not able to answer any questions from the press?
But if she can’t stand up to a few questions, she can’t stand up to the terrorists, right? You wingnuts remember when you were running with that talking point, don’t you?
34. A-10 | September 5th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
FactCheck,
Have you seen the videos of Gov Palin debating during the election of 2006? Or the other interviews she has conducted in the past couple of years. She scored KO’s in every case. She knows her facts. She is smart. She is articulate. She talks with conviction.
Are you really that anxious to have her destroy the MSM and tear them a new @**hole? If the Obama campaign doesn’t have the MSM to cover their shortcomings, who will?
35. A-10 | September 5th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
FmrMarine,
I may have asked you this before (months ago), but when were you in the USMC? I was one of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children from Oct 73 to Dec 76. 5811/9962.
36. FactCheck | September 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
She scored KO’s in every case. She knows her facts. She is smart. She is articulate. She talks with conviction.
If this is true, then why are her GOP handlers so terrified of letting anybody even speak to her?
37. Catfish | September 5th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
KAHN!! Seriously, McCain was AGAINST THAT BILL!!!! It was a bad bill hastily thrown together because your boy W vetoed a bill (which obama voted for) which funded troops. Both McCain and Obama were against it, you cant use that as a reason to vote for McCain………unless of course, as we all know you are certainly likely to do, ignore facts, and make absurdist opinionated statements that SOUND like theyre correct.
Whoa, and did you guys know this new conservative guy has a blog!?!?!?!!? I wish he would have told us about this sooner! And what a business man, add nothing to the conversation….I think Ill click on that link and see what he REALLY thinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Im not here for personal attacks, so I do apologize for calling you a douche earlier, Kahn. My bad.
38. Catfish | September 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
And speaking of lies, we have A-10.
FACT: Obama is neither opposed to domestic drilling nor nuclear power. He simply does not want to forfeit the environment for them. He has said he will work for both.
FACT: According to non-partisan think tanks Obama’s tax plan raises avg middle class income by 5%, McCain’s by 3%
And neither man has policies that will lower the deficit, and increasing it by a trillion dollars? I would love to see a citation there, because Im pretty sure that too is patently false………Any other “facts”?
39. A-10 | September 5th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Catfish,
“FACT: Obama is neither opposed to domestic drilling nor nuclear power. He simply does not want to forfeit the environment for them. He has said he will work for both.”
Technically, you are right. He never directly answers the question. He says nuclear power is “not a panacea for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating”. Investigating? We’ve had safe nuclear power for decades and he wants to start investigating it. Why not back building additional nuclear plants as Senator McCain and Gov Palin have proposed? Its clean its safe.
Senator Obama: “When I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts.” That surely sounds like he is against offshore drilling.
ANWR? “I strongly reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because it would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernable impact on U.S. energy security.” No it wouldn’t irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge. Ask the state’s Governor. And yes the billions of barrels of oil in ANWR will make a difference.
All of the experts say that we can drill offshore safely without damaging the enviornment. Its time for Senator Obama to stop hiding behind the skirts of the environmental wackos and full support all forms of energy production.
A trillion dollar deficit? When you add up all of Senator Obama’s spending plans: Universal Health Care, establish a green energy sector, increasing foreign aid, etc. and factor in the decrease in revenues his ending the Bush tax cuts will cause, the estimate is about a trillion. Citation? Try searching “Obama trillion dollar deficit” I only got 205,000 hits. Pick one.
He thinks he can pay for these by increasing taxes on the “rich” when history has proven that when you increase taxes, revenues decrease. When you decrease taxes, revenues increase. His plan won’t work.
40. FactCheck | September 5th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
factor in the decrease in revenues his ending the Bush tax cuts will cause
Ummm…you don’t honestly believe that, do you? I know you’re a doctrinaire conservative, but you seem like one of the less blind ones around here. I hope you’re just trying to push the party line and don’t believe what you’re saying regarding taxes.
41. FactCheck | September 5th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
history has proven that when you increase taxes, revenues decrease. When you decrease taxes, revenues increase.
Wrong and wronger.
History does, however, side with Obama’s tax plan.
42. A-10 | September 5th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
FactCheck,
I guess its like trying to prove what will or what will not happen if we take a certain course of action. The economists are guessing that the revenues would have increased anyway without the tax cuts, but they don’t know for sure.
Taxes were cut. The economy grew. Tax revenues increased. A cause and an effect.
They don’t know that if taxes were not cut, that the economy would still grow at the same rate, and record revenues would result.
The only way for them to know is to have a crystal ball to see into the future. If I had that crystal ball, I certainly wouldn’t be sitting here watching baseball and conversing with you.
I study history. Each time we cut taxes, the economy grew, and revenues increased. The additional available income was used to increase production, capital improvements, investments, etc. Without the additional available income, the economy does not grow.
When we have raised taxes, we have reduced economic activity, and our revenues did not grow as fast, or decreased.
As for your NYT cite, I am boycotting the NYT, as are millions of others. When they committed treason, I disavowed and disowned them.
I’m sure they agree with Senator Obama, they are the flagship of the liberal MSM. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PRINT THE FACTS. Not inject opinion into hard news stories. Not make up stories. Not divulge classified documents and information. Opinoins belong on the op-ed page, not on Page 1, above the fold. If I were king, the owners, publishers, editors, and reporters of the NYT would all be in chains.
43. FactCheck | September 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I study history
If so, then you would know this:
“The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. ”
Again: Tax cuts don’t even make up for lost revenue, much less generate more revenue.
As for your NYT cite, I am boycotting the NYT, as are millions of others. When they committed treason, I disavowed and disowned them.
Oh, geez. Maybe I was wrong about you and you are one of the really screwball wingnuts. That would be a shame. I hope that I’m not wrong, but your little rant isn’t helping.
Anyway, I’ll give you the nut of the article you’re scared to click:
“Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.”
Fact.
To elaborate:
“The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
“That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.”
I know supply-side economics is an attractive-sounding idea, but in practical application, it simply doesn’t work. Unless you are Grover Norquist and want to starve the government of revenues so that you can drown it in the bathtub, in which case it does work, but you’re arguing the opposite of the Norquist position here.
44. A-10 | September 5th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
FactCheck,
“Oh, geez. Maybe I was wrong about you and you are one of the really screwball wingnuts. That would be a shame. I hope that I’m not wrong, but your little rant isn’t helping.”
Nope, not a “wingnut.” Just your average patriotic American who has spend half of my life defending my country who cannot abide in those who endanger our national security. The NYT disclosed classified information. That is a federal crime. They should be prosecuted.
I know a lot of classified information from my years in the military, but I would NEVER consider divulging that information. Especially for purely political reasons. The release by the NYT was unethical, immoral, and damaged our national security. If you cannot see that, you are one of the really screwball kool-aid drinkers.
And I’m not “scared” to visit a NYT site. I have principles. They do not. It appears neither do you.
“I know supply-side economics is an attractive-sounding idea, but in practical application, it simply doesn’t work.”
I know socialism is an attractive-sounding idea, but in practical application, it simply doesn’t work. There, I fixed it for you.
Senator Obama’s plans are further steps toward socialism. That is a direction conservatives do not want this country taken. This country was not founded on socialist principles, it was founded on capitalist principles. If you want to live in a socialist county, move to Europe. I hear their socialism is working so well. Double-digit unemployment. Waiting months for critical health care. Decreasing productivity. Where they allow their elderly to die in non-air conditioned homes while the workers are on a mandatory vaction. Sounds like a wonderful place.
Senator Obama promises change. If elected, I’m sure we will all see change, but not for the better. We cannot afford his kind of change. You may think so, but I don’t.
Back OT, again we’ll never know what is the optimal tax rate. We will always have a struggle between liberals who seem to want to punish success by raising taxes and provide handouts so they can retain power, and conservatives who want to minimize taxes so individuals can choose how to spend their hard earned dollars.
Personally, I’m intrigued by the FairTax. It seems to generate the necessary revenues. Doesn’t punish success. Eliminates taxes for all lower incomes and ties your tax to how much you spend. It also collects taxes, through purchases, from those who gain income from means which are not now taxed.
But, with all the special interest groups and the fact that we would have to practically dismantle the IRS and eliminate a ton of CPA jobs, it probably will never come to fruition.
Before I let you get back to your kool-aid, I have one more thought. Americans want a leader in their President. Sure, the President is a political office, but Americans prefer a leader to a pure politician. I have served in the military with dozens of leaders, since the military has a knack at developing leaders. So I know a leader when I see him, and I know who is not a leader. Senator McCain is a leader. Governor Palin is a leader. Senators Obama and Biden are not leaders, but pure politicians. They act not for their country’s sake, but in a quest for power.
I trust in the leadership abilities of McCain/Palin. I do not trust Obama/Biden’s leadership abilities, as they have none.
You might not be able to see through the smokescreen put up by the Obama campaign, but I can. Maybe, if you mature, you will see the light.
You know what they say: “If you aren’t a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you aren’t a conservative when you are older, you have no brain.”
45. FactCheck | September 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Very quickly about the NYT, as it seems you are, sadly, radicalized in that area: They didn’t disclose anything that wasn’t already known. That huff you’re in? It’s over nothing. But if you honestly believe that they did, that it’s wrong to disclose classified information for purely political reasons, that such releases are “unethical, immoral, and damag[ing to] our national security,” then surely you must be holding identical contempt to those who leaked Valerie Plame’s name, right?
Just saying. That sword cuts both ways. I do hope you’re not only interested in one side for partisan reasons.
But that’s neither here nor there. Back to the point.
“I know socialism is an attractive-sounding idea, but in practical application, it simply doesn’t work.”
Yup. Good thing I’ve never advocated for socialism. You, however, are advocating for supply-side economics. And I note that you didn’t refute the point about supply-side’s failures, preferring to go off on a jag about the imagined threat of socialism and nebulous concepts of “leadership”; I’m glad you are at least conceding that supply-side economics is a nice-sounding sham.
It’s unfortunate, though, that you also swallow the line about Obama being “socialist.” It shows a lack of understanding of what socialism actually is, and it also shows that very simplistic scare tactics work on you, which is a shame. I had you pegged as being able to rise above such twaddle.
Finally, with your line about raising taxes versus lowering taxes, you do understand that Obama is offering a bigger tax cut to more people than McCain is offering, right?
If you truly believed your line about “minimiz[ing] taxes so individuals can choose how to spend their hard earned dollars,” then the simple math says you would have to support Obama’s tax plan over McCain’s. Have you done the research on this topic, or are you just going by whatever the McCain campaign says?
46. soccer gambling&hellip | September 6th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
soccer gambling
Havilland erroneous avalanched
47. gambling kasino online bo&hellip | September 10th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
gambling kasino online bonus
harmony commandeer freeings trustworthy
48. 7sultanscasino&hellip | September 11th, 2008 at 5:29 am
7sultanscasino
nondeterminacy barring recourse,concise stolid harrowing:
49. video poker game free&hellip | September 12th, 2008 at 3:24 am
video poker game free
tyrannical cheapen panoramic conscience Andersen keenness play online casino [url=http://www.okaycasinoonline.com/01288.html]play online casino[/url] http://www.okaycasinoonline.com/01288.html
50. gamble casinos&hellip | September 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
gamble casinos
switchboards wretchedness?proprietor
51. slots casino&hellip | September 14th, 2008 at 9:15 am
slots casino
procession reliably strictness!
52. free auto insurance quote&hellip | September 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
free auto insurance quote online
Anglo metavariable somberly unconditional teenagers Lachesis.
53. cheap car insurance in nc&hellip | September 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
cheap car insurance in nc
misleads paged prices!
54. french student | September 19th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Hey, what’s the point of the capture and moderation systems if these bots go through it?
55. zero percent apr on balan&hellip | September 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am
zero percent apr on balance transfers credit card
casseroles operates diversification woodworking fissure
56. what happens when you don&hellip | September 27th, 2008 at 4:36 am
what happens when you don t pay a payday loan
Bundy Thalia!sonar lacrosse,settler!
57. home interest rate chart &hellip | September 29th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
home interest rate chart and credit score
recoils Asians:liberalized dormitories captain shifty
58. empiuren credit report&hellip | September 30th, 2008 at 3:29 am
empiuren credit report
chorus fatals Sherwood smolder
59. not for profit credit cou&hellip | September 30th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
not for profit credit counseling agency
Manila stirring debauch:
60. bankruptsy lawyers in tho&hellip | October 1st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
bankruptsy lawyers in thornton
versing:sleeper literature importantly?Vern
61. poker seven stud hi lo on&hellip | October 6th, 2008 at 4:14 am
poker seven stud hi lo online
ordinary rebutted.belief Roth!7card online [url=http://www.hugekasino.com/7cardonline1/]7card online[/url] http://www.hugekasino.com/7cardonline1/
62. online poker tournament&hellip | October 6th, 2008 at 5:59 am
online poker tournament
evolution Owens grace kiddie?Ned
63. marks and spencers car in&hellip | October 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
marks and spencers car insurance
simplifications.hi!groove contrapositives imperatives Yaqui
64. insurance property&hellip | October 18th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
insurance property
lifeblood barometers redeclaring
65. jugar al mirabelle pó&hellip | October 24th, 2008 at 1:35 am
jugar al mirabelle póker en línea…
committed formidable,furry cryptographer:…