The Wandering Donkey

Why would you vote republican?

A nice, to the point video. Why would you vote republican?

 

 

Update: Since the previous video has been removed here is another source:

 

 

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Saxby Chambliss thinks the President should show “humility”

So, an old white male senator from the southern State of Georgia thinks the United States of America’s first black President should “express some humility” in his speech before a joint session of Congress tonight?

Where, exactly, do you begin with that?

The not so subtle racism?

What has to be either a total misunderstanding of his place in the political spectrum or the over the top hyperbole of the senior Senator from the State of Georgia saying that the man who was elected President of the United States of America needs to show humility?

Regardless of how I feel about the Republican Party, in general, and their views on healthcare, in general, the number of their members, particularly southern, who keep using ‘code words’ when discussing the President has to be appalling even to their own rank and file. You know the words: humble, swagger, uppity, cocky, etc….

The fact that the Republican rank and file are not calling these people on this is what is truly disgraceful. I grew up in deeply Republican Greenwich, Connecticut. I don’t believe anyone there would support this type of language, yet, I do not here any audible objections from quarters such as that.

Part of the problem is that Republican New England and even those in the Mid-Atlantic states have been marginalized and, to a large extent, ostracized. They are what used to be known as the ‘liberal’ wing of the Republican Party. A term that most national Republicans would deny ever applied to any Republican. They don’t even like to admit that they have ‘moderates’ within their party.

What then happens is that rather than fight for their party, they try to ‘fit in’. Thus, they do not object to the rhetoric. They have even come to believe that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are to lead them out of the darkness despite how objectionable they find some of their views.

Democrats learned long ago what following the demagogues can do to your party. Republicans seem to have failed to learn that lesson. In the meantime the rest of us have to listen to this tripe disguised as public debate and free speech.

My belief in America and Americans says that this type of talk will be marginalized, where it should be, soon enough.

Video courtesy of TPM:

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Weekly Address 3/14/2009

President Barack Obama's Weekly Address:

The Republican response by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)"

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Weekly Address

President Barack Obama's Weekly Address:

The Republican response from Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO):

The DMV? The IRS? More scare tactics from the Grand Old Pessimists.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Debate notes?

I have had precious little time to blog the last two days. I may, indeed remain constricted the remainder of the week also. Just in case anyone was wondering about my thoughts on the debate, here are some. They have been, for the most part already articulated in most left and center forums but for the record:

• Was not impressed with the economy answers right off the bat from John McCain. Why bring up Warren Buffet at all if you are just going to mention that he supports Obama? Why bring up Meg Whitman? Don't you think American's are a little pissed about overpaid CEO types right now? Granted it's better than retrieving Carly Fiorina from the depths of whatever purgatory you have consigned her to, but still, he should have had someone with more gravitas in reserve.
• Same question: John McCain completely failed to mention the middle class and barely acknowledge the need to create jobs.
• On the "bailout/rescue" McCain felt the need to reiterate that it's a "rescue." That's about as relevant to average "Joe Six-Pack" as this answer got.
• Barack Obama explained the main ideas behind the "rescue" in terms that average Americans could relate to. Maybe it's because he knows they are there. Or that they also have a brain that can comprehend when they are allowed to use it. Or both.
• Priorities. McCain: "I think you can work on all three at once, Tom." Which, of course, was spun as a 'brilliant' answer by the right.
• Priorities. Obama: Discussed priorities: energy, healthcare and education. Substituted for entitlement reform for education and gets points off for doing that from me, but at least he didn't throw off the mantle of leadership by saying, "I think you can work on all three at once, Tom."
• 9:48 PM - McCain: "You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one!" - Now there's an "angry old man mistake" that we can believe in. He will and has gotten hammered for that. I cannot believe he didn't do serious harm to himself with the the tone, if not the content, of that remark.
• 9:51 PM - Apparently unnerved by the realization that the "That one!" comment didn't go over well, McCain starts wandering around the stage while Obama is speaking. While to me, and some others, he couldn't have looked like he was having a more senior moment, the average Joe Six-Pack probably didn't notice.
• McCain: "I think it's a responsibility, in this respect, in that we should have available and affordable health care to every American citizen, to every family member. And with the plan that -- that I have, that will do that." To me, that sounded like, "It's your problem. But the government will help because otherwise I'll definitely lose." Some of the pundits read that completely differently, that he said it was government's responsibility. Who knows, I still liked this next answer better:
• Obama: "Well, I think it should be a right for every American." He started off with that and I almost whooped the kids awake upstairs. EXACTLY what he needed to say. The rest is just filler.

Finally there is this:

That requires a cool hand at the tiller.

and, to close:

And I'm asking the American people to give me another opportunity and I'll rest on my record, but I'll also tell you, when times are tough, we need a steady hand at the tiller and the great honor of my life was to always put my country first.

I would submit that neither statement was a good one for him to incorporate. His hasn't seemed very "cool" or "steady" during the crisis. It was very nearly a plea for America to vote for Barack Obama.

Suffice to say, between my usual tone on this blog and the tone of my comments above, I thought Barack Obama handily won this debate as well. I KNOW that there are many who would disagree. Go ahead. It really doesn't matter what I think or you think anyway. It really only matters what Joe Six-Pack is thinking. I think Joe Six-Pack's infatuation with Sarah Palin is wearing off. He woke up and looked next to him in bed and found.....JOHN MCCAIN! Not a good mental image. That is why the poll numbers are where they are. Have a happy.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Are they going to withdraw from Florida?

Ok. Here is how this works (did work). The McCain healthcare plan would give a family a $5000 credit to pay for health insurance but make the money you and your employer pay towards premiums taxable. You'd pay regular taxes and payroll taxes on any benefit your employer provided for you. The reason this sucks is that it costs your employer more too because they are applying the payroll tax as well as just making the regular part taxable. That means your employer has to pay tax on the benefit it is giving you.

This plan would be revenue neutral but you'd also, likely as not, no longer have coverage from your employer and have to get it on your own. Generally it costs $9,000 to $13,000 for a family policy on the open market. That means that, at best, you are out $4,000 after you apply that credit. Hey, who knows, maybe that's less than you pay in now but, remember, that's also really a best case scenario.

This is why Barack Obama is characterizing McCain's plan as a "tax increase". Middle class, likely as not, will wind up paying more for their insurance under this plan. The McCain campaign was arguing that the plan was "revenue neutral" meaning it wouldn't be a net increase or decrease in taxes. Of course, that still doesn't make up for all the money between the credit amount and your actual premium.

Well, now the McCain campaign is saying two new things. One is good. The other, well, I am not sure what idiot came up with it but here goes: