UPDATE #2 Bill Gwatney has died. I don’t know anything about him, or whether he was a good guy or not, but it is astounding to me that the man was able to walk into Democratic HQ, push his way past everyone, aim his gun and shoot another man for no apparent reason.

The shooter is dead as well, shot by police after a chase. My heart goes out to Mr. Gwatney’s family, the Arkansas Democratic party, and the family of the shooter.

May something good come out of this evil,and may all the others, including our candidates for President, be safe and protected in the days to come.

Clinton Campaign Memos, Revealed

I’m going to read through them and write more later, but if you want to read through them, here they are.

Obama got preferred mortgage terms & rates. So what?

Obama Got Discount on Home Loan – washingtonpost.com

The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a “super super jumbo.” Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

We got the same kind of deal. It’s what banks do for good credit risks. It’s not a crime, and it wasn’t a subprime loan. So get over it.

Here’s what annoys me about these reports: They imply some sort of wrongdoing when in fact, it was standard operating procedure. The spin always comes from a mainstream source, like ABC News or Washington Post, and it always centers on something that’s normal operating procedure, no more, no less.

Read My Lips: There WILL BE TAXES

I originally wrote and published this in February, shortly after Sen. McCain won the GOP nomination. Given that the debate is heating up now on these issues, it seems like a good time to bring it back to the top for more discussion.

McCain and the GOP are already tossing around the “L” word with regularity, claiming that if Obama is elected, he will push through the biggest l-b—l tax increase on record.

Here’s a really simple picture of our economy and our options and a reality check for anyone deluding themselves:

1. We are engaged in a war of our choosing which has cost over one TRILLION dollars and increased the national debt to record levels.
2. Our social investments in schools, health initiatives, and infrastructure have been nil, because of the focus and obsession with the war in Iraq.
3. When the war ends, we will be faced with returning veterans returning to the work force, some with incredibly complex mental and physical health issues. Some of those issues, like PTSD, are not even acknowledged by the VA or the Bush Administration at this time but threaten to become major problems as the war ends and troops return. We have already seen untreated PTSD at its worst — see examples here (free, login required), and here. The PTSD Timeline Project has been tracking reported incidents of suicide and homicide amongst returning veterans, and a startling report in October shows that veterans seeking treatment for PTSD has jumped by 70% in one year.
4. Social programs notwithstanding, the war debt alone will require a tax increase. As all of us know, you don’t borrow money without paying it back.

Every time I hear John McCain or a Republican say that only the Democrats will raise taxes, it makes me laugh. When George Bush stole took office, he walked into a fiscally sound country with a budget surplus, not a deficit. Today, we’re deeper in debt than we’ve ever been, not just as a country but on an individual basis, too. The subprime mortgage crisis is a clear indicator of the inevitable consequences of predatory lending gone mad.

Higher taxes are inevitable. It’s really a question of who will bear the brunt of those taxes. Will it be the middle class folks and small employers, or will it be more fairly apportioned? What about the large corporations that have profited much from their war contracts (a la Halliburton) while moving their operations out of the country so that Americans don’t even benefit from employment opportunities by those companies?

Or put another way, would you rather have a President Obama ask us to dig deep for a finite period of time to pay off this ridiculous debt, or have President McCain sneak those increased taxes on you by way of “user fees” and “revenue neutral” legislation? Note: “Revenue neutrality” is nothing more than giving to the rich by robbing the poor and middle class. Things like cutting programs for the poor, or cutting back what you can put into your 401(k) or your IRA, which typically benefit the middle class the most, while leaving the tax cuts for the rich in place.

If my President asked me to sacrifice $600 extra dollars for two years to make a dent in the war debt, I’d do it right now, especially if it meant that veterans would get some decent health care and we could put our resources back into our country. But what I’ve gotten with the Republicans is an ‘economic stimulus’ tax refund which they expected me to spend but which I didn’t spend because as a self-employed individual, my tax burden has increased while my income stream has decreased over the past seven years. That first refund went back to the IRS as a deposit on the following year’s tax bill, as will the one they give me this year.

I’d much rather accept a tax increase for a finite period of time which would pay the war debt down and give us a way to bolster much-needed social and educational services, wouldn’t you?

Whatever your opinion, accept as fact that you will have to pay higher taxes to take care of Bush’s folly in Iraq. That’s just how it works.

Technorati Tags: taxes, Iraq, war, veterans, VA, mental health, services, education, social services Sphere: Related Content

Malkin and Fox: Flip-Flopping Racism in Action

Dear Michelle Obama, we’re watching your back. You betcha we are.

As I predicted, the pathetic whisper campaign of the nearly-hysterical Republicans to frame Michelle Obama as bitter, militant, angry, female and above all, BLACK is now reaching fever pitch. Yesterday’s little gem came from Fox News, via Michelle Malkin. (Pssst, Malkin. Did you call her a Muslim, too?)

Can you imagine ANY news outlet referring to Cindy McCain as John McCain’s “BabyMama”? The right-wingers seem to think that because Rupert Murdoch is a self-confessed bigoted dickhead, they’re allowed to unleash the full framing of the absurd around Michelle Obama while singing Hillary Clinton’s praises to the highest bidder?

Well of course they do. Because after all, Hillary Clinton is white and Michelle Obama is black. That’s all it takes for them to rationalize their blatant racism AND sexism, reported in living color by none other than the hideous and shameless Michelle Malkin.

Michelle, we’ve got your back on this one. Here’s what’s happening out in the blogosphere:

1. Everyone in our household filed a complaint with the FCC. You can file a complaint, too, right here.
2. Jack and Jill Politics points to a site launched to keep track of the smears on Michelle and debunk them immediately. You can find it here: Michelle Obama Watch
3. Queen of Spain (Erin) has a reminder for Malkin and Fox: Racism is not okay just because it’s on Fox, or in West Virginia, or anywhere else. It’s despicable.
4. Stefania Pomponi Butler, co-founder of MOMocrats, warns that the ‘Republicans are going to get handled come November…’ as well they should if they think this kind of tactic is going to gain any traction.
5. Paddy at the Political Carnival reminds that the Republicans are pressuring to ban any sort of fairness doctrine in practice or in law because they are so desperate to use their tools to smear opponents and don’t want any little thing like facts to get in their way. Or fairness.
6. Even Laura Bush has some kind words for Michelle Obama.
7. Donklephant points out that the Urban Dictionary definition of “Baby Mama” proves the claim groundless (and perhaps actionable?). Ignorance is no excuse for such misused and intentionally racist terminology, even Fox News’ style of ignorance.

Finally, an illustration of Fox News’ and Malkin’s intellectually bankrupt and self-serving righteousness with regard to the question of sexism (I link as documentary evidence only. Don’t feel obligated to click this one unless you think I doctored the clip.)

Here’s Michelle Malkin in 2005:

Liberals say they want women to be taken seriously in the arenas of government and public policy. They claim they want women to be judged based on their ideas, not their physical appearance.

Unless, of course, those women are conservative.

In the same post, she quotes Cheri Pierson Yecke’s op-ed taking feminists to task for allowing blatant sexism and claims that it’s aimed only at conservative women (a laughable assertion, by the way. Just ask Hillary Clinton):

Their silence speaks volumes about their convictions and partisan leanings. After all, it is mainly conservative women who have been the victims of this sort of media slashing. Sad to say, with few exceptions, the circling vultures are left-leaning women.

Has our culture become so shallow, and our sensibilities so numb, that we will accept from adults the sort of vicious behavior that we would never accept from our children?

Fox News and Malkin prove, yet again, that they are against sexism before they’re for it, but have no problem embracing racism no matter which side of their mouths they’re using to argue.

It was a pathetic attempt to marginalize a successful, strong, articulate, passionate woman who also happens to be black. Faux News may think they’re making headway, but all I can say is…

Not this time.

Update: After the onslaught, Malkin makes a pathetic attempt to claim she’s being unfairly judged.

« Previous Page — Next Page »