Recently in 2008 Election Category

Over $124 per barrel - Democrat obstruction of drilling and refining continues to wreak havoc with the economy.

Gateway Pundit says this this will be the #1 Issue in the 2008 Elections. I hope so. The Dems have been completely wrong on energy for decades, and their chickens are coming home to roost in $4+ gas. Anyone who seriously believes that higher taxes on the oil industry will lower gas prices is simply deluded.

LANSING, Mich. - Michigan Democratic leaders on Wednesday settled on a plan to give presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton 69 delegates and Barack Obama 59 as a way to get the state's delegates seated at the national convention.

Because Democrats are all about fairness, right?






Added - had trouble finding a Hillary photo worthy of the seething rage and anguish she must be feeling over Michigan's proposal. This will have to do:

(H/T to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (where my trackbacks no longer work - *sigh*))

Ed points out an article in the Telegraph for the "selected, not elected" file:

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November's election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party's convention in Denver during the last week of August.

Two former Gore campaign officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that a scenario first mapped out by members of Mr Gore's inner circle last May now has a sporting chance of coming true.

I find this to be an unlikely scenario. The screams from both Clinton and Obama (and their supporters) would be deafening if this were serious. And I wonder how the voters in 48 states would feel about getting the Florida/Michigan treatment when their votes don't mean squat at the convention.

Still, it's nice to dream - having Gore run again would be delicious. Videos of his bearded, pot-bellied unhinged rants against the U.S. after losing in 2000 would flow freely. The exaggerations and downright falsehoods of his "award-winning" movie (along with his hypocritical gas-guzzling lifestyle) would be discussed again and again. And his holier-than-thou, condescending tone would once again fill the airways to alienate voters of all stripes.

Please, Al. Run. Run.

Nothing really new in stories like this one, but they're still fun to read:

Party fears tight Obama-Clinton finish

WASHINGTON - For all their delight in soaring voter registration and strong poll numbers, some Democrats fear the contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton might have a nightmarish end, which could wreck a promising election year.

Enjoy.

Via AP/Yahoo:

DENVER - Republican John McCain launched his first television ad of the general election Friday, a spot that shows him imprisoned in Vietnam and calls him "the American president Americans have been waiting for."

As Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton continue to battle for their's party's nomination, the Republican Party's presidential pick hopes to set the tone for the campaign and start defining himself before Democrats have a chance to do it.

He's only going to run it in New Mexico for now, presumably because he doesn't want to start competing for attention with the nasty bickering from Clinton and Obama just yet. Here it is, though:

Not bad - I think it's a good start. If the Dems continue to act like children, it will make a nice contrast in tone for folks to see. He can't stay positive forever, though. When Obama finally gets past Hillary (assuming conventional wisdom pans out) he's going to go negative right away, and the DNC won't wait that long - Dean loves attack ads too much. I'm looking forward to seeing how McCain responds when the mud starts flying.

Added: Here's another small sign of things to come. Although the article linked above is about a new McCain ad, look at the picture AP (who has been in the tank for Obama for some time) chose to accompany it:

They just can't help themselves, can they?

Update: I bet AP got a few emails from the McCain campaign. The picture has now changed:

The Reiddler is waxing mysterious about the Democrat primary.

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Asked about it last week, Reid said he remains convinced the nominee will be decided well before the August national convention. He wore a serene and mysterious smile.

But Reid isn't one for lengthy explanations. The conversation went like this:

Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?

Reid: Easy.

Q: How is that?

Reid: It will be done.

Q: It just will?

Reid: Yep.

Q: Magically?

Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.

I just want all of you on the left to remember this, and this phrase:

Selected, not elected

Enjoy!

By now, most of you are surely aware that Hillary made up the story about dodging sniper fire out of whole cloth. Her campaign offers no reasonable explanation to accompany their characterizations of "misstatement" and "minor blip". Had Hillary ever landed in a dangerous region under hostile fire (or the threat of same), they would have been quick to trot the details out as proof that Hillary simply remembered a detail or two incorrectly but her underlying story was indeed true.

Since that hasn't happened, we're left with the curtain completely pulled back in a way we rarely see when it comes to our politicians. So the blogosphere is having fun with the somewhat threadbare (in this case, anyway) "misspoke" language being utilized by Hillary's campaign. My favorite comes from John Hinderaker at Powerline:

It Lacked the Added Virtue of Being True

Follow the link for video of the CBS report that hammered the stake through Hillary's tale. Adding additional comic interest is that this helps Obama, whose resume is even thinner than Hillary's.

Via AP/Yahoo:

And Richardson told of the time, during one of the many Democratic debates, when his attention wandered and he didn't hear the question that came at him. Obama, then his rival, bailed him out by whispering to him that it was about Hurricane Katrina.

"He could have thrown me under the bus," Richardson cracked, "but he stood behind me."

I suspect Grandma would be grateful her grandson has limits. Though had he done so, Bill, rest assured it would have been a very nice bus:

Criticize me and you are part of the forces of division. You're the one with the anger and bitterness and misunderstanding if you dwell on Wright's fomenting anger and bitterness and misunderstanding.

Update: he's over.

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) says she is "committed to restoring open government" by not only mandating more open meetings and release of public documents, but also by nominating "an attorney general who has a proven commitment to open government," according to her response to the Sunshine Week 2008: Sunshine Campaign survey of presidential candidates.

Here's a flashback to March 3:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The National Archives said Monday it expects to release Hillary Rodham Clinton's schedules as first lady later this month, but has asked a judge to delay the release of thousands of her telephone logs for one to two years.

Hmm. Back to today's press release, here's a quote from Senator Clinton:

"I believe in an open, transparent government that is accountable to the people," Clinton wrote. "Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting misconduct or error.

"To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes -- they are essential elements of our democracy," she added.

Here's another flashback, this time to March 8:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - The Clinton Presidential Library withheld more than a thousand pages about clemency the former president granted during his last days in office — including a pardon to fugitive financier Marc Rich — from a batch of documents recently released to the public.

Sunshine Week has to be on the payroll - no genuine organization aiming for open government would believe this tripe.

We've seen it over and over again in recent weeks - Obama's claim to have better judgment than the other candidates. Here's one example below (H/T Hot Air):

Link: sevenload.com

He always uses the Iraq war vote as his shining example of superior judgment. Yet no one points out that as a state senator, he wasn't privy to any of the intelligence that led most of Congress to approve of military action against Saddam. None of it. How can judgment based on ignorance be so superior? I've always felt that this was the singular most dishonest claim from Obama, and have been vexed by the fact that few have seen his claim for the snake oil that it is.

The only way to get insight into a man's judgment is to review instances where the man has a full command of the necessary facts and makes a decision based on them. The few public examples of this applied to Obama are disturbing.

When he was a state senator, he routinely voted "present". Why he did depends on who interprets - either he was incapable of judgment regarding these votes (as his opponents claim), or he was being a party tool, too weak-minded to vote based on his oft-bandied "judgment" (as Obama himself claims). Either paints a picture of someone who is wholly unqualified to hold down a job where decisions aren't optional.

The most recent revelations about the church Obama attends gives us further insight into his ability to judge and act. Twenty years is a long time to be a member of a church and yet be completely blind to the racist tendencies of it's pastor, as Obama claims. His tepid responses once videos came to light were shown to be poor judgment by his own actions as the controversy failed to dissipate, and he had to give a more forceful repudiation of the Rev. Wright.

The lack of good judgment aside, it's difficult to believe that he was unaware of his church's views. The wild applause during Rev. Wright's sermons suggest the normalcy of those views within the walls of Trinity United. His wife's comments on the campaign trail display some of the same anger and rhetoric. Does anyone really believe Obama was blissfully ignorant over a twenty year period of the leanings of his church?

Shouldn't his honesty be an issue in addition to his judgment?

That's the title of Peggy Noonan's column in today's WSJ. In it, she wonders if Reagan would survive in a party increasingly obsessed by religion. I suspect she's right, he wouldn't. Of late, religion has become at least a partial eclipse, blotting out many of the attributes we once found far more important when selecting a candidate. When coverage of the primary is centered on Huckabee and Romney's faiths, the far more important messages about what Republicans can accomplish if elected are being sorely neglected - a very bad thing, IMO.

Read the whole piece, though. She offers an interesting take on the troubles with Hillary's campaign as well.

At a speech in support of Dennis Kucinich:

Yeah, I know the left is going to have fun with this. Let them. Fact is, this fellow has no more right to disrupt speeches than the multitudes of liberals who have done it to conservative speakers in recent years. Sean Penn, like or not, was an invited speaker. Our young friend with the funny signs (especially the second one) should have been outside the hall to protest. Freedom of speech isn't a guarantee of a forum, and exercising one's rights becomes unjust if it takes away the same right from others.

As an aside, please do note that there were no objects thrown, no crowds rushing the stage, no shouting. In fact, the only threat of physical contact came from a Kucinich supporter/Sean Penn fan. Ann Coulter would love to have such restrained protests at her presentations. In spite of the fact that he was wrong, the young fellow showed far more class and restraint than any of the liberal protests we've seen lately.

H/T Huffington Post.

Comes a prominent civil rights figure joking about Bill Clinton's prowess with black women:

"He's probably gone with more black women than Barack," Young said of former President Clinton, drawing laughter from a live television audience. Young, 75, was quick to follow his comment on Bill Clinton with the disclaimer, "I'm clowning."

Dr. Melissa has much more, go read the whole thing. She's right when she says "And Hillary doesn't need this kind of help." Because all of this trashy and racist talk takes away from discussing Hillary's resolute policy stances, the depth of her experience, or the warmth of her personality, um... no, wait - I guess this is all due to Hillary's supporters having too much time on their hands.

Via Right Wing News, where if John got crappy bloggers like me to fill in on the weekends instead of the bunch he's been using, I'd be talking about his weekday posts instead. ;)

Silly, but fun for a couple of plays. Notice that most folks want to play as Hillary - does that have any meaning?

The Democrats held a debate/forum last night in Iowa, called the The Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum. It's described as "...the nation’s only presidential forum in which all candidates have an opportunity to answer essential concerns of African-Americans and Latinos."

Of course, those "essential concerns" mean little if you're an African-American or Latino who can't afford a High-Definition TV. Sorry, this debate wasn't meant for you.

It's really telling that the Democrat Presidential hopefuls are worried about cheating at the Iowa caucuses. After all, who would be more familiar with the typical Democrat election day shenanigans?

As both of my regular readers know, I scour though press releases in search of the interesting and newsworthy so that you don't have to. Normally, they're pretty dry and matter-of-fact - statements on policy, text of speeches, announcements of events, etc.

Sometimes, though, the writers of PRs get their literary juices flowing and serve up something, well, more. Case in point is a summary of a campaign stop by Dennis Kucinich yesterday, titled "Kucinich 'Connects' with Everyday Citizens at Massive Iowa Presidential Forum":

One especially poignant moment dramatically reflected the affinity between the coalition's populist agenda and Kucinich's deep involvement in those same issues. A community leader from Iowa recounted the events of Dec. 12, 2006, when federal immigration authorities raided a plant in search of undocumented immigrants. Among those detained and exiled to Mexico was the mother of five small children who lived in a modest home with her husband. It happened, the speaker said, her voice choked with emotion, on the hallowed feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.

Kucinich walked across the stage and asked her to look at his watch. "What does it say?" he asked her. "It's Our Lady of Guadalupe," she responded. Kucinich said the watch was a gift from friends in El Paso, Texas four years ago "when I was standing up for the rights of immigrants." The crowd's reaction swelled from sighs and gasps to sustained applause and cheering.

Add some descriptive lines about flowing hair and heaving bodice, along with perhaps a touch of glistening perspiration, and this would rival the best in romantic fiction available at your local supermarket. You can almost see Dennis' bronzed muscles straining through his torn shirt as the audience swelled, can't you?

I'm not saying that the event wasn't as the writer described, but I would have thought a more natural response to "What does it say?" might be "Six-fifteen".

Also, please note the description of the ICE raid in the first paragraph - "Among those detained and exiled to Mexico". Deporting an illegal alien is now exile? I don't think that word means what the writer thinks it means. Deportation, to the best of my recollection, is sending 'em back home.

Here's a bonus passage from the same press release:

The final "connection" with the loudly kindred audience came with the final question from the event leaders. Would the Congressman agree to meet with representatives of today's sponsoring community action organizations within the first 100 days of taking office, if elected President?

"I'll do better than that," he said. "You can sleep in the Lincoln bedroom."

Nice to know that it isn't necessary to elect Hillary in order to return to the Clinton era. I wonder if Obama or Edwards will announce plans to rent the Lincoln bedroom in return for votes and donations as well. You know, just to keep up...

The DNC shows us why you can't take Democrats for their word:

VIENNA, Va. - Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

But later in the article:

Former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a member of the rules panel, said stripping the delegates from Michigan and Florida — and prohibiting candidates from campaigning there during the primaries — will hurt party-building efforts in those states.

Fowler also said that stripping the delegates was unnecessary, since many party insiders believe that the eventual nominee will have them restored at the convention.

"No one at this table believes that the delegates from Florida and Michigan will be absent from the convention," Fowler told the rules panel.

Everything they do is political. Everything.

Ron Paul is raking in the dough:

Ron Paul may not win his party’s primary, but he is on track to capture another big title: top Republican fundraiser for the final quarter of the money-obsessed 2008 presidential primary.

In the first two months of the quarter that began Oct. 1, Paul already has raised more than $9.75 million, putting him easily within range to best the amount rival Mitt Romney received from donors during the entire third quarter.

A lesser-known variation of the saying alluded to in the title above - you can give a nutjob lots of money, but he'll still be a nutjob.

While I was over at Red State, this post caught my eye. H/T to Erick for the link to this:

When the lights go up on the Democratic presidential debate (the Iowa Brown and Black Forum) this Saturday, all the cameras will be HD. What's more, HDNet is the exclusive national broadcaster of the event.

Exclusively in high definition! John Edwards is right about the two Americas - and along with Hillary, Obama, and the rest, guess which America isn't invited to watch this debate?

Wow, I missed all the fun by going to bed. Having a job that gets you up early can be a handicap for a blogger.

Remember how CNN trotted out "undecided voters" in the last Democrat debate that turned out to be somewhat less undecided than advertised? While I was sleeping, folks all over were demonstrating their google-fu on the questioners at last night's debate. So far, at least 4 of the questioners were either declared hyper-partisan lefties or actual campaign workers for Dem candidates! Details at Michelle Malkin(who is apparently still awake and posting) here and here.

The most egregious of the plants is the gay retired general, who is on a steering committee for Hillary Clinton. His performance started the ball rolling on the outings, as suspicions arose when CNN brought him in to the auditorium to flog the candidates after they gave answers that he didn't like. As Kevin at Wizbang puts it:

Anderson Cooper would have you believe that a network that could select this question, find that 13-year-old Romney quote, create the trap for Romney (which he fell face first into), and (presumably) fly Kerr to the debate, could not type "Keith Kerr, retired Colonel" into Google and find the link to the Hillary Clinton press release, which prior to the debate appeared in the first 10 results for that search?

Yeah, right...

I think Kerr was simply too good to check. Imagine the CNN question pickers' joy at finding Kerr, who has victim status as a gay, and the absolute moral authority of being a veteran? The question could have been asked by anyone, CNN chose Kerr because it would put the Republican candidates in the worst possible light. I don't recall any equivalent popping up at the Democrat Debate - I'm sure CNN could have found a few had they tried.

As to the subject of winners and losers of the debate itself - John Hawkins (whose live-blogging I followed) thinks McCain won. I heartily disagree. Each of the candidates put in a poor performance compared to the previous debates. I'd have to say nobody won. Expect the recent polling success of the 5 top Republicans to dissolve over the next few days.

It wasn't a complete rout, however. As I said in a previous post, McCain did get the best soundbites out of the debate, particularly the exchange with nutjob Ron Paul over Iraq. Here's the clip where the only comeback from Paul is a weak retort about campaign contributions from some military officers:

Getting campaign contributions from some military folks doesn't translate into all the troops supporting you, Ron. It's stupid to suggest so. And by the way, Ron - where were you over Thanksgiving? Not in Iraq getting opinions firsthand from the troops, I'll wager. Here's Ron again, seemingly saying that we're occupying Saudi - skip to about 2:40:

Here's my wrap up and grades:

McCain - C-. He had some good moments, especially when dealing with security issues. That was tempered by his remarks about torture, where he appears to be too personally attached to be objective or rational, and his inability to see shamnesty as the mistake that it was.

Thompson - C+. Had good answers, but no fire. CNN did him a favor by giving him less air time than the other front-runners. He made a serious blunder by submitting an attack ad for the debate.

Tancredo - C. He's still a one-issue candidate, but gives good answers when given a chance.

Romney - D. I agree with John, he can't take a punch. This is going to hurt him if he makes it to the general election, where he needs to be a whole lot more nimble when attacked.

Guliani - D. Everyone knows he was Mayor of New York by now. Also, he came off as a little harsh in his exchanges with the other candidates.

Huckabee - C+. Good speaker, mostly good answers. Although the religious right loves him, he scares a lot of center and left-leaning folks when he starts getting preachy.

Hunter - C-. Did he get any questions? I can't remember.

Paul - D-. CNN obviously intended to waylay him with the conspiracy question early in the show, and in spite of Paul's attempt to moderate the tone of his answer, got what they wanted. Later rants from Paul only cemented the impression of being crazed, as his demeanor became less and less presidential and more unhinged. I'm sure his supporters will give him an A+, though. Update (11/29/07, 7:36 AM): Glenn Reynolds on Paul's demeanor - "His voice is too high, he can't remember who the Kurds are, and he often comes off like a crazy old man in a bus station." LOL.

CNN - D-. The real winner of the debate, if you ask me. Although their moderation was incompetent (remember when they used to keep the audiences quiet?), and their bias was too clear for even the most rabid partisan lefty to miss, they managed to set up a successful venue in which to make the Republicans look bad - not that they needed the help.

Overall, the performance of all the candidates was sub-par. They all have a lot of work to do on both message and presentation if they want to defeat Hillary or Obama.

I'll give more in the morning, but I think Huckabee was very strong, McCain had the best sound-bite moments, Romney was clearly off his game.

Ron Paul would have won if judged by audience reaction. Fortunately, we grade candidates on other criteria. Ron said it best when he said he was lucky to be in the middle of his own campaign. I agree, he has no business being there and is lucky that he is for the short time it's gonna last.

CNN couldn't resist another "diamond or pearls" question - since no women on stage, they disguised it as a sports question.

Thompson has all the right answers, but no fire. Everyone's getting another beer while he speaks, no matter how right he is, it's not compelling when he says it.

More tomorrow, folks. Good night!

8:00 EST on CNN. I'll be watching, will you? As mentioned on lots of other blogs, CNN's teaser gives the impression that their bias will be showing in the choice of questions.

Since I don't type fast enough to live blog, I'll save my impressions for a post-debate post. If you're interested in live-blogging, I recommend John Hawkins, who hears that candidates asked for CNN to give them serious questions instead of going for laughs with snowmen and rednecks. I wonder if CNN can resist the temptation, though.

Update: I had a comment on this post flagged as spam due to an excessive number of links. I had considered approving the comment, but after reviewing the comment and the links decided to leave it alone. If you want to discuss, fine, but if you're just buzzing through to drop links to your site, that's spam. I don't do it on your site, please don't do it here.

From Fox Business yesterday, a little flat vs. fair:

Bonus equal time video - Since he's been enjoying a bump in the polls lately, here's Mike Huckabee singing the praises of the fair tax from 8 months ago:

While I'd prefer the flat tax, I'd take either over the current system. Realistically, though, either plan is going to be difficult to get past the left in Congress, who think that tax reform should include job-crushingly massive increases.

New poll shows Clinton trails top 2008 Republicans

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Pollster John Zogby: "The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem."

I'm making popcorn if anyone wants some.

A lot to like here:

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson proposed an income tax plan Sunday that would allow Americans to choose a simplified system with only two rates: 10 percent and 25 percent.

Thompson's proposal, announced on "Fox News Sunday," would allow filers to remain under the current, complex tax code or use the flat tax rates.

From the Fred08 site, here's the whole thing:

1. Permanently Extend the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts. Tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003 has proved critical to generating a strong economy that has experienced growth despite the war on terror, the collapse in the housing market, and other economic challenges over the last six years. Unless action is taken, every American taxpayer will see a massive tax increase after December 31, 2010. Allowing this tax hike will impose an enormous financial burden on American families, slow economic growth, cost America jobs, and make it more difficult to address the country's long-term budget, economic, and security challenges. The Thompson plan ensures the following:

• Reduced individual income tax rates, saving every tax-paying family a minimum of $600.
• Preserving the $1000 child tax credit, which was doubled from $500 per child.
• Protecting Marriage penalty relief.
• Retaining Education tax incentives, including Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, 529 college savingsplans, and deductions for higher education expenses.
• Reduced tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends.
• Increased expensing of investment for small businesses.

2. Permanently Repeal the Death Tax. Current law provides death tax relief, but only through 2010. The death tax is inherently unfair. Under the Thompson Plan, the death tax would be permanently repealed, thus protecting millions of American families, including small business owners and family farmers, from double taxation at rates ranging as high as 55 percent.

3. Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a separate tax system that was intended to ensure that a few high income Americans could not use deductions and credits to eliminate their tax liability. However, because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, it is penalizing Americans it was never intended to affect. While in the U.S. Senate, Fred Thompson authored legislation that would have repealed the AMT. Consistent with that earlier proposal, the Thompson plan will eliminate the AMT as part of broader tax and spending reform. Until comprehensive reform is feasible, the Thompson plan would index the exemption amounts annually so that millions of middle class families will not become subject to this tax.

4. Reduce the Corporate Tax Rate. The United States has one of the highest rates of tax on businesses of the industrialized nations, second only to Japan. Even Japan is currently considering reducing its corporate tax rate. Economic studies suggest that the U.S. Treasury is actually losing tax revenue by keeping the corporate tax rate so high. In order to increase the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace, the Thompson plan would reduce the U.S. top corporate tax rate (including the corporate capital gains tax rate) from 35 percent to no more than 27 percent, which is the approximate average of the world's leading economies—the nations of the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development. This tax reduction will promote U.S. competitiveness, encourage companies to keep their operations (and jobs) in the U.S., and spur continued economic expansion and growth.

5. Permanently Extend Small Business Expensing. Small businesses create two-thirds of all new jobs in America, and employ nearly 59 million Americans -- more than half of the nation's private-sector workforce. Women own a quarter of all small businesses, minorities are nearing the 20% mark, and Hispanic Americans are opening their own businesses at a rate three times the national average. Current law allows small businesses to write-off purchases of equipment of up to $125,000 per year, rather than depreciating those assets over time. Making expensing of equipment and other small business items permanent will encourage greater investment and growth.

6. Update and Simplify Depreciation Schedules. The current depreciation schedules are outdated and in many cases do not reflect the realistic useful life of an asset. This is particularly true for investments in high technology. For example, computers must be depreciated over three years, even though they become obsolete in half that time. The Thompson plan would simplify and update these schedules to allow American businesses to make the investments they need to compete and create more high-quality jobs.

7. Expand Taxpayer Choice. The Thompson plan would give Americans greater choice about how to pay their federal taxes. This plan is based on a proposal developed by the House of Representatives Republican Study Committee that would provide taxpayers the option of remaining under the current, complex tax code or opting for a simplified, flat tax code. The simplified tax code would contain two tax rates: 10% for joint filers on income of up to $100,000 ($50,000 for singles) and 25% on income above these amounts. The standard deduction would be more than doubled to $25,000 for joint filers and $12,500 for singles. The personal exemption amount would be increased to $3,500. Therefore, a family of 4 would be exempt from income tax on the first $39,000 of income. The simplified tax code would contain no other tax credits or deductions. It would also retain the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends. This approach would dramatically simplify taxes for tens of millions of Americans. In addition, the larger standard deduction and personal exemption amounts will still provide significant tax relief to families with children. This proposal would serve as a stepping-stone to fundamental tax reform.

Everyone wins on this plan. It's really going to be hard to beat as the other candidates rush to get their plans out.

The problem I see with this plan is that the liberals will paint it with the same dishonest brush as the Bush tax cuts - "tax cuts for the rich", etc. But any truly fair tax regime would get the same treatment.

Yeah, I watched it. Here are my impressions:

The first 10-15 minutes were exciting due to the backbiting. After that, they settled down into the familiar Bush-bashing pattern.

Hillary was on-game. She needed to be aggressive without coming off as nasty and largely succeeded. She's still going to be the front runner for a while yet. The audience booed twice when Hillary was attacked. Playing the gender card is apparently effective.

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden gave some good answers - particularly Dodd when answering about security vs. human rights. Making sense is death to your campaign when running with this crowd, though. Biden got bonus points for giving a one-word answer.

Obama had a very bad night. It took Wolfe nearly 5 minutes to get an answer about the drivers license issue. He also slipped and referred to illegals as "illegal aliens". That'll piss off the open borders crowd.

Speaking of pissed, Kucinich was. And with good reason, too. He had to prompt Wolfe to let him have a chance to answer a question. No matter how loony he is, as long as he's on stage with Hillary and Obama, and deserves equal time and consideration. Of course, it won't happen, since Democrats really don't care about fairness.

Edwards loves pandering to the nutroots. I heard him repeat the word "neocon" a few times, that resonates with the delusional fringe. He also mentioned Cheney a few times, which gets the nutroots speaking in tongues. He'll be the winner with the Daily Kos crowd.

Richardson pandered as well. He even managed to invoke "Haliburton" in an answer that had nothing to do with it.

Hypocrite alerts - Hillary for saying she's not playing the gender card and following with something that sounded a lot like "vote for me because I'm a woman". Dodd for saying he has no litmus test for judges then saying he won't appoint a pro-lifer.

The second half was interesting - CNN wanted the Dems to look good, as they lined up victims one by one. One said he was a victim of racial profiling caused by the Patriot Act, no one called him on it. Update (11:28 PM): One of the CNN's "victims" is a war protester. And that's CNN's idea of an "undecided voter"? And why isn't Dan Riehl on my blogroll? Fixed.

Also, what idiot let the question about jewelry get asked?

If I had to pick, I'd say Biden won - at least in debate terms. Since he doesn't have a chance, though, that matters little. What does matter is who lost - Obama. Most folks have open minds, if he had taken a decisive stance on the illegal alien question and attempted to explain why he felt that way, folks would have respected it. Instead, he wasted everyone's time trying to avoid being pinned down to an answer on a question that wasn't difficult. It made him look especially bad after attacking Hillary on the exact same thing for the past 2 weeks.

Since Obama's loss is likely to be Hillary's gain, she'll emerge as the apparent overall winner through default - even though she didn't win through her answers.

It's kinda like watching the game when you don't like either team.

From a press release today from the esteemed ufologist:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Made in China" has become a health and safety warning label for American consumers following the recalls of tens of millions of Chinese-made toys, but the "real warning label should say 'Made in Washington, D.C. by corporate lobbyists' because the life-threatening hazards of these products were either ignored or brushed off by members of the Congress seven yeas ago," Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.

So Congress was supposed to know the Aqua Dots were toxic 6 years before they were introduced? Ridiculous. But Congress isn't the target of his ire over failure to properly read the tea leaves - it's Silky Pony:

"Senator Edwards knew seven years ago that people would be hurt, so why did he vote for China trade?" Kucinich asked. "How credible is his newfound consumer protectionism and his campaign advocacy for trade reform to save American jobs?"

Well, channeling the dead in court should indicate additional extra-sensory abilities, I suppose. But even though Edwards' crystal ball was limited to the recently deceased, apparently Dennis did know, else he wouldn't have the moral authority to attack those who were prognostication-challenged. But how? I think I've figured out what he's up to with the outstretched-arm thing:

That's right - he's positioning himself for better reception from the mothership.

"The list of Congress's failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences."

Actually, I think "No immigration reform" is a good thing, but it's a small quibble. Please go read the whole article. I'm bookmarking this one.

Well, his antics over the last few days helped his image with someone:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the first real test of grassroots support for the eight Democratic Presidential candidates, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich scored a stunning first place finish nationally and topped every other candidate in 41 of 50 states, according to results released late last night by Democracy for America (DFA).

Of the 150,000-plus ballots cast, Kucinich received more votes than former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama combined. Kucinich tallied 49,364 (31.97%), compared with Edwards' 24,078 (15.6%), Obama's 21,403 (13.86%), and Senator Hillary Clinton's 6,504 (4.21%).

Of course, it's a self-parodying poll:

Undeclared write-in candidate and former Vice President Al Gore scored second nationally with 24.77% of the vote, and he "won" six states: New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida.

Hmmm. Unscientific web poll with numbers dramatically at odds with any respected national poll, over-the-top fanaticism for wildly non-mainstream views.... Wonder how much bleed-over from the fans of Ron Paul? Come to think of it, has anyone ever seen Ron Paul's supporters in the same place and time as Kucinich's supporters? Hmmm?

I saw this yesterday, but didn't have time to post on it:

Nice video, should go over well in Iowa. There are still lots of folks who hear his name and think "actor", Fred needs to get the word out that he's more than that. This video certainly helps in that regard.

The ad's message is obviously crafted to draw a distinction between Fred and the rest of the front-runners. Rudy and Mitt are proven strong campaigners but each has warts that may keep values voters at home next November. Fred is the perfect candidate to motivate those folks to the polls.

I wish he had a little more fire, though. Some folks may view him as a little too laid back, validating the charges of laziness made in the media when he was still in exploratory mode. Others charge that he's too "folksy". I think these views will come mostly from outside of Iowa, though, where "folksy" isn't a bad thing.

The part where he says "our rights come from God, not from government" will be the subjected to criticism from those spittle-flecked fringe lefties who cry "theocracy" every time they hear the word "God" come from the mouth of a politician (except when it comes from a liberal using a church for a stump speech).

By now, you're wondering if I'm a Fred supporter. I'm not. I really haven't made up my mind. Each of the Republican field has their strengths, Ron Paul's rabid fanaticism not withstanding. Over the next few days I'll post about my observations for each of them.

It's kind of a girl fight story with a little moonbatty BDS thrown in to stroke the base:

"Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire," Edwards said, referring to two crucial early-voting states.

"She's giving the administration exactly what it wants again."

Edwards also warned in a speech in Iowa City, that the Bush administration was trying to use attacks on US forces in Iraq, to justify a war with Iran.

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and the neocon warmongers used 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, now they're trying to use Iraq to start a war with Iran," he said.

This stuff from Edwards and the others is going to be pure gold for the Republicans next year. We've already seen Hillary play the "victim girl" card, so expect it to be played after she wins the nomination and the Republican candidate points out any inconsistency, no matter how accurate, in her positions. Having Democrats make the point instead will be so much easier.

Do you think these folks are going to rally around Hillary after she gets the nod? Count on it. And even the least amount of critical review from the press will prompt the best tap-dancin' you've ever seen. All the latest dust-ups between Hillary and the other candidates also serve to illustrate that they know how dishonest their positions are - it just takes a heated primary to get 'em to admit it.

I tried to call, but couldn't get through at all. Of course he'll say that the "interested citizens" are all supports of his impeachment effort. My guess is that folks on the right tipped 'em over the edge. Yay, team. Or perhaps he couldn't establish an up-link with the mother ship:

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is planning to re-schedule a nationwide conference call to discuss Articles of Impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney after tonight's planned event encountered technical problems stemming largely from the overwhelming volume of calls from interested citizens.

The Kucinich campaign apologized for the snafu, explaining that staff had significantly underestimated the number of call-ins, and public interest in the issue exceeded technological capacity. The call will be re-scheduled within the next few days.

Kucinich, author and prime sponsor of the impeachment measure against Cheney, will be introducing a privileged resolution to the House tomorrow (Tuesday) to force a vote on the matter of impeachment.

I'll let you know if/when they reschedule.

Update (11/6/07 7:45AM): "Stay tuned for the day-long circus."

Update (11/6/07 9:48AM): Welcome Michelle Malkin readers! Thanks for the link, Michelle!

Oh, and if you didn't make it here through Michelle's post, head over there - she has the full text of the UFO-fueled resolution to impeach Cheney in all it's lunatic glory!

• The call-in number is (641) 715-3300.
• When the operator asks for an access code, key in 324341#.
• The call is  open to all interested citizens.

Update: Thanks for the link, Hot Air!  And welcome Hot Air readers!  We're just getting going again after a very, very long break, so not many recent posts yet - but feel free to look around!

Only in the extraterrestrially-addled brain of Dennis Kucinich could the phrase " ... if we fail in Iraq, it will advantage Iran" be transmogrified into "From the Oval Office on down, this Administration has been targeting Iran as the next domino it wants to topple..."

Shame and embarrassment over being associated with an obvious loony like Kucinich is surely going to cause a drop in the numbers for the next national poll about UFO sightings and abductions.

Via Ap/Yahoo:

GOP Chairman: Hillary Shows Lot of Anger

Gee, Ken, do you really think so?

The Washington Post has an op/ed today from John Edwards. It is interesting that in the wake of President Bush's speech on Friday, the left not only refuses to tone down the destructive and selfish rhetoric, they've stepped it up. But Edwards' delivers it with a twist - an apology:

"I was wrong."

"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."

"It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake."

You see, in the fantasy world the left spins for us, apologies are the key to salvation. Thanks in no small part to a kind media, when the left apologizes, all is made right. Nothing left to see here, move along. But this is a thinly veiled bait and switch, the switch being a challenge to the administration to follow suit:

"George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace."

Since the perfectly-maned presidential hopeful accepts responsibility for his "mistakes", we're expected to give credance to oft-repeated leftist talking points on diplomacy (how many UN resolutions, John?), troop numbers (c'mon, we steamrolled 'em), equipment (proven not true time and time again), and inadequate planning. The "planning" meme is one that the left still feels to be essential from a PR standpoint. The administration, and rightly so, won't expose classified plans to scrutiny out of concern that doing so will jeopardize the mission. Since moonbattery adores a vacuum, the left rushes in to take advantage. The administration, being unable to respond, concedes the debate through default. It's a shamelessly dishonest game Edwards and his party plays, and he knows few can effectively call him out on it.

The switch of getting the President to "admit mistakes" has been attempted numerous times by the left. Any hint of admission by the administration so far has only resulted in even more shrill accusations from the left ("See, he admits he screwed up! Let's impeach him!") as demonstrated by the mock impeachments and calls for more investigations in spite of the fact that such investigations have continuously shown the Democrats' accusations to be baseless. The media, being more hostile to this President than any I can recall, is the all-too-willing accomplice to this charade.

As for me, I am pained to see the ineffectiveness of the White House in getting out even the most basic message. I do understand the difficulty of the President's PR task - after all, the decisions on Iraq (and the underlying policies) are vastly more complicated than the cute slogans and sound bites spewed by the left. And simple one-liners just play better in the media - even one not already driven to see this administration fail.

As I said yesterday (and others have said as well), Bush needs to follow-up aggressively. It may not cause opinion to sway much, but I can't respect not trying.

Back to Edwards - in his current rant, he would have you somehow believe that his admission of mistakes is an act of courage. But in his challenge to the President, he shows us cynisism behind the veil.

Bathing in "If I had it to do over again" doesn't make you clean. It's just revisionist. And in this life, you don't get a do-over. "Given the same situation and the same intelligence, I would vote the same way again" would have garnered a little more respect. But Mr. Edwards' willingness to completely abandon of his convictions of old to facilitate a cheap political attack just exposes his cowardice and lack of character.

Rice: I Don't Want to Run for President

It seems she's still not persuaded. Maybe she could still change her mind, who knows?

Via AP/Yahoo:

Gingrich Says Run for President Possible

MOBILE, Ala. - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday he might run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 — unless some candidates promote his ideas.

Newt's engineering of the Contract for America, and the shift in Congress that resulted, represents the high spot in Republican politics in the post Reagan era. Well, at least for me it does. I hope he throws his hat in.

For some reason TB wasn't very fond of him while he was in office, but warmed up after watching him in interviews and appearances over the past few years.

Hat Tip to Jayson at Polipundit; and thanks for cheering me up!

Does this really need a comment?

Via AP/Yahoo:

Kennedy: I'll Support Kerry in 2008 Race

BOSTON - Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) said Wednesday he would back fellow Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 — even if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton also pursues a White House bid.

Poor, poor Hillary. Now she won't get the drunk philanderer vote. At least she still has the chubby intern vote sewn up.

Via AP/Yahoo comes this:

Gore: I Don't Plan to Run for President

Honestly, I'm torn. On one hand, I won't have to put up with his arrogant, condescending demeanor during the next POTUS election. On the other hand, I think it would be great fun to see Mr. Lockbox be the frontman of the party that obstructs any kind of social security reform. And there's no doubt that he's fallen off the deep end since losing in 2000. Here's some quotes for proof:

When asked how the United States would have been different if he had become president, though, he had harsh criticism for Bush's policies.

"We would not have invaded a country that didn't attack us," he said, referring to Iraq. "We would not have taken money from the working families and given it to the most wealthy families."

"We would not be trying to control and intimidate the news media. We would not be routinely torturing people," Gore said. "We would be a different country."

See what I mean? If this nut got the nomination, every day would be a fiskathon.

In a very rare out of character moment for AP, an opposing view is given:

Tracey Schmitt, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, called Gore's comments "fictitious rants that border on dangerous."

"To accuse Americans of participating in 'routine torture' is absurd and reveals that while Al Gore may no longer be a leader in his party, he still embodies the maniacal anger that guides Democrat leaders in Washington today," Schmitt wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Very well spoken, Tracey. Thank you!