Results tagged “Republicans” from Don't Go Into The Light
Yesterday I got an email from the NRCC blog:
If you're reading this blog, chances are you're not happy with Washington. A bipartisan poll conducted this month shows that 73% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job. Americans are frustrated, and rightfully so.
Families today face challenges that yesterday's laws simply don't address. We need to fix government, and one solution is to update our laws so they provide America's families with more freedom in their jobs; greater healthcare and retirement security; safer communities; access to quality, affordable education; and the ability for future generations to compete in the global economy.
I read it to TB with the party identifiers removed, and she thought it came from a liberal. Apparently others see it that way, too, as the post has received close to 700 comments, nearly all of them negative.
When I first viewed the post there were only a handful of comments. The big boost seemed to occur after Michelle Malkin posted on it (No, I won't link - go find it yourself.).
One wonders if Tom Cole reads the comments to his posts. I further wonder if any of the comments will be taken seriously.
Somehow, I doubt it. And I hope they're not counting on donations from me.
Update (5:37 PM EST): Now nearing 1,000 comments. No change in mood.
Both the House and Senate are expected to approve, with bipartisan support, legislation Tuesday directing Bush to temporarily halt the shipment of about 70,000 barrels of oil a day to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.Bush has refused to do so, arguing that this small amount of oil won't impact prices and that for security reasons he wants to increase the stockpile to its full capacity of 726 million barrels. It now has about 701 million barrels, equal to nearly two months of oil imports.
I have a relative who is a consultant to the oil industry - he tells me that this would have a small effect on prices, and would be factored out by the markets in short order. Of course, it also doesn't address the underlying problem - demand internationally is on the rise, and only tapping our own resources will provide a long term fix.
Yesterday I posted on the article from AP fact-checking the various proposals in play, but I didn't get back to it as I had planned. Two things stood out for me:
1. Each of the plans by Democrats would actually increase the pain at the pump. Increasing taxes and over-regulating always fails, nice to see an MSM article acknowledge it.
2. Each of the plans that would work have been stymied by Democrat obstructionism. The AP even inadvertently points out the irony of the ANWR debate - that results would be 10 years out, and had Democrats acted responsibly 13 years ago, we would be benefiting today.
Sadly, most politicians rarely look past the next election when considering policy. Help for the country that comes in a decade comes too late to help in re-election. Everyone should be reminding their Representatives and Senators that they have a greater responsibility.
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.
First, I didn't get to watch it - much like many of you, 2 P.M. wasn't really convenient. But I have seen some clips and coverage elsewhere.
I find it interesting that the blogosphere seems to favor Fred Thompson as the winner, but the pundits on TV all seem to give it to Romney. There seems to be a bias at work, but it's not clear whether it's on the part of the bloggers or the professional pundits.
Thomson easily got the best soundbite with his refusal to answer a show of hands question. Where was this kind of behavior back when it would have helped him?
I have yet to see anything to explain why Alan Keyes was there. If anyone knows, please send me a link.
The clear loser, in all the accounts I have read, was Carolyn Washburn, the moderator. I've seen her described as a schoolmarm and "Nurse Ratchet". The focus group on Fox News saw her as combative. If she's doing the Dem debate today, chances are that she'll act differently toward the Dem candidates - either because she learned from yesterday, or because she's partisan. Either way, she'll be labelled as partisan.
The Dem debate is at 2:00 today - I won't be watching for the same reason I missed yesterday's.
H/T Hot Air, here's Kerr saying that it ain't vegetable:
Regardless, he's a partisan attached to the Clinton campaign, in spite of his insistence that he only lent his name at the request of a couple of friends:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced today the formation of “LGBT Americans for Hillary”—a national steering committee made up of more than 65 LGBT leaders (full list included below), all of whom have personally endorsed Clinton for president.
If he had any problem with his name used that way, he had ample time to detach it before he allowed it to happen a second time.
It's still possible that he's a plant, but not Hillary's or CNN's. He's also attached to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (he's on their advisory council), self-described as:
SLDN is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and related forms of intolerance.
From their press release today that appears to take credit for Gen. Kerr's performance:
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., Nov. 28 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination expressed support this evening for the federal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law which bans openly lesbian, gay and bisexual personnel from the armed forces. The candidates were queried on the topic by retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr, CSMR (Ret.), a member of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's (SLDN) military advisory council who 'came out' in 2003 and identified as a Republican voter. General Kerr served for 43 years in the military, including as Commanding General of the Northern Area Command of the California State Military Reserve. His question was part of this evening's CNN/YouTube debate of Republican presidential contenders.
By the way, CNN could have easily found out about his ties to SLDN. It's expected that partisans with an ax to grind would try to participate in the YouTube debate. It was CNN's job to vet the questions and questioners, and whether intentional or no, failed miserably.
Update: Here's a post from SLDN's own blog posted prior to the 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!
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.
