From A Friend Who Supported HRC
One of my smartest friends sent me a heartfelt email about his fears about the McCain-Palin ticket, and I think it’s very much worth reading. He definitely lands some blows.
I will now share some “private” thoughts. I really am worried about the utter absence of domestic policy seriousness on the part of the McCain campaign. I worry slightly more about Obama’s foreign policy instincts. Yet, as a friend suggested to me recently, Obama’s extreme risk aversion might be a plus: he won’t do anything egregiously bad. The question is, do you think this is a moment when we require foreign policy activism? By activism, I don’t mean invading a dozen countries, but I do mean something other than cautious retrenchment. And if Obama proves to be an activist presence — unlikely, in my view, but possible — what will be the tenor and orientation of his foreign policy activism?
As for McCain, well, I’m simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic about the economy. Pessimistically speaking, if you look at Flynt Leverett’s analysis, we could be on the verge of a collapse in our relative economic standing. Optimistically, I think you’re seeing some encouraging trends in low-cost areas of the country that could point to an economic revival in the not-too-distant future. But either way, I think we need a creative, forward-looking economic strategy, one that rests not on shibboleths concerning energy independence (both campaigns are guilty) or the abolition of offshoring (a bad, dangerous, destructive idea), but rather on building on our strengths: reforming the labor market by, among other things, reforming healthcare; pressing for tax reform, not just tax cuts; revitalizing public infrastructure, etc. Are any of these issues on the radar for McCain? Healthcare, maybe. His tax proposals are frequently ill-conceived. I don’t sense he’s interested in infrastructure. It’s discouraging.
Anyway, read my friend’s email below.
I know that this might be – “you’re a Republican, and I’m a Democrat,” and this is how things go… but I can’t muster up the counterintuitive middle ground here. I’ve even started to agree with Andrew a bit, although I’m savvy enough to know that attacking Palin is bad politics.
And yet… I don’t find her inspiring; I find her frankly, revolting. I was waiting for my sympathy to build because of Bristol and Trig, but it never came. I’ve started to loathe her. It’s so hard to listen to flacks cover for her, and not build some of that “elitism”. Her answer on the GSEs was profoundly stupid; and I’m saying that partly because I do think that economically we are right on the edge of a cliff that the McCain/Palin camp is wholly unprepared for. I trust Obama to hire Larry Summers and some Goldman execs; I do not trust McCain/Palin.
And this isn’t a question of Palin’s faith or policy inclinations. I’m pro drilling. I don’t particularly care about abortion. I believe in dinosaurs (and have little patience for literalists of any stripe) but I don’t care if she’s down on them. I like Bobby Jindal (could be president). I like Mike Huckabee (equally not ready for President, probably). She’s just not smart enough, not data/driven or analytic enough, and she’s not a good manager.
Just b/c she’s a social conservative, she’s not supportive of the ideals of Grand New Party. She’s a Monica Goodling. She crowed about “reading the terrorists their rights” during that agonizing convention speech. She will kill any chance of the ideas in GNP being implemented successfully. The ghost of John DiIulio is watching. She’s the furthest thing away from what you want as a Republican President. It’s Bush all over again. For anyone who wants good government, the trail of firings are way worse than any position on the Ketchican bridge.
And it’s hard to read the Scene on Wooten or Ketchican, when these things have been reported more clearly. No offense, but, she heralded Monegan for his efforts against bootlegging, tried to “promote” him to a position overseeing bootlegging, and then fired him for not dealing with bootlegging well enough. She lied about her own and her office’s communications with him. The bridge report you linked to left out her campaigning for the bridge when running for governor.
And McCain isn’t very GNP either! … [S]ince you’re basically a domestic policy conservative, do you think that McCain’s Afghanistan/Iraq policy is going to be better, let alone significantly better than Obama’s that you’re willing to roll the dice on someone without any domestic policy agenda?
I mean this in good faith. I believe that you believe that Palin is reasonably equipped for the job, and that she is not corrupt, and that her explanations of the bridge/Troopergate are fine. But I do not believe this, and it troubles me, because I think that you’re generally politically smarter than me. I can’t remember being this angry before; I voted for Kerry reluctantly, and have always been amused by Bush more than disturbed. So I cannot figure out why I am deranged in this case, or why it came to me so late in the game (I’m two weeks late).
Reihan,
Wow, that is a great e-mail. I’ve been trying to say some of those things, somewhat less effectively.
He doesn’t talk much about foriegn policy. Let me do that. I understand, from your perspective, doubts about Obama on that score. What I don’t understand is your confidence with regard to McCain. Iraq and Afghanistan – I differ with you, but I can see your point from your perspective. But aren’t you just a little worried about his instincts in other ares, and with regard to new crisis? I mean, I read your counter-intuitive take with regard to his diplomacy. But what if you are wrong (and I think you must concede that you might be)? Are you really anxious for a renewal of great power conflict with Russia? (On a side note, what about Palin’s reported comments vis a vis that issue? Words fail.) What if he does decide to “bomb, bomb, Iran?” Aren’t you concerned that his self admitted shoot from the hip style, combined with his instinctive belligerence might lead to disaster?
What I’m getting at, I suppose, is simply this – aside from Iraq and maybe Afghanistan, why are you so confident in his foreign policy instincts? I mean, I know you self identify as a neocon, but it appears more and more that McCain is aligning himself with the most belligerent and aggressive faction of the neocons. Are you really comfortable in that camp? I wouldn’t think so.
— LarryM · Sep 11, 10:40 PM · #
I think that the reason that Democrats have a big problem with Palin isn’t that she isn’t an expert in foreign policy, or that she hasn’t had much more experience than Obama, or even that she is a relative unknown, it’s that until she came aboard the campaign, the D’s had this election in the bag. Obama just had to keep his suit clean, steer clear of controversy, and enjoy the autumn. Now they have a real fight on their hands, and it’s because of Palin. She has, for the past few weeks at least, out-Obama-d Obama. She is their killjoy, and they are pissed.
— Marc · Sep 11, 11:11 PM · #
Marc,
You live in a different world than I do. My daughter’s second grade teacher is more qualified to be vice president than Palin.
Reihan, all of you,
Any thought regarding the interview last night? I’m beginning to think that there is nothing that Palin or McCain could do to shake your support.
Have you no shame?
— LarryM · Sep 12, 10:47 AM · #
Reihan: I share your friend’s sense of “loathing” and I’m a pro-life Catholic! I listened to her go off on Obama over earmarks and I was struck by the brazen cynicism of it all: she’s engaging in hypocrisy and hiding behind her small town/hockey mom shield. I’m trying not to even think of her but I’m too much of media omnivore to avoid reading her name or coming across a reference to her. Help me, Obi Wan Salaam, you’re my only hope!
— Roberto · Sep 12, 11:27 AM · #
I’ll offer thoughts on the interview (you don’t even have to ask!). I thought Gibson was condescending. I thought Palin did not sound ready to be President, but I don’t think she needs to (at least not yet). A year or two as VP is plenty of time to get up to speed, and honestly that’s really all Obama’s had during his campaign.
She sounded unsure and over-coached in parts, but it was a tough interview and even people with far more experience her botch tough interviews. I found Gibson’s tone off-putting, and I thought many of the questions were designed to be traps. In particular, he misquoted her statement on God’s will and Iraq, then denied he was misquoting her. The question about whether it was hubris for her to run as VP was silly, and could be asked of any politician anywhere. The Bush Doctrine question was ridiculous given the vagueness of the term; just check wikipedia and you’ll find three or more different definitions of what it means. I follow politics pretty closely and think the term is ambiguous. Bottom line: the interview was tough, but she needs to do better in the future (and I think she will). I think she gets a C, but if it makes any sense, a C before grade inflation.
— kab · Sep 12, 11:33 AM · #
kab,
Well I’ll give you credit for a more honest response than I’ve read so far from any Palin supporters (and I’ve read a lot). That said … where to start?
I could point out, I suppose, that it’s entirely possible that she might not have a year or two. Maybe the possibility of McCain dying or becoming incapacitated in that time period is “only” 5%. I’d say that a 5% chance of … the person in that interview being our president is pretty damn frightening, whatever one’s political views. Or, to put it another way “I thought Palin did not sound ready to be President” should end the discussion, not start it.
I might mention that the type of questions that she faced, whether entirely “fair” or not (I’d quibble with some of your specific criticisms), are precisely the kind of questions any candidate for president or vice president faces. Omaba and McCain have faced, and will continue to face, far worse. On balance, she WAS handled with kid gloves, compared to how other candidates are questioned.
I could point out that her substantive responses vis a vis Russia, while no different than McCain’s (albeit she says explicitly what McCain hides behind bellicose but marginally less frightening rhetoric) are insane, and reason enough for people of all political persuasions to reject the McCain/Palin ticket.
I could say a lot of things. But I suppose what I really want to say is that, setting aside all of the sincere rationalizations on offer, that one one looks at the WHOLE PICTURE, it makes me weep with grief for the United States that you people can continue to support those – creatures.
Look, while it only comes out in a few of my posts here, I am consumed with anger. But I try to restrain it. I don’t WANT to hate and despise you people.
But I do.
— LarryM · Sep 12, 11:54 AM · #
Roberto,
I find your comments on earmarks bizarre. She did, after all, dramatically cut earmarks in Alaska, while Obama has increased them for Illinois. I don’t see that as hypocritical.
LarryM,
Discussion among people who have fundamental disagreements about politics yields diminishing marginal returns at some point. That said, I am curious about your support for Obama. I think Obama is a gifted politician and very appealing, but he is also inexperienced. I have seen no evidence based on his actions that he is anything other than a party-line liberal, and I think Biden is a complete ass with terrible judgment. If Obama had selected Hillary, I would feel a lot better about that ticket. She is a smart lady who is well-versed on the issues, and I would trust her decision-making far more than I trust Obama’s. I have almost no confidence in Obama’s ability to do anything other than talk a good game, and cannot support that ticket. How do you support Obama/Biden? Do you think Biden is a visionary leader with good judgment? Do you think that of Obama? What evidence do you have that Obama is a good decision-maker or has enough experience to lead this country?
— kab · Sep 12, 12:21 PM · #
kab,
Look, I’m not going to convince you guys to support Obama. I know that. I can respect a decision to sit this one out. What I can not respect, at any level, is a decision to support the McCain/Palin ticket.
Obama has his faults, though I regard him far more favorably than you do. I won’t get into a specific defense of the ticket because I think that is almost beside the point. Part of my frustration with you people is that, from my perspective, we have, on the one hand, in Obama, an arguably flawed candidate but one who clearly has many strengths, versus a dangerously insane belligerent warmonger, a likely senile lunatic with anger management problems, who has demonstrated by his vile campaign tactics that he is a “man” utterly without a shred of honor, who doesn’t have 1/10 the policy knowledge that Obama has, who has no real interest in domestic issues, whose foreign policy views are to the far right of Attila the Hun, and who further demonstrated his lack of judgment by picking a sick joke of a vice presidential candidate.
That is the restrained version. Frankly, I’m holding back. If I told you what I REALLY thought of the ticket, I’d get banned from commenting pretty quickly.
I mean, I can understand that you guys can’t bring yourself to support Obama, but really, if you can’t at least sit this one out rather than support that sick sack of shit McCain.
— LarryM · Sep 12, 12:42 PM · #
LarryM,
Fair enough. I don’t like McCain. I may not vote for him. I am still looking for glimmers of evidence that he knows and cares about domestic policy issues like health care at all. Noonan summarized the problem with McCain perfectly for me: he has a biography not a philosophy. If I thought he was the war-monger you make him out to be, I certainly wouldn’t vote for him. I disagree with your interpretation of his record, but I am very skeptical of him as a nominee.
The only reason I might vote for McCain is that I have been outraged by the attacks on Palin. Not the interview, of course, it wasn’t egregious, just tough, but the mockery of her as a some sort of breeding fundamentalist imbecile (I am a pro-life Catholic). She lacks experience, I agree (cough, cough, so does somebody else). But when I read Sullivan painting her into a cartoon villain, or Salon describing her as a hypocrite for carrying a baby with down syndrome to term, or even Gibson misquoting her to make her (and by extension other Christians) sound like crazy people, it makes me angry. I don’t think I’m alone in this; it seemed to me that Mr. Jacobs posts expressed a similar sentiment. I am lukewarm at best on McCain, but these type of attacks bring back to the surface all of the things I used to loathe about the democratic party (see e.g. Jane Smiley’s Slate column on the ’04 election). If not voting for McCain puts these types of people, who clearly have no respect at all for people like me, in power, then I may vote for McCain. I suppose that’s an emotive, tribalist, and perhaps not entirely coherent response, but it’s been an interesting couple of weeks. Hopefully in a month or so, I can resume being apathetic about McCain.
— kab · Sep 12, 01:14 PM · #
==
Her answer on the GSEs was profoundly stupid; and I’m saying that partly because I do think that economically we are right on the edge of a cliff that the McCain/Palin camp is wholly unprepared for. I trust Obama to hire Larry Summers and some Goldman execs; I do not trust McCain/Palin.
==
I can’t even imagine the ensuing wreckage of a Treasury Secretary Carly Fiorina. Or the currency market the day after McCain first saber rattles China for no apparent reason.
— rortybomb · Sep 12, 01:16 PM · #
kab,
I can understand that at some level, because obviously a part (I think I can honestly say a small part) of how I feel about McCain & Palin is a result of they are making a mockery of my culture and beliefs. And I am on record as decrying that portion of the treatment of Palin that was related to her family. (Of course the difference there is that all of what outraged you about the treatment of Palin came from outside the Obama campaign, whereas the stuff angering me is coming from the people at the yop of the Mcain ticket. Set that aside, though.)
But … to the extent that you can characterize my rant about McCain (mind you, a rant that I believe in completely) as “fair enough” … well, if you agree with even 10% of my rant, I would hope that that would trump the cultural concerns.
And thank you for giving me a pass on the more inflammatory portions of my posts.
— LarryM · Sep 12, 01:28 PM · #
I think there are a number of different kinds of Republicans at this point:
1) those who believe in Palin wholeheartedly and will rationalize their way to continuing that belief no matter what she actually says or does;
2) those who want to believe in Palin, and are trying to rationalize their way to it;
3) those who think they can use her to win, and are happy about it;
4) those who think they might be able to use her to win, and are squeamish about it;
5) those who don’t think she will help them win, but think that she should;
6) those who don’t think she will help them win, and don’t think that she should
I’d say Reihan (and Ross) are definitely at #2 right now; maybe with some #3 and #4 tossed in?
On the other hand someone like David Frum is either a #4 or a #6.
But the point of my attempting this taxonomy: 90% of the reportage I hear is about all the people in #1. The people who’ve really swallowed the Powerbait. Sa-rah! Sa-rah! Sa-rah! And then the secondary (and/or partisan conservative) reportage is about how it’s offensive how the media are covering the #1’s.
With regard to our understanding of Palin’s overall impact, I think there’s way more noise than signal right now and I think that’s how McCain’s handlers want it. Keep the base frothing for the next 7.5 weeks (!!) and prevent any other consensus view from forming to challenge the instant support she had from that sector (instant, as in “just add a vial of water from the River Jordan TM)!!”).
— Donald · Sep 12, 06:18 PM · #
Maybe I am just rationalizing here… But I feel that Obama chose Biden for vp because Obama is aware of his own limited foreign policy experience. Therefore, when elected, together would be effective at running the country. By contrast, McCain’s choice of Palin is simply one that could get him elected. I really can’t see any other benefit she brings to the table at this point in her political career.
— Kathryn · Sep 13, 01:21 AM · #
I am not exactly a McCain supporter, and while I rather like Palin I would mostly put myself in the #3 category in the post above. However, it has been clear for a couple of months that I would vote for McCain/anybody over Obama.
McCain is very much a mixed bag, but his instincts and positions are SOMETIMES correct. Obama, in addition to being an empty suit, and farther to the left than he wishes to admit, has TERRIBLE instincts. Has he articulated a single position that he hasn’t had to backtrack from and/or minimalize?
Iraq war, his original “big” issue – never mentions it.
The surge – pathetic
Raising taxes (eliminating a reduction IS an increase) – oops
Telecom immunity – From promising a filibuster to voting yes
His Reverend – “I can no more…” to “Get under the bus”.
Public financing – Pledge to accept, renig, and now if he could flip (or is it flop?) back I bet he’d take the money in a second.
Debates – “Any time, any place” to … I don’t wanna
His first truly important decision was his VP pick, and he chose… Biden????? Biden himself is still scratching his head over that one. I mean, Bush picking Quayle was a stoke of genius in comparison.
From a domestic policy perspective, I have a strong preference for benign neglect. Get the hell out of the way and let America and capitalism work. That, and reining in spending – a huge plus, is what I expect from McCain. Obama amazingly enough seems to drink his own kool-aid, and THAT is scary. A President Obama, trying to “fix” things, will blunder his way from one disaster to another, just as candidate Obama has. Only America will be the one to suffer from them, not just Obama’s approval ratings.
LarryM – Try looking at your candidate sometime. Absolutely nothing there, but thinks he’s God’s gift. “Many strengths”?? He can read. What else?
YOU (and the rest of his supporters) should be the ones ashamed. I didn’t think that it was possible for Democrats to pick a worse candidate than John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry, but you sure proved me wrong. Why do I get the strange feeling that by 2012 Obama will be even more irrelevant than Kerry is this year? Probably because he’s working his way down to Mondale territory. He hasn’t even cratered in his debates yet, and he’s already in a death spiral.
Pick a better candidate, and then talk.
— Jim · Sep 13, 02:46 AM · #
Jim,
When a a McCain administration initiates or provokes a nuclear exchange with Russia bringing civilization to an end, which is not only possible but likely given his bellicosity and her ignorance, combined with their reliance upon insane advisers, my only consolation (and its a small one) is that you and people like you who voted for them will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.
And that’s it, I’m done with you animals. Marginalization is probably too good for you. Go to hell.
— LarryM · Sep 13, 02:51 PM · #
Well… hmm. This is my first visit to the site and this blog, and I have to say it is nice to see left and right (for lack of better terms) actually discussing a bit and not (always) screaming or cursing at each other.
One of the most interesting things I will note as I read the post and responses is that there is so little trust on either side. The left picks up on all of McCain/Palin’s weaknesses and runs, ditto the right with Obama/Biden. This is certainly one argument for a return to the fairness doctrine — its loss (and other things I shall get to below) has really fostered an environment where we just don’t trust each other anymore.
I am an avowed progressive liberal, though I am interested in learning more about you GNP types (I came here from Ross Douthat’s blog on the Atlantic).
I agree with those who think our country has been at its best when left and right worked together. I do feel however that the past 28 years have destroyed that ability to a great extent. The Republican party was once the party of small business (or so I hear). Now it seems they (and to a lesser extent the Dems) are the party of big business, and the rest of us can rot.
The lens I see the last 28 years through is as follows:
Reagan ushered in a Republican era that tried to teach us greed is good and people need to build walls and gated communities to protect themselves from the ‘other’. The Republican party also helped to push social issues to the fore without a care to the way it would tear us apart as a country. For my part I think the Federal govt (and State for that matter) needs to stay out of our bedrooms and private lives. It has no business deciding whether I take drugs and which ones, and no right to determine the kind of medical treatment I receive. The fact that most Republicans seem comfortable forcing their religious views about abortion, etc. on the rest of us is deeply anti-American and anti-pluralistic. If Republicans don’t want abortions to happen, then reducing their necessity and supporting pregnant women in real and non-judgmental ways is the way to go, not government control of women’s bodies. Women will always want abortions as we saw in previous eras when it was illegal — so practicality is the only way for true pro-life advocates to go in my view (otherwise you are anti-choice, not pro-life).
The Republican party of the last 28 years has also been the primary defender of money in politics which has only served to weaken our democracy and social ties even more. The fact that money is equated with speech is dangerous for democracy because then some groups (the wealthy) hold almost all the speech and the rest have more or less none.
Another Republican-driven policy has been to allow media ownership concentration, which has all but destroyed what was once the greatest free press in history.
What I have seen from the democrats (the one period we actually held the presidency and set the terms of the debate) is that we have learned how to be pro-business without forgetting the people. The Dems have taken the best of Republican ideas and subsumed them into our platform. That is why during the Clinton era there was more growth and deficit/debt reduction than any of the Republican periods of rule. The last 28 years have shown a Republican party at war with the middle class and government itself.
The party of small government has made government huge, all the while decrying big government. Their disdain for government allows them to nominate unqualified wrecks like George W. Bush to the presidency (and now Sarah Palin). The Republican party has been dishonest and deceitful in its dealings with the American people — in practice treating democracy as something that is in the way of their agenda; and in propaganda waving a flag and relying on the low information voter to carry them through with proto-fascist sloganeering and us versus them divisive politicking.
With GW Bush this agenda has reached its zenith. Now, the Republican party stands for torture, Soviet style gulags of no return, total government secrecy, government/pentagon psyops operations against the American people, destruction of the 4th amendment, the imperial presidency, the Bush doctrine of preventive war, Orwellian double-speak in everything from the naming of its 527 groups to government programs and agency operations, the politicization/religification of science, etc. etc. etc. Frankly, we who believe in democracy have been in shock for 7 long years since 9/11 and Bush’s “governing style” has shed its rhetoric of compassionate conservatism and bipartisan governing in favor of the above.
You GNP types seem to be ashamed of some of this, though not nearly enough in my estimation.
As far as this past colors the current election for us:
We are extremeley wary of any politican who appears like a warmonger in the slightest degree — “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran” didn’t help. Neither does McCain’s support for the true Bush doctrine (the only one anyone talks about nowadays — you know, preventive war), the notion that the Islamists who attacked us on 911 did so because of our freedom and that they want to destroy our way of life (I call bullshit and fascistic fear-mongering on that); his unadulterated support for supply-side “free market” (can’t believe I just wrote that with a straight face) trickle down economics while also supporting the recent socialist undertakings by the Fed and also displaying no real concern or caring for the current plight of the middle class. I mean come on — its the 21st century — when will we finally begin to discuss and rate our economic state in terms of its effect on the majority of the people instead of how sound the damned “fundamentals” are. If Phil Gramm was talking about all of us in his “nation of whiners” comment then my point is made. If he wasn’t, and he was only talking about his capitalist crony buddies, then apparently to Gramm the “nation” consists of only those people, and the rest of us are just fodder for the machine. Either way, the 21st century does not need more dollar diplomats and old boys running things.
For all these reasons and many others, as well as his disgusting lying negative campaigning and the dishonest way he tries to shift the blame for his own campaign’s actions onto Obama, we really distrust and dislike John McCain.
As far as the Palin pick is concerned — we don’t dislike her because she is helping McCain (thought that doesn’t help). We dislike her because she represents the worst of the Bush administration in many ways. A few:
a) her penchant for secrecy (using private email accounts for government business to avoid scrutiny) (ring a bell?)
b) her practice of firing competent bureaucrats and replacing them with “loyal” inexperienced friends (heckuva job brownie)
c) her constant lying (Bush still insists we aren’t torturing anyone)
d) her complete ignorance of the world (like sending Karen Hughes to teach the Arabs about democracy)
e) her willingness to serve as a puppet for hidden interests and agendas (Bush too was always a solid vote for management)
f) her outrageously blind “faith”
the list goes on.
I remember a year or so ago I was watching a show about a small town in Texas where everyone was the same religion and were all white and middle class and all held the same values and opinions on things. This young woman finally left this town for some reason and headed to NYC. She was shocked (the worry on her face was palpable) to learn that there were so many other kinds of people out there in the world, and that not everyone shares her beliefs and biases.
To us it feels like the Republican party has been taken over by people like her, who are so provincial and myopic in their world view they actually think they can help the world by converting everyone to their viewpoint, and that such a task is both desirable and plausible. The naivete represented by Palin and her ilk scares the crap out of us.
So yes, some things Obama has done irk us, but there are many more ways in which he has inspired us to hope for our country again in a time when we felt pretty much lost. I think, if Obama wins, Republicans are going to be quite surprised at his even-headedness and wisdom, as well as his ability to raise the rhetoric above the disputes of the Boomer generation and bring people together for a common cause. I in no way see him as an empty suit, though I will admit he has backtracked on a number of issues which is to say he’s a politician who wants to win — you gotta win it to be in it in politics. He has run a disciplined and positive campaign though the latter is ending now because he will lose otherwise. I think Republicans will be happy with Obama in many ways as he supports some of their agenda — public funding for church-based social work, reducing the number of abortions, and DLC style free market democracy. In many ways Obama is more of a traditional conservative than the Republicans are at this point. I hear all sorts of horrors from the right about his health care plan, but it is in fact much more free market and centrist than Hilary’s was, and doesn’t force anyone to actually purchase insurance if they don’t want it.
I know whenever us Dems start to talk about restoring true progressive taxation Repubs shudder and quake. The usual statistic that is trotted out is the fact that the top 5% of earners pay the vast bulk of the taxes now so the system is already progressive and upping their share is not fair. To this I say — if the top 5% of earners (of which I am a member) want to give their money to the poor and middle class, I’m sure they will be happy to pay the extra taxes Obama is asking us to pay. The fact that the tax basis is so skewed towards the top is more a testament to the ever increasing imbalance in wealth distribution than it is an example of unfairness in the tax code. The wealthy in America have been prosecuting a war on the middle class for the past 28 years and it has to stop (uber capitalist Warren Buffet himself has said the same). Without a solid and well-educated middle class we are no longer a republic but a plutocracy/oligarchy. I don’t want that. Do you?
I know I’ve jumped all over the map here, but in keeping with the spirit of this thread I thought I’d lay it all out there. Good luck to us all.
— YankeeFrankee · Sep 14, 05:57 PM · #
One more thing about Palin that I think its the root cause for our visceral reaction to her —
to us on the left, who have supported and fought for women’s rights, Palin represents the evil twin of Hillary Clinton. As she ostensibly takes the place of Hillary, we see nothing but Hillary’s opposite standing there and mocking everything we and Hillary stand for. The presumptuous deceit at the heart of her candidacy strikes us hard and fast. We believe that women are at least the equal of men, that they should be paid as equals, and that they should have equal autonomy over their bodies. We don’t see how a woman can truly support other women while denying them the right to choose and denying them equal status under the law. Does Palin not recognize that the only reason she can even be considered for VPOTUS is because of the suffering and struggle of the feminist movement she diminishes and mocks? To us she is a monstrous caricature — one foisted on us by a bunch of old boys who hate feminism and cynically think she will draw women to vote for McCain. Ironically, the only female votes she will get are the ones McCain was going to get anyway — you know, the women who act like they are tough and strong and independent but want the state to control their bodies and continue to treat them like second class citizens. Palin reminds me of those Saudi women in burkas who think we are silly to worry over their status because they are really happy being treated like dirt. If you dream small you live small. If McCain/Palin wins and the right to choose is lost, this country will erupt like we’ve never seen. Go ahead, bring it on.
— YankeeFrankee · Sep 14, 07:31 PM · #