Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
I must admit, I was kind of surprised at the ferocity of the response, myself. Because I actually expected exactly what happened during the first hour of the debate -- shallowness and insipid "gotcha" questions. This is, after all, the mainstream media we are talking about. Did anyone really think it was suddenly going to morph into PBS on debate night?
In any case, Charlie Gibson asked the question of both of them, and when neither gave a clear answer, pressed them on it. Because the debate was held in Philadelphia, "the Constitution" was some sort of weird thematic "hook" that ABC was pushing, and Gibson tried to use this in an elitist smartest-kid-in-the-class way. The only problem, he got his facts massively wrong. On two levels. The stupidity he displayed was of monumental proportions. Here is his question:
Back in the dim and distant past of this presidential campaign (i.e., February), I wrote a pre-debate column listing questions I would like to hear both Democratic candidates answer. Today's column is a revision of this original. Many of the questions I have are the same, for which I apologize. I don't normally recycle my own material in this fashion, but unfortunately these questions remain largely unanswered, almost two months after the last debate.
The level of bloviation from the mainstream media over trivia is approaching hysterical levels it seems, but if you look carefully there is actually some news from the campaign trail that won't insult your intelligence. All three candidates have made interesting remarks in the past day or so which (if people hear them) might [...]
There is, of course, a much easier way to fix the problem once and for all -- one which would probably sound pretty fair to average Americans. That would be to treat all income -- including capital gains -- exactly the same. Any money you make would be income, and it would all be treated the same on your income taxes. This makes all kinds of sense, unless (of course) you are extremely wealthy, in which case you would see it as a giant tax hike.
Happy Leap Day! Because we are given an extra day this year, I would like to spend it in a good old fashioned Bush-bash. Maybe it's because everyone's focused on the election, or maybe the entire country just doesn't want to think about President Bush anymore, but I feel that he hasn't been getting the attention he deserves of late. And what better way to spend the extra day we get this leap year?
Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have, of late, been inserting Populist themes into their speeches, in an effort to (depending on who you listen to) win votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania, or court John Edwards' endorsement. Since this may be the last time I will address talking points to both campaigns, I thought I'd run through a few handy Neo-Populist positions for either Hillary or Barack to insert into their speeches.
This column is dedicated to the idea that Democrats can learn to use talking points as effectively as Republicans often do. This idea annoys many who feel that Democrats using talking points is degrading, and stoops to Republican tactics; a position I don't agree with, but still respect. But sometimes even I have to take Democrats to task for not backing up such talking points with action, or at the very least a plan of action.
I apologize in advance for the disjointed nature of this week's column. There are a lot of odds and ends to cover, including tomorrow's primary picks, a cartoon, and the usual awards and talking points.
But the first of these ends is definitely odd: is it just my imagination, or did Charles Krauthammer (of all people) read my earlier column before writing his own? You be the judge.
OK, here we go with Part 2 of my annual McLaughlin Awards. Last week's column covered the first half of these awards.
Unfortunately (as of this writing) the transcript for last week's McLaughlin Group is not yet available on their website, so you'll have to check it later to compare how I did with the actual McLaughlin Group themselves.