Say Anything Blog

Rob,

Can you please point out what in the letter expressed a Pro-Obama bias?

What makes you say such things?

The part where they whine about Obama being asked legitimate questions.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

They’re calling them Whinocrats over at LGF!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

If I was a liberal journalist (forgive the redundancy!) inclined to support Mr. Obama’s candidacy, I certainly wouldn’t want anyone delving too deeply into any “tangential character issues” either.  Between his spiritual advisor’s “God Damn America” Black Liberation theological bigotry, his wife’s god-awful arrogance and presumptuous sense of entitlement, his association with unapologetic domestic terrorists on the one hand, and the arguably most corrupt political machine in North America on the other, I can see why questions about Mr. Obama’s character, and his judgment, would be the last thing supporters would wish to have discussed.

But even here, the letter writers are being disingenuous, for it wasn’t the issue of character that called Obama’s candidacy into question, but probing questions about his stand on economic and tax issues, questions that clearly made him look petty, ignorant, and unsure of himself and his answers… in short, just another young, inexperienced liberal hack spewing class warfare rhetoric like so much progressive gospel.

Obama has been extraordinarily careful to portray himself and his candidacy in broad, platitudinous brushstrokes, while avoiding any hint of detail.  But put on the spot, away from his cue cards and teleprompter, he is nowhere near as nimble as he would have us believe.

Rezko’s Rookie simply isn’t yet ready for prime time, and his supporters in the media know it.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Along with the other expected drivel in this letter, is this bit of carefully parsed dishonesty:

Mr. Gibson’s claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe.

As has been discussed before, Mr. Gibson’s claim is correct.  In each of the three times in the last half century when the capital gains tax rate was lowered, revenues received from that tax increased, and increased substantially beyond what had been forecast by CBO prior to the rate cut.

On the other hand, the one time the tax rate on capital gains was increased, the number and volume of transactions generating capital gains diminished, as did the revenues taken in by the federal government from that tax.

Predictably, the letter writers didn’t bother to specify just who their “tax experts” are, but the facts of each instance cited by Gibson are what they are in any case.

A quick look at the names of those who signed the letter reveals two fairly noteworthy economists: James K. Galbraith, the son of former Ambassador, economist, JFK confidante and frequent foil for William F. Buckley, Jr., John Kenneth Galbraith, is a progressive American economist who holds the Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Political Economics and Government at the LBJ School of Government at UT, Austin, while Brad DeLong, is an economist, who is known chiefly as the target of many splendid barbs and corrections from economist Don Luskin.  Indeed, were it not for former Enron advisor and NYT columnist, Paul Krugman, DeLong would be in first place as Luskin’s primary target of opportunity.

In any event, the letter writers are wrong in their capital gains tax implication, and there is no reason to think anything else they charge is any more accurate.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Virtually all capital gains are tied to financial transactions.  Low capital gains taxs encourages the consumer (us) to make more transactions therefore resulting in more tax money for the government.  The opposite is true when capital gains taxes sre high. i.e. fewer transactions, less tax money

Being liberal is never having to admit you’re wrong

Doc,

It is an article of liberal faith that cuts in marginal tax rates, mistakenly called “tax cuts”, invariably result in a loss of revenue to the government.  That faith is, of course, misplaced.

But notice that of the 40 plus individuals who signed that letter, none challenged the erroneous contention about Mr. Gibson’s point about capital gains taxes.  Which simply demonstrates once again both the ignorance and the leftist tilt of self-styled journalists.  Like so many other areas of public policy, the “inconvenient” truth is over shadowed by liberal ideology.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

excessive emphasis on tangential ‘character’ issues do not.”

These questions are legitimate ones.  These liberals apparently believe that the American people do not deserve to know who the are voting for.  Anyways, these people are just following Obama’s lead on the whining front.  Obama is quickly becoming damaged goods.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

Hannitized, did these same individuals write a letter to the NYT when they aired a front page lie about John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist?  I think not…

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

Hannitized, did these same individuals write a letter to the NYT when they aired a front page lie about John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist?  I think not…

I have no idea.  But that logic is off the mark in two major ways.

1) These people are complaining about PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.  Not news stories.

2) That would make them pro-democrat at best.

You are stretching here.

The part where they whine about Obama being asked legitimate questions.

That is total non-sense Rob.

1) They are complaining about presidential debates.  Until we show another presidential debate that nit-picks two Republicans, we have no data to conclude bias of any sort, as it relates to Dem v. Rep.

2) What you suggest is a Dem bias, not Obama.  For they are also including Hillary in their complaint.

You are way, way, way off here and you know it.

“Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they’re deeply worried about the country’s direction…

... about the prospect of a Marxist for president!

Not to dwell with “excessive emphasis on tangential ‘character’ issues ....”:  “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” - B. Hussein Obama - The Audacity of Hope (title taken from one of Rev Wright’s sermons).  In over 1400 years, the “Religion of Peace” has killed over 200 million infidels and more to come.  Heaven forbid anyone question St. Barack’s “character” or lack thereof.

I stand corrected! sanni has exceeded 3000 rpms.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Barack Obama received more questions about flag lapels than he did about global warming. He received more questions about his former pastor than he did about health care.

How is it “liberal bias” to point this out?

Barack Obama received more questions about flag lapels than he did about global warming. He received more questions about his former pastor than he did about health care.

Maybe people care more about the character and trustworthiness of a candidate for President than any facile promises he might make?

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Until we show another presidential debate that nit-picks two Republicans

You’re kidding right?  How about the republican youtube debate with the guy holding the Bible asking every candidate if they believed every word in it?  That was a clear example of “nit-picking” Romney’s religion. 

What about the debates where cnn and msnbc asked Guiliani about his girlfriend and where or not his children even liked him.  Were those nit-picking questions or honest policy questions?

we have no data to conclude bias of any sort, as it relates to Dem v. Rep.

That is naive at best hannitized.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

leftodd, no one cares what ignorance laden stupidity falls out of his mouth concerning the environazi jihad against agriculture and industry.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Dougee,

Your question was a bit non-sensical.  Why do they have to complain about Republican debates if they care about what Democrats think?  If they are concerned about what Democrats are doing for them, why should they care?  Shouldn’t Repubicans care about Republican debates, and in turn, complain about those?  Or does that make them pro-Romney????

See below.

Michelle Malkin has been the blogger most closely advancing the research on exactly who asked the questions at the debate, and at present count, nearly 30% of all questions asked were from planted questioners. That is to say, the various Democratic Presidential campaigns put out questions to the Republican candidates, and instead of picking questions from the constituency of the Republican base, CNN decided to wave through folks into the debate who would never vote for any of the candidates in an effort to shape their image in what they hoped would be an embarrassing way.

The first one discovered was actually addressed by Anderson Cooper on air: Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr asked candidates “why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.” It was later found out that Kerr was named a co-chairman of the group this month, according to a campaign press release, and was also active in John F. Kerry’s 2004 campaign for president.

Sparking suspicion amongst the conservative blogosphere, Malkin and many others began investigating the other questioners (with really clever techniques, like clicking on their YouTube profile links). Redstate blog had this to say about the initial discover:

So once again.  Rob has confused his audience.

There is no “Obama bias” if the post was about why issues weren’t discussed.  And its a false argument for Republicans to care why a Democratic debate should appeal to Republican voters.

Or are you guys hypocrites who want double standards?

So why will Obamoid not release a detailed proposal for his Administration? Got a snappy answer for that, racebaitingpovertypimp?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

So why will Obamoid not release a detailed proposal for his Administration?

My snappy answer would be; “Dude, I don’t even know what you asked”.  Do you even know what you asked?

What does “a proposal for his administration” look like, and who has submitted one in the past?

McC has. Whats wrong? Your boy not intellectual enough to handle the job?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Or is his chosen “staff” incompetent?

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Shouldn’t Repubicans care about Republican debates, and in turn, complain about those?

So I should just concern myself with the gop debates?  Oh wait, there aren’t going to be any.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

So I should just concern myself with the gop debates? Oh wait, there aren’t going to be any.

Your catching on.  Now you know why I said:

… Until we show another presidential debate that nit-picks two Republicans, we have no data to conclude bias of any sort,

Other than the existing fact of liberal/leftist bias in media. Your so right!

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem