Pawlenty's "red hot smoking wife" a calculated tittilation

A topless First Lady?

While it’s arguably inappropriate, sexist objectification of his spouse to bolster his career when lame-duck MN Governor Pawlenty describes her as his “red-hot smoking wife,” I disagree with Wonkette’s characterization that it’s “two years early.” If Obama hadn’t started early he might not be President, and remember Pawlenty isn't exactly breaking new ground: Senator McCain tried to woo votes from Harley riders by suggesting his wife enter the topless Miss Buffalo Chip contest in Sturgis in 2008.

If voters made their choices rationally the political calculus of candidates and campaigns would be very different. Pawlenty used his wife to further his personal goals. Voters often rationalize when interviewed, but research proves the decisions are more often based on emotion than intellectual evaluation.

Campaigns get longer and more costly all the time because mainstream media producers see candidate spending as helping their own bottom lines. In other words, it’s also arguably a conflict of interest to base so much of the determination of a campaign’s viability on successful fund-raising. True, in many cases advertising is a crucial factor, and we all accept that one of the keys to advertising success is repetition across a wide range of media to generate the maximum number of impressions. Yet wouldn’t it be refreshing for a network or newspaper to cap the dollar amount on political ads they’d take at some reasonable level?

Voters report they’re actually annoyed by the saturation of TV as elections approach; in some cases the result seems to be tuning out altogether. Meanwhile where are the balancing stories about what the candidates have actually accomplished, how a candidate runs an efficient and fiscally restrained campaign focused on issues instead of fund-raising, or which ads are to distract from facts or obscure their votes while echoing slogans and talking points in much the same way Budweiser hammers away with their “King of Beer” message.

Pawlenty knows “earned” media coverage is less costly than buying ads, and he’s got the recent examples of Palin and Bachmann proving the press loves provocative statements more than substantive discussion. Any “news” outlet is reliant on ad revenues, which are in turn driven by ratings.

Look how quickly most mainstream media companies jumped on the Shirley Sherrod story – a hint of controversy and the race for viewers/readers was on without what we used to think of as journalistic integrity, all in pursuit of the mighty dollar. Pawlenty certainly doesn’t want the national press talking to disgruntled Minnesotans or economists about how his “no new taxes” mythology has driven down quality of life and scuttled the state budget.

Look for conflicts of interest in coverage, and follow the money if you want to understand Pawlenty — but don’t underestimate either his political savvy or the impact his “red-hot smoking wife” may have on voters and donors.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, Democratic Campaign Manager, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

As president, What Would Obama Do?

Most voters distrust political advertising and avoid official campaign web sites. Most news reports describe controversies, poll results, and fund raising – they’re more interested in ratings and advertising revenues than in what they “report” on. Many of the most popular programs and sources display an obvious bias, including this one (no offense, Zennie, I think they know we're early voters for Obama.) Where is the information?

Most voters distrust political advertising and avoid official campaign web sites. Worse, most news reports describe controversies, poll results, and fund raising – they're more interested in ratings and advertising revenues than in what they "report" on. Many of the most popular programs and sources display an obvious bias (as does this site.)

In these difficult times any new president requires the support and trust of the electorate, including particularly those who voted for the other party. The changes we need on everything from the burden of taxes to education of health care reform will require making many people more aware of what he would do if and when elected.

I often point you to information on the candidate's web sites if what you find here isn't answering your questions, though obviously the level of detail and transparency is different comparing Obama and McCain's officially published information (presumably because that's controlled by their campaign advisors who are fanatical about persuasion.) Searches will turn up some of the less-official answers to questions about deregulation, etc., inspiring anecdotes of personal dedication, and it's fairly easy to find actual voting information online, but AskObamaNow.com has lots of the answers collected in one place about the most likely man to be our next President.

AskObamaNow.com answers the question, "What would Obama do if elected?" It’s a voter-friendly web site featuring short videos of Barack Obama simply giving direct answers to common questions. I'm still looking for an AskMcCainNow site to appear. Thus far I can only find his record; no luck on what he'd do.

read more | digg story

McCain wants my vote

...and in Hershey, PA, he said the reason is that his opponents "have faith in government." HUH? Is he kidding? Should we elect a president who thinks government is bad? Look, McCain, taxes and government are here to stay. There's work to be done, there are obviously things to fix, but if you don't trust government what motivates your candidacy?

The fact is, taxes and government are here to stay. Much of our political process urgently needs reform, but Senator McCain evidently can’t articulate any positive value government can provide to the voters and citizens of the USA.

Senator, you’ve got it bass-ackwards.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I’m voting for Obama for a variety of reasons. But, even if I didn’t see important differences between the two on deregulation, foreign policy, taxes, foresight with regard to the economy, health care reform, etc., I’d still be picking the guy who has faith that the organization he wants to lead can effectively matter to those it governs.

read more | digg story

Can you explain McCain’s goals and priorities?

McCain’s a fine man; his record shows he’d be an adequate President for those who are so wealthy that taxes are just a nuisance handled by an accountant - a number that never impacts their daily spending decisions.

The rest of us, the folks on Main Street still waiting for Bush’s economic policies to trickle down some personal prosperity or create jobs, need Obama~Biden. We don't understand why McCain wants the government to administer 11 million mortgages but says health care should be as deregulated as Wall Street has been - we think bureaucrats already impede our access to health care, and we haven't lost faith in the power of the Government to be a positive force.

In some ways, if you don't try to get inside McCain's head or worry about which of Bush's fiscalor tax policies are to blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, it's really a pretty simple choice.

You can choose between:
1) a guy who wants government to do less because he doesn't trust the competence of anybody and everybody below him - except evidently in areas it's politically expedient to say government must intervene like the mortgage mess - or
2) the guy who wants to make health care universally affordable and available while extricating us from Iraq, fixing some inequities in the tax policies Bush has established, and bringing a unified vision to our energy and environmental policies that he sees dovetailing with national security.

One of these guys is going to run the country, taking over the government in the midst of profound economic turmoil. If you're rich, and have no kids, you may pick the former if you so desire. After watching the final 2008 Presidential debate, I prefer the vision of the latter, and I'm voting for "that one."

read more | digg story

Palin avoids imploding during VP debate

Did Governor Palin's performance change the outcome of the election? Almost certainly not, though she probably did succeed in getting the attention back on Senator McCain. Her answers were obviously much less spontaneous, and accordingly less substantive, less revealing, and generally less related to the questions Gwen Ifill posed. In fact, the debate may have been overshadowed by the revelation that the McCain campaign has written off Michigan, and will even continue running ads there.

Both candidates foreshadowed their strengths and styles for the evening handling the very first question, Biden gave a fairly soft answer when asked had the previous week been DC at its best or its worst, but Governor Palin essentially ignored the question altogether to assert that McCain, who had championed Wall Street deregulation, nonetheless had warned people "two years ago" that something bad might be looming.

What came through from Senator Biden was the sense of a man who genuinely grasps the enormity of the dual crises facing America: the meltdown in our economy and the damage to our standing in the world that the policies of the Bush administration have wrought. Biden was considerably more willing to show himself to us, while his opponent's agenda was clearly to echo now-familiar talking points wrapped in folksy colloquialisms – a sort of blending of the styles of George Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Biden did seem to gloss over that the time-tested Republican campaign theme of "lowering taxes" which has not by any means strengthened our economy during the Bush administration. So perhaps casual viewers looking for bright spots in Palin's performance will buy her assertion that a vote for McCain isn't likely to continue current policies even though Biden did once basically dare her to name one way in which McCain offered any real change. We're left to wonder if gosh-darnits meant to sound like Reagan are sufficient evidence of a viable Vice President or not. As a strategic goal, distancing the McCain~Palin ticket from Bush and Cheney is obviously prudent, yet speaking at a tactical "in the limelight" level, Sarah Palin mispronouncing nuclear in the same way that George Bush does surely emphasized her similarities to our increasingly unpopular President.

When Ms. Ifill asked how a VP might change the partisan posturing that we associate with Washington politics the two answers were markedly different. Biden's story about being given a come-uppance and his resulting lesson about not judging another motives rang with credible humility. Palin, on the other hand, after suggesting the secret was in selecting political appointees without regard to their politics (that's a trifle naïve, I must say) then immediately launched into a highly partisan smear as she made her appeal to voters to pick Republicans to return to the Oval Office.

Who dealt with the questions better?

Palin dodged the question when both candidates were asked about their weaknesses. Biden was forthcoming, whereas the Governor clearly launched into talking points. Asked about policy issues they'd had to change on during their careers Biden admitted to giving up his original ideal about selecting judicial nominees based solely on temperament and intellect, learning there was reason to consider "judicial philosophy" as well. Palin cited not vetoing budgets when she lacked support. In other words she'd learned she couldn't dictate from a minority position, which frankly sounded like she didn't understand the question although it's a good lesson.

Biden did have the upper hand in the exchanges about taxes. The Governor was obviously in talking point territory on that topic, while Senator Biden clarified and debunked those points and how they relate to wage earners under $250,000, regardless of if they are small business owners or not. A format that allowed longer responses probably would have provided Biden the opening to talk about how tax cuts haven't been creating jobs lately, but the rules for the VP debate cut down the intervals each had for speaking in comparison to the Presidential events, and that frankly worked in Palin's favor.

Well moderated evening

Any questions or concerns about Gwen Ifill's impartiality as a moderator have been erased by her style of presenting both with similarly sticky questions – and letting both hear both questions before replying when the two were different, such as on challenging the Governor to explain why she'd said she didn't know what a VP did ("it was a joke") whereas Ifill noted Biden had been quoted as saying he'd never be a VP (which he didn't actually have to address, since Palin wanted BOTH to be seen as jokes - Sarah let Joe off the hook.) Ifill had moderated the vice-presidential debate between Republican candidate Dick Cheney and Democratic candidate Senator John Edwards during the 2004 debate, but her as-yet-unpublished book had been the source of some hand-wringing among certain pundits during the 24-36 hours before the debate.

One outstanding quandary for those who were paying close attention to Palin's talking points is how to reconcile her assertions about getting government out of the way with such statements as being the first Governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet. That's not exactly a small-government approach, although it did allow her to nearly deflect questions about what causes climate change. Biden, of course, was quick to point out that while it's all well and good to talk about avoiding finger pointing, yet it's hard to solve problems if you don't know what the cause is. Perhaps his best shot of the night came early on when he likened McCain's proposals to tax health care benefits while deregulating the health care insurance system as a "Bridge to Nowhere."

Republicans can relax, she passed.

Still, it must be said, Governor Palin was much better prepared for this than she had been for her interviews with Katie Couric, and surely exceeded the expectations of many who watched the debate. Did she win? Not in the traditional sense of providing substantive answers related to the questions. Yet political debates are not judged solely by that standard, and since she likely didn't drive conservative voters away she also didn't lose.

If the standard is which candidate presented a person ready to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, a question Ifill asked about, Senator Biden's more thoughtful, spontaneous familiarity with the national policy issues outshined the Governor's repeated references to Alaska as an energy producing state. There can be little doubt in the minds of the voters that the Obama~Biden policies will diverge sharply from those in force currently, whereas based on Palin's performance, (which didn't meet the level she attained reading her acceptance speech at the RNC,) a vote for McCain~Palin is, indeed, a vote for more of the same.

Digg this article...

"We Are Out Here" - Republicans Speak Truth to McCain's Lies

We are out here - the Republicans or ex-Republicans who will no longer tolerate the racist, despicable slime machine that the right wing and the John McCain-Sarah Palin campaign has become.

One such Republican penned an article at Daily KOS - a place I seldom send people to read, because it has been so staunchly partisan. Yet this story merits the visit:

I know, for I am one of them. I am not your typical progressive, being an ex-Air Force officer (9 years), evangelical Christian, card carrying conservative...

Is this election going to be about lies, and distortions, or issues?

It's Obama's tax plan that favors over 90% of this country's families and voters, whereas McCain's tends to give money to the wealthiest.

It's Obama who wants to fix Health Care, whereas McCain says changes Obama proposes will reduce our choices and put bureaucrats in charge of our medical decisions. Has McCain never dealt with insurance company bureaucrats who control our health care already, making decisions based on profit not medical advice?

If McCain's all about choices in health care, why does he want to remove choice when it comes to women's reproductive health, and return us to the dangerous day of back-alley abortions?

Obama and Biden want to keep the government out of religious matters, whereas McCain's selected a rookie governor who wants to be able to ban books, and as a Mayor charged victims for rape kits if they reported the crime. That's not the kind of maverick outlook the Alaska State legislature condoned - in response they passed a law insuring victims weren't charged.

If John McCain really wants to campaign with dignity, what's up with all those ads? Is that conduct becoming of a senior Senator, let alone a candidate for the White House? Let's ask him:

Whatever became of "Do unto others," Senator McCain? Either you're outright lying about your intent, totally out of touch as James Carville suggested, or simply unable to control teh GOP and your lobbyists & campaign staff. Meanwhile Senator, your campaign seeks to divert us and the media from all these issues by manufacturing outrage over lines you've used yourself?

America, our moment is now. It's time to get past Red and Blue states, it's time to reclaim our former greatness, to reform DC, and start coping with the mess Bush has made of our economy, our housing markets, and our international reputation.

Obama for America.

read more | digg story

Obama & McCain on taxes and the economy.

Will Obama or McCain's proposal tax home sales more? What about capital gains? With “both John McCain and Barack Obama offering tax cuts,” according to the Christian Science Monitor, “the 2008 election promises a boost for the typical family budget” regardless. But the myths require debunking - smears circulate in email misrepresenting the differences - sometimes deliberately. Facts help...

"New Tax" Falsehoods: One e-mail in particular contains a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water." But it's out there, and in covering it the media echoes it... Want more facts?

• Capital Gains Rate: It's untrue that Obama is proposing a 28 percent capital gains tax rate. He said in an interview on CNBC that he favors raising the top rate on capital gains from its present 15 percent to 20 percent or more, but no higher than 28 percent. And as for a 28 percent rate, he added, "my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that."
• Tax on Dividends: Another false claim is that Obama proposes to raise the tax rate on dividends to 39.6 percent. Dividends currently are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, and Obama would raise that to the same rate as he would tax capital gains, somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent but likely "significantly" lower than 28 percent. This higher tax also would fall only on couples making $250,000 or more or singles making more than $200,000.
• Taxing IRAs and 529s: Contrary to email rumors, raising tax rates on capital gains or dividends would not result in higher taxes on any investments held in Individual Retirement Accounts or in popular, tax-deferred "college funds" under section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code. The whole point of such tax-deferred plans is that dividends and capital gains are allowed to accumulate and compound tax-free, and neither Obama nor McCain proposes to change that. And as previously mentioned, any capital gains or dividend income from stocks, bonds or mutual funds owned outside of tax-deferred accounts would continue to be taxed at current rates except for couples making over $250,000, or singles making more than $200,000
• Doubled Taxes? The claim that "Under Obama your taxes will more than double!" is also false. Do you really need to ask? The comparative rate tables one e-mail smear provides for McCain and Obama are entirely wrong, as explained in a March 13 article about another false e-mail (from which the tables are copied.) It is supposedly a comparison of tax rates before and after the Bush tax cuts, but it grossly overstates the effect of the Bush cuts. Obama actually proposes to retain the Bush cuts for every single income level shown in the bogus table.
• Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.
  
  The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.
  
  Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent. I wonder how that difference relates to the assessed value, or anticipated selling price, of the best of the McCain homes...

Why all the misinformation?

Some of it's based on simple confusion. After all, Obama's not prone to cute sound-bites such as "Read my lips: No new taxes." Some of the emails circulating, however, are so consistently mis-representing the facts - facts that are easy to verify - that one can only conclude a deliberately malicious intent to strike fear in the wallets of middle class voters is behind the lies.

In an ideal setting voters would all have access to reliable, current, accurate information sources. They'd also take the time to examine that information, no matter if it was Obama's stand on taxes, McCain's statements about taxes or his speeches on why health care doesn't need the fixes Obama's proposed, or rookie Governor Palin's changing stand on the pork barrel "Bridge to Nowhere." In practice, time is short, and rumors often get as much (if not more) coverage as facts on the evening TV news or in newspapers. Futhermore it's often hard to tell which part of a story is the truth. The media producers have motives that must be examined, particularly those who profit from selling commercials since they obviously desire to make a profit. When in doubt, follow the money.

Who profits from the election of McCain or Obama -- or your mayor?

Who profits from voters feeling disenfranchised and tuning out?

The airwaves are as full of misinformation - willfully employed - as the email is. Are you ready to step up and be an Agent of change, to contribute to help spread the truth?

read more: Capital gains and taxing home sales | digg story

Will Obama or McCain raise taxes more?

Let’s not dither: we’re all in favor of lowering taxes and cutting federal spending, we’d all like to have more to spend on what we enjoy. McCain and his team have avoided releasing many specifics, but they rely on the old school attack that Obama will surely raise them on the middle class.

Fact check reveals: Obama will champion tax policies that will impact those who earn a quarter million dollars or more in any single year, while lowering taxes on those below $250,000 substantially. McCain will lower taxes on the top earners, and raise them for the middle-class.

Both candidates need money to fix the economy, and pay for the war Bush conducted without paying for yet, so even on the surface McCain's claim to lower taxes is, at best, the path to economic chaos in the USA.

read more | digg story