FYI

Hey all. Migraine Nation tipped me off to a simple web page that is, it purports, independent of the Obama '08 campaign. It calculates your tax cut under the Obama tax plan, should (when) he be elected. It also notes what the difference would be under the McCain tax plan. All it takes is a minute and its enlightening, if not a bit sparse on substantiation. Until I see information to show me otherwise, I am inclined to trust it.

Big surprise! The Obama tax plan saves you more tax money. Well, unless you're a plutocrat or oligarch.

Its not like I wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway. Its just that tax policy, despite being an adult (sort of) and tax payer for the last fifteen years, I've never really felt is really as important as things like foreign policy, national defense and domestic issues like conservation, farm policy, etc... Anyhow, it only caught my interest a bit more because I had a Facebook dialogue with an old friend who is a small business owner in which he claimed he was voting for McCain because he did not want to pay higher taxes under Obama. Aforementioned page does not talk about taxes on business, nor am I in the slightest bit aware of any kind of business tax policy in this country. It just reinforced my agitation with the American peoples' inability to see a bigger picture, long run world view.

This old friend is a good person. His opinion is valid. I just don't think its that well informed or imbued with any sense of community or broad world view. I know other people who wretch about the Federal Government specifically because of the tax issue. Every time I hear it, it sounds incredibly selfish no matter who says it. It would make more sense and sound a great deal better to complain about how the money is used or where it goes or the priority of those who are managing it. And yes, it does suck to send your hard earned dollars to the Government every year, but so what? No one likes it. Quit your whining and look to the bigger issues that, when dealt with to a solution, will do more to cut your taxes and improve your quality of life than just voting for a man or party that says you get to keep your money. Think about it like taking your medicine.

Sure I am talking in broad strokes and generalizations are easy. So? Its my blog and I'll do what I want. And I have been for over three years now. May I make it three more. Good day.

P.S. d.a. has some more depth on why the fiscal conservatism thing blows.

Good Read

From Roger Cohen in today's NYT:

The world is weary of the narrative of American exceptionalism. Something’s the matter with something. Guns and God, Hillary’s latest mantra, won’t set America right. Nor will 100 years in Iraq.

Nod to Mr. Biglin for tipping me to it.

Over the weekend 2

Electric hoobajoob.

Well, not really.

Catching the train back from having beers my betrothed buddy, I found the train car unusually full for the late hour. All the same, I found a three seater to myself and settled in for the ride. Just as the conductor gave the last call for all aboard, a middle aged fellow stumbles in and pops down in the aisle seat after politely asking and me granting permission for him to take the seat. He appeared exhausted and a little disheveled. He didn't smell of alcohol (but I might have), so I wasn't too bothered one way or the other.

The guy opens his canvas briefcase and pulls out a bunch of news papers. He rifles through a couple of the local rags. I don't pay much attention. A New Yorker article is holding my interest and almost keeping me awake and then I notice that my fellow traveler is reading the Washington Post. Its not that someone reading the Post in and of itself is strange. Seeing the paper on the NJT is like seeing a Clinton poster at an Obama rally.

Being post beer buzz but still relaxed, I had to ask why he was reading the Post. He replied that he was a newspaper guy. Brevity being the soul of wit, I'll just try and re-create the dialogue.

Traveler: I'm a newspaper guy.
BD: Oh yeah? What rag?
News Paper Guy (NPG): The Times.
BD: The New York Times?
NPG: Yeah.
BD: What do you do?
NPG: I'm an editor for the sports section.
BD: Really? Nice! Good section. Never short of material.
NPG: Right.
-pause-
NPG: What news paper do you read.
BD: I read the Times. Online mostly. Love it.
NPG: Oh good! Sports?
BD: Not so much. Though, when I do feel the need to know, the Times sorts me out.
NPG: Well, good. I guess. [half giggle]
-pause-
BD: Not to offend, but in the spirit of constructive criticism... I have a friend of the family who is a big Browns and Indians fan. When she visits us, she insists on getting USA Today. Says your section stinks.
NPG: Well, you can't please everyone. [beat] And its the Browns and Indians. C'mon!
BD: Right? [forced giggle]
NPG: Uh, pardon me, but I kinda have to read the paper now.
BD: No problem. No problem at all. You're nice to talk to me. Enjoy.

-about five minutes pass-

NPG: Say, what did you think of our endorsements?
BD: Uh, not surprising? I didn't really agree with them, but they weren't offensive either.
NPG: Just curious.
BD: Sure.
-pause-
BD: Did you agree with them? Hillary and McCain?
NPG: No. No. There was a lot of back and forth before the endorsement came out. I mean, it makes sense since she's our state senator and all. But, if you were to take a vote of all the staff for the paper, I think Obama would win. Hands down.
BD: Really! So, it sounds like it was sort of a top down kind of decision?
NPG: Yeah. You could say that. People support her, but the guys at the top made a political decision. It was theirs to make, I guess.
BD: So, a lot of people don't agree with Krugman?
NPG: Not really. I wouldn't say he's popular in the office right now.
BD: Sure.
NPG: And McCain... I rode in an elevator with him a few months back. The guy just looks old. Old! And, you know, he can't raise his arms past here [raises left elbow approximately 90 degrees from his hip]
BD: Really? I've noticed his arms seem kind of, well, restricted.
NPG: Yeah. I know he looks different on TV, but in person... Wow.
BD: So, is it the kind of thing that we might see a picture in the paper one day like the one taken of Dole when he fell?
NPG: [nodding] I wouldn't be surprised.
BD: Neither would I. I guess. But at least he pisses the majority of the Republican establishment off. That, at least, will keep the race interesting.
NPG: [nodding] Yeah. We can hope.
-pause-
NPG: Gonna read. [motions to paper]
BD: No problem.

-another two minutes pass-

Train Conductor over the loudspeaker: Now arriving at Bay Street. Bay Street. This is Bay Street. Bay Street.

- train begins to move-

BD: Next stop's mine.
NPG: Yeah? You live in College Suburbville?
BD: Not quite. Suburbia. So practically.
NPG: Right. How long?
BD: Just moved over from Brooklyn in September. How long have you been doing this commute?
NPG: A while. We have twin ten-year-old girls. Moved from the City for them.
BD: Wow! I bet you've got your hands full. Identical?
NPG: Yeah. But they're good kids. Fraternal. Really smart, but in very different ways. One's organized and methodical. The other's sort of scattered but picks stuff up really quickly. They balance each other out. How 'bout you?
BD: Just one. For now. Maybe. 18 months old. A handfull. We kinda moved out here for him too. Now he's running all over creation, making as much noise as possible. Trying to talk.

Train Conductor over the loudspeaker: Now arriving at Walnut Street. Walnut Street. This is Walnut Street. Walnut Street.

BD: Ok. Have a good night. Good luck with everything.
NPG: Yeah. Thanks. You too.
BD: Thanks. And thanks for talking to me. I know how busy you guys are, so that was nice of you. Have a good night. See you around. Maybe.
NPG: Yeah. See you around.

-scene-

Moral of the story: Don't proffer constructive criticism to anyone after you've been drinking.

Looking at the entire field

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own. (Slate via TDD)

From the blogroll

• ALa is freaking me out. And not just because she watched Tyra Banks.
• Saint McCain is unclean. (via DCeiver)
• FDH is frustrating me w/ their exquisite minimalism.
• D.A.U. give a countdown and opines for fondue.
• Get your mulch on. Way to go Mike!
• Hillary gets another barrage from the left.
• Expanding your vocabulary.
• Hillary (effectively) strikes back.
• When I was 12, having a Schwinn was awesome. 20 years later, it is again.
• Edible landscape. Mmmmmm. (via planetgreen)
• I'm shocked! Shocked to find diabetes in Canadian suburbia!
• There has to be a petroleum jelly joke in here somewhere.
• Of Obama, criticism and the (green) punditocracy eating its tail.
• My suburbia needs a SLUT.
• Good shit.
• Soft bigotry? No!
• I'd be happy to be wrong. Dream ticket?
• More on McGovern from this Sunday.
• The NYT gets its first Fair and Balanced printing. (via HuffPo)
• Joe Klein smokes crack?
• Andrew Sullivan wears his swami hat.
• Evil genius. (via M4H)

Primary Season Eve Thinking

So sayeth TPM, Rudy is in free fall. To this, I say hooray. The once front runner is falling from the fore and for good reason. So, if he does bow out, rather, when he bows out, who will he endorse? Moreover, who will his cash and/or backers go to? Its hard to see him getting behind Huckabee or Romney. McCain's tide is coming back in and, as far as Republican candidates go, he's the most tolerable of the bunch. He also seems to be the least distant from Giuliani in terms of core issues. But I could be wrong on that given my proximity to the left.

Anyhow, you still have to consider the Paul haul of cash, Huckabee's popularity w/ the Rapture crowd (which was largely responsible for Bush's success at the polls), Romney's flip-flopping machismo to those GOPers that just want to win for winning's sake and lastly, the oddly dogged Thompson supporters who claim he's the guy for the job because he'd be loyal to the Constitution and he looks the most presidential (whatever that is). In the end, despite what others say, I think the betting person should be placing their money on either McCain or Romney. As to who ends up endorsing who, only time can tell. But its an entertaining speculation for another time.

Hillary is not doing so well. And the way in which she is not doing so well portends of how it might be if she is the nominee, or elected President for that matter. See here and here to see what I am alluding to. Frankly, its worse than watching Rudy and smacks of the Bush '00 and '04 playbook, but softer. Sort of. Meanwhile, Obama is advertising on Drudge and has voted for every funding bill for the Iraq War that has crossed his desk, despite having voted against the War in the first place (as he frequently reminds his audiences). Clearly he walks the politicians' walk in this regard

John Edwards is consistently in third place overall and nearly every one's second choice. He has been a populist for his entire campaign, not to mention is '04 run. The tone of his populism has strengthened as the primaries have drawn closer and now he is saying he'll have the troops out in ten months. While the initial appeal of that promise is alluring, you have to realize that given the size of our forces in the region, to leave Iraq would take ten months in the best and fastest of circumstances. So, like all the other candidates, he's giving the best case scenario. The reality is most assuredly to be starkly different.

Like Michael Moore, I am not endorsing Edwards. I have called him an ideal candidate and consider his poll position to be a vindication of that prediction. I think he is suited for the job and has championed causes that I think are the most important. However, circumstance and the reality of our modern times are stacked against him. Senators Clinton and Obama are the inheritors of that circumstance and the symbolic, reactive progression of history's equation to date.

America wants change desperately. The blunt, obvious antidote to what we've had in our new security age is either a woman or a man of (if partial) minority dissent. To have a brown skinned man be the President of these United States may be the most important and symbolically helpful thing we can do as a nation to send a message to the rest of the world that we can change, definitively. Electing a woman to the office surely wouldn't be harmful in terms of symbolism. It would, in fact be a great achievement in the identity politics of America as a nation, but only inwardly. The world community has had international women leaders before and will continue to.

Now is not Hillary's time. For all her "experience," Hillary Clinton has not demonstrated to this blogger that she can master the helm of a ship that is currently stern deep in threatening and mineable waters. We are a great nation founded on great ideas. Those ideas and this nation need either be served by someone possessing great ideas or able to seize upon the great ideas that will restore what has been so badly tarnished and worn.

Speaking as a Democrat, if Hillary is nominated to run as the Democrat's candidate for President, she'll likely lose. That is if McCain or Romney are the Republican nominee. If Democrats look past nostalgia, baby boomer gender politics and obvious easy choices and really look forward to righting Bush's wrongs and voting for leadership that will steer our national ship of state to safe shores, Edwards or Obama are the better votes.

Update: Freddy T. likely to bow out! Likely to support McCain!. Tick one of the speculation list. Sorry ALa.

Douche and the Future of the DNC

Last week I, perhaps foolishly, thanked George Allen for being a duplicitous Republican in actually criticizing the President. Well, allow me to retract that. Yes it is cool when the President’s own party shallowly criticizes him on a point of common decency, but here we see George Allan’s complete detachment from reality. All cool points withdrawn. He’s back to being a first class hypocrite. Thank you TPM!

I nominate George Allen as douche bag of the week.

In other news, I watched Meet the Press yesterday and Russ Feingold was on. In his introduction, he was mentioned as a possible contender for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The only things I know about the guy are that he is from Wisconsin (go Packers!) and that he and John McCain (one of the few Republicans I genuinely respect) teamed up to reform campaign finance.

For as much press as the McCain Feingold bill got, this is the first time I have seen Russ’s face. This to me is, initially, encouraging. Here is my reasoning: There are two types of politicians, those who want the limelight and are out amidst the press constantly promoting their agenda and ideas. Then there are those who work diligently on legislation and actually do most of the leg work that makes the legislative world turn. My impression is that Senator Feingold is the latter type of elected official.

So, perhaps Russ Feingold is humble. This would be an asset that would set him apart from Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. I am not against either of those two seeking the nomination, nor do I think they are arrogant, but baggage and disenchantment linger from years and elections past. Senator Clinton has a lot of bad blood with the Republicans from when she was First Lady. And, she has Bubba in tow (both a massive target and a killer advisor all in one)! Edwards is still Mr. Charm and has good ideas, but the sore memory of a losing ticket combined with his general relative lack of legislative experience might be a an Achilles heel.

It is both my hope and my sincere worry that Senator Feingold might be another Bill Bradley candidate. In the 2000 election, Gore blew it, without question or doubt. Bradley would have blown Bush out of the water. That is pure conjecture, but I feel that it would have been the likely outcome. So, I hope that Feingold is as substantive as Bradley was. My worry is that the Democrats will make a similar “go with what we know” kind of choice and select Hillary or Edwards. However, with Dean as the DNC chair, all establishment bets are off. I entreat you, the reader, to share your thoughts on the Democratic hopefuls.