On The Last Debate

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

only about 6% make over 150K per year and some of those fall out of that bracket because of deductions so 5% is about right.

Nevertheless a gross inequality does exist. Seems that white collar investors have lower taxes than blue collar and many other white collar worker bees.

I would like to see that one addressed.

But addressing it would violate GOP ideology.

A failure in itself.

This is the problem Raf; you seem to have little problem suspending the obvious?.Or should I say you have turned the obvious into derangement.

It is record that Obama attended his own fundraiser at Ayer's home in 1996.. I brought up Ayers here a year ago along with other troubling connections such as Rezko and the MS crowd., but my real concern was more the discontinuity between the Obama campaign and Obama the person born of history and record. What is obvious Raf, was that Obama wasted no time connecting to Ayers, Chicago Press, private funds in which he granted organizations he associated with and enjoyed friendships with. Khalidi is simply a long time friend you wish to ignore. He (his wife) took funds from Woods and spread the wealth to other related charities and groups, some being investigated or already having been indicted in links to terrorism. Some of these groups by the way, are also linked to Wright?s Church. There was also a circle of wives including the wives of Rezko, Ayers, Khalidi as well as those connected to Farrakan. Perhaps you had better spell out what you mean by paling around.

Then Obama sought out Wright and Phelger (appearing on their Triumph Newsletter Cover), worked with community organizers (like ACORN) and launched his career. He received help from Rezko and in turn helped Rezko. These are facts Raf and a interconnected circle of power brokers and ideologues existed right where Obama landed which he surfed into higher office. That significant slice of the power base recently won a struggle with the DLCers and others over the direction of the Democratic Party and now Obama is their man.

The idea that Senator Obama missed the biographies, ideology, views of those he established his profession with is silly. Barak ran the Harvard Review; certainly, he was educated enough to know his associates and vet the issues. He achieved educational excellence by answering his professors with straight answers and clear use of plumbed facts. With little record, this association history of Barak?s was an obvious weakness. Many critics of Obama can not understand why he didn't "come clean" over this "history", but it is also clear in Obama's autobiography, he felt filtering and fictionalizing aspects of his life story was a better approach. He could just reinvent himself and hope media supported him. Perhaps he felt without the rabid efforts from the Web Left and his activist ground troops (now coming to light), he couldn't take HRC. Whatever the reasons he would take the "High Road" and tactfully avoid vetting his autobiographical spin.This was the lesson he learned from the bounce a more moderate image gave him at the 2004 convention.

The public record shows a consistent effort to deflect questions, give wrong or incomplete and misleading answers. Like still denying there was an Ayer's Fund raiser as there was one he attended for Auchi (while vigoriously denying he ever met Auchi in perosn...LOL). And why is this important? As I said Raf, 1. the network of associations and the views these people have runs counter to Obama's presently stated positions making his rhetoric questionable 2. It speaks of judgment, character and the ability to speak the truth and move on. Instead of an evolution of thought, there seems constant and expedient triangulation over suspected ideological tendencies as displayed in the recent "spread the wealth" meme. Are you seriously arguing that Obama/Pelosi doesn't represent the move towards European Socialism? If Obama's trajectory encompasses a network of individuals, advisors, mentors and fundraisers that lean towards the Left (leaving Rezko out for a moment), who gives Obama the right to lie about it? And Raf, paling around is exactly what these players did (and their wives) at numerous events and fundraisers, school meetings, committees and conferences. They lived near each other, shared fund raising sources, promoted each other and shared much ideological perspectives. This is where the Democratic Party is making home (also where I was born).

Obama gave a Jimmy Carter answer on Columbia and completely ignores the potential troubles brewing towards the south.

OBama?s idea of how to make America "what it should be" is constructed on mandates, regulation and redistribution of wealth. Far cry from JFK or Reagan. Having trashed the Clinton's, he now boasts of having their economic advisors. You think Obama's the economic free marketer Clinton is? You really think Obama/Pelosi doesn't represent a more Liberal, more Nanny State approach than Hillary?

Your response to SNL doesn't make sense. You admit NBC problems with Frank, but say they have been equal in attacks? They started out with a few shows that were pro Hillary. They have been sharply anti-McCain Palin. Last night however, they changed course and allowed Palin to have a surrogate deliver Palin?s rap response after telling weekend update she could not personally deliver the message. Frankly, she made Tina Fey look a bit withered looking and squeaky. Baldwin was on a leash. It is a game Raf, but one that SNL has been decidedly on the Left of.

Incoherence on the economy? If you want incoherence just consider that giving 95% of all Americans a tax cut is impossible. Listen to the record of Obama on capital gains tax. Listen to the new programs and spending Obama wants and his claims about balancing the budget and controlling spending. Listen to the inconsistent positions on free trade and energy. And then there is foreign policy. McCain on the other hand has a record of both seeking deregulation where innovation and choice are desired, but strong regulation by critical agencies to protect security, consumers, environment and economic fundamentals. McCain didn't seek to destroy the EPA, FDA or FEMA. That regulation and deregulation are important, but by taking a line where regulation is always preferred, Obama seems more consistent. Kennedy lowered taxes.

And here we go back to ACORN which protested on banker's lawns to get mortgages to those who couldn't afford them. This is the side of the Democrats Obama hails from. His clan meets the Pelosi clan, the Dean clan and of course the Liberal Elite running much of media these days. You can ignore this at your own peril...

Have fun with that..

If were going to bring out the independent groups that produce countless propaganda in the form of fliers, ads, etc, and connect them to their favored candidate, then the "Sarah Palin is a Cunt" shirts are totally Obama's fault.

As for his "contempt", Obama lied about his vote for the Ill. born alive bill.

"Obama's case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected ''viable'' infants-and left the determination of viability up to the ''medical judgment'' of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as ''nonviable.'' As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That's how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there."

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.16_George_Robert_Obama%20and%20Infanticide_.xml

You may need to inform Mr. Obama that being a sly speaker don't mean you speak the truth.

http://generationpatriot.blogspot.com

Yes Marcus. McCain has little sympathy for the health of pregnant women....LOL. I support a woman's right to abort in the first two trimesters and McCain was bringing up the obvious fact that doctors can SAY that almost ANYTHING can affect the health of the mother to be. The solution would have been to set out clear criteria for serious health issues verified by third party review. I believe Obama wants such a criteria left up to the doctor's discretion. We can just look at C-section as an example. Even when C-section should be done in only serious situations, many still get doctors to approve. Perhaps Chris can comment.

The idea that Obama 1. is hurt by his blackness and 2. he is the victim, not instigator of racist tactics is quite funny and NOT born out by data. And how pathetic to bring up that some called for his murder when the FBI has not one witness to such a comment? This is race politics a la Obama. HRC has experienced such a high road.

Considering how much Obama has nodded to the nutrooters, given the nasty attacks by Kos and others, it is a joke that Obama cries about some McCain supporters while his surrogates continue to talk racism and witch hunts. He enjoys SNL describing McCain as walking around a nut house in a gown.

Marcus, did Obama start his political campaign in Ayer's house? Did he fund ACORN and Khadili? Did he lie about Rezko until caught? Isn?t he tied to Fannie and the Sub Prime mess? Wasn't his housing work a bad flop? You seem to think it is just dandy that a candidate can deflect, lie and hide his past, when that is about all the voters have to go on.