Aug 29th, 2008 at 12:00 am
How Specific Do You Want
As part of the AP’s continuing descent into absurdity they covered Barack Obama’s speech with this long, editorializing-heavy whine about an alleged lack of specifics. This in particular is bizarre:
He said he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families,” but did not say how.
How? His staff would have to work with the staffs of the relevant members of congress on writing a bill. Then the bill needs to get out of committee, pass the House and the Senate, maybe go through a conference committee process and then be signed into law. What does he mean how?
76 Responses to “How Specific Do You Want”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 29th, 2008 at 12:03 am
God, I hate Olbermann but I’m glad he’s calling out this idiocy.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Someone bring some smelling salts for Jonah Lucianne and he associates quick, or the Cornerites’ heads are going to explode.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:10 am
If he’d said how, they would have complained that he was being to wonkish.
Can’t win with some people. Everybody else loved the speech.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Yeah, that’s pretty bizarre.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:16 am
“Doctor. I understand that you can remove my brain cancer. But HOW?”
August 29th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Well, they’re on a tight deadline, and they have to publish some sort of critique, so this isn’t a horrible quick call.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Also, clearly not enough Schoolhouse Rocks.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:17 am
If only Obama had straight talked it and said: “Cut the bullshit.”
August 29th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Here it is… How a bill becomes a law
August 29th, 2008 at 12:26 am
I think they want to hear him say he’s going to do it by first restoring the old tax rates on the other 5%.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Wow. When did FoxNewsl buy the AP?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Someone at the AP didn’t grow up with Schoolhouse Rock, huh?
August 29th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Its not like he hasn’t released his plan. There are numerous graphs like this that show how his tax plan cuts taxes for the vast majority of America.
Seriously…”I’m going to jump 8 inches in the air” “but HOW are you going to jump?” “um. By JUMPING?”
How do you cut taxes? By CUTTING taxes? And yes, if you want to get into detail about committees and subcommittees, that is correct, but has a politician EVER boggled down a speech with how a bill becomes a law?
Ridiculous hacks they have.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Apparently, the 600-word AP piece was written, edited and posted within 26 minutes of the end of the speech. The word around the ’sphere is that it was written before the author heard the speech.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:56 am
It was a prewritten hatchet job, and the AP should be ashamed– and if they’re not, they need to be shamed publicly.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:02 am
pAT,
The Other Steve,
you guys are awesome!
Schoolhouse Rock, damn I love youtube!!!
August 29th, 2008 at 1:08 am
“Doctor. I understand that you can remove my brain cancer. But HOW?”
I suddenly get the image of a little child asking an adult “Why?” and then asking “Why?” again in an ever-repeating, increasingly obnoxious cycle.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:24 am
As an independent, I watched the speech and was skeptical, given all that Obama promised. I believe he mentioned accounting for every dime to pay for his proposed new spending. Is there really a link or something to the specifics down to the dime? If so, please post.
Overall, I’d rate the speech 3 stars out of 5. For me, when he claimed to be post-partisan and at the same time blamed McCain for not catching Osama bin Laden, it just didn’t jive. I think the CIA and military are doing all they can. It really is hard work and, for comparison, it took the FBI 5 years to catch Eric Robert Rudolph in North Carolina.
The speech also ran a bit too long for my taste.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:29 am
ObamaTaxCut.com – see if you’re in Obama’s 95%
@S.P. Gass — it was too long, yet not specific enough?
The Tax Policy Center has a detailed analysis of Obama and McCain’s proposed plans, and how they will likely affect taxpayers. The 95% number doesn’t come from Obama, it comes from that non-partisan analysis. The AP certainly knows this, and employing journalists who feign ignorance isn’t particularly noble.
These are the facts coming out of the Tax Policy Center’s analysis: 95% of families will get a tax cut from Obama, 80% of families will get a bigger cut from Obama than McCain, 1% of families will see a tax increase from Obama.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Zach, that’s an interesting site, says Obama would cut my taxes by $355 more than McCain.
But I thought Obama was raising taxes on everyone making more than $42k?
August 29th, 2008 at 1:42 am
I noticed that Obama didn’t talk about the windfall profits tax, which I always thought was kinda strange seeing as how the oil companies make about 10% profit. That seems reasonable to me.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Gass, it’s well known that the military has had Bin Laden in their sights as well as had good information, but the orders to act on it were strangely held back.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Zach, re: too long but not specific enough… I wasn’t expecting him to spout off line by line of the budget during the speech, but is there some place we can go to check out the accounting “down to the dime” like he said?
J Magrana, I’ve seen stuff about how both Clinton and Bush missed chances for Osama… but Obama and McCain are both senators and they aren’t personally leading up the hunt as far as I know.
Good night all.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:12 am
but Obama and McCain are both senators and they aren’t personally leading up the hunt as far as I know.
Well, Obama has said that if the US had actionable intelligence that the Pakistanis failed to act on, if he were President, he’d act on it; McCain mocked this statement, and expressed faux outrage at the potential violation of Pakistani sovereignty. I think the clear message from this exchange is that when McCain says he’d follow Osama to the gates of hell, he’s talking out of his ass.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:16 am
@S.P. Gass
“But I thought Obama was raising taxes on everyone making more than $42k?”
The $42,000 line that McCain is using in ads and speeches is outright lie.
See here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html
If you’ve been fooled, please help educate others.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:44 am
jw, the factcheck site is a little confusing. It seems to say some people making $42k would be affected, yet Obama says only people making $250k would see an increase. I still don’t get it.
McKingford, I was actually initially impressed with Bush in knocking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, but subsequently Kerry’s line in hindsight about “outsourcing” the efforts at Tora Bora resonated with me. I’m really not sure what Obama would have done. Did he make any statements in 2001/2002 about the operations? Would he have initiated military action?
August 29th, 2008 at 2:54 am
spgass: “For me, when he claimed to be post-partisan and at the same time blamed McCain for not catching Osama bin Laden, it just didn’t jive.”
He did NOT blame McCain for not catching bin Laden. Here’s what Obama said tonight “You know, John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives.”
This relates to a dispute where Obama said that if he had strong intelligence that bin Laden was in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border territory, Obama said he would go after him and kill or capture him
McCain criticized this and said it was “bombing our ally.” Leaving the entirely justified impression that McCain would not attack bin Laden in Pakistan frontier provinces.
More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/mccain-obama-battle-over_n_87591.html?page=7
Obama’s quote is entirely justified in my opinion. But more importantly, what he said isn’t how you related it.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:57 am
s.p. gass: Obama at one time supported a bill which would slightly increase the tax on single persons making $42,000 or more per year. Families and single parents would have had to make a higher income before their taxes were increased. That bill did not pass.
The tax reform he is proposing as a presidential candidate is different altogether. It would only raise taxes on the top 5% of income earners.
McCain’s campaign has managed to confuse the issue with these extremely misleading ads which lead people such as yourself to believe that Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone making over $42,000 once he becomes president. That is patently untrue.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:23 am
That’s close, barrister. The tax increase on individuals making over $41,500 (and couples making over $83,000) was a Senate vote, and is not part of Obama’s tax plan, but the vote was actually on a non-binding budget resolution (which would not have the force of law) rather than a bill. Basically, a budget resolution sets guidelines for future legislation, and they usually get something pretty close to a party line vote (as this one did). This earlier explanation from FactCheck might be a little bit clearer than the other one.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:43 am
“As part of the AP’s continuing descent into absurdity they covered Barack Obama’s speech with this long, editorializing-heavy whine about an alleged lack of specifics. “
My reaction while watching the speech was identical to what AP’s.
They are basically correct. And the lack of specifics didn’t begin with the speech last night.
“What does he mean how?”
Obama is unusual for a Democratic Presidential candidate in refusing to outline his basic budgetary priorities.
You answer the “how” by outlining your budget, but Obama won’t do that.
All of his position papers that last night’s speech referred to are marked by a defiant unwillingness to make any specific promises about his priorities within budgetary constraints.
—–
The truly creepy thing about this is that Democrats shouldn’t be protesting AP’s correct analysis, they should be protesting Obama’s lack of specifics.
If a politician won’t commit to anything during the campaign, he’s a free agent if he wins.
That’s what Obama wants, of course, but it ought to send shudders up the spines of Democrats.
—–
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have any strategic interest in noting the fact that Obama is the most conservative Democratic nominee since Carter. If he wins, he’s going to become far worse of a problem for the progressive movement than George Bush ever was.
The lack of specifics is how he masks his conservatism from Democrats.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:37 am
the most conservative Democratic nominee since Carter
Wait, how about Bill circa 1996? Or Kerry? Or Gore, for that matter? Obama’s mediocre-for-our-times health care plan is more ambitious than either of theirs. I don’t think either of them were proposing to cover all the kids. And then there’s foreign policy.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:56 am
“Wait, how about Bill circa 1996? Or Kerry? Or Gore, for that matter?”
Given the Republican Congresses in those elections, all three of them were running to stop things from passing, not to pass things.
So it’s a little bit apples to oranges if you just want to compare policy papers.
“Obama’s mediocre-for-our-times health care plan is more ambitious than either of theirs.”
Jeebus. I’d be ecstatic at this point if Obama was proposing Kerry’s modest but actually helpful healthcare plan from ‘04. That’d do more than the minor S-CHIP expansion we’ll get once his campaign plan is declared DOA.
“Mediocre” is not the correct word here. A plan designed to not be a starting point isn’t mediocre. The correct word would be something closer to “irrelevant”.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:19 am
I don’t see how the Kerry plan is more helpful in getting us to single-payer than the Obama plan.
Obama may not have an internal mechanism for flipping us into single-payer, but the long slow route I’d hope for is: all your kids have nice government health care, which you interact with on a regular basis since you spend more time with them than your elderly parents. Over the years people get used to liking the health care their kids have (and those kids grow up and they liked the health care of their youth better than the private sector dystopia they find themselves in). Public support for government-sponsored health care increases. It’s slower, but it’s a step forward.
Or do you think that Obama isn’t going to pass a mandate for all kids? That’s the easiest part of his plan, and I don’t see any sign that he’ll fail on that count.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:24 am
How? His staff would have to work with the staffs of the relevant members of congress on writing a bill. Then the bill needs to get out of committee, pass the House and the Senate, maybe go through a conference committee process and then be signed into law. What does he mean how?
Good grief, are you that dense? What the AP is asking is not “how does he plan to pass his tax cuts,” but “how will the tax structure be different under Obama’s plan.” Is he planning on decreasing marginal rates in the lower brackets? Is he planning on increasing the standard exemption or deductions? Is he planning on giving out tax credits or additional deductions like Gore did in 2000 (which are erroneously labeled “tax cuts” when they are really more like subsidies for specific behaviors).
August 29th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Right Glaivester– so the AP thinks it’s somehow noteworthy that Obama didn’t get into the details of his tax plan during a convention acceptance speech? They think it’s noteworthy that he didn’t use that moment to explain whether he’s going to decrease marginal rates in the lower brackets, or increase the standard exemption, or what? What did they expect, a Powerpoint presentation?
How is that anything but idiotic?
August 29th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Let’s see. There was Moe. And Curly. And what was the last one’s name? Hmmm.
I got it! Petey. The last Stooge was named “Petey”.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am
blorp:
Right Glaivester– so the AP thinks it’s somehow noteworthy that Obama didn’t get into the details of his tax plan during a convention acceptance speech?
I think the bigger question is whether or not he has ever gotten into specifics. He doesn’t need to do so in the convention speech per se, but it would be hepful if he had publicized his plan beforehand so that when he gives his speech and makes his statement about cutting taxes people would have a previously described plan to refer to, rather than making a reference to specific outcome from a program that has only been vaguely outlined.
In any case, even if the AP’s question were idiotic, Matt’s response is ever-so-much-more-so. You, blorp, are smart enough to criticize the actual question that the AP was asking. Matt, on the other hand, criticizes a question that no one with any sense would think they were asking.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:09 am
I’m sure that Mr. Yglesias will want to comment on his favorite columnist latest smear job on Senator Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802852.html?sub=AR
August 29th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Ehhh, I have to disagree with myglesias on this one. I think the “how” is legitimate.
More specifically, the question could be phrased as “Which taxes, specifically, does Obama want to see be cut, and by how much?”
Or maybe the question is the “what”. Which budget items is Obama going to cut to raise the money for the taxes breaks?
Or maybe it’s “How is he going to balance the budget while reducing revenue intake?”
Basically, what Glaivester said.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
To be a bit more generous to the AP, I don’t think they meant “he didn’t say how to pass a law to cut taxes.” They meant “he didn’t say how he would accomplish a tax cut in the context of a universal health care program and massive additional investment in alternative energy and education.” Their critique is poorly worded though.
Obama claimed that he would magically be able to pay for everything through closing corporate tax holes. Count me highly skeptical. He also didn’t mention raising the payroll tax on the highest income earners or windfall profits on oil companies.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:34 am
The TAx Policy Center published a comparison of the 2 candidates’ tax proposals in the past month, which contains a synopsis of those proposals — no doubt greater detail would be available from the individual campaigns. For example, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf
One would think that AP “analysts” (if they had any relevant experience) would not look for detailed tax proposals in an acceptance speech. One would also expect analysts from an organization of such former prominence and reputation as the AP would know where to look for such detail information if that were needed for their analysis. It’s a shame about the AP, we already have Fox so it’s hard to say whether there’s a place for them anywhere now that they are a partisan organization
August 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Obama has put out more details on his policies and budget than most candidates ever do, and FAR more than McCain has. Go to barackobama.com and read for hours. Some of those details just aren’t necessary to put into a speech before 80,000 people if you don’t want them to fall asleep. If the AP wants to play this game, then I’m waiting with bated breath for them to make the same critique of McCain when he fails to mention even the vaguest details of his policies and budget.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:49 am
This is not difficult–this is the Internet.
33 pages of “how”
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
August 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am
The likes of Ross Douthat, David Brooks, S.P. Gass, the AP, and McCain’s spokesperson are unintentionally working towards spin management by raising expectations so high, it’s leading to silliness. First there was the 15-point bump nonsense. Then Brooks on PBS voices his disappointment, followed now by AP and Douthat. Who’s addicted to glib celebrity, really? Or, who’s addicted to the smell of their own talking points? I think it is a sign of the tactical strength of the performance, that pundits are grasping for a soundbite smear that they can’t formulate.
And, S.P. Gass: the speech was too long, but you’re producing a laundry list? Suffering from attention deficit disorder? I bet you couldn’t even read a Senate speech from the antebellum period in one sitting, let alone hear one live. Yes, we need education reform! 45 minutes is a sop to lazy Americans who have just deprived the rest of us of a night’s entertainment! Thanks, loser!
August 29th, 2008 at 8:52 am
You do realize that if Obama had been as specific on taxes (and other issues) as AP hints at AP’s story would have been that the speech was too specific and too boring (something Dems get accused of all the time). We won’t win this argument with AP (esp considering who is in charge) and other right wing PR outlets.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:17 am
If a national political reporter for the AP does not see or appreciate the historic significance of a Democratic nominee for president taking on the core of his base in front of a national audience by suggesting there is a moderating, middle way on such divisive culture war issues as abortion and gun control, then the reporter needs to stick with obituaries and classified ads and leave real “analysis” to somebody else. What we saw last night, if it is allowed to take root, is an entirely new brand of politics reaching out across party lines and partisan divides. Too bad for all of us that the AP does not see it.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Love the pets of the RNC concern trolls coming around to shit in the yard. We all know Petey the Stray who comes and shits in the yard daily, but now we get S.P. Gass the RNC cat who knows exactly where the litter box is (can pull that $42,000 number out of his ass pretty easily), but comes here to take a dump and act all innocent about his disdain for Obama’s speech and its lack of specifics. If he can find Matt’s little site but can’t find Obama’s detailed tax plan anywhere on the web, what sort of idiots does he take us for?
August 29th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Petey (sigh):
The lack of specifics is how he masks his conservatism from Democrats.
Petey, you do realize there are other issues besides health care, right? Differing on the specifics of a health care plan does not equal being conservative.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Why has Barack Obama not invented some sort of electronic system for exchanging information, so that interested citizens and specialists might “visit” his electronic postal station and “retrieve” electronic packets describing his plans with specifics?
Surely Barack Obama must be willing to use post-telegraph technologies!
August 29th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Here is a link to Obama’s specific suggestions for the tax plan:
http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/
On top of the webpage, there are links for a 6 page detailed line by line explanation of the proposed changes, a 4 page comparing the two candidate’s plans, and a 2 page fact sheet summarizing Obama’s plan.
How much more detail do you guys want? And it took me a whopping 3 minutes to find it on the Internet. What did you want Obama to do, in the middle of his speech say “go to my website at http://www.barackobama.com to get the details?”.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Westcoast asks: “Wow. When did FoxNewsl buy the AP?”
From Think Progress: thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/rupert-murdoch-joins-associated-press-board/
That would be April 14, 2008.
SASQ.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Clarification for my previous comment (item 50): I meant to say, “in addition to the webpage, at the bottom there are links for. ….”
Also, there is an independent analysis of the two tax proposals at http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/presidential_candidates.cfm
So, clearly the AP guy is either totally incompetent, or totally disingenuous, you choose…
August 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I’m just a bill, up on Capitol Hill.
The reality is the President can’t *do* most of the things that the candidates promise. The proposals made during the campaign are the President’s platform. The things he promises to attempt once he takes office. Playing dumb about these political realities is simply spin.
The American people need to hear when a candidate is over promising, of course. The student body president cannot add half an hour to the lunch period or guarantee that the cafeteria will carry ice cream every day.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:15 am
As an independent, I watched the speech and was skeptical, given all that Obama promised. I believe he mentioned accounting for every dime to pay for his proposed new spending.
This is a valid point, and it’s probably what the AP meant. There’s just no way he can pay for his tax cuts and new spending without increasing the size of the deficit.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
What? You expect journalists to read? They aren’t studying for the SATs anymore!
When Obama puts up his website in giant lights in Mile High Stadium and you’re still unable to go to the website and look over his specifics, you have just entered the inner circle of illiteracy.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I’d never noticed the bit about capital gains taxes before. That’s brilliant. There is a real lazy shorthand regarding capital gains where if you support such a tax you are a drag on the engine of the free market and discouraging entrepreneurship. 95% of capital gains has exactly zero to do with any such thing and is simply trading paper on wall street between brokers and is simply gambling. Making a distinction between funding a start-up and massive brokerages moving stocks around is something I’ve never seen a major politician do.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Perhaps Petey would care to identify, with links and quotes, the “specific promises about [] priorities within budgetary constraints” (whatever that means) in Clinton’s or Edwards’ or any other Democratic candidates’ policy papers that he claims Obama’s plans uniquely lack. I won’t hold my breath.
Petey is the Bill Kristol of blob comments.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I want specifics, dammit!
33 pages of “how”
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
Awww 33 pages, I’m not reading that!
August 29th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
rifle: I see your point.
Baltimoron: I definitely think there were high expectations. I was really impressed seeing Barack’s 17 min convention speech last cycle, but this one didn’t have the same effect for me. Perhaps in part to have already seen so many clips over the past months.
Asher and barrister: thanks.
Matt Y.: you’ve been pretty critical of the McCain camp for bringing up his time as a POW. I noticed Obama’s grandfather’s serving in Patton’s Army was mentioned at least a couple of times (once in the video, again by Obama). Any thoughts on that?
August 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Gass, get back to us when Obama begins using his grandfather’s service to deflect every third question and criticism.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Sp Glass,
You are sersiously equating a shout-out to Obama’s uncle during a speech, you know the kind of thing that is routinely done, with McCain bringing up his POW status to answer every criticism?
If that is the best RNC trolls can come up with I’m feeling pretty good.
And Petey, just fuck off already, Obama offered a stronger defense of liberalism than any Democrat since McGovern.
Unlike your new heros the Clintons he didn’t offer some mealy mouthed mushy centrism.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
The AP story was written by Chuck Babington. I’ve followed Chuck’s career for 25 years, since he was the Washington correspondent for the Raleigh News & Observer. There, he wrote lots of favorable articles about Jesse Helms and generally trashed the Carolina’s Democratic delegation, most notably Terry Sanford. The guy is a serious hack, who gets his yayas writing hit jobs of liberal politicians. Would love to know why he left the Post.
August 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Observer / EricKillian: I agree that it hasn’t been used as much.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
The uncle kinda creeped me out too, and I have relations who died there. Like it’s nice that he has a great-uncle who served his country in a very noble cause, but it says absolutely nothing about himself; if anything it just makes him look more callow and unaccomplished that they have to dig up his great-uncles to make the case that he’s a patriot, or whatever they were trying to show there.
August 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
But it’s ok for McCain to make political hay about how McCains have fought in every American war? I think that Obama brings up his white antecedents to underscore some frankly dubious assumptions about race/racial purity and American identity politics, since, after all, he can trace his people back to colonial Massachusetts.
August 29th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Thinking more about it, I am going to amend my response to comment #35in comment #37
Right Glaivester– so the AP thinks it’s somehow noteworthy that Obama didn’t get into the details of his tax plan during a convention acceptance speech?
I don’t think anyone was asking for a detailed plan. It might have been helpful, though, for him to have said: “I plan to cut taxes for 95% of working families. My plan will increase the standard exemption/offer tax credits for childcare/reduce marginal rates on the lowest bracket/whatever.” He didn’t need to give specific numbers for how the cuts would work, although he might say soethign like, “under my plan, the average family of X making $Y a year would save $Z.” He could have outlined what method of tax-cutting he was using in a 30-second soundbite without going into mind-numbing detail.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:30 am
Leee’s got it mostly right: Obama brought up the Patton connection to emphasize to the xenophobes that for all his Muslim/foreign/Black/scary background, he has deep (or at least white)American roots. It couldn’t have been a lot of fun growing up black in a mostly white family in the ’70s and ’80s American Midwest, and if he can draw some of the credit on that account, I can’t see how we can blame him.
I really liked the biographical video-especially how Mrs. Obama spoke about her reaction to his “funny name” issue (”Barry Obama” vs. “Barack Smith”: surprisingly enough, Barack Obama is a funny sounding name even for blacks!) It was very human and amusing/endearing, and captured the mental cadences of the time when one begins semi-seriously assessing a potential romantic partner.
January 11th, 2009 at 5:12 am
http://www.batteryfast.com/
http://www.batteryfast.co.uk/
March 1st, 2009 at 6:09 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:59 am
Great site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:33 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:36 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Badly need your help. In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office.
I am from Chile and also am speaking English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Save on last minute airline ticket los angeles atlanta los angeleslas vegas atlanta las vegassan francisco atlanta san franciscolast.”
Waiting for a reply
, Nadir.