Political Punch

Tammy Stickers - Tell me something who do you consider rich? See less then 5% of the population who are considered Rich pay over 50% of the taxes. 30% well to do pay over 85% of the taxes.

Is rich someone that makes over 20,000 a year?

See Bushs tax cuts helped this economy become the strongest in history, almost full employment,

I see raise the taxes so people invest outside the country, and George Soros gets rich.

They go by who donates to them, duh!!!

"First they only want to tax the rich that do not support them"

Funny, I don't remember my 1040 asking my political party. Are you sure you are filling out the form for the United States?

Or maybe the Republicans are right - taxes are for the little guy.

I ask for a Republican who can think in something more than a soundbite, and I get my wish. A Republican who argues with three soundbites. Not much of an improvement.

Can you do something other than make general unsupported and untrue allegations? It is hard to argue with rightwing fantasies.

First they only want to tax the rich that do not support them, since the majority of Dems are richer then rich.

They always play victim, telling everyone that they need to be dependant on goverment , see that is there plan for Socialism.

They prove one thing in this is that they can not handle the Presidency, if they can not handle criticizing then how can they handle the presidency.

"They don't want taxes on the rich, they want taxes on getting rich."

Nice slogan, but totally meaningless. Can't you RepubliCONs think in something longer than a soundbite? It is hard to have a meaningfull debate if you guys are going to play dead.

"Welcome to national politics, Jake. The democrats are and have been the party of professional victimhood since at least the 60s."

It is nice to know that even the RepubliCONs admit that Democrats is the party of the little guy.

This entire victimization mentality seems to be a product of our last couple of national elections, where, if an outrageous charge wasn't immediately dealt with, it grew and took on a life of its own. Unfortunately, though, there are only so many times that a candidate can claim to be a victim; after that, it's a repeat of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

Thank goodness he has the opportunity to speak his mind. The man lives in lala land. Absolute warped logic!. Wow can you imagine if he were president???
I can't imagine who would want to shut him up except those that love him.

Did it ever occur to you guys that maybe the Dems have a point? The 'big media' seem to be controlled by Bush-fawning big corpies (mergers have concentrated power in hands of a few companies) and that a lot of 'feeding frenzy' occurs whenever there is a Democratic gaffe, but the White House gets a free pass on major crimes, misdemeanors and plundering of the national treasure, authoritarian tactics get overlooked but just one thing and the Dems are subjected to intense scrutiny for days and days.

There is a corporate-conservative complex (like military-industrial) that does indeed favor the Republicans as far as 'kid gloves' are concerned.

Welcome to national politics, Jake. The democrats are and have been the party of professional victimhood since at least the 60s.

Not much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans anymore. Instead of actually having answers for any given issue, it is all about diversion tactics and generic "crowd-pleasing" antics. They all ring hollow and are so obviously sold to the highest bidder ... (just look at Mitt Romney -- ick!)

As far as Hillary vs Obama, I find her at fault and far from being the proverbial victim. If indeed he is as naive as she is suddenly asserting, she should be tempering her criticism instead of pouncing on him like he's prey. This whole thing really tips my opinion of her into the negative.

This is typical of the Democrats. They'll take an issue which they disagree with the Republicans on (such as wiretaps of foreign calls), and then run around like headless chickens, screaming the sky is falling, that people are being beaten and locked up everywhere, and that we're on the verge of moving towards a totalitarian state. The Dems will accuse the Repubs of fear-mongering with terrorism, and the Repubs likewise have a case against the Dems with them always trying to cast America as being on the brink of becoming fascist.

Welcome to politics.

Victimology is simply the water that leftists swim in. They don't notice it because it's all they know.

I was a democrat myself, until the party descended into po' me, little victim, give me money! mentality.

Greenie, White Mountain - I don't think I agree with your criticisms of the press.

Well, maybe with regard to Edwards haircut, but not with Clinton.

She's not giving them much opportunity for substantive reporting and she is playing up fashion. So reporters report what they have to report.

Let's talk substance. The Washington Post recently tried to contrast the differences between health care proposals the Dems had out. Clinton's plan couldn't be analyzed, according to the Post, because of lacking clarity.

And why is she the only candidate about whom we don't know the answer to a straight-forward question: Was the decision to invade Iraq the right call or a blunder? I can answer that for every other candidate, Republican or Democrat. But I have no idea how she would answer, assuming she ever would.

I was a loyal Democrat for many years, my first vote being for Adlai Stevenson while I was serving in the US Army during the Koream War. But my old party has changed. The optimism of FDR and JFK and HST has become the class warfare of Clinton, Edwards and the rest. The Kerry line of negativity toward the US military has become the Party line. So I bailed out and did what I has always considered impossible. I switched parties- I have no regrets. The US must win in Iraq.

I love the Democrats harping on the GOP for wanting to skip the circus CNN/YouTube debate.

Who is the political party so afraid of big bad FOX News that they're boycotting it?

Real tough guys, those Dems...

This is the same drive-by reporting the media's been doing for years.

Republicans are the tough, manly party who happen to believe that the media, academia, Hollywood, and "the elite" are against them (while simultaneously denigrating Democrats as lazy welfare kings and queens who don't work, don't understand how to make money and are too stupid to contribute to the world...while running it), and Democrats are the soft, whining party.

The mainstream media is more than happy to run with this, to hide behind the pantlegs of big bad Republicans who can handle anything (except YouTube) and endlessly run hit pieces on Democrats so as to avoid the dreaded label of "liberal bias".

Lets all dry our eyes, take a valium and compose ourselves and get back to the issues!
We are all going to have to "buck-up" and stay on solving the problems of this nation. Get back to the issues - problems need solutions-let's hear them!

It is time we as readers demand more from the press. There is a difference between famous and imfamous. Anyone who has tried to lead a decent life and stands for something is demeaned. If you are in rehab, dumber than a rock, and dress like a million you are a hero.
Get real! Either we sell prime time and newspapers or we talk about what is important - yes, I know it's boring,but the American people depend on you to
cover the issues, pro and con, and inform the voters. Do your job!
Good grief!

I think whining is a lousy strategy.

Only candidates who have who have gone to Vietnam, acted like such fools that their units ran them out of country after four months, come home and trashed their fellow troops, needed political intervention to get honorable discharges, and then had the utter hutspah to run as "war heroes" need have any fear of being "Swift Boated".

"You think these people who make $100 million a year, you think they want to pay their fair share of taxes?"

As if any Democrat has the faintest intention of cranking up taxes on George Soros or Teresa Heinz or the Kennedys. They don't want taxes on the rich, they want taxes on getting rich.

No --

It's the Lifetime Movie Syndrome -- Dems want to be the "victim" where everyone feels sorry for them and they "heal" and all the other feminized stuff. This Lifetime Movie Syndrome and it's associated victim-as-desired status means most men won't vote Dems.

Women have captured the Dem Party rather substantially, and it's telling how the Peace Movement is almost entirely middle aged white women way out of the mainstream while young white male soldiers in the wars mostly support them (Iraq and Afghanistan). While the Peace Movement demands withdrawal and surrender in both Wars (Maxine Waters just re-issued that demand)

Most male voters (who are not rich and powerful) know they will lose: political power/influence, policies that benefit them, etc. in the politics of Oprah and Lifetime and the View.

I think that while the rhetoric of supression is calculated, the emotion behind it, both in speaker and listener is very, very real; otherwise the preposterousness of these claims would be unignorable.

The TNR/ Scott Thomas fantasia has been revealing and instructive in this regard. Reading the left, liberal, and even moderate magazine, group, and personal blogs is a fascinating exhibition of bewildered, furious people who have found themselves in an incomprehensible world.

The kid lied to a credulous audience, telling them what they wanted to hear, getting a big career jump until he got caught. It happens all the time. Instead of being sheepish and then shrugging it off, however, the reaction is bizarre, coming down simply to it doesn't matter if SC lied and made it up, it's true anyway. It has to be true, because that's what they want to be true.

The candidates described here seem that way too. They're not getting everything they want, so somebody must be stopping them, right? There's no other explanation--there can't be.

It's not that they are completely wrong and that their opponents are totally right, but that for the first time in many decades, these opponents can mount a credible popular defense and promulgate their own positions. This is a circumstance unknown in the adult lifetime of any American under the age of 65, at least.

This is nothing new for Hillary. She played that card when she was running against Rick Lazio. She claimed he was attacking poor little her and she all but squeezed out a tear - and he was treated by the media as if he were a wife-beater. Now she is trying it all over again and for a beeyotch like her to get over on this one is really ludicrous. She makes Genghis Khan look like a sissy.

What say me? Well, somehow, money keeps popping up as something they want more of.

Yeah, I think it's "the money" more so than "the principle of the thing." ;)

John and Hillary: Here's a Golden Oldie for you--"Well, there you go again." And readers--if you're younger than, say, 40, try to find the Carter-Reagan debate on Youtube. There they go again. It's amazing to me that more people don't catch the attackers crying when they, too, are attacked. It's worked for years. If it works, you get more donations, mobilize your street-walkers, and, at least temporarilly, tone down your opponent's attacks, while feeling free to continue your own. I don't remember anyone attacking John's haircuts--just laughing at them. Ditto for Hillary's--uh--debate points. I notice Obama is not yet playing that way. I read somewhere that his campaign is using Reagan as a model. Well, there we go again--this guy may be a comer.

"these people who make $100 million a year"

Gag. Pure demagoguery but this is John Edwards talking so it's hardly surprising. Edwards knows perfectly well that a good number of the people in this country who make that kind of money are actors, wall street chieftains and hedge fund managers (including his partners, ahem) who vote for and donate to Democrats. The irony is that his statement, while simplistic and cheesy, is true. No one at any income level really wants to pay taxes, but the folks in the $100 million plus bracket (including all those Democratic donors) pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to set up trusts, dummy corporations, family partnerships and other complex tax avoidance devices. The Democrats' rich patrons will never abandon these privileges but will continue to make their Marie Antoinette-like demands on the rest of us. Rich Republicans avoid taxes too but at least they're not hypocrites about it.

I am sorry; I think we may be taking this a little too seriously. Lighten up folks; it's all tongue-in-cheek.

In any case, men have had (and still do) advantage for millenia...I think it's OK if Hillary uses her femininity to her advantage.

Ah, and Bush et al do not think of themselves as victims but guess what: the American public is the real victim because of Bush...
wimps refuse to show up for questions on tv but will confront terror?

A Clinton crying about being "attacked" - Dear God, that's funny.

i'd be much more confident in a leader who whines when political opponents and/or the media criticize them. i mean, imagine the flow of tears when Ahmadinejad or al-Zawahiri call them nasty names! the indignation will be a devastating weapon. that'll show em!

dutch,

You left the "vast rightwing conspiracy" from the Lewinsky affair off of your list.

It's all pretty typical. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore, except, perhaps, the "New York Money Men".

Being a self-proclaimed victim isn't anything new for Clinton. She's done it all along. Most recently, this fight with Obama is only one of three times.

She also claimed a "political" attack within a personal letter from DoD. It was Clinton who took that public, and simultaneously her who called this private exchange a "political attack." Shameless or stupid, I can't decide which.

And now she has a fundraising e-mail out asking for money because she was victimized so brutally in a Washington Post style article in which the fashion critic had the gall to note Clinton's cleavage.

She has a reputation for being too tough. I'm starting to wonder if she's tough enough for the general election.

Trust me, no one wants to shut Edwards up, especially the Republicans. The more he gets heard the more hope for Republican candidates. He is such a laughable candidate, anyone with half a brain can see through his shell game. The only person who should be concerned about what John Edwards says is John Edwards. John, repeat this phrase, "No one is listening to me, no one is listening to me, . . . . . .

spoiled children, the lot of them