Political Punch

The democrats are in charge of the congress and they have a LOWER approval rating than the President. The people in Congress are the people who write the bills, Bush just signs them. Therefore your democrat controlled congress is worse than Bush.

Republicans,

You guys selected Bush over McCain in 2000. If your top guy Bush turned out to be the WORST PRESIDENT in American history, think how worse will it be under your second best McSame?

Americans are not going to be fooled this time.

Playboy girl Palin is no Hillary Clinton!!!

It Popeye & Oliveoil

The Liberals don't get it ...

Picking Palin is not about APPEASEMENT of the Obama camp.

It is about electrifying the Republican Party's MIGHTY SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE POWERHOUSE,... AND unleashing a stunning torrent of campaign cash, as the McCain camp raised a staggering US$7 million !!!!....in the day-and-a-half since Mr McCain named Mrs Palin on Friday.

The evangelical conservative grass roots of the Republican Party, which helped secure two White House terms for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is erupting in delight just in time for this week's party convention.

Move over Obamamania ... this is GOP's version of Palin-mania...she is the new headlines. BHO is yesterday's news.

Sarah Palin is the Governor of the largest state in the Union. Obama has spent less than 150 days working as a US Senator. Who is inexperienced?

John McCain put his presidency on the line; he put his faith in a woman. He considers a woman a worthy running mate. Even though Clinton had 18,000,000 votes the Dems couldn't find a place on the ticket for her, in fact, they couldn't even allow her the same roll call vote they gave Kennedy when he ran against Carter.

The actions of the neo-Dems prove that they are not progressive when it comes to women, since we have witnessed a huge disconnect between what they do and what they say.

If you are going to discuss Obama's experience have the brains to adress it correctly - 8 years State Senator (big state, let's not forget) and 4 years US Senate (as in country). Palin - 8 years mayor (Wasilla - less than 7,000 people) and less than 2 years governor State less than 700,000 people. Please don't forget her legistlative investigation in her state that is current and on going and her flip flopping on the bridge to no where and fighting big oil...or is that drilling in AK? I am not sure....but we sure do need to take the polar bear off of the endangered species list, because it is effecting or drilling.....hmmmm.... Anyone on this site who feels like she has the experience to run a country, any country, is just plain missing brain cells. You can argue all you want...Obama was PRESIDENT of the Harvard Law Review, what college did Ms. Palin attend? Or did she? I don't know that answer. Palease......people. You make an emply and ill informed case for Ms. Palin as choice for VP. Good luck w/ that one.

Drew,

Bush received higher grades than Kerry.

They both went to Ivy league schools.

Given Ivy league people screwed up do you then recommend we don't elect candidates with an Ivy league education?

Is there anyone running for office with an Ivy league education?

Willem van Oranje, Alaska is unique. Each resident of Alaska (minimum one year residency) receives an annual revenue check. In 2007 that check was $1,654. This is part of a program that was implemented through an amendment to the Alaska State Constitution shortly after the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System went online (1977). Because of the current high cost of energy, the Alaska State Legislature passed and Gov. Palin did, in fact, signed into law a tax increase on the oil companies. It is reported that Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from that new tax. As a result, a special $1,200 payment per resident has been approved (in addition to their regular annual check). I am not in favor of any wealth redistribution, which this is.

HOWEVER, it is now being reported that there are signs that this tax hike is already discouraging future exploration and development. This is one of the reasons a national windfall profits tax is being opposed by the Republicans.

My own personal beliefs on this issue are as follows: (1) Corporations are already paying taxes on their profits; (2) I oppose any new taxes that limit a corporation from making profits; (3) I oppose any tax that targets a particular private business or a specific product (I oppose the so called sin taxes); (3) I especially oppose taking profits from a private business and directly sharing it with the public.

In a nutshell, I would prefer that the income tax be totally eliminated for both individuals and corporations. I am a firm believer in the fair tax, with one change. I do not like the idea of a monthly prebate check being sent to every individual to offset the tax paid on essential goods and services (poverty level expenditures). Instead, I prefer tax-free stores be opened for purchasing generic essential goods. Sending out monthly checks would be extremely expensive. And these tax-free stores would create thousands of new jobs.

I'm a college graduate and I applaud highly intelligent people. It means they worked hard to learn all they can to better themselves. It's the American Dream. The American dream isn't to be average and achieve the same as someone who actually put in the work. We need someone with intelligence to lead our country, not an average person. The problem with average people running our country is we get average and sub-par results. Look at Bush, he was just an average good ole boy and now thousands of Americans are dead for his stupid decision! It's scary that Republicans aren't outraged. It's a political move and their now running their campaign on the platform of change (let's get rid of old politics.) The platform is flawed!

Personally, I decide by individuals and their history not the history of others.

Senators who became President for the memory impaired among you:

Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, before he became JFK's VP.

Senator Richard M. Nixon, before he became Ike's VP.

Senator Gerald Ford, before he became Nixon's VP.

Congressman, and CIA Director George H. W. Bush before he became Reagan's VP. (Not a Senator, but a member of the House of Representatives)

None of the above were ever Governors. The VP's job is to decide in the event of a tie in the senate and to sit in wait of the death of a president.

Governors who became President

Governor Ronald Reagan
Governor Jimmy Carter
Governor Bill Clinton
Governor George W. Bush

Which were better presidents on the whole and which were losers all around? You choose.

William van Oranje:

1) On salary: Okay. I’m willing to concede the point that her pay went up from mayor to governor. However, she still accepted less, which is a salary cut. Also, to me its not so much the dollar amount, it’s how many people in politics are willing to take less. The answer is not many. In truth, many people from both parties find ways to pay themselves and their families more by implementing projects that do not help the taxpayers at all, but give the politicians or their families more income.

2) Again a property tax cut no matter how small is welcome, especially when so many are trying to put food on the table and pay bills. I do not know the exact dollar amount that Palin reduced the tax, but I will look it up. However, AK as a state has the 12th highest property tax. So I believe that a reduction of 40% is significant. Not as significant as a 40% property tax cut in NJ or NH, but still a welcome sign to me.

3) As for your third point is it really that easy to clean up corruption? If it was, why didn’t somebody else do it before? Why are there still so many corrupt politicians in Washington? I don’t believe that it is an easy job to clean up corruption.

As to an increase in deficit. Each party has picked candidates that are going to increase the deficit and by large amounts. I don’t think there is a win situation for either party there.

James Danley:
I really appreciate your recent post. I just wanted to add a comment. During that same 1980-1988 period when homeland oil production dropped between 1.2% and 4.8% because of a windfall tax, foreign oil consumption increased by a greater margin. I believe additional consumption of foreign oil ranged between 8-10% though I have seen reports as high as 16%.
The catch here is that while Obama supports a tax on oil companies, so does Palin. I think the difference here though is that Palin wants to open more oil fields to drilling by U.S. oil companies. This should at least diminish if not solve the problems that occurred from taxing oil companies during the 1980s.

James Danley: "(2) Implementing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies;"

I'd be interested to know what you thought of Palin's increase of State taxes on Oilfield production in Alaska.

Cecilia: she made a campaign promise and she acts upon it when elected and you are all fawning over her?

1) Reduce her salary? She didn't have that salary yet when se made that promise. She was going to more than double her family income when elected so it was extremely easy for her to make that promise: instead of increasing her family income with 110%, she increased it with 100% and that's totally awesome? Give me a break.
2) Reduce the property taxes with 40%? How much was it before and how much was it afterwards? Nobody seems to know. How did she handle the decrease in statefunds: increase the deficit and the statedebt?
She increased the taxes on oilfield production from 22,5 to 25% so she might have offset it that way but nobody seems to know.

Saying you're going to clean the house in Alaska is easy: Alaskan politics is the in greatest mess imaginable, Alaskan Republicans even renominated Stevens again to the US Senate. But what I've seen from Palin sofar seems a lot more like window dressing. Cleaning windows and hanging new curtains is not cleaning house, as you probably know.

Amy T., you wrote: "The Obama-Biden ticket better get out there and really start talking real details and policy...the how, by when, and how are they going to pay for it, if they want to win this election and save our nation."

You really believe the American people will vote for the Obama-Biden ticket when they are told the TRUTH about where the money will have to come from?

According to Sen. Obama, there will be three sources to pay for ALL of his new entitlements: (1) Tax increases for those making at least $250,000; (2) Implementing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies; (3) The money currently being spent on the Battle of Iraq, once the troops are all home.

The problem is:

(1) According to the latest statistics by the IRS, in 2006 there were approximately 3.8 million individuals who earned at least $250,000 in adjusted gross income. If all of these individuals were taxed ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of their wages over $250,000, in theory it might generate about $1 trillion in new revenue. But if the federal government were to announce a 100% tax on all wages over $250,000, individuals would stop working once they reach that amount.

(2) Congress already tried a windfall profits tax between 1980-1988. During that period domestic oil production dropped between 1.2% and 4.8%. Less production means higher prices--thus higher inflation, which will wipe out much of the gains in revenue generated from the windfall profits tax.

(3) The cost of the Battle of Iraq, according to a March 2008 ABC News report, is approximately $12 billion per month; or $144 billion per year. $144 billion BORROWED money. So Sen. Obama proposes borrowing $144 billion every year??

Eventually, it will be up to the middle class to PAY through the nose for their freebee entitlements.

Look at Sweden, which is one of the most generous welfare states. The Swedes enjoy "free" public schooling; "free" university schooling; health care at "nominal" fees; "free" medicine after an annual expenditure (one source has approximately $150); generous pensions, unemployment benefits; sick leave; highly subsidized child care; senior citizen care; even theater and other leisure activities; and the list goes on... With a population of just over 9 million people Sweden is able to provide these "free" entitlements because EVERYONE pays about 60% of their earnings in taxes (combined income tax, payroll tax and value-added taxes).

So if you want all of the "free" entitlements that Sen. Obama plans to implement--in spite of his rhetoric about giving tax cuts to the bottom 95% of the wage earners--eventually your taxes will skyrocket.

To those who are upset that the presidential candidate of their choice did not make it (whether it is Hillary or Romney, etc), please deal with the now. Being upset about the past instead of the now is not going to accomplish anything.

This is BS! McCain should step down and Romney should take his place. What has happened to the GOP? All gimmick and no substance.

William van Oranje: Deeds that show positive aspects of Obama and Biden are being placed into the Obama campaign. Positive attributes of McCain and Palin are going to be placed into the McCain campaign. That does not mean that those points concerning either party are illegitimate. Palin was elected as governor because she actually held true to promises like lowering property taxes.
Now if you can prove Palin has not accomplished the supposed “flimflam” then I am willing to acknowledge your point. It also seems like you are looking for specific achievements. Please list those. If you also can name some actual points with facts to back up your argument about flimflam then there is cause for an actual debate. Failure to name something specific makes your argument thin. Not dismissible, just thin.

Why don't all those Senators just go away and leave us Americans alone!!!

Why do we even have the Senate? It's gross!