]]>
The Senate will once again consider H.R. 6304 when they return after the holiday recess. Please consider contacting your Senators and ask them to support various amendments proposed by Sens. Feingold, Dodd, Webb, and Tester to fix some of the most glaring problems with this bill.
]]>
SCHIEFFER: Can I just interrupt you? I have to say, Barack Obama hasn’t had any of these experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down.
CLARK: I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.
Quote from yesterday's Face the Nation. Here's the clip.
EDIT TO ADD: And I have to agree with other bloggers that Obama repudiating Clark, when Clark has done nothing wrong, is just one more disappointment from our candidate.
]]>
It isn't that difficult to keep the following two thoughts in one's head at the same time -- though it seems to be for many people:
(1) What Barack Obama is doing on Issue X is wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism;
(2) I support Barack Obama for President because he's a better choice than John McCain.
In this case "Issue X" equals FISA, and Obama is completely wrong on the subject. I am very sorry for my friends who are just figuring out that Obama is center left at best, not a progressive angel.
Dodd, on the other hand, has it just right.
I don't believe Obama and Reid will manage to strip the immunity clause. I suspect they know that. Obama's support of the bill is a disgrace.
Contribute to the ad campaign here.
UPDATE: Froomkin has more.
What kind of a country is it where, when the head of state asks you to do something that may well be illegal, but assures you that he considers it legal, you can't be held accountable for doing it?
Welcome to the new U.S. of A.
UPDATE: Jonathan Turley on Countdown last night:
My husband and I have been watching carefully for the destruction of our marriage, as balefully predicted by the religious right. So far, everything seems normal.
Notes: Josh and Zach hug before their wedding in New York state last May. By flickr user CarbonNYC, and used with permission. Also sending an extra hooray! to Phyllis and Del. Best wishes to you both.
]]>
The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise.
This is their chart.
Further analysis.
The Obama plan would still provide the largest tax breaks, measured as a percentage of after-tax income, to those in the bottom quintile. Each quintile would, on average, receive a tax cut but those at the very top of the income scale would receive tax increases. On average, the top 1 percent would receive a tax increase equal to about 3 percent of income; that figure would rise to about 5 percent of income for the richest 1 in 1,000 households.
As in 2009, the McCain tax plan provides very little benefit to households at the bottom of the income distribution in 2012. Households in the lowest quintile receive tax cuts averaging about 1 percent of income. Because McCain’s plan extends all of the regressive 2001–06 tax measures (other than complete repeal of the estate tax) and cuts corporate taxes, those in the top 1 percent receive average cuts representing 9.5 percent of income; that figure is 11.6 percent for the top 0.1 percent of households.The outcome is very clear. If you care about income equality in this country, if you are part of the working class and not one of the wealthy, Barack Obama is the candidate for you.
UPDATE: Krugman looks at the policies
]]>
Obama disagreed.
Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the decision “a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo” that he said was “yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.”
“This is an important step,” he said of the ruling, “toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.”
UPDATE: Think Progress notes that Bush and McCain are once again in perfect agreement.
]]>
If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you shouldn't vote for John McCain.
]]>
