Keating Five ring a bell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

The GOP do eat their own remember bush attacking McCain in 2000?

The battle between Bush and McCain for South Carolina has entered American political lore as one of the dirtiest and most brutal ever.^{[95][102][103]} A variety of interest groups that McCain had challenged in the past now pounded him with negative ads.^[95] Bush tried to co-opt McCain's message of reform,^[104] while refusing to disassociate himself from a veterans activist who accused McCain (in Bush's presence) of having "abandoned the veterans" on POW/MIA and Agent Orange issues.^[95][105]

Incensed,^[105] McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton,^[95] which Bush said was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary".^[95] An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, and flyers, claiming most infamously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh), that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.^[95][102] The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with the attacks.^[102] McCain lost South Carolina on February 19, with 42 percent of the vote to Bush's 53 percent,^[107] in part because Bush mobilized the state's evangelical voters^[95] and outspent McCain;^[108] this allowed Bush to regain lost momentum.^[107] McCain would say of the rumor spreaders, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."^[69] According to one report, the South Carolina experience left McCain in a "very dark place".^[102]

 Almost everything he was a "maverick" on 8 years ago he's now flop-flopped on (with very few exceptions) to become just like Bush.

 

"Agents of intolerance" ring a bell?

As I blogged yesterday, and reported by Politico:

McCain guru linked to subprime crisis

"The general co-chairman of John McCain’s presidential campaign, former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), led the charge in 1999 to repeal a Depression-era banking regulation law that Democrat Barack Obama claimed on Thursday contributed significantly to today’s economic turmoil.

“A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business had changed,” the Illinois senator running for president said in a New York economic speech. “But by the time [it] was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.”

Gramm’s role in the swift and dramatic recent restructuring of the nation’s investment houses and practices didn’t stop there.

A year after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the old regulations, Swiss Bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. Two years later, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm..."[More]

See also:What went wrong at UBS?

He doesn't understand any portion of the economy.

He will increase Govt. debt.

He will increase Govt. spending.

He's sick and dying.

He sold out to the Vietnamese for better treatment.

He doesn't believe the CIA's explanation of blowback, but wants to increase their budget.

He's pro-illegal invasion.

Pro-Patriot Act. Pro-endless and continual war with the country of the week.

He's pro-income tax.

He's pro-federal reserve, DHS, Real-ID.

He's anti-free market. Hates citizens and loves starving them with sanctions, whatever country they may be in.

He just violated his own campaign finance rule.

He's anti-1st/2nd/4th amendment. Actually, it doesn't even sound like he's read the Constitution.

Ron Paul continually made him look like a decrepit, old, ignorant geezer in public, on TV and handed him his arse on a plate.

Corporate corruption ie; fascist.

100 years was the minimum number he actually threw out, it was more to the effect, as long as "it" takes. Being that the biggest embassy ever is being constructed in Iraq, I hear that as permanent occupation. Which is followed up perfectly with:

He's pro-empirical occupation in all those countries around the world.

He doesn't understand earmarks.

And last, he vacations with the Clintons.

That 100 years crap that Obama keeps tossing out there will bite him on the butt if the main stream media decides to call him on it. 

Still, McCain's position on illegal immigration has not evolved adequately enough to warrant my all important vote.

 John with all you said      He still beats any Democrat       I hate him too      but who else is there

"It was an off-the-cuff line, but in the YouTube-era, one that promises to dog Senator John McCain throughout the entire general election campaign. Responding to a question during his New Hampshire campaigning, John McCain said he saw no problem with the U.S. remaining in Iraq for 100 years. "

He said, and he should own what he said! McCain wasnt good enough in 2000 to be the GOP candidate and now he is still no good enough to be the President of the US.

 Montfred, that article about Phil Gramm seems to have failed to mention that  President Bill Clinton signed that bill.

Or that a key Obama economic adviser has spoke out in favor of mortgage industry deregulation.

Obama's campaign of Hope and Unity is truly inspirational.  Not.

 Driftncrude, your question was about McCain.  I'd have plenty to say if you ask the same about Obama and HRC

Obama does need to lose the 100 year argument, it grates as much as when HRC keeps bringing up her lie about the trip to Bosnia, because Obama knows he misstating McCain's comments.  He might want to go through the list above and pick out some other barb.

Your post about Obama economic adviser looks very interesting, I searched for Obama, and my browser didn't find the name, the story is rather long and has much detail, so I'll finish this up and study it.

I'll vote for anybody who will demand that this bomb get's defused.

But, we KNOW that it won't be McCain, making that promise.

So, I only disagree with your last sentence.

Allred, funny you should ask Red, Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr (R) eased into presidential politics today  with an announcement that he has formed an exploratory committee to gauge voter interest in his candidacy as Libertarian.

He led the charge to impeach Pres. Clinton, you may not like his position on the invasion of Iraq though.

In 2003, Barr left politics ” he had represented a Cobb County-centered district since 1995 ” to return to practicing law, offering media commentary, consulting and teaching. He is a regular columnist for The Atlanta-Journal Constitution. (Source)

My guess is that if he run's he will pull more support from po'ed Republicans, than po'ed Democrats.  But, he's an option.

 I would vote for Barr

How'd Bob come up with that number?  Lemme guess, you said "entrepreneur" where you meant "multi-billionaire" and Bob probably is doing an additive quality of taxes including sales tax etc.  Oh, and in order to qualify, you'd have to be making your billions of bucks and filing them as an individual on a 1040ez.

How'd I do?

@allred

A wasted vote is only wasted if you vote for someone who doesn't represent your views or the Constitution, so I don't think I get to vote this year, or I can write in Ron Paul I suppose. Barr? Maybe, but I haven't done enough looking into the guy. He's no Dr. Paul, and I don't feel any better just because my vote went to someone on the ballot.

What really irks me is why nobody elese even brings up age old issues at all, like the last 100 years before W were utopian?

unbelievable. like Osama or Bill's puppet are the answer..... good god.

 It is a sign of how Capitalism has been allowed to mutate and corrupt a entire polictical system. The people have allowed this monster to digest the very system of representation of themselfs. When you have choices of future leaders that we are faced with today there is a choice of " The one who will do the least damage", The real people who can indeed lead us( and there are such mythical creatures) will never be available for us to elect  based on the fact that they do not represent the interest of the real money and power behind the scences. The days of "polictics" has been replaced with the days of "interests". It is only a TV reality program that runs 365 days a year, we are helpless and we should have asked questions and demanded answers long ago, It`s too late... No one gets my vote....I will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils...

 So vote for Obama and 64% tax rate if you're self employed!

That'll be good for CA economy!

How'd Bob come up with that number?  Lemme guess, you said "entrepreneur" where you meant "multi-billionaire" and Bob probably is doing an additive quality of taxes including sales tax etc.  Oh, and in order to qualify, you'd have to be making your billions of bucks and filing them as an individual on a 1040ez.

How'd I do?

Uhhhhhh.............. you got an F actually.

As posted elsewhere, Obama is proposing a marginal Fed rate of 40% on those making more than $364K -- multi-billionaire's -- are you daft man? -- or just a poor mathematician?)

Fed = 40%

State = 9%

SS = 15% + (self employed = full boat or 7.62 times 2)

That adds to 64 there TomW. No Sales, excise, fees, etc.

Get your cohort Johnny B to consult the Google to add it up for you..................

(entrepeneur only means you are self-employed thus the SS full boat -- includes me. you think $364K is a lot? its not)

 No TomW, no EZ. I'm sure you do a C but I have several C's, F's, and E's and it will affect me. As I stated on the other blog, I (and presumably others) will spend more of our time ameliorating our taxes in tax avoidance measures) than running our primary businesses.

Even YOU cannot think that is good for the economy?

Well, maybe YOU can?

Of course YOU can!

 With your comment about the 1040ez TomW, you must be saying your effective rate is much less than the 64%?  (After doing your Sch C and deducting all your business expenses? So you will be taking tax avoidance measures -- hopefully not tax evasion e.g. revenue non-reporting? Don't you want to pay your fair share?)

So you will be taking tax amelioration measures to reduce your effective rate from the 64%? Or are you just not up into the  "rich guy" rate that affects those making what Obama's wife makes?

$364,000 is not that much for a family income nowdays.

Well, on second thought, maybe it will be when all the entrepeneurs leave CA! I guess then you will be happy!

If I move to Nevada, at least I can avoid some of the forms of taxation. There are a lot of us that will consider this. Those that make the economy go so they can hire  "handymen" to do their little chores they should be doing for themselves!

I guess I'll have to figure out how to write off my passenger here.

Then I can do another Schedule C as an idividual conveyance co.

Esquela Taxi Service? I'll need the additional schedule to take advantage of the write off's you seem to be alluding to.......

 "No one gets my vote....I will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils..."

That's good news.  Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 He will have to choose the latter I fear..............

 OK, look I realise you are incapable of coherence, but since when have I cohorted with TomW? I'm more anti-income tax than you, I support the only candidate in 100 years that wants to abolish it. You're just like all the other fascist poseurs. McCain said he would sign the fair tax initiative? So add the current 20-50% you're paying now in income tax to the global sales tax of 10-35% and Obama sounds the same, just taking it at a different time. But then he always did sound the same...? Just more open about socialist nonsense and more reserved about empirical expansion and continual warring. Except for that whole nuclear first-strike psychopathery...

Sorry, you can go back to posting to the ww.interwebs again.  Some of the best debate took place between yourself.

 Chico, you need to get in touch with reality, brother.  364,000 isn't that much money?  Tell that to the 298,000,000 Americans who make less than that.  Tell it to the half of Bakersfield that makes less than 42,000 a year.

Besides, you've pulled even that number out of the air by conflating two things which are related but not linked.

It's been a while but rodunding up I lived on 16,440  a year Chico when my son was alive,granted no rent,just house ususals and property taxes...that is a lot of money.

 More here than you can ever read: http://mediamattersaction.o...

What's wrong with McCain?  He graduated 894th out of a graduating class of 899--from a *TRADE SCHOOL*.

 McCain’s century-long problem — redux

One gets the distinct impression that these guys are not familiar with the phrase, “Never let ‘em see you sweat.” Republicans are not only concerned about John McCain having said — more than once — that he’s willing to maintain a U.S. troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, they’re apparently in a near panic about it.

Given the intensity of the GOP response to this flap, it doesn’t look like it’s Democrats who are “worried” and “desperate.”

There’s no great mystery here. McCain’s (repeated) willingness to maintain a century-long presence in Iraq has become the single biggest mess for his campaign that Republicans can’t explain away. It doesn’t need to be distorted; it’s damaging enough on its own.

First, it’s politically tone-deaf. As Josh explained, “No one wants to be in Iraq 100 years from now, even if McCain stipulates to the fantasy that Iraqis will be happy having us occupy their country forever and that the place will become like Finland. And none of our soldiers will ever get killed there and it won’t cost any money. If that’s the explanation for why we shouldn’t be concerned that he’s happy to stay in Iraq for a century, that just tells people that McCain is living in a fantasy world.”

Second, it’s an awful policy prescription. As Joe Klein recently noted, “The problem with John McCain’s 100 years in Iraq formulation isn’t that he’s calling for 95 more years of combat — he isn’t — but that he thinks you can have a long-term basing arrangement in Iraq similar to those we have in Germany or Korea. That betrays a fairly acute lack of knowledge about both Iraq and Islam. It may well be possible to station U.S. troops in small, peripheral kingdoms like Dubai or Kuwait, but Iraq is — and has always been — volatile, tenuous, centrally-located and nearly as sensitive to the presence of infidels as Saudi Arabia. It is a terrible candidate for a long-term basing agreement.

And third, McCain has flip-flopped more than once on whether he actually thinks his own idea is any good.

Nevertheless, what we’re seeing unfold is a coordinated, carefully-orchestrated campaign to get people — everyone, really — to stop using the words “McCain,” “Iraq,” and “100 years” in the same sentence. No one can do push-back as well as the Republican Machine, and these guys are intent on making it impossible to hit McCain where it hurts.

Hopefully, Dems will a) ignore the push-back; and b) keep poking the sore spot. Indeed, by hyperventilating, McCain and his allies are telegraphing which attack hurts the most.

Republicans insist that McCain’s words have been “distorted.” In some instances, that may be true. But what they probably fear the most is taking McCain’s comments on Iraq at face value. They don’t need embellishment — they’re devastating all on their own

http://www.thecarpetbaggerr...