Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 15, 2008

EVEN FOX NEWS.... I guess we've reached a tipping point. This morning, Fox News' Megyn Kelly was downright indignant, on the air, about the McCain campaign's dishonesty. Yes, I was surprised, too.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds, as is his habit, started lying about Barack Obama's tax plan. Much to my surprise -- and Bounds' -- Kelly interrupted, and said Obama wouldn't raise taxes on middle-class families.

Bounds pushed back, but Kelly pressed further: "[Y]ou guys have suggested he's going to raise taxes on the middle class and virtually every independent analyst who took a look at that claim said that's not true. He'll raise it on people making $200,000 or $250,000, but not the middle class."

When Bounds said Kelly was giving Obama a lot of credit, she replied, "I'm not giving him any credit. I'm saying what the independent analysts say. They say that claim is false. And if that's false, why would John McCain do that, Tucker? ... [W]hy say he's going to raise taxes on the middle class when he's not?"

His back against the wall, Bounds justified his bogus claims by arguing that Obama voted to raise taxes in the Senate 94 times (which is false), and saying Obama wanted to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year (which is also false).

It's consistent with the pattern established by the McCain campaign -- caught in a lie, utilize additional lies.

Stepping back, though, Bounds probably never expected Megyn Kelly to confront him with reality, or to call him out on his mendacity. If the McCain campaign's dishonesty is even turning off Fox News, the "McCain lies a lot" narrative may be taking root after all.

Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I have a sneaking suspicion that this might be the year that pundits and newspapers finally out the Republicans for their mendacity. I also suspect that it will turn out that pundits and newspapers have almost no effect on how people vote.

That's Just What I Said

Posted by: Dale on September 15, 2008 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

Steve,

I was down in Louisville, KY this weekend and read this Editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal. Keep in mind that Louisville, KY (in spite of its Dixie-crat pedigree), and especially the Courier Journal, are not exactly hotbeds of liberal Democratic thought.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/OPINION01/809130413/1016/OPINION

Posted by: Mikey on September 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

The irony is that, with a deficit approaching half a trillion dollars, the country can't afford Sen. Obama's tax plan. We'll need to raise additional revenue from people at the top of the income scale, but we can't turn around and give that revenue away again unless we want to go even deeper in hock to the Chinese than we are already.

The John McCain of ten years ago might have made that argument himself, but that guy is not running for President. Actually, it doesn't look as if his positions on tax policy and many other subjects even originate with him. Having lost to Bush's campaign organization once before, he's decided to hire most of it himself, and to do and say just what his Bush campaign operatives tell him to.

Posted by: Zathras on September 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

The mere fact that Mr. Bounds can show his face on television and be taken seriously means we have a long way to go before major party candidates (and the MSM) can be said to be treating the electorate with respect.

Posted by: jhm on September 15, 2008 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Encouraging that even Fox News isn't buying McCain's lies anymore.

Maybe the voting public will catch on.

I keep going back to McCain's statement at Columbia that the tone of the campaign would be different if Obama had agreed to do town hall meetings with him. It is time for Obama and Biden to start pushing hard on the simple fact that the tone of the campaign would be different if John McCain had decided that his honor and integrity were worth more than winning at any cost.

Posted by: DrDave on September 15, 2008 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

I think the time has come when the right-wing is prepared to undermine it's own ticket. With the economy going down the toilet and the necessity of raising taxes and curtailing entitlements becoming inevitable, they are happy to let Barack Obama into the White House so they can blame him for the large-scale changes they made unavoidable.

Posted by: Alpha female on September 15, 2008 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Barack Obama met with Rupert Murdoch a few weeks ago - at Murdoch's request.

Tony Blair met with Rupert Murdoch a few weeks before his landslide election victory in 1997.

I wonder if, by any chance, there's a connection?

Posted by: Goldilocks on September 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

This is a good time to sell off McCain stock. It's reached its peak value and is destined to fall. Only heroic measures will keep it from free falling to record lows. Sell, Republicans, sell!

Posted by: danimal on September 15, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

I wonder who will take Ms. Kelly's place after she is fired today?

Posted by: Th on September 15, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

"Obama wanted to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year (which is also false)."

They make this claim because of a vote to let the Bush tax cuts die. However, since that tax cut act has a built-in termination, where the rates return to what they were before, every person who voted for the cuts voted to raise taxes!

That's right -- if you voted for a tax-cut bill that has a termination date in it, then you voted for the raising of taxes once that date comes.

You cannot argue that you did not.


Ed


Posted by: Ed Drone on September 15, 2008 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Rove, Bush and Norquist will put a call in to Murdoch. Look for various impertinent anchors to return to the reservation shortly.

Posted by: steve duncan on September 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

goldilocks gets the prize.

this is where Obama's payoff comes for (a) boycotting Faux News and playing hard to get; and (b) once Murdoch was to the point of begging, rewarding him with a meeting, to insist that Fox treat him fairly.

So far, Obama's strategy has resulted in a decent O'Reilly interview and pushback at the most shameless McCain shill lies.

Pretty well played.

Posted by: zeitgeist on September 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

Palin is saying they are going to stop million dollar payouts to CEOs. Sounds like a democrat, what's up with that?

Posted by: msw on September 15, 2008 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

The next Obama ad should link McCain's buddies, the lobbyists in the mortgage and banking industries connected with these failed policies, like Phil Gramm.
As much as I hate to tune in, it was interesting to watch FNC this morning. The major portion of their political coverage was focused on the Obama ad attacking McCain's lack of truthiness. While all the other cable news outlets led with the Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch financial troubles or the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, Fox News was interviewing the photographer who took the unflattering shot of McCain used in Obama's ad. It's the same scenerio whenever there is news of some Bush administration scandal or mismanagement. They ignore it and fill the airwaves with fluff.

Posted by: CA on September 15, 2008 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Wow--kudos to Megyn Kelly for taking Tucker Bounds on! On Fixed News, no less..

Hope someone else offers a good job for her willingness to stick her neck out and actually
be a journalist rather than a propaganda promoter.

Posted by: on September 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

The next Obama ad should link specific lobbyist friends of McCain to these failed banking and financial institutions, like Phil Gramm of "whiner" fame.
As much as I hate to, I tuned into FNC this morning. Where all the other cable news outlets led with news of the financial meltdown or the aftermath of Hurricane Ike, Fox avoided Wall Street. Instead, they focused on Obama's negative ad and interviewed the photographer who took the less than flattering shot of McCain. One can alwasys count on the fact that whenever there is unbecoming news about the Bush Administration, they avoid it and fill airtime with fluff pieces. After his total denial of a failing economy last week, I wonder what, if anything, Sean Hannity will have to say about today's Wall Street news.

Posted by: CA on September 15, 2008 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

"Rove, Bush and Norquist will put a call in to Murdoch."

You have it exactly backwards. Murdock and his moneycon friends are in charge. Rove, Bush and Norquist work for them. I think the moneycons are pissing in their pants this morning. Lehman and Merrill are down and out and a bunch of other banks are shaky as hell.

Rove's comment last week wasn't a stray event. The big corporations are helping Obama. Palin was a choice too far.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 15, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

It's win-win for FOX. They certainly aren't afraid of being labeled "liberal," which is what the rest of the press fears to death.

I keep thinking of Obama's line about the American people not being stupid enough to buy McCain's BS. Sorry to say, but Obama is dead wrong on that one. The media that gave you the Iraq war is about to give you 4 years of McSame. They will gladly do that -- as long as you don't call them "liberal."

Posted by: Jim on September 15, 2008 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

And in other news, Tucker says the sun will rise in the west. Even more amazingly, 1/3 of US voters woke up and saw that it did indeed rise in the west--they had to use their peripheral vision, make hand "scopes", and confirm with other like-mined folks, but yes indeed it did rise in the west. "OK, so it wasn't that clear but I thought I saw something--the shadows were off, but if Tucker says it must be true, so yeah I saw it."

Posted by: on September 15, 2008 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

I think I'm finally starting to understand why Obama and Biden have been playing softball with McCain for the past few weeks. Why they started out praising him so heavily at the convention until Biden's speech on Candidate McCain vs Senator McCain.

Obama's camp recognized that they needed to overcome the press meme that McCain is a 'good man', an 'honorable man' and a 'straight talker'. Until that meme was overcome any attack made on McCain would be more or less ingnored by the MSM or even counter attacked by the pundits. By pushing their own meme (good man gone bad) over the past few weeks the press has started to slowly pick it up as well. To the point where even a Fox News person is pushing it.

The new meme in the press now seems to mirror what the Obama camp created, good man gone bad. Its not perfect but is getting the press and an increasing number of pundits/talking heads to argue the same thing.

The smart thing is that this meme allows the press to keep the illusion that they were right about McCain in 2000 (you don't want to hurt their fagile egos) but talk bad about him now.

My biggest concetn is that it has taken too long to get to this point. Obama only has five weeks to pound on McCain, the new add is good, but we need to see a lot more and SOON.

Posted by: thorin-1 on September 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

We're seeing a lot of "Even X is calling McCain on his BS." It reminds me of the line from Monty Python's "Piranha Brothers" skit: "Even the police began to sit up and take notice."

(Apologies if this is a re-post here.)

Posted by: mark on September 15, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Did somebody tattoo "punching bag" on Tucker Bounds' face? I haven't seen a guy get beat up by girls so often since Buffy went off the air.

Bounds did try to argue that Obama's tax plan isn't his real plan, which is a fair argument. It's unprovable, but at least it's a conventional attack to make. By the same token, one could argue that McCain is insincere about tax cuts. Just look at his record -- as Ed Drone illustrated.

Posted by: Grumpy on September 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

thorin-1 get's it right. And Obama let the press apply the primer coat.

Posted by: msw on September 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

I believe I just saw a pig fly by my window....

Posted by: Keith on September 15, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Jim @ 11:43 is right, I'm afraid. Despite the widespread reporting of the dishonesty of McCain's campaign, according to fivethirtyeight.com's polling tracker and electoral vote projector, McCain's tactics are working. 3% in Ohio/Florida/whatever is all they need. It's the stupid people who are going to choose our next president.

Posted by: jm on September 15, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

jm - the polls are already starting to swing back the other way. I imagine you'll start to see the numbers to change back in Obama's favor over the next week or so.

Posted by: dk on September 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

jm, i don't claim to any special powers of foresight, but the emerging narrative that mccain/palin lies all the times about everything takes some time to sink in: the polls to watch are the ones starting to be taken this week to see if there's any reversal in the mccain surge....

Posted by: howard on September 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Why is Bounds so prominent in McC's campaign? He's no good at what he does, and he looks like a geek who can't manage to buy clothes that fit. Of course, he also looks remarkably like a younger version of Charlie Black, so perhaps there's a nepotism angle that explains it all.

Posted by: penalcolony on September 15, 2008 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Zathras:The irony is that, with a deficit approaching half a trillion dollars, the country can't afford Sen. Obama's tax plan. We'll need to raise additional revenue from people at the top of the income scale, but we can't turn around and give that revenue away again unless we want to go even deeper in hock to the Chinese than we are already.

Sure you can give much of it back to those who actually need it and functionally use it (regular human beings rather than millionaire/billionaire nonhumans). What is THE biggest suck on the treasury? The Defense Department (including the entire shitpile: black budgets, wars up the ying-yang, over 750 unnecessary imperial bases all over the universe, unnecessary and nonworking ABM nonsense). It is WAY past time for the Peace Dividend we were promised after the fall of the Soviet Union. The world is NOT a more dangerous place than it was under the Cold War, it is a more safe place. The US doesn't need the largest, most expensive military in the solar system.

All we need to do is actually agree and internalize that we are NOT the cops of planet earth, that it is NOT proper use of US military forces to help corporations make money, it is NOT EVER OK to spend so much as a penny trying to unseat ANY popularly elected leader in any country. All we need to do is cut defense spending down to the same percentage of our GDP as Russia or China spend relative to their GDP. THAT would free up billions of dollars right there.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on September 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Seems to me that rather than focus on polls, watching the punditocracy/MSM is a better gauge of where the insiders see things heading. If FOX News is suddenly changing sides, that's the best evidence we can have that they are pretty sure Obama is going to win so they're trying to cover their butts to avoid as much of the inevitable retribution as possible.

That's very comforting. :)

Posted by: Curmudgeon on September 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

With the economy going down the toilet and the necessity of raising taxes and curtailing entitlements becoming inevitable, they are happy to let Barack Obama into the White House so they can blame him for the large-scale changes they made unavoidable.

The only entitlements that need cutting are the entitlements of the military-industrial complex. THEY need to get cut off the Federal teat. The money that goes to them is throwing money down a black hole. Cut their funding significantly and we can have universal healthcare, a more properly progressive tax system, etc. Social spending doesn't need to be drastically cut, MILITARY spending does.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on September 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Lying works. Throw enough mud against a wall, and some of it will stick.

Here is a snippet from a conversation I had over dinner Saturday night. The question was "who will you be voting for?" The answers are from a loyal listener to talk radio:

A. McCain. I don't like Obama's policies.
Q. Which policies?
A. All of them.
Q. Tell me one in particular.
A. Taxes.
Q. Why?
A. Obama will raise everyone's taxes.

And so it goes.

Posted by: OkieFromMuskogee on September 15, 2008 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

The only entitlements that need cutting are the entitlements of the military-industrial complex.

I honestly thought that this was what Obama meant when he said he would go through the budget line by line, etc. during his acceptance speech. Of course it was a very vague statement.

Military spending in this country is up to around $750 billion a year. No wonder our country's social net is so much more ragged compared to the rest of the first world. $750 billion! Holy shit that's a lot of money.

Whether or not the Obama tax cut is needed or desirable is debateable (I actually think it is not), but I think whether or not we want our country to spend $750 billion on the military while our social safety net is ignored.

Still, it's an uphill battle. I mean, whenever anybody (usually a Democrat) proposes some new social spending its always about "how will we pay for it?". But that question is never asked whenever a new military initiative comes to the table...

Posted by: Joshua on September 15, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

I think we need to find a nickname for young Tucker as he enters the ranks of the truly notorious public liars. Think back to Baghdad Bob, and the wonderfully named Bright Matonga (who lies for Robert Mugabe), both of whom brought the art of obviously and visibly false statements to an apex. Baghdad Bob claimed that US troops were committing mass suicide rather than face Saddam Hussein's crack brigades defending Baghdad -- when US troops had already secured most of the city. Bright Matonga maintained that the reformers in Zimbabwe were ruthless attacking poor innocent Mugabe supporters, when in fact the murder of reformers was on the BBC every night.

I suppose Tucker's lying doesn't quite rise to this level yet, but the lad has potential -- just think how he'd look as the White House press secretary, and think of the opportunities for truly spectacular mendacity he'd have.

How about "Tucson Tucker"? "Crooked Talk Tucker"? The floor is open...

Posted by: PQuincy on September 15, 2008 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Cutting US military spending to be in line with virtually ALL other developed nations (each W. European country and Russia and even China) would mean cutting about 1% by GDP. The US spends close to 4% of GDP on military spending. All other countries of any concern or importance (or conceivable threat) spend more like 2.5 to 2.7% of their GDP on defense spending. So, cut US military spending by ~1.5% and you immediately free up close to 10 billion dollars a year. Eliminate tax loopholes for corporations (particularly those the offshore their headquarters or offshore their work force) and you gain a billion or so in tax revenues. Increase the progressivity of the tax code so that the rich pay correspondingly higher tax rates (while still being rich after the fact so there is NOTHING for them to complain about) and you gain a billion or so more.

Cut subsidies for any and all extractive corporations (mining, oil) and you get a big fat wad of money out of that too.

There is no need to do any slashing of social spending at all if you simply do what is right (what I list above). Hell, save even MORE money by slashing our nukes significantly. The infrastructure in the military and otherwise to maintain and protect those useless and criminal devices costs many many millions of wasted dollars. We cut, the Russkies would cut (and make a wad of cash on the deal just like we would) and the Chinese cut AND we start legitimizing our position against nuclear proliferation. We have no cred when we are sitting on a HUGE pile of excess nukes while telling everyone else they mustn't have any. Gain extra money and credibility by slashing slashing slashing wasteful spending: military and corporate welfare.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on September 15, 2008 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: McSame/Failin will only stop lying when those lies stop producing results. McSame's old communications director Dan Schnur said it last week; Panama John has been forced to lie because telling the truth didn't get him anywhere. The fact that the truth doesn't particularly help the Republican cause is apparantly lost on my old friend Dan.

Posted by: bucky on September 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Okie: "A. Obama will raise everyone's taxes."

Worse, he'll force everyone to give zakat!

Posted by: Grumpy on September 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

As the media and pundits start to lose money in the financial crisis the attacks will become tougher. Everyone in NYC knows someone who works for Lehman or Merrill Lynch.

Posted by: muffler on September 15, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone in NYC knows someone who works for Lehman or Merrill Lynch.

Talk about people that actually deserve to lose their jobs and incomes. The people looking to lose their jobs from these criminal organizations are directly responsible for the problems in the first place.

Boo-hoo-hoo for them. Hey, the chickens are here and they want their digs back!

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on September 15, 2008 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

thorin-1 .. Interesting post.

Posted by: spyder on September 15, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

"I think we need to find a nickname for young Tucker as he enters the ranks of the truly notorious public liars."

Hmmm... with the comment above about him being a punching bag as well as an unconvincing liar, how about "Tucker Palooka?" Or "Designated Palooka?"

Or a pun on his name? "(Out of) Bounds" sounds good to me.

"Fibber McBounds" (Oh, my! How does "Fibber McCain" sound? We may have a two-fer here!)

Ed

Posted by: Ed Drone on September 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Talk about people that actually deserve to lose their jobs and incomes. The people looking to lose their jobs from these criminal organizations are directly responsible for the problems in the first place.

Er, no. Look, there are about 60,000 plus people who work at Merrill alone (I'm not sure how many work at Lehman, but I'm guessing it's about 20,000). There are meanwhile only about 100-200 major decisionmakers responsible for the actions that caused their current financial meltdown. Maybe those guys deserve to lose their shirts, but not the tens of thousands of ordinary employees who had no say one way or the other (and that's not even counting the service providers for Merrill and Lehman not directly employed there whose jobs will disappear as well). Counting their families, these are hundreds of thousands of hard-working people who are going to suffer for something that was not their fault.

Posted by: Stefan on September 15, 2008 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, che che, I see Mccain taking us into an unprovoked war (and wanting more wars), and Palin abusing her executive powers.
And when you are cutting the budget by making rape victims pay for their own forensic exams, you have horrible judgement.
Yeah, I agree, look at their records.

Posted by: BuzzMon on September 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone in NYC knows someone who works for Lehman or Merrill Lynch.

Talk about people that actually deserve to lose their jobs and incomes. The people looking to lose their jobs from these criminal organizations are directly responsible for the problems in the first place.

Boo-hoo-hoo for them. Hey, the chickens are here and they want their digs back!

This comment is completely in poor taste. I don't get your logic. Why do you think it's poetic justice for New Yorkers to be laid off from corporations that are the financial backbone of this nation? If anything, these New Yorkers are also victims a completely new crisis - as devastating as 9/11 to the pysche of New York. The type of crisis that forces the nation to look in the mirror rather than point guns at our neighbors. It's a much harder battle to win.

But I guess, instead we can just blame New Yorkers, it's much easier to blame the effect and make it the cause. "It's their fault for working for those institutions" -but it doesn't make for a sound talking point in the grand scheme.

Posted by: Mick on September 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you think it's poetic justice for New Yorkers to be laid off from corporations that are the financial backbone of this nation?

Moreover, the big guys will still have their years of fat past paychecks to live off of. The people who are really gonna get it in the neck are the Merrill and Lehman secretaries, proofreaders, clerks, security guards, cafeteria workers, maintenance men, and, yes, the junior and mid-level brokers and analysts. You really want to cheer on the fact that all these people -- and the families they support -- are going to lose their livelihoods?

Posted by: Stefan on September 15, 2008 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Why is Fox News doing this? I'm looking for the piece of sh-- inside the gold plating. Are they looking for some kind of blowback reaction to help McCain with the public? Has Rupert concluded that those running the campaign really are even more batsh-- insane than he is, and fears for world financial stability?(one thing rich people love is some stability) Has Obama sold his soul to the devil or has Rupert finally gotten a clue that anyone coming out of the Chicago school is a corporatist at heart? Or has Rupert just figured out that the old white people who make up his audience are dying off every day, and he'd better do something to change his network before the only people advertising on it are Ben-Gay, Polident, and, of course, Viagra.

Nonetheless, f I were Obama, I would be leery of such prettily gift wrapped packages as the seeming acknowledgement of reality from the folks at Fixed Noise.

Posted by: bluewave on September 15, 2008 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK
Lying works. Throw enough mud against a wall, and some of it will stick.
True, to some extent. There is a danger, however, that once someone starts pointing out that you are throwing mud, questions start to come up as to whether you've ever done anything else. Once you lose that credibility, it's very difficult to regain, and even if you do, it takes longer than 50 days.
My biggest concetn is that it has taken too long to get to this point. Obama only has five weeks to pound on McCain, the new add is good, but we need to see a lot more and SOON.
I wouldn't worry so much. Why? I think we've already seen that it will almost certainly be the independents and undecideds that will determine who wins this election. Most of them (historically) don't make up their minds until the last week or two before the election, unless something comes up which makes their choice obvious. In that respect, there is a greater danger in peaking too soon, than too late. The McCain/Palin campaign has peaked - and ever worse for them, they have left themselves vulnerable to criticism about their honesty. Very vulnerable. To be sure, it's far from in the bag for Obama/Biden, as there are likely a lot of the undecideds who will have difficulty pulling the lever for "a black guy with a funny name". But, if they stay home instead of voting for McCain ... Posted by: keng on September 15, 2008 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

wow...she not only called him out, but she seemed pissed...i think it may be even dawning on fox that they are being humiliated by mccain. It's not about politics or policy, his campaign has personally humiliated them..

Posted by: bruce on September 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's time to cancel the Obama-McCain debates. How can you debate with a serial liar?

Posted by: PantsOnFire on September 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's time to cancel the Obama-McCain debates. How can you debate with a serial liar?

Posted by: PantsOnFire on September 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

We run a magazine site where we have a spain hotel review section http://www.in2town.co.uk and as such we have been receiving a huge amount of emails because of our hotel review section. This is due to the recent news of xl going bust and other travel companies going bust. People are very worried about booking a holiday with travel agents and those people who booked through the internet are now concerned that if anything happens to their travel agent that they will not be covered. What I cannot understand is why the larger companies are not making a public statement to put peoples minds at rest. If nothing is done by the other travel agents then their profits will go right down due to their potential customers being to scared to book holidays.

Posted by: diane on September 15, 2008 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

OBama's plan is a tax increase on all not just the few. Anytime you tax businesses, you cost th middle class and low income wage earner their lively hood.

Further more, why are we not discussing the real issue in the economic field. that issue is what has Congress done to help vs hurt. With a 20% approval rating and Congress being the main leadership for domestic issues why are we not asking how can we look up to OBama or McCain for that fact. President Bush has a higher approval rating than these do since they are part of Congress.

Posted by: Scott on September 17, 2008 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly