I really hope there is a chance tomorrow night for Obama to broach the 'D' grade McCain got from a key veteran's groups.

I friggin love Campbell Brown. From the minute I saw her make mince meat of Tucker Bounds with a smile on her face I knew she had something going on. Then I saw her call out John McCain for how he was treating Sarah Emmbaracuda and I was hooked.

Instead of just watching MSNBC at eight, I now toggle between Campbell and Keith. These days I'm watching more of Campbell.

Wow, that site is fantastic and well needed levity--it changes each time you click the drapes, btw...and click everything--the diploma, the phone, the door, etc..

The markets started high before ending low, with the Dow dropping about 76 points today.

Yesterday the Europeans took center stage in fighting the crisis and Obama released his economic plan. Markets shot up.

Today started with markets going up, then George Bush spoke and McCain released his economic plan. Gains disappear and Markets close with a loss.

Interesting.

I know most people with lives don't give a crap about Buckley and NRO, but this is actually a pretty big story. It shows pretty starkly the state of conservatives when the son (and until this, a man of impeccable conservative credentials) of the founder of the movement's flagship publication is shitcanned so swiftly. It's scary how parochial the right has become. Pretty soon, it's just going to be the party of religious nut jobs and racists.

Of course, this is all great news for McCain!

Click on the carpet and the sofa cushion too!

* This tax-cut calculator is a pretty good idea.

Not a good idea. We're in an income bracket that doesn't "need" a tax cut. Using the calculator we'd get $800.00 with Obama's plan and $224.00 with McCain's. We shouldn't qualify for anything and $66.67/month is not going to make a significant difference in our lives. However, multiply that $800.00 by hundreds of thousands of households in that same income bracket, and that's a lot of money.

These days I'm watching more of Campbell. Posted by: stlouisguy

Well, duh. She's a lot better looking than Keith.

A big hat tip to Campbell Brown for saying what needs to be said ...

These days I'm watching more of Campbell. Posted by: stlouisguy

Well, duh. She's a lot better looking than Keith.

Posted by: Jeff II on October 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM

And so was Paula Zahn -- but even an anchordesk enabling us to view her legs didn't help.

* This White House has abused "executive privilege" in ways no one even imagined before 2001.

So, once Shrubco is out of office, does the Obama Justice Department get these interviews from the FBI and make them public or will it be like the Kennedy assassination where no one ever learns the entire truth?

I won't even consider "returning the favor" by mentioning the critically-severe need to preserve the integrity of the Republic and the Constitution (not to mention global peace, the economy, the environment, American credibility overseas, Mom, apple pie, the Flag, and the affordability of a decent cheeseburger) by doing something "permanent" about Mr. McCain and/or his blasphemous Philistine hench-moose---but I am curious as to when the Secret Service is going to aggressively start targeting these "supporters." Dragging just one of them, kicking and screaming, out the door in handcuffs---right in the middle of a McCain rally---would send a powerful message to both these anti-American insurrectionists (which is exactly what these twits are---anti-American insurrectionists) AND the McCain/Palin team that "they've crossed the line in the sand."

ENOUGH with pandering tax cuts. We can’t even afford everything Obama promised yesterday.

As for Palin, I’ve been calling her the Whore of Wasilla (per Revelation 17) for quite some time.

No, I don't think she knows what she's doing. Or maybe she does. Campbell Brown: "When did Arab and Muslim being (sic) dirty words, the equivalent of dishonorable or radical?"

Since when, other than in the Reagan-Bush right and mainstream pundit land, did being a "radical" become dishonorable? Ineffective maybe, but "dishonorable?" Parroting the CNN line, now that's dishonorable.

Other thoughts:

Danforth has been on various tire-swings for the better part of a decade, and Josh is finally wising up?

Tax reduction? How about modifying or eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, instead? Lots of us older single folks living in apartments still, in major metro areas, would appreciate the fair play.

Tax reduction? How about modifying or eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, instead? Lots of us older single folks living in apartments still, in major metro areas, would appreciate the fair play. Posted by: SocraticGadfly

People living in apartments aren't paying property taxes.

The mortgage deduction is still an honorable feature of the income tax code, as long as it applies only to primary residences and is limited to mortgages of $300,000.00 or so (adjusted for local housing values, of course).

People living in apartments aren't paying property taxes.
You mean that the landlords just eat the property taxes and don't pass them along in the rent?

Click on the red phone.

More great news for McCain! CBS/NY Times: Obama 53% McCain 39%. McCain's got him just where he wants him.

Hey Jeff and Vincent,

I'm not looking at Canpbell's legs, I'm gay.

Now if we got a shot of Chris Cuomo's legs, that might be a different story :-)

Great point one spokesperson for Obama brought up with Chris Mathews today:

Palin is a pro at instigating and fueling a strong (albeit false) sense of "OTHERNESS", or shall we say maybe.."OTHER-ITIS"

"He's (Obama) not like we are" and other such loaded assertions...

Who, pray tell is we?

I'm in a bracket that doesn't 'need' 67 bucks a month either but my 75 year old mother could use the 67 bucks extra I could give her. An my sister who's been out of work for a year could use it too.

People living in apartments aren't paying property taxes.

Yes, they are. They are also, in many cases, paying the mortgage on the property. They don't get the federal tax benefits of either of those, because they do them indirectly.

The mortgage deduction is still an honorable feature of the income tax code, as long as it applies only to primary residences and is limited to mortgages of $300,000.00 or so (adjusted for local housing values, of course).

I disagree (though I benefit from it); the mortgage interest deduction encourages indebtedness; if you wanted to reward home ownership—which I'm not sure why you should, it has its own natural attractiveness which makes rewarding it seem superfluous, and we don't encourage people or businesses to own rather than leasing other capital properties—it would make more sense to just make the purchase price of the home be deductible, rather than the interest on the mortgage. (As in your proposal, limit the total value, and probably allow the deduction of the actual down payment or principal paid in a given year, or 5% of the total purchase price of the home, whichever is greater, until the whole purchase price has been taken.)

But, really, it seems more fair to make cost of housing, rent or mortgage, up to a certain point deductible if itemizing (including an assumed amount in the standard deduction for those not itemizing), and not give a special deduction to favor either ownership or renting.

Home ownership, like investing, is something people naturally will do if they have the surplus income/wealth to afford it; reducing taxes specifically for homeowners, like reducing those specifically for investors, increases the burden on those that can't afford it, and rather than making it more affordable, makes it less possible for people to build up the wealth to afford it.

People want to own their own homes: if you make it possible for people who haven't yet purchased homes to save money so that they can buy a home, they will. Favorable taxes for homeowners don't achieve that, any more than low capital gains taxes result in a broader capitalist class; they just reward those who don't need it.

Hey Jeff and Vincent, I'm not looking at Canpbell's legs, I'm gay. Now if we got a shot of Chris Cuomo's legs, that might be a different story :-) Posted by: stlouisguy

Another gay liberal! What the hell is this country coming to? I thought only god-fearing Rethugs were gay?

So, what's wrong with you? Keith Olberman's not to your liking?

I like Keith very much and enjoy watching him. What I like about watching Campbell is that you get to see what the other side is saying and I think that's important.

Keith is great, but sometimes his show is too partisan and turns off the non-progressives.

Everyone watches CNN and to see a brodacaster on that network call it as she see's it beckons to the more mainstream folks who don't view the network as so one sided. Granted any FOX news viewer looks at any network other than FOX as anti-American. I know my 79 year old mother in Ohio watches CNN religiously and for her to say that Campbell makes sense is BIG thing, she voted for Bush twice and now is torn.

The fact that she's a good looking woman doesn't hurt one bit.

Just a little fun link.

There's an effort to elect an unknown random person as President... and it's someone we know! Watch this online video about the surprising new nominee:

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Tufwf&altl=Cfofo

I'd vote for him. :)

Kurtz over at TPM:

Since last Friday, Fox News has mentioned ACORN 342 times, according to Media Matters. It's all ACORN all the time over there...

Holy oak trees Batman...
If 342 reverberations doesn't define an echo chamber... then nothing does.

First, while I got the reason why you wrote it, I hope Mr. Mod kicks Steve T's comment. Totally uncalled for, and simply idiotic.

And, checking on the Campbell Brown piece I spotted something else to click on, the latest person to condemn McCain's 'handlers' and campaign. Joe McCain, the candidate's brother, who's been campaigning for him steadily -- and made the unfortunate 'Communist country' joke.

But he is critical of the way McCain is being kept from the press, kept from 'being allowed to be himself.'

Hmmmm. Wonder if there's a reason the old man is not being allowed to talk freely.

Sorry, here's a clickable link.

Make sure to tune in to Olberman and Maddow tonight.

I can not believe that there was another shout out to "kill him".

And that McCain instead does what really ill people do: split the intolerable thought/ sentiment off from your psyche--and then instead project (attribute it) onto the other person.

tpm crows palin the "queen of the liars."

and uneasy lies the head that wears the crow.

mainly 'cuz of all the feathers and bird shit and stuff.

skippy, @ 20:25

Yeah, with the feathers and the other stuff, there's not much sustenance left, when you have to eat it.

Open/close door until Bambi appears and click (sick). Also click light switch. With lights out, circle Palin's eyes with cursor. Click globe for multitude of responses (....-istan, I can see Alaska from here, etc). This thing just keeps on giving :-)

The SS (Secret Service) may well monitor the Rethug rallies, but until they question or take into custody one of the supposedly spontaneous threateners of violence against Obama I won't believe they're serious about controlling the hate rhetoric.

The bigger threat seems to be to Obama's personal safety rather than the dynamics of a Rethug rally. How many assassinations have taken place because the security detail looked the other way?

Does anyone know what's happened to Jack Cafferty of CNN?

I haven't seen him for a while, and nobody mentions him on CNN.

Maybe I'm just missing him, or maybe he's gone on vacation, but I can't seem to find any information, except when I Googled the problem, it appears I'm not the only one wondering about it.

Was he suspended for ripping Palin? That'd be weak. A watershed moment where he said what the world was thinking while Blitzer tried to cover for the simp and Cafferty gets suspended for it.

They should fire Blitzer for that pathetic display.

I disagree (though I benefit from it); the mortgage interest deduction encourages indebtedness; . . .

No it doesn't. It doesn't even encourage home ownership. Credit cards and home equity loans create indebtedness, largely with nothing to show for the purchases except non-durable goods. It's like the difference between funding government entitlement programs and infrastructure. Going in debt for the latter is acceptable because the use of the good will almost always continue beyond the repayment period. Deficit funding for the former is nothing but poor planning.

. . . and we don't encourage people or businesses to own rather than leasing other capital properties . .

Yes we do. That's what depreciation accounting does. While there are businesses that operate entirely on leased facilities and equipment, they are in the minority. I haven't worked for a business in 30+ years (restaurant, retail, banking, construction, and private education) that hasn't owned pretty much everything.

Home ownership, like investing, is something people naturally will do if they have the surplus income/wealth to afford it; Posted by: cmdicely

Over time, given just the most routine care, houses increase in value. The same is rarely true for financial investments.

Most people who will retire over then next ten to twenty years (and probably for ever after) can look forward to less secure retirements than their parents or even their grandparents have had primarily because they have no choice but to "play the market," even people building up 401K plans. A house, though, remains for most people the largest store of wealth (plus serving as a domicile). And even if you want to consider mortgage tax credits a form of investment subsidization, a house is by far a better way to do this for society than reduced capital gains taxes on unearned income for the ultra rich.

Open/close door until Bambi appears and click (sick). Also click light switch. With lights out, circle Palin's eyes with cursor. Click globe for multitude of responses (....-istan, I can see Alaska from here, etc). This thing just keeps on giving :-)
Posted by: Chopin on October 14, 2008 at 9:06 PM

Several of these are multiple targets, in addition to the globe (4 different responses). The door has 3 (2 in addition to Bambi, though the other two are higher up). The portrait on the wall ("oooh, looks like someone important" on a sweep-through) has two more, once you click on it. Palin herself has two.

My personal favourite (because totally unexpected) was the desk. Click on each of the upright pedestals serving as the support for the horizontal slab...

How funny. Thank you, Steve.

Not a word about Canada, on the day of a general election. I guess US political blogs are as provincial as the US media.

(That said, I'm provincial too. I know nothing about any of the issues, but I'm sad Harper and the Conservatives improved their position, only because Harper's opponents paint him as a friend of GWB. I would imagine that "Conservative" in Canada is a good deal to the left of my views.)

No it doesn't. It doesn't even encourage home ownership.

The mortgage interest deduction certainly does encourage indebtedness. I'd agree (as I already stated) that it doesn't encourage home ownership.

That's what depreciation accounting does.

No, depreciation accounting recognizes the reality that assets do, in fact, depreciate, it is not a mechanism designed to encourage asset ownership over leasing.

While there are businesses that operate entirely on leased facilities and equipment, they are in the minority.

Yes, it is, because ownership has intrinsic values in many circumstances in business; similarly, homeownership has intrinsic value to consumers, and need not be rewarded, rather, if you want more people to do it, you just need to make sure that people who can't afford it have the means to acquire the wealth to make it practical.

Over time, given just the most routine care, houses increase in value. The same is rarely true for financial investments.

The first part is, on average, true; but, contrary to the second, the same argument has been made for financial investments, with equal validity, using average returns on the stock market (indeed, it was, at one point, a primary argument for the privatization of Social Security). Of course, bad time or place (with either financial or real estate investments), and they do not, in fact, (even with "the most routine care") increase in value over the time period of concern to the owner.

But, at any rate, even if real estate were such a perfect investment, there'd be no reason to encourage people to buy it in the first place.

Most people who will retire over then next ten to twenty years (and probably for ever after) can look forward to less secure retirements than their parents or even their grandparents have had primarily because they have no choice but to "play the market," even people building up 401K plans.

Most people have the choice of buying annuities or other investments with a defined return; its true that (bad) public policy has encouraged risky retirement investments. I wouldn't say "and probably for ever after", though, since this is a consequence of poor public policy decisions, and while it may be unlikely that they will be reversed soon (though the kind of economic collapse we seem to be on the edge of is the kind of thing that could well create the environment for change), I think its reasonable to expect that the bad policy will be changed at some time in the future.

And even if you want to consider mortgage tax credits a form of investment subsidization

The mortgage interest deduction is not an investment subsidy (though it is rather overtly intended as such), its actually an incentive for borrowing against an asset.

a house is by far a better way to do this for society than reduced capital gains taxes on unearned income for the ultra rich.

Even granting, arguendo, that that was the case, what does that have to do with anything? They aren't competing ideas in that realm; most people who support one support the other, and I wasn't arguing for one over the other. They are both bad ideas embedded in the tax code, and that one is not as bad as the other, even if true, is hardly an argument for either being a good idea.

Ownership doesn't need a subsidy: people are inclined to it. Instead of tax subsidies to people that buy (or, in the case of the mortgage interest deduction, borrow against) expensive assets -- whether financial investments or homes -- what is needed is to tax income and income, and use the elimination of tax giveaways that benefit the more wealthy to decrease taxes on the less wealthy so that they can build up the savings to afford expensive assets, whether homes or financial investments, if they choose to purchase them.

As for the retirement issue you raise, the way to deal with that, IMO, is for the government to provide (or, alternatively, provide standards, regulations, and guarantees to make available through a private market) a public or publicly-guaranteed defined benefit pension system that individuals can buy into on top of Social Security; this would provide greater retirement security.

It's no longer foolish to think the Secret Service may want to start keeping an eye on these Republican rallies.

We're these the guys that dismissed the threat of the meth heads in Denver plotting to kill Obama? Not so sure I'd be counting on them to protect me if I were running for President.

Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, and almost immediately lost his job at the National Review.

Just curious. (And this is an honest question asked in good faith. Really. I'm not a troll, but a lifelong and proud Democrat who's spending his weekends canvassing for That One.)

Steve, if you endorsed McCain tomorrow, how likely do you think it is that you'd still be welcome at the Washington Monthly? Moreover, even if they didn't fire you, would you still FEEL welcome? Don't you think you'd get the cold shoulder? Hell, I'd give you the cold shoulder, and I don't even work there!

I'm saying this because our side of the blogosphere is crowing about how small their "big tent" is. And I understand why. It's fun to find out that one of the baddest of the bad guys saw the light and came over to our side, and even more fun to see how surprised they all are by the viciousness of the attacks on them when it happens (cf, McClellan, Scott).

But I don't *think* it would be that different on "our" side. I wish I was, but I don't think I'm a bigger man than that. Do you think it would be different, Steve? Am I wrong about the environment at The Washington Monthly?

Just asking...