Can McCain stop lying to our faces now, please?
Per NPR:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain has told supporters in Ohio that his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, will raise taxes on the middle class. With five days left for the presidential election, McCain is touring swing states.
This man has no shame anymore. It is really sad what happens to political figures when winning becomes more important than keeping one’s dignity.
October 31st, 2008 09:04
??? How is he lying? Barack Obama claims he’s going to lower taxes. Tons of people claim that. His voting record says otherwise.
McCain is predicting that Obama is lying to our faces.
October 31st, 2008 09:06
McCain is the one who got all bent out of shape over the 100 years of war remark. Are you saying it is ok to just make things up based not on what candidates say but what one thinks they *might* do? Wasn’t that the problem McCain had with 100 years of war? He was misinterpreted yet his background suggests he likes war and feels it is a good tool for solving problems?
October 31st, 2008 09:14
Exactly…they are doing the exact same thing to each other. McCain hates Bush and will have a Presidency very different from Bush other than the fact that they are both Republicans, yet four more years of Bush is the mantra of Obama. That is a “lie” as well. It’s politics and you crying on a blog over how the fact that McCain is simply calling out Obama’s past behavior of raising taxes seems silly. Just because Barack says it is going to be true, doesn’t make it true.
October 31st, 2008 09:20
I’m amazed at what you’re saying. You’re saying it is ok to just blatantly make things up if you think it might be true. The only evidence you have that Obama would raise taxes on the middle class if that you don’t like Obama.
I could say the very same thing about McCain. In fact, McCain has voted against tax cuts before. I think he’s going to raise them on the middle class.
October 31st, 2008 09:24
Holy goodness gracious. Read first, then respond. Obama has never before been an advocate for tax cuts, in fact his votes in the past have proven otherwise. And it is this reason that people should legitimately be skeptical when he says that 95% of the country will get tax cuts. It sounds like B.S., especially with his past voting record.
This has nothing to do with liking or disliking someone, but simply looking at past behavior and looking at future promises.
October 31st, 2008 09:29
You my friend, need to do the reading. Start here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/07/fact-check-did-obama-vote-94-times-for-higher-taxes-2/
The Annenberg school has fact-checked this and you’re simply wrong. Obama has been very consistent on higher taxes for the rich and tax cuts for the middle class. To wit: “Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has “voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers.”
Now, you will of course discount this somehow. I’ll just wait to see how.
October 31st, 2008 09:36
All that shows is that his 90+ votes weren’t directly and only related to raised taxes. He is in favor of bigger government, but if he can pull off all of his programs and still reduce the taxes of 95% of the country’s taxpayers, then he will be a two term president, no doubt. I just don’t think it is lying to question if he will actually do that…which makes you the liar.
October 31st, 2008 09:37
Wow, talking about moving the goalposts.
No one said there was a question about “questioning whether he can pull off” what he claims to.
That, however, is a far cry from: “Obama is going to raise your taxes, middle-class people!”
For that claim, McCain has no support whatsoever.
Game. Set. Match.
October 31st, 2008 09:43
hahaha, liberals like to think that that is game, set, match. It just doesn’t work like that. That CNN fact check did not in any way say that Obama has never voted to raise taxes of those UNDER $200,000. That is what he is promising now, and one vote to the contrary in his past should raise doubts.
October 31st, 2008 09:44
It’s under 250k my friend, get your facts right.
And please show me where he voted to increase taxes on the middle class. You’re so sure of yourself, it should be easy to find this one vote you’re talking about. You don’t like CNN’s fact-checking then do your own.
I’m waiting…
October 31st, 2008 09:48
didn’t you watch the infomercial? It’s under 200K, from Barack’s lips himself.
October 31st, 2008 09:50
I’m not sure what you’re referring to.. can you cite it? Obama’s webpage:
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
“# Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.”
October 31st, 2008 09:53
He promised to lower taxes for anyone making under $200,000 during the infomercial…give it another watch if you’d like. My question to you is, he never voted for a program in the Senate that would result in a tax increase for anyone making $195,000 a year?
October 31st, 2008 09:55
Precision is a good thing my friend.
He said in the infomercial if you make less than 200k then you will see a TAX CUT. If you make under 250k then you will not see a TAX RAISE. This has been the claim all along, not that I expect you to actually pay attention to details.
Ergo, your claim that “That CNN fact check did not in any way say that Obama has never voted to raise taxes of those UNDER $200,000″ is absurd. Not only has he not voted to raise taxes on those making under 200k, those making 250k or less won’t see an increase either and under 200k gets you a tax cut.
Again. Game. Set. Match.
October 31st, 2008 09:59
Ugh, you are hopeless, as most liberals are. I’m well aware what he said…which begs the question, has he ever supported a program that would have increased the tax burden of people making $195,000? He claims he wants to cut these people’s taxes, and my contention is that if he supported one program in his SHORT career that would have increased their taxes, then McCain making that argument isn’t lying.
October 31st, 2008 10:03
Instead of hypothesizing about what you would like to be true, how about try to find some examples to support your point?
October 31st, 2008 10:05
By the way, this whole conversation again is an indication of why McCain ran a hopeless campaign. He never talks about why he would be a good President. It’s always about bashing the other guy. Whether it is Ayers, Rezko, Khalid, Obama wants to tax you more, Obama is a socialist….these have been the main campaigning points for McCain. Very pathetic.
October 31st, 2008 10:09
Well no one will disagree with that one…McCain is a craaaaaaaaaapy candidate. We’ll see how good a candidate Barack is based on how big he wins…he really ought to slaughter Johnny boy.
October 31st, 2008 10:12
“We’ll see how good a candidate Barack is based on how big he wins”?
Seriously?
You didn’t watch that Christian lady video I posted? Most of this country is downright crazy. The numbers have nothing to do with how good of a candidate he is.
October 31st, 2008 10:15
“Most of this country is downright crazy.”
I’m sorry you believe that. We both agreed that woman was nuts, and there are a number of people just like her (ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM).
But if this was a Bill Clinton-like candidate (a moderate democrat) running against McCain, I don’t think McCain wins one state.
October 31st, 2008 10:18
I think it’s worse than crazy, I think a lot of them are filled with hate, too.
By far the biggest problem is ignorance. 23% of Texans believe that Obama is a Muslim: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/poll-percent-texans-believe-obama-muslim/
How can you look at that and just not shake your head?
So, yes, Bill might have won every state. But Obama’s skin color and weird name are major hindrances in this racist country we live in.
October 31st, 2008 10:24
Are you kidding, that crap drives me crazy. I think every single one of those Texans should have their citizenship temporarily stripped from them, barring them from voting until they get themselves informed. I would love someone who people respect to have a press conference the day after the election and touch on three major points. #1: Barack Obama is not an Arab-American (and if he was, it wouldn’t matter!!!), #2: Not all Arab-Americans are Muslim!!! #3: Not all American Muslims (and when I say not all, I mean pretty much none) are radical Jihadists!!! Set this EFFING country straight!!!! Barack Obama is bad for this country because of his social and foreign policy beliefs, not because of his skin color, grrrrrrrrrrrrr. But again, there are ignorant freaks on both sides of the political spectrum that I would strip of citizenship if I had my way.
October 31st, 2008 10:28
Not that I disagree with you, but can you point out the ignorant freaks you speak of on the liberal side, just so I can see what you have in mind?
October 31st, 2008 10:30
well, my Howard Stern post a few weeks back about the voters in Harlem for one, the idiots in W. Hollywood who hung a Palin manequin from their home.
October 31st, 2008 10:31
The one area I will agree with you on is on the conservative side, the ignorant people tend to remain ignorant out of fear from things, whereas on the liberal side, they are ignorant for other reasons.
October 31st, 2008 10:35
Right, I think the left ignorance is largely about education issues. The folks in that Harlem audio didn’t know the issues and probably didn’t care about knowing the issues.
On the right the ignorance is fear-based and that, to me, is scary. You can, after all, fix education. But can you fix fear?
October 31st, 2008 10:43
Well, I don’t know if you can fix fear per se, but perhaps you can fix motivations for voting. I think you can fix it by electing a republican nominee four years from now who actually has a resume on which to stand, so that people aren’t voting against the opponent, but rather voting for their candidate.
October 31st, 2008 11:22
Like Palin?