Friday, October 17, 2008


The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama today.

The first time in the paper's history that the editorial staff has chosen a Democrat. It was founded in 1847.

Also today: The Washington Post (another relatively conservative paper) announced it is endorsing Obama as well.

Here's what is most interesting: Both of the papers cited McCain's choice of running mate Sarah Palin as a major reason for their decisions.
I am listening to: Amazing Life - Jem
I am reading: The endorsements
And I am: Fine


Dave said...

Straight reporting with a fully supportable title.

I think she's got it!

Hedy said...

Leveraging my body to not add a big fat "FUCK YEAH!" to the end of that. LOL.

Oskar Kennedy said...

Crazy Conspiracy Theory(c)

McCain is secretly disturbed by the tentacles of the religious right strangling the sense out of the Republican Party. He's using his shot at the Presidency to expose their craziness.

I know, I know, there's no way it's actually true. Call me a dreamer...

beetlebob said...

Yup, and now the socialists will take command. Don't earn too much money, or the government will decide how better to use it.

Hedy said...

A whole lotta nerve there, Beetlebob, calling Obama a socialist when Bush and his cronies just had a bang-up two weeks nationalizing banks and whathaveyou. Did you know the last time something like this happened, on this level, was WWII? And Obama's more of a free marketeer than you think.

Hedy said...

Beetlebob? Is that you, Moe? Seriously.

beetlebob said...

How the hell do you know what Obama is? He hasn't done anything! Tell me what he has done while senator. And Democrats were a major part of all of this too.

Posolxstvo I said...

As I said before, I am lukewarm to McCain, but totally ANTI-Palin.

I think she's dangerous. Even more dangerous than W. But cut from the same cloth as him.

I think those two papers made a very responsible decision.

Of course my die-hard right wing lunatic friends (yes, they are [sigh] my friends) would strongly disagree with my labelling either Palin or Bush as dangerous, but I suspect that they have always wanted a monarchy and an aristocracy. Secretly, I believe that they believe that they would be courtiers.

Delusional. Absolutely delusional.

Hedy said...


I think the thing that has frustrated me the most out of this whole campaign is conservatives who would rather willfully remain ignorant - believing the likes of Rush and Sean - than do just a tiny bit of research for themselves. READ the endorsements, BeetleBob. That's why I take time out of my busy schedule to provide the links.

These are staunchly conservative papers endorsing who some have labeled 'the most liberal Senator'.


I'm NOT going to do your homework for you. READ the fucking endorsements and then your silly questions about who he is and what he's done and why he's the better candidate will be answered.

Lazy-ass Republicans. Kills me. And the links are RIGHT HERE.


Hedy said...

And don't lie and say you clicked on the articles because the Great and Powerful Hedy KNOWS ALL.

Hedy said...

Oh, and thanks Dave & Pos for always being here. xoxo.

fermicat said...

Palin is a deal breaker for a lot of people. It was a stupid pick. McCain should have had the balls to pick his first choice. He'd be doing a lot better if he had stayed true to himself on this, and almost every other aspect of campaigning.

Seeing these endorsements roll in is encouraging.

beetlebob said...

Nice language. Always the sign of an intelligent mind.

Hedy said...

BeetleBob! Obviously you're new here. While we're thrilled you stopped by, we asked that you please follow two simple rules:

1) Do your homework before you post a comment;

2) Don't attack the person, attack the logic (or lack thereof).

Wait. I guess there are three rules:

3) Lose the fucking link if you can't follow the rules. :)

Hedy said...

To summarize the day:

"News flash: Conservative papers endorse Democratic candidate."

"Socialists! How the hell do you know what Obama is?"

"Stop asking silly questions and read the fucking endorsements!"

"Immature, foul-mouthed, classless bleeder! I'm GLAD I ruined your DAY. Grow up and good BYE!"

[comment gleefully rejected]

"How the fuck did he know I'm bleeding today? That's AMAZING!"


archie bunker said...

Note to Beetlebob: this blog is no place for dissention. You either agree with the Obama thugocracy, or you are a horrible person. Above all, DO NOT think for yourself and disagree with our new Messiah, Barak Obama. Yes, a socialist holds income redistribution up as the fastest and most effective way of redistributing income, and yes, Obama want to increase taxes on the "rich", but if A=B, and B=C, I guess that doesn't mean A=C. A history lesson should teach us all that increasing marginal tax rates not only stifles economic activity, but actually LOWERS tax revenues. But why do the homework when the Messiah will take care of us all.

archie bunker said...

One more point.....while I do disagree with most of what is written here, I must give credit where it is due. My posts are never censored or deleted, and I appreciate the forum to educate the majority of you.......especially the taxman!

Anonymous said...

Obama won. They sky is falling the sky is falling!

Archie and Beetlebob: If you think we have not been redistributing wealth since our inception you don't know economics. The whole tax system is a system built to redistribute wealth. Presently the the top 1% of the wealthy own 90% of wealth. The biggest discrepancy in our history. Now that is bad redistribution. Time for a change... and guess what... the sky will not fall.
Your tired old High School debate techniques won't work here.

CFO Gromit

Hedy said...

BeetleBob has been banned for life because of his ad hominem (and quite frankly, creepy) attacks over the weekend.

I'm all for a healthy debate -- including evidence + links to back up the statements. This, combined with at least a small willingness to do a bit of research from a variety of sources other than Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. You can't just make an outrageous statement here (He's a SOCIALIST!) without providing something to back it up. This is when you get shut down.

Archie, I don't believe that people who are voting for McCain are horrible, I just really wish they'd offer something other than fear, hatred and misinformation in their arguments. The fact is, nobody really knows for sure what Obama's tax policy will end up being - but we do know for sure that McCain's policy of continuing the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of this country HASN'T worked and WON'T work. Here's a great article from the WSJ on the income-inequality gap (according to the IRS):

Please take a moment to read it and then explain to us (with factual evidence) how lowering taxes on the wealthy has helped the working class.

Anonymous said...

The footnotes and this article itself make for excellent reading...
Remember... there is a difference between WEALTH and INCOME. We are talking about wealth here. Scary stuff woo woo woo woo...
Please don't be afraid. These topics are ready for discussion.
The first person to cry "class warfare" is a monkey for a week.
American Dog

archie bunker said...

Where the logic of the benefits of income redistribution breaks down is the idea that we are in a zero-sum game. It is possible, and often times probable, that the so-called rich get richer while the middle class expands. Class warfare junkies want the "rich" to suffer, as if that makes it better for the rest of the nation. That is pure class envy, and no one wins. It is an economic certainty that taxing the producers/creators of wealth reduces economic activity. This isn't a new idea, nor is it one coming from the right wing. Do some research on the Laffer curve and tax revenues and the relationship between tax RATES and tax REVENUES becomes clear. No fear, hatred, or misinformaton here (except for this Gromit guy)

Anonymous said...

But Arcnie!

I only need use your words...

"Where the logic of the benefits of income redistribution breaks down is the idea that we are in a zero-sum game. It is possible, and often times probable, that the so-called rich get richer while the middle class expands."

- You left out a third possibility It is clearly possible that while the rich get richer the middle class contracts. Please do not be blind to this possibility. And in the future include this in your list of "possibilities".

"Class warfare junkies want the "rich" to suffer..."

- Again, your own words. Do we really want the rich to suffer? Really? Or, like you, are we trying to discuss reasonable solutions to our present problems. Problems that arose during the halcyon days of the trickle down theory.

"It is an economic certainty that taxing the producers/creators of wealth reduces economic activity."

- So by applying the theory of logic we should eliminate all taxes on producer/creators of wealth.
Really? And when you talk about "creators of wealth" are you including plumbers and teachers and waiters? Because the act of creating wealth is not done by the rich alone. It is a product of all productive citizens.

"Do some research on the Laffer curve and tax revenues and the relationship between tax RATES and tax REVENUES becomes clear."

Please don’t come back at me with the Econ 101 philosophy. I’m sorry but I had those debates twenty years ago and it would be best if you practice them on Edith before you trot them out here. Generations of well educated experts have disagreed on these issues and theory's... and will continue to do so. I have no doubt a couple of well intended citizens like us will differ as well. But the one thing I found they all agree on - leave the theoretical absolutes at the door.

Listen Archie... just because you say it, does not make it so.
Bottom line... it is time for a change.

PS - I believe McCain and Obama are both great Americans!

But this year - Obama represents the size of change we need.

Citizen Dog

Hedy said...

Archie - thank you for sharing. I truly want to understand your perspective on this. And I'm not being sarcastic when I say: Please help me understand the connection (if there is one) between these facts from the WSJ article I referenced earlier:

"The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks.

The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000."

If, as you say, "It is an economic certainty that taxing the producers/creators of wealth reduces economic activity" how do you explain what's happened under the Bush tax plan? It would seem like, with lower taxes for the 'producers/creators' -- all classes would benefit, but this is clearly not the case.

Is this an oversimplification? I know during those years we also had the global economic explosion and off-shoring of manufacturing jobs, but it would seem like we'd be able to rely on these all powerful 'producers/creators' to offset these job losses with the creation of newer, better jobs stateside.

Another question: You've got the top 1% paying higher taxes - how does that stack up against the middle folks (clearly a majority) paying less taxes? Which has a greater economic impact?

At a very basic level: There are wayyyy more Marriotts than there are Four Seasons. There are wayyyy more Targets than there are Neiman Marcus stores. Who ultimately has the greater impact on the economy by paying less taxes?

Please help me answer these questions and try not to talk down to me. I am being sincere, wanting to understand.

Hedy said...

C'mon, Archie! Please respond.