No Talk This Week

Zachary A. Goldfarb is on assignment. He'll resume covering the Sunday talk shows soon.

By |  September 7, 2008; 10:22 AM ET
Previous: McCain Suggests Bush Has Endorsed Torture | Next: A Day of Debating Palin's Qualifications


Please email us to report offensive comments.

While watching Fox News this morning and listening to all the Financial analysts miseprepresent who small business owners are. I am disgusted. It appears that Big corporate companies would have you believe that small businesses will suffer from tax increases. But are these Big corporations really using small businesses in a subliminal way to represent them? Big business cannot go on record complaining about higher taxes after all their record and increased sustaining profits. They would look unpatriotic. So they use small businesses as a false representation of them. Barack's plan will have tax payers who make more than $250,000.00 help this country's economy get back on track while the lower tax breaks for those who can't afford to heat their homes or buy gas and groceries sustain themselves. I think it would be unpatriotic for these Big corporations "not" to invest in this country by accepting these higher taxes that would only be temporary anyway. Clinton was able to leave his terms of Presidency with a huge surplus that allowed Bush to bring in the tax cuts. Things obviously would have been different today if this country did not go into the Iraq war unnessarily. No one on the Republican side is talking about the effect this war has had on gas prices and this country's economy. Only whether the surge finally brought some closure to this war. Which if it wasn't for the country's need to bring this war to a close. An occupation was seen as never ending.

Back to the topic at hand. We know Republican's will appease lower income earners with lower taxes while substantially lowering all extremely higher income earners taxes. They have mastered how to make the rich richer, while deceving everyone else that they have their best interest at heart. But while the rich get richer they destroy the country. The rich only care about their pockets getting fatter while they compete with one another on how many millions they make each month. The Republicans are not a future looking party. They are willing to sacrifice the environment, economy, unity at home and abroad for financial gains. The Fox News Business broadcasts represent the rich (as in the Republicans, look who was represented in their convention). This is their news show not the ordinary income earners who make less than $250,000.00. Let's put things in perspective. All the bloggers who blog on these various websites are likely making less than $250,000.00. But they are blogging from an emotional standpoint instead of an intellectual one. This is why the educated support Barack Obama. The less educated do not for the most part, because they believe whatever is told to them for various reasons. They fail to realize that this is not about picking your favorite team in some local or national sport. This is about the future of this country and its economic, cultural and broad standing in the world. What about the numbers? Under Bush, this country's deficit has grown by 9.6 trillion dollars and counting. The middle class or working American's in this country number 152,307,793 +/- a few thousand. These are labor workers. Not the rich and priveledged. This averages out to about $63,000.00 per labor worker when broken down. This is what each of us would have to pay in order to remove the deficit in this country in four years of a McCain Presidency. Obama wants the rich to bail this country out of this debt. Not because he wants to be mean to them. But because they can afford to do it and its a sacrifice they should be willing to make as So-called "Patriots" and those who argue "Country First". But they are out of touch. They say why us? They say they will have to lay off their employees. You lay people off when you can not afford to pay them. But the truth is that they can afford to pay their employees. They just would rather pass off the responsibility to the working class so their profits remain the same. There are at least 9.3 million millionares in this country and 449 billionares. I could not find out how many millionares are multi-millionares. But I could imagine that 95% of millionares are multi-millinonares. They will not go broke if they help this economy grow over the next eight years of a Obama Presidency. In fact the number of millionares has increased over the Bush Presidency. we all know why. The rich get richer. McCain claims that he will balance the budget, fix social security, not sure about health care, fight new wars, continue the war in Iraq at 10 billion a month, and still give greater tax breaks to everyone? All this with a 9.6 trillion dollar deficit? You got to be kidding me. Either he's lying or he truly can part seas like he claims Obama wishes he can. Country First? Think about it.

Posted by: W. L. Milling | September 8, 2008 1:02 PM

I must admit that the speeches given at the Republican Convention yesterday were perfectly delivered. I think they definitely sured up their base. It was disturbing however, to see that the path the Republican's have chosen to take is the good old fashion FEAR road. It is even more disturbing that they are perpetuating this tragedy to the point where times are becoming increasingly hostile around the world. George Bush set all this up with his speech the day before with his John McCain is the only man who can keep this country safe rhetoric. The world needs to pay attention. The U.S. under Bush has just sent troops into Pakistan without consulting any leadership. Pakistani's are furious that the U.S. is fighting in their country without permission. India might see this as an oppportunity to take advantage of an American strike in Pakistan and start making advances of their own. Of course, the U.S. will welcome it because the military is stretched so thin. But they won't acknowledge this fact. World War Three is right around the corner.

What is the extent by which the Republican's are willing to win this election? They have caused chaos in the middle east by declaring war on it. It is a matter of time before the Middle East figures it out. Goerge Bush is chasing a legacy of his own as well in all of this. He doesn't care about what McCain will face in the world if he wins, and he also doesn't care what Obama will face in the world if he wins. He is in a win win situation in his eyes. The Republicans will be seen as the protectors of this country and the liberators of the world (but at what risks) or the Democrats will be faced with so much conflict that their attempts to try to re-establish security and negotiate with the world will fail because this country willl be seen as the aggressors and the Democrats will have to push the button and detonate a nuclear bomb. If they do not the Republican's will win in 2012 and detonate a bomb within the first month to so-call save the world. Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, Iraq, Afganistan, now Pakistan. Where is this Country headed? Especially, since the dollar is weakening. The economy is struggling. Gas and groceries are costing more and more. The American infrastructure is deteriorating. People don't even care about principles anymore. This is a fight for power. The Presidency under Goerge Bush has become a Dictatorship. The Republican Brand knows this and have figured out just like the Russians and Putin how to run a dictatorship without having the same man at the top. This is "Fidel Castro" politics. There are safeguards in the Constitution against this. This is why the Democrats need to go after Goerge Bush with impeachment proceedings to slow this dictator down. The Republicans have become war criminals. Wake up!!! McCain and Palin or should we call her Putin (she is being touted as the future of the Republican Dictatorship) will take us into a global war where millions upon millions will die. Its coming and I am afraid it may already be too late. Violence is the Republican's answer to all of this. They are attacking the Democrats patriotism because they want war and need war to win. Its the new tragedy to win elections. Is this ambition? Is this what Country first means?

Posted by: W. L. Milling | September 8, 2008 1:04 PM

Without going through the whole litany of what these two branches of government actually accomplishes in their respective positions. It must be noted that the Legislative branch makes law. The Executive branch enforces it. What is the experience gap? Obama has been in both Federal and State capacities. Meanig, he has been amongst individuals who had to draft new or amend existing law. Analyze the facts on the ground. Persuade other law makers that the new laws that he either supports or introduced and/or helped draft are sound and meets the needs of his particular State or in his most recent capacity, the country. These type of jobs require more than a just a vote.

You have some of the most advanced and intelligent thinkers in the House and Senate. The diversity of individuals and the constituents they represent gives incredidible "insight" into the formation and rapid "change" of this country. Those in Executive positions do not have the luxury of having such an adept view of the decisions that they have to make everyday. Their decisions must be based on the law. In essence, they are only following and enforcing the decisions that have already been made for them. This is a nation of laws. Laws run this country and not individual people. Unless, of course an individual misuses or abuses his power (as in the case, of Goerge Bush. His presidency has been a republican dictatorship). Now the President has the power to decide when to engage in war. But it is limited to a certain amount of time. After a short time period, he must get permission from the Legislative branch to continue to engage in warfare. Why is this the case? Because it is a check and balance on whether what he/she has decided is good for the country. In a sense, anyone who is bright and intelligent can occupy the Presidency. They will be given everything they need to perform their duty of enforcing the law that the legislative branch makes. The Police, Military, access to the Judiciary, and the support of Congress when needed. The same can be true of a member of Congress. But when it comes to making a choice or deciding who will be the next decision maker of this country. Would you want someone who has no personal experience with the country's constituency because they haven't dealt with them directly or indirectly through those who represent them. Who better knows what the people want and need than a senator on congressman? This country is touted because of its motto that this is a government "by the people and for the people". Think about it. Because your next President will be deciding what is needed and what's not needed for the people. Bush has changed the role of President to dictator. It's not what you the people want. It's what I want. The country wants an end to the war in Iraq. McCain wants to win a war that is defined by what he decides is winning. Need I say more. What's more important Legislative experience or Executive experince and remember how the government defines it as well. One makes the law and the other enforces the law. So when it comes down to it. The top of each ticket likely has the best experience because they have dealt with the people of this country directly and indirectly through thier colleagues. The question now is who is the most loyal and understanding.

Posted by: W. L. Milling | September 8, 2008 1:06 PM

During recent months it was disclosed through the media that current mayor Kwame Kilpatric of Detriot Michigan used public equipment to facilitate an affair with one of his senior staff members after he vehemetly denied having an affair with her. The media was able to obtain all records pertaining to this matter because it became public record once government instruments was used. Mayor Kilpatric was found to have lied under oath and now faces countless felonies stemming from his involvement in a case that ironically mirrors the alleged currupt practices of Gov. Palin, where in both cases reputable officers of State were fired for upholding the integrity of their office and service to the State.

It has been reported that Gov. Palin, some family members, as well as her staff made at least 24 attempts to get her brother-in-law (a State trooper) fired through conversations and/or emails to the commander of the troopers in her State to no avail. Subsequently, as mentioned briefly above, she (Palin) allegedly fired her Public Safety Commissioner for not firing a State trooper who had gone through a nasty divorce and custody battle with her sister.

I think an investigation at the bare minimum should require a search of all usage of government instruments whether they were used to initiate contact or receive contact (i.e. Any calls or emails made by Palin, her family or staff using government equipment or equipment paid for using government money. Additionally, any emails or phone conversations that were made using privately owned instruments to government instruments or equipment as in the case of the public exposure of 911 calls).

I would like to see what comes up. Would'nt you?

Posted by: W. L. Milling | September 8, 2008 1:07 PM

Today as I learned about Sen. McCain's V.P. pick, Gov. Sarah Palin. I heard all these so-called great things about her. How she fought her own Republican party's curruption, causing anRepublican Attorney general to get fired and then dethrowning a currupt Republican Governor. They say she's a reformer. She's all against curruption. Even if it means going after her own party. Something John McCain was known for until he joined Bush and adopted his currupted policies because he knew this generation of currupt Republican's (his base) would not support him. If Gov. Palin is so against curruption. Why would she share in a party ticket she knows is not genuine? Why would she want to support a John McCain who if he were the same John McCain of 2000, would not even vote for the John McCain today? What about the conspiracy of curruption being investigated about her abuse of executive authority that is currently being investigated as I write this blog? An investigation that centers on her firing of her Public Safety Commissioner? Allegedly, because he refused to fire a State trooper who divorced her sister and is in a serious custody battle over their children.

America has witnessed the curruption of the Republican party under George W. Bush. Let me name some for you: Scooter libby and the C.I.A leak that alledgedly goes all the way to the Vice President; Carl Rove and the false prosecution of a Democratic Governor and the White house's refusal to allow Rove to testify because of alledged executive privilege; Carl Rove's involvement in the U.S Dept. of Justice scandel that involved the Republican's surrogate's and party affiliates denying employment to anyone associated with liberal or Democratic affiliations thereby politicizing an institution of justice; Carl Rove's involvement in the former U.S. Attorney General Gonzales involvement in the firing of 10 U.S. Attorneys; the unnessary war in Iraq that the Republican's caused which has claimed thousands of American's lives, including millions of Iraqi civilian lives? This isn't even the tip of the iceburg. Katrina, illegal wiretapping of american citizens, torture at Guantanomo, secret jails around the world....Will America accept more curruption from the Republican's? Will Gov. Palin seek criminal charges against the highest criminal element of the Republican party if she wins with John McCain? Will she go after Bush, Rove, Cheney, and the Gonzales's of the party? We know McCain will not. He has realized that if he can't beat the Bush machine that he must join the Bush machine. Or will she stand side by side with Bush,McCain, Chaney, Rove, Gonzales and the like at her convention and accept their support? Will the Clinton supporters now vote for McCain because he has chosen a woman who will continue the currupt practices of the Republican party? Will we now see four more years of executive abuse? will she be quick to bring this country into war with Iran as McCain clearly has his eyes set on doing?Does the fact that she is a woman make this the reason to vote for the Republican ticket? Can she bring change as she has stated in her accetance as McCain's V.P. pick. Or does she bring more of the same? Only you can decide. Curruption is at its best when it is unseen. The fact that she is a woman might be that deceptive cloak.

Posted by: W. L. Milling | September 8, 2008 1:13 PM

Oil, Oil, Oil, many of the experts say is not the answer to our problems. Yet some politicians would have you believe that this is the only answer. Well, it has widely been explained that new drilling in other areas of the country will not lower the price of gas for at least seven years. However, what they are not telling you is the effect that inflation will have on the world's economy in the next seven years. Briefly, inflation has this relative, but broad definition: [Economics ] higher prices: an increase in the supply of currency or credit relative to the availability of goods and services, resulting in higher prices and a decrease in the purchasing power of money. Therefore, prices will not go down as they promise you they will. They will actually be two or three times the amounts you are paying now. This typical Supply and Demand situation will continue to take place as the world runs out of oil. Yes, the world is running out of oil!!! It is the main reason why this country started a long time ago storing oil reserves (commonly, referred to as Strategic Oil Reserves) on this side of the world and buying everybody else's. Do not let these politicians fool you.

This is also the reason why the Auto Industry has been slowly releasing technological cars that are more fuel-efficient. Everyone (in a position to) wants to take advantage of the monetary profits they can reap at our expense while they can. This is why EXXON MOBILE and other oil companies are raking in record profits. Do not let the Airplane Industry fool you either. These are very smart people. They want to put on the image that they are struggling so that they can increase prices. Do you honestly believe they will be just making it by putting fewer planes in the air and cutting staff by the thousands? While they increase prices on everything from blankets and pillows to peanuts and water? What they have done is decrease the amount of money they have to pay out to employees and buy less fuel at the same time bringing in the same amount of money they normally would. Less staff, less planes, the same if not more money. Corporate Executives are having a field day in their very own salary increases. What about the Stock Market? Oil is trading at 125 to 130 dollars a barrel on the average. EXXON will spend 8 Billion dollars of their record profits out of 11 billion to buy back their stocks. Why? Oil will likely be over 200 dollars a barrel within another year if these politicians keep bickering over what to do. The oil companies are betting on it. President Bush removed the executive order on off shore drilling set in place by the executive branch and barrels of oil plummeted on the stock market by $20.00. Who do you think will profit from this? Remember, (mentioned above) who is buying "their" stock back? The premise of the stock market is to buy low and sale high. Trust me when I tell you this. More drilling is only going to suck more money out your pockets. Some politicians got it right. They are the ones who want more car efficiency, solar, wind, renewables…etc. They are the ones that are not on the side of the corporate executives. They are the ones who truly care about your pockets getting fatter as opposed to getting thinner. Trust me on this. We do not need more nuclear facilities either. They are accidents waiting to happen. I don't want to live around an accident waiting to happen. The Republican's are stunting. They blocked legislation during the last two months that would have lowered gas prices under three dollars. Why do I believe this? Because just like the speculators (somebody who speculates, especially financially) can increase gas prices by speculating what they will be base on happenings in the world. Congress can just the same, undue or cause reverse speculation by passing bills that will tell the world this country is weaning itself off oil by using other alternative fuels and energy sources. Bush's announcement mentioned above is a prime example of what reverse speculation can do. Only, Bush's use of it was really a benefit for the oil companies and stock traders. If you want to make a difference, you can. Just pay attention to who is receiving the MOST money from the oil industry. Then let them know you know and make them stop the fighting in congress and pass the bills that will lower your gas prices.

Posted by: W. L. Milling | September 8, 2008 1:15 PM

Initially, I never gave thought to whether John McCain exhibited racial biasness until after he accused Barack Obama of playing the race card during this historical election. It made me revisit McCain's voting record as people increasingly mentioned that he voted against Martin Luther King Jr. birthday becoming a national holiday. Fairly speaking, some scrutiny ought to be applied to this vote and an analysis is overdue. Systematically, a vote against any recognition of Martin Luther King's birthday as a national holiday would cast doubt on the importance of the entire Civil rights era. An era arguably the most significant historical accomplishment since the Emancipation Proclamation as it relates to racial equality and freedom in America. An era that Martin Luther King's life and death symbolizes in this country. The Civil rights era was a moment in history that has made it possible for Barack Obama to stand as the presumed Democratic nominee today. A historical event within itself considering there has never been an African American nominee for one of only two major political parties in this country. When one ponders anyone's reason for denying acknowledging this historical time through Martin Luther King's birthday, we would have to question one's viewpoint.

John McCain was a mature adult during the Civil rights era and had to have an opinion on the Civil rights movement. One must now wonder, which side John McCain, supported. Did he support King and the Civil rights movement or did he support the Jim Crow efforts that were perpetuated by what was then known as the racist south? This was a separatist movement that suggested that Whites and Blacks should not interact on any level outside acknowledging that the White race is superior and the Black race inferior. One could not fathom from a moral and ethical standpoint that someone who supported Martin Luther King's extraordinary and sacrificial efforts would reject (if given the opportunity to vote for) his birthday to be recognized as a national holiday. What about McCain's current stance on Affirmative action? He labels Affirmative action as a "quota" and wants to do away with it. He refuses to acknowledge the Confederate Flag's hate symbolism and once supported its use on Government institutions. What is even more disturbing is his use of the term celebrity as it relates to Barack Obama. A term that is increasingly becoming clearer and clearer as a characterization on Obama's race rather than by the general denotation that defines it. Think about it. Is Obama a celebrity because of his great oratory ability? No, there are great speakers all over the world and many of them teach speech courses in our colleges in this country. Is it because he is a Harvard Grad? I do not think I need to answer that. Is it because he held office as a State Senator and now a U.S. Senator? No, because many of us did not even know him prior to the Democratic primaries. His celebrity comes from the fact that he is an African American with true potential as becoming the First African American President of the United States. McCain has exploited this celebrity label to suggest, if not directly, but subliminally, that being an African American does not qualify you to be President. McCain uses terms like inexperienced, risky, newcomer, uppity, empty suit and most disturbingly elitist (despite the falsity of it) to generally state he is stepping out of bounds and perhaps does not know his place. What do you think?

Posted by: W. L. Milling | September 8, 2008 1:17 PM

Why is everybody missing the story that McCain's running his campaign on bogus "issues?"

Take the earmark "issue," for instance: McCain asserts that he's going to clean up wasteful spending in Washington by attacking earmarks, even though earmarks account for less than 1% of the Federal budget. Why is it that McCain wastes half his time talking about 1% of the budget, yet nobody thinks this is a story?

Posted by: Ken, Dallas, TX | September 11, 2008 9:58 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company