Now that the income level at which Mr. Obama's "tax cuts for the middle class" will no longer apply has dropped to $150,000 I hope that people will wake up and realize that the discussion of Obama's socialist tendencies is more than the right wing hate speech it's been called. With the extreme left wing of his party in control of congress, I see the constitution being cast aside in favor of some kind of global bill of rights. To paraphrase South Park, I hated casting my early ballot for the Giant Douche, but the Turd Sandwich may very well be the end of America as I know it, and I love my country, warts and all.

Hear hear, Beth. With you all the way on this one. o.O

As somebody who is neither left nor right, I despise efforts from either side to make courts partisan politic enforcement vehicles.

As for the courts -- we just have to get all the judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the Supreme Court and we'll see a giant change from the electorate. Can you say blood in the street?

The problem with Obama's tax plan: You take home less of your pay upfront and it goes into payroll taxes. And note that there will be no tax increase for a family making less than $250K. Notice the emphasis on family. Meaning single, divorced, and widowed and/or those with no kids are screwed.

Why should it matter if someone is poor, young, a single mom, black, or anything else? Isn't it equal rights under the law? Not preferential treatment to some under the law? Really, HOW are so many people thinking about voting for him? I get how some are, they agree with this nonsense. But surely not a majority. Not yet.

It makes me physically ill that this man thinks he knows better than the great men who wrote the Constutution (is that sexist? Should I say great people? Insert a black person where there was none?) and an insult to the Americans who have died to defend it. It is the reason why this country works so well. We need to get back to that, not keep adding crap.

Must go vomit now.

The first paragraph cited from the article is, for me, what everything is wrong about the Left right now. It is, what I call "The Fleece Of Suffering". If you are poor, disfranchised or on the social fringe, be sure that the Left will glorify you because, in their mindset, you are pure in your suffering.

This is sick. Let's forget the Able and the producer to give value to those who fails at life. Let's ignore the winners because whiners needs the help. So, as far as I am concerned, this is a call for the hunt of the American Moby-Dick (a.k.a. the White, mainstream, productive and successful male).

Where is John Galt when you need him?

If we're lucky he may pick Posner. Doubt it though. The constitution isn't perfect, btw.

I've read several articles that seem to articulate McCain would also pick liberal justices. So, either way, I share in your vomiting.

I think it's stunningly ironic that the right is bleating about Obama not adhering to the Constitution in his proposals when no administration in history has done more to shred the Constitution than the current occupants of the White House, both president and vice president. With everything from out-of-control signing statements, to torture, to executive powers and more, the present administration has done everything but thumb its nose in public in front of a copy of the Constitution.

You keep believing those talking points Maggie. Obama voters vote on Wednesday, just so you know.

Amy -

Is Sarah a genius? No. But she's certainly not evil incarnate. She doesn't believe that men rode dinosaurs, she's not a young-Earth creationist, and she's not a front for the Discovery Institute. She also gave birth to her own son, and flying home didn't cause his condition.

What I have taken umbrage at from the very beginning is the idea that the left can slander someone with absolute impunity, and nobody says a fucking thing about it, but let someone from the right cause Obama to speak the truth about himself and the guy gets his asshole torn out.

Did I pick a side? Sure. The instant Obama got the nomination for the Democratic Party. At that moment, I decided that an Obama victory was unacceptable, principles be damned.

I also realize I've got precious little chance of changing anyone's mind on the subject because most people get their information from the drive-by media, and they believe that Sarah Palin is a young-Earth creationist that's going to force them all to go to church on Sunday, and that John McCain is a blood-thirsty warmonger who can't wait to invade every country on the planet.

I'm siding with Glenn on this one. The media realize that this is probably the very last election where they will have any influence, and they want to go out with a bang.

Can you tell me which lies were published by the New York Times about Obama? How about at The Atlantic Monthly?

And remember, the election process is relative. If you voted for Bob Barr, you didn't vote at all. If you voted for Mickey Mouse, you didn't vote at all.

Like it or not, we have a two-party system. By necessity, a vote for McCain is a vote against Obama and vice-versa.

While Palin might not be qualified after 2 years in politics to sit in the second chair, what qualifications do either Biden or Obama bring to the equation?

Hell, what does Ron Paul bring to the table that any of the other trolls don't?

Obama's got less experience than even Palin, and he's vying for the big chair. All available evidence points to him being dangerously bad under pressure. And his policy proposals are either deliberate lies, or evidence of his lack of basic cognitive skills.

Biden is a career failure. Everything he's told us about himself has turned out to be a lie. He graduated in the bottom third of his class at a no-name law school.

As bad as anyone can make Palin out to be, there is no way that either Biden or Obama is an improvement in any meaningful fashion.

I'm sorry you decided to vote for someone who is going to have zero impact on the political scene. But if Obama wins by one vote, I'm blaming you.

Like it or not, we have a two-party system. By necessity, a vote for McCain is a vote against Obama and vice-versa.

brian, in that one statement, you have illustrated the greatest destructive force to our democracy.

The only wasted vote, is a vote for someone you wouldn't like to see in the oval office. Abstaining because there is no one running who fits the bill, is not a wasted vote. Yours will be though.

But if Obama wins by one vote, I'm blaming you.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a much larger margin than that. And part of the blame lies with you.

So, from now on, every Supreme Court wannabe must sing Feelings:

It's Supreme Court Idol!

And every court case will include victim essays, not unlike college application essays, to let us know how much both sides have suffered, due to being (fill in the blank).

Hi -

As always, great blog...

I see this as the precursor for a long-term goal of the left: to call for and implement a constitutional convention. Nothing else will satisfy those who see the Constitution, as Obama apparently does, as a deeply flawed and outdated document.

Of course, what comes out of a constitutional convention today will have little or nothing to do with the Constitution that has survived up to now.

Allow this, and despair of the results...

DuWayne

brian, in that one statement, you have illustrated the greatest destructive force to our democracy.

nitpick: we have a republic, not a democracy.

DuWayne

The only wasted vote, is a vote for someone you wouldn't like to see in the oval office. Abstaining because there is no one running who fits the bill, is not a wasted vote. Yours will be though.

Then you're saying that the principled conservative should not cast a ballot in this election? In fact, by your definition, every vote I've ever cast in my life was wasted. I've never voted FOR a President in my life. In fact, I've never voted FOR anyone. Always against.

And yes, my vote will be wasted because the morons in my state are going to give the thing to Obama by 10 to 15 points. The last time a Republican carried this state was Reagan. And that's only because Carter was such a fuck up.

DuWayne

Unfortunately, it is going to be a much larger margin than that. And part of the blame lies with you.

How do you figure that? What the fuck did I do to cause this shit? I didn't ask the media to climb up every candidate's ass sideways, thereby causing all decent folk to avoid politics.

John F. Opie

Allow this, and despair of the results...

The fact that either two-thirds or three-fourths of the states (I don't feel like looking it up, but it's a supermajority of one of those amounts) have to ratify a call for Constitutional Convention, I don't see it happening. The country isn't split 75/25.

It's hard for me to look at the Ledbetter or Kelo and not agree with Obama regarding the makeup of the court.

The court today isn't so much rich vs. poor as it is citizen vs. corporation. That's due of course to a disgusting error by a clerk in Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific in 1886.

The claim that Obama's tax cuts are socialist is so much silly propaganda. What we mainly have today is corporate welfare, corporate socialism and a soak the poor policy that transfers wealth from poor and middle class to rich. Just look at the difference in concentration of wealth in the past 20 years.

But again, when I look at Ledbetter and Kelo, then yeah, our current corporation favoring judges have got to go.

Jerry - first, the idea that there is anything resembling a "soak the poor" policy is pure fantasy. The "poor" not only don't pay federal income taxes, they get (by way of the earned income tax credit) some or all of their payroll tax returned to them. Tell me again how they are getting soaked.

Obama's not offering tax cuts. He is literally offering to take money at gunpoint from the highest paid members of society to give to the lowest paid. He does this in the name of "economic justice", which is a code word for Marxism.

I'll agree with you that the Kelo decision was wrongly decided. But if you think Obama-picked justices would have ruled differently, you're mistaken. It was the liberal justices (and the token "moderate") who were the majority. Strict constructionists would never have interpreted a fifth amendment claim that increased local tax revenue represents a "public good". Kelo wasn't citizen versus corporation, it was citizen versus local government. The City of New London used eminent domain to confiscate property from homeowners so that the property could be transferred to a corporation who was going to put a major development in that location, bringing significantly larger property tax revenues to the city.

Although I'd be interested in knowing Obama's position on Kelo. I doubt he's given it a moment's thought.

There is no intellectually defensible argument in favor of Barack Obama.

Obama's not offering tax cuts. He is literally offering to take money at gunpoint from the highest paid members of society to give to the lowest paid. He does this in the name of "economic justice", which is a code word for Marxism.

As I've mentioned before this notion is about as Marxist as Milton Friedman, who came up with the idea of tax credits known as EITC.

I didn't say Kelo was decided by the Republicans. I said we have a court that favors corporations. That's the Democratic appointees at times and the Republican appointees at times and both groups at other times. I'd love to see a court that stood up for citizens first, corporations second.

Corporations as a "person", or as a first class citizen is not in the Constitution. It was an error by a clerk in Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific.

Ledbetter and Kelo.

But Kelo DID NOT FAVOR A CORPORATION. It favored a city government. That city government happened to be acting on behalf of a corporation, but the decision was in favor of the exercise of what the city considered to be within its purview.

And the fact that a justice is a Republican appointee does not guarantee that they will be conservative. I give you Souter and Roberts.

The court moved left under Bush, not right. I was very upset when Roberts was tapped to replace Rehnquist. It should have been Thomas. He's got a far keener legal mind, and he's an originalist.

And the fact that Friedman proposed EITC makes it no less Marxist. Everyone makes mistakes. That was his. I believe he's since admitted it. Any time the government forcibly reallocates the fruits of one man's labor to another man, socialism has been committed. The government's only legitimate uses of tax money are laid out quite explicitly in the Constitution. Social justice appears nowhere in that document. There is a reason for that.

Brian,

It's hard to take you seriously when you claim Roberts isn't conservative, or that Friedman thought EITC was a mistake.

And if you want to go down the list of all the wrongly decided cases in the past 8 years, I can play that game.

McConnell v FEC, Hamdan v Rumsfeld, Raich v Gonzales, the list goes on and on.

Absolutely none of which argues in favor of letting the most liberal man in the Senate choose the next 2 to 4 justices.

If you put a radical who is in favor of activist judges who will rule on emotion and not law, you are guaranteed to get Very Bad Things.

By what definition is Roberts a conservative? He's certainly not an originalist. His support for the majority in both Kelo and McConnell certainly reeks of left-leaning activism. And Bush is certainly no conservative, so that's no guarantee he chose wisely. Remember, Alito was his second choice after conservatives revolted over the Miers pick.

And if Milton Friedman hasn't recanted his support for the EITC, then I have to reconsider his sanity. It's very probably the dumbest thing ever. The income tax is bad enough. The EITC adds insult to injury.

Okay, he's a conservative activist, just like Justice Antonin Vafanculo.

You really don't have to reconsider Milton Friedman's sanity. (I have some horrible news for you, you may wish to sit down.)

Bush is no conservative? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear this nonsense all the time from the Party that demands personal responsibility and yet refuses to take any. Bush is Clinton's Manchurian Candidate, we get it.

I don't know where you've been, but I was calling Bush a liberal back in 2000 before he was nominated. Don't blame me, I voted for Alan Keyes.

Bush and Clinton have nothing to do with each other. Bush is just a liberal in Republican's clothing. After the eight years of rampant popularity of Bill Clinton, the Republican party got the message: "go left, young party". The result? Eight years of mealy-mouthed pseudo liberalism, the largest growth in entitlement spending in my lifetime, but he's not a liberal?

What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

Anyone who voted for Alan Keyes (who helped give us Barack Obama by the way) clearly has no need of anything I might be smoking.

Anyone who could look at Bush's records regarding the war, torture, wiretapping, the environment, energy, clean air, global warming, corporate welfare and declare him a liberal shouldn't be smoking anything.

Alright, Brian, just listen. Everything is going to be fine. You're very high right now, that's what long term habituation does. You will probably be that way for about 20 more years. Try taking some vitamin B complex, vitamin C complex.. if you have a beer, go ahead and drink it..

Just remember you're a living organism on this planet, and you're very safe. You've just been taking heavy drugs. Relax, stay inside and listen to some music, Okay? Do you have any Allman Brothers?

I'm against drug use myself, but I'm not going to lay that on you right now. Just mellow out the best you can, okay?

Jerry -

I've taken no drugs, I assure you.

War: Iraq was necessary. It was necessary in 1991, but Colin Powell didn't want to piss off the UN.

Torture: I don't know what you mean. If you're talking about panties on the head, that's hardly torture. If you're talking Gitmo, those people should have been shot on sight, not taken into custody.

Wiretapping: didn't happen. Data mining did, not wiretapping. He didn't hear about your plans to fuck the girl next door.

The environment: He believes in anthropogenic global warming.

Energy: he's done precious little to unlock our ability to generate our own energy aside from subsidizing the corn industry, which did nothing other than make gasoline more expensive.

Clean Air: he passed more stringent standards than previously existed.

Global Warming: I already addressed that. Global Warming is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon mankind.

Corporate Welfare: He increased it even more than Clinton did.

Gee. Sounds like a liberal to me. Sounds like two more terms of Clinton with a little longer-term involvement in military engagements, actually. Clinton never presented Kyoto to the senate because they voted it down 99-0. Bush just did the logical thing and unsigned it. But he still believes in Global Warming.

George Bush is a Republican (and conservative) in name only.

Anyone who makes McCain look conservative by comparison is a liberal by any definition you want to use.

Oh, and I voted for Keyes in 2000. That was before he went batshit fucking loco. I'm not in Chicago. Not nearly corrupt enough to survive there.

Wiretapping: didn't happen. Data mining did, not wiretapping. He didn't hear about your plans to fuck the girl next door.

Just to address one point, the wiretapping definitely happened. One case that proved it was thrown out of court not because the evidence didn't show it, but because the plaintiffs didn't have standing.

But just last week or the week before, NSA technicians admitted they had been wiretapping American Citizens they should not have been. And in point of fact, not only were sex conversations wiretapped, they were recorded and passed around for giggles.

Hey, have a good night Brian,

Wear your tinfoil tightly, and try not to think about the liberal menace (Bush, Scalia, Roberts) hiding under your bed watching you.

Well, the question on the NSA becomes - did they do that as a result of Bush, or have they been doing so all along?

I'd argue the latter.

And quite frankly if you knew anything about the phone system, you'd probably rip your phone out of the wall and never use one again. You can be certain that someone, somewhere, without authorization, has listened in on your conversations at least once.

In any event, it's hardly enough to indict the administration as fascist. And it's certainly not a conservative position to take.

Bush is as conservative as Amy is male.

Not one fucking little bit.

I don't need tinfoil to protect me, Jerry. I don't believe in mind control rays.

I do, however, believe in liberals. And our government is rotten with them.

Oh, and I never said Scalia was a lib. He's made a few mistakes, but he's no liberal.

Great, Obama wants to go back to the bad old days of the late 60's/early 70's when the courts coddled criminals and treated victims like shit.

Fortunately, though, the Supreme Court Justices most likely to retire (Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter) are on the liberal side of the Court, so unless Obama lucks out and is able to replace Scalia the court balance will stay as it currently is.

nitpick: we have a republic, not a democracy.

Pedantic asshat, I am well aware and was referring to our democracy that underpins our republic. Democracy that is pretty much non-existent due to the repoublicratic deadlock on our electoral politics.

Then you're saying that the principled conservative should not cast a ballot in this election?

Not being keen on left/right, bullshit dichotomies, I'm saying that the principled individual should either not cast a vote in this election, or should only cast a vote for someone they actually would like to see in the oval office.

In fact, by your definition, every vote I've ever cast in my life was wasted.

DING! DING! DING! You get a cookie!

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Good use of your reading comprehension skills!

How do you figure that?

Because by your own admission, you have spent a lifetime propping up the system that put us here.

Because by your own admission, you have spent a lifetime propping up the system that put us here.

And by not voting, you've been complicit in not even attempting to stop them.

Has anyone told you today that you're an asshole?

brian -

But I do vote, just not for presidents (Nader '00 was the only time) and rarely for republicrats (once). I have however, voted for people who support election reforms that I believe would help get us out of this mess. Most importantly, I never have to wash the taste of bile out of my throat after voting.

Has anyone told you today that you're an asshole?

Not yet, but the day's still young.

So you'd rather let someone who will fuck you up the ass, and not even kiss you when he's done, get into power than compromise some ideological purity you wish to maintain?

And how many of these "reformers" have actually won.

Because I don't think I need to tell you that if you want to make a difference, you've got to win first.

So you'd rather let someone who will fuck you up the ass, and not even kiss you when he's done, get into power than compromise some ideological purity you wish to maintain?

It has nothing to do with ideology brian. Nor is it even all about principle. Frankly, neither republicrat is going to represent my interests and both are likely to do things that will adversely affect my well being. Voting for either of these fucking nut jobs would be voting directly against my best interest. Put simply, they're both going to "fuck me up the ass," as you so eloquently put it. Given that, I refuse to be party to either asshole winning.

And how many of these "reformers" have actually won.

Here in Portland, several. Not that they have much broadscale impact, being local and state officials, but I take the victories I can get.

Because I don't think I need to tell you that if you want to make a difference, you've got to win first.

Nope. But we'll get there eventually. And it will be in spite of assholes like you, who refuse to accept that we can actually have something else that brings us closer to actual representative democracy.

Nope. But we'll get there eventually. And it will be in spite of assholes like you, who refuse to accept that we can actually have something else that brings us closer to actual representative democracy.

You can keep dreaming, but other than a few small municipalities spread far and wide, it isn't likely to happen.

In my lifetime, I cannot think of a single man or woman of principle that I have been given an opportunity to vote for.

Quite simply, I'm outnumbered. The number of people here in the Northeast who feel that they have a God-given right to live on the backs of others (and the enablers who benefit from their attitude) is too great to be overcome.

You can keep dreaming, but other than a few small municipalities spread far and wide, it isn't likely to happen.

It certainly won't happen over night, but it can and will likely happen eventually. The biggest barrier, is your mentality, a mentality shared by the majority of Americans.

The thing is, if we can make such reforms work on a local and state level (and OR is moving in the right direction), it isn't hard to imagine that it will eventually spread. I have little hope that I will live to see the republicrat deadlock broken, but am hopeful that my progeny will.

In my lifetime, I cannot think of a single man or woman of principle that I have been given an opportunity to vote for.

As a man of principal (while I am in voracious disagreement with you about most things, I accept that you are in fact principled), would you want to associate with politicos? Would you want to have to deal with the fuckers? People who are principled and able to stomach the mess are rare and all too often lose. The former is pretty hard to deal with, but the latter can be fixed by fixing a broken system.

Quite simply, I'm outnumbered.

I'm quite aware of that. And it is unlikely that fixing the system is going to change that. What it will do is create more diversity in positions on different issues and drive things closer to the center.

It will also make it more likely that your vote will count for something. You and your candidates might not win, but it would allow that candidate to have more influence on the discussion. And while your specific area may never elect candidates you support, other areas will. Small consolation, as the drift is heading towards more centrist and liberal policies, but take what you can get.

Underpinning every objection (except those of republicrat hacks) to voting outside the republicrat box, is fear that your vote won't count. If everyone who objects to the republicrats voted their conscience, instead of against the other guy, while the republicrats might still win, the very fact that less than half the population voted for either would stagger American electoral politics....

Its a vicious circle.

The only two parties with credibility are Republican & Democrat. And frankly they're both to tied to people who want them to hand out my money in exchange for nothing in return.

The libertarian party would be an excellent counterbalance to them.

But because nobody wants to "throw their vote away" they get little notice, and they get little notice, because they get so few voters. Its a very nasty little circle.

But worse, it makes no SENSE. If neither party represents "YOU" vote for one that does, that is how you make your voice heard...other than running yourself. If you just vote for the one who will use lube before screwing your ass instead of the dry humper, you're really nae improving much.

There are a lot of disaffected voters...i.e. "rational people" (mostly), who are sick and tired of their party of choice (on either side). But part of the problem too, is that libertarian candidates act like any other candidate, they lob accusations, but nobody bother's to keep the facts on hand when making them.

And the media at large is rather complicit in the game of ignorance regarding both parties. Both pretend to be "hard hitting", but their ties to government & nongovernmental organizations, or their sympathies towards them, are not less than the people we'd all like to throw out.

You'll never hear a hard hitting report about some of the stuff Amy has covered, it would probably cost Obama the election if one of his chief supporters turns out to be an antiamerican bomb thrower who could have calmly discussed murdering 25 million Americans for the sake of Communism.

Even if it was the 60s, that is a bit much.
(note sarcasm)

Much must change, but none of it will till y'all start "throwing away your votes" in mass numbers, instead of just voting for the guy who will screw you a little less.

Robert - if the Libertarian and Constitution parties would stop running candidates that are batshit fucking LOCO, then maybe I could vote for them.

I never vote for anyone crazier than me.

Amy - its intentional. Actually winning goes against their entire belief system.

They, in large part, don't believe in government. So the last thing any of them wants is to actually be involved with it.

Having a losing candidate gives them a viable platform to whine from.