Please see my previous post; this is not true.
The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that, by Election Day, $2.4 billion will have been spent on presidential campaigns in the two-year election cycle that began in January 2007, and an additional $2.9 billion will have been spent on 435 House and 35 Senate contests. This $5.3 billion is a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips.
From this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/29/AR2008102903199.html?nav=hcmodule
Um, maybe the credit-card controversy would be better discussed in its own thread?
Ca3799, awhile back I read that we annually spend less on elections at all levels - federal, state and local - than we do on pet food. As eye-popping as the figures are this year, I suspect that’s still true.
I’ve personally used the AVS system many times and I can tell you for sure, we didn’t even bother to enter the street address information.
Cite please.
Having seen the ad, I’m not worried about a backlash due to its “presumptuousness” or the fact that it delayed the last three innings of the World Series.
But it didn’t. The game wouldn’t have started until almost 8:30 anyway.
I did. I quoted it. I replied to it.
Please bring citations.
I’m actually kinda suprised Obama included some of the same points that have been thouroughly debunked by fact checkers. Is this an opportunity for McCain to call Obama out on misrepresentations? Normally in a debate, I think both candidates refrain from this, since it only opens the door for retribution in kind. “I won’t call you on your BS so you won’t call me on mine.” type of deal. And did I catch it right that the $250K is now only $200K? Or is it $150K like Biden said?
Also, after all the investigating into Joe the Plumber, can we expect the same for Arthritis Lady and Epiphone Sheridan Blues Guy?
Something smells kind of sour…and grapey.
AFAIK, there wasn’t anything included that was debunked unless you quibble the 95% figure - which depends on how you measure households.
The $200,000 threshold was for a tax cut. The $250,000 threshold was for no net change in taxes.
EDIT: Actually I admit the Iraqi surplus isn’t the current value.
It depends–are they going to go on tour with Obama and use their “celebrity” to pontificate on foreign policy? The only reason JtP received (and continues to receive) that kind of scrutiny is because he’s a guy who has fallen in love with the attention he’s been receiving and has never (as of yet) met a TV camera he didn’t like.
Yup. To clarify:
Income up to $200K = tax cut
Income from $201K - $250K = no change
Income of $251K or more = tax increase
Look like the “Obama-mercial” did well, ratings-wise.
Or he could have simply posed it as a hypothetical. “If I were to buy out my boss’s plumbing business, and it made about $280,000 per year, why would you tax me more?”
I don’t even have any major problem with him lying about it to Obama if he thought he would be more likely to get an answer that way or even if he wanted to get in Obama’s face a little. I don’t approve of it, but it’s not so horrible either. I do have a problem with the fact that McCain didn’t even bother to check the guy’s story before making him centerpiece of his debate rhetoric.
But hey, that’s the difference between Obama and McCain. We can be pretty sure that the families that Obama portrayed in his infomercial are what they say that they are. We know that Obama would make sure that everything checks out. We know that McCain might not do that. And that’s one of the reasons we want Obama for president.
And how much do I love the fact that they openly called it an “infomercial” instead of trying to get people to use a more flattering descripion? The word “infomercial” makes people think of Billy Mays and people who can’t manage to drain a pot of spaghetti. But this was an infomercial too and they admitted it. No lipstick on that pig! I think people like honesty more than they hate infomercials.
Yup.
Just after the NJ primary on Feb. 5, I called Obama as the candidate. And I felt happy. Not just because I was excited and hopeful about Obama, but also because I wasn’t all that unsatisfied with McCain. I didn’t agree with a lot of his positions, and I had lost a lot of respect for him in the previous 8 years, but overall, I thought he was probably a good man, and it wouldn’t be a tragedy if he won the presidency. I figured he’d make decisions carefully, based on principle, knowledge, and experience, and even though I might not like those decisions, I’d at least respect them. After all, I do believe that two reasonable and intelligent people can evaluate the same exact set of information and draw two different conclusions. I mentioned this to my mom, who is way way way more partisan that I am. Even she, after a bit of arguing, grudgingly admitted that McCain wasn’t quite as awful as the rest of 'em.
But now? There are no words.
I hear rumors that McCain was caught palling around with the North Vietnamese.
So, the quote in the WaPo, by a Democrat internet consultant, saying that AVS can be set to check names, isn’t good enough for you?
I don’t know what else you and Euphonious Polemic want. I gave you cites. If you reject them, it seems to me it’s up to you to say so and explain why, not just keep saying you want cites as if you haven’t been given any.
And** Elendil **is right; if you want to pursue this, it probably should be in its own thread; my only point here was that IMO Obama is unwise to do things that let the issue of his enormous funding advantage come to the fore.
Where has the Obama campaign referred to it as an infomercial? On their website, they call it ‘a special 30 minute program’.
It’s the media calling it (correctly) an infomercial.
Biden obviously misspoke since it was a singular thing and not backed up by any other word or ducment from the campaign.
Harp on it if you wish but also take the time to believe that McCain really thinks there’s an Iraq/Pakistan border. I mean, McCain said it so it must be exactly what he believes, right?
I posted in haste, before I read your later post. Apologies.