Fantasy Politics USA

Yesterday speaking to WNEP of Scranton, PA. Joe Biden lowered the bar on the Obama’s camp definition of what constitutes rich. Biden says that Obama doesn’t want to “spread the wealth around,” but just change the structure of the Bush tax cuts. “That $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year,” Biden said. It didn’t take long for John McCain to respond saying, “Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you’re a family making less than $200,000 dollars you’ll benefit.” Then he continued, “But yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to ‘middle class people — people making under $150,000 dollars a year.’ You getting an idea of what’s on their mind huh? A little sneak peak.” “It’s interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase,” he added. ”We can’t let that happen.” A Biden spokesperson said that McCain is just getting desperate saying, “We have a big choice in this election between tax relief for the middle class or more of the same Bush tax giveaways for Exxon Mobil and the most wealthy corporations. As Obama and Biden have always said, under their plan no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase one cent. And if your family makes less than $200,000 – as 95 percent of workers and their families do – you’ll get a tax cut.” He added, “Maybe the McCain campaign keeps lying about Obama’s tax plan because with seven days left in this election, voters are rejecting McCain’s plan to give billions more in tax giveaways to big corporations and the wealthiest Americans – but nothing to more than 100 million middle-class families.”

There is a radio interview with Barack Obama circulating on the net from 2001 where he talks about redistributing the wealth way back then. He wants to reinterpret the constitution to accomplish this. Notice the debate here is not whether or not it is a good idea, but how to do it.

Listen for yourself;

A former Time reporter admits he has no objectivity in the presidential race in a recent article in GQ magazine. Michael Hastings claims he had dreams of taking out presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani during the primaries. “I quickly realized Rudy was a maniac. I had a recurring fantasy in which I took him out during a press conference (it was nonlethal, just something that put him out of commission for a year or so), saving America from the horror of a President Giuliani. If that sounds like I had some trouble being ‘objective,’ I did. Objectivity is a fallacy,” he said. He also said he wasn’t the only reporter that had a bias in their reporting of this presidential campaign. “I wasn’t alone in the press corps. I don’t think I spoke to another journalist who ever said one good thing about the man. What did we say? We made fun of his divorces and his wives, that he’d married a second cousin, that he surrounded himself with corrupt cronies, that he had a piss-poor relationship with his children, etc. We talked about his megalomania and his cynical exploitation of September 11.,” Hastings wrote. He said he also had problems with John McCain saying, “He seemed to have gone just a little crazy, Captain Ahab-style.” This is the second reporter this week to admit they had a bias in the campaign. New Orleans Times-Picayune entertainment reporter Chris Rose said that hurricane Katrina had slanted the opinion of the entire staff at his paper. “There’s no pretending to be objective. What we’re fighting to save here is our city, our culture, and by extension, our jobs, our houses, our schools. When we write this shit, we don’t just report the stuff and let it fall where it may. We’ve got way too much at stake to be dispassionate observers covering a sporting event and not caring who wins,” according to Rose. Rose admits, “the notion of objective journalism was washed away with everything else in this town.” So there is at least two reporters out there that admit they have no objectivity while reporting on this race. This wouldn’t be a problem if it was just these two guys, but in reality most of the press are in the tank for Obama. The truth and public are suffering because of it. The days of the press acting like true journalist is long gone, and now these guys are no better than the common blogger.
Alan Cosgrove