By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions
In an instant-reaction piece for the Guardian, I look at Barack Obama’s victory – which came somewhat later than might have been expected based on the pre-election polls, but which proved to be decisive enough.
Nice speech by John McCain. Obama’s up in a few minutes.
Then Obama would be headed for a huge victory. Actually, he wouldn’t, as President Kerry would be standing for re-election. So let’s wait and see.
I nearly choked on my cereal when I read in the Boston Globe this morning that John McCain had accused Barack Obama [Note: McCain may not have been specifically referring to Obama; see update below] of proposing to tax individual retirement accounts. Scott Helman and Sasha Issenberg write:
“Watch out, they’re even talking about taxing your 401(k) contributions,” McCain said at Pittsburgh International Airport. “I’m going to protect people’s retirement, not tax it. I’m going to protect Social Security. I’m going to protect Medicare.”
I’ve done some quick research, and, as best as I can tell, McCain’s charge is not true. The slightly longer version is that he’s building assumptions upon assumptions, based in part on a mistake, and accepting the rhetoric of an anti-tax think tank as to what theoretical effect Obama’s tax proposals might have on 401(k)s.
According to the nonpartisan watchdog site FactCheck.org, McCain has been making this accusation off and on since last spring. I have to confess that I hadn’t been aware of it until now. FactCheck says McCain is staking his claim on a “giant blunder,” latching on to Obama’s proposal to raise the capital-gains tax. But 401(k) accounts allow you to invest your money tax-free, and are taxed as ordinary income when you reach retirement age and begin to withdraw money. The capital-gains tax has nothing to do with 401(k)s.
Some on the right argue that raising taxes the capital-gains tax and corporate income taxes will hurt 401(k)s because low taxes are always good for business and high taxes are always bad. That’s the case made by Deroy Murdock at Human Events, who points to a calculator on the Web site of Americans for Tax Reform that shows the value of your 401(k) rising under McCain and shrinking under Obama. I haven’t tried it, but it is transparently based on the assumption that the economy will do better with McCain as president than Obama.
Americans for Tax Reform, by the way, is a vehicle for anti-tax radical Grover Norquist, famous for once having said, “My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Bottom line: McCain’s accusation is false through and through misleading. We’re all familiar with the trickle-down arguments on which it is based. But if you’re McCain, it sounds so much better to say that Obama wants to tax the 401(k)s of “policemen, firefighters, nurses,” as he did last April, than it does to say ordinary people might suffer some theoretical harm if Obama raises taxes on ExxonMobil.
Update: Mike from Norwell reports that there are some congressional Democrats who are proposing a tax on 401(k) accounts. Not Obama’s proposal, and, needless to say, he would be insane to go along with it. He is not insane. But I’ve toned down the headline.
Every time I go to the Real Clear Politics composite poll average, the gap widens. It’s now Obama 51.2 percent, McCain 44.2 percent.
Joe the Plumber: “There’s too many questions with Barack Obama and his loyalty to our country, and I question that greatly…. His ideology is completely different than what democracy stands for.”
Pretty nasty stuff. Is the McCain campaign going to say anything?
Wonkette explains everything you need to know about the story involving Barack Obama’s aunt.
If you insist on taking it seriously, try this.
The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald are scrambling to catch up with a story that Barack Obama’s Kenyan aunt Zeituni Onyango may be living in Boston. Who broke it? The Times of London, believe it or not.
I’m already hearing that the local media fell down on the job by not having this story first. No doubt Globe editor Marty Baron and Herald editor Kevin Convey are wishing they’d found it. But this strikes me as the ultimate example of Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns. You can picture the typical news meeting:
Editor: Marie, you check in with the cops. There were three similar robberies last night in three different parts of the city.
Marie: OK.
Editor: Ed, see if City Hall has acted on our FOIA request yet for those payroll records.
Ed: Sure.
Editor: And all of you — if Obama’s got any Kenyan relatives living in Boston, make sure we have that first.
All: Right! Let’s go!
Obviously the Times was acting on a tip. The connection may be British rather than American. I’m eager to find out how the Times got this story, but I’m virtually certain it wasn’t because local journalists were asleep at the switch.
Why would the Los Angeles Times accept a videotape of Barack Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi under the condition that the paper not actually show it to anyone? Are the editors in the business of reporting news, or do they like collecting stuff for their own personal amusement?
And why would the Times then turn around and report on John McCain’s criticisms without noting that McCain helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to Khalidi?
I understand that everyone at the LA Times is spending most of their waking hours faxing out their résumés, but this is ridiculous. I guess this is the new definition of even-handed journalism: covering up for both candidates.
In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that liberals would be nuts if they start banking on an Obama victory. There are just too many things that could go wrong: Republican-led voter suppression, the Bradley effect and the possibility that the McCain campaign’s fear-and-smear efforts will finally catch fire.
Strip away all the side issues (and there are many, and they are important), and the essence of Sarah Palin is this: She is an extraordinarily gifted political performer. And she knows nothing — zippo — about the national and international issues with which any national political figure needs to be conversant.
Which brings me to the latest on the increasingly public mud-slinging between the Palin and McCain camps, written up in loving detail by the Politico’s Ben Smith. Given her freakish and unwarranted self-confidence, it’s not surprising that she believes she could talk her way out of the mess she’s in if only her handlers would let her. And given her long string of boneheaded (and worse) statements, it’s not surprising that the McCainiacs just want her to shut up.
It is nothing short of astounding that Palin’s supporters, according to Smith, point to the Katie Couric interview as something that was mishandled by the McCain forces. We all saw Palin babble about how Alaska’s proximity to Russia has given her foreign-policy experience — a softball do-over from Couric, given that Palin had had time to think about it after answering Charlie Gibson’s identical question the same idiotic way. We all saw that she couldn’t even say what she reads, leading to the not-unreasonable conclusion that she doesn’t.
If Barack Obama wins on Nov. 4, it’s going to be a long winter for the Republican Party. Among the party’s many problems is that Palin has signaled she intends to be a player. Given that she has what’s left of the Republican base in her thrall, and that she is a huge negative among everyone else, Palin, for Democrats, may be the gift that keeps on giving.