Report: McCain’s tax plan would have saved the McCains $730,000.»

Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress Action Fund calculated that Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) tax plan would have saved his wife Cindy and himself $373,429, based on their 2006 tax returns. Since then, McCain has proposed additional tax cuts and Cindy has released another year of tax returns, so CAPAF re-calculated the McCains’ savings. Now, if McCain’s tax proposals were enacted, he and his wife would have saved $730,000 over 2006 and 2007.

Read the full analysis here.

At an October 2000 town hall on MSNBC’s Hardball, an audience member asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about why the rich pay higher taxes than the middle class. McCain defended progressive taxation, stating, “I think it’s to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more”:

[T]he very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. […]

So, look, here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

My thanks to Democracy for New Mexico: Prez Debate: “That One” Won for noting the following from the second debate.

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb
One of my favorite exchanges, as reported by the AP:

…Obama seemed to get the better of him in a discussion of whether the United States should violate Pakistan’s sovereignty if that’s what it takes to kill al-Qaida terrorists such as Osama bin Laden. McCain quoted Theodore Roosevelt, who said, “Talk softly, but carry a big stick.”

But Obama “likes to talk loudly,” McCain said. “In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.”

Obama shot back: “Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. … If Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.”

He continued: “Now, Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I’m green behind the ears and, you know, I’m just spouting off, and he’s somber and responsible.”

McCain smiled and said, “Thank you very much.” But the smile faded when Obama said: “This is the guy who sang, ‘Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,’ who called for the annihilation of North Korea,” Obama said. “That I don’t think is an example of ‘speaking softly.’ This is the person who, after we had — we hadn’t even finished Afghanistan, where he said, ‘Next up, Baghdad.’

Democracy for New Mexico: Prez Debate: “That One” Won

McCain actually interrupted Obama with his smirking ‘thank you.’ It was a moment of Duhbya-like pettiness. peace, mjh

McCain Camp Ignores Questions About Candidate’s Military Record

By Jeff Stein, CQ Staff

Evidently taking a page from John Kerry ’s quest for the presidency in 2004, John McCain ’s campaign has decided — for now, anyway — not to respond to provocative attacks aimed squarely at his strong point: his reputation as a military hero.

The much talked about main broadside came in the form of a 12,000-word attack in Rolling Stone (“Make Believe Maverick,” by Tim Dickinson), which portrayed the hard-partying young McCain as a reckless pilot who totaled three jets, and whose career as a pilot was saved only by the pull of his father, commander of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet during the Vietnam War.

The piece, which Rolling Stone says has garnered 2.5 million hits on the magazine’s Web site since Oct. 6, has been the talk of the liberal blogosphere, but gotten zero attention from the mainstream media. …

The Rolling Stone piece … calls into question McCain’s military legend. …

“I doubt it will have much of an impact.,” says New York Times media columnist David Carr.

“There is a vertical axis of information in conservative circles that the swift boat moved on that is not replicated by liberals,” Carr said “The conservative talk radio shows have an ability to metastasize and amplify negative stories, and they won’t be punching in on this one.”

Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin, a frequent Bush critic, agreed.

“One enormous difference compared to Kerry, in my mind, is that the [mainstream media], with the exception of the LA Times, has refused to pick up any elements of this story, whereas it served (wittingly and unwittingly) as a massive echo chamber for the Swift boating,” according to Froomkin.

As reported yesterday by The Missoulian, and denounced today by Project Vote…

[T]he Republican Party of Montana is challenging the eligibility to vote of at least 6,000 residents of that state—mostly in key Democratic strongholds—based solely on the fact that the residents have filed change-of-address cards with the U.S. Postal Service. While state GOP executive director Jacob Eaton claims the challenges are an attempt to protect “the integrity of the voting process,” such massive challenges at this late date threaten to overwhelm election officials, suppress turnout of eligible voters, and create chaos at the polls.

As noted in the Missoulan’s lede graf, the 6,000 challenged were voters are "in seven counties historically considered Democratic strongholds." They also report that "Only twice in the past 15 years has [the] Missoula County election administrator [where 3,422 of the challenges are] had anyone try to challenge another voter’s eligibility." …

UPDATE 10/4/08: James Sample at HuffPo reports that one of those 6,000 challenged voters who may lose their right to vote, is a former MT State Rep, and an Army Reservist, currently in New Jersey because he’s about to leave for Iraq. Again. He won’t be able to go to Montana to confirm his authenticity, unfortunately. First Lieutenant Kevin Furey has released this statement:

It is ironic that at the same time I am about to return to Iraq to help build a democracy that my own right to vote is being challenged at home for partisan purposes. These challenges are a blatant and offensive attempt to suppress the rights of voters.

[hattip to Cisco McSorley]

Cindy McCain: Obama’s Waged “Dirtiest Campaign” in U.S. History

Cindy McCain said … that presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has “waged the dirtiest campaign in American history,” and her husband Sen. John McCain will use tonight’s debate to correct the distortions.

Cindy McCain: Obama’s Waged “Dirtiest Campaign” in U.S. History

One thing I loathe about Republican strategy is the tactic of accusing your opponent of doing what you are doing. It’s bizarre.

Worse are the burning-in-Hell Lee Atwater and his bastards, such as Karl Rove. For them, victory is all. And, if you can’t win on merit or by cheating, then destroy everything in your path. Sherman’s March meets Vietnam. As McCain, et al., become uglier and more vicious, recognize that they are no longer trying to win — they expect to lose. Instead, they are hardening the opposition to be sure that Obama can’t get anything done without the Republicans, in spite of what may be an electoral landslide. In the process, McCain and his ilk are assuring that 20% of the nation believes Obama is incompetent, uncomprehending, unpatriotic, unworthy, socialist, terrorist, Muslim, evil-incarnate. (Every one of those words have been used by McCain’s supporters and his campaign.) How many loony gun nuts lurk in that crowd?

peace,
mjh

PS: That McCain dumped his sick wife for an ice queen like Cindy, who never wears the same thousands-of-dollars outfit twice, says volumes about his sense of loyalty and his judgment.

Who You Callin’ a Maverick?

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: October 4, 2008

There’s that word again: maverick. In Thursday’s vice-presidential debate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the Republican candidate, used it to describe herself and her running mate, Senator John McCain, no fewer than six times, at one point calling him “the consummate maverick.” …

Sam Maverick’s grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio who lost his mayoral re-election bid when conservatives labeled him a Communist. He served in the Roosevelt administration on the Smaller War Plants Corporation and is best known for another coinage. He came up with the term “gobbledygook” in frustration at the convoluted language of bureaucrats. …

Considering the family’s long history of association with liberalism and progressive ideals, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, “is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.”

“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ”

“He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”