MetaChat - Well, at least he hit a good barbecue joint while he was in town.

Oh, CRAP.

But it wasn't all applause and love for Obama in this Southern state. At lunchtime, he stopped at the Cape Fear BBQ and Chicken restaurant, where one of the diners began yelling "Socialist, socialist, socialist!" at him.

When Obama later tried to shake hands with the woman, 54-year-old Diane Fanning, she refused his hand.

Chicago freaking Tribune. This woman has stepped in it.

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 19:59

I can't believe socialist is being used an epithet.

I'm glad they were polite to you despite your different views.

posted by desjardins 19 October | 20:03

Yeah, desjardins. "Arab" and "Muslim", too. What a crazy election this has been.

posted by muddgirl 19 October | 20:07

Oh, it's worse. ABC.com.

Holy freaking crappity crap crap.

Oh, and,

CRAP!

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 20:08

Ya know what I don't get.

This whole socialism thing.

The basic idea is, the spread the wealth comment is in defense of progressive income taxing right. Is McCain against a progressive income tax? Why isn't that reflected in his policy platform?

As for "welfare". The McCain peeps say that the earned income tax credit is welfare because if 95% of people get it and only 60% of people are eligible then why're the other bunch getting? Well the other bunch are paying payroll taxes.

Which brings me to my point. Is McCain against the Earned Income Tax Credit? Championed by Nixon, Reagan, Milton Friedman? If so, why isn't it reflected in his policy proposals?

This is what pisses me off. One can deal with Orwellian xenophobic culture war bullshit. Democrats have had to deal with it since 1970. And earlier. But this just sticks in my craw--it's so fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

HOW CAN A REPUBLICAN BE AGAINST THE EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME

What a lying scumbag.

posted by Firas 19 October | 20:13

Actually I have heard that McCain has shown some interest in the Fair Tax as championed by Neil Boortz.

I think the cries of "Socialist!" are based on Obama's comments to Joe the Plumber, i.e. that he thought it was a good idea to "spread the wealth around." I really didn't hear anyone around here calling Obama that till then.

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 20:21

Jeez, I can't believe that woman.
I've wondered how I'd act/react if I got the chance to meet McCain or Palin. I'd probably be thrilled, and I hope I'd have a camera on me at the time. I can't imagine being openly and egregiously disrespectful to them. Bush, though... I'd make an exception for him.

And yay for people being nice to each other despite political views!

One guy was in a squirrel costume.
...what?

posted by CitrusFreak12 19 October | 20:22

Oh! ACORN! Took me a moment.

posted by CitrusFreak12 19 October | 20:23

I think the cries of "Socialist!" are based on Obama's comments to Joe the Plumber, i.e. that he thought it was a good idea to "spread the wealth around." I really didn't hear anyone around here calling Obama that till then.

Really, bunnyfire? That is all I hear (some) Republicans call the Democrats and the Democratic party: Socialists and Communists.

Socialism is the buzz word of the day (even though I have heard my Republicans call Democrats socialists for years and years) because they know they're losing. It's the same as "Obama pals around with Ayres", or "Obama doesn't wear a flag pin", etc. They'll claw onto anything to make people say, "Oh, I don't like that! Obama doesn't wear a flag pin?! He must be a terrorist! He doesn't love America! "

posted by LoriFLA 19 October | 20:34

Glad you got it, CitrusFreak12, I just thought it was funny!

It's really nice to hear that you had a nice time talking to Obama supporters positively. I think politics should be respectful and peaceful. Though I can be quite rude about it in practice. Think it reflects well on both parties that you had such a nice time.

posted by jonathanstrange 19 October | 20:34

he thought it was a good idea to "spread the wealth around.

Yes, but that's just a vague phrase. It is not a policy-specific statement. As we've seen clearly, Obama's tax policies would actually benefit Joe the Plumber, whether or not he considered them "socialist."

The reality is we're already spreading wealth around. There is no way to have a civil society without an economic policy, and economic policy has some say in where wealth has to go. Currently, we're spreading wealth taken from the lower and middle classes and spreading it right up the corporate ladder to the already-wealthy, in the form of tax breaks, zoning variances, a lighter tax burden on the wealthy, and subsidies. That's real money, and our current policies are draining it from the majority of Americans and spreading that wealth among only a few.

"Spreading the wealth" doesn't mean anything, because all parties do it. The question is HOW is it spread - who does it favor? We've been favoring one contingent for a long time, on the theory that they'll create jobs and a healthier economy. Obviously, that hasn't worked - jobs are fewer (overseas), unemployment higher, and people poorer in real dollars. So in spreading wealth to them, we've impoverished the rest of us -- and I'm not talking about handouts, I'm talking about real income, worked for, and then paid out in the form of taxes.

It's really about sharing the burden more than sharing wealth. The middle class has been taking on more and more of the burden, leaving a few elite Americans to enjoy the vast bulk of the wealth. A dollar each from 310 million people adds up to a lot of dollars for the other 20 million.

posted by Miko 19 October | 20:34

Hey, it took me till the end of the rally to get it (re the squirrel.)

All we needed was Bullwinkle. But someone seriously DID bring a moose call. *rolls eyes*

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 20:35

bunnyfire, you didn't hear about the remarks by accident. Joe the Plumber, socialist, etc. are all coordinated talking points. The bit about 95% tax credit thus "welfare" is also part of that spin. Obama's hit back pretty hard on it:

“That’s right, Missouri – John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people “welfare.”

posted by Firas 19 October | 20:37

t took me till the end of the rally to get it (re the squirrel.)

I still don't get it. Can you explain?

posted by Miko 19 October | 20:41

Miko, let me ask you a serious question. Let's say Obama does get elected and taxes these businesses more-can you explain to me (and I'm being serious now-I genuinely want to know:) why wouldn't this mean that the corporate taxes would be passed to consumers and/or people would lose jobs and/or businesses would not be able to invest in growth?

I don't know how old you are but I am old enough to remember the crappy economy in the Nixon/Ford/Carter years and the only thing that got us out of double-digit home mortgage rates, rising inflation and a general bad economy was those Reagan tax cuts. I LIVED it. It affected my teenage/young adult years. Jobs were really hard to find back then. Every week for weeks on end prices were going up and up and up. My parents' home mortgage was 14 percent (and they had excellent credit.)

Please tell me-I am serious-how Obama's plans won't send the economy into a death spiral. What is it I'm not considering with all this?

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 20:41

bunnyfire, the McCain/Palin ticket has made it a point to alienate everyone except "single-issue" (i.e., anti-abortion) voters and wack-ass, stone-cold racists.

posted by vetiver 19 October | 20:41

(re the squirrel-squirrels eat acorns. ACORN. Get it? Yeah, lame, but it was a cute costume.)

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 20:42

(Oh, I see I wasn't clear. The squirrel was one of our rowdy pile of McCain peeps, not an Obama supporter. )

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 20:44

Oh, yeah, that's a reach. But squirrels are cute.

The problem with the "fair" tax is this: it's a sales tax. That seems fair, because you're only paying tax when you buy stuff.

But who has to buy more stuff? When you're poor, or middle class, a large percentage of your purchases are non-negotiable. Almost all of them, in fact - food, medical care, clothing, dentistry, transportation, etc. I have a lower-middle-class income, and I can vouch for the fact that 85% of my income goes right back out the door for necessities - I'm not shopping for luxury items or spending profligately.

The affluent, though, can pay for their necessities with a very small percentage of their income. That leaves a lot of their income - anywhere from my 15% to 50%, 90 or 95%, in some CEO-type cases a fraction of one percent.

So this "fair tax" would favor the people who already have a whole lot of wealth, freeing them from supporting the society that helped them to amass or hold onto the wealth, while the much, much larger middle and lower classes would still be paying for the bulk of our infrastructure and public services.

It's not really "fair" because the burden falls much more heavily upon people with less money. It's not "fair" if poor people foot most of the bill for the services that benefit everyone.

posted by Miko 19 October | 20:47

A. The businesses would pay the same taxes they paid under Clinton, where the economy did much better than the Reagan economy (think surplus instead of backbreaking deficit)
B. Businesses have NOT been using the George W. Bush tax cuts to invest in growth, return value to shareholders, or increase wages--they've been increasing CEO compensation and spending on top-tier payroll
C. The economy is in a death spiral already
D. There is so much more to economy growth than a couple percentage points on taxes. The middle class is where new businesses are created. Even WAL*MART wants universal health care, for example--businesses are dying because of entitlements and retirement benefits. That's why people trust democrats with the economy--the economy takes people who care about economic policy.

posted by Firas 19 October | 20:48

What is it I'm not considering with all this?

What you're not considering is the fact that you're not being at all rational.

THINK. THINK REALLY HARD. The banks are already socialized, dude!

posted by vetiver 19 October | 20:59

as championed by Neil Boortz.

That phrase alone should tell you it's a bad idea. That guy is such an embarrassment. I wish he was from somewhere else.

I've wondered how I'd act/react if I got the chance to meet McCain or Palin. I'd probably be thrilled, and I hope I'd have a camera on me at the time. I can't imagine being openly and egregiously disrespectful to them. Bush, though... I'd make an exception for him.

Agreed, CitrusFreak12.

I think the cries of "Socialist!" are based on Obama's comments to Joe the Plumber

Oh, baloney. The right calls Democrats "socialist" every time they get the chance, because they can't call them "communists" anymore. To a neo-con, anybody who suggests that government programs ought to help people is a "socialist."

Republicans are all for socialism when it benefits them, BTW.

(And for the record, I'm not entirely against socialism myself.)

posted by BoringPostcards 19 October | 21:06

Vetiver, I'm a dudette. Who has never studied economics and figured Miko could break it down for me.

(thanks, Miko. But please remember Clinton came AFTER Reagan. Would Clinton have done as well without Reaganomics? Again, asking because I wanna know.)

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 21:15

From PARADE Magazine (hardly a hotbed of socialism), published April 13, 2008:

As you file your tax return this week, you may think you’re paying off the tax obligations for just your household. But you’re also footing the bill for American companies that are dodging billions of dollars in taxes. “Most major corporations have a tax department not just to comply with the tax code but also as a profit center,” says Charles Cray of the Center for Corporate Policy, a nonprofit watchdog group.

A 2004 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 61% of American corporations, including 39% of large companies, paid no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000. Last year, corporations shouldered just 14.4% of the total U.S. tax burden, compared with about 50% in 1940.

While companies are getting off easy, thanks to loopholes, ordinary wage earners are getting stuck with the tab. The tax burden on individuals is expected to climb from $1.16 trillion in 2007 to $1.21 trillion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while corporate tax receipts are expected to decline from $370 billion to $364 billion. By 2013, the CBO estimates, ordinary taxpayers’ bills may climb to $1.86 trillion while corporate tax bills drop to $327 billion.

Read that again: “Most major corporations have a tax department not just to comply with the tax code but also as a profit center”. "Sixty-one percent of corporations paid no corporate income taxes".

Let's toss economics and politics out the window for a second. Let's consider this PURELY as a moral issue. Please, bunnyfire, explain to me how you can square your deeply-held Christian beliefs with a tax policy that rewards greed, covetousness, lying, stealing, and fraud. Please explain to me how it is that attempts to fix this system are considered "socialism" -- why is it that "socialism" is OK for the rich but not for the poor? Please explain to me how you can morally justify supporting a candidate whose party's ideology is ON ITS FACE ANTITHETICAL to your most deeply held values? What is it I'm not considering with all this?

posted by BitterOldPunk 19 October | 21:17

On a "stepping back and looking at big picture" level, I figure that either extreme is bad -- if individuals are paying all taxes and corporations none, that creates poverty and associated problems; if corporations are paying all taxes and individuals none, that limits growth and creates associated problems.

Neither extreme works.

Right now, we're way over on the "individuals pay a lot, corporations pay a little" side of the historical spectrum. Balancing that out is more likely to help than pushing the country further toward an extreme.

posted by occhiblu 19 October | 21:24

Well, I have to confess I like the Fairtax idea.

I still think corporations will always find a way to not pay taxes-either by what BitterOldPunk describes or by simply figuring the cost on whatever it is they produce. And making ME pay it when I buy that whatever.

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 21:34

Bunnyfire: here are some charts on Reagan's influence on the economy. His deregulation created a small blip around 1984, but any effect had mostly receded back to pre-Reagan levels (or worse) by 1988. So crediting Clinton's success with Reagan's policies is a stretch. There was another entire Republican administration after Reagan's eight years continuing his policy direction, too, and as you'll remember the stock market crask in 1989 and then early 90s were no financial picnic.

The Clinton years started in mid-recession. From there, we saw this:

President Clinton’s Record on the Economy: In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression...

* Strong Economic Growth: Since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, economic growth has averaged 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the Reagan-Bush years. The economy has grown for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
* Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: The economy has created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, are in the private sector.
* Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993: Economic gains have been made across the spectrum as family incomes increased for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income has increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
* Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years: Overall unemployment has dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. The unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans has fallen from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics has fallen from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
* Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: Inflation is at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and it is down from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.
* Highest Homeownership Rate on Record: The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent for the third quarter of 2000, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.
* 7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty: The poverty rate has declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent last year, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.

I'd be willing to chalk up more of Clinton's success to the economic policies of 8-12 years earlier if it wasn't clear that he took so much initiative to manage money carefully. For one thing, as this writeup notes, Reagan (and then Bush Sr.) quadrupled the national debt - mortgaged us four times over - in order to produce the gains they bragged about. Clinton reduced the debt, paying off more in one three-year period than any President had ever paid off. He also stopped contributing to it from the US annual budget by ending deficit spending and ran balanced federal budgets. He ended his tenure with a surplus.

That's responsible management. I ask you, no matter who was in office before you, aren't there things you can do to increase and improve the stability and health of your budget? Absolutely. Clinton did them, and he showed that Democrats are fiscally responsible, good planners, and strategic about the spending that takes place.

With Bush inheriting the biggest surplus ever left a President, was he a good manager? Was he responsible? Heck no - he spent the surplus, ran a deficit each year, and pissed away Clinton's gains on the debt, increasing our national debt more than any president in history. And all the time, he was preaching deregulation and free-market economics.

What he did was sell off our future and our children's future to pay for what looked like high living for a couple years. The gains were never real.

So even if you thought Reagan's economic policies were good, the gains didn't hold. And even if you chalk up some of the fiscal health of the Clinton years to Reagan's laying the groundwork, you still have to acknowledge that sound financial management and conservative spending and a balanced budget made our economy healthier and stronger and reduced our national risk.

We're not electing Clinton, we're electing someone else. But Clinton's are the kinds of economic policies that were healthy, responsible, careful, smart - the kind of policy I'd like to bring back, the kind that has been the Democrats' area of expertise.

Times are good sometimes, and bad sometimes - but the scariest times are when a President runs up the tab on our own future and sticks us with the bill.

posted by Miko 19 October | 21:44

I like the Fairtax idea.

Can I ask why? How would that benefit you? What makes you think it would work well?

posted by Miko 19 October | 21:48

simply figuring the cost on whatever it is they produce. And making ME pay it when I buy that whatever.

You're already paying it now - just in your own taxes. What Obama's plan does is free up more of your cash - you'd keep more of your cash income, and corporations would pay their share of the tax burden. But you'd be able to choose what to do with that extra cash. You'd have it to dispense as you wanted to - which you don't now.

And you don't see any of the wealth that your paid taxes create. The company that makes whatever widgets you're buying gets advantages - like subsidized gas and electricity - that you'll never be offered.

posted by Miko 19 October | 21:51

Even Reagan raised taxes, both as governor and president.

posted by spork 19 October | 21:55

I guess I like the fairtax because it's upfront, doesn't need a crapload of accountants, no loopholes, and all participate (with the poorest people getting a rebate. )

But, again, I'm no economist. And I pretty much am a one issue voter. But that doesn't mean I don't care about the economy. (and I agree Bush really did run up the spending. But I also know that Clinton eviscerated the military while he was in; that was not a good thing. )

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 21:56

Anyway, thanks for the info, Miko. I'll be chewing on it some.

posted by bunnyfire 19 October | 22:02

You bet.

Clinton eviscerated the military while he was in;

What did he do that you didn't agree with? Clinton spent a lot more on the military than Bush Sr did. And it was essentially the Clinton military that initially went into Afghanistan and Iraq in late 2001 during Bush's first year - and we've seen the technology they have (robotics, imaging, communications) which were developed under Clinton's military budget according to his priorities. He actually increased the Pentagon budget in his second term, by billions and billions.

posted by Miko 19 October | 22:12

I see what you like about a fair tax, but I think we can achieve the same goals with a more fair system than that.

posted by Miko 19 October | 22:13

I also know that Clinton eviscerated the military while he was in

Just a continuation of the reasonable drawdown that was inevitable after the Warsaw Pact collapsed.

posted by ROU Xenophobe 19 October | 23:44

It should be noted that in the years preceding our current president, the Pentagon worked very hard to modernize and make ready our armed forces. But it was Don Rumsfeld who said that a modern army is one man on the ground with a GPS directing air-strikes. He continued to argue this stubbornly, much to the leading general's dismay, in the run up to and throughout his influence in the post 9-11 war-time effort.

It was the current administration, lead by Rumsfeld in the Pentagon, that made tactical planning and execution errors in Iraq by not sending enough troops - and poorly equipped ones at that - to get the job done and worse, repeating Bush SR.'s mistake of assuming the war would be over when Baghdad was taken.

posted by MonkeyButter 19 October | 23:59

If any administration has created a dangerous lack of American military readiness - evisceration of our capacity to protect ourselves - it is our current administration.

posted by MonkeyButter 20 October | 00:02

Economic Prosperity and the Presidents

That article didn't take GWB into account, but this one did.

My point isn't that just any Democrat would be better than any Republican, but that the idea that Clinton and Democrats in general did a horrid job with the economy isn't based on reality.

posted by lysdexic 20 October | 00:39

From what I can see, this "Fairtax" (now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one) is similar to our GST (and many other variants in other countries) and the net difference to the average person is sweet bugger all. The biggest difference as I see it (and I work for a state government agency, so see this in reality) is that it transfers power, in the form of tax dollars collected, from the states to the feds. This may be completely different in the US, of course, because your hierarchy of governments is different. Previously, the states levied sales taxes and all sorts of other taxes on all sorts of things and then got to spend the money on health, education and so on. Now, the federal government collects all that money in the form of GST and passes it on to the states. The catch is that the feds put all sorts of conditions on the money so the states have to work on the federal agenda instead of their own. That's a good thing in some ways, but the federal government is another step removed from the people and, potentially, from the real knowledge of what society needs.

The biggest issue, though with a consumption tax is that it hits the lower-to-middle income people the hardest, because more of their income is spent on basics. When they introduced the GST here, they tried to defray that by exempting things like basic (unprocessed) food, so a plain raw chicken is exempt but a cooked chicken is taxed. Orange juice is exempt but carbonated orange drink containing some juice is taxed etc. But still, those with high incomes have higher discretionary spending, so some of the tax they pay is voluntary, where those on lower incomes are forced to pay more tax with less choice.

Unfortunately, none of these systems change the fact that almost all tax is paid by the middle-income earners. Those on low incomes may pay a higher percentage, but the actual amount they pay is small and those on high incomes have better access to tax breaks and other methods of tax minimisation. This leaves the poor old middle-income earner footing the bill for the bulk of the tax (both in absolute terms and percentage of income terms). That's why I pay 24% of all my income in tax every fortnight.

One of the biggest criticisms of consumption taxes is that it is seen as "double dipping" - you pay tax on your income and then tax on purchases, so the government gets two bites out of every dollar you earn. If this isn't balanced by appropriate cuts in income tax, it can lead to disaster.

Of course companies will pass on extra tax to the consumer, but that will happen no matter what. At the bottom of every food chain model you come up with is you and I, waiting with our hard-earned money and needing to eat. Same same.

posted by dg 20 October | 02:15

I know there is ugliness out there, on both sides

I keep hearing this. Could you please point us to the specific videos of Obama supporters accusing McCain or Palin of being anti-American terrorists, murderers, etc.? (Not to mention the robo-calls put out by the Obama campaign saying the same thing.) I mean, since it's all equal on both sides, then surely you've seen the exact equivalent of this sort of thing, right? So please post actual proof of your claims -- if they're true, it should be easy! Thanks.

posted by scody 20 October | 02:56

I see she's a freeper. Shocking, I know.

posted by trondant 20 October | 03:14

There is ugliness on both sides.

"Palin's only a heartbeat away from the presidency" - How many times have you heard that? McCain wasn't a war hero - He was just a bad fighter pilot who kept crashing planes. Palin's so backwards, she shoots Moose. McCain can't lift his arms. HA HA. HE CAN'T LIFT HIS ARMS. He can't be president. He's got PTSD. etc.

bunnyfire can speak for herself, and I'm a foreigner, but I've seen her called every name under the sun. Although she's desired an open and calm conversation about the upcoming election, she's been denied it by name calling and a passive aggressive taunting.

Then there's the republican candidates. The disrespect shown to Palin has been incredibly effective, but in truth it's been little more than the worst kind of taunting. The Daily Show is nothing more than a machine to highlight how old McCain is. I understand that the show is simply trying to redress the political balance, but in honesty - it comes over as ugliness.

Palin goes on SNL & she's barracked about it.
"She encapsulates all the most stereotypical qualities of a beauty queen except, you know, for the desire for world peace."

If Biden appears on the Daily Show in the next week or so, then everyone's gonna go cock-a-hoop over it.

There's an issue here that Democratic supporters seem incapable of seeing the worst kind of petty behaviour in themselves whilst being enraged by that behaviour in others.

"But we do it with style." is the whine that appears to emanate from the left wing.

Obama is a great man, and one of the things he talks about is dialog & listening to others. It's my hope that he'll be elected and he'll rise through the vitriol shown by his party and actually go some way to healing the rifts that exist between the red and the blue states.

posted by seanyboy 20 October | 03:26

Miko: Currently, we're spreading wealth taken from the lower and middle classes and spreading it right up the corporate ladder to the already-wealthy, in the form of tax breaks, zoning variances, a lighter tax burden on the wealthy, and subsidies. That's real money, and our current policies are draining it from the majority of Americans and spreading that wealth among only a few.

I agree that the tax system is flawed in many ways, but I think this conclusion is way too strong. If you look at the evidence, the richest 1% pay 28% of all tax revenue received by the government, and the richest 5% pay 44%. It's hard to see how a tax system can be 'spreading money to the wealthy' if in fact almost half of the federal budget is funded by the top 5% of earners. For comparison, the bottom 40% of earners fund 5% of the federal budget.

posted by matthewr 20 October | 05:46

There's an issue here that Democratic supporters seem incapable of seeing the worst kind of petty behaviour in themselves whilst being enraged by that behaviour in others.

Petty behavior is one thing. Open hostility and lies and death threats merely for existing are something else entirely.

"Palling around with terrorists"
"He's an ARAB!!"
"He doesn't see America the way you and I see America" - classic "enemy" talk.

Those things make "He's a Socialist/Marxist/Going to take your money" sound friendly.

"She's so stupid!"
"All she has are her looks!"
"She doesn't know anything!"
"All he ever did was crash planes"

I see the pettyness. I'm not seeing the equivalence.

posted by lysdexic 20 October | 06:24

Welly, lysdexic, let's see how Diane Fanning gets treated now. She called my husband last night, freaked out, thinking that she might lose her job over this (it was reported she worked at Sam's Club. Why this was germaine to the report is beyond me.)Apparently the media is hounding her.

She might not have been polite to Obama. But some of us are worried her life is about to become a living hell because of it.

We'll see.

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 07:01

(thanks, seanyboy.)

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 07:03

Socialism is the buzz word of the day (even though I have heard my Republicans call Democrats socialists for years and years) because they know they're losing.

Yeah. To be frank, the GOP has been sounding desperate lately and it's hurting them. I'll be glad when this is all over, because politics generally does not bring out the best in people, IMHO.

posted by jonmc 20 October | 07:54

I'll be glad when it's over, too. It's crazy and stressing.

The vitriol is coming from both sides. Hillary and Bill Clinton were the first ones to bring up the William Ayres thing. Now, the GOP can't let it go.

posted by LoriFLA 20 October | 08:41

Open Hostility, accusations of being a Muslim, accusations of being a terrorist, accusations of being unamerican & death threats.

One of those things is not like the others.

You can't lump all these things together into one grand opus of republican hatred. Saying that Obama is unamerican is not the same as extorting your candidate to kill him.

posted by seanyboy 20 October | 09:33

Saying that Obama is unamerican is not the same as extorting your candidate to kill him.

In a country that's been rounding up Muslims and Arabs on trumped-up charges of terrorism, with the number-one rhetoric point being "They hate the American way of life" and the stereotype being that they live here but never assimilate, detesting us the entire time and just waiting to kill us, and then been sending these people to prisons where we've approved torture, and where this sort of thing is almost explicitly framed in terms of vigilante justice, those lines you're drawing get a little blurry.

Also, "heartbeat away from the presidency" is fairly standard "VP Job Description" talk, as far as I remember. I think I've heard it about everyone ever running. I agree that a lot of the ageist nonsense against McCain is obnoxious, but I'm not sure that's an example -- unless you meant that it's insulting to Palin, and in that case I do believe that questioning someone's qualifications is a necessary part of the process, and not at all petty.

Which is not to say that she (and everyone else) hasn't been dealing with petty attacks as well, but variations on "Are you qualified?" are a different kettle of fish.

posted by occhiblu 20 October | 09:49

(You also can't really ignore the history of violent, murderous racism against blacks in this country when looking at some of these remarks and undercurrents, either.)

posted by occhiblu 20 October | 09:52

I'm surprised they actually served him food.

posted by matteo 20 October | 10:07

I am trying to imagine me doing something like that, in reverse. I guess the closest I can come is it McCain showed up somewhere I was at and I got close to him (I cannot imagine myself in a situation of potentially shaking hands with a candidate, without a lot of INTENTION of being in that place. . .although Obama DID work out at my gym and if I'd gotten up early that Saturday, I'd have been in the room with him, since it was of course not announced that he would be there).

But say I encountered John McCain, with his hand extended to me. And I then said something, loudly, about him dropping bombs on North Vietnamese children. That would have made the news and FOX would have been ALL OVER IT, attributing it to the Obama campaign. And I might have gotten some scrutiny on it, to the point of maybe someone digging and finding out I was a draft resistor back then.

But I cannot imagine the lack of basic civility that it would have taken for me to do that. I think that, if one injects themself in a circus like this campaign is, then one has to expect some consequences. Ms. Fanning is probably hero-worshipped on the right today for "speaking truth to power."

posted by danf 20 October | 10:26

Matteo, that restaurant is in a heavily African American section of town. And yes, a lot of white folk eat there. I've bought barbecue there myself-it's been awhile since I generally go to Barbecue Hut instead (one of the kids used to work there.)

Fayetteville is unique. Not saying there is no racism but generally in day to day life white folks and black folks get along pretty well.

Also, we have black people in our Republican party organization, to include participating in the rally I was at.

We don't like Barack's politics, is all. If it were Biden in that restaurant Diane would have been yelling the same thing.

I really wish we had a black Republican running for president at the same time so we could leave race out of this totally. THAT is the part that hurts me-these race accusations back and forth. Plenty to go round on both sides.

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 10:28

Danf, I can applaud her on one hand for expressing an opinion while cringing on the other for her not shaking his hand or being polite. If it had been me I'd have grabbed his hand and with a smile let him know MY opinion on A Certain Topic. AGgggg what a wasted opportunity!!!!!!!!

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 10:31

Even if it were Biden, I think Mrs. Fanning's actions would still have been terribly rude. And likewise if a Democratic supporter had behaved similarly to the Republican candidates. If she's worried about the consequences of her actions, I think she should apologize. Not for her views - she's totally entitled to think Obama's a socialist if that's what floats her boat - but how she expressed them. I'm sure most people, including Obama and his campaign, can understand that emotions are running high on both sides right now, and causing people to lash out forcefully. They are probably used to incidents like these by now anyway.

posted by casarkos 20 October | 10:47

Someone slashed the tires of at least 30 vehicles parked outside the Crown Coliseum on Sunday during a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, authorities said.

Sheriff’s deputies are investigating. The tires were cut while people were inside the Crown Coliseum listening to speeches, said Maj. E. Wright of the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office.

Still waiting to see video or newspaper report of actual equivalent behavior by Obama supporters. (Note: "being satirized on SNL" is the very definition of false equivalancy, and does not count.)

posted by scody 20 October | 11:18

First of all, I really don't get what's so bad about socialism. Okay, France is an economic mess, but Canada and England aren't. I thought it was very undiplomatic of McCain to say words to that effect during the last debate because it was like he was saying to Canada and England that their countries sucked. No wonder other countries don't like us very much.

Also, even during my staycation this weekend, talk turned to the economy over our continental breakfast in a beautifully appointed (hee! real estate language!) library/lounge of the second floor of the hotel. I confessed to my paramour that I was a fiscal liberal and sometimes-socialist who wasn't sure if tax breaks to gigantic corporations really helped because I couldn't see the benefit personally.

He countered that with news of three of the machine stop tenants in his family's industrial complex (he's a commercial real estate landlord) whose sole work right now comes from three different large Pennsylvania-based business, including the electricity company down there, PICO. The big guys have already investigated all the other shops out there, and these two and three-man shops are the only guys who can get the work done that they like.

And keeping them employed puts money in my friend's family business' pockets, which in turn gives him the money to help us spend a luxurious weekend in a midtown Manhattan hotel, buy his manga, puts gas in his car, etc.

If I could be more assured that all large U.S. businesses were indeed willing to keep the goods and services local, I'd maybe change some of my fiscal liberal ways.

(Oh, and he's undecided, too.)

posted by TrishaLynn 20 October | 11:23

I'm biting my tongue and staying the fuck out of this thread. But I wanted to say that.

posted by Specklet 20 October | 11:52

i'm not sure if they know what socialism means, but they want is totalitarianism or fascism… could we slip 'em all a quiz on "what kind of ideology is for you" with a pamphlet?

It's all so sadly deluded, and getting to that scary part when you've reached the end of the preprepared material and eyes go blank and cloudy, like when some confused lady tells McCain Obama is an Arab with all the confidence of a question.
i don't know if they know what Arab or Muslim mean either.
They should really let some people stay home instead of rousting them up with promises of potluck dinners.

And Palin is proof of what Republicans think of women: as long as they don't call her ugly, she's done her job. Now shut her up before she says more stupid stuff we have to pretend we didn't hear.

posted by ethylene 20 October | 12:01

I'm waiting, with scody, to hear about actual equivalent behavior by Obama supporters. I should've brought a chair.

posted by box 20 October | 12:18

i'm wondering how popular BBQ flavored papers can be. It's already smoky.

posted by ethylene 20 October | 12:19

Still waiting to see video or newspaper report of actual equivalent behavior by Obama supporters.

OK - Ten minute search turned up this. I can't count on the veracity of it, but there are some interesting snippets.

The peaceful protests against Republican policies by more than 10,000 people during the four-day convention were overshadowed on Monday by several hundred protesters who smashed shop windows and threw rocks and bottles at police. [...]

At least 20 faced felony charges ranging from destruction of property to conspiracy to riot, and one man was charged with making bombs that he planned to use at the convention. [...]

Marchers chanted "Who is the terrorist? McCain is the terrorist" as they tried to cross several bridges [...]

One person was found with a semiautomatic pistol, for which he had a permit, and others were found with bags of feces, he said. [...]

This was from an incident last month. I'm aware of the fact that you can blame this on people outside the Democratic party, or you can say it happened a while ago, or it had nothing to do with Obama. But it highlights the fact that there's bad behaviour on all sides. This is an emotional election.

posted by seanyboy 20 October | 12:20

I don't know how the current administration is getting away with pretending they're against socialism when their mantra throughout has been to

"Socialize debt.
Privative profit.
Create crises to make this happen."

posted by small_ruminant 20 October | 12:22

What casarkos said. It's just accountability.

An apology for her incivility would do her and the campaigns a world of good, and she wouldn't have to retract her opinion about her economic policies. Although, geez, if anyone needs Obama economic policies it's a 54-year-old working in big box retail.

If you look at the evidence, the richest 1% pay 28% of all tax revenue received by the government, and the richest 5% pay 44%.

Seems only appropriate - they've been far outpacing the other classes by winning the highest income growth in two decades, and that is a direct result of economic policies that favor them. And since they benefit the most from the services taxes pay for: infrastructure like communications networks for data transfer and roads and airports for shipping goods, federal contributions to higher education for providing them the educated workforce they need, subsidies and breaks for fuel and materials expenses, etc - they should contribute the most to maintain the system, and they can quite easily afford to. Also, the long-range effect of reducing taxes on the middle class is to make more cash available for management, moving more people into the top brackets so that there are more individuals sharing the burden.

The richest 1% make an annual household income of more than $388,000. They can support the system that is treating them so well. The bottom 50% of taxpayers are certainly paying more than their share, but their real wages are so low that that doesn't add up to much cash at all. It's not that they're not paying their fair share - it's that their share is so small, like their real income. Breaking through to the top 5% is real financial success in this country. I'd like to see us be able to expand the percentage of tax burden out to the top 20% or 30% or even more - but doing so now would be crippling and impoverishing to people who fall below those brackets, because the growing gap between rich and poor has left them with rising costs and not enough to live on. If a tax policy, health care support, and other reduced costs allowed them to accumulate more wealth, they could pay more taxes, easing that burden on the super-rich by epxanding the numbers of people who fall within the highest brackets.

posted by Miko 20 October | 12:35

Just because people were protesting the GOP convention doesn't mean they're Democrats. Anarchists protested both conventions but saved most of the vitriol for the GOP.

posted by spork 20 October | 12:39

Those tires were slashed on Wilkes Road. Which is outside the parking lot of the Arena.

I suspect that might have been just as much a comment on objection to choice of place to park as anything else.Also: The Crown Coliseum is not in a very nice part of town, fwiw. Walking distance from hookers, if you get my drift. And not the high class kind either.

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 13:31

Did I mention a reporter from France was at my rally?

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 13:33

From hockey to homecoming, concerts to circuses, sporting events to special occasions, the stars come to life at the Crown Center.

bunnyfire, are you saying that tire slashing is a regular occurrence for people parking their cars for the circus? How does that place stay in business?

posted by danostuporstar 20 October | 13:46

They say "socialism" like it's a bad thing.

posted by deborah 20 October | 13:50

Fayetteville is unique. Not saying there is no racism but generally in day to day life white folks and black folks get along pretty well.

On what do you base your assessment that this is a unique trait of Fayetteville? Have you lived in any other Southern Cities? People are generally civil and cordial to one another in any city. Do you envision some city where people of different races shout and threaten each other on a daily basis? People can get along in society, make friends and lovers and politial allies anywhere. I've traveled the Eastern half of the US to the Mississippi pretty extensively, and lived in several cities. It's not about getting along, it's about an overweaning sense of otherness, some terrible thing that lies deep down or less deep down, a sense of mistrust and fear. That's a Southern thing and it breaks my heart. I don't want to get along pretty well generally, I don't want to think about it. I don't want it to be an issue.

I should stop because I can see the defense coming, but the word "folks" in this context bothers me. For example, would you say "Jewish Folks" or would you think twice about that?

posted by rainbaby 20 October | 14:10

I suspect that might have been just as much a comment on objection to choice of place to park as anything else.

Uh, are you kidding? Do you really truly in your heart think it wasn't related? You ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Bunnyfire, I'm trying to be civil here, but you're driving me nuts. You don't answer any of the insightful questions posed to you by the patient people who are actually interested in having a discussion with you. You offer fluffy excuses and generalizations and "observations" that aren't fooling anyone.

Look, I understand you have your political beliefs. You are entitled to believe in whatever you believe. But I'm really tired of you bringing up politics and then evading any real discussion about them.

posted by Specklet 20 October | 14:17

McCain Supporters Heckle Early Voters, Call Them 'Cheaters'

I'm shocked -- shocked!

posted by scody 20 October | 14:55

Socialists: Obama No Socialist

I'm mildly suprised that the Chicago Trib didn't also talk to anyone from the International Socialist Organization (of which I was a member for many years, and with whom I'm still on friendly terms), given that the ISO is headquartered in Chicago. The ISO has a principled stand against supporting either Democrats or Republicans.

posted by scody 20 October | 15:57

On what do you base your assessment that this is a unique trait of Fayetteville?

The fact that Fort Bragg is here. The Army has done quite a bit to desegregate society, and they are pretty successful here. My own neighborhood is mixed. Black social worker and her son live across the street, white folks next door, Hispanics in the house behind me.

There are a few parts of town that are more segregated, but many of the neighborhoods here are like mine.

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 16:09

fairtax. Documentation on this is quite confusing, but at its heart, it appears to be a countrywide Sales Tax.

The good thing about Sales taxes is they are cheaper to run. In the UK, Income Tax costs nearly twice as much to collect than VAT. Taking into account the fact that the U.S. doesn't have a PAYE system, I suspect that discrepancy is larger. I'd calculate (roughly) that moving to a more Sales Tax based economy would save the US about 20-40 Billion dollars a year. It's not a huge amount.

To do it, you'd need to enforce different tax rates based on how luxurious the item being purchased was. Otherwise, it's basically a tax on the poor. In fact, I'm not convinced that even with banding it's not a tax on the poor. You'd need some form of income tax, even if it is just levied at the top of society.

posted by seanyboy 20 October | 16:15

socialist Yeah - I've no idea why the fundamentalists would pick a single blunt word to try and describe 40% of the American population. Those retarded hicks need to get back to Jesusland and start watching the Monster Truck rallies again.

Or... It's a word. That aptly describes the people you don't like to the people you do like whilst reinforcing sociopolitical beliefs. If you're worried about the use of "socialist", then you're over sensitive. I think.

posted by seanyboy 20 October | 16:15

Seems only appropriate - they've been far outpacing the other classes by winning the highest income growth in two decades, and that is a direct result of economic policies that favor them.

I'm not saying it's inappropriate that the rich fund the federal budget, just pointing out that the American tax system is progressive, and doesn't "spread wealth up the ladder to the already-wealthy".

And of course, the benefits that the rich get from government spending aren't nearly large enough to cancel out the progressive nature of fiscal policy.

I'm a bit mystified by your suggestion about increasing tax rates for the top 20-30% and "easing that burden on the super-rich"; why would you prefer this to increasing marginal tax rates on the top 1-5%? It seems that increasing the 'progressiveness' of the system by raising marginal income tax rates above $1m, say, would be a far better idea than putting the top 20-30% in higher tax bands.

posted by matthewr 20 October | 16:16

Have you lived in any other Southern Cities?

Forgot to respond to this...yes, actually, I have. Sarasota (where the races did NOT mix at all as far as I could see-this would be early 80's-and Pensacola-where racism was pretty bad. People would lie to get their kids in the "white school" down the street from the little "black" school they were really supposed to be in. We moved into the neighborhood, sent our kids to the correct school, where my children did kinda stick out BUT got a really good education from caring teachers. They did turn it into a magnet arts school the next year which did manage to get a few more white faces in evidence. Pensacola was pretty bad.
should stop because I can see the defense coming, but the word "folks" in this context bothers me

I'm Southern; that's how we talk down here.

Bunnyfire, I'm trying to be civil here, but you're driving me nuts. You don't answer any of the insightful questions posed to you by the patient people who are actually interested in having a discussion with you. You offer fluffy excuses and generalizations and "observations" that aren't fooling anyone

I seriously don't know what you are talking about. I shared some observations, I asked Miko some questions, and now I am digesting what was said. If you are perturbed about my tire answer, you need to know that the folks there have a history of annoyance with the Crown Coliseum regarding event traffic and such, plus the area is in charitable terms unprosperous. And yes, I suppose racism was a factor. But not the only one.

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 16:18

Scody, that's the rally I was at. (at 0.39 that's me holding the McCain Palin sign.) And that was the actual Board of Elections building.

Yeah, there were a handful of blowhards. It was pretty noisy; once I realized that one guy was yelling "Cheater" I started yelling at him that that wasn't called for. He wanted to argue with me about it a little. Ticked me off, it did.

The black Obama supporter was one of the guys that had come over and was standing with us for awhile. I'm not sure about him but the two guys with him were definitely folks my hubby knows. All of them were actually pretty nice.

The purpose of the rally started out as Veterans for McCain. The objection to Sunday voting was part of it-it is true they opened more voting sites the day of Obama's rally which is kinda weird but the reason given is they didn't want poll workers to have to be up half the night dealing with voters. Whatever. By five which was when they closed there were very few folks left to vote.

I went today to the same place to vote myself and they were actually almost as busy as yesterday.

I went there to begin with yesterday to support my hubs who is County Chairman for the Republicans. (He's in the video too but not yelling or anything.) We did have an African American young man there holding a sign for Brazile (who is a Republican running against McIntyre, a fairly conservative Democrat who I have no problem with.)

I'm glad you posted that video-I'm hoping we can use it to persuade certain noisy individuals to quit acting like buttheads.

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 16:38

To be fair, and not a turncoat, there was a group of Republicans who recently marched all over the Upper West Side and got soundly booed, etc. However, I believe it was a McCain-campaign sanctioned event; just people getting together (without a permit, I'm assuming) to rally the troops.

However, it does come across to me as being somewhat trollish. And I would have loved to see them try that in Harlem.

(Also, I did see something disturbing on my walk to the subway station which was a poster stumping for Obama and Rangel. I'd go with the third party guy before Rangel.)

posted by TrishaLynn 20 October | 17:00

Yeah, TrishaLynn, I saw that video.

Meanwhile, I am so PISSED. That one loudguy-turns out he's not even from our county. And now I'm seeing that video trotted out to paint us as intimidating evil people...and the truth is, I was really uncomfortable with the yelling and stuff. REALLY uncomfortable. And because that one guy just had to show his butt....argg....next time I see him he's gonna hear a mouthful from me.

posted by bunnyfire 20 October | 17:22

Go, bunnyfire!

posted by small_ruminant 20 October | 17:51

bunnyfire, give him what-for!

posted by scody 20 October | 19:22

the American tax system is progressive, and doesn't "spread wealth up the ladder to the already-wealthy".

The changes to the system in recent years have unevenly benefited the alteady wealthy.

And of course, the benefits that the rich get from government spending aren't nearly large enough to cancel out the progressive nature of fiscal policy.

I'm not sure how you're quantifying this, but I think it's a long, complicated, and ultimately dangerous-to-your argument road to go down. The rich first and foremost get the benefit of being and remaining rich, with all the benefits and luxuries that affords in a market economy with abundant goods and services provided by the other classes, and of having more of their professional efforts return to them as personal wealth, thanks to the tax structure which is easier on them than I think it needs to be.

posted by Miko 20 October | 23:32

Picketing voters? That's pretty fucking low. If you have a beef with the BOE, picket them personally, or file a suit. DO NOT heckle ordinary people for fulfilling their civic duty. This is easily the most disgusting, sickening thing I've seen protest-wise since a bunch of kindly southern baptists picketed an AIDS fundraiser at a club here. And that was maybe in the mid-nineties.

posted by trondant 21 October | 12:33

Good Lord, we weren't picketing VOTERS.

I will say that there was one guy there who if I ever see him he will get a really large piece of my mind, and I bet you can guess which one.

posted by bunnyfire 21 October | 14:02

Oh, and someone local was saying re the slashed tires: apparently the same thing happened at a country music concert. On Wilkes Road, again.

Somebody must be irritated with folks parking there....

posted by bunnyfire 21 October | 15:14

For god's sake, give it up! The tires were slashed because the car owners were OBAMA SUPPORTERS!

posted by Specklet 21 October | 16:52

Specklet, you were not here when this coliseum was built.There has always been a lot of tension between the coliseum and the folks who live on that road. I agree that whoever did it probably was not a good democrat, but the fact is that tires have been slashed in that area for more than just Obama rallies.

I think I know this area a little better than you do.

posted by bunnyfire 21 October | 18:19

Welly, lysdexic, let's see how Diane Fanning gets treated now. She called my husband last night, freaked out, thinking that she might lose her job over this (it was reported she worked at Sam's Club. Why this was germaine to the report is beyond me.)Apparently the media is hounding her.

Yeah, that's pretty silly. They might have been hoping for another "Joe the Plumber" scoop. Any word on how she's doing?

posted by lysdexic 21 October | 22:15

We haven't heard from her-and she is refusing to speak with the press (probably the smart thing to do at this point.) I understand the press is hounding her.

I am pretty concerned. There are plenty of people with internet access who know her name and have seen the video with her in it. I hope she stays safe. All it takes is one random nut...

My husband just got interviewed on the late night news re her. Talk about walking thru a minefield....

posted by bunnyfire 21 October | 22:56

Good Lord, we weren't picketing VOTERS.

Silly me. Who were all those people in line across the street from you, then? Gay Socialist Muslin terrist welfare cheats who just happened to be in line for no reason whatsoever?

posted by trondant 22 October | 01:07

19 October 2008