Obama Spokeswoman Says Obama Has Been “Unequivocal” on “$250,000”, Then Lowers Threshold to $45,000 – $50,000

**PLEASE NOTE** This blog has been relocated. For updates to this post and to view more recent postings, click here.

$120,000 must be the new $150,000, no, it’s the new $200,000, no, the new $250,000. Huh??

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, in a radio interview on Denver, Colorado radio station 850 KOA today stated that people with incomes under $120,000 would receive tax cuts:

After months of stating that Obama would give tax cuts to “all working families” that made less than $250,000, that number has changed four, perhaps five times this week.

Those numbers for people who will have tax bulls-eyes tacked to their foreheads just keeps changing. In the whole “spreading” or redistributing the wealth scheme, those who will have their wealth “spread around” seem to be making less and less from one day to the next.

On Wednesday, “Oh, That’s Just Joe Being Joe” Joe Biden said the Obama-Biden tax plan would lower taxes for everyone making less than $150,000:

Perhaps in a “slow economy” or “financial crisis”, we just need to redefine the definition of “rich”. Wednesday, apparently, rich was $150,000, during Obama’s thirty minute indoctromercial, it was $200,000.

Perplexed by the four different numbers now floating, Fox News Stuart Varney, filling in on Neil Cavuto’s Your World, invited an Obama spokeswoman on to clear things up.

**Warning – Duct Tape Alert**

Please wrap your head securely in Duct tape prior to viewing as your head is likely to explode about 90 seconds in:

This link will take you to the Fox News site where you can view the video.

Miss Law seems to lower the threshold now to $45,000 – $50,000 if I get anythinng that makes any sense out of what she said.

If Mr. Obama, his running mate, a former Ambassador to the U.N. and sitting governor, or his “spokeswoman” can’t walk a straight line, let us do so here. Let’s examine some of the ways in which Miss Law tried to tap dance around directly clarifying which particular number is the one we are to believe:

  1. $150,000 and $120,000 were amounts used because they fall inside $250,000, and so does $200,000
  2. It’s not Mr. Obama who stated anything but $250,000, it was Joe Biden, and Governor Richardson
  3. Since it wasn’t Mr. Obama himself, we’d have to ask Joe Biden and Gov. Richardson what they meant
  4. Gov. Richardson and Sen. Biden were just saying those particular amounts because of the people they were talking to probably don’t make more than those amounts of money
  5. Mr. Obama did say $250,000 and then $200,000, but that’s not equivocating
  6. The discrepancies in amounts just reflect the struggle to define what “middle-class” is
  7. Middle-class is really $45,000 – $50,000

Miss Law really cleared things up, didn’t she? Let’s see if we understand her correctly, taking these explanations, one at a time and correcting the circular logic:

  1. It’s not a question of what falls inside the amount in question, and that’s not the context or language that was used by any of the speakers. It’s a question of where the threshold lies.
  2. First, it was Mr. Obama who was among those confusing the issue. But also, if a candidate or campaign sends out someone to speak on their behalf, they are obligated to have their facts straight. If they don’t have those facts straight, don’t send them out. If they say something that represents the candidate’s point of view, we will take the person at face value. Otherwise, the candidate himself should call a press conference and clear things up. Besides, since Miss Law was speaking on the campaigns behalf, hence the word, “spokeswoman”, are we not to believe anything she says either.
  3. We don’t need to ask Biden or Richardson anything. They already spoke. Were they rogues out there without campaign permission? Can we have Miss Law’s cell phone number so we can call and ask her what she meant?
  4. So the campaign is admitting that they say things to different people in different places?
  5. Huh?? Then what the heck is it?
  6. The discussion is not regarding the “struggle to define middle-class”, it’s an effort to nail down a dollar amount at which certain incomes will be taxed higher and others given cuts. Apparently we are being clearly told that until the “struggle” is resolved, we’re not going to be clear on that murky middle-class definition. Hence, the threshold for “rich” is TBD. In other words, we won’t really know what the amount is until after Sen. Obama is elected.
  7. Now we’re getting down to it. That $45,000 figure is suspiciously like the $41,600 figure we’d heard about earlier in the campaign: Sen. Obama had at one point in the U.S. Senate voted to raise taxes on  people with incomes above that amount.

Let us examine the definition of the word “equivocate”, courtesy of Merriam-Webster’s:

equiv·o·cate

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Seems like the whole loopy discussion is the definition of “equivocate”.

Finally, let’s move totally into the land of common sense and sound reasoning. Is there any real doubt about what’s going on here? We’re being bombarded with so many amounts at this stage, so later, if elected President Obama can stake a claim on whichever amount is most convenient.



Advertisements

No Wonder the Democratic Party’s Symbol is an….A#$!

What a shocker….many Democrats are RUDE!

Is anyone else completely fed up with many members of that so oft self-described “tolerant”  party besides myself? While many conservatives are cowering in the corner, afraid to open their mouths for fear of being called “racist”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, “religious freak”, “stupid”, “crazy”, “bitter”, an on and on and on…..The blue party of the donkey, a.k.a the a$$, seems to have a disproportionate number of neanderthals in its ranks. Why don’t their fellow members call them out?

I know, I know: It’s the Hypocrisy, Stupid

I personally observed some very classy behavior from a group of Obama-Biden protesters just this Sunday, October 5, in Omaha, Nebraska. This lovely bunch took out time from their Sunday afternoon and evening to stand across the street from the ever-growing line of Palin supporters to what end, one can only guess. Many of the signs were childishly insulting.

Wonder if Madeleine Albright meant these kind of women?

Wonder if Madeleine Albright meant these kind of women?

Those of us out here in fly-over country aren’t accustomed to protesters (except occasionally near the University of Nebraska at Lincoln campus).  Besides a number of insulting signs, which were, interestingly enough, largely wielded by women, this nice group of folks took the opportunity to periodically shout nonsense across the street. While we Palin supporters were waiting in line, some of us chatted about the silliness of it all. To the woman in front of me, I queried, “Why aren’t there ever any Republican protesters?” While it was essentially a moot question, she replied that we have better sense, and better things to do with our time, apparently.

In addition to witnessing this group of classless rabble personally, there are some recent examples of similar rabble-like behavior by Democrat public figures and their entourages.

Last night, after the Presidential Debate in Nashville, Senator Claire McCaskill exemplified a high-degree of class when she handed Gov. Mitt Romney the earpiece she had just finished using when interviewed on MSNBC, as he was up next.

“I spit on this before I put it in,” she said to Romney, with a sweet smile.

Politico’s Ben Smith witnessed the exchange. You can read the full blurb here. You will note that McCaskill’s spokesperson later tried to explain away McCaskill’s remark, but apparently Mr. Smith was predisposed to believe McCaskill has a habit of behaving this way. How ladylike she seems to be.

What is definitely more interesting is a post by CBS reporter Dean Reynolds on his “Reporter’s Notebook” on October 7. After having traveled with the Obama campaign for over twelve months, he is now traveling with the McCain campaign. The comparison he draws between the two operations is not flattering to Obama and Company.

I find it interesting that Mr. Reynolds didn’t comment about the incident on June 7 wherein press members were packed onto the campaign plane, left to sit on the run way, and then flown to Chicago, only to be told mid-air that Barack Obama was not on the plane. They had been misled into believing otherwise earlier. The linked New York Times article doesn’t quite convey the level of anger many in the press felt at the time. The deliberate subterfuge was intended to provide cover for a secret meeting with Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama’s close rival in the Democratic primaries.

While neither a reporter nor a Democrat, I found the entire June 7 incident distasteful simply because it made me wonder how much subterfuge a President Obama might engage in to hide events?

Besides finding oafish behavior, well, just plain, oafish, I also find it sad and frustrating. We’re constantly being lectured to by pundits and even some politicians about “bi-partisanship”. We’re told that we have to find “common ground” and “make compromises”. I don’t know about anyone else, but I have not intention of finding common ground nor making compromises with people who don’t know how to behave civilly.

Conservatives had better learn quickly that there is no point in cowering in the corner. They will be called every name in the book, shouted at, and degraded simply for being….well, conservative.