Bloodless Coup

It's PANDERING, transparent PANDERING, which is one of the many reasons true conservatives dislike McCain.

Okay so we can add him to the list of panderers that includes Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and sometimes Thompson (on gay marriage and the flat tax at least). If pandering is disliked by "true conservatives", who can they like?

And really it seems to me that McCain and Ron Paul are the least pander-prone candidates in the field ... but the base doesn't seem to give them points for being forthright. So a tendency to pander doesn't seem all that key to their support.

i think this is completely consistent with the GOP line: anything unpleasant or undesirable or unseemly done by anybody they don't have a backroom arrangement with (see, Saudi Arabia; Pakistan) is terrorism (on the international front) or treason (on the domestic front). you're either a republican, and at that one who hews to a particular party line reflecting the interests of only a small (but electorally critical) fraction if the populace, or your a traitor or a terrorist. so of course it's terrorism, and mccain is simply practicing the double-speak he's been trying to master ever since he realized no one with an independent thought in his mind will ever get the republican nomination.

Bro,
I'm not really surprised you guys support McCain, he's our party's Howard Dean, the crazy, unpredictable type who really shouldn't be trusted with anything more than Tonka trucks, under parental supervision. If you want conservative consistency, you support Hunter or Thompson. And it's amusing that when Bush ignores the majority opinion on the war, he's labeled a tyrant-king, but when Thompson goes along with the majority views on gay marriage, he's suddenly a panderer. The flat tax is pandering to good sense and taking away much of the ways and means committee's ginormous power to favor their friends with tax breaks. That's just the kind of pandering we need. That the poor would actually pay less taxes is I suppose irrelevant to your analysis.

Moon,
I'm confused as to when religiosity and/or spirituality, opposition to excessive taxes, and national defense became the views of a small fraction of the populace. Yes, being against national defense and supporting our enemies over us is treason, that's what treason means. I find it ironic that McCain is the only notable one accusing Cuba of terrorism over this, and yet he is the one you say is independent of Republican thought. I will not argue that point.

Morris - Oy. First, "we guys" (yes, including the female in the group) don't join together in a little cabal before each post or thought - we think independently. Secondly, ummm, where does it say that even one of us supports McCain? Yesterday's post was on my belief (backed up by poll numbers) that McCain would be the strongest Republican in the general election. That's a reading of data - that's not "support".

The flat tax is idiotic b/c 1) it's virtually impossible it would come out as a simple formula, surely there would still be paperwork and deductions, 2) it's so regressive it's unlikely it would be passed, 3) and it would either bankrupt the government (even more than it already is) or be at such an astronomical level that it would never be passed. Given all that, making it a cornerstone of one's campaign is misleading and pandering (or just jaw on the floor stupid).

And Thompson's gay marriage answer is pandering because it makes no sense at all and flies in the face of hundreds of years of constitutional law.

Bro,
When I said you guys, I was talking to you and Moon who were focusing on McCain's elusive good qualities ("least pander-free" and "independent thought").

So, your first reason that the flat tax couldn't work is because it couldn't work? The whole point is that there wouldn't "still be paperwork and deductions," and John Edwards doesn't pay a lower rate than Joe Taxpayer, and Charlie Rangel doesn't get to hand out big tax deductions to those who favor his and other prominent Democrats political ambitions.

As far as it being regressive, I think you may need to pick up your stats book. A flat tax isn't regressive, it's flat. To the extent that it's any -essive, it's progressive because by doubling the current standard deduction, so a lot more poor people who now can't get a full refund for their entire federal tax withholdings will get a full refund. Also, it increases the tax rate for John Edwards to 25%. And if people like John Edwards actually paid 25% instead of about 5% or less, the government would get a lot of money that they don't currently get.

You're right in the sense that the tax rate for CORPORATIONS will decrease slightly, but if those CORPORATIONS are as evil as libs claim they must be, then those greedy capitalist swindlers are already passing their tax burden on to their customers. So increasing the tax rate on Exxon or Wal-mart doesn't hurt the CEOs as much as it hurts people who buy Exxon gas and shop at Wal-Mart.

Who knew Charlie Rangel had such power! Go back and read Showdown at Gucci Gulch if you really think it's the members of Congress that drive tax deductions and whatnot. Are they responsible, yeah. But mostly they are responding to their constituents (the country's big money) - the top lobbyists (so finance, insurance, real estate ...). Now would a less complicated tax system be nice? Sure. But the Republicans didn't do it under Bush/Frist/Hastert. I don't see why Huckabee or Thompson and a Democratic Congress would achieve that.

And how about you send me the details on the plan you are specifically referring to (this snake oil is out there in a number of forms), and if I have time I'll show how it's regressive and how it'd cost the government a fortune - and then how would we pay for our war in Iraq, or border wall, or agents to kick those immigrants back out of the country? :)

Mike D at Balloon Juice did a "fair tax" thread a few days ago...

xoxo "The Female"

Well should I have said woman? I mostly made a point of it b/c of a piece (in Time?) I was reading on a Clinton staffer saying "you guys" to a bunch of middle-aged women - and said staffer got a "there are no guys here!" in response.

Yeah, I saw that post of Mike D's - and it seemed pretty damn weak to me. Lots of holes in it (beyond the most obvious - revenue).

No, no, I was just adopting it as a temporary moniker. And, I was just pointing out that thread so we wouldn't have to go there.

That's the problem. The power of the ways and means committee gives favors to special interests, to big money, in return for their support now and after government life. And the only way we could get it is of course to vote in Congressmen and Senators who would vote for it. But the fact that now holding office are Congresspeeps and Senators who don't support it, who prefer their current benefits of office, is not a reason not to vote peeps who do support it into office. If you have a good proposal and the institutional attitude keeps it from becoming real, then we change the institution; we are the people.

http://www.fred08.com/virtual/taxrelief.aspx

And in our system of government the people often mean squat. We've got a presidency responsible to no one for 4 years elected by a group of party regulars, not the people. A ridiculously malapportioned Senate that the people can barely touch. Single-member districts which mean that incumbents hardly ever face real races for their jobs in the House (and some get elected without real races ...). My point about whether or not it is feasible is simply this - it's not exactly leadership if your #1 priority is something that stands no chance of getting aboved. I mean he could promise everyone a billion dollars and a night with Angelina Jolie, and sure that'd be popular and something people would like - but if he can't actually provide it ...

Well I guess he still gets to go home to his wife, Morgan Fairchild.

And is there some reason you are privileging Congress in all this? Since you seem to think a new president could change tax policy, you'd think you'd also blame the current president for failing to do it.

And I'd think a lot of Republicans would say that you those financial interest lobbyists should be listened to, since so much of America's wealth and economic growth rides on them - but if you aren't a Wall St. Republican so I know that's not your deal.