I take a break for a moment from work and see that, somehow, Kevin Drum and his commenters are agreeing with John McCain that it might take $5 million to be rich.
Winged pigs just flew past my second-story window, and I’m nervously eyeing the sky for thunder.
It’s especially interesting to me since I got beaten about the head and shoulders for suggesting that it wasn’t reasonable to think that somebody was rich unless they were making three standard deviations over median. I guess it’s the messenger.
Well, sort of.
McCain was talking about income, wasn’t he? I’m talking about net worth. At a guess, a middle-age person with an annual *income* of $1-2 million (and who isn’t monumentally stupid) almost certainly has a net worth in the range of $20 million (my definition of rich). That income cutoff is a fair bit less than $5 million.
Still, point taken. I think liberals are mistaken to try and pretend that an income of, say, $200K makes you “rich.” It makes you pretty comfortable, but “rich” is a loaded word, and I just don’t think even working class Americans think of that kind of lifestyle as making you rich.
This is, needless to say, independent of my radical lefty views on proper levels of taxation. I’m mostly just making a semantic point.
Income?? He was talking about $5 million in income?
OK, I need to go watch the damn video again…
A.L.
Here is the quote according to Fox news:
bq. _When Warren asked McCain how he defined “rich,” McCain replied by saying, “I think if you’re just talking about income, how about 5 million (dollars)?”_
“Link”:http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/18/obama-takes-issue-with-mccains-definition-of-rich/
Its a shame that nobody is stepping up to decry the widening gap between the modestly rich and the insanely rich in this country.
LOL!! we have a rich – very rich – friend who lives in Montecito (the exclusive part of Santa Barbara) and who comments that “the billionaires are driving out the poor millionaires here…”
A.L.
“WSJ -“:http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/09/a-rich-persons-definition-of-rich/
So there must be those who consider you “rich” if you have a job and owe less than a couple of grand to a drug dealer.
“A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” –Sen Everett Dirksen, (R-ILL) BTW, I actually personally heard him make the original quip. Having done so, I never even gave it a thought that many, including Wiki, apparently have a hard time considering it not to be apocryful.
I got the impression that McCain was joking when he threw out the number. But even so, if someone makes 5 million a year I say good for them and hold no animosity towards their wealth. They more than likely provide a valuable good or service and employ a few people to earn that money.
virgil, I’ve been to the Dirksen Congressional Center where they’ve explained their difficulty substantiating the Dirksen quote. “Explanation here.”:http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_emd_billionhere.htm
I like this quote by Dirksen:
bq. _A hundred million dollars, Mr. President, is only a “drop in the bucket.” I grew up at a time when on Sunday, if I had been a good boy for the whole week, my mother gave me a penny and said to me, “My son, don’t spend it all in one place.”_
McCain has taken the lead in RealCealPolitics polling averages in enough battleground states to theoretically win the electoral college for the first time I can remember.
All McCain needs to do to win this race is hold Ohio, Nevada, and Colorado.
None of the other states are really in doubt (although Missouri has so many shananigans its a little scary) and Obama is beating himself by trying for the walk off grand slam by carrying Virginia, etc instead of just winning the necessary states and the election.
Of the names Obama is linked with for VP- Hillary probably gives him enough votes in Colorado to swing the state and alone makes McCains life very, very difficult. If McCain cant win Colorado he has to win somewhere even less accomidating.
Biden does _nothing_ for him, and his namesake resolution to pull our troops out of Iraq in ’07 will be used to beat them both over the head.
If he thinks Bayh puts Indiana in play thats the kind of pie eyed dreaming that has already got him in trouble.
Colorado is the Florida of this election, either contender would be well advised to pick somebody from that state (even if state based VPs are out of vogue).
It’s a shame that nobody is stepping up to decry the widening gap between the modestly rich and the insanely rich in this country.
I agree! We need to lower taxes and remove anti-business legislation to make it easier for the modestly rich to become insanely rich.
PD Shaw: Perhaps he was only recycling the misquote because he liked it and subsequently decided to run with it, but my memory of the event of Dirksen’s quote (which, at my age, admittedly may be fallible) was during an interview with the local CBS TV outlet WCIA in Champaign, ILL. This was pre-video tape days–so don’t know if it would have been preserved or not.
You know, reading #13 just now as I was making my previous post, I was thinking of the fact that my wife and I sure as hell didn’t decide to go into
business together, risk our home, our child’s future, our health and sanity and work 70 hr work-weeks apiece just so we could earn 10% more than our highest paid employee. It’s the old risk/reward thing that the left never seems to get. We both worked like dogs and managed to retire at 50 with homes in New Orleans and Marina del Rey and I’ll be damned if I am going to apologize to anyone. We provided an ethical service and gave lots of people jobs that paid them the highest wages in our local industry and for our efforts we (and lots of others like us) are villafied as the bad guys?
You know, I more than played by the rules. Not only did I not commit any crimes or even act unethically, I managed to earn a PhD and also to volunteer for the USAF (ROTC) and get my ass shot off for my country on a daily basis in Vietnam. Along the way I also started a business, employed a bunch of people and in doing so ethically helped lots of other people in time of need–all,all so I can become the recipient of a ration of shit from parasites like Obama and his minions who would label me as the “evil” rich? (And trust me, if you listen to my CPA, we ain’t “rich.” Well to do, maybe, but I’m still wondering where that Gulfstream V is that I so “richly” deserve.) Oh, yeah, I ‘m really receptive to that class envy drivel the left puts out–I’m eatin’ that shit with a spoon….
PS: Did I forget to mention all the TAXES we paid
along the way? The IRS sure as hell didn’t.
PPS: My attitude is: “Homey don’t play that!”
BTW, it just occurred to me, were the pigs flying backwards?
bq. _”parasites like Obama and his minions who would label me as the “evil” rich”_ [#14]
Virgil,
I’m very glad to hear that you and your wife have done well by running an ethical and productive business. I very seriously doubt that Obama considers you “the evil rich”. I think you’ve been listening to scare propaganda from Sean or Rush.
Certainly you can find someone on the Left who will say something like that, but I can certainly find someone on the Right (often Ann Coulter) who will say something equally boneheaded on the other side.
I doubt that my net worth matches yours, but we’ve done just fine, thank you. And I feel a real responsibility to pay my share, and more, of what it takes to support this country. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, not only that the same percentage of my earnings is more than many other people’s, but that my taxes should even be a higher percentage than theirs. It shouldn’t be confiscatory, but we’re a long way from there, no matter what the “Cut Taxes at All Costs!” guys say.
How do you suppose the Interstate Highway System or the Internet got built? Think those would have been created by private enterprise? Not a chance. Think we (the public) made back our investment? How about the Human Genome Project? The returns aren’t in on that one yet, but I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that this one is going to pay off in years and decades of lifespan, which is a currency that has dollars and euros totally beat.
Beard: It was the taxes of the profitable throw-off of private enterprise that allowed the government to fund the Interstate system in the first place. BTW, I am old enough to remember a time before the interstates, so I am hardly one to say I am unappreciative of government programs per say. But I abhor stupidity, and raising marginal tax rates brings in _less_, not more tax dollars to the Federal coffers–which is why JFK lowered them as much as he did. Every single time marginal rates have been lowered, government revenues have risen. Ask the luxury boat-builder blue-collar tradesmen who lost their jobs in New England when George Mitchell’s “luxury” tax went into effect how much they enjoyed soaking the rich. Money is fungible–the boat buyers took their business to the Bahamas….Really showed those rich guys, right?
Our corporate tax rates are the second highest in the world. What does the rest of the world know that we don’t? There are several trillion dollars now overseas that would return to the US to be taxed with lower tax rates. One of the reasons Anheuser Busch was sold to a Belgium firm was that it was tough to be competitive against firms with lower corporate tax rates. It would be nice if Obama knew anything about basic economics or had ever had to meet a payroll–but no such luck.
virgil:
Even National Review and other conservative cheerleader rags have started backing off of this canard. It has not proven true unless the numbers are cooked, i.e., measuring from the trough of one business cycle to the peak of the next and claiming that that cycle represented gains from the most recent tax cut, however recent it was, with “lag” accounting for the time in between the tax cut and the purported stimulus.
It is only capital gains tax cuts that have been shown to increase revenues. Not all taxes are created equal. Income tax cuts, even with the “dynamic accounting” fiscal conservatives want the government to use to measure the economic response to new incentives, have only been partially mitigated by increased revenues. I think the figure I saw was something on the order of 33%, meaning that a $900 billion tax cut resulted in decreased revenues of approximately $600 billion, ceteris paribus.
Virgil says:
“Our corporate tax rates are the second highest in the world. ”
On a pure percentage basis that may be true. But in reality, in actual amount of taxes paid, it’s way way off.
For instance, what was your VAT tax liability last year?
_”On a pure percentage basis that may be true. But in reality, in actual amount of taxes paid, it’s way way off.”_
Sounds like a convincing argument that soaking the most wealthy with higher tax rates is ineffective, they have the resources to minimize their tax liability.
From#22: Yes, which is _exactly_ why the call for a very low flat tax or the junking of the income tax and conversion to a national sales tax (the “Fair Tax” Plan) is so appealing. It brings back into play all sorts of dollars currently un-taxed and, (1) gets the Govt. out of everybody’s hip pocket, and, (2) lets people make decisions on what’s best for themselves economically/financially-wise, rather than on the basis of what’s best tax-wise.
$5M is exactly the cutoff needed to be in the top 1% of household net worth in the US.
So if you think the top 1% are rich, the number is correct.
To be in the top 10%, a net worth of $900,000 is needed. If you think the top 10% are rich, that is your number. If you think the top 10% are merely upper middle class, then $900,000 is not rich.
But, in summary :
$400,000 = 80th percentile
$900,000 = 90th percentile
$5,000,000 = 99th percentile
$30,000,000 = 99.9th percentile
So decide your percentile, and then refer to what the cutoff is.
Two related thoughts:
How rich must you be to forget how many houses you own?
Big Blunder. The next three days will be John McCain, forgetful elitist.
Whoops. I’ll try that again.
Two related thoughts:
Do you count as only rich, or insanely rich, if you can’t say, off the top of your head, how many houses you and your wife own? Do you only count as “obscenely rich” if your answer is, ala Trump, “Hell, so many I’ve lost count!”
and re: net worth, and a related thought:
A financial planner I know argues, with some weight, that to have a meaningful picture of someone’s relative “richness” (“wealthy-ness?”) you have to treat the equity value of the house where they live differently than other wealth.
His pitch: a guy who made a decent living as an auto worker, or an aerospace worker, on through the 70’s, and maybe into the 80’s, and managed to buy, and fully pay for, a nice middle class tract home, has a net worth, on paper, which could vary +- $1,000,000, depending solely on whether he did it in Santa Monica
California (or Palo Alto!), or Cleveland, Ohio. One of ’em is nevertheless unlikely to feel a whole lot more “millionaire-like” than the other. My house, which I bought maybe 10-11 years ago, in a “hot” neighborhood in LA was, at the peak of the market, ostensibly worth close to three times what I paid for it, but unless I sell my house, pay the tax on the gain, and move to Cleveland, I can’t ever realize that “wealth”.
If I refinance, I don’t have anything more on the day after I refinance than I did the day before: if I take out $100,000 in cash, I’ve got $100,000 in cash, and a $100,000 liability: net change: zero. While many Southern Californians apparently thought otherwise, it ain’t free money.
“How rich must you be to forget how many houses you own?”
John McCain owns zero houses. They are owned by his wife, who files separate tax returns.
Obama, on the other hand, did a shady deal with a convicted felon, Rezko.
McCain clearly is the more ethical candidate.
GK, Arizona is a community-property state. I suppose it’s possible that Cindy has insured that these houses are bought only as her separate property, but that strikes me as unusual. Maybe if she is worried about McCain taking up with a younger woman.
GK, by your logic, Cindy also owns McCain’s seat in Congress, since her family bankrolled his first election effort.
“Link”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Hensley_McCain
Money quote:
Her father’s business and political contacts helped gain her husband a foothold into Arizona politics; she campaigned with her husband door-to-door during his successful first bid for U.S. Congress in 1982,with her wealth from an expired trust from her parents providing significant loans to the campaign and helping it survive a period of early debt.
As far as Rezko goes, I have yet to see any evidence of malfeasance from Obama that even comes close to approaching the role McCain had as a card-carrying member of the Keating Five.
In April 1986, she and her father invested $359,100 in a shopping center project with Phoenix banker Charles Keating. This, combined with her role as a bookkeeper who later had difficulty finding receipts for family trips on Keating’s jet, caused complications for her husband during the Keating Five scandal, when he was being examined for his role regarding oversight of Keating’s bank.
Honestly, I’d hate to be on the side of having to defend this spoiled brat lowlife loser of a man.
Does this qualify as “evidence of malfeasance”:http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/07/let-me-put-it-in-pictures-for-our.html from Obama and Rezko?
Well, #31, I will say that it definitely provides evidence of possible malfeasance by Rezko. The connection to Obama is tenuous at best, although I am not happy so far with what I know of their association. If proof of Obama’s malfeasance lies in the strength or nature of this association, it will be difficult to establish conclusively. So far, it seems a bit rotten but then again name a politician for whom a similar linkage cannot be established?
bq. _$5M is exactly the cutoff needed to be in the top 1% of household net worth in the US._ [GK, #24]
But John McCain was talking _annual income_, not net worth. If you have $5M annual income, I suspect that puts you a fair bit higher on the pyramid than just the top 1%.
Cindy does have that kind of money, and more. John doesn’t, but he sure likes the lifestyle and the benefits. Cindy doesn’t like to talk about her life (which I can certainly sympathize with, but my spouse isn’t running for President), and she has only been willing to release the first two pages of her 2006 tax return, saying it’s none of our business. (Cindy made sure John signed a prenup, too, and you can bet that’s none of our business either.)
If we end up with a McCain presidency, you think she might be pretty influential? First Ladies these days have pretty serious opinions, but neither Laura B (former librarian) nor Hillary C (former attorney) had the kind of economic interests, and clout, that Cindy McCain has.
Don’t you think, as citizens, we have not only a right, but a responsibility, to look pretty seriously into Cindy McCain and her situation?
“GK, Arizona is a community-property state.”
They have a pre-nup. You know this, but are hoping that others don’t, so that your hypocrisy gets a pass.
“Don’t you think, as citizens, we have not only a right, but a responsibility, to look pretty seriously into Cindy McCain and her situation?”
Of course. Just don’t be a hypocrite about it. Cindy McCain has not even a tenth of the money that Teresa Heinz Kerry had.
Cindy McCain is a pauper compared to Al Gore’s personal pocket-lining in the last 7 years ($300M+ and counting).
In fact, the more the Democrats bring visibility to Cindy, the more it hurts Democrats.
Sure, emphasize the fact that John McCain married a much younger, very pretty, and wealthy woman. John immediately becomes someone all normal, heterosexual men in America would admire.
Bring more visibility to Cindy, and you will see that one of their kids actually SERVES in Iraq, and that another is an adopted Bangladeshi orphan.
By all means, make the American people compare Cindy McCain to Michelle Obama. Let’s see how that works out.
The Keating Five were the Keating Three. John Glenn and John McCain were dragged into it to cover the trough-feeding of three top Senate liberals.
But by all means, let’s focus on the ethical and financial backgrounds of the presidential candidates. In ever more minute detail.
Virgil [#19,23],
As others have pointed out, the positions you favor are not quite as obvious as you seem to think they are. And the people who oppose them are not simply out to “soak the rich”.
I, for one, am perfectly happy to reward work and enterprise. You told us that you and your wife built a nice fortune, and I wish you well for that accomplishment. However, you and I are among the most blessed in this country, and it’s only right that we bear a significant share of the load. None of this “flat tax” nonsense: you and I have more, so we should pay more.
You certainly understand the distinction in the tax code between “earned” and “unearned” income. The proposals you favor reduce taxes on “unearned” income, and shift the burden to “earned” income. Is this what we really should be doing? Shouldn’t we be rewarding work and enterprise, not Paris Hilton?
Let’s imagine that you have a shiftless (but cute and funny) grand-daughter, much like Paris, who is really enjoying the perks of Granddad’s successful enterprise. I can imagine cutting _you_ a little slack, because of all you’ve done, but I don’t see any argument in favor of cutting _her_ taxes, once you pass on to your reward.
Even if your fondest desire is to spoil her rotten. It’s your money, and that’s what you want to do with it.
It’s pretty reasonable for the government to provide tax breaks to encourage charitable giving, but I can’t see tax breaks to encourage you to spoil your grand-daughter rotten.
Even with estate taxes, she’ll get a sizeable chunk. If she’s got brains and grit, she can build on this head start, and make an even bigger fortune for herself. If she doesn’t, she’ll blow it all. But we don’t have to give her a tax break.
GK, the fact that the McCain’s have a pre-nup is interesting, but it doesn’t show conclusively who owns the property. If his Senate salary is used to purchase property, he’s a joint owner in a CP state no matter how they record the deed. If they document that the property comes from conversion of her pre-marital assets, then I don’t believe (IANAL) a pre-nup is even required to maintain her undivided interest.
I think, though, you are missing the devastating political point. Even assuming McCain doesn’t know how many homes his wife holds solely as investments, he is surely aware how many homes his family regularly occupies. The answer is apparently north of four, which does not strike me as a bonding experience with the average American voter.
bq. But by all means, let’s focus on the ethical and financial backgrounds of the presidential candidates. In ever more minute detail.
I am not opposed to this. But I would certainly think twice about advocating such scrutiny if I were a McCain supporter. I’m not sure there’s enough time between now and the election to fully cover his record.
Let me speak briefly as a Chicagoan. Obama very likely has much more to hide if you want to go down this road. I _dont_ think its because he is personally corrupt (at least any more than we expect from a politician), but the ugly truth is you dont make it through Chicago, much less to the top, without having certain friends and making certain accomodations for them. If we’re playing the associations game, Obama in a decade has likely made more shady connections in Cook County than McCain did with a lifetime in DC.
Thats the reason the current fit Obama’s supporters are displaying by going after McCains POW stories and personal finances/connections I read as a sign of panic (unwarranted panic at this stage). McCain has evened up in the polls and Obama is bringing up issues that _McCain_ would love to hear talked about. Obama cant win if people are thinking about McCain in a tiger cage or Obama at a cocktail party smoking stogies with Rezko and Aires.
Mark, you would have thought John Kerry would love to have people thinking about his Silver Star and Purple Hearts, but it didn’t work out that way, did it?
Mark, I’m sure we all appreciate the insight into “Chicago Politics”, but that doesn’t make Obama’s political history any more or less questionable than McCains. You think Arizona politics are squeaky clean? That’s where Keating set up business. And as Vista points out above, McCain’s rise has been fueled by wealthy connections, primarily from his wife’s family fortune. This is exactly the kind of association that the Rightwing attack dogs pounced on 4 years ago for Kerry.
“Link to a nice rundown of this.”: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/22/gigolo/index.html
I do not honestly see how anyone can proclaim that Obama’s “associations” in Chicago are more “shady” than McCain’s, who can be linked to both Charles Keating and Jack Abramoff. Let’s really examine what kind of “accommodations” Senator McCain has made for these and other associates throughout his career before claiming preemptive victory on this issue, shall we?
Don’t you see the advantages of the Obama candidacy in this situation? His thin record, while presenting a potential liability for those who wish to question his experience, provides precious little in the way of a clear track record to use against him in smear campaigns. Republicans run the danger of appearing frivolous or ridiculous or dishonest (as we’ve already seen) when attacking him for his “celebrity” and other seemingly trivial (or too hard to untangle) accusations in the face of so many other important national and international issues.
The only “panic” I see is from McCain, who responds to every perceived threat as if it were WWIII or by breaking out the POW card. His decision to run such a low-road campaign can be interpreted to mean he’d rather have a mud fight than a battle of ideas. If there is any worry at all from Obama and his supporters, I would say it is that the dirty negative politics of the McCain campaign will work if they go unanswered. But I think, thankfully from my perspective, that we are past that now. It’s depressing to me that we live in a country where this is the kind of political discourse that we get, and I do blame the media for this to a large degree. Obama has repeatedly called for a campaign on issues, but McCain has obviously chosen a different path, the one traveled by Bush/Cheney in both 2000 and 2004.
_”Mark, you would have thought John Kerry would love to have people thinking about his Silver Star and Purple Hearts, but it didn’t work out that way, did it?”_
Not really, because you cant seperate that from the man standing next to Jane Fonda bashing our troops and government. It reinforced the perception that he ran hot and cold on things (for it before against it). All talking about McCains service reinforces is his sacrifice and Obamas inexperience. Now if that could somehow be altered, i agree, it could turn into a negative. But I don’t see how.
_”I do not honestly see how anyone can proclaim that Obama’s “associations” in Chicago are more “shady” than McCain’s,”_
Oook, but don’t say you havent been warned. McCain has run for president twice and been in the public spotlight for decades. The Keating business is not only old news, he was exonerated by investigating commitees. Obama’s stuff has never been looked at.
No new bomb shell is likely to come out of the Keating scandal, Obama on the other hand is tap dancin on land mines. Novelty has its penalties.
So you think we all know everything there is to know about McCain and Jack Abramoff? Or how many lobbyists are part of his campaign and how his positions are in synch with their clients? Or his receipt of a large campaign contribution from the Hess family shortly after he began calling for US offshore drilling?
How many people really know about the circumstances of his marital infidelity and divorce?
The idea that we know all there is to know about McCain is a false meme. I’d say that even those things that we think we know about him, we don’t really, meaning that they could certainly stand to be re-visited. The “public spotlight” that has been on McCain is one of a media celebrity on the red carpet, not of a presidential contender.
Also, how many people know about Vicky Iseman?
Or that he’s a cappuccino-sipping conservative who travels in a 9-vehicle motorcade just to get a cup?
McCain, who huddled with advisors at his desert compound in Sedona, Ariz., said nothing in public. A nine-car motorcade took him to a nearby Starbucks early in the morning, where he ordered a large cappuccino. McCain otherwise avoided reporters.
“Link.”:http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-campaign22-2008aug22,0,1254408.story
I don’t think the difference between conservatives’ treatment of Kerry’s medals vs McCain’s medals is about Jane Fonda. It’s about winning.
Glenn Greenwald has done the archaeology to discover what the Conservative Echo Chamber thought about men who second-married into extreme wealth—when it was Kerry. Words like ‘gigolo’ were employed.
Pre-refutation: Noun, Verb, POW.
_I think, though, you are missing the devastating political point. Even assuming McCain doesn’t know how many homes his wife holds solely as investments, he is surely aware how many homes his family regularly occupies. The answer is apparently north of four, which does not strike me as a bonding experience with the average American voter._
I think the interesting question would be how many homes does the average U.S. Senator have. I know that Dick Durbin, has 2-4. Certainly he has residences in Springfield and Chicago. He resides in a house in the DC area with Chuck Schumer (don’t know ownership). And I would be surprised if he didn’t own a vacation home somewhere. And Durbin is probably below average in terms of personal wealth in the Senate.
I also think it quite possible that McCain owns zero properties. There is property held by trust, by Cindy’s corporation, and by her children. There is property in Virginia, not a community property state, and in California where its easier to avoid the presumption of community property by taking separate title.
PD, I think you’re missing the way the shoe is on the other foot. The House media narrative is set.
In some ways it may be unfair to McCain in the most literal sense, although I think the most accurate answer to the question would have been based on the number of homes which the McCain immediate family occupies. For the record, the Obamas own one home. I guess he must rent in DC.
In another way, though, the House narrative is exactly what McCain deserves. His latest Obama is a Celebrity ad says (at least, according to Daily Kos), “Celebrities don’t have to worry about family budgets. But we sure do.”
We, white man?
BTW, Dick Durbin’s financial disclosure form says he owns one residence plus one condo in Chicago (page 9 of link), both of which are mortgaged (p. 12).
A got good money that says this meme has no legs, outside of the leftist blogs anyway. Like it or not, trying to make out the McCains to be the Howells is even more improbable than Edwards running as a populist. First impressions are powerful and McCain just doesnt come off as elite. Good lord GW sold himself as a Texas rancher and people bought into it.
My guess is that this meme will have legs, but I might be wrong. After all, Mark is correct, W sold himself as a Texas rancher with the fake ranch bought just for the election, and indeed people bought into it. However that folly had the MSM’s complicity: they were as charmed with GWB as they are with McCain. Don’t know why. There are two differences here: first, that in a turnaround, the media seem to be going with the coarse explanation leaving McCain to stumble around in legalisms like his pre-nup. (Compare the feeding frenzy on Gore’s on “no controlling legal authority”.) Second, as I alluded to and Hilzoy makes explicit in her debut at the Washington Monthly, this ruins the Obama as out-of-touch celebrity theme behind the current McCain campaign.
I doubt if Obama’s mom bought arugala with her food stamps.
mmm…. I’ve got a pre-nup (actually two, but whataya expect, I’m a family law lawyer married to another family law lawyer) and _I_ would have no difficulty stating, without equivocation, or asking my staff, (a) how many houses I own and (b) how many houses my wife (and brilliant business partner) owns.
r gould-saltman
Lazarus,
As one of the conservative Vietnam vets who fought against Kerry in 2004, I know the difference between his medals and McCain’s: courage, sacrifice and patriotism.
Kerry never showed either courage or sacrifice, and his post-war behavior was not only unpatriotic, it was marginally to completely treasonous (oh, and he was still a Naval Reserve officer during that time – something the MSM helped him hide throughout the entire campaign).
Conservatives have policy issues with McCain, but we know a true war hero and a man of character when we see one.
As to the gigolo comments, etc… semi-touche. Of course, it’s a lot easier to view an unaccomplished elitist poseur as having the character of a gigolo than it is someone who sacrificed as much for his country as McCain.
Besides, haven’t you known any fighter pilots? What sort of wife would you expect?