Gregory Mankiw tries to bring Paul Krugman up to speed on the incidence of taxation, arguing that looking at Mitt Romney's low capital gains rate and ignoring any imputed corporate taxes paid by his underlyig investments is not accurate. Regrettably, Mankiw is violating an old, established rule of blogging - don't come between a man and his tirade. Krugman is going to beat to death the horse he rode in on, and delivers howlers like this in the process:
If capital gains and other investment income didn’t receive special treatment, we’d be getting substantially more revenue.
Do tell. In most cases the decision to incur a capital gains tax is entirely voluntary and is based on the decision to hold or sell an appreciated asset. The CBO tackled this in a 2002 paper, noting that higher capital gains rates seemed to reduce the realization of capital gains, particularly in the short ru (so who's Laffing now?):
The sensitivity of realizations to gains tax rates raises the possibility that a cut in the rate could so increase realizations that revenue from capital gains taxes might rise as a consequence. Rising gains receipts in response to a rate cut are most likely to occur in the short run. Postponing or advancing realizations by a year is relatively easy compared with doing so over much longer periods. In addition, a stock of accumulated gains may be realized shortly after the rate is cut, but once that accumulation is "unlocked," the stock of accrued gains is smaller and realizations cannot continue at as fast a rate as they did initially. Thus, even though the responsiveness of realizations to a tax cut may not be enough to produce additional receipts over a long period, it may do so over a few years.
...In projecting realizations beyond the current year, CBO gradually moves them to their historical level relative to output, adjusted for the tax rate on gains. That latter adjustment recognizes that with lower tax rates--even in the long run--realizations should be higher relative to GDP than they would be with higher tax rates.
Of course, higher realizations at a lower rate may or may not increase long-term revenue.
They also admit that the evidence on both sides is murky:
Because of the other influences on realizations, the relationship between them and tax rates can be hard to detect and easy to confuse with other phenomena. For example, a number of observers have attributed the rapid rise in realizations in the late 1990s to the 1997 cut in capital gains tax rates. But the 45 percent increase in realizations in 1996--before the cut--exceeded the 40 percent and 25 percent increases in 1997 and 1998 that followed it. Careful studies have failed to agree on how responsive gains realizations are to changes in tax rates, with estimates of that responsiveness varying widely.
...Estimates of the revenue effects of capital gains tax changes by the Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and the Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis (OTA) also take into account how realizations respond to tax rates.(6) In 1990, when the Congress considered a 30 percent cut in the rate on gains, OTA estimated that such a cut would increase revenues by $12 billion over five years; the JCT projected a loss of $11 billion. If they had not factored in a realizations response, the two agencies would have estimated revenue costs of $80 billion and $100 billion, respectively--effectively illustrating how large a behavioral response is incorporated in capital gains revenue estimates.
What the CBO did not find was unambiguous evidence that "If capital gains... didn’t receive special treatment, we’d be getting substantially more revenue". It looks like Krugman's personal pipeline to the truth is wide open. And delivering Kool-aid.
SO TEN YEARS AGO... Surely we can do better than a ten year old CBO study? Hey, be my guest, and stop calling me Shirley. This table shows realized capital gains through 2008; the Tax Foundation tells me that the top long term gains rate was cut to 20% in 1997 and then to 15% in 2003. Realized gains under Bush eclipsed the Clinton boom years by 2006; my quick calculation (applying the relevant top rate to all realized gains each year) is that capital gains tax revenue rose from 2001 through 2007 even with the lower rate, although obviously that is conflated with an improving economy. 2008, of course, was memorably not an example of an improving economy.
Since the lower gains rate is (casually if not causally) associated with higher revenues I don't think that data will update the CBO effort and provide conclusive evidence that raising the capital gains rate brings in substantially more revenue.
PLEASE MIND MY DELICATELY POISED BLOOD PRESSURE: Somewhere a Krugman acoylyte is teeing up a response along the lines of "Krugman didn't say that raising the capital gains rate would raise revenue; he said that raising the capital gains rate and taxes on other investment income would raise revenue".
Uh huh. And if the Yakees could just sign me and Cliff Lee by next April they would be locks foe the World Series.
Hey Hit! What about Rocco, TC and Dave. They can email me and we can carpool.
Posted by: Jane | January 20, 2012 at 06:24 PM
"hundreds of thousands of lives..."
Posted by: Barbara | January 20, 2012 at 06:25 PM
Bankrupt Solyndra Caught Destroying Brand New Parts
"Green" company refuses to recycle!
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2012 at 06:31 PM
Hahahahaaahahaahahaaahhhaaa!
Just got my W2 today.
Now this is withholding,not what I'll eventually pay -- but my effective income tax rate?
11.00388030786163%
I'll release my full tax returns in April should I win the GOP nomination.
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Jane:
What about Rocco, TC and Dave. They can email me and we can carpool.
Indeed! I hope they felt included by my word "environs". I used that word intentionally. How many other three syllable words are that sofistickated?
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Gallup
Posted by: Clarice | January 20, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Did they rebuild the Army Navy Club before or after Iran-Contra? I remember they gave temporary membership to several of the other fancy clubs like the Cosmos, and my Dad didn't use it.
My father joined in 1952, and he no longer has to pay dues after 50 years of membership. I've eaten there all of twice--for lunch. And that was because my step-mother likes to show off how much of Dad's money she can spend.
We did get a lot of use out of ANCountryC for about 6 summers in the 70's, swimming with DoT's niece and nephews. And I have the skin damage to prove it. The idiot golf pro assigned homework the first day--copy the rule book--what an encouragement to play the game (which I couldn't anyway).
Posted by: Ralph L | January 20, 2012 at 06:48 PM
You all know the 'first rule of fight club' the corollary was what Tyler Durden, recommen ded, pick a fight ewith the press, whether Reagan, at the New Hampshire debate, or 'Poppy' with Rather, this from Rush's review,you can't be too congenial to the media and win,
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 06:49 PM
After his retirement Winston Churchill was cruising the Mediterranean on an Italian cruise liner.
Some Italian journalists asked why a former British Prime Minister should chose an Italian ship.
“There are three things I like about being on an Italian cruise ship” said Churchill.
“First their cuisine is unsurpassed."
"Second their service is superb."
"And then, in time of emergency, there is none of this nonsense about women and children first”.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 20, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Could we please have a candidate with Gingrich's sharp tongue, Romney's looks and private life, Santorum's commitment to life, and Paul's domestic policy?
Posted by: Ralph L | January 20, 2012 at 07:03 PM
DoT: What a fabulous quote! So timely, too.
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 07:04 PM
Ralph L: Sadly, that would be my former candidate: Garden Gnome.
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 07:06 PM
I saw that earlier today, too, Clarice (whispering: but I didn't want anyone to be offended if I posted it. grin.)
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 07:07 PM
The problem is that's Mitt's entourage includes those who once were quite understanding of the bigger realities, like Charlie Black and Castellanos, but like zoo
animals they've gotten domesticated.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577168683705018156.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1
We were informed in no uncertain terms, that
some of that caliber, cc, wasn't allowed to play in 'those reindeer games' yes the metaphor is intentional.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 07:10 PM
The Italian cruise ship ran sank because it was wopsided.
Oh, the stupid jokes of childhood.
It would be nice to have politicians who didn't need speechwriters to say something memorable.
Posted by: Ralph L | January 20, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Wisdom like this, has to be inported;
http://nation.foxnews.com/msnbc/2012/01/20/nbc-news-gingrichs-racebaiting-really-effective-gop-voters
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 07:14 PM
If only, Ralph, if only...
http://www.tommcclintock.com/media/audio/1115
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2012 at 07:16 PM
Of course that was the only obvious conclusion, sarc;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/01/20/biased-washpost-headline-justices-throw-out-texas-electoral-maps-favor
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 07:20 PM
daddy - One more detail on the ribbon seal: It was swimming in the Duwamish River, "a highly industrialized waterway that cuts through southern Seattle. In 2001, the EPA declared the last 5.5 miles of the river a Superfund site - an area contaminated with hazardous substances in need of cleanup"
That's a seal with strange tastes.
We've spent a lot of money cleaning it up but, except for salmon, the fish in the Duwamish are still considered too contaminated to eat.
(The Duwamish is the bottom part of the Green River. Yes, that Green River.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | January 20, 2012 at 07:20 PM
You know, after I had just about settled on Romney (due to private, behind the JOM scenes email), I have to go and read Mark Steyn at NRO. He makes me want to reach out and hug nameless Garden Gnome, all over again.
Oh, before bricks are hurled my way, he isn't any kinder to Newt, but he didn't condense it into a bumper sticker like above.
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 07:21 PM
c-cal:
Oh, before bricks are hurled my way
You're doing it wrong.
In the spirit of Jim Ryan:
"I'd like to apologize for ________. But I won't. Because that's how I roll."
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 07:48 PM
That Churchill quote at 6:59 is a gem, DoT.
Did you have that socked away because, given Italian idiosyncrasies eventually it had to come true, or did some site dig it up dopo l'incidente?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Some dude gathered up the latest faves and unfaves for Obama, Mitt and Newt:
Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29
CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32
PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34
Who is the Garden Gnome?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 20, 2012 at 07:55 PM
Chuck Norris endorses Newt.
Big deal?
Or Newt becomes the next Huckabee?
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 07:56 PM
Who is the Garden Gnome?
Originally, it was "any of them," then it became "none of the above." Now, I am thinking "can we have a do-over?"
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Could we please have a candidate with Gingrich's sharp tongue, Romney's looks and private life, Santorum's commitment to life, and Paul's domestic policy?
Can we add...someone with a sane wife or better yet a sane husband. wink,wink :)
Posted by: Ann | January 20, 2012 at 08:05 PM
I've been listening to some of Mitt's purported explanations of the tax return issue. I firmly believe he's suffered a blow to the head. Maybe a mild stroke. Perhaps just the effects of a concussion from high school football.
As to Newt, I'm such a fan of forgiveness, needing it extensively, but the electorate tends to feign a forgiving attitude and then strikes down even those who are a bit late producing their tax returns. With Newt there is just so much to forgive and such a pattern of needing it in so many ways.
If we're down to Rick, and I invite you all to view his high school picture and tell me you would not have punched him in the hall, we are so beyond doom.
I'm off to a high school basketball game to watch my daughter cheer. She's a cheerleader and, yes, it's her mom's side of the family, not The Kid.
Posted by: MarkO | January 20, 2012 at 08:05 PM
DoT:
Who is the Garden Gnome?
The I-don't-care-who-wins-because-they-all-suck-but-whoever-does-has-my-vote-against-Obama-candiate
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Ann!
My favoritest all time evah!
(check my avatar if you think I'm kidding)
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Oh, I kind of like Santorum's h.s. picture despite the Napoleon Dynamite vibe. Actually because of it. You got to like ole Napoleon after awhile.
I have a very deep defensive instinct regarding nerdy types.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 20, 2012 at 08:16 PM
I like the periwinkle hit. :) Or cerulean,but that gets me in trouble. :)
Always yours, A
Posted by: Ann | January 20, 2012 at 08:16 PM
--If we're down to Rick, and I invite you all to view his high school picture and tell me you would not have punched him in the hall, we are so beyond doom.--
That's some serious LOL, Mark.
However I'm more likely to have punched him in the arm or the nose than the hall.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2012 at 08:19 PM
Hi there, Ann, you cutey.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2012 at 08:20 PM
Anybody who has issues with taxation of investment income.
Linky.
Bookmark it as reference.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 20, 2012 at 08:22 PM
Hi Ann!
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 20, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Heh. I'm on hit and run jr's computer tonight,which had saved the periwinkle avatar from long ago comments. I wasn't even paying attention until I saw your post and realized my avatar was amiss on this machine.
xoxoxoxoxo
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Hey there Ann!
Posted by: Porchlight | January 20, 2012 at 08:24 PM
DoT,
Can you provide the cite for the Churchill quote you used above? I have most of his in my lexicon and never ran across that one.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 20, 2012 at 08:24 PM
I can't even see my avatar, anymore with the all the geegaws and whatchamacalits, very technical language.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 08:25 PM
Yours and Porch's are the same narciso.
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Yes I see it now,
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 08:29 PM
Hmmm....I've never seen the two of you together in person.
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 08:32 PM
I have the lamest avatar on JOM (no offense narciso, it's nice to share with you). I suppose I could just use another email address so as to have a different one.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 20, 2012 at 08:32 PM
Great article by Ed Driscoll at PJM on sociopaths like my dear lovely bro and OL's sis.
Posted by: Ignatz | January 20, 2012 at 08:33 PM
Broward County and the county that Austin sits in, are not that dissimilar.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 08:36 PM
Have to catch up on the thread, left to eat dinner, but it looks like Romney hasn't committed to either the NBC or CNN debates set for Florida.
Howdy, Ann!
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 08:37 PM
On the one hand I'm glad that's he's decided
'the beatings will not improve morale' on the other hand, he should have figured that a dozen debates ago.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 08:47 PM
((Can you provide the cite for the Churchill quote you used above?))
I thought it was a joke ... a parody of something Churchill would not have said in a million years
Posted by: Chubby | January 20, 2012 at 08:49 PM
DoT, I love that quote. Ann, how nice to see you, beautiful!
Posted by: Clarice | January 20, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Hi, Everyone.
It is freezing in ahia tonight. We have a roaring fire going. Sitting here reading all the doom and gloom.
Don't forget who we are still running against. They haven't changed. They have gotten worse.
Posted by: Ann | January 20, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Go MarkO's daughter!!!
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 08:57 PM
Wow, Ann! That photo really captures both of their personalities sharply, doesn't it. They simply cannot disguise who they truly are.
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 08:58 PM
((it looks like Romney hasn't committed to either the NBC or CNN debates set for Florida))
I'm starting to find the debates boring .. I haven't tuned in to the last two. They are not real debates, just soundbite vs. soundbite ... fast food instead of a thick juicy steak with mashed potatoes and gravy. The candidates aren't given time to seriously get into it. If Newt ends up being the candidate I hope he follows through on his idea of challenging Obama to a series of debates in the Lincoln-Douglas style.
Posted by: Chubby | January 20, 2012 at 09:00 PM
Hey, I hear your name is Ann, well I am your biggest fan. Want a light? Oh, sorry, didn't know you smoked. Would you like a drink? No? Then how about we jump on that horse of your's and just right the hell out of here?
Did I just hear an Okay?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 20, 2012 at 09:03 PM
Sitting here reading all the doom and gloom.
The political news is just terrible. I've got a FB friend who is a teacher that just posted a chart from the Party For Socialism and Liberation...a Marxist/Leninist group.
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2012 at 09:03 PM
Where did you find that pic, Ann, Obama displays that self satisfied mug, and she
just has to grimace at the crowd.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 09:04 PM
Yikes, Janet, not in Arlington, I hope.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 09:06 PM
I am having a hard time watching the Humana Challenge with Clinton all over the place. I can not believe they would accept this patetntly obvious politcal sponsorship. Very disappointing.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 20, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Chubby:
I hope he follows through on his idea of challenging Obama to a series of debates in the Lincoln-Douglas style.
Grrrr. Let's get this right.
Remember 2008? McCain suggested townhalls -- the least scripted,most interactive debate style available.
You know who proposed Lincoln-Douglas style debates?
Obama.
Why?
From Wiki:
Obama would have nothing to fear from that format,no matter the GOP candidate. It's just one long speech after another.
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 09:12 PM
Duke and Duke does earn it's dollar
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/20/cartoon-at-cincinnati-dems-website-gop-protecting-americas-voting-whites/#comments
I think Kramer and the Human fund would fare better, JiB.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 09:15 PM
I was just going thru my photobucket. So many to pick from:

Posted by: Ann | January 20, 2012 at 09:15 PM
No, he teaches down in Harlingen, TX. I think at a community college. Reconnected at my reunion.
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2012 at 09:15 PM
It's just one long speech after another.
ZZZZzzzzz. A snore fest, huh?
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 09:16 PM
Heh, Ann. I just don't know where folks come up with that "angry black woman" image of her, do you?
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 09:17 PM
No--we need Oxford style debates--real debates and if someone like Gingrich wins the nomination you can bet that Obama will not participate even if the entire media plants its ass on the scales in his favor.
Posted by: Clarice | January 20, 2012 at 09:17 PM
Clarice,
I am coughing up my guts thinking about a Cambridge style debate between Obama and Gingrich. Could we get the rights to that and the Orville Redenbacker concession at the same time?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 20, 2012 at 09:23 PM
That might exceed the yearly transfat allowance, Jib;
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 09:24 PM
This was always my favorite -
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2012 at 09:25 PM
Clarice:
you can bet that Obama will not participate even if the entire media plants its ass on the scales in his favor.
Say what you will about "My friends" McCain and the campaign he ran.
He desperately wanted to do a series of townhalls with Obama throughout the fall. Challenged him on a number of occasions.
Obama said, no thanks and the media looked the other way.
So we had three traditional debates . . . moderated by the likes of Obama hagiographer Gwen Ifill.
Let Obama set the terms of the debates this time (Lincoln-Douglas ... I'd love to do that format!) and we'll get to later, rinse and repeat.
Of course,he's the president with the bully pulpit and he's got the MSM on his side -- so to think that whoever the GOP candidate is can use the debates to gain some gargantuan advantage is at best wishful thinking.
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 09:27 PM
((Grrrr. Let's get this right.))
Are you citing the Wiki entry for the "Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858"? The format has changed over the years. This is what Wiki has to say under the topic "Lincoln–Douglas debate":
((Lincoln–Douglas debate (commonly abbreviated as LD Debate, or simply LD) is sometimes also called values debate because it traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy. It is a type of American high school one-on-one debate practiced in National Forensic League competitions, and widely used in related debate leagues such as the National Catholic Forensic League, National Educational Debate Association, the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association, the Texas UIL, and their affiliated regional organizations. The vast majority of tournaments use the current NFL resolution. The Lincoln-Douglas Debate format is named for the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas Debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, because their debates focused on slavery and the morals, values, and logic behind it....
...LD debate follows the basic time schedule 6-3-7-3-4-6-3. Each debater gets thirteen minutes of speaking time, and rounds take approximately 40 minutes. Each debater receives three to five minutes of preparation time (prep time) to use between speeches however they like. While the amount of prep time is at the tournament's discretion, the NFL advocated three minutes until midway through the 2006-2007 season, when it decided on four. Some tournaments, most notably the TOC, choose to give debaters 5 minutes. Some tournaments also allow the use of flex prep, which melds the cross-examination time and prep time together to create a 6-8 minute block that can be used for questions and/or prep.))
LUN
Posted by: Chubby | January 20, 2012 at 09:31 PM
Clarice,
I agree. There is no way Obama is debating Gingrich. Gingrich can follow him every day, to every state and Obama will not debate him. N.E.V.E.R.
Why should he. Gingrich is a racist and wants to make black children janitors. That is what Whoopi keeps telling us anyways.
Posted by: Ann | January 20, 2012 at 09:33 PM
gack, Janet. Where is narciso and his famous goggles when we need them?
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 09:33 PM
there's quite a difference between the 13 minute speech of today and the 90 minute speeches of 1858. But there's also quite a difference between a thirteen minute speech and a 2 minute soundbite.
Posted by: Chubby | January 20, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Chubby:
Are you citing the Wiki entry for the "Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858"?
Yes.
Your wiki starts with this:
Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking "Lincoln-Douglas" in a presidential campaign refers to Abraham Lincoln vs Stephen Douglas.
Maybe the more modern understanding is this highschool debate format.
Don't tell me I'm that old and out of touch! Yike.
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 09:40 PM
Don't forget who we are still running against. They haven't changed. They have gotten worse.
Tammy Bruce earlier in the week was commenting about how in-your-face Mooch's birthday
grazingdinner was with no effort to hide conspicuous consumption of $81 entrees and C-note appetizers. With automatic access to White House chefs they could've been even more ostentatious but shielded from a public that's suffered from every ignorant policy the dumb bastard has imposed on them.I don't think there've ever been a more low class couple of grifters in any national office.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Huckabee is asking about Obama's student loans,
and Instapundit is asking about Obama's past girlfriends.
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2012 at 09:42 PM
Dear God, Worf is the First Tranny.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2012 at 09:43 PM
centralcal:
Where is narciso and his famous goggles when we need them?
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Over at American Thinker today, John Ziegler wrote a piece:
The Myth of Newt the Great Debater
He is not a Newt fan, so there is that, but he also makes some very valid points about what any debate with Obama will actually entail and it isn't pretty.
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Having noted that Obama will not debate a good debater, I do think that Romney's slow on the uptake in the debates and in response to reporters generally is NOT a great attribute in a candidate for what promises to be a very dirty election.
Posted by: Clarice | January 20, 2012 at 09:45 PM
The Churchill "quote" came in over the transom via e-mail, and I considered it too good to check.
Who is Worf?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 20, 2012 at 09:47 PM
I'm sorry Ziegler has become a pest and a half, exceeding the Ericson hack threshhold, which is not such an easy feat.
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 09:49 PM
Hah! I emailed Instapundit a link to that Jack Cashill Am. Thinker article & he put up a link! Now maybe 283 other people did too, but I'm gonna take credit!
"In Dreams, in fact, the only lover Obama talks about is the mystery woman in New York. Although he speaks of her only briefly and in retrospect, he does so vividly and lovingly. "She was white," he tells Auma. "She had dark hair, and specks of green in her eyes. Her voice sounded like a wind chime." This is no casual relationship. "We saw each other for almost a year. On the weekends, mostly. Sometimes in her apartment, sometimes in mine.""
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2012 at 09:50 PM
Ann, those photos in a slideshow to the tune of "cult of personality" would be awesome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzdUy90vTuk
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2012 at 09:52 PM
Who is Worf?
Moochelle
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2012 at 09:53 PM
Janet mentions "windchimes" and sends the TK bat-signal.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2012 at 09:54 PM
Janet, you are really about to take over the world. *air kiss, air kiss*
Posted by: Clarice | January 20, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Amazing, isn't it CH?
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Janet,
Consider the source. I'm thinking butch dominatrix with a riding crop and spurs. Like his wife.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 20, 2012 at 09:59 PM
WE can say, 'we knew her when' before she hit the big time,
Posted by: narciso | January 20, 2012 at 09:59 PM
Drudge header (Neilsen report
5 MILLION WATCH CNN DEBATE [6.2 MILLION MTV 'JERSEY SHORE', 18 MILLION 'AMERICAN IDOL']...
And there you are-
Posted by: Clarice | January 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Go Janet! Go Janet! GO JANET!
("shaking my pom-poms" as the official JOM cheerleader.)
Posted by: centralcal | January 20, 2012 at 10:01 PM
My evening plans...
http://www.sdgirlscouts.org/cko
Order sheets forthcoming.
;-)
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2012 at 10:02 PM
to the tune of "cult of personality"
You mean like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d5n1IoqWFw&feature=related
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2012 at 10:02 PM
And there you are-
Exactly. We'd be fine if everyone read JOM. The screaming headlines & TV soundbites still have so much power over Americans that aren't news junkies.
Posted by: Janet | January 20, 2012 at 10:04 PM
Amazing, isn't it CH?
There are no coincidences in life; just weird ass shit.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 20, 2012 at 10:04 PM
The only thing I regret more than anything in our form of government, in comparison to the UK's Parliamentary form, is that we have no comparable "Question Time".
And this is Lady Thatcher's last "Time".
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 20, 2012 at 10:08 PM
That. Is. EXACTLY what I ment!
Posted by: Threadkiller | January 20, 2012 at 10:08 PM
No,no! Don't buy Girl Scout cookies from TK Junioress.
Buy from princess hit and run! She's natural born!!!!!! (believe whatever you want from TK heretofore -- but you know in your heart he would have led with that had it been true!)
(and don't let cookiemom cathyf try and horn in on the action)
Posted by: hit and run | January 20, 2012 at 10:08 PM
I saw that earlier today, too, Clarice (whispering: but I didn't want anyone to be offended if I posted it. grin.)
Why would anyone be offended at poll results? I can see some being offended, possibly, by certain poll questions, but the results are just numbers.
I suppose some who live perpetually in denial might get upset.
I don't put much stake in a single poll, but they are useful to spot trends or changes. But then I'm far more into campaign strategies and how they get their message out.
Posted by: Sara | January 20, 2012 at 10:08 PM