Democracy for Vancouver

From TPM comes the latest Reuters/Zogby Poll, showing McCain within reach of the brass ring:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain runs even with Democratic rival Barack Obama and narrowly leads Hillary Clinton in potential match-ups in November, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Wednesday.

McCain was seen as a better steward of the economy than either Democrat despite their repeated criticism of his economic credentials. He led Obama by 3 points and Clinton by 5 points on the question of who would best manage the economy.
…
Obama pulled into a statistical tie with McCain at 45 percent after trailing him by 6 points last month. Clinton trails McCain by 5 points, 46 percent to 41 percent, gaining slightly from an 8-point deficit last month.

This shit between Obama and Clinton has to stop after Pennsylvania. If she loses PA, or even wins by a slight margin, I want to hear from Senator Clinton how, exactly, she will work to repair the damage she’s doing to the party and our prospects for November whether or not she plans to stay in the race. If she wins big enough to make it a real race to the convention (which seems all but impossible now), I hope to hell she will tone down the slurs to staunch the hemorrhaging.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, about McCain vs. Dem1 or Dem2 on the economy: What, exactly, has John McCain said about the economy besides “MORE TAX CUTS FOR CORPORATIONS! (and just enough for you to keep you dumb and happy)”? His economic proposal didn’t come out until last night, and it’s not really on point given our current economic nadir:

[A] major component of his economic plan — like those of Presidents Bush and Reagan — centered on tax cuts. Besides making the Bush income tax cuts permanent and reducing corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, Mr. McCain called for eliminating the alternative minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000 from $3,500, among other recommendations. He also proposed giving taxpayers the option of filing a simpler, shorter tax form each year than is available now.
…
The McCain campaign put the cost of his tax cuts at roughly $200 billion a year, but its estimate did not include the cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, which would more than double that figure.

The campaign said it would offset the lost $200 billion by eliminating from the federal budget earmarked pork-barrel projects; putting a one-year freeze on discretionary spending in most federal agencies, later eliminating wasteful programs; broadening the tax base by eliminating loopholes; and spurring economic growth. But its estimate of how much could be saved with such measures was far higher than those of some other independent budget analysts.

A few questions for you, flyboy:

1) Since the budget process starts in the House of Representatives, which is elected every two years so that Congressmen and women are out whoring 24/7 all year every year, how can the president - who’s not in the House - effect porkbarrel spending or eliminate loopholes?

2) When you say you want to freeze discretionary spending, do you mean you’re going to end the occupation of Iraq, cut the Pentagon’s Budget and rein in the Department of Homeland Security?

3) Which wasteful programs do you want to eliminate? The ones that involve porkbarrel spending, or the ones that rely on discretionary spending? Or maybe the ones that spur economic growth? Or even just the oil company subsidies?

4) If you’re not going to bring the troops home and end the occupation of Iraq, not to mention cut spending on the Pentagon, how are you going to spur economic growth if the U.S. itself is sucking all the liquidity out of the markets with its black hole of debt?

5) Finally, how are you going to offset the lost revenue of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS A YEAR if you succeed in making Bush’s ruinous tax cuts permanent?

Oh, that’s right - you don’t know much about economics, do you?

h/t to tristero for the link.

[emphasis added, obviously.]