This morning, Margaret Carlson weighs in on the Philadelphia Fiasco. After recounting the charges and countercharges, she made this important observation:

Karl Rove was the big winner. His Politics About Nothing lives on. If you aren’t going to help the working man, tell him that the other condescending guy wants to take away his gun. Republicans show respect for all the things not under siege, his guns, his religion, his marriage, his patriotism, and hope no one homes in on jobs, foreclosures or health care.

I’ve never thought of Maggie Carlson as the brightest bulb in the Agenda Media’s chandelier. This observation confirms for me that my initial opinion was right. Why on God’s green earth did Ms. Carlson think about Karl Rove after watching the Democrat debate?

The first thing that popped into my head was that Democrats still fear Karl Rove to the point of being paranoid about him. It isn’t a stretch to say that Karl Rove gets blamed for the misfortunes of Democrats. Never mind the fact that they cast aside a real man of substance in Joe Lieberman because he wasn’t liberal enough. Nevermind the fact that they’re on the verge of picking the most unqualified presidential candidate in the history of the United States.

In Ms. Carlson’s mind, the Fiasco In Philadelphia didn’t happen because two radicals with barely a presidential qualification shared the stage. In Ms. Carlson’s mind, the Philadelphia Fiasco happened because Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked questions given them by Mr. Rove.

Ms. Carlson wants people to forget the disastrous answers both candidates gave on the Second Amendment. Here’s the exchange between Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama:

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law, it’s had a law since 1976, it’s now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

Here’s the exchange on the Second Amendment between George Stephanopoulos and Hillary:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, you have a home in D.C. Do you support the D.C. ban?
SENATOR CLINTON: You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you’re referring to, before the Supreme Court, is apparently dividing the Bush administration. You know, the Bush administration basically said, we don’t have enough facts to know whether or not it is appropriate. And Vice President Cheney who, you know, is a fourth special branch of government all unto himself, (laughter), has actually filed a brief saying, oh, no, we have to, you know, we have to prevent D.C. from doing this. So

After reading through those tortured answers, it’s perfectly understandable why Ms. Carlson wants people to focus on the Rove Factor, not the finalists for the Democratic Nomination. As awful as their answers were on the Second Amendment, Obama’s reply to Charlie Gibson’s questions about the capital gains tax were infinitely more revealing:

MR. GIBSON: All right. You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.” It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But
actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year, $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can’t do that for free, and you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.
You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don’t propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don’t increase spending unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue. That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy, and it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States.
MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going. I think the biggest problem that we’ve got on Wall Street right now is the fact that we’ve got a housing crisis that this president has not been attentive to and that it took John McCain three tries before he got it right. And if we can stabilize that market and we can get credit flowing again, then I think we’ll see stocks do well, and once again I think we can generate the revenue that we need to run this government and hopefully to pay down some of this debt.

On the one hand, Sen. Obama says that he wants the capital gains tax to pay for “health care for Americans who currently don’t have it” and that “we’re able to invest in our infrastructure” and “in our schools” right after saying that he’d “look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” That’s one of the most discombobulated answers I’ve ever heard. His stated goals fight against each other.

If he raises the capital gains tax rate, revenues shrink, meaning he won’t have the additional revenue he’ll need to “invest in our infrastructure” and “in our schools” or to give “health care for Americans who currently don’t have it.” Raising the capital gains tax rate guarantees that there won’t be additional money to pay for Sen. Obama’s laundry list of spending requests.

Ms. Carlson would have us believe that the Fiasco in Philadelphia was about rednecks, religion and Rove. She’s hoping you don’t notice that alot of questions dealt with integrity, the candidates’ ties to domestic terrorism and taxes. Here’s another complaint Ms. Carlson had with the Philadelphia Fiasco:

The Democrats are playing Rove’s game full throttle. Clinton went on about how she’s the granddaughter of a factory worker who was “very active” in the church. He didn’t “cling to religion because Washington wasn’t listening,” she said.

Perhaps chastened by the sniper fire she got over her sniper fire story, she didn’t talk about privations during her years at Yale, or how rough it is living on the $109 million she and her husband have taken in since leaving the White House.

The thought that people like Maggie Carlson get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to write this type of drivel is insulting to top bloggers everywhere. What’s worse is that Ms. Carlson thinks that a presidential candidate maintains ties with an unrepentant terrorist is unimportant. It’s apparent, too, that Ms. Carlson thinks that discussing the Second Amendment is trivial stuff.

Let’s hope that Ms. Carlson keeps thinking those elitist thoughts. Most importantly, let’s hope that Ms. Carlson’s paranoia about Karl Rove continues. There’s nothing quite like the thought of a liberal elitist falling apart worrying about Mr. Rove.

Technorati Tags: Hillary, Obama, Philadelphia, Presidential Debate, Taxes, William Ayers, Capital Gains, Second Amendment, Education, Health Care, Margaret Carlson, Agenda Media, Karl Rove, Religion, Rednecks, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Rove’s name is just one of the many buzzwords that send the Left into apoplectic fits. Just say the magic word and the duck of deflection descends from above (nod to Groucho). As long as the media can keep using these buzzwords, they hope to keep the folks from taking a good, hard look at Barry. There’s nothing to see here… move along.

   Comment by Kalifornia Kafir — April 18, 2008 @ 9:29 am

2. I always used to believe that libs came up with these crazy ideas just to score political points against conservatives. It is truely frightening to see that the truth is they are simply paranoid nut jobs.

   Comment by Southdakotaboy — April 18, 2008 @ 9:36 am

3. ” simply paranoid nut jobs.

   Or as Bill O’Reilly callks them: loons.

   Comment by T. A. Gray — April 19, 2008 @ 1:04 pm

4. of my and saw become I confessed then did

   Comment by frogbusysite — May 6, 2008 @ 9:04 am