Posts Tagged: ‘Socalled

The Capitol — No Comments
28
Aug 10

Florida Senate Election 2010:Republican Marco Rubio Up by 10% of So-called Independent Charlie Crist … Rubio (R) 40%, Crist (I) 30%, Meek (D) 21%

Can an Independent candidate out of political convenience be trusted with any thing that say?

Following the Florida primaries, Republican Marco Rubio holds a 10% lead over Independent Charlie Crist and a 19% point lead over Democrat Kendrick Meek. In the first Rasmussen poll following primary day in the Sunshine state the voters stated the following, Rubio (R) 40%, Crist (I) 30%, Meek (D) 21%.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Florida shows Marco Rubio attracting 40% of the vote, while Charlie Crist picks up 30% in the race to become the state’s next U.S. senator. The new Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek earns 21% support.

This is the first poll of the race following Tuesday’s primary. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

In the last survey before the primary, it was Rubio at 38%, Crist at 33% and Meek 21%.

With a Kendrick Meek winning the Democrat primary, look for Democrat voters in FLA to flock more to him than the so-called Independent and Democrat-light candidate Charlie Crist. Obama and the DNC have been put in a bit of a situation as Crist has hinted that if he wins he would caucus with Democrats, yet how does a political party turn its back on the candidate that the voters chose in the Democrat primary?

Also, look for Marco Rubio to further gain support of Republicans and Independents as Crist is in no-mans land and these days does not even know what he would vote or stand for. This is what occurs when a politician becomes an “independent” out of political survival, rather their conviction.

Just the other day Florida News 13 asked Charlie Crist if he were in the Senate, would he have voted for or against Obamacare? Crist stated he would have voted for Obamacare.

When asked how Crist would have voted on the healthcare bill if in the Senate at the time, Crist responded by saying, “I would have voted for it. But I think it can be done better, I really do.”

Hours later, press releases from Crist’s challengers were sent out, touting Crist flip-flopping on the healthcare issue.

Marco Rubio’s campaign sent a press release saying, “In less than 30 days, Crist has gone from voting against the bill to voting for it to now being against it again.”

Kendrick Meek’s campaign released a similar e-mail, saying, “Obviously, the governor is having a crisis of memory.”

Then in a reversal of fortune,Crist states he misspoke. HOW CAN YOU MISSPEAK ON SUCH A SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS QUESTION? If Crist flip-flops LIED on whether he would only run as a Republican, why would the voters of Florida not think Crist would flip-flop on any issue? Crist is the poster child of exactly what Americans find so distasteful with today’s politicians. They will say anything, then back track on it when the heat is on to get a vote.

But now, Crist says he “misspoke” in that interview. His campaign sent out a statement Friday afternoon clarifying Crist’s position on the healthcare law.

“If I misspoke, I want to be abundantly clear: the health care bill was too big, too expensive, and expanded the role of government far too much,” Crist said in a statement. “Had I been in the United States Senate at the time, I would have voted against the bill because of unacceptable provisions like the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.”

The campaigns of both Rubio and Meek are having an absolute field day with Crist’s flip-flop.

Crist has been on the Obama bandwagon touting the President for doing a good job. It is hard to believe in a state where 55% disapprove of the job that Obama is doing and only 46% approve, being seen shaking hands, hugging and in the corner of Obama can be a good thing come election day.

Share This

Scared Monkeys

The Capitol — No Comments
24
Aug 10

Further Thoughts On Philadelphia’s So-Called “Blogger Tax”

Vivian Paige, a Virginia blogger who also happens to have a background in accounting and tax preparation, makes this observation about the so-called Philadelphia “blogger tax” that I wrote about yesterday:

The devil, as always, is in the details:

After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $ 300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made.

Let me guess: each one of these people filed a Schedule C (pdf). Probably did so to claim expenses, like their internet service, or to deduct the cost of a computer, most likely on the (bad) advice of a friend or even an accountant.

A Schedule C is entitled “Profit or Loss from Business” for a reason. From the instructions (pdf):

An activity qualifies as a business if your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity or a hobby does not qualify as a business.

So by completing Schedule C, you are acknowledging that this is not a hobby. And guess what most localities – including every one in Virginia – require? A business license.

So, what we’re dealing with here is a generally applicable law that requires all persons operating a business in the city to obtain a license and pay a fee. It’s not an effort to “go after” bloggers, and considering the fact that the people quoted in the article had already declared themselves as operating a business with the IRS, I honestly don’t see what the story is here.




Outside the Beltway

The Capitol — No Comments
21
Aug 10

‘So-called Gay Mafia’ Adding Bias to the New York Times

The Times Business section Wednesday carried a press release of a story headlined "A Resort for Gays Rises in Manhattan: Similar Nightlife Complexes Are Springing Up in Several Cities." Reporter Beth Greenfield talked to no one in this story except the gay entrepreneurs behind the forthcoming "Out NYC Urban Resort." The text box was "Looking for ‘a concentrated feeling of community.’" There’s nothing in the story, for example, about the developers’ active support for Washington-based gay-left advocacy groups, as well as donations to liberal city pols and congressmen and the William J. Clinton Foundation. 

Sympathy for the gay "community" is apparently growing by leaps and bounds, according to Reacttoyournews.org, the official blog of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. Michael Triplett wrote:

We’ve talked about changes at the NYT before on this blog, but it’s important to remember that the last 20 years have seen a pretty amazing change at how the paper covers LGBT issues and treats its LGBT journalists.  There is still room for growth, especially in regards to promotion of lesbians and its treatment of transgender employees and issues, but the paper has come a remarkable distance in the time that NLGJA has been advocating for LGBT journalists and fair and accurate coverage of LGBT issues.

After revisiting history, including some questionable comparisons of the AIDS epidemic with the Holocaust, Triplett concluded:

Because of the work of NLGJA and pioneering LGBT journalists, things have changed dramatically at the paper. We are indebted to the journalists and activists who pushed for change at the paper.

In a piece for Mediaite, Triplett was more explicit:

Twenty years after [reporter Jeffrey] Schmalz feared telling anyone he was gay because it would harm his career, a gay man–Richard Berke–is now the national editor and a so-called gay mafia – which includes Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliot, Adam Nagourney, and Eric Wilson – hold key positions at the paper. Alas, the paper has no openly gay or lesbian voices on it editorial pages.

Now, of course, gays are everywhere in the paper’s coverage and in the newsroom.

Triplett also mentioned the top Times officials attending an event sympathizing with overturning the California Prop 8 vote to defend traditional marriage, which caused former Timesman Charles Kaiser to gush that the Times was now "one of the most gay-friendly institutions in the world." Mysteriously, after all this touting of the staunchly pro-gay sympathies, Triplett thinks the question of liberal bias remains a puzzle that conservatives can’t seriously expose:

Concluding “[w]hat a difference a new generation can make,” [former Timesman Charles] Kaiser said “Andy Rosenthal’s editorial page has published more brilliant editorials in defense of equal rights for gay people than any other editorial page in the world.”

So does the NYT have a bias now in how it covers same-sex marriage and gays generally?  That’s probably something for the next public editor to explore. There’s no doubt that few papers cover the LGBT community  as extensively as the New York Times, but it is far from perfect. Some critics argue that gay people are much more likely to show up on the culture and arts pages than the news pages, and locals complain that the paper does a poor job of handling news that involves the local LGBT community. In addition,  lesbians still remain largely invisible in coverage (and in the newsroom). And, of course, conservative critics of the paper will always contend there is a strong pro-gay bias, not [sic] matter the facts on the ground.

NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias