Despite Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman and Overall Jackass, officially stating the democrats would not use John McCain’s age as an issue in the presidential race, they are. Of course, we know that Howard Dean has almost no credibility with anyone and certainly doesn’t have any control over the democratic party … but still. He really should quit making statements because when everyone ignores him and does whatever they want anyway it just makes him look even sillier than he already looks.

Steve Rosenthal is a senior democratic operative and he has started a website for the specific purpose of making fun of McCain’s age. The website is called ‘Younger than McCain’ (and no I’m not linking it). Right now it has one video that lists things that are younger than McCain. As you can imagine, they are coming up with stuff like the Golden Gate Bridge, Coke in a can and the like. Har-de-har-har

Keep in mind that Rosenthal is a former political director of the AFL-CIO and executive director of America Coming Together, an organization specifically set up to provide soft money for the 2004 presidential race. He is now a partner in The Organizing Group.

This comes right after the 75-year-old Saboteur John Murtha made his statements about John McCain being too old while he was introducing Hillary Clinton to speak to a group of union members.

The site is not funny as Mr. Rosenthal states its intended to be. Instead, it comes across as mean-spirited, negative and juvenile. Pretty much in line with the democratic party as a whole.

The democrats hope to make a contrast between John McCain and democratic nominee in waiting Barack Obama. They think that the 30 year age difference between the two will be striking and will work in their favor. I agree, the difference between the two WILL be striking, but not because of the age.

John McCain is not afraid of anything. Barack Obama is still whining that he got asked some difficult questions at a debate last night and is refusing to do another debate. He’s taking his ball and going home :pout:. Yes. There’s a huge difference between the two. The more they both talk the more obvious the differences are.

source

Wouldn’t it be great if we really could have everything the democrats are promising us in their campaigns? Free college tuition for everyone. Free health care for everyone. Tax Cuts! Help with your mortgage. They might even come out and mow your lawn for you!

The list of promises from both democratic candidates is very long. The National Taxpayers Union has a very rough estimate of $287 billion for Obama’s promises and $218 billion for Clinton’s promises. Even at those staggering costs, neither candidate have much to say about how they will fund this utopia they promise. They say something about repealing Bush’s tax cuts (note that to them this isn’t the same thing as raising taxes because they are simultaneously promising tax cuts) and they say that ending the war in Iraq will help pay for it. As USA Today these vague statements about how to pay for billions of dollars of new and improved social services just isn’t going to cut it.

A rollback of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans could generate perhaps $75 billion next year. The Iraq war savings are much harder to figure. The war has been costing about $100 billion per year. But a Democratic president, once in office, might decide that national security demands a gradual withdrawal, or a redeployment to Afghanistan. Health care for Iraq war veterans will run into the billions for decades. It’s unlikely that winding down the war will produce a large, quick peace dividend capable of supporting a host of new programs.

To make matters worse, any tax increases and military reductions might be needed just to cover the government’s existing shortfalls caused principally by rising health care costs and the pending baby boomer retirement.

The two democratic candidates don’t seem too concerned about benefiting in the short run from enticing votes by promising almost limitless gifts from the government to everyone. The thing is, I’m worried about the long run and I’m not the only one.

With the exception of the limp wristed sushi and latte learjet liberal set, most tax payers look at the promises made by these two with a suspicious eye. Most of us see our paychecks flying out the window in upwards of 50% taxes on our incomes and everything we buy. People start losing their incentive to work when their income is taken to pay for everything for people who don’t work. Most people in our society feel responsible for and don’t mind paying for people who can’t take care of themselves. Most people mind very much paying for people who can and just don’t or won’t pay for themselves. When the money is redistributed people start to give up hope knowing they can never get ahead of what is allotted them by a government out of control.

Its not that this form of government is something new that Clinton and Obama thought up. Its been tried before. I really don’t know why Clinton and Obama are so far behind the curb because it was tried a generation ago by other governments. Russia, Cuba, Venezuela have all tried socialism and/or communism. Its bankrupted and corrupted every society it has been tried in. We’d have to suspend disbelief to think it’d be any different here than it has been in every other government that has tried it.