The American Spectator

AmSpecBlog

Dems VII

By James Poulos on 6.3.07 @ 8:57PM

The definition of rich question! Obama sticks with Kerry's -- $200,000 gross income for a taxpayer. But this means that a family where only one parent works has to swing it on $200,000. Wait -- wait -- now it's $250,000, Obama says. Make up your mind. As I was saying: try putting two or three kids through college out of state on $200,000 gross. Then ask again what rich means -- for families.

Edwards doesn't "know what a rich person is." Someone get a mirror. He's right about crushing debt burdens. But college for everyone? Will that be enforced like health care too?

Sure would like to know Hillary's definition of rich.

Richardson says for the tenth time tonight: "This is what I would do." Then pauses as if thinking up on the spot what he would do. He's a "pro-growth Democrat." And Biden and Obama favor recessions?

Kucinich goes all Ron Paul on us in response to Ruxpin's suggestion that Dems are nothing but taxers and spenders: don't fight Iraq with Chinese money, return to bilateral trade, don't spend money you don't have.

I think Ruxpin is deliberately steering hard questions away from Hillary. She has now escaped defining rich and pledging to eliminate earmarks in the space of ninety seconds. Ruxpin gives us another Chris Dodd monologue and lets the putative frontrunner off scot free. Followed by a Gravel monologue centering around the Comptroller-General. Hillary leans forward mid-monologue, cackle at the ready. But wait! She wants to answer the question -- with cliches ("there is no free lunch;" "we're going to have to do that hard work again") and red meat ("we need to deal with the burden on the middle class"). Completely avoids the question of earmarks. Next?

topics:
Trade, Health Care, Earmarks, Iraq