Where do Colorado Dems Stand on Rangel Tax Increase?

A quick Friday morning question for Colorado farmers, ranchers, and small business owners: What does Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall, Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate, think about Charlie Rangel’s massive tax increase proposal? What does junior U.S. Senator Ken Salazar think? What about Democrat presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton? The Wall Street Journal makes a cogent point:

No one thinks his plan has a chance of becoming law this year, but its beauty is as a signal of Democratic intentions for 2009. In proposing what would be the largest tax increase in history, Mr. Rangel is showing the world what he wants the tax code to look like if Democrats run the entire government. None of the Presidential candidates will admit this before November 2008, but give Mr. Rangel credit for having the courage of Hillary Clinton’s convictions.

Indeed. So – ahem – will we get Rep. Udall on the record?

Comments

  1. says

    Be careful about jumping to conclusions about people deleting your comments. Since day one, I have had a fair and consistent policy of letting all legitimate, non-obscene comments stand. It’s called moderation, and it’s used to ferret out Spam and profanity. It’s even more jaw-dropping to receive such a complaint from someone who doesn’t allow comments on your own site.

    Rather than throwing around cheap rhetorical labels, why not engage in an honest discussion and debate? We probably aren’t as far apart as you think.

    Despite your oversimplification, taxation and spending are two different (not “simurlur”) issues. Our President has largely been a champion on the tax relief front but mostly been a miserable failure on spending, bureaucracy, and the growth of government.

    But using useless catch phrases like “Bushbots” hasn’t helped you to surmount basic and important distinctions like that one. Such phrases are easy to spew from the armchair of anonymity and irrelevance.

    Nevertheless, if you want to have a debate about the U.S. Civil War, please bring forth at any point. All your family-friendly comments will be posted here precisely as you submitted them.

  2. says

    Well, all I knowd was-at the commint wuz there, and thin it wuz gone. Ain’t it interestin’ that it re-appurs only aftuh my blog entry about its rapid disserpearance. But I gis I have to give ye the binifit of the doubt. Maybe ye yanked it by mistake, or maybe ye yanked it but repented and wuz intendin’ to re-post it, and my blog entry jus’ interveened before ye had time-ta.

    I figgured that if ye responded the thang about my closed comments would come up. I got good reasons for this here policy, not the least of which is that my other squarespace blog is prone to ad spam, and I jus’ cain’t seem to get the problem addressed. That bein’ said, I was plannin’ to open the comments event’lly. Yir jus gonna have to give me the binifit of the doubt on that-un.

    As fir “cheap rhetorical labels”, I find this-un a little funny comin’ from someone who tawks about “neo-Confederate reactionaries” in his blog. But that raggly ole issue aside, ye right about one thang: we more close on alot o’things thin we is to the durn fool libruls.

    Las’ly, about that mean ole comment about my speakin’ from “the armchair of anonimity and irrelevance”: I got my reasons for my anonimitee. If’n I revealed mahself, you might be sirprised. So would some folks there at the Inderpendence Institute. As fir my irrelevance, well, I gis you got me on that un. Mos’ of us bloggers are pretty irrelevunt. But I do have a few real minur but I’d say nuntheless pretty important pub-lee-cations under my belt, and my other blog, now in its 3rd year, is a-gittin hits from all over the world, is a-linked at some well-know paleocon sites at one Wikipedia article, and gits visits from some of the fellers over there at Touchstone mag. (Do I wanna identify that blog. Uh, no.)

  3. says

    Ben, if’n ye don’t mind, just a few more responses that shoulda been posted abuv:

    1. It almos’ sounds like ye sayin’ I wrote sumpin’ obscene or un-family-friendly. I hope ye’ll make it clear that I dint – that you’ve restored my original post as writtin’.

    2. I dint say that taxin’ and spendin’ wur simurlur issues. I sed that ye should ask a simulur question of Republicans like Bush who spend like Dimocrats.

    3. I dint chime in hear to discuss the War of Northern Agression ( ;) ). I chimed in to respond to yir challenge to the Colorader Dimocrats. However, if’n ye ever do wanna discuss that issue, I’m a-game, and I promiss my comments will be family-friendly.

  4. says

    Thanks, Snaggle-Tooth. Your rejoinders made me chuckle, in a friendly manner, of course. I apologize for the technical glitch that caused your comment to appear, then disappear. I don’t know why it would have appeared before I had a chance to moderate it. And no, I wasn’t implying that anything you wrote or said was deemed obscene or un-family-friendly.

    As to your other comments, I too revel in the armchair of irrelevance – just not anonymity. I understand some have a reason for it, but I tend to think it diminishes one’s credibility.

    Having used the term “neo-Confederate reactionaries” in the context I did, I’m willing to stand by it: People who feel compelled to apologize for the Confederacy in defense of some current conservative-oriented idea or agenda item (http://bendegrow.com/?p=590). The author I critiqued in this particular post certainly fits the bill.

    How would you define Bushbots? And do you have a couple examples?

    You seem to have read my blog quite faithfully: Do you judge me to be a “Neo-Con,” and on what basis? I consider myself a Christian Straussian federalist libertarian, but I’m always open to expanding my horizons and exploring my foundations. Best to you.

    And one more thing: gosh, it must be hard to type in dialect for sustained periods like that. Kudos to you for your tenacity.

  5. Snaggle-Tooth Jones says

    “I understand some have a reason for (anonimitee), but I tend to think it diminishes one’s credibility.”

    Cud be. But thin agin in my case, it might serve to enhance it.

    “Having used the term ‘neo-Confederate reactionaries’ in the context I did, I’m willing to stand by it.”

    ‘L OK then.

    “People who feel compelled to apologize for the Confederacy in defense of some current conservative-oriented idea or agenda item (http://bendegrow.com/?p=590).”

    Well, Ben, that ain’t a complete sintence there, so it’s jus’ a little difficult to know how t’ respond, but I thank I git yur drift. And yes, I am prepeared to defend the Confed’racy. A persuzil of my blog entries’ll give ye some indication of what ye’d be facin’, but only some.

    “The author I critiqued in this particular post certainly fits the bill.”

    Well, Prof. Woods done responded to his critics, if’n ye care to read his responses. I posted some of ‘em at my blog. I’d a-recommend the (not uncritical) analeesis of the libertarian arthur Jeffery Hummel that I posted there.

    “How would you define Bushbots? And do you have a couple examples?”

    I think ye know quite well wut I’m tawking about.

    “You seem to have read my blog quite faithfully: Do you judge me to be a “Neo-Con,” and on what basis? I consider myself a Christian Straussian federalist libertarian. . . .”

    Well, that’s sorta like sayin’, “Do you judge me to be a “bachelor”, and on what basis? I consider myself an unmarried but eligible male.”

    “And one more thing: gosh, it must be hard to type in dialect for sustained periods like that. Kudos to you for your tenacity.”

    I don’t foller, Ben: this is how I tawk.

Leave a Reply