In the last Conventional Wisdom feature before the election, Newsweek magazine assigned a sideways arrow for the Democratic vice presidential contender while giving the thumbs down to Gov. Sarah Palin for "sink[ing]" the campaign with a "lack of gravitas."
In doing so, the CW feature dismissed the damaging impact of Sen. Joe Biden's "rhetorical flourishes." Yet among Biden's recent foot-in-mouth moments was one that inadvertently broadcast the Democratic ticket's tax-hiking designs by significantly lowering the $250,000-a-year tax bar the Democratic campaign previously had set.
As the Wall Street Journal noted on October 29, the "'tax cut' threshold keeps falling":
Well, will families making less than $250,000 get a tax cut under President Obama, or not? Senator Obama has been saying this for months, but on Monday Joe Biden put the tax-cut income threshold at $150,000 in an interview with a TV station in his beloved Scranton, Pennsylvania. The Biden campaign later clarified -- or at least tried to clarify -- the matter by saying that anyone making between $150,000 and $250,000 wouldn't get a tax cut but also wouldn't pay higher taxes.
We suspect what's going on here is more than Mr. Biden's normal gift of gaffe. As with his admission that a President Obama would quickly be tested by our enemies, the Delaware rambler was stumbling into the truth. An Obama Administration couldn't possibly pay for a tax cut for 95% of Americans by raising taxes on a mere 5%. Those 5% don't make enough money, or at least they won't after they find ways to shelter more of their income when their tax rates rise.
The Nov. 10 print edition CW carried a hint of triumphalism for team Obama, assigning the Illinois Democrat an up arrow for his "red-state blitz" while finding the U.S.S. McCain "[s]pringing leaks everywhere"and reveling that "Joe the Plumber can't fix them." Even so, CW couldn't help but float the discredited Bradley Effect meme to prepare magazine readers for a narrow Obama victory (or defeat).
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Gravitas???
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 00:42 ET by JPR1Barack Obama is a neophyte socialist and Joe Biden is a long-in-the-tooth dunderhead. You could slather them both with gravitas and it would not make a whit of difference.
Besides, all available gravitas was allocated to Katie Couric and it has been wasted.
John McCain and Sara Palin do not need gravitas, they have common sense.
Does Newsweak have gravitas
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 00:49 ET by Trix RabbitDoes Newsweak have gravitas too? If either Obama-lama-ding-dong or Biden were ever forced to tell the truth they would have absolutely nothing to say.
Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell
Bye-bye
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 00:58 ET by Texndoc"Newsweek" will fold probably within the year. They can put their arrows in the same orifice Fox News' Frank Luntz can put his dials.
Hack Magazine
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 00:58 ET by Kirk HallI have actually had people link to this magazine as a rebuttal to some facts I might lay down, or when I am trying to get them to lay off or at least cut back on the kool aid. There are some seriously distrubed people out there. I used to subsribe, why I will never know.
I don't read NW
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 01:22 ET by MidAmericaI don't read NW anymore, even when I'm stuck in a doctors office. It throws off my blood pressure reading.
So much of the MSM is in a media Bermuda Triangle, disoriented, lost, flying upside down thinking the ocean is the sky.
Screw Newsweek. It's old news by the time it hits them.
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 02:39 ET by attorneygirlScrew Newsweek. I haven't given that company a dime in years. Don't read them. They don't matter. Aren't relevant.
Hear that Newsweek? You are not relevant.
Internet is taking over. Independent news sources; bloggers; you name it.
Here's to independent thought while it still is acceptable.
I've forgotten more about
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 06:04 ET by motherbeltI've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues ever knew. -Biden the Gravitational.
He'd better hope they never find out!
Apparently Newsweek's definition of "gravitas" is an ability to spout complete nonsense with utter conviction.
Doh!
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 06:10 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsAll taxes will be raised and it will be blamed on:
.
.
.
.
.
You guessed it, BUSH. Yes, we will be told that Bush, the stupid dunderhead, has once again fooled all the King's horses and all the King's men (and the dummies in Congress) and hid the true fiscal facts in his underpants.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
If Obama wins it's goint to get tough for working families
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 08:30 ET by c5thenTaxes will go up, prices will go up (especially electricity), inflation is already poised to start skyrocketing ( thanks to the FED and the 'bail-out).
Ken. Another gaff, the MSM missed.
Mon, 11/03/2008 - 11:49 ET by Gary HallKen. Another gaff, the MSM missed. And what is so sick about this is that the Democratic party, Obama/Biden, and the MSM has been using it for years to inflame the fears of and to promote hate amongst the working class - towards anything Republican.
Joe Biden (Mr. Patriot Act himself) stated a week or so back:
It wasn't? How quickly we forget. There's not only little truth in it - it seriously masks any sense of understanding how darn economics works - or rather does not work - one will agree.
Any effort by the MSM to think logically or to be curious about the facts would provide all with a more clear understanding.
This wealth gap exploded during the 90's under Bill Clinton - has been rather flat, comparatively, under Bush.
It hit 21% (+/-) in 2000 - "first time since the roaring 20's," actually was in 2000. Besides, what is the magic with the 21% number. Where was this anger when it hit 14%, 15%, 16%, 17%. 18%, 19%, 20% and 21% under Clinton, as it skyrocketed upwards from 1993 to 2000? Any shrill politicking over that? Here's the NYT graph backup. Note, the NYT's graph here was illustrating a slightly different stat - that of the top 0.1% of income earners. Biden was talking about the top 1%, and that is the data, which I referred to. In both sets of data, however, we see the same trend - the very rich got very much richer under Clinton, then lost much of it under Bush, before fighting to get back to they were when Clinton's economy crashed. (;~> gary