Between MSNBC, the radio gig and political operations, the Reverend Al Sharpton's income these days is comfortably one-percenter.
That's why the thought of paying considerably more during Obama's Regime II: The Crappy Sequel must be especially distressing for the Rev. He'll defend his friend until the end, but the pocketbook certainly will take a big hit. During Thursday's edition of Keeping It Real, Al stumbled when a caller confronted him with the facts about O's coming tax hikes. Even when the battle turned emotional and opportunities existed to clarify some assertions (such as the difference between ordinary and business income), he failed to show a basic understanding:
[LATER] AL SHARPTON (20:52): Many people sit around talking about politics that don’t know nothing about what they’re talking about and rather than say well I don’t know this I don’t understand this explain it to me I disagree with that or I just don’t like, they just make stuff up rather than deal with the reality and that to me is not intelligent.
Personal income taxes: Obama would keep tax rates the same for families making less than $250,000 annually. For families earning more than that, he would raise the top two tax brackets to 36 percent and 39.6 percent. The highest tax rates have been 33 percent and 35 percent for the last 11 years.
Obama in February offered a long list of corporate tax breaks he wants to end, ranging from accelerated depreciation and inventory accounting to interest on overseas profits and various tax provisions benefiting oil and gas companies.
Like Romney and Ryan, however, Obama has not presented clear plans for dealing with the much larger, middle-class tax breaks.
Investment income: Obama wants to raise the tax rate on dividends to match the ordinary income tax rate for the two highest income brackets. He would boost capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent for that group.
Obama's one expen$ive friend, so is he worth it, Reverend?
Back when our "progressive" friends were fired up in OUTRAGE!!!! over just about everything, blaming George W Bush for the world's troubles was reflexive, instinctive and instantaneous.
Now that Obama has sucked the life out of their movement for his own selfish political purposes, however, it takes days to sort out the proper message.
But the bottom line hasn't changed: every conflict, famine or global woe is still W's fault. The only challenge is in connecting the dots.
Thankfully, the left now has Eliot Spitzer handy to save the day. During the most recent edition of Both Sides Now with Huffington & Matalin, the disgraced former New York governor made the case for Bush Administration perma-blame:
ELIOT SPITZER (13:46): George Bush's neo-con worldview caused more harm to this nation and more harm in the Middle East than one can imagine, and, unfortunately, Mitt Romney, weathervane, Etch a Sketch, feckless individual that he is, continues to surround himself with the same people who made every conceivable error when it came to foreign policy.
For resurrecting the tired "neo-con" phrase, Eliot scores extra "progressive" points. Even more for the O-approved Romney tie-in.
Next time, Number Nine, don't forget to add "military-industrial complex" for a bonus happy face sticker on your chart!
Even as the SS Soetoro begins its fateful plunge into the sea, at least one friend appears willing to go down with the ship: the Reverend Al Sharpton. If nothing else, he's loyal.
Clint Eastwood's unscripted, hilarious performance at last night's RNC Convention hit just a bit too close to home for the good rev. During today's Keeping It Real With Reverend Al Sharpton, he called Dirty Harry's speech "offensive" and "demeaning".
For a real knee-slapper, however, we direct your attention to his assertion President Bush never would have been treated this way. Where do we begin to pick that apart?
Here it is:
AL SHARPTON (31 August 01:04:20): the speech, acceptance speech by Mitt Romney probably better delivered as a performer then I thought, but with some very interesting points including a moment that as I said when he talks about we need an American to do great things, was that his birther moment again?
The bizarre and embarrassing and ridiculous and insulting and offensive statement skit whatever you want to call it by Clint Eastwood.
I don’t understand how in a moment of hour primetime where you get to make your case to the country on why you should be president you put up an old actor who offends the presidency referring to the worst of searing words and comes out of this kind of disrespectful bag and that’s what you want to show the country that you want to be President. Well maybe that I who you are.
I mean the Clint Eastwood thing was so demeaning. Imagine if President Obama had an aging actor get up and put an empty chair there and start referring to profanity and all about President Bush or even a presidential candidate what the reaction would be.
A real offensive presentation and then Marc Rubio got up and followed the form of the Republican Convention, he got up talked about Marc Rubio.
You want bizarre? Just wait until Boston Mayor-For-Life Tom Menino addresses Democrats next week. You'll need a translator to understand a word of it.
Where talk radio and politics collide: influencing the debate since 2004. From longtime host / analyst / rabble-rouser Brian Maloney, seen on FOX (including a number of O'Reilly Factor appearances), CNN, Court TV and elsewhere.