It really is a shame that after such an ass-kicking, Tucker couldn’t have just looked the other way- but his article is absolutely missing the point.  It truly is a sad state of affairs when a marginal comedian hosting a fake news show actually asks the hard questions that Jim Cramer should have, and Tucker certainly should have back when he got his own dressing-down.  It’s not about Jon Stewart and his liberal bias – which he wears on his sleeve, and it’s not even remotely Jon blaming the recent financial meltdown on Jim Cramer personally (which of course he didn’t) – it’s the fact that supposedly objective journalists like Cramer were really in the tank for gasbags Bear-Stearns and AIG- KNOWING they were operating in the shady realms of finance, yet still softballed them on his show to pretend the sky wasn’t falling.  But Tucker misses the point entirely, and the entire article comes off as a whiny, revenge-based potshot.  Sad.

Tucker should really take a lesson from Jim Cramer, who at least had the sack to stand up and take his lumps like a man, admitting he could have done much better.  Denial really doesn’t suit you, Tucker.   But more importantly- read the comment threads at your own article, see what people are saying about you now, and face the facts that your 15 minutes of fame ended quite a while ago, when a comedian showed you how to do your own job.  You really should have left well enough alone.

A few charts have arisen which visualize the rather sobering truth here.

First, the Washington Post broke down how each candidate’s plan would play out across the gross income brackets in the US.
Secondly, Viveka Weiley provided a scaled version of that graph (shown below), reflecting the real weight of this distribution- i.e. with the size of each bracket drawn to scale in order to see how the cuts (and/or raises) really spread out across the entire spectrum. This graph is in my opinion the most accurate and telling, particularly when you note exactly where US median incomes fall on the scale (hint- it’s not in the high range).

Looking at how both Obama and McCain’s proposed tax plans pan out, it’s a very different story.  Obama is proposing tax cuts for 99% of the population, with the upper 1% income bracket (i.e. those making over $600k annually) footing the bill – which to me makes sense as they’re the ones profiting most from the economy. McCain’s graph, however, runs in reverse- granting his biggest tax cuts to that same abundantly-wealthy 1%, with the 60% of the country in the lower income brackets getting the shaft.

Now tax cuts should not be the measure of this election, there are a lot of other important issues to address – but this is a really sobering look at how our adopting McCain’s tax policy really would be like a third Bush term in that respect. The corporate fatcats and their cronies skate by with monstrous tax cuts, while the people in this country that scrape by on far, far less have to shoulder their tax burden.  The fact that the Republicans have been calling Obama an ‘out of touch elitist’ is  insultingly ironic given the contrast in their tax distribution plans.

I was about 85% in the Obama camp already, but add this to the disaster that is Sarah Palin (don’t even get me started), and the door just shut on McCain, at least for me.  Despite McCain’s ’straight talk’ for change and reform, he’s really just spouting the same policy we’ve had to bear for the last 8 years.  Enough is enough.

(disclosure: For the record, given this information I would pay higher taxes in an Obama presidency, so there’s really no tax incentive for me to support him this election.  It’s just the right thing to do.  And if you wish to repost/use this graph, please respect Viveka’s licensing terms – just click the graph above to visit her original post and get details.)

it depends on who’s calling the shots

If you’re a minority and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a ‘token hire.’
If you’re a conservative and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a ‘game changer’.

Black teen pregnancies? A ‘crisis’ in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A ‘blessed event’.

If you grow up in Hawaii you’re ‘exotic’.
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you’re the quintessential ‘American story’.

If you name you kid Barack you’re ‘unpatriotic’.
Name your kid Track, you’re ‘colorful’.

If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you’re ‘reckless.’
A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a ‘maverick’.

If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African-American voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.

If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you’ve got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military, and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do, so because your state is the closest state to Russia.

If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people you are an ‘arrogant celebrity’.
If you are a popular Republican female candidate you are ‘energizing the base’.

If you are a younger male candidate who thinks for himself and makes his own decisions you are ‘presumptuous’.
If you are an older male candidate who makes last minute decisions you refuse to explain, you are a ’shoot-from-the-hip-maverick’.

If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree you are ‘an elitist – out of touch’ with the real America.
If you are a legacy (dad and granddad were admirals) graduate of Annapolis, with multiple disciplinary infractions you are a ‘hero’.

If you manage a multi-million dollar nationwide campaign, you are an ‘empty suit’.
If you are a part time mayor of a town of 7000 people, you are an ‘experienced executive’.

If you go to a South Side Chicago church, your beliefs are’extremist’.
If you believe in Creationism and don’t believe global warming is man-made, you are ’strongly principled.’

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.
If you have been married to the same woman with whom you’ve been wed to for 19 years and raising 2 beautiful daughters with, you’re ‘risky’.

If you’re a black single mother of 4 who waits for 22 hours after her water breaks to seek medical attention, you’re an irresponsible parent, endangering the life of your unborn child.
But, if you’re a white married mother who waits 22 hours, you’re ’spunky’.

If you’re a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you ‘First dog’.
If you’re a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you ‘beautiful’ and ‘courageous’.

If you kill an endangered species, you’re an ‘excellent hunter’.
If you have an abortion you’re not a Christian, you’re a ‘murderer’ (forget about if it happens while being date raped).

If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen parents.
If you teach responsible age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are ‘eroding the fiber of society’.

…

Yeah, we sure do have a ‘liberal media’ in this country, don’t we… >:/

Witness Tom Tomorrow’s ‘Great Moments In Punditry: Four Years Later‘. Brilliant cartoon, Tom. Hats off t’ya.

Finally- an accolade you’re actually qualified to receive.