It’s a Cold Day in Hell

Megyn Kelly of Fox News called out Tucker Bounds on McCain’s lies about Obama’s proposed tax plan:

On Fox News today, host Megyn Kelly called out McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds for the campaign’s lies about Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) tax proposals. “I want to hold you accountable for what McCain is doing,” said Kelly. “Has your candidate gone too far, has he stretched the truth with the voters?”

Bounds initially attempted to dismiss her question, claiming that McCain has simply “gone to great lengths to discuss Barack Obama’s record.” “It is true that during a struggling economy, he proposes raising taxes,” declared Bounds.

“Not on the middle class,” shot back Kelly, noting that “virtually every independent analyst” has said that the McCain campaign is lying:

KELLY: But you guys have suggested he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class and virtually every independent analyst who took a look at that claim said that’s not true. He’ll raise it on people making $200,000 or $250,000, but not the middle class.

Bounds tried to push back by saying that Obama had voted to raise taxes in the past, but Kelly kept pushing Bounds to admit the McCain campaign was lying. “If that’s false, why would John McCain do that, Tucker? Why wouldn’t he just level with the voters?” asked Kelly:

KELLY: Let’s stay on point, I’m not giving him any credit. I’m saying what the independent analysts say. They say that claim is false. And if that’s false, why would John McCain do that Tucker? Why wouldn’t he just level with the voters and say, “look, he’s going to raise taxes on the wealthy or whatever you consider somebody to be making over $250,000, it’s going to have a trickle down effect. That may not be good for the middle class.” But why say he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class when he’s not?

It’s even more impressive when you watch the video. Tucker Bounds is clearly thrown off balance by a line of questioning he surely never expected to get from a Fox reporter.

More commentary at Meme.

8 Responses to “It’s a Cold Day in Hell”

  1. gcotharn says:

    something I’m unclear about: is Obama offering to actually cut rates? Or, is he offering a one time rebate?

  2. gcotharn says:

    I found it at

    Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy:
    Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.

    Which, while correct via technicality, will be viewed by meat and potatoes Americans as if Barack lied to them via keeping their taxes the same.

  3. Kathy says:

    What are meat and potatoes Americans? Is that a synonym for the wealthiest Americans?

  4. gcotharn says:

    It’s a synonym for people who, when you ask what is for dinner, say: Chicken; or Roast. They do not say Chicken Scallopine with Hazelnut Cream Sauce, or Country Pate with Mango and Pineapple Chutney.

    It’s a synonym for people who don’t put up with bull@#$%, and who I expect will think Obama was bull#$%^&*# them if their taxes stay the same as under Bush. Obama, I guess, figures they will forget their disdain by the time his re-election campaign hits full swing – as happened when Clinton gave up on his promised middle class tax cut during the first 3 weeks of his first term.

    I supported Clinton during the 1992 election, btw. When he cynically said: “I’ve worked at this tax cut harder than I’ve ever worked at anything”, and he was 3 weeks into his Presidency, I realized he was completely full of @#$%, and he had been lying about everything during his campaign. I walked away from Bill Clinton and never looked back. His is a rare narcissism and cynicism.

    A coworker told me Clinton was massively lying during the 1992 campaign. I said “I don’t think so. No one would be so cynical as to tell such bald faced lies to the nation. I think he must have an idea how he will do what he promises to do.” I was young and dumb. Bill Clinton matured me. He was lying about it all.

  5. Kathy says:

    Well, gcotharn, I don’t get where you get “Obama was bullshitting them if their taxes stay the same as under Bush,” when your own quote that you quote from Obama’s site clearly says he will protect tax cuts for poor and middle-class families. I also don’t get why you apparently believe that McCain will help the middle class, much less the poor, when he supports the Bush tax cuts, which benefited the wealthiest Americans overwhelmingly and stiffed the middle class and working class.

    If there’s logic hidden in there somewhere, I don’t find it.

  6. radical_Moderate says:

    Actually Obama isn’t proposing that ” taxes (will) stay the same as under Bush” for the middle class (defined as making $66,000 or less) Obama plans to reduce them:

    ……………… MCCAIN …………. OBAMA
    Income ……. Avg tax bill ……. Avg. tax bill
    Over $2.9M …. -$269,364 (-4.4%)… +$701,885 (+11.5%)
    $603K and up…. -$45,361 (-3.4%)… +$115,974 (+8.7%)
    $227K-$603K…… -$7,871 (-3.1%)…….. +$12 (+0.0%)
    $161K-$227K…… -$4,380 (-3.0%)….. -$2,789 (-1.9%)
    $112K-$161K…… -$2,614 (-2.5%)….. -$2,204 (-2.1%)
    $66K-$112K …… -$1,009 (-1.4%)….. -$1,290 (-1.8%)
    $38K-$66K …….. -$319 (-0.7%)….. -$1,042 (-2.4%)
    $19K-$38K …….. -$113 (-0.5%)……. -$892 (-3.6%)
    Under $19K ……… -$19 (-0.2%)……. -$567 (-5.5%)

    Note that under the Obama plan that those making $37-66K will get a $1,042 tax cut while the McCain plan gives those same people only a $319 break. Of course where it really gets significant is in the $19-38K level; $892 (as compared to $113) is a real economic advantage for a working “chicken or roast” family.

    BTW, anyone who thinks that a President McCain won’t have to raise taxes at some point is living in a dream world; with the ginormous debt the USA is carrying, not to mention McCain’s ambitious plans for the military, etc., he is going to have to raise revenue somewhere eventually…and the paltry $18 Billion he hopes to save by cutting out earmarks ain’t going to cut it.

  7. gcotharn says:


    ? Consider Mrs. Meat and Potatoes American:

    If Obama promises a tax cut, and my taxes stay the same as under Bush, then Obama lied to me.

    How is it you can understand’s nuanced take on “tax cut”, yet you cannot understand a straighforward definition of tax cut as most of America understands the concept?

    Re: Benefits the wealthiest Americans

    I believe we remain on the right side of the Laffer Curve, and therefore the government’s gross tax receipts would increase if taxes were further cut across the board. Only yesterday, Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore wrote about the evidence showing

    “Barack Obama is wrong when he states on his campaign Web site that the economic policies started by Ronald Reagan have rewarded “wealth not work.”
    When all sources of income are included — wages, salaries, realized capital gains, dividends, business income and government benefits — and taxes paid are deducted, households in the lowest income quintile saw a roughly 25% increase in their living standards from 1983 to 2005. (See chart nearby; the data is from the Congressional Budget Office’s “Comprehensive Household Income.”) This fact alone refutes the notion that the poor are getting poorer. They are not.

    Radical Moderate,

    Thank you for this information. This is exactly what I was wondering about. Do you have a link? I would appreciate it very much.

    I do believe, as stated above, McCain would generate more gross tax receipts by lowering taxes, as opposed to raising them. I hope McCain believes that also. I have my doubts.

  8. Kathy says:


    Obama has stated quite clearly, many times, that Americans making under $250,000 will see their taxes cut. I don’t see what could be more clear than that, your obfuscation notwithstanding.

    Your “meat and potatoes” metaphor for Americans who are struggling economically is an artificial and meaningless construct. There is no connection that I know of between income and a preference or lack of preference for meals with fancy-sounding names. The only relevant point is how much the food costs, not what you call it.

    That said, using *your* silly construct, *I* am a “meat and potatoes” American — except I don’t eat meat and eat potatoes only infrequently. I also used a food pantry for about a year, and for the last several months have been on food stamps. So if “meat and potatoes” Americans are the Americans who cannot afford to eat out or use fancy ingredients in their home-cooked meals, then I am a “meat and potatoes” American, and as you undoubtedly know, gcotharn:

    I am voting for Barack Obama because, among other reasons, he is the candidate who gets it about what a struggle it is just to survive every day in this economy, and because he has a plan *that makes sense* to help Americans who are in financial distress and to improve the economy.

    As an American struggling to pay essential bills and eat once in a while, *and* as a woman who cares about equal pay for equal work, reproductive rights, and other essential concerns for women, *I would have to be insane to vote for John McCain.* And gcotharn, I may be a little eccentric, but I’m not insane.

    Period, end of story, afaik.


  1. Et Tu, FoxNews And Karl Rove? Then Fall, Señor McCain! | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™ - [...] Comments From Left Field’s Kathy: “… Tucker Bounds is clearly thrown off balance by a line of questioning he…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook