<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ThinkProgress &#187; Robert Gordon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thinkprogress.org/author/robert-gordon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thinkprogress.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:03:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Is Holtz-Eakin Backing Away From McCain’s Economic Plan?</title>
		<link>http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/03/24/172124/mccain-tax-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/03/24/172124/mccain-tax-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Gordon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Douglas Holtz-Eakin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/03/24/is-holtz-eakin-backing-away-from-mccain%e2%80%99s-economic-plan/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In today’s Washington Post, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, writes 489 words about McCain’s plan for “turning around the economy.” There is not one word about the two massive corporate tax cuts that Sen. McCain billed, barely two months ago, as the top two items in his &#8220;economic [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In today’s Washington Post, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser to Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign, writes 489 words about McCain’s plan for “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301418.html">turning around the economy</a>.” There is not one word about the two massive corporate tax cuts that Sen. McCain billed, barely two months ago, as the top two items in his &#8220;<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/mmemmottpdf/McCain-stimulus-plan-1-17-2008.pdf">economic stimulus plan</a>&#8220;:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>JOHN MCCAIN UNVEILS ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN</strong><br />
For Immediate Release<br />
Thursday, January 17, 2008</p>
<p>ARLINGTON, VA — Today in Columbia, South Carolina, John McCain unveiled his plan to stimulate the American economy. McCain’s plan will <strong>lower the corporate tax rate, allow expensing of equipment and technology investments and establish a permanent research and development tax credit</strong>. …</p></blockquote>
<p>Dr. Holtz-Eakin is smart to want to walk away from this absurd <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/pdf/tax_agenda.pdf">Norquist pander</a>, but will the media let Sen. McCain do the same? </p>
<p>Coming soon from Sen. McCain: I was against irresponsible tax cuts before I was for them.   </p>
<p><strong>UPDATE:</strong> My bad. Although this article didn&#8217;t mention expensing, it did mention the corporate rate cuts. Sorry for the error.	</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/03/24/172124/mccain-tax-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Where&#8217;s that Pulitzer?</title>
		<link>http://thinkprogress.org/media/2005/07/06/1245/wheres-that-pulitzer/</link>
		<comments>http://thinkprogress.org/media/2005/07/06/1245/wheres-that-pulitzer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2005 11:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert Gordon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thinkprogress.org/?p=1245</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The New York Times has a very good story about how the White House and Senate leadership are telling right-wing pressure groups to cool their jets and lay off Alberto Gonzales. But the piece is marred by this astonishing blind quote: A senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity because most staff [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Times has a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/politics/politicsspecial1/06scotus.html?hp&#038;ex=1120622400&#038;en=e1f4c6727626f9e0&#038;ei=5094&#038;partner=homepage">very good story</a> about how the White House and Senate leadership are telling right-wing pressure groups to cool their jets and lay off Alberto Gonzales.  But the piece is marred by this astonishing blind quote:</p>
<blockquote><p>A senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity because most staff members are not authorized to speak about the vacancy, said the push against Mr. Gonzales would not influence Mr. Bush&#8217;s thinking. &#8220;He has talked at some considerable length about his view on who he thinks would be qualified to be a Supreme Court justice,&#8221; the official said. &#8220;And he&#8217;s going to make his decision in a deliberate manner.&#8221; </p>
<p>The official added, &#8220;At the end of the day, the president is going to decide this based on those principles, not from any pressure from the groups.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>This echoes the Times&#8217;  <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04supreme.html">piece</a> on Monday about the role of ideology in nominations hearings.  It featured this gem:</p>
<blockquote><p>A senior White House official, who insisted on anonymity in discussing the early phases of the nomination, echoed Mr. Sessions and other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, saying, &#8220;There has been a long-term standard that the appropriateness of questioning does not include asking judges to take specific sides or positions regarding cases they may hear one day.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Come on.  Why is self-serving spin and empty assertion being treated like a scoop?  We all need help understanding the nomination process, but this isn&#8217;t helpful.  As one well-known jurist, Judge Judy, puts the point: Don&#8217;t pee on my leg and tell me it&#8217;s raining.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://thinkprogress.org/media/2005/07/06/1245/wheres-that-pulitzer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

