Almost every advocate of the flat tax (correct me if this doesn't include you) is actually proposing a progressive tax with two brackets.  These are a 0% bracket for all income below a minimum threshold (which may based on family size), and a bracket of x % for all income above that threshold.  Once you have accepted the necessity of this level of progressivity, what's so much more objectionable about having three or four brackets?

My main problem with the flat tax proponents is that they have so strongly linked tax simplification to flat taxes that they have poisoned the well for simplification advocates.  While virtually everyone who advocates flat taxes also wants tax simplification,  there is also a large constituency (perhaps larger) that wants tax simplification while maintaining progressivity.  These constituencies should join together to achieve what may be politically possible -- a massive simplification of the tax code with minimal deductions. Most flat taxers would agree that tax simplification will do much to alleviate inequities in the tax system, even if the current level of progressivity is preserved.

Yes, in most cases a flat tax would indeed exempt those below a certain level; and yes, removal of deductions and simpler taxation is a cause worth pursuing. The two belong together, especialy since the complicated tax code always benefits those with large amounts of wealth (hence effectively as unfair as progressive taxation). The model was the 1986 tax reform. The one exemption I'd keep is charity. Imagine if the only way to exempt income from taxation was to give it to charitable enterprises.

Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia -- only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

Obama's reference to his own grandmother's fear of black men was not in any conceivable universe "throwing her under the bus." It was a way to explain how Obama has seen and empathized with racial fears on both sides of the divide. The speech remains a great one, and it is an indicator of the bitterness of parts of the right that they couldn't see and embrace that. I might add that I don't disagree with Charles' assessment of Obama's steely political skills. Obama is an inspiring figure and remains a bridge to a post-boomer discourse. But he is impressive precisely because he is neither a pure Adlai Stevenson nor a protean Bill Clinton. He's more like Jack Kennedy: cunning, ruthless, capable of political positioning as much as greatness. I don't want politicians to be saints. I just don't want them to be devoid of integrity either. Obama strikes me as better, much better, than most.

I loved this post.  Why?  It’s not because I necessarily agree with all of it, or any of it, for that matter.  But because it’s a post about real policy differences; honest, thoughtful and completely legitimate.  I fully expect that after Obama is elected, you will spend the next 4 years rightfully hammering him on his policies and then hopefully you’ll get to vote for someone more in line with your conservative ideals.

But not this year.  We have to get the big things right (no torture, sane Middle East policy, sweeping our government clean of the Christianists) before we can move back to these quaint discussions.

I look forward to the day when you expressing your conservative view infuriates me.  For now, it just makes me warmly smile, thinking fondly of times, past and future, when talking about things like “tax fairness” are the most important things we need to change in our government.

If Obama is elected, I'm sure I will find plenty to criticize him on. I'm also sure his election would be the best thing to happen for the future of conservatism as a coherent governing philosophy in a long time.

A California sea lion catches a fish on June 27, 2008 at the zoo in Nuremberg, southern Germany. In wild life, California sea lions live in coastal regions of the northern Pacific Ocean. By Timm Schamberger/AFP/Getty.

Rosen's pulled quote lends little support to the position that Obama has been consistent in his "support for the execution of child rapists."  The example Obama gave in the Audacity of Hope was "the rape and murder of a child."  The key word is "and."  Both rape and murder, not just rape.