Check out this quote from the New York Post that's supposed to scare people from voting for Obama due to tax issues, "Right now [it] is 35 percent, Obama wants to take that to 39 percent . . . We're talking about people who make over $200,000. That's not rich. So it's actually going to impact more people than you may think."
$200k a year isn't rich? Even in New York City itself, that's a pretty impressive salary. Moreover, the bump itself isn't exactly huge. If it were going to 50 or 60 percent, that would be one thing, but going from 35 to 39? Even people who believe in the Laffer Curve [1] would have a hard time arguing that someone would be willing to work for 65% of their gross income but couldn't possibly be motivated for 61%.
Keep it up conservatives. At the beginning of a recession, start arguing that a person making $200,000 a year isn't rich. I'm sure that'll play really well among those working class voters that are supposed to be having such a problem with Obama. Between this argument and McCain's attempt to push the Carter meme - a perfect appeal to those who became Republicans in the late 70s, but worrisome if he's having to work that hard for conservatives in their 50s and 60s - it looks like McCain and his supporters might be falling into the trap of assuming everyone is like them.
"If we appeal to late middle aged people who make $200k a year, there's no way we can lose! That's the vast majority of the US population, right?"
[1] By the way supply siders, note the word "curve." That means that at some point the stimulus effect of tax cuts would stop working. It's not enough to say that tax cuts can actually increase government income in some cases; you have to prove that we're still on that side of the curve. Either remember that or start arguing that setting a tax rate of 0% will bring infinite revenue.