Gas Tax Holiday: A Good Political Issue, But Not Such a Great Idea

It may work for him if he can demagogue against the oil companies. A lot of that depends on how his message is delivered in his paid and unpaid media.

That fits his theme of his refusing lobbyist money, and Clinton's fealty to special interests.

just heard him on NPR saying that a three month tax holiday that might put "25 dollars into your pocket is not enough"

I had not realized that Senator Clinton had signed on to the Free Candy idea.
I'm not sure treating the electorate like children is winning politics anymore.

How do Clinton and Saint McCain plan to replace the money they will cut? Are they going to borrow it from the Chinese and pass the debt onto the next generation? Do they plan to turn all the roads in the nation into toll roads, and raise prices on public transport?

Any moron can cut taxes.

A smart Democratic strategist suggested the candidates chose to make a race about nothing?

KT: I hope you corrected him and showed him he was not so smart after all, because it was the media who decided to make it about nothing.

Hillary, Obama and John will talk to you the media and by extension the American public, about anything you ask them. However, if all you the media ask them about is flag pins, their preachers, their pants suits, whether or not their associates love America as much as they do, their bowling scores and duck hunting. Guess what they are going to talk about?

Karen, honestly this stuff does not happen in and grow a life on its own. YOU PEOPLE ARE DRIVING IT! For godsakes please own up to that simple fact. Many commentors here have been pleading with you guys to do your jobs and what do we get? Pictures and lame posts about lame parties, fawning posts about McCain with no critical thought in them. Rev Wright post after post. How is Rev Wright going to solve any of the problems we Americans are facing whether you like em or hate em? How?

Oh, the gas tax relief is not a good idea. We need to pay more for gas and maybe this will force people to think up better ways to travel and conserve. Also our roads are crumbling now. What happens when the next bridge falls..The officials responsible will use the gas tax relief as an excuse.

I am not sure about that Democratic stragetist. I have listened to quite a few on TV and always end up asking myself: what makes this person a stratetist. Do these people pass some kind of exam? Because not everything they says makes sense. The problem is that both Democratic candidates have wanted to talk about issues. However, the MSM script requires discussion of the cost of haircuts, a defence of one relationship to Rev Wright, accounting for the statements of surrogates or self appointed "advisors", and going into defensive mode for the "gotchas".

Karen: we need a frank assessment of the Russertisation of Political Reporting.

As for the temporary gas tax relief: it can be read as pandering. But recall that gas prices in the UK have been four times that in the US since North Sea oil flowed in. In Canada, a major supplier to the US prices are higher than here. Meanwhile in Arab countries gas is given away. The point is that profits for gas companies trumps all. The supply and demand argument has some validity; but it has never been allowed to interfere with profitability.

KT here--

Gy: I am not absolving the media here at all, but I do think this primary race is relatively unique in the absence of real contrast on the issues. For instance, on their health care plans, both candidates take the same approach; both would make revolutionary changes in the system. So (and my colleague Joe would disagree with me here) I don't think an argument over whether to have an individual mandate is going to strike most voters as a real distinction.

I've noticed that some commenters have mentioned Elizabeth Edwards' piece in the NYT this weekend. While I take her point generally, I was struck by her first example, where she criticized reporters for not asking Joe Biden about his health care plan. As it happens, I was the moderator of a candidate forum last spring in Las Vegas on that issue. Each Democratic candidate (even Gravel) submitted to 20 minutes of questioning from me and the audience on health care that actually got pretty deeply into the issue.

The only no-show in the Democratic field: Joe Biden

How do Clinton and Saint McCain plan to replace the money they will cut?

Clinton has spoken vaguely about getting it from the oil companies somehow.

McCain, being a Republican, doesn't believe in funding his proposals.

Karen: one additional point:can you identify this smart strategist? I can then make a personal assessment of how smart the person is. I hope it's not Shrumbo!

The gax tax holiday is pandering at its worst. The chances of most of us actually seeing the break is slim. An investigation into gas profits would be more useful. We have got to start actually paying for things around here. If the candidates said "let's put it on the national credit card instead of raising funds to pay for it" maybe voters would reflect a little more before they lunged for tax breaks.

My living depends directly on tourism dollars, and I still don't want this. It's a piece of gum in the dike.

well no, not "pandering at its worst." Just had a hyperbolic moment.

Karen,

are you suggesting that EEs point was invalid because you hosted that forum *a year ago* and Biden didn't make it? That's a stretch. Do you mean that the media didn't ever again have to discuss the substantive issue because a year ago they talked about it? and Biden's a big loser because he didn't show? tsk tsk.

KT here--

Bitter: I haven't talked to Shrumbo in years. I won't identify the person I did talk to. It was a conversation where I agreed not to name him, because I really just wanted to pick his brain, and people are much freer about what they really think when you do it on those terms. However, I can say he is someone you probably have never heard of, and he is not working for any of the candidates who are currently in the race.

KT regarding Biden- Is that a One Strike and you are out policy?

KT here (and then I really have to get ready for work):

James: Not at all. What I am saying is that health care was not a particular priority for Joe Biden or his campaign. And when he was given a really good opportunity to spell out his priorities on the issue, he had better things to do.

KT: First thanks for responding. However, I must take exception to you knowing what strikes most voters. To me that is like saying they wouldn't be interested. Maybe that's not your intent, but that's what I get from that kind of statement.

I'm a voter and highly doubt you understand where I'm even coming from because if you did you would understand I'm not asking you to absolve the media for anything. I'm not asking you to bash the media, your fellow reporters or any of the candidates. I'm not asking about one issue. There are so many issues that we need you to ask the candidates about that you could start threads all day long on different ones.

But you don't. Instead the media starts acting like a group and following the bouncing ball. It happens here on Swampland. It happens on the networks and it happens in the deadtree issues of all the major newspapers. No one thinks outside of the box. Everyone starts commenting on the same story and then claims, "its not my fault." Well that may be so but, the stupid has got to stop some where. Now there are 3 candidates right?

hmph. Sounds like you're just peeved that he didn't come. Otherwise hitting EEs points on the issue doesn't make a bit of sense.

Maybe go get some more caffeine and rethink?

KT here (and then I really, REALLY have to get ready to go to work):

Gy: Funny, it occurred to me that the front page of the NYT this morning makes both my point and yours. The gas tax story is at the top of the page with a two-column head, and Rev. Wright is below the fold with a four-column head.

Deuce!

Karen-- Thanks for the post. Reporting on the candidates' positions, and the likely outcome of those positions, is the bees' knees.

I don't know why Biden didn't attend that event, but he did have a plan, and it's not like it got a whole lot of attention. More people knew about John Edwards' haircut than knew about Saddam's lack of WMD. That didn't just happen by magic. One story was covered wall-to-wall by the media, and the other one wasn't. One forum doesn't make up for months of haircut/lapel pin/former pastor-gate.

(Again, GySgt213, bitterpill8, et al are, I think, talking about media coverage altogether, not blaming you personally for everything).

KT here--

No, James, I was just citing one example with which I had personal experience.

KT "So (and my colleague Joe would disagree with me here) I don't think an argument over whether to have an individual mandate is going to strike most voters as a real distinction."

If only there had been say, I don't know, a six week break during the primaries to flesh out the differences and see if the voters could make a real distinction.

Hi Karen,

Just out of curiousity, how can the person that is correct be wrong politically? Isn't this the point of the media?...to tell the public this. There always seems to be a disconnect in the media that they don't help shape what is good politics. Like if all the reporters stated what you stated without saying the conventional wisdom that this is bad politics on Obama's part, wouldn't the conventional wisdom change? And then the right person would have the right politics.

Just a thought.

Thanks!

I happen to agree with KT on this. The voters decided, pretty quickly, that they were interested in the right leaning (or, if you prefer, more centrist) candidates. They've pushed Obama and Clinton off their initial positions on Iraq. I don't think there is a subtantive difference between their health care plans because the composition of the legislature is going to determine that. If we get a tsunami with a bunch of Responsible Challenger freshmen and 60 Senate seats, there will be possiblities that seem not to exist today.

I realize this is far outside the conventional wisdom right now. But the conventional wisdom would not have predicted a 'wrong track' number over 80%, nor a run-off in MS-01.

The thing I don't understand is if there is nothing really to cover in the Dem race, why are we not seeing more scrutiny of McCain? There's plenty to find there. For example, Kevin Drum has a question:

Can we stop pretending to be children about this? There's only one reason for a politician to make sure that all his assets are in his wife's name: it's to make sure that no one knows anything about his assets. It's not as if McCain is the first pol to try this, after all.

HRC has made some comments about making up the shortfall in our infastructure budget the lack of a federal gas tax would create by leveraging a windfall tax on big oil's profits. Just how fracking stupid does she think we are?

If you increase the cost of doing business to the oil patch by 18 cents a gallon, does she really expect us to believe that they won't simply increase the price of gas by 18 cents? We'll pay the same tax either directly or indirectly either way.

And then she had the gall to critisize BHO for opposing the tax holiday when he supported a similar measure in IL. BHO should really nail her to the wall on this one. He should put out a statement along the lines of...

"Yes, I supported a tax holiday as a state senator because it seemed like a good idea. But it failed to ease preasure on my constituents and created other problems for our state budget.

It is due to this EXPERIENCE that I'm opposing a nationwide holiday, which I believe would similarly fail to help the American consumer at the pump and would also lead to less available money to repair our crumbling infastructure. If Senator Clinton refuses to learn from the experience of others, how seriously should we take hers"?

K

The whole gas tax holiday issue seems bizarre to me since last I checked any implementation would be well over by the time the next president is inaugurated. I think it's being thrown around purely for its symbolic "I feel the pain of you commoners" effect, but ultimately, just a give away to the oil companies. Instead of the gas tax, I would like a substantive debate on whether each american taxpayer should receive a bag of Hershey's Kisses from the government. "Senator Obama, why don't you wear a Hershey's Kiss pin on your lapel?"

By the way the gas tax holiday just like the rebate checks are only quick fixes for very long term problems. Once the rebate money is spent and once we have filled up to our hearts content, we are still going to be sitting in the same foreclosed home and driving the same gas guzzling vehicles with no passengers.

We are still going to sitting in Iraq spending billions we don't have. Americans will still be paying more out of pocket for medicine and their health insurance will still be covering less and less. Americans will still be getting hit with high fees, fees for using cash to pay their bills, fees to get their own cash out of ATMs and encouraged to use credit to pay for everyday items. Our jobs will still be going overseas and because we have no effective border enforcement or immigration plan we won't be able to get the low paying jobs that are left. Our schools will still suck because we are focused on them passing tests instead of learning.

Karen: Please ask John, Obama and Hillary what they plan to for the long term. What is their vision and if their initial plans don't work out what are their alternative plans? Do any plan on encouraging more mass transit in urban areas and providing money for the cities to delevop mass transit? What are their thoughts about a tax incentives to car poolers or small business running car pool operations?

GySgt213: By the way the gas tax holiday just like the rebate checks are only quick fixes for very long term problems.

While I think your point Gy is on the bigger issue of long term financial planning. I think its worth saying that I don't believe these are short term fixes will provide any benefit whatsoever. The other day on Morning Joe on MSNBC they had Jim Cramer going on about how this little bit of money actually benefits retailers and such because once again they believe your avg citizen, rather than paying their bills will use the extra money to buy an iPod or some other frivolous purchase.

The fact is with the cost of energy, food, and housing costs going through the roof during this recession, most avg folks are barely able to keep up and will have to use these extra $s for basic necessities.

Which is why Clinton's support of a gas-tax holiday just seems like pandering for political expedience. There's no evidence that such a break will benefit us, if not cuz more problems when the price continues to go up and the tax is re-instated. I expect such idiotic economic policy from a Rep, but this is just unacceptable from Clinton. She really should no better.

YMM: I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment. I shouldn't used the term "quick fixes" because I also believe that neither will actually fix any thing. Both ideas are more like using your credit card to pay for things you can't afford in the first place. So when the bill comes due you start dodging the phone calls.

Hillary seems to be into a game of "dare" with various people, calling on Bush to not go to China, (now that really took off as an idea, didn't it), and challenging Barack to agree with her. Taking up McCain's call for a gas tax, raising the ante by calling for a getting the money from the oil companies, and calling on Barack to agree with her, and challenging Barack to "Lincoln-Douglas" debates which wouldn't be. She thinks this is a win-win. Either they agree with her and look like they caved, or disagree with her and she uses that as an issue against them. She's a clever politician, but I'm very, very, tired of her.

KT. It's always a pleasure to see you 'respond one last time then I really need to get to work' and then respond again and again.

I would like to repeat jambros excellent comment: "Just out of curiousity, how can the person that is correct be wrong politically? Isn't this the point of the media?...to tell the public this. There always seems to be a disconnect in the media that they don't help shape what is good politics."

The Dobb's piece in the Post actually isn't bad at all. Lays out the facts of the case, gives the panderers 2 Pinocchios. It also says this: "The gas tax moratorium proved politically popular in Illinois, but economically questionable."

Obama has a fine, fact-based, substantive argument to make against the measure. It takes a paragraph to lay it out.

The panderers have a false argument that plays on people's immediate concerns about "doing something" gas prices. Their pander fits on a bumper sticker.

So the panderers win. In America, if your point doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, it won't penetrate. And the spin machine will use this as another example of Obama being an "elite" and aloof from the concerns of "ordinary people."

I wish I knew the answer to this. Perhaps if the media made an explicit point of giving the answer to a fact-based question up top in the lede it would help. "The "gas tax holiday would save the average American $XX, cost the treasury $XX,XXX,XXX,XXX, and "in order to pay for the tax cut, the government would have to cut back on highway construction and maintenance.""

Steve Benen also has a piece on this today, echoing Karen's point that Obama and Hillary "have relatively small differences on actual issues" and then saying:

"With this in mind, I am absolutely delighted to see a new, genuine, Grade-A policy conflict between the two candidates emerge. It has nothing to do with a gaffe or a flip-flop or guilt by association. It’s an actual disagreement over substance. I think I’m feeling faint."
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15367.html#more-15367

He also offers a Clinton sound bite on this that proves the point from my previous post: "“My opponent, Senator Obama, opposes giving consumers a break,” Clinton said, campaigning in North Carolina. “I understand the American people need some relief.”"

wvng - the irony is that this has been more and more of a problem the more traction 24/7 cable news has gotten. So now that they have all that time to fill, it should be possible to speak in paragraphs, yes? But they have only exacerbated the bumper sticker problem, saying the same simple thing over and over again, all day long. Henny Penny saying the sky is falling. And unfortunately, too many people believe it.

Thanks, Karen, for explaining why you cannot ID your strategist. (cf Russert). I understand and appreciate the conventions. My only point is if the strat thought his/her view was so good why is he/she dishing it in confidence. I know, I know: people feel free to say things without upsetting potential clients or calling down the wrath of the current Campaigns. The problem for me is that I am now sceptical of anonymous sources, question motivation, etc. None of this is personal to you. But the very idea that the candidates CHOSE to make this a race about nothing given what has happened day after day for a long time. No wonder he/she wants to bruit this about under cover of "do not quote me". Now I have to go off to work.

Well here is McCain changing positions again. Since there will be no memo from the RNC telling the media to call him a flip flopper I guess this can be added to Joe's bag of mixed nuts.

On the campaign trail, for example, McCain has accused Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of a "failure of leadership" by advocating a policy of drawing down troops. But in the MSNBC interview, McCain was arguing that U.S. "visibility" was detrimental to the Iraq mission and that Iraqis were responding negatively to America's presence - positions held by both Obama and Clinton.

Somewhere along the way, McCain's position changed. Perhaps twice. As Think Progress reported, in August 2007, as the troops surge was underway, McCain told the Charlie Rose Show that the Korea model was "exactly" the right template for U.S. forces in Iraq. Only three months later, and on the same show, he completely reversed himself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/mccain-strongly-rejected_n_99082.html

Thanks for the Benen link. Clinton is doing a lot of this: it pushes a bogus conservative frame .

lately

GySgt213: Saw McCain on the teevee yesterday and he looked unusually frail. He does not think on his feet as well as he used to. I'm beginning to wonder just a wee bit if he's flip-flopping or doesn't remember/realize that his positions aren't congruent. It will be an interesting campaign.

Jayack: Thanks for setting me straight about the italics tag a couple of days ago. much appreciated.

Karen:

Thank you so much for responding to commentary.

Bush is going to talk economics at a conference at 10:30 a.m. today. This ought to be rich. No pun intended.

KathyR

I've heard this about McCain too. I've asked Ana and Michael about it, but they've never answered. One reason I hope the DNC runs that 100 years in Iraq ad over and over agin is that McCain looks old and frail.

He's a terrible candidate. It must be killing Clinton that she can't get to him.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama proposed comparatively different solutions to various problems, most notably (by me, anyway) our health care crisis and the slog Iraq. While I agree with jayackroyd that the realities of the moment will influence the next president, the approach each candidate will be different.

I assume that what Karen Tumulty's source may have meant was that there are more differences between the Democratic field of today and the Democratic nominee of 2004 than there are within the field today. That said, both candidates discussed the real differences between them on the issues I mentioned above. I blame the pund-twit thinking that is not limited to the rantings of Chris Matthews, but is widespread within the Gang of 500 today.

(I cannot tell whether the passive voice in "the battle for the Democratic nomination has disintegrated" comes from the strategist or not, so I can't really comment on that.)

Don't worry, KathyR. If McCain's base (the media) know how to do anything well, it is makeup. They will have McCain looking like a sprite forty-something for the general election.

This ought to be rich. No pun intended.

You don't understand. He is a man of the people. Obama is the elitist. He has the arugula to prove it.

smedley - it won't really matter what he looks like if he is increasingly unable to answer questions coherently.

Jay: Do you really still think Barack has this nomination sewed up? I'm extremely nervous about this. Hillary has even made up ground in N.C.

I think the economic ad the DNC is running is actually more effective, and the McCain camp hasn't been pushing back on it. The one where he says how well the economy is doing, creating jobs, no inflation, etc.

Well apparently Bush has all these grand plans to fix high gas prices, student loans and the mortgage crisis and the friggin congress is just holding him up. Oh the stupid..It burns.

Karen (and anyone else needing instruction in tags): I found this neat page explaining how to italicize, bold, space, center, link, etc. in a comment thread. http://www.pageresource.com/html/textags.htm

KathyR

I do not see a path for Clinton to the nomination. Her arguments for overriding the process are feeble. She lost the FL and MI redo. She'd need 60-40 wins in the remaining contests to persuade enough superdelegates to override the voters.

Check out this chart. It would be insane to alienate these voters, who will the foundation of the party for a two generations. It would be insane to alienate black voters.

Clinton, of course, has the right to run for as long as she wants. But there is no question in my mind that her nomination would be much worse for the party than Obama's. I think the superdelegates, especially the DNC variety will recognize this.

As Bowers has said, it's time to stop chasing the Reagan Democrats.

And, you know, we blame the media for a lot of bad stuff. But I honestly believe that television has been enormously important in combatting racism and homophobia (sexism not so much) by vehicles like the Today Show, Real World and even local news broadcasts. There's a shared, tolerant television culture among people under 30 who would find it shocking that Kirk kissing Uhura was shocking at the time.

Responding KathyR's question posed to jay: "Do you really still think Barack has this nomination sewed up? I'm extremely nervous about this. Hillary has even made up ground in N.C."

Not after the Wright episode yesterday. Couldn't have come at a worse time, particularly for Indiana. And, surprise surprise, a Hillary supporter suggested to Wright that he do the Press Club:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clinton_supporter_invited_Wright.html

What I don't understand is how day in and day out we who comment on swampland think we need a change. That something has to change. But nothing is done. I still know people who are going to vote for McCain because they liked bush (granted they are rich and have been rep for awhile) but what do you do? You can't convince the rich and selfish to vote against their money so what do you do? It's tiring to sit here and comment on this and see nothing happen.

Jay - thanks for the pep talk. I guess I've been nervous she could get the 60-40 break (and/or get such a vote margin in PR that she could legitimize the popular vote argument for those supers who want to go with her).

Yes, it would be insane to alienate Barack's constituencies.

I agree we need to stop chasing the Reagan Democrats, but Barack seems to be chasing them as much as Clinton. I hope he has the sense to return to the uplifting rallies; he's let her drag him into her strategy (which he acknowledged yesterday, by admitting he'd gotten a little negative).

I see he's answered N.C. Gov with Rep. Chandler of Ky.

wvng--

Can you outline the scenario you fear?

Also, I don't know if this was an update you didn't see but Smith has this up now:

She'd first pitched inviting Wright to the press club two years ago.

Anybody watching this press conference? Bush is the biggest idiot ever. I feel the stupidity breaking in to my brain...GET IT OUT!

...Before we take this "Clinton Supporter Invites Wright" nonsense too far, let's just look at the full quote from the Drudgico piece:

The Tribune reports that Wright was invited by Barbara Reynolds, a former USA Today editorial board member who has written on personal blog of her support for Clinton.

I don't mean to suggest some kind of plot. Her agenda here seems to have been the same as Wright's: To protect the minister's reputation from, among others, Obama.

"[I]t is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray the Senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement instead of respecting Wright for the towering astute father of progressive social and global causes that he is," Reynolds wrote in March.

Reynolds' is well placed to defend Wright. Her bio says she teaches "prophetic ministry and the media" at Howard University's divinity school.

Right.

The day that an actual public Clinton backer (not somebody who's comments at a personal blog are supportive of Hillary) describes Wright as a "towering astute father of progressive social and global causes" is the day that we all know that a terrorist plot to infiltrate our national water supply with psychoactive hallucinogenic drugs has been successfully unleashed.

This "re-emergence" obviously wasn't some kind of nefarious scheme by the Clinton campaign to dredge up Wright in front of the national media, and implications that it was so are so much political nonsense. That Wright spoke before the National Press Club is not the work of the Clinton campaign, no matter how desperate some Obama supporters might be to take out their anger on the Hated Hillary.

Well, Stuart, I think that's Ben Smith causing trouble more than anything else.

KathyR--

Don't underestimate the power of the media in it's quest to ensure a McCain presidency. You really haven't been paying attention to the media covering up his inconsistencies and flip-flops, have you. The next logical step will be to actually answer questions for him. His seeming inability to function as a normal human being is just further evidence that McCain is a maverick.

Obama NC rally in Winston-Salem

And I am not aiming at snark, here. If a self-professed lefty "journalist" like Ana Marie Cox can proclaim that McCain has "towering standards," is it really far-fetched to see her and her cohorts writing or saying: "what the Senator means is....?"

That's exactly what the AP did with its lede on The RNC pushing back on the in iraq 100 years ad.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191794.php

"How do Clinton and Saint McCain plan to replace the money they will cut?

Clinton has spoken vaguely about getting it from the oil companies somehow.

McCain, being a Republican, doesn't believe in funding his proposals."

Why don't the both of them just wave a magic wand?

I guess it's not like we need to maintain the roads and provide public transportation since people can't afford the gas, or they are out of work?

I'm not an economic expert, like John McCain, but there seems to be some sort of link between the value of a nation's currency, and inflation. Inflation tends to go up as the value of a currency collapses. How about adding energy and food costs back into the CPI and basing interest policy on real inflation as a solution to the gas crunch? If the dollar was worth more gas would be cheaper.

What is the McCain plan with the dollar, to let it drop until it is worth less than the rupee? Is that the only way we can compete with offshore slave labor?

All right, all you Hillbots: explain to me how this isn't shameless pandering from the Tuzla Tigress?

Jay: "Can you outline the scenario you fear?"

Not really, not in a rational world. But the last seven years have taught me that rational can be trumped by hyperbole, again and again, in an atmosphere of fear. The Dem Party has spent the last seven years making decisions against interest out of fear. Yes, "it would be insane to alienate black voters" but maybe they (uncommitted superdelegates) will convince themselves that Obama has now lost too much of the white vote and that that matters more than the black vote (even though it doesn't).

Again, probably won't happen. But who could have imagined that the NYTimes would call a prominent minister a snake on the front page?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/they-hate-him-by-tristero-wow-do-they.html

btw, thanks for the catch from Smith's blog. But, be that as it may, "no one could ever have imagined" that Wright would create problems for Obama in that venue. Reynold's clearly felt that Obama had wronged Wright by renouncing some of his speech instead of standing uncritically beside "the towering astute father of progressive social and global causes". Even if, in full context, Wright's "God Damn America" sermon makes perfect theological sense (it does), there is no conceivable way anyone running for President could afford to be associated with those remarks. Reynold's clearly expected Wright to push back exactly as he did. And that was a gift to Hillary (now) and to McCain if Obama is the nominee.

Hey, where are all the HRC supporters today? Aren't T4T or Southern Bell or Rose going to defend Hillary's position on this? I haven't seen one commenter actually supporting a gas tax cut.

For that matter, where are Rustydog and QH to defend McCain's support either?

Of course the "elistist" SNOBama doesn't need a gas tax relief. He can afford to buy Arugula to eat. Why would he care if the average American could benefit from an 18 cent immediate decrease in the price of a gallon of gas????

Go back to Illinois Obama, and fix the problems on the streets there were dozens and dozens of people are killing each other everyday in South Chicago!!! Then when you think you have enough experience to run the US, try again!

Rusty's a liberal spoofing an idiot conservative, Malcolm.

Maybe referring to it regularly as the Seinfeld Election might snap people out of it. Here's hoping that catches on.

Regardless of whether or not the gas tax holiday is a good idea:

Clinton has spoken vaguely about getting it from the oil companies somehow.

No, she's been specific about paying for the loss in highway funding from the revenue gained via the same energy industry windfall profit tax proposed by Sen. Obama:

Fri Apr 25, 5:13 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama called for a windfall tax on oil company profits Friday, as pump prices in the United States hit a new record high.
ADVERTISEMENT

"For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance. But to most Americans, they're a huge problem, bordering on a crisis," he told reporters at a gas station in Indiana, where he is campaigning.

According to the automobile association AAA, the average price of a gallon (3.78 liters) of gas reached a record 3.58 dollars Friday.

Obama proposes oil companies be taxed on windfall profits from oil sold at or above 80 dollars a barrel, and the revenue be used to help relieve the burden of rising prices on working people, according to his campaign.

Sen. Clinton is proposing using that revenue for a few months during the summer while the "gas tax holiday" is in place:

Clinton said she would make up the difference in revenue by imposing a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies.

"If we suspended it and made up the lost revenues, that's the best of both worlds," she said.

So no, Clinton is not "vaguely" promising something about oil companies, regardless of the merits of a "gas tax holiday" proposal.

smedley - but some of the scales fell from Joe's eyes yesterday, and over time more will fall for more people. They don't have to deal with their McCain dilemma until a Democrat is chosen. None of them wants to be the first to bring up the possibility of McCain's diminished competence, and I can't say that I blame them. If it is not true, then there's no need to bring the possibility up. If it is true, that will become clear with time.

There will be tremendous pressure on him during this campaign. When the whole business of his not wanting Secret Service protection Ambinder said "The Secret Service has proved adept at adapting their security protocols to the particularities of candidates, but McCain visibly blanches at the sight of rope lines and does not like to put any barriers between him and voters." and I thought "oh oh, PTSD. Can't stand to be physically governed by other people's movements - and I can't blame him." I don't think, btw, that PTSD is a disqualifier. But I do think it will add to the pressure he is under, make it more likely he will blow his top, and make his memory faultier. (Stress does this for all of us, whether or not we are 71 and have been held captive).

I'm willing to bet most of the press knows all this and is willing to let things sort themselves out. He's already been excessively sharp with Elizabeth Buemiller. What happens when he blows up at a reporter or voter on prime time? I noticed that Barack told Chris Wallace that what he'd learned about himself during the campaign was that he "has the temperament to be president."

You're changing the subject, Stu. The "gas tax holiday" proposal is blatant pandering. Admit it.

From a link in the Politico post --

Ironically this was the third year in which Wright has held a news conference to launch the annual Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference, named for a noted religious scholar. It brings black religious leaders from across the country to Howard University every year to discuss heady topics like black liberation theology. But this is the first time that the press in significant numbers actually showed up, according to the Rev. Barbara Reynolds, a former Tribune reporter who invited Wright to address the press club.

Will Wright provide more fodder for attack ads? Probably. But the attack ads would come anyway. In my view, it is better that he face the public with the real Wright than to let the out-of-context sound-bites speak for him.

As to the subject of this post, Hillary said she would use an oil company tax to replace the lost funds, but I think the whole idea is dumb. See, we're able to disagree with some things she says. ;)

Also, the tristero post at digby's blog that wvng linked is really worth reading.

"Obama proposes oil companies be taxed on windfall profits from oil sold at or above 80 dollars a barrel, and the revenue be used to help relieve the burden of rising prices on working people, according to his campaign."

Wow this is revolutionary!! Imagine, taxing the big bad oil companies really hard so they shut down production, and you get to ride your favorite GOAT to work!!! But why does Obama care, he rides a BROOM around to get from place to place.

BRILLIANT OBAMA STRIKES AGAIN!!!!

Dunno if it's already been mentioned, but a 'gas tax holiday' would end up saving folks about $25-30...About the current price of a half a tank of gas.

Feel-good pandering with little real impact on fixing the underlying problems.

wvng - did I miss something? I read the Times story twice, and don't see any reference to snakes. Is it because of the "wriggling?" Lots of things wriggle - little children, especially, "wriggle out from under." My cats wriggle out from under my hands when I'm trying to extricate them from some place I don't want them to be. "Wriggling out from under sound bites" is a perfectly good turn of phrase to describe what Wright was doing, and it doesn't mean he was being described as a snake.

sorry Stuart. I should have said a vague reference to a windfall profits tax.

400 million gallons a day is average US consumption. To make the arithmetic easy and adjust for higher consumption in the summer, make 20 cents instead of 18. That's $80 million a day. So 90 days makes it a $7.2 billion pander, most of which will be absorbed by the oil companies, offsetting the undefined "excess profits tax."

Far simpler, far better is ending all subsidies to oil companies. Why doesn't she, or Obama, introduce that legislation? These need not be campaign promises, you know.

Terrible policy.

KathyR-

That "scales fell from Joe's eyes" was a bone for the consumption of us here at Swampland. He will revert to the milquetoast liberal when he next appears on the teevee.

I think you are still underestimating the media and RNC capabilities regarding the general election. If you and I can see how old and frail McCain is, so can they. This will just force them to run an unconventional campaign (so rich in maverick-ness). Fewer "live" appearances, controlled media access, etc.

The one thing to always remember is: Republicans know how to win Presidential campaigns. See Bush, George W.

Off-topic, but here's something by me about Obama
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/29/111232/491?new=true

KathyR. Really good question, that I initially didn't accept as a good question. In my world, and apparently tristero's, first and foremost it is snakes that wriggle out from under . . .." But google "wriggle out from under" and you get:

wriggle out from under the challenge
wriggle out from under the fetid corpse
wriggle out from under that label
wriggle out from under the condescension
Threads of silver always seemed to wriggle out from under the brim
Riordan pushed himself up and let the woman wriggle out from under him
wriggle out from under his horrifying, suffocating grasp

etc, etc

So, there it is.

KT : "I don't think an argument over whether to have an individual mandate is going to strike most voters as a real distinction."

That's very informative. To me, that is an enormous distinction. That distinction was almost enough to make me dislike Edwards, who otherwise may have been my favorite. I am strongly opposed to a mandate, and it is important to me. I know many people who feel the opposite, and often that is important to them. Whenever it is the subject of a conversation, it leads to a passionate debate.

Please do not assume that other people do not care about a distinction. This makes me wonder what other important distinctions have not been brought to my attention because someone else decided I would not care.

smedley - I think I'm not underestimating the media, actually - I think you could well be right about this; but I think the other scenario is also possible. Look at it this way. Since most of the media is so shallow they'll run like lemmings to the next sound bite, when McCain stumbles spectacularly during the general they'll cover it.

I think you're underestimating Joe. He has proven over time that he's an astute observer, and he's willing to let facts alter his views. He's also fallible, like the rest of us.

Wow. That's quite a piece by tristero.

KT be sure to take a look at it at digby's blog.

This is, indeed, the gauntlet being thrown down. They've picked Wright to run against, an this will be their way of saying they're all alike. Tristero is right. They would never dare say these things about a white preacher. They never have, no matter how horrendous his views.

Obama is gonna have to call out the Republicans and the media BEFORE he has the nomination. It's getting harder and harder to not get mad at Clinton.

Posted by TomT | April 29, 2008 12:04 PM:

You're changing the subject, Stu. The "gas tax holiday" proposal is blatant pandering. Admit it.

Not quite.
I'm saying that, regardless of whether or not a temporary suspension of the Federal gas tax for this summer is blatant pandering, sound policy, both or neither, the fact of the matter is that Sens. Clinton and Obama agree with respect to a proposed energy industry windfall profits tax on oil, and that it is also objectively the case that Sen. Clinton wishes to convert some of that revenue into an offset for her proposed "holiday".

These are facts, just as much as it is a fact that Barack Obama says that he intends to employ such windfall revenue to "relieve the burden of rising prices on working people, according to his campaign.", whatever that means (offsetting the expense of a "middle class tax relief package", perhaps).

TomT:
So no, I'm not changing the subject. As to any "admission" of pandering on my part, this talk sure sounds like political pandering to me, but then again, so do vague political sales pitches for "middle class tax relief" (as does a gas tax holiday proposal without an offset such as Clinton's proposing).

I'd like a more detailed, fact-filled discussion of the proposals and their merits, and not just the campaigns (and supporters) winging around accusations and counter-accusations of "pandering" and "out-of-touch". That's not changing the subject, IMO.

Karen,

I note that Brian Williams has another slam, just exactly like yours, on Elizabeth Edwards' column in the New York Times. I think that is very curious. Is this an example of coincidental beltway groupthink, in your opinion, or is this a result of GOP email smears that are emailed to 500 beltway journos every day? Or a third option, there is a concerted beltway effort to slam the New York Times for exposing the media collaboration with the Pentagon's propaganda campaign? Starting with the White House Correspondents dinner, I've noted the ubiquitous NYT bashing, and how better to accomplish that than taking the opportunity to bash Democrats and the NYT simultaeously? A happy, happy convergence in the right-leaning mainstream media machine!

It's a serious question, by the way.

KT : "I don't think an argument over whether to have an individual mandate is going to strike most voters as a real distinction."

That's very informative. To me, that is an enormous distinction. That distinction was almost enough to make me dislike Edwards, who otherwise may have been my favorite. I am strongly opposed to a mandate, and it is important to me. I know many people who feel the opposite, and often that is important to them. Whenever it is the subject of a conversation, it leads to a passionate debate.

Please do not assume that other people do not care about a distinction. This makes me wonder what other important distinctions have not been brought to my attention because someone else decided I would not care.

Posted by WonderLlama | April 29, 2008 12:46 PM

I'd agree with everything WonderLlama expressed, except that I'm on the other side of the individual mandate argument (I believe that a plan without mandates is unworkable, and I almost voted against Obama because of it). So here you have proponents of both types of plan telling you that it really matters.

Sorry, that last post was meant for Karen.

jay, Josh Marshall has a fine little post right now that perhaps explains my concerns re Obama: "As I've mentioned before, one thing running TPM affords us is a barometer, a unique window into the collective minds of the different candidates' supporters. Those most apt to hit the panic button are often those most ready to hit the send button. So it's important not to over-interpret the evidence. But we do seem to have come to some sort crisis of confidence for a number of Obama supporters."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/191884.php

And Kevin Drum has a challenge for Hillary to take the high road and do her own speech on race to "go a long way toward easing the tension that's threatening to open a very deep breach within the Democratic Party. . . . "It wouldn't be easy. But then, she wants to president, doesn't she? That's not a job where you get to duck the tough issues."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013620.php

Sadly, I've been waiting for Hillary to take the high road for quite some time now. It was her insistence on "going low" that drove me away from her camp, and it's been Obama's insistence on taking the high road when it's hard that convinced me he's the person we need to heal this nation.

There's a perfectly easy way for Obama to spell out, in 15 seconds, why he opposes the 'holiday'.

"If my opponents had any idea about supply and demand, they'd know these 18 cents would go straight out of the federal highway budget into the pockets of the oil companies. And at the end of the holiday nothing would have changed."

Then to bite the bullet:
"Gas prices are high because Americans are burning a lot of gas and American cars are just not efficient. That isn't your fault - it's Congress who let the auto industry get lazy and sell the same old motors year after year when gas was cheap.

I know you need to get across the country to go to work and see your family. How are we going to do that if the supply of gas isn't growing? I will demand and enforce a higher fuel economy standard every year and I will help car-makers achieve it. You'll still be driving, but you'll be spending less on gas and preserving fuel reserves for your children."

Unfortunately Obama seems to have been drinking the ethanol Kool-Aid. Biofuel is a really bad idea, it just sounds neat on the surface...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm

howie klein hits the key point on the Clinton pander. She can get the tax holiday in this administration. Such a bill would probably pass with veto-proof majorities if it made it to the floow.

She can't get the windfall profits tax this summer:

Above I referred to McCain as cynical, which he certainly is, but in the interest of fair play, I might add that Mrs. Clinton's cynicism is every bit as virulent as his. I'm so sure Miss McConnell, who has obstructed everything the Democrats have tried to do and even every bipartisan proposal to ease the energy crisis, is going to allow a windfall-profit tax on one of the Republican Party's biggest corporate donors, the oil and gas industry. And Bush is just frothing at the mouth to sign it, right? Look, McCain has made a record of not even voting for the most dire national security needs-- like safety in our ports and equipment for our troops in the field-- if it meant closing corporate tax loopholes or doing away with even a fraction of the tax breaks for people making over a $1,000,000 a year. So... this is a total non-starter.

The "Miss McConnell" thing is rude, but I do wonder why these rumors never make their way into the press.

KathyR-

I haven't yet given up on Joe. I was just expressing a prediction based on his performance to date. We'll see.

I HAVE noticed that Joe has modified his WRITING ever so slightly. I have NOT noticed a change to his on-air persona.

wvng--

Yes, people are panicking. But this had to happen. If you're an Obama supporter you had to know this was gonna happen. They are gonna run against his race, and he has to be prepared to shame the media and the public if they are going to let it be about his race.

Stiffen your frickin' spines. There's a great political novel frmo the 60s or 70s by Norman Spinrad called Bug Jack Bar(r?)on where a media guy, sorta like Howard Beale, gets elected president. The punchline is that he runs with a black veep, and resigns immediately after his inauguration. If you believe that's the only way in, then you had no business supporting Obama. But now it's too late. This is your candidate, and I still see no path for Clinton to the nomination that is not too destructive to be contemplated. I take that back. I see one way. Obama loses his nerve, and quits, or takes the VP slot.

Now's the time Obama needs you to guard his back. Clinton's people stood up for her in much more dire, much harder to predict circumstances.

The best result is for this to temper Obama, and I think that is what will happen. But now's the time for his supporters to Kierkegard's step off the cliff, not to quail at this eminently predictable moment.

"to take"

KT here--

SZ and Wonderllama: Like I said earlier, I think that a lot of people, including Joe, would disagree with me here. But I think the two health plans are so similar in approach (employer mandate, letting you keep your plan if you like it, subsidies for people who can't afford to buy in, purchasing cooperatives) and scope (embracing the concept of universal coverage) that voters who like one are not likely to object much to the other--especially when you compare them to McCain's approach (or lack thereof) to universal coverage.

Also, I don't think the candidates have really spent all that much time emphasizing the one big difference--Clinton's individual mandate. Especially when I compare it with the way that Gore blasted Bradley in 2000 for his $150 vouchers in 2000. (Though Gore himself didn't offer much of a plan.)

Holy crap. Brian Williams bashes Elizabeth Edwards and says Peggy Noonan deserves a Pulitzer?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/29/williams/index.html

Is the guy trying for MSM self-parody?

KT here again--

What I should have emphasized in the earlier comment is that BOTH Clinton and Obama are a dramatic departure from the status quo.

Well, her doesn't quite bash her, but more brushes by her piece and bashes the NYT for its editorial decisions (you gotta wonder if the generals story isn't the subtext of Williams' bashing, in addition to the Edwards Op-ed).

"9 to 12 cent reduction in the cost of a gallon of gas"
You mean, I could save nine, maybe even ten cents on a gallon of gas, all for the low low price of the accelerated degradation of our national infrastructure?

With savings that high, I can't afford NOT to buy!
Where do I sign up?

Also, I don't think the candidates have really spent all that much time emphasizing the one big difference--Clinton's individual mandate.

I don't know about that, Karen. I think Clinton pushed pretty hard on that (so hard that in one debate, moderator Brian Williams complained about what he thought was too much time on healthcare [btw, what J.J. said above @ 1:33]). I think for a lot of Obama supporters (e.g. me) this is a big caveat. And for many Clinton supporters (e.g. Krugman) this is a key reason.

Karen, you really have a thing about Gore taking on the problems with Bradley's health care plan in the 2000 contest don't you? But I've tangled with you before on that, so I won't rehash it.

And I should have said before, great post.

Karen:

Thanks so much for responding to commentary, and for clarifying your thoughts.

One argument I have with you is with respect to your frame "voters who like one are not likely to object much to the other".

I guess that my objection to that proposition, i.e. that because voters won't be able to tell the difference between the plans, there is no real urgency in reporting these differences, is that you are putting the cart before the horse. Of course voters who are uninformed as to the ramifications of universal individually mandated coverage --either a sham, unworkable system, or an unfair "tax-like" burden on already hard-pressed American families, according to each side-- won't see a difference between the two. If there isn't even the attempt made to describe the two policies' ramifications in objective terms to voters, then yes, there's no way that the voting public would have any idea that there's a difference between the two.

I won't address the other points you made, because (really because I'm out of time) regardless of what kind of emphasis the campaigns have, or whether your list of similarities or comparisons between the parties' plans (or between campaign cycles) is accurate, it seems as if the aggregate political press is itself making a determination of what's important for people, instead of responding to the depth of information required for the public to decide on what is clearly one of the American people's top priorities. I won't speculate as to the coincidence between the issue being relatively intellectually (and politically, and ideologically) difficult, and this strange, so feebly justified collective disinterest on the part of the Fourth Estate. But when there is such consistent demand on the part of the public for the candidates to address healthcare, it's hard not to draw (unsubstantiated) inferences...

Thanks again for your dialog, Karen.

I actually should have said "Great post!", too, Karen.

KT here--

BTW, as long as we are getting all wonky here:

When Obama unveiled his health care plan, I asked his policy guru Austan Goolsbee if Obama would consider an individual mandate if his plan failed to get to universal coverage, and he said yes. Obama wants to try it this way first, Goolsbee told me, and then would consider other options if this didn't get him all the way there.

I'm also intrigued by the fact that both plans have a Medicare-like option, which I think opens the door for people to try out single-payer and see how they like it.

That's an interesting comment from Goolsbee, I hadn't heard that and it's a promising sign that Obama isn't irrevocably locked into opposing mandates (or, to put it more polemically but I think accurately, opposing universality).

Kevin Drum on the gas tax holiday:

I'd say there's approximately a zero percent chance that Hillary Clinton or John McCain actually believe this is good policy. It would increase oil company profits, it would make hardly a dent in the price of gasoline, it would encourage more summertime driving, and it would deprive states of money for transit projects. Their staff economists know this perfectly well, and so do they.

KT: I'm also intrigued by the fact that both plans have a Medicare-like option, which I think opens the door for people to try out single-payer and see how they like it.

Both the Clinton and Obama plans are - in the longer term - intended to 'babystep' us toward single-payer, universal health care. That's why I'm going along with either candidate's initiative; it's only the beginning.

Just a fyi, Obama had a presser in NC to deal with the Wright issue a short time ago. Key passage:

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Rev. Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well I might not know him as well as I thought, either."

Good for him.

That's why I'm going along with either candidate's initiative; it's only the beginning.

I think the idea is that the government provided healthcare system will out-compete the private systems, just like our social security system blows away privatized social security systems in other countries. People will choose the government provided services because they are cheaper. If they're not, no harm done, because people can always opt for the private plans.

Insurance companies won't like this, of course, because they don't want to have to compete with the government, which tends to be far more efficient (yes, yes, bureaucracies have problems, but because they can deal in such large scale, and don't have all the defensive cost-shifting the way insurance companies do, they will be much more efficient).

Of course, this scares the right to no end, because they are desperate to have the public believe their dogma that government can't do anything for them:

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v2n1/kristol.html

I know I'm late to respond, but I also want to say this is an excellent post. Health care mandates are important, but shouldn't distract us, because the gas tax is also important. And KT, I think you nailed it.

And I also would be happy with single payer health coverage. I don't think that both plans are equally likely to suceed as a first step to getting there. It strikes me that insurance companies would love a law guaranteeing them customers. They will be even more outraged to go from that state to competing with the government (than they would from the status quo).

I really don't understand either HRC's or McCain's emphasis on this "holiday". It's amazing how people can think logically on some issues and totally blow their credibility on others. We have all already said it. If we tax the oil companies to take their profits they will just raise the cost per barrel and if we give a relief they won't pass it to us. The problem is that we need to think bigger. Our government needs to wake up and mandate new regulations for hybrid and other technology so that our dependence goes down.

As far as Health Care goes,I think both HRC and Obama's plan is crap. Look at England's socialized health care. The lines for a doctor last hours on end. I know this may surprise you but McCain's plan is actually pretty good. Instead of passing the tax relief to the corporations that buy your insurance, pass those incentives to the consumer. What that will do is make the insurance companies work for their business and that in turn will drive costs down. Plus, you get the added benefit of never having to change your insurance until you choose to. It will make things a lot more affordable.

lsumarkb,
Do you have actual experience with long lines in England, or have you just heard this? I live in a country (Japan) with a national health plan and the waits are very short - much shorter than what I experienced in NY.

The idea of a gas tax holiday is unbelievably stupid, for all sorts of reasons:

1. No guarantee that the cost savings will be passed onto consumers
2. The actual change in gas prices will be a small component of the overall price (18 cents vs. $3.75)
3. Tax cuts like this which are originally billed as temporary have a nasty habit of becoming permanent, since nobody wants to re-instate the tax lest they get accused of robbing the electorate

Taking (2) into account, I think that a sound intellectual case can be made for an INCREASE in the Federal gasoline tax. Right now, the increase would have a smaller impact than the overall impact of the drop in the value of the dollar and the rise in crude oil prices. There are a number of initiatives that could be introduced to reduce domestic us energy and oil consumption that could be funded by an increase in gasoline taxes.
Of course, there is not a cat-in-hell's chance of any politician being brave enough to propose an increase...