Obama Backed Tempory Suspension of Gas Tax in Ill. Senate

Barack Obama has been blasting the temporary lifting of gas taxes as political gamesmanship and bad economic sense. He didn't always. While in the Illinois Senate, he woted for it.

Available on Lexis.com: Chicago Defender July 1, 2000,

While Gov. George H. Ryan signed legislation suspending Illinois' five percent sales tax on gasoline for six months and issued an executive order creating state monitoring teams, Mayor Richard M. Daley Thursday vowed to keep an eagle eye on gas prices in Chicago.

Some people opposed it. Among their arguments:

Dr. Quentin Young, chairman of the Health and Medicine Policy Research Group, who said those funds are earmarked for health, education, and human services.

He called the passage of the state's six-month gas tax reduction nothing more than a "pre-November election states-manship" saying this will only force the legislature to compensate in other ways while "compromising the health of Illinois residents with future raids of the tobacco settlement funds and other state-funded programs."

Where was Obama on the issue?

Senators Kimberly A. Lightford (D-4th) and Barack Obama (D-13th) said the bill gives customers needed temporary relief from high gas prices. "Gas retailers must post on each pump a statement that indicates that the state tax has been suspended and that this temporary elimination of the tax should be reflected in the price per gallon of gas," said Obama.

What happened: [more...]

The bill passed the Democrat-controlled House by a 106-5 vote and in the Republican-controlled Senate, by a vote of 55-1. Ryan signed Senate Bill 1310 hours later just a few weeks after Indiana Gov. Frank O'Bannon signed his emergency order that suspending his five percent gas sales tax for 60-days.

How did Obama vote? Copley News Service March 8, 2000,

Senate Bill 1310, sponsored by Sen. Frank Watson, R-Greenville, would eliminate the state sales tax on gasoline beginning Oct. 1. The Illinois Senate passed the legislation Wednesday. It now goes to the House.

Yes - 50 No - 0
Present - 6
Excused/Not Voting - 3

The votes are listed individually, Obama voted yes.

In November, 2000, a bill came up to eliminate the gas tax. AP, November 15, 2000

The Illinois Senate voted 46-12 Wednesday for SB1867, a measure to eliminate the state sales tax on gasoline. Voting "yes" were 31 Republicans and 15 Democrats. Voting "no" were 1 Republican and 11 Democrats.

Obama was one of the 11 voting no. But that was a bill to permanently eliminate the state's sales tax on gas, not suspend it. Even then Gov. George Ryan opposed the permanent elimination of the tax. (AP, Nov. 29, 2000.)

CBS News says Obama voted for the temporary lifting of the tax three times in the State Senate.

Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.

During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, “Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.”

Update: Comments now closed.

< Hillary and Obama Speak at NC Jefferson Jackson Dinner | Politics Has Always Been Stupid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Brava Jeralyn!!! (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    I bet he wishes he voted present!

    I was just thinking the same thing. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:58:39 PM EST
    Where's a former non-position when you need it?

    Is Issuing An Additional $100 Rebate And Paying (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:14:49 PM EST
    it out of the transportation fund your idea or Obama's? Because Obama is say that reducing the revenue of the transportation fund would cost 6,000 jobs and would prevent needed road work to be done. Of course even that is a false premise, since Hillary's plan would not reduce the revenues to the transportation fund. She would replace the revenue with a tax on the oil companies.

    Defending Obama (none / 0) (#79)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:48:03 PM EST
    is fine but if you are going to do it get your facts straight about the candidate you are attacking. Part of HRC's proposal was to make up the lost revenue by taxing the oil companies. We all know that that isn't going to fly with the Bush/Cheney cabal or with the do nothing Democratic "leadership" in congress which has already said that it is a non-starter. So here we are with no solution to a problem and what is Sen. Obama's solution? I don't think I have heard one.

    How about some links (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:34:13 AM EST
    to back up your math. However, one other fact that both you and I had wrong was HRC's final vote on the bankruptcy bill. As Mo Blue has so graciously pointed out, Sen. Clinton was in NYC that day due to Pres. Clinton's illness but she did put up a good fight to protect us. As to your last paragraph, "imploring" me "to rethink the anger and sniping" is condescending and insulting. If, by pointing out your errors, you get your "feelings" hurt, you need a thicker skin (excuse the cliche). And I hope you have enjoyed your evening here and possibly learned something. Have a good night. ;-)

    She proposes even more than that (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by BernieO on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:05:12 AM EST
    In addition to a windfall profits tax, she also proposed releasing some of our oil reserves to reduce the inflationary pressure from lack of supply, pressuring OPEC, and - my favorite - investigating charges that there is Enron-style manipulation of the market. Just the threat of these kinds of actions could be enough to cause the oil companies to ease up on prices. The last thing they want is an investigation or a tax. And heavens knows they are making enough profit to afford to lower prices.

    Because the price of oil is behind a lot of the inflation in food and other goods, it is not a bad idea to take steps to temporarily reduce it. This could help take some air out of the the inflationary bubble, which is an immediate, serious threat to our economy. Just the psychological effect from a slowing of inflation would help stabilize things. This is not intended to be a long term solution, but Hillary offers plenty of those, too.


    I Posted This Article In One Of My Comments (none / 0) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:36 PM EST
    on HuffPost...still waiting to see if anyone responds with anything besides a shreik.  Now I know why obama and john kerry are so tight; they give each other flip-flopping lessons!

    Barack doesn't flip-flop (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by reynwrap582 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:41:39 PM EST
    He waffles.

    Thank you Jeralyn! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Josey on Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:57:15 PM EST
    I'd read it somewhere, but couldn't remember.
    But what I read - he voted 3 times for gas tax holiday.
    Maybe it was all related to the same bill.

    TPM 's Obamatons are doing spread sheets (none / 0) (#62)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    trying to show how little it puts into the economy, yada yada. I put that little item about him voting for gas tax holiday. 300 comments later, it might be the last.

    Hillary has some vicious people out there. YIKES !
    I've had it with his people.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:00:33 PM EST
    The talking point is that he thought it would work in Illinois, but he found out it didn't and now he's learned from his mistake.

    It actually kind of bothers me that my fellow progressives can be so credulous.

    Then why hasn't he been saying that (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by nycstray on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:42:53 PM EST
    instead of calling it a gimmick and saying it will cost 6,0000 jobs?

    Obama made a mistake? (none / 0) (#9)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:06:42 PM EST
    Did he admit to that?

    Maybe He Would Admit That Mistake When (none / 0) (#50)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:56:38 PM EST
    there is a cold day in hell.  obama doesn't hold himself accountable for anything!

    I agree (none / 0) (#222)
    by BlueMainer on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:45:36 AM EST
    Obama's experience with the gas tax holiday puts him in the position of making a better judgment call than Clinton or McCain.

    Obama the flip flopper (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:01:16 PM EST
    Has he proposed any solution to reducing the pain at the pump? And come this Winter heating oil prices are going to be a major issue. What are his proposals to help people who won't be able to heat their homes never mind drive their cars? At least HRC offered up some controls on the oil companies. Does Obama oppose that as well?

    I think his proposal... (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:10:11 PM EST
    ... had something to do with eating cake.

    He supported (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:14:08 PM EST
     the Cheney energy bill. So the Marie Antoinette position would be appropriate.

    About Clinton's Support Of The Bankruptcy (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:44:50 AM EST

    In the days before S.256 was finally brought to the floor Senator Clinton voted for every amendment which would have added consumer protections to the bankruptcy bill. Amendments which were repeatedly rejected by both the Republican majority and far too many Democrats. She even voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.
    Senator Clinton was not there--the day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it.

    From Senator Clinton's official statement on the bill:

    This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hard-working people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a "fresh start" and a second chance to become productive and contributing members of society. With the passage of this legislation, which makes obtaining this fresh start more expensive and more difficult, we are ensuring that many responsible Americans will continue to be buried under mountains of debt, and unable to take back control and responsibility for their lives.Link

    FWIW -- I'm am a bk attorney (5.00 / 5) (#191)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:12:41 AM EST
    and Hillary's statement about BAPCPA is spot on -- almost everyone who could file ch. 7 pre-10/05 still can, BAPCPA just makes it more complicated & expensive --  which is a travesty, as the law is supposed to  help "the honest but unfortunate debtor" (and for the record, all of my clients are just that, despite the stereotype obviously held by those who voted for BAPCPA that filers are "irresponsible bums"-- btw no. 1 reason for filing is overwhelming medical bills -- UHC could help that doncha think?). Hillary's well reasoned opposition to BAPCPA is one of the many reasons I support her (and my opinion of Obama wasn't helped by his refusal to vote for a cap on credit card interest rates especially given his bs excuse that he didn't vote for it because the rate was "still too high" wtf? better that the sky be the limit?)

    Do you understand how silly (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:49:30 AM EST
    that little lesson in history is in the context of the discussion? The fact that Marie Antoinette didn't actually say "let them eat cake" is irrelevant to the discussion -- the expression itself has become iconic & everyone recognizes what it means -- because even though she didn't actually say those words, her lifestyle exemplified their meaning.  

    Again! (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:59:04 AM EST
    Another Obama supporter who doesn't understand the difference between elite and elitism.

    I agree that Senators get drilled in the GE because over time they leave behind a record subject to easy misinterpretation and attack. That's why Obama decided to run when he first entered the US Senate.  Didn't want anything messy like an actual record lying about. He knew he could probably skate by with empty, meaningless rhetoric; a candidacy about nothing.

    And that's why PushPol should understand that there is a trail even in Obama's spotty record that is fair game. If Obama and his supporters want to take shots at the gas tax suspension they should reasonably expect to take incoming for their candidate's hypocrisy.

    PushPol should have been more forthright in admitting that Obama's three votes in the Illinois legislature on a related issue did in fact occur.  

    PushPol should also recognize that Clinton's recomendation that taxing the oil companies to make up the lost revenue cancels Obama's disingenuous claim that 6,000 jobs would be lost nor would this tax close the door on future review of Oil company taxation.

    On the whole energy matter PushPol should come clean and admit the fact that Obama supported a Cheney energy bill.  Was Obama's support a payback to one of his major supporters; the nuclear power industry?

    If PushPol is any kind of progressive he/she should recognize that usage taxes like the federal gas tax are regressive in nature and disproportionally fall on middle and low income people.  Replacing regressive taxes with an addition to progressive taxes on oil companies may be a step in the right direction.

    PushPol's comments are further evidence that criticism of the Precious based on evidence is out of line, a significant article of the Obama rules.

    So PushPol, have we discussed the Roberts confirmation lately?


    PushPol (none / 0) (#221)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:37:56 AM EST
    Why doesn't your "best case scenario" include the 24.4 diesel tax that shippers/truckers pay?

    Reduce diesel by 24.4 cents and you have a reduced ripple effect for everything that is shipped by trucks.


    I recall the fuss (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    when Clinton dipped into the SPR and caught hell for it. But it appeared to panic the oil companies into reducing prices for petrol.

    Obama doesn't even care enough to appear to care.
    He's "happy enough" to have people suffer from high prices.  That much is obvious.


    I don't ever use the term flip flopper (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:53:16 PM EST
    1.  It gives credibility to the language the right uses (think partial-birth abortion...no such thing).  I for one am not a proponent of that.

    2. Since when did changing one's mind a sign of weakness?  We can see when 'resolve' or stubborn-headedness has done to the USA since 2001.

    If BHO did change his mind well he would have to defend his reasons why.  But I don't begrudge someone who changes their mind on a subject.

    Are we going to call BHO supporters who change and support HRC flip-floppers?  


    when they asked Hillary to give up her (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:08:07 PM EST
    campaign, they stopped being Democrats for me.
    They became Republican lite.

    That means they understand the term  flip flop.

    If they were civil not calling Hillary evil, or a bunch of nasty names, I would feel out of line calling them anything, but they asked for it.


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:31:22 PM EST
    about asking her to step down from her campaign.  Man the D's are acting like R's when those type of stmts are made.

    I think that a lot of the party big whigs saw that too.  Those kind of calls can piss off a lot of solid dem voters:  WOMEN


    Can?? (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:22:46 AM EST
    I think that a lot of the party big whigs saw that too.  Those kind of calls can piss off a lot of solid dem voters:  WOMEN

    Too late, they already have...   I know I am not pleased and my girlfriends are not either!!

    The DNC and SD's are really making me feel frustrated!!

    When Andrew did his thing this week, I can not put into words what I thought of him...  he is just an example of why the party is hurting.  His reasoning may reap the rewards of his support for Obama... female defection.  

    When you consider the merits of the support, ugh.  Too many SD's have nothing substantial or personal in their choice.  They either say  "this prolonged primary is hurting the party"  or "Hillary is a divisive person and is too negative"

    What a crock! These are sock puppet statements.  Even Bill Richardson reduced himself to say that the Clinton's were trying to be monarch like...  I need to find that interview...  I could not believe my ears!

    This is just insane and disappointing.  I see Hillary out there stumping and talking about what her plans are and I see Onbama saying we need to get over these distractions, Hillary is attacking me...

    I hope I am not too off topic...  This just grabbed me.


    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:07:30 AM EST
    that you don't think I was diminishing the effects of this kind of thinking by saying 'can'.

    I am a HUGE supporter of HRC and women or ANY human being running for office for the betterment of others, not just a select few.

    Trust me, between my Mom, sisters and my coworkers, who are ALL female (coworkers) they get so upset with all the sexism.

    Sorry to be O/T, but I just wanted to clarify/solidify my solidarity with women in this election.


    I accept (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:35:40 AM EST
    your explanation.  I did really feel the need to convey the seriousness of the level of frustration I feel.  

    My support for Hillary has nothing to do with sexism, race, the reverend Wright or other "distractions" that Obama would like to claim.  

    I support Hillary because I am convinced that she has what our country needs.  Experience, connections, knowledge, intelligence, passion, energy and fortitude.  Her attention to detail and well rounded intelligence on the issues alone make her incredible.

    I have felt that Obama and his surrogates continually pander to her negatives and have exploited what the "vast right wing conspiracy" did to her when Bill was the President.  Obama and his surrogates have called her character into question every chance they get... yuck!  To top it off, the idea of dynasties and entitlement get thrown in for delicious contempt for those that feed on hate.  

    The irony is that in severing his ties with his only living father figure, Obama called Wright's comments divisive and pandering to hate...  Well, if that is the case, I guess Obama was a good pupil, because I think that he is pretty good at doing that himself, especially since he has convinced many that he is above all that.

    Again, I accept your words of support for HRC.  I hope you understand where I was coming from.


    Totally (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:05:29 AM EST
    understand your frustration.  Being a Chicano/Latino, it also seems that the DNC is more concerned with one group over ALL others.

    There's no explanation needed for THAT comment.  And I don't have to defend that statement.  Thankfully Hillary hasn't forgotten us.


    And, and (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:10:09 AM EST
    being gay.  Chelsea (Clinton campaign) openly courts the GLBT vote while Barack is on stage with anti-gay religious figures like McClurkin.

    That sickens me to my core being.  That's the NUMBER one reason why I would never, ever vote for BHO.


    This is what's wrong (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:22:22 AM EST
    Calling for her to withdraw by YOU or anyone else is a desperate measure that cuts off the voices of millions of voters who properly believe they have a right to be heard.

    Allowing the process to continue to a proper conclusion removes a possible Republican charge that Democrats deliberately cut out millions of voters.  Those who claim that the process damages the party have yet to advance any real proof or reason. The idea that McCain isn't being attacked is ludicrous. He is being attacked and if the party wants an assault on McCain 527s can certainly take up any perceived shortfall.  There will be plenty of time to attack McCain after the process is complete.

    In the meantime the GOP can't really zero in on a specific Democrat. Remember that the Swift Boat liars were formed when it was obvious that Kerry would be the nominee, well before the convention.

    One thing an Obama supporter should avoid at all costs is giving the GOP extra time to demolish Obama. They'll do a thorough disembowelling as it is, no need to allow time for them to raise it to an art form.

    proudliberalpatriot should recognize that beyond Leahy's foolish overt statement have been other elected officials like Richardson who have gleefully given the GOP ads by using terms like monarchy, entitlement, etc.  There have been numerous calls for Clinton to withdraw by the usual suspects in the blogosphere, in the world of print and broadcast "journalism" as well as continuous grousing from Obama supporters and I believe surrogates to that effect.  

    These damaging acts have come from the 'Obama Camp.'  


    flip-flopping... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:14:29 PM EST
    comes from wind surfing lessons and/or hanging with John Kerry...it's the natural order of things.

    Why he changed his mind... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:23:55 AM EST
    If BHO did change his mind well he would have to defend his reasons why.  But I don't begrudge someone who changes their mind on a subject.

    as far as I can tell, the main reason he changed his mind was to tie Clinton to McCain.  Obama consistently misrepresents Clinton's proposal, and makes it sound like McCains.  I don't think that is an inadvertent error on his part.

    Then again, it took him 20 years of knowing Jeremiah Wright to figure him out, so many being told "that is not Clinton's plan" will take a decade or two to sink in....


    Hmm. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:01:35 PM EST
    I also wonder if this tidbit doesn't somehow makes its way into the back and forth ad war now being waged. So, which judgment should we trust -- when he liked the gas tax suspension or when he didn't?

    Ad wars.... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:04:39 PM EST
    If the Clinton camp doesn't go after Obama big time on this, they're nuts.

    I mean, the ad writes itself...


    against the tax before I was for the tax? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:19:14 PM EST
    Let them eat Gasoline!

    Factually correct and it also reminds everyone that he'll lose like Kerry.


    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM EST
    He's the gift that keeps on giving.

    It's psychology (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:01:00 PM EST
    as Anne posted below, it makes HRC look likes she cares about the working person who is being hit the hardest at the pump. Just like the bankruptcy bill, the bottom line is she voted against it, just like she voted against the Bush Co. energy bill that Sen. Obama voted for. It all goes to perception. And I'll ask you, as I have asked others here who are defending Sen. Obama, what is his proposal on the issue of rising gas prices?

    You have been all over this blog (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:46:13 AM EST
    tonight, and now we have the evidence (above) to remind us of Clinton's actual stance on the bankruptcy bill, that she did not vote for it, etc.

    So you have lost all credibility here for everything else you have repeated and repeated and repeated.  Maybe best to come back another time under another name!


    Did not vote for the bankruptcy (none / 0) (#126)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:51:54 PM EST
    bill on final passage.  Of course, Bill was having open heart surgery during the vote so she didn't vote against it either.

    Pandering... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by OrangeFur on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:07:47 PM EST
    What takes the cake is that the legislature required gas stations to give them credit. Now that's world-class pandering.

    He renounces and rejects (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:08:17 PM EST
    his former support of the gas tax holiday.

    But I love the line about putting his name on the gas pumps. Clinton has to find a way to use that.

    he pressed the wrong button (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:16:48 PM EST

    "Hoosiers Loved Themselves" a Holiday (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:14:33 PM EST
    from the gas tax in 2000, we are reminded by Tapper.  Obama backing it for himself and Illinois before but not for the rest of us now may not be going over well.

    Me! Me! Me! (none / 0) (#225)
    by Josey on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:10:40 AM EST
    Good point!
    >>>>Obama backing it for himself and Illinois before but not for the rest of us now may not be going over well.

    Wanting his name on gas pumps in Illinois.


    But but but.... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    there are all those reasons not to have not voted for it back then...minus one.

    oops... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:38:06 PM EST
    too many "nots"

    You're getting (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:44:59 PM EST
    yourself all twisted into "nots".

    It's the student papers... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    They've got me confused coming and going...

    Ha! I know -- every May (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:54:31 PM EST
    I find myself, at some point, having to take a break from papers before I start confusing "effect" and "affect," too.  And misusing apostrophes to the max.

    As soon as I'm done grading papers, I read a book by some really great writer, and it gets my spelling and punctuating mojo back. :-)


    I fixed myself a frozen margarita (none / 0) (#51)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:56:39 PM EST
    w/ salt as soon as I got home.

    But I'm suffering from SV agreement and verb tense issues.


    Ah, it gets to the point that (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:47 PM EST
    it's good to see both a subject and a verb in a sentence.  So, y'know, it is a sentence. :-)

    And I thought I (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:10 PM EST
    had issues after having a Cosmo and trying to diagram Obama's last "uh uh uh uh..WHAT Hillary said!"

    um um er ah... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:44:30 PM EST
    I answered your questions...

    huh? (none / 0) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:46:39 PM EST
    what question?

    I tell you, Obama is really starting to bore me. (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Anne on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:22:44 PM EST
    He's like a book that starts out well, bogs down in plot lines that don't make sense, but you stick with it thinking it'll work itself out, and then one day when you pick it up to read, you realize you just don't give a cr@p how it ends, and decide not to waste another minute on it.

    That's how I feel about Obama.  I wanted to like him, but I realized early on that there's no "there" there.  He thinks he can be all things to all people, doesn't realize we can see and hear his contradictory positions, runs away from the color of his skin, but uses it to demonize others.

    I'm over it.

    This gas tax thing is just one more example of Obama wanting one set of rules to apply to him, and another to everyone else.  Obama "learns" from mistakes he didn't think were mistakes when he did this or that, but he's the only one who can do that.  

    He just bores me to tears.

    4 max (none / 0) (#197)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:40:41 AM EST
    and that's the worst case scenario.

    That's right, I'm not a Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by angie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:12:14 AM EST
    just like Hillary isn't a Democrat.

    And for the record in case you ever get the insane idea that you are allowed to try to insult me like this again-- no one, and especially not you, owns my vote but me.


    I imagine the advisors who are telling him (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:27:50 PM EST
    that this is a bad idea are the same who believe in privatizing SS and that expensive Health Care is good.

    no one has done more to (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by english teacher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:36:38 AM EST
    oppose and support the gas tax holiday than barack obama.

    Thanks English- (none / 0) (#226)
    by kenosharick on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:14:52 AM EST
    you started my day with a laugh.

    For someone who runs on "change" (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:41:42 AM EST
    he is a bit too slow for me:  8 years for the gastax, 20 for the pastor ... at this speed change will come in my next life, so I may as well take the gastax now.

    17 Years For Rezko (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:58:03 AM EST
    but he is still Obama's friend even if Rezko's tenants went without heat in his district.

    and check this out about Ayers (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:08:27 AM EST
    From WSJ article just out yesterday:

    "Apparently, back when he was running for state senate, Barack Obama had fund-raising events at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and there's been some press about the senator's friendship with this controversial Weathercouple. Many reporters are well aware, even though Mr. Obama has described his connection to Ayers and Dohrn as "flimsy," that the senator's relationship with his radical Hyde Park neighbors is actually quite warm, even close."


    Exactly. More dissembling by Obama. (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by MarkL on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:17:54 AM EST
    He doesn't want you to know who he's friendly with.
    He might as well have had Bin Laden host a fund raiser... this is electoral poison for Obama.
    Good vetting by Daschle, Durbin, Kerry and Kennedy!

    Link to that article (none / 0) (#189)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:09:57 AM EST
    I just scrolled past your comment (none / 0) (#217)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:18:24 AM EST
    didn't read it.  But I replied.  I will be doing the same to anything else you ever post.

    Have a nice day.


    I don't find your analogy valid (none / 0) (#219)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:08:05 AM EST
    Sen. Obama's relationship with Mr. Ayers was far more complex that just a casual association. Most of what is in that article refers to WJC and has been debunked as just that...bunk. But I do not recall that Pres. Clinton or Sen. Clinton were ever employed by anyone who proudly acknowledged blowing up buildings and killing people. They may have accepted contributions from Marc Rich's wife but they didn't get either WJC or HRC their start in politics. And I never heard any revelations about the Richs threatening to or actually, blowing up buildings. This is all old and even the Republicans will find it difficult to use any of this against HRC. And then there is Rhezco and I hardly need to detail that fiasco here. Obama has already admitted it was a lapse in judgment. Just how bad a lapse we don't need to find out after he has the nomination. And how many skeletons are going to turn up in his charming wife's closet after a Republican 527 decides to really investigate her? Sorry, too many unknowns here. I'll take the devil I know. If you want to sling mud, you'll have to find something better that a link to Politico and references to Joe McCarthy. I'm just saying.

    My opinion (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by cawaltz on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:56:48 AM EST
    I'm lukewarm on the idea of a gas tax holiday. I tend to agree with Obama that the extra pennies will still get sucked up by the oil companies(and it still won't solve the long term problem of this being a finite resource). That said, I think that people want to know that government is on their side and will do something for them when they are hurting economically. They want to know that government exists fo more than protecting Telcomms from lawsuits or providing bailouts for airlines or banks that were foolish. Criticizing without offering up an alternate idea is a mistake that hopefully Obama will correct.

    by snucky on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:06:20 AM EST

    Obama fiddles while Rome burns (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:20:43 AM EST
    Perfect is the enemy of good.

    You can always accuse the opposition of pandering because their plan is not "perfect". In the meantime nothing gets done because perfection is never achieved. Long-term and short-term are often at odds. But people live in the here-and-now, not the utopian future.

    Will a President Obama be paralyzed into non-action while crisis after crisis form and deepen around him because the short-term relief runs counter to his utopian solutions?

    Remember Hoover in 1929 (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:09:33 AM EST
    It's fun to play "which president does Obama remind you of today"?  

    I saw a bit of Millard Fillmore in him a while ago. . . .


    I think it's a good counter to McCain (none / 0) (#233)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:25:17 AM EST
    Clinton defused his initial pander by agreeing with him and then sticking it to the oil companies. These tax holiday panders bear political fruit and she knows it.

    Regardless (and this is coming from an arch energy miser), with gas prices hitting us everywhere in this economy, not just our own drive time, maybe we deserve a break. Whose fault is it that we're in the shape we're in energy-wise, anyway? The Powers That Be in both parties (that means you, John Dingell) have known we've been on a self-destructive path for decades and done nothing to stop the bleed. Retaining one's seat and the status quo have been the only goals of our blighted, corrupted Congress.

    People are losing their jobs because they can't afford the gas, for Chrissakes! What does that say for the "market-driven economy"?


    It makes me nervous (5.00 / 2) (#228)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:01:33 AM EST
    to post on a subject when I have not read every single one already on.  But someone wrote that what would make sense is handling the oil reserve better.  Hillary's entire plan addressed that subject, you know.  The gas tax thing was a short-term quickie only.  And at least in this dark corner of SC, motorists are smart enough to check on whether they are getting their tax break or not.  We also have a 'back to school' sales tax break, and both stores and customers like it.  

    Yes, the tax relief might mean some poople would use more gas. Maybe they'd even get to take a vacation somewhere this summer; if they don't get to, they might be a little grouchy by November.

    A longer-term solution: get those huge cars off the road!  I have a nice little Scion xA, not bad gas mileage and easy handling.  And I pull up to an intersection without a light (lots of them here), and some SUV or Hummer pulls up beside me and I become blind to traffic on its other side.  

                     Hillary's plan

        * Imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies and using the money to suspend the gas tax for the peak summer months;

        * Closing $7.5 billion in oil and gas loopholes and using the funds to provide assistance for lower-income families to pay their energy and grocery bills;

        * Cracking down on speculation by energy traders and market manipulation in oil and gas markets that are driving up the price of oil by at least $20 a barrel;

        * Pressuring OPEC to increase oil production, including by filing a WTO complaint against OPEC countries

        * Stopping new additions to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and standing ready to release oil to counter market spikes and reduce volatility.

    would anyone here care if there was a good reason? (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by progrocks on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:31:30 PM EST
    or do you just want to hate?

    the Illinois one was a percent where the federal tax is a fixed amount. with prices increasing, the federal stays the same amount where the state increases along with it. At some point, with prices increasing, wouldnt it make sense for the state to say "we made enough money this year"?

    then why not (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:38:00 PM EST
    reduce the percentage instead of dropping it all together?. Obama's argument is that by making gas cheaper we encourage people to drive more, how does that not apply to what he did in Illinois?

    Obama evidently demagogued (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    the issue.

    McCain should run with this ad.

    Obama doesn't care enough to appear to care, and he's crossed back from an old policy that he's now decrying as demamgoguery.

    Mccain will eat his spleen.


    gruesome imagery (none / 0) (#42)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:46:43 PM EST
    but sadly true

    State governments are (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:13 PM EST
    already feeling the pinch. I don't think telling the states they should eat it is feasible especially when you consider the federal government has cut their funding for health care costs or for first responders or for any other number of things.  

    heh (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:39:27 PM EST
    "I'll take $30 bucks of extra gas this summer.
    The roads are all falling apart anyway. Most of the road funding disappears up the Alaska chute besides."

    That's how a Dem should thinnk btw.  


    Roadbuilders is a dirty word (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:52:15 PM EST
    in my state, Wisconsin -- behind a lot of funding for a lot of Republican corruption, a lot of roads to nowhere.  Well, where the longtime governor lived, anyway, so he and his gang got eight-lane highways with no traffic to speak of on them, while the Democratic areas just got more potholes by the day.

    Personally, despite all the potholes here after a record-bad winter, I think people could use the money more wisely than the roadbuilders.  By the time they got done with their take, there wouldn't be enough left to fix one pothole.


    I know (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST
    It's almost like people are not connecting all these horror stories about Pols and developers colluding to build roads to nowhere that magically turn into golf courses and housing estates after the shiny new road is built.

    Real Estate Lawyers like Obama, know that a new road project multiplies the value of fallow land that real estate speculators are ahem "speculating" about.


    Obama said it was a gimmick. (none / 0) (#223)
    by ding7777 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:45:52 AM EST
    Is he lying now or was he employing gimmicks then?

    Y'all are missing part of the picture: (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by 1jpb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:45:10 PM EST
    This is from one of you HRC folks in another post, they were using the link against BO, but it's exculpatory:

    The impact of the tax holiday was never clear.

    A government study could not determine how much of the savings was actually passed along to motorists. Many lawmakers said their constituents didn't seem to have benefited. They also worried the tax break was pushing the state budget out of balance.

    At the end of Illinois' tax holiday, there was a failed push to eliminate the sales tax permanently. Obama was among those voting against eliminating the tax.

    Obama's presidential campaign says the lessons of that Illinois tax holiday influenced his decision to oppose a national tax holiday. The lack of clear results then make him dubious about suspending the national tax now.

    In addition, the Illinois tax was paid directly by consumers and increased as gas prices increased. Obama's campaign points out the national tax is a flat 18.4 cents (24.4 cents a gallon for diesel) and, therefore, isn't climbing as gas prices climb. It's also paid by producers, raising more questions about whether they'd pass the full savings along to customers.

    His IL experience (especially since he opposed the permanent tax removal) shows that he is using knowledge and history to guide him as he makes sensible public policy.  That guy's the kind of president we need, I'm sure y'all will agree.

    When Clinton dipped into the SPR (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:52:27 PM EST
    prices tumbled.

    Ideologically very few Dems are inclined to pressure the oil companies on prices.  two reasons:

    1)Many will have a stock portfolio containing  oil shares. And that's capitalism baby.

    2) "Greens" want higher prices and would like to tax energy at even higher levels anyway.

    Obama's interests fall into category one.  
    Personally I think a Dem should be calling for a release of the SPR.


    Whatever, I have no (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by 1jpb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:18:06 PM EST
    energy for debating the details of the McCain/Clinton flimflam gas plan that makes no financial sense and isn't going anywhere, as both McCain and Clinton know, even if their gullible followers don't.

    But, your SPR comment is interesting.  We could stop adding the sweet stuff (as we are now doing) and start adding some sour oil instead, I don't think we should totally stop adding (or start removing) if we can avoid that--this is an emergency supply, it won't solve our long term problems, and using this now could make an emergency worse in the future.  There's a lot of sour around because it's not good for refining, but in a future emergency we could pull it out of the SPR, although there would be an environmental trade off because sour is dirty (sulfur.)  But, to help now we would need to accept this possibility, and most of the SPR is already sour, so it's not that radical to add more.


    And as always...when your argument falls (none / 0) (#127)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:52:02 PM EST
    flat...resort to name-calling. Typical.

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:05:21 PM EST
    I thought we needed someone who was "right on day one."

    So he has flipped (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:08:52 PM EST
    on his flop. So what exactly is he proposing to ease the pain at the pump? My other question is what is he going to propose to ease the cost of heating fuel besides support anymore Bush/Cheney energy bills? Convince me to agree with you.

    So you'll be applying that reasoning to the (none / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:47:50 PM EST
    IWR right away, I assume.

    you need to read the posts above (none / 0) (#44)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:48:23 PM EST
    And he learned his lesson (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by riddlerandy on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:45:16 PM EST
    As he admits

    "At best, this is a plan that would save you pennies a day for the summer months; that is, unless gas prices are raised to fill in the gap, which is just what happened in Illinois, when we tried this a few years ago," he said.

    Meanwhile, unless you can magically impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies overnight to pay for the holiday, it could imperil federal highway funding, and cost Indiana more than 6,000 jobs.

    Well we do know (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:56:22 PM EST
    That when Clinton proposes something and Republicans vote against it, then it's Clinton's fault for proposing something.

    And it's a good thing Obama will only ever be proposing things he knows Republicans will agree to.


    Well, if the point is helping Americans... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:02:49 PM EST
    ...a show-vote on a nonstarter is just political preening. So either way it's just a game played for its own sake.

    Now wait a second, am I hearing this right? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:07:31 PM EST
    It's Obama's and/or an Obama supporter's position that a windfall profits tax on the oil companies is a non-starter?

    I mean I know Obama's "change the tone" chorus went out the window on day 1 of the campaign (with the Lincoln Bedroom right wing talking point, no less!), but has "yes we can" now been kicked to the side of the road like everything else??


    Well it took him less than 20 years to kick (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:16:36 PM EST
    this one under the bus,  I guess that's an improvement.  But remember he has done more for consumers than any-other politician.(Double snark)

    That's interesting rhetoric... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:13:50 PM EST
    ...employing the "yes we can" slogan willy-nilly as you've done, but obviously the windfall tax idea is a non-starter with Bush in the White House.

    But with a Dem in the White House (none / 0) (#104)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:17:33 PM EST
    And assuming a Dem majority?

    Obviously it becomes far more likely... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:19:23 PM EST
    ...and potentially a good idea, assuming the right details.

    I see (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:22:38 PM EST
    "Yes we can*"

    *When it becomes more likely, a potentially good idea, assuming the right details.


    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:24:13 PM EST
    Framing those qualifications as a negative is bizarre.

    Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:33:37 PM EST
    If I was really trying to frame those things as a negative, but given the obvious positive value of those things, I think it's time to start working them into the stump speeches, obviously.

    "Can we end this war?  Yes we can... When it becomes more likely, a potentially good idea, assuming the right details.

    Can we turn this economy around?  
    Yes we can... When it becomes more likely, a potentially good idea, assuming the right details."

    I should apologize.

    This really isn't fair.

    Anyway, I think a Windfall Profits Tax on the Oil Companies is a great idea right now.  I would propose it right now just to get Republicans on record opposing it.  Be a great issue for the upcoming election.


    Yup (none / 0) (#119)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:42:25 PM EST
    "Can we end this war?  Yes we can... When it becomes more likely, a potentially good idea, assuming the right details.

    Can we turn this economy around?  Yes we can... When it becomes more likely, a potentially good idea, assuming the right details."

    Absolutely.  This is the right way to think.

    Thinking that way is for losers! (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:48:52 PM EST
    You get nothing if you don't try for it, even if it's out of fear of failure.  Could be why the spineless congress hasn't acted and we're still in Iraq today.

    Who said not to try? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:51:28 PM EST
    Try for what is remotely possible, when it's a good fit for the time, and get the details right.

    Great stump speech rhetoric (none / 0) (#130)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:56:11 PM EST
    but no substance. So when do we get the details of how Sen. Obama is going to end the war, turn the economy around and lower gas prices? i haven't drank any Kool aid just some Absolute with cranberry juice. ;-)

    Well... (1.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:02:06 AM EST
    Well, to go along with that sentiment, I'm all in favor of Obama as president giving speeches and making the final decisions, with Hillary as VP generating the policy of the administration. Actually, that would be really agreeable. It's not that I think Obama is bad at in-depth policy, or that Hillary is too disliked or distrusted by America, but even as two above average candidates their strengths are what they are. It can be maximized if they have some closed door "come to Jesus" sit down with Hillary, Bill, Obama, and Michelle.

    Yes, I can see that (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:24:04 AM EST
    with what you've written here all along, you'd be happy with Obama getting the win and Clinton doing the work.  

    Most of us, though, think that the one who will be doing the work ought to be the one in the White House.


    OK - so they're finding justification... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:02:57 PM EST
    and I think that to some extent, the issue is pandering but the problem remains...higher gas prices, like higher food prices is a regressive tax on middle America. Anything that helps is something that helps.

    I applaud Obama's stand on principle.

    I also applauded his stand on principle when he stated he wouldn't disown his pastor just like he couldn't disown his white grandmother...until he did.

    I think it's clear that this is politics as usual...and Obama is a member of the cast of players, just like Hillary.

    My biggest problem with Obama is that I thought that the Dems actually wanted to win the white house this year.


    I deleted a comment (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:09:06 PM EST
    linking to a right wing hate site for Obama. Also, please remember urls must be in html format as long ones skew the site.

    Sorry Jeralyn (none / 0) (#16)
    by Gabriele Droz on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:15:18 PM EST
    didn't realize that it was a specific Obama hate site.  Seemed to me that the material had some relevance, but if you say so I'll believe it.

    And I got you about using html.  Every site seems to go about it a different way.  I'm making a note.


    thanks (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:19:40 PM EST
    didn't mean to jump at you but when I followed your link it was a site created to trash Obama and his wife and I'd rather not send traffic to such hateful places.

    There's a link button at the top of the comment box.  Just highlight the descriptive words for your link in your comment then click on the link button and paste in the url.

    Or you can use tinyurl.com


    this subject is a bit touchy for me. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:28:01 PM EST
    You certainly have to be aware of what you are sourcing, and not have drudge rule your world--but OTOH the left has snookered itself with self-censorship over Obama's background.

    The rightwingers do make logical arguments in general. Even if they are hermetically sealed or tautologies: and you'd like to question their assumptions and starting points, they are simply rehearsing what they are going to do and say later on.

    I think the theory that you are simply upping their traffic or acting as a transmittor of their ideology if you link to them--is outmoded.  
    It may also be fatal to our chances in November.

    However it is your site and you've got to do what you've got to do. At the very least it protects against excessive partisanship.


    you missed the word (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:42:22 PM EST
    "hate" -- it wasn't a right wing site, it was a right wing hate site that exists solely for the purpose of "exposing" Obama. I link to conservative sites and blogs frequently. If I find something on Drudge, I say so. It's not a matter of politics, or even traffic, it's a matter of not spreading hate propoganda.

    I also didn't see the link for myself (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:46:42 PM EST
    ...or what it was about.  But i'll take your word for it.

    Obama is All (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:21:38 PM EST
    wrong. He Voted for it before he was against it.... How do we know what his real position on Iraq was?? "I would never vote for a war........I promise NEVER"... He is so full of Sh!t. Why would he oppose a twenty cents/gallon tax break with the oil company's picking up the federal funding of roads and infrastructure ?  That is one I don't get. Any help is good.

    Is anyone hearing this being (none / 0) (#22)
    by bjorn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:22:21 PM EST
    talked about anywhere else?  Why does it take so long for the good stuff to get on the MSM?

    just did a diary on it at the GOS (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    I went over to DKos to see what people were saying about this -- because I love watching the Obots heads explode when confronted with something like this.

    And no one had done a diary on it.  So I did one, just to get them all even more crazy than normal! ;-)


    Is it still up? What are they saying? (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:37:33 PM EST
    Do tell..heh.

    oh gawd... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:57:08 PM EST
    they are so ridiculous.  It really is like some sort of cult.

    They all say the same thing.  "He said it didn't work, and he learned from his mistake".  

    Except that there is no proof that it didn't work.  There is one study that says that 60% of the benefit was passed on to consumers in Illinois -- but it could have been more or less, because its not like gas prices were completely stable throughout the period when the holiday was in place.

    Obama's claim that "it didn't work" is based on the loss of revenue to the state -- of course, Clinton's plan is contingent upon making up lost revenue through a windfall profits tax, but none of the Obots over there understand that distinction.

    Its all completely glazed-eyed "OBAMS SAID IT WAS A MISTAKE...HE LEARNED.  WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO LEARNS" repetition.


    It's Arbusto Level loyalty (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:02:20 PM EST
    Given all the theft from the congress on road projects you'd think there might be a moratorium on building projects and an audit.  

    of course that's a different argument.


    heh (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:02:55 PM EST
    I -told- you guys back in comment #4 that this was the talking point!

    I don't mind the BS, I mind that there are people who actually seem to believe it.


    the best part is... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:09:11 PM EST
    that the "experts" who say that a gas tax holiday won't work say its because gas prices are higher in the summer anyway.  In other words, because there is no actual reduction in the price of gas because gas prices go up, the holiday "doesn't work."  Nevermind the fact that without the holiday, gas prices would be even higher.

    Its like these people don't understand markets, and what goes into the price of consumer goods.  


    Isn't that kind of the point (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:32:01 PM EST
    to doing a holiday during the high early summer travel/tourism period?

    They don't understand the psychology (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Anne on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:35:00 PM EST
    of it, either.  My mother lives on the other side of town, and gas prices can run anywhere from 4 cents to 8 cents cheaper than they are where I live.  I get a little feeling of triumph when I get gas over there, even though I know that on 15 gallons of gas, I'm only saving 60 cents to $1.20.

    The psychology is that when people are being squeezed, and are angry and depressed about rising costs, a little savings at the pump can translate to feeling like maybe they can do takeout one night, or go to a movie, or get a steak for the grill instead of hot dogs, or get the kids the cool tennis shoes instead of the cheap ones.  Think the retailers appreciate that?  Think it helps the local economy even a little?

    We all know that Congress isn't going to enact a gas tax holiday, and even if they did, Bush would veto it, so all that's really happening here is that Clinton is telling people she cares about pocketbook issues that matter to real people - she understands the holiday is no solution to our energy needs, but that she would go so far as to actually come up with a plan that is fiscally responsible takes it a level up from pure pandering - but what is Obama doing?  Pretending to be a wonk and a straight talker - because he's really talking to McCain - but telling the American people that he doesn't really care that gas prices are killing them.

    The man is tone deaf on real issues.


    Krugman's argument against the gas tax holiday (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ed on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:34:35 PM EST
    is actually a little different as can be seen in his Gas tax follies post a few days ago.  The gist of it is that because the supply of gas for the summer driving season is pretty much set at this point, the price of gas at the pump will rise until demand falls to match the available supply.  Therefore any lowering of the tax at the pump will be cancelled out by a rise in the price charged by the oil companies leading to bigger profits for them and no savings for the consumer.

    But the rise in price will come with or (none / 0) (#122)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:45:20 PM EST
    without a tax holiday.  So what is his point about no savings to the consumer.  Or is he claiming that the Oil companies aren't going to raise prices if there is no tax holiday.

    They Must Have All Received Their Daily (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:06:42 PM EST
    talking points e-mail. See 1jpb comment above with exact same unbiased opinion.

    Actually I have googled a few of the (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Florida Resident on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:29:34 PM EST
    comments made by some of these people and found myself right in the Obama for President site.

    I'm loyal to talkleft, (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by 1jpb on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:49:14 PM EST
    I only check dkos sporadically, so I miss the talking points from there or anywhere else.  And, I found the link in my other comment from a talkleft HRC fan in another post here (I actually read what y'all provide!)

    The opinions at dkos are too uniform for me, I like it here.  In fact I'm glad that I was excommunicated by myDD, that's how I found all y'all.  I needed to find a new place that would question and test my support of BO.  And, y'all require me to be much more rigorous and precise than myDD ever did--that's a good thing.


    You are (none / 0) (#172)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:41:20 AM EST
    imagining things...  This is not what is being proposed.

    Think of the gas holiday this way... many of us have to commute...  some farther than others.  So, some relief at the pump helps those of us that have to drive an extra 50 miles a day.  A flat rebate helps only some.  The idea of relief in regard to a transportation expense helps us keep our jobs.


    it would never be on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Salo on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:35:39 PM EST
    however Joe Andrew ought to have his nose rubbed in it.

    If it's demagoguery and state wide, no probs.  National demagoguery about a commodity?  Well I'll endorse the other guy who's demagogued about race and the war instead. All these noble lies from Obama.

    I like the common as dirt vulgarity of the Clintons more and more. Utterly shameless and thoroughly democratic and plebian just like Uncle Sam should be.  Clinton's like that old stripe-panted grey bearded Hornswaggler in Bob Coover's "Public Burning".


    Maybe an email (none / 0) (#33)
    by Iphie on Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:41:29 PM EST
    to someone who's always looking for fresh tips -- Marc Ambinder maybe?

    There's a Kerry quote (none / 0) (#64)
    by zyx on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:20:06 PM EST
    on the shelf.  Dusted off and gleaming.  Poised.  Ready to spring.

    I think by the 5th time... (none / 0) (#88)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:57:40 PM EST
    it becomes chattering but hey...it's not my site

    I do appreciate the your hanging out the laundry here...


    oh GO on (none / 0) (#94)
    by zyx on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:03:01 PM EST
    to the old site where I used to discuss politics.  My old "friends"--Democrats--are hardcore Hillary haters.  And they are calling her nasty names today for pushing the gas tax holiday.  They are saying nasty personal things about her, and have been for all of 2008, in a manner that I never did about Obama--it never occurred to me to talk that way about Obama as a person.

    What happened to these people?  I don't carry on any discussions with them any more at that little site.  But they perhaps don't realize that Obama once voted for the very thing they have said nasty things about Clinton for all day today.  Perhaps you would like to go there and enlighten them.

    I'm sure that would make them realize what idiotic jerks they have been for four or five months...maybe bring a little sanity back to the world.


    New term...lekking (none / 0) (#98)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:11:15 PM EST
    Listening to the chatter (none / 0) (#124)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:49:17 PM EST
    of some posters... hamster may need to be used on occasion.

    Hamster is appropriate (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:52:52 PM EST
    2 FACED OBAMA CAUGHT (none / 0) (#77)
    by snucky on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:46:31 PM EST
    he is a bs artist. he has no shame. i hope hillary runs an ad on the gas-tax relief he backed in 2000.

    Obama? Took a stand? VOTED? (none / 0) (#80)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:48:19 PM EST
    Wow.  Kind of hard to believe that he would do something for all those bitter voters running around in their pesky cars in Chicagoland.

    Maybe this is why he prefers to vote present and not hold oversight meetings on Afghanistan.  It would reveal he actually took a side on something...thus not giving him the out he needs when he needs to pander.

    He's such an amateur and a joke.

    answer individual comments by them.  I do have a bit of advice when making comments about were the savings on something from a tax cut goes all federal tax on gasoline at the pump comes from the consumer, it is an added cost and it is the same with the percentage of state, county and city taxes added at the pump.  There is no way were a decrease on this tax can benefit the Vendors since taxes levied on them and which they in turn pass to the consumer are not the taxes we are talking about those are added in the Price prior to the taxes.  It is like a sales tax when I make my quarterly report to the state on sales taxes it has nothing to do with my total sales and/or profits only with the sales tax I collected if sales were done within the state of Florida.  When we have sales tax holidays here in Fl I don't change my prices up or down the only effect is to the consumer.

    but above all I am a retailer so I know about POS taxes I deal with them and I also have to report them.  If a tax is eliminated or suspended it has nothing to do with my price structure.  If my prices are going to go up they will wether the tax is there or not.


    If the tax was cut tomorrow, there's absolutely no reason for the gas station to drop prices by the whole 18 cents. None. Whatsoever.
    shows you may have never dealt at the management end of a gas station.  When the price of gasoline and diesel goes up by 20, 30, 70 cents the gas station owner is lucky if his/her profit rises by 1 or 2 cents the profits go to the wholesaler and brokers.  

    bad guy,  Also if you pass a tax holiday you have to have a report structure and check up on price gouging.  If you point is to say that tax holidays are bad that is your opinion and your welcome to it but don't try to mumbo jumbo me.  Been there done that and when properly implemented things can be verified.  Again if there is any increase in price it will come at the Wholesale level not at the retail level because that is were the competition is hardest not at wholesale.  We have back to school tax holidays every year and if you raise your price on those items you better be able to prove you had to.

    we had tax holidays here also (none / 0) (#215)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:39:41 AM EST
    once or twice a year. Usually stores had signs all over reminding you because it improved sales. Many would also have special promotions those weeks. I can't remember what we are doing with our taxes now because I don't shop much. We also have caps in place on things like milk. They just had a spot on the news showing that many places had their milk prices higher then legal.

    Gas has become price competitive for the consumer. I don't drive, but I know how to find all the gas prices in and around NYC. Last summer they were announcing them on the news. Consumers are involved in the price hikes. I pity the retailers that try and gouge folks these days. People are watching.


    But now it's now. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:55:15 PM EST

    I should be more clear... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:01:31 PM EST
    ...it's eight years later, now he's listening to his advisors (and virtually every economist in the country) and making the right decision. If our country didn't clownishly play up "waffling" as one of the the greatest made-for-TV gaffes possible, this wouldn't be something we'd be concerned about. If we weren't predisposed to care thansk to years of GOP conditioning, I think we'd just be happy someone is getting it right, eventually.

    The problem is perception... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:08:14 PM EST
    The perception problem that Obama has is that he doesn't care about the working class. That he now adopts a position that demonstrates a lack of solidarity with the working class just continues to drive this perception.

    One can only get the impression that Obama is not only unconcerned over the plight of the working class, but that his arrogance is such that he has written them off because as Axelrod says...they don't vote for Democrats anyway.


    Well, as far as the working class goes... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:12:42 PM EST
    ...count me an optimist. Any bill that would pass won't help the working class. And having a show vote won't help them either. I figure it's just maybe possible that they'll be smart enough to figure that out.

    Okay, what is his plan? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Cream City on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:26:04 PM EST
    What does he propose to provide relief to the families that are having to cut back on food, because of the impact of fuel prices for suppliers?

    It is real, it is happening, and people need help.  And they need it now, not a year from now, if they would just vote him in and let him start figuring it out.  What is his plan to take back to Congress and push it and win it now?

    That would help him win the nomination now -- stop running for president and start acting as a president would, providing proposals for real hope.  


    I'll take the leader that actually writes the long (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:46:38 AM EST
    term plans and also considers the immediate future. Clinton.

    There's a reason Obama plans are similar to Clinton's.


    Hard pills. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:39:43 PM EST
    First, I'll note that the president can't do half the things we think (and they say) that they can do.

    Second, the problem with gas prices is a sinking dollar leading to both higher prices AND speculation in oil commodities, reduced supply, increasing demand abroad, etc. It's a difficult problem. There are almost no ways, given that set and the loci where they originate, to pump more money into the system via tax breaks, vouchers, whatever without simply causing the price of gas to go up. Price controls are a proven bad idea.

    So what to do? You give people more money for gas, the gas price goes up. You fix the price of gas, there are shortages in the places that need it most. People need help now, yes, but the situation -- politically, economically, internationally -- isn't going to be solved without measures impossible under the Bush veto threat. There's no short-term solution available. That's tough to hear, and it's a tough political message to get across, but there it is.

    As with any near-insoluble political-economic crisis, th poor suffer inordinately more than the rich. That's unfair, given their already precarious situation. But it's no reason to increase the price of gas, or decreased the supply, by instituting bad or half-baked policies. That doesn't help anyone, it's cynical and dishonest.

    I would say that, perhaps, more government meddling could do good in the freight/shipping sector. The usage there might be static enough (no one is taking their 18-wheelers out on joyrides, or taking vacations in them, if diesel gets low enough) that it wouldn't be prone to increased usage as much based on decreased prices. But I really don't know enough about that particular sector.

    On the long term plan for the energy Hillary and Barack are pretty close.


    Still not hearing what he as a Senator (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:26:32 AM EST
    proposes to do about it now.  If he would show me something as a Senator, I might be impressed and think that he could be capable of moving up.

    I'm sorry I missed it (none / 0) (#129)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:55:37 PM EST
    What is his plan to help now?  Your title hard pills, leads me to believe you don't care about any real solutions for the short-term only hope for solutions in the long-term.

    Did you just say he has no plan?


    I have been trying (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:58:37 PM EST
    all night to get them to reveal the plan and all I get are more talking points.

    good luck with that, (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:13:52 AM EST
    they got nothing but their little talking points.

    There is no plan (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by hookfan on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:24:54 AM EST
    because the Democratic leadership doesn't give a rip about working class issues. They are willing to try to grant immunity to Telecoms (big business, ya know), and castrate working people with Draconian bankruptcy bills (must protect the big financials ya know), not support Universal health coverage (must protect big insurance ya know), provide bailouts for banks (have to protect the big financials ya know). But give a rat's hairy nose about relief to working class? Nah, eat hard and bitter pills. Which side is Obama on? That's kinda clear isn't it?

    I can only come to the conclusion (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:56:34 AM EST
    after reading through all of Addisobama's fervent but tortured attempts -- such as "the short term plan is not to wreck the economy with bad pro-active policy" -- that Obama's plan in 2008 is about the same as Hoover's plan in 1929.

    The long term plan is the same as Hillary's... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:03:24 AM EST
    ...the short term plan is not to wreck the economy with bad pro-active policy.

    wreck the economy? (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:14:43 AM EST
    rank hyperbole is also for losers!

    Not funding the transportation budget fully... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:23:03 AM EST
    ...or shifting that burden onto states in unfunded mandates will, yes, wreck the economy.

    But of course, as stated ad infinitum, none of that will happen because Hillary's plan will never pass, and thus isn't a plan. It's like needing to get to England, in the absence of a boat or a plane, and "planning" to walk across the Atlantic Ocean.

    And then mocking people who think we should maybe wait for the next flight instead.


    So his plan is (none / 0) (#161)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:25:13 AM EST
    to go to England?  I'm not sure how that helps the economy.

    You're flailing. (1.00 / 0) (#162)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:25:28 AM EST
    Are you the Obama (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:32:54 AM EST
    supporter who was decrying that he wasn't pandering to older persons to get their vote?

    BTW, many on this site understand economics.  Still waiting to hear Obama's plan.  Several of us have asked over and over.  The old trick was to keep finger pointing at Clinton.  I was hoping one of you would get better at this by now.

    What's his plan?


    NO ONE has a plan. (1.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:37:07 AM EST
    Clinton doesn't have a plan that can be enacted.

    Obama doesn't have a plan that can be enacted.

    Both candidates will have the same effect on gas prices in the short term. Nil.

    The situation is too complex, politically and economically, for a primary season "plan."

    And yeah, you gotta pander to old people. But you gotta be smart about it and propose something that can get done and won't be stupid. That's easy enough. Not all pandering involves wrongheadedness.


    Correction (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:55:33 AM EST
    Obama doesn't have a plan, period, not even one that can't be enacted. As least HRC gave the impression that she would do something. It was a better idea than McCain's and certainly better than proposing nothing. It pointed out the lack of Democratic "leadership" in the Congress and the obstruction of the Republicans And as much as it may be "pandering", it gets votes. It's politics and they are all politicians. And I still won't support Obama or the DNC.

    What are gas prices in England? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:02:44 AM EST
    AHAH! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:16:03 AM EST
    The answer is he has no plan and the plan he does have,for the future, is HRC's plan. And we should vote for BO why? Never mind don't answer that. Have a good night.

    Because he doesn't have a bad... (1.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:19:24 AM EST
    ...short term "plan," that isn't even a plan, because it won't get passed. That's why. Because the fact that Barack and Hillary's plans are nearly identical doesn't mean it's HRC's plan.

    So it won't get passed? (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by hookfan on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:32:55 AM EST
    What ever happened to putting your political opponent on notice (used to be repubs) that your with the working class and call them out on record? Whatever happened to solidarity? This is an election year ya know? Why not at least show the working people who is on their side, and who is not? Oh, that's right it's the capitulation strategy at its best. Democratic whining and preemptive capitulation is really out of hand IMO.

    Yes... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:40:19 AM EST
    ...and whatever happened to this being about helping working class people out with gas prices instead of taking a pointless stand with a show vote?

    Y'all just keep alternating between the two. It's about bringing gas prices down one minute, and then the next minute you're talking about how the bill will fail but that will be good. Then you switch back to pretending the bill has a chance. It's transparent.


    It's not either or (none / 0) (#183)
    by hookfan on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:59:21 AM EST
    but you knew that. No reason one can't do both. Besides, I agree-- Bush will veto it. Again so what? Why not show your allegiance now in an election year? Unless the allegiance really isn't with the workers. . .why not propose many things that would benefit workers and keep the heat on? Perception is reality and the reality is becoming clear-- Obama doesn't give a rat's patoody about working class issues or solidarity with them. Nope we're just bitter and now must just suck up bitter pills while big business gets bailed out.

    Where you been? (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by cawaltz on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:50:55 AM EST
    Wreck the economy? I believe that ship has already sailed(and so do the majority of economists). People need to know that the person they elect will be able to help them weather the contraction period we appear to be heading for.

    I said very clearly... (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:06:55 AM EST
    ...that the long-term plan -- the actual one that will have good results -- of both Barack and Hillary are pretty much identical.

    The short-term plan of Hillary's will hurt the economy and not decrease gas prices. Demanding an alternative to that disaster besides "don't create a disaster" is silly, and shows a simple view of a complex political-economic problem.

    Of course -- and this is really the crucial point -- Hillary's so-called "plan" will never pass, so its merits as a "plan" to achieve any sort of ends are pretty much non-existent. Realistically she and Barack both have no actionable short-term plan, because the situation is too screwed up for a "plan" to do much good, given Bush.


    Hurting the economy? (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by cawaltz on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:47:33 AM EST
    The studies appeared to be inconclusive, I don't see where that means hurt or help. McCain and Hillary's idea may not be the greatest but I do think that Obama needs to put out some ideas on what he is going to do to address inflation. It isn't like we don't know that the Fed has decided that it is more important to lower rates than it is to deal with inflation(so it very well may get worse). In my opinion this makes it all the more important to have a President that has plans to help people address inflation. It isn't enough to criticize Clinton and McCain on the issue. If he doesn't agree he needs to offer a solution of some sort.

    count you as an optimist? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:30:22 PM EST
    You know that Bush would veto such a bill anyway.

    The issue was that once McCain put it out there, it gave the impression that he was the only one concerned with the plight of the working class.

    Hillary understood that.

    Not only did Obama completely missed the pander notion, he decided to make a point of going the other way which invited Hillary to demonstrate once again Obama's indifference to the working class.

    Sometimes being a smart politician means that you get the dynamics and pander when the situation calls for pandering.

    To stand on principle over this small notion - great...

    But we already saw evidence this week that Obama will toss principle out the window if it appears that it will cost him votes when he disowned Wright.

    I see this as further evidence that McCain would run roughshod over Obama in the general election.


    Doing nothing is always such a winner. (none / 0) (#149)
    by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:16:06 AM EST
    well, he had to do (none / 0) (#186)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:05:40 AM EST
    something to appear that way...  it is nothing more than a posture.  He tested the waters before he was against it...

    Wow, so easy and forgiving (none / 0) (#105)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:19:02 PM EST
    "But now is now?"  Are you kidding me?

    Someone should have told Hillary this answer a long time ago so she could please the Obama supporters.  Now is now!  Listening to advisers now, yep, non issue.


    Welcome you must be the new shift. (5.00 / 5) (#152)
    by Florida Resident on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:18:34 AM EST
    If your talking point is that we should not propose anything until we have control of the white house and a filibuster proof senate, forget it, we are not buying it reminds us too much of the current congressional leadership.  No guts and if that is the Yes we can attitude we can expect from your candidate iMO we are in trouble if he is the nominee.  buy the Cranberry Kool-aid it's good for you.

    are you ready to say (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:47:07 AM EST
    "Now is now" about Hillary's Iraq war vote?  She has advisors now and she won't let that happen again.  Easy and forgiving is the new Obama theme.

    It helps a lot when the advisors are right... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Addison on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:21:15 PM EST
    as opposed to Wright? (none / 0) (#114)
    by white n az on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:32:20 PM EST
    sometimes being right doesn't matter...anybody who is married understands this fact or is about to get a divorce.

    or the ones who rec'd (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:01:19 AM EST
    his earlier statements re: the social security issue.

    Must be your turn to spout (none / 0) (#120)
    by RalphB on Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:44:44 PM EST
    the boring talking point of the day

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:16:49 AM EST
    That the economic advisor is right?

    There's no actual proof that the advisor is right or wrong on this point.

    Econ advisors do their best to make some sort of educated guess based on their own theoretical constructs and perceptions of what's going on with regards to the situation.

    There is nothing to refute. It's a guess based on abductive reasoning.

    There are other econ advisors out there asserting something different.

    The one thing we know is that you can get a whole bunch of economists into a room and you'll wind up with several different possibilities.

    And so far as I've seen, there isn't enough verifiable proof to say definitively that the IL gas holiday failed.


    I agree (none / 0) (#170)
    by bigbay on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:38:11 AM EST
    plus she's tied its passage to a tax on the oil companies.

    Pandering? (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:01:54 AM EST
    That's Politics 101.  Please spare me any dribble that Obama hasn't pandered this political season.

    Excellent! (none / 0) (#179)
    by joc on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:53:13 AM EST
    So would you please give us a link that shows it was a failure? 'Cause a lot of these people won't believe it until they see the evidence. Until then they'll just think you are someone giving political spin, rather than someone who finally has the evidence to back up his claim.

    So, the link to that irrefutable evidence, so we can show them.

    Is there a link to back up your claim? (none / 0) (#231)
    by joc on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:14:03 AM EST
    A link please?





    Obama (none / 0) (#220)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:22:33 AM EST
    is just playing right into the elitist frame with his statements about the gas tax. The fact that he previously supported it and failed to explain why he changed his mind doesn't help.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#232)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:23:36 AM EST