Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!!

by alegre, Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:59:18 PM EST

Look! Up in the sky! It's a gas tax! It's lost jobs!  It's NOT Jeramiah Wright!!!!

Ever get the sense that the huge stink Obama's making over Hillary's plan to shift the gas tax from us working folks to the big (and rich) oil companies is just one big effort to distract us from other headlines?  Headlines he'd rather we weren't talking about in the lead-up to the primaries next Tuesday?

So he's finally distanced himself from Wright after 20+ years - for real this time in a presser on Tuesday.  Is that supposed to make us forget that he sat in Wright's church for 20 years?

Yesterday, the Denver Post Editorial made a lot of the same points that other bloggers and reporters have made about Obama's hypocrisy in new-found "surprise" over Wright...

The company Obama keeps

Obama finally (and firmly) disavowed the controversial Rev.  Jeremiah Wright this week. But the moment came only after sensing his presidential bid could be undone by the simmering controversy.

Snip

As late as Monday, after Wright again suggested the U.S. government invented AIDS to eliminate minorities and defended the bigotry of Louis Farrakhan, Obama seemed to shrug it off. But by Tuesday, after video of Wright's new rants played in what seemed like an endless loop on 24-hour news channels, Obama the politician finally emerged.

Snip  

Does Obama really expect Americans to believe that it was Wright, and not the prevailing political winds, that changed overnight?

Snip

Now we're supposed to actually believe that Obama was surprised by Wright's views?  This dust-up got personal Monday when Wright implied Obama quietly believes in Wright's views and suggested that Obama's speech on race last month was nothing but politics.  

Obama, trying to win over some of the white, working-class voters who have been casting their ballots for Hillary Clinton, was just doing what politicians do, Wright said.

The senator may not have been doing what politicians do with his artful speech on race last month. But when Obama tossed his one-time friend under the bus Tuesday, he was definitely doing what politicians do.

So Obama decided to cut him loose once and for all because Wright's comments were so offensive.  What were Wright's offenses?  

He claimed that AIDS was invented by our government to commit genocide.
His praised Louis Farrakhan as a great man.
And finally - he blamed the attacks of Sept. 11 on American "terrorism."

Suddenly Obama's shocked?  Suddenly he thinks this stuff is offensive and divisive?  One press conference and we're supposed to believe Obama's put all this behind him - us?

I think we all know that presser Tuesday morning had more to do with politics, and less to do with outrage.  Rasmussen just came out with a poll on this and guess what?  Fifty-eight percent of those polled agree - take a look...

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 30% of the nation's Likely Voters believe Barack Obama denounced his former Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, because he was outraged. Most--58%--say he denounced the Pastor for political convenience.

The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night. Obama made his statements about Wright on Tuesday.

Wright held a mini-media tour last weekend capped by a press conference at the National Press Club on Monday. Only 33% of voters believe that Obama was surprised by the views Wright expressed at Monday's press conference. Fifty-two percent (52%) say he was not surprised.

Fifty-six percent (56%) say it's at least somewhat likely that Obama "shares some of Pastor Wright's controversial views about the United States." That figure includes 26% who say it's Very Likely Obama holds such views. At the other end of the spectrum 24% say it's Not Very Likely that Obama shares such views. Just 11% say it's Not at All Likely.

Nah... I don't think that presser worked as well as BO had hoped it would.  So he's trying a new trick...

DISTRACTION!

In case you missed it, Obama's been going after Hillary hard since his presser re Wright.  He's offended by her attempt to help folks who are struggling under the weight of massive hikes in gas (and by extension - food) prices and I can't help but wonder if this has less to do with her plan, and everything to do with his desperate attempt to distract us from what he knows is his long-standing and poisonous relationship with Jeremiah Wright.  

So let's take a look at what's on the offer here guys...

McCain would suspend the gas tax for the summer without paying for it. Hillary would suspend the tax on us, but replace it with a windfall profits tax on big oil.  And Obama...?

Crickets - at least as far as a plan to offer us relief goes.  

The only thing we hear out of his yap is more attacks on Hillary for trying to offer up some relief to families like mine.  Of course, he's pretending that with Hillary's plan it's an "either / or" situation.  What he forgets to mention is that she's got all kinds of other plans out there to get our economy back on track and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (many of which he's copied and offered up as his own).

This isn't an either / or thing guys - it's a "this and that" set of plans.

Short-term - relief from the gas tax.
Long-term - get our economy back on the right track and develop alternatives / reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

For anyone who's paying attention this is a win / win set of proposals.

Meanwhile, he's out on the campaign trail scaring the shit out of Indiana's voters by claiming this tax holiday will result in the loss of (get this) 6,000 jobs in the state.  Take a look at what Mark Halperin had up this morning - one of BO's statements at his presser...

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.

He goes on to call Hillary one of the two "Washington candidates".  Excuse me - where's he been working for the past 3 years?  Hullo?

In case he hasn't noticed - folks are hurting and they're hurting bad in this country.  He craps all over Hillary's plan in some lame attempt to distract us from WRIGHT, while offering nothing better - or at all.  Folks are hurting and those "pennies a day" just might mean the difference between being able to afford a tank of gas that week, and not making it into work OR putting something back on the shelves at the grocery store because you can't afford that AND the gas you need to get to your job.

Hillary released the following statement about the latest jobs loss report...

"Only in George Bush's economy could the standard for analyzing the jobs report become "it could have been worse." Losing 20,000 jobs in April is completely unacceptable. It marks the fourth straight month of job loss, and means we have now lost more than a quarter-million jobs in 2008.

This job loss is hitting families at a time when they are already facing record gas prices, record declines in home values and skyrocketing costs for everything from food to health care.

"We need a President who understands that a good job is the ticket to the American Dream, and who will fight every day for an economy that creates, not loses, jobs. That's what my campaign is about: jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs. And it is why I am focused on providing struggling middle class Americans real relief right now, with extended unemployment insurance, a $30 billion emergency housing fund, and having the big oil companies pay the gas tax this summer instead of families."

And hey - guess what? Hillary's plan for this gas tax holiday will be paid for by companies who are posting record profits.  I doubt seriously that this new tax over the summer will put them in jeopardy.

Here's what Hillary had to say about Exxon's latest profits report...

Today, Exxon reported its highest ever first-quarter profits of $10.9 billion, up 17% from a year ago. Yet even these record results fell short of Wall Street expectations, and caused Exxon's stock to fall as a result. In reaction to this news, Hillary Clinton issued the following statement:  

"There is something seriously wrong with our economy when Exxon's record $11 billion in quarterly profits are seen as a disappointment by Wall Street.

This is truly Dick Cheney's wonderland.

"But on Main Street , middle class families are facing devastating choices every day between buying groceries and filling up their gas tanks to get to work. They are being squeezed by a vice grip of record high gas prices, record declines in housing values and an economy that is shedding jobs and tumbling into recession.

"I believe these families need immediate relief. That's why I have called for making Exxon and other oil companies with record profits pay the federal gas tax this summer. Now, Senator Obama doesn't believe in any kind of gas tax holiday. And Senator McCain doesn't want to pay for one. I believe we should impose a windfall profits tax on big oil companies and use that money to suspend the gas tax and give families relief at the pump. They typical family could get $70 in relief, and families that drive more for work could get even more. Truckers will get a $50 break every time they fill up their tanks.

"At the same time, we need to set a new course for our long term energy strategy, and move away from oil and towards new sources of clean energy.  That's why I have proposed a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund that will invest that money in clean energy sources like wind and solar."

Now I just received the following press release with a statement by Hillary regarding this plan of hers.  Take a look...

Hillary Clinton made the following statement today at a "Get Out the Vote" event in Hendersonville , NC .

Video of the statement is available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uBUaKOj1 _c

"We have a choice. We can choose to have you continue to pay the federal gas tax this summer or we can choose to try to make the oil companies pay it out of their record profits.

"This is the kind of choice that I believe we should be trying to make, because I know where I stand and I know where my opponents stand.  

"Senator Obama doesn't want us to take down the gas tax this summer and Senator McCain wants us to, but he doesn't want to pay for it. I believe we should impose an excess profits tax on the oil companies. They have record profits that they frankly are just sitting there counting because they are not doing anything new to earn it; they are just taking advantage of what is going on.

"We ought to say: Wait a minute, we'd rather have the oil companies pay the gas tax than the drivers of North Carolina , especially the truck drivers, or the farmers, or other people who have to commute long distances."

Guess what gang - it gets better.  Hillary's not only talking about providing relief for us this summer - she's proposing legislation on this.  We might actually see some relief in gas prices in the coming months and for families like mine - that's make more of a difference than BO would lead you to believe.  Seriously - if he's saying the cut won't make a difference - does that mean he'd have no problem if someone came along and suggested we double that tax?

Yeah... pretty much what I thought.

So anyway about her proposed legislation...

Sen. Hillary Clinton plans to introduce legislation today in the U.S. Senate following up on her campaign commitment to put the federal gas tax on hiatus during the peak summer driving season, said campaign spokesman Doug Hattaway.

The bill, which is to be co-sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), would essentially implement the break in the gas tax on consumers while imposing a tax on oil companies to make up for lost revenue. Hattaway said it is unclear when the bill would come up for a vote, but added that the goal is to have the policy in place in time for the summer driving season, which is traditionally viewed as opening on Memorial Day.

It may be an uphill battle but dammit - at least SOMEONE's trying to help us out here.  All I'm hearing from the other guy is "damn you for trying!" and "those pennies won't help anyone".  Well ya know what folks - it'll help my family and I'm guessing millions of others are looking for help too.  And as usual, Hillary's listening to us and she's taking action.

THAT's the kind of leader I'm looking for.




Tags: President, Hillary Clinton, 2008 elections, Jeremiah Wright, gas, Barack Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 200 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (1.93 / 16)

Hillary's taking action - while others... not so much.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:00:22 AM EST

I finally get it (2.00 / 5)

 "crickets"

chirp...chirp...chirp....just, "chirp", forget the plans and counterproposals!!

Great diary, thanks.


by 4justice on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:14:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 5)

By Daniel Whitten

May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies could cost $15 billion a year at last year's profit levels, a campaign adviser said.

The plan would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and assistance for people who can't afford their energy bills.

``The profits right now are so remarkable that one could trim them 10 percent or so, which would turn out to be somewhere in the $15 billion range,'' said Jason Grumet, an adviser to the Obama campaign.

Obama's plan may be three times larger than the $50 billion, 10-year plan contemplated by his Democratic rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Republican candidate John McCain, an Arizona senator, has no plan to raise oil and gas industry taxes, said his economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin.


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:32:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 5)

A couple of days ago, Obama vowed to stop the negative campaigning. If he really meant it, why isn't he touting his own plan? All he's doing is criticizing Clinton's.


by zenful6219 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

Total phony!  I mean, if my opponent suggested that bashing eggs with my head would benefit the American people, I'd have to come up with a counter proposal.  If I didn't, I'd just be negative.  I wouldn't even vote for me!


by Pat Flatley on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:41:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

I won't sink to your level, except to say I wouldn't vote for you either. But, in response, if I was a candidate, who claims he's going to stop negative campaigning, instead of criticizing the opponent's plan, I'd trumpet my own plan. I'd make sure I proved to voters in Indiana and North Carolina that I can lead during a crisis. Obama isn't offering any kind of counter proposal. All he's doing is negative campaigning. I wouldn't vote for you and I didn't vote for your candidate.


by zenful6219 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:56:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 5)

You can edumacate yourself here: http://www.barackobama.com/2008/04/29/ob ama_on_gas_tax_holiday_a_gim.php

"But here's the real difference for you to consider. We are both in favor of taxing the windfall profits tax of oil companies. They are making billions and it's time we made them give back. But Senator Clinton wants to spend the money on this Washington gimmick that will save you $28 all summer. I want to invest that money in clean, affordable, renewable sources of energy like wind power, and solar power, and biofuels, so that we're not here talking about high gas prices next summer, and the summer after that, and five summers after that. That's the change we need."


by The Distillery on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:40:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (none / 0)

but how to you make it an issue Americans care enough about that congress would have to listen?  What if this doesn't pass, who's going to be blamed (hint: pugs in office).  We need to sweep congress to get the changes either of them want passed, and to do that we need to let the electorate know that it isn't' just who's president, he or she must have a majority in congress who listen to the people and then the people have to speak. This is supposed to be Obama's big idea, no?   So why isn't he explaining how this would work, instead of smearing Hillary as a panderer?  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:34:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What if McCain's passes? (none / 0)


What if this doesn't pass, who's going to be blamed (hint: pugs in office).

You guys won't talk about it, and  I understand, fear of losing is powerful.

what if Hill's proposal doesn't pass, but McCain's proposal passes, instead?

Don't you guys deal in reality, at all?


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What if McCain's passes? (none / 0)

Don't you guys live in relaity at all?

No.

This is the liberal blogosphere, What do you think?


by spirowasright on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's plan (2.00 / 2)

Would help those who are harmed by high gas prices - the "regular" Americans who Hillary and her supporters have recently discovered - but wouldn't reward Hummer-driving wannabes for their excesses.

Contrast Hillary's and McCain's plan, which would, in fact, reward those Hummer-driving wannabes.

Why, one might almost call their plan elitist by comparison!


by Drew on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When you gonna post a scan .... (1.37 / 8)

... of your voter registration card, Alegre? I'm serious, because you're getting quite the reputation that you are, in fact, NOT a Democrat. Or, should I say, if you're a Democrat, it's in the mold of Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller. Virtually all of your talking points are Republican. Just thought you should know how you're viewed by the vast majority of people (not including your handful of "I promise to Rec every diary you post" friends).


by ratmach on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:57:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you have no clue what (2.00 / 5)

a democrat is.  


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:46:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you have no clue what (2.00 / 4)

Then what is a Democrat?  Someone who is willing to endanger their party's own political prospects for the person's own political gain (see: gas tax)?  Is that a Democrat?

How about someone who wants to "obliterate Iran?"  Is that a Democrat?

How about someone who thinks that when it comes to telling the truth, it's your batting average that counts (see Bill Clinton's press conference after the Senate Impeachment trial)?


by Brad G on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:47:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you have no clue what (2.00 / 2)

Forgot one:

How about someone who belittles MLK's efforts to eradicate segregation?  Is that a Democrat?


by Brad G on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:50:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When you gonna post a scan .... (2.00 / 2)

So you "know how [alegre] is viewed by the vast majority of people"?

Awesome!!! Good for you!

Do you care to share with us mere mortals how you came about this unique and special knowledge? My guess would be that you put your tin foil hat on and chanted Obama's name a million times, until transcendental insight dawned upon you. But, then again, I could be entirely wrong. And, as we're being politically active people an' all, to be able to know the minds of "the vast majority of people" is no little feat.

So pretty please pray tell, oh you enlightened one, how did you do it?


Grumpy, reluctant, sore-losing, unhappy, irritable Hillary supporter for Barack Obama 2008
by DemAC on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:33:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When you gonna post a scan .... (none / 0)

Yeah, alegre, post your full name and address on the internet! Then we'll really know that you're a true Democrat!

</snark>


Stop the racism. Fight the smears.
by CrazyDrumGuy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When you gonna post a scan .... (2.00 / 1)

Forget the voter registration card, I'd like to see the paycheck.


by mikeinsf on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So very sad (1.66 / 6)

thats all you have. Personal smears by sliming third parties with ties to obama. Pathetic.

BTW. Checked out who Hillary has her prayer meetings with on Capitol Hill? But i guess the wacky fundamentalist religious right is ok. They're white folk after all.

Pathetic and desperate.


I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever Thomas Jefferson
by cdreid on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:08:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So very sad (1.75 / 8)

She also has close ties with the guy who allowed the Magnaquench plant in Valparaiso, IN to be sold to the Chinese, costing over 200 manufacturing jobs in Indiana. (See the ring on her left hand.)

And the irony is that she's now talking about those jobs like her old man had nothing to do with it. I hear it's hitting the MSM today.


by vermontprog on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:17:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So very sad (none / 0)

smear smear?  Ah, but Hillary hasn't smeared Obama, not once ,she's never called him anything and he has said much awful about her character.  His Wright problem was not made up by her, he's being cagier about how he smears her now, he's taken what might have been a chance to talk about his own positions, and turned it into a smear-off. How sad.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess you missed the last debate (2.00 / 2)

all the guilt by association.

I don't Hillary accountable for the illegal actions of her brother, just because he took a $400,000 bribe from a drug kingpin.

I don't hold Hillary accountable for the illegal actions of her friends and financial backers, like Peter Paul.

but Hill loves to get in the gutter and play guilt by association, twice removed


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess you missed the last debate (none / 0)

she hasn't called him on Wright, it's not her that's holding him guilty by association. Why blame her for his own campaign mistakes?  Blaming her for getting into the gutter over Wright isn't just inaccurate, it's part of the smear.  You hold her guilty of smearing him by association when she hasn't? What gives with you, why can't you blog about him without whining about her. i truly thin that Obmaa's bloggers are incapable of showing him support without smearing her. It's more about what's wrong with her than what's right with him, by far. And that's sad.  


Hillary - alternative energy
by anna shane on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:49:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There!! (none / 0)

It's Hillary at the gas pump with her new best buddy and his pickup truck.

Out of view are the 6 SUVs that carried the entourage and camera crews, having burned hundreds of dollars of gas to stage the silliest of silly Hillary photo ops.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (none / 0)

Your constant smears about Obaman and wright are tiresome and trite.

The Gas tax holliday was a proven failure in IL and Obama learned from it and helped to repeal it.  Meanwhile  Clinton and McCain want you be convinced by a mere pittance that the oil companies DON'T HAVE TO PASS TO THE CONSUMER.  All of this helping oil companies make more money, while denying the government of funds to repair highways and infrastructure that is ailing, thus denying jobs since there wouldn't be funding.

The windfall tax will not pass with Bush in the whitehouse, so trying to convince us that this is paid for is more than a farce.

You say that the (little) money saved would be huge for working poor, but the reality is that the working poor will not see any of the savings from this since the demand will only increase from whatever temporary lowering in price due to the lack of a gas tax.  Secondly we all want to have safe roads, perhaps we will see more deadly bridge collapses due to lack of infrasctucture funding.  There is a direct correlation from this funding proposal to the lack of funds for such projects designed to the good of the public.

Do poor people prefer to have that extra half a tank of gas so that they might drive onto a deathtrap of a bridge?

Finally, and once again I reiterate:

STOP THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN NOW!

I am TRing you because you are a disgracing the Democratic party with your baseless, continuous reiteration of Wright and other smear stories that have nothing to do with the ability of a candidate to be a good president.


by Why Not on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:37:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 6)

go HRC go!


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:01:39 AM EST

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 8)

She's not only come up with a plan to provide temporary relief but she's offering up legislation to make it happen - well before next January.

I can understand why BO's going on about how awful her plan is though.  ANYthing to keep Wright off the front pages right?


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 6)

with a little help from his friends in the media ;)


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather Boa!" Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:12:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 7)

That's right Alegre...give me more Rev Wright....I know there's more video cmon I need a fix...I want so much Rev Wright that I puke....I don't care about or men and women risking their lives abroad....What can we do to get him back into the media spotlight??


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:09:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know (2.00 / 4)

Every time Obama mentions a relevant issue we can claim he is just doing it to distract us from the elephant wright.

Oh wait, we've been beaten to the punch.


by ameridad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:42:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I know (2.00 / 1)

Every time Obama mentions a relevant issue we can claim he is just doing it to distract us from the elephant wright.

Oh wait, we've been beaten to the punch.


by ameridad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:42:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (1.85 / 7)

Ok, so Obama's going on about how awful Clinton's plan is in order to shift attention away from Wright.

Got it.

How about the 150 economists, including some senior Clinton advisors, who have signed a statement calling the plan awful? What controversy are they trying to keep off the front page?


by jdusek on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:29:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (1.60 / 5)

Will you stop it with the Facts and Reality and Stuff!

That stuff has no place in an Alegre diary!! SMEAR! SLANDER! SCARY BLACK PEOPLE!!Check your memos sheesh!


I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever Thomas Jefferson
by cdreid on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 6)

Are you serious?  This is a pretty nonsensical diary - the gas tax and Wright are separate "issues."

A gas tax is not paid simply by consumers, Alegre.  It's paid by BOTH suppliers (in the way of lowered quantity) and consumers (in the way of higher price).  By moving money from the highway trust fund and to the consumer and supplier and then somehow taxing the supplier for windfall profits (that you know Bush will veto) is a pretty roundabout, inefficient, and stupid thing to do.  She should just propose to send a check to all working families at the end of the summer endorsed "For Gas Only." - that would save everyone a whole lot more money without wasting it on the bureaucratic shuffle.

So, it's you who is moving this from the substantive issue of suspending a gas tax to Wright.  Nice work - pretty much what I would expect.


by spmaverick01 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:10:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Too bad everyone says it's stupid (2.00 / 1)

So where's the expose on The Family?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:10:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

WORTHLESS (2.00 / 1)

Her plan isn't worth the paper it's typed on.

Summer is 4 weeks away.

what are the odds her plan passes, at all, let alone in time for summer?

ZERO

ZERO

It's a worthless gimmick.

I guess Paul Krugman used to attend Wright's church, cuz he's bashing the hell outta of Hill's  sham, con-artist proposal, too.

SHAME ON YOU, ALEGRE!!

SHAME ON YOU!!


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:35:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

How dare Obama talk policy!  Doesn't he know this election is about who one worships with?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:10:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (none / 0)

Every independent observer has said a) it makes no sense economically, and b) the bill has no chance in Congress.  This is transparent grandstanding that anyone not blinded by Hillary's celebrity can see.  By the way, it's also environmentally backwards, too.


by mikeinsf on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 4)

Does Obama really expect Americans to believe that it was Wright, and not the prevailing political winds, that changed overnight?

Good question.


by bobbank on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:02:38 AM EST

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 5)

So do you think Barack Obama is a black nationalist extremist? Just say it if you do and stop fudging around the edge.


by elrod on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:07:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 3)

huh?


TexasDarlin blog
by TexasDarlin on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 5)

Well, what's the point of bringing up Wright over and over again except to imply that Obama shares Wright's politics? If it were just a run of the mill church like, say, a Catholic church where the priest ranted on every week about how abortion is murder, would we be asking pro-choice Catholic politicians how they could sit and listen to that anti-choice and anti-woman bigotry week after week and not get up and leave? Would we wonder if that politician were just hiding his or her anti-abortion views just to get the Democratic nomination? No. We wouldn't even think to ask. So why do we care about Reverend Wright, unless it's that we think Obama is a black nationalist extremist.


by elrod on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

Well you have certainly missed my point.

For me this is not a matter of race, but rather of judgement and character.  I can see only three logical explanations for what we have been shown thus far in the campaign:

1. Rev. Wright never held any of these views until Monday, and so Barack was confronted with them for the very first time and chose to disown them. (Incredibly - most Obama supporters seem to believe this.)

2. Rev. Wright has always held these views, but Barack simply never figured it out until Tuesday.  (This is Barack's position, sort of.)

3. Barack was well aware of his mentor's views, found them either appealing or at least tolerable, but after insisting that to disown Wright would be to disown the entire African American community, he did exactly that once political expediency dictated it.

Now I find (1) highly implausible.  If there is one thing about Rev. Wright that I can respect, it is that he absolutely believes what he says and says what he believes.  It is clear that he is a straight shooter and unapologetic about any belief he holds.  There has been a remarkable consistency in everything we have ever heard from him.

If I am to believe (2), then I must accept the notion that Barack Obama is completely unperceptive and incapable of exercising any sound judgement when assessing another human being - not a trait that would encourage me to trust him to nominate Supreme Court justices, appoint cabinet members, or negotiate with foreign enemies.

And that leaves me with (3), which I find not only the most likely but the most distasteful.  I believe I have heard six different versions now of Barack's account of this man, and their relationship.  In response to his speech I watched liberal commentators say such fundamentally denigrating things as "He was just speaking a different language to a slightly different culture"; apparently them Black folk just won't get it unless you shout and cus and throw in a lot of hate?  (WTF?)

I have been told through the most tortured logic that context explains all, and moral equivalency will save the day, and for rejecting racism I have been called a racist more times in the past two months than I had been during my entire life.  And for what?  To preserve the myth of a post-racial, post-partisan hero figure?

Wright said nothing new on Sunday.  He said nothing new on Monday.  Everything was reproduced faithfully and with great clarity, exactly as we had heard it in those "soundbites" that we assured were misunderstood, taken out of context, and the exception rather than the rule.

But in fact there was one new thing that Rev. Wright said on Monday - that Barack Obama was a politician who would say anything to get elected.

That was the sin for which he was disowned.

I go back to my previous statement about Rev. Wright being a straight shooter.  And on this point, if no other, I agree with him completely.


by bobbank on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 7)

Or how about option 4, that somehow doesn't apply to black people but does apply to pro-choice Catholics: Barack Obama likes a lot of the things that TUCC does and likes a lot of non-political things Wright has said over the years. But Obama has never agreed with these more incendiary comments. And given that the video snippets come from only about three or four sermons, it's very likely that Obama never actually heard those sermons before March and so was never before forced to deal with his own response to them.

See, pro-choice Catholics do this every damn week. They sit and listen to anti-abortion homilies all the time and yet they go back week after week. Why? Do they secretly believe the anti-abortion message? No. They just see much else in the Church worthy of their attendance that outweighs the abortion issue. Isn't it possible that TUCC and Rev. Wright meant much more to Obama than some oddball and paranoid sermons?

As for the news conference, it was quite obvious what was going on: Wright was aching for a fight with the news media and so he tried to shock them. Notice how his Bill Moyers interview was all about context. But when accused by members of the press he just took the bait and screamed back at them. The problem was that it created a political problem for Obama. Unless we understand his motives - which most have correctly ascribed to egotism - then we just have the same incendiary remarks floating around the media again. Obama rightly saw this as a needless embarrassment that would obviously harm him in the gotcha media game.


by elrod on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:15:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 3)

Wright said nothing new on Sunday.  He said nothing new on Monday.  Everything was reproduced faithfully and with great clarity, exactly as we had heard it in those "soundbites" that we assured were misunderstood, taken out of context, and the exception rather than the rule.

You really don't see the difference between the media playing 30 second soundbites of Wright from a few sermons given over many years, and Wright himself condensing and amplifying the outragreous statements in one afternoons press conference?  

Could that account for Obama's treating the two situations differently?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (none / 0)

A better test of judgement might be who got fooled by Bush on Iraq. 22 Senators and the majority of House Democrats weren't fooled; Hillary was. No one's dying because of the words of a crackpot preacher.  Get some perspective, groupies.


by mikeinsf on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (none / 0)

Do you think Wright is a black nationalist extremist?

Not saying you personally, but the hypocrisy of Obama supporters is amazing. It wasnt weeks back in past when Obama supporters were writing diary about how great Wright is and now suddenly Wright is a disgusting black nationalist extremist?

Isnt that interesting?


by Sandeep on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:25:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 4)

No, actually I don't. I think he's an exhibitionist more than a black nationalist extremist. His sin is not his crazy politics but his love of media attention. His press conference was just a chance for him to shock the media. Notice that in his Moyers interview he explained everything in context. But when he saw the media ripping his comments out of context again he took the bait and threw it back at them. The problem was that Barack Obama was collateral damage.


by elrod on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:17:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Think we were (none / 0)

all surprised by that Q&A. Maybe even Obama. It was way out of line and over the top.
It is done. The elderly Reverend should go on and live his life as he and God see fit.
This is a non issue as far as most people are concerned, but the media feeding frenzy goes on.
If there's one thing we all should agree on, it's that the corporate media is the enemy of real information and is driven exclusively by the corporate concerns of GE, Disney, Viacom, etc.
Hope the American people are smart enough to see this and treat it with the opprobrium it deserves.

by barnowl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:36:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What about Clinton's membership (none / 0)

in The Family?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:11:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 6)

Give me a break, Hillary's gas tax pander won't get passed and it wouldn't do much to reduce prices.  Lame lame lame.


by tom32182 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:04:09 AM EST

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 2)

Sooo... if this cut won't reduce prices BO would have no problem doubling the tax on us then?  

I mean if 18 cents a gallon won't make a difference ANYway right?

Seriously - think of all the transportation problems would could solve with DOUBLE the tax.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:11:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 3)

I don't get your logic.


by shalca on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:36:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (none / 0)

Don't start looking for logic.  We're in Bizarroland.  Drop in to be amused by the mayhem, but expect no reason.


by mikeinsf on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:46:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

Actually, an 18 cent reduction in the summer will make a big difference -- 300,000 fewer jobs, roads and bridges desperately needing repair being neglected (see Minneapolis for the consequence), more pollution from increased gas consumption -- sicker children, not to mention -- higher gas prices.

As a former economist, I should know this.  The bottom line is that whenever you subsidize an industry -- gas, tobacco, food, etc. -- the economic effects are the same.  If you provide the subsidy to consumers (tax break), demand increases, and therefore so does price, so some of the subsidy provided to consumers is passed on to the producers in the form of higher prices.  Similarly, if you subsidize the producers (i.e., oil companies), then supply increases, and therefore the price falls, so some of the subsidy to the producer is passed onto the consumer in the form of lower prices.

I'm not quite sure I understand your argument about why Sen. Obama suggests we should double the gas tax, although I personally would favor it in order to invest in our neglected mass transit.  Please explain.


by Brad G on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

This is a republican talking point.  Trying to scare people into thinking that Obama will raise everybody's taxes, even though there is no evidence of that.


by catalysis on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:06:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 4)

this seems to be the obama strategy- intentionally conflate mccain's and hillary's gas tax plan, and falsely claim that hillary's plan will reduce finding for highway construction and therefore cost jobs. if fact, hillary's plan is to replace consumer payments through gas taxes into the highway trust fund with windfall profits tax from the oil companies, so all that money for highway construction and jobs will still be there.

this must be a talking point/bamboozlement attempt coming straight from the obama campaign, because so many campaign operatives who have previously shown that they know better are saying it. lying to the voters... oh well, desperate times call for desperate measures.


by campskunk on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:04:16 AM EST

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 6)

No, as somebody pointed out to you in a different diary, the windfall profit tax is already allocated according to Hillary toward other spending. The gas tax holiday is a useless gimmick that will only result in more windfall profits for the oil companies.


by elrod on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:05:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 2)

Furthermore, there's basic economic problems.  If oil prices went down a little, people would drive more and this would drive up demand which would likely increase prices.

Furthermore, even if taxes went down a bit, there's no reason why Exxon wouldn't just increase their prices to make up the small change in taxes.


by tom32182 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (none / 0)

I don't completely agree with the economists that believe slightly lower gasoline prices will increase demand. For me, when gasoline exceeded $2.50 a gallon, I started changing my driving habits.


by zenful6219 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:19:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

Well that's exactly it. You changed your habits in reaction to a price change.

The "demand" thing is misleading, as it implies that there will will be in increase in consumption (not to economists, but how it sounds). But as production will be maxed out, prices at the pump will be set to exactly sell out the supply. How that money is partitioned between the consumer and the government is immaterial - the key is that supply (fixed) and demand set the total price at the pump, barring some miracle where all the gas companies decide to sell their product for less than they could get for it.


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:38:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

you seem extremely motivated to maintain the position that our country's energy problems are intractable and that any attempt to provide consumer relief is futile. so much for hope ;-)


by campskunk on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 2)

Solving our country's energy problems and providing consumer relief are two different things and for the most part cannot be achieved at the same time.

Which do you prefer?  Instantaneous gratification?  Or a plan that will solve the problem?

I thought your candidate was about solutions.


by The Distillery on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Elitist crappola (none / 0)

There are working people in this country to whom a 14 cent a gallon drop in gas prices means something -- truckers, long distance commuters, people just scraping by.  Believe it or not, a working class family trying to plan a driving vacation this summer might actually notice an extra $30 in their tight vacation budget -- enough to buy the kids Happy Meals on the road or new swim suits at Walmarts.  

There ARE people in this country, millions of them, who literally watch every penny.  They of course want long term solutions, but some short term relief doesn't in any way preclude that.  To make the argument that the Clinton gas tax plan is her ONLY plan to address the economic woes of the working class is delibrately deceptive.  And some working folks could sure use a little "instant gratification" this summer that helps with their small everyday problems while the bigger solutions are in the works.

$28 to a working family is not the equivalent of an extra Frappuccino Grande a week for the summer -- it's money they actually can appreciate, and miss.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:00:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (2.00 / 4)

I am a working family, or an unworking family, as it were right now.  Don't give me your fucking bullshit lecture on what $28 means.  $28 means half a tank of gas that will last me a week in driving to job interviews.  $28 means 4 packages of 12-double rolls of toilet paper that I buy on sale.

However, I also know that getting an extra hypothetical $28 in unspent money at the gas pump isn't going to keep gas prices from rising even higher.  It will actually encourage demand, which drives prices up.

And just fyi, working families don't have vacation budgets.  I didn't have them when I was growing up, and even now with a college degree, I still don't have them.

Why don't you go grassroots organize where you get to meet with the "real folk" and learn about their struggles.  Because just as you judged me without knowing a damn thing about me, I'm going to judge you and presume you don't know a damn thing about working families or struggling to get by.

And just because someone knows how to sacrifice for the benefit of everyone, that doesn't make them elitist.  It makes them elite.  There's a difference.


by The Distillery on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:37:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (none / 0)

working class families do have vacation budgets -- we sure did when my kids were small -- you try to give your kids as "normal" a life as you can within your means so you plan a driving trip to camp or visit a relative and try to do that on the extra paycheck in a five week month.  When you take home 300 bucks a week that extra tank of gas $28 bucks would buy might just make a vacation possible.  

The entire price of gas formula is so convoluted and  shaped by so many factors it will go up or go down in ways no one can accurately predict.  And if you buy into that "demand" argument you've been too heavily indoctrinated in Cheney and Friends bullshit.

The effect of a federal gas tax suspension is more psychological than real.  Some will call that "pandering" I see it as an attempt to show the working class someone gives a damn about their immediate concerns enough to actually try to do something immediate about them.  

And FYI, if you don't have a vacation budget it means one of only two things -- either you can't afford any type of vacation or the exact cost of it is irrelevant.  Working class people do indeed make and try to stick to vacation budgets, even if it's the cost of camping in Grandma's back yard.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:15:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (2.00 / 2)

You don't pass policies that won't help anyone for symbolic purposes.

Th $28 is over three months.  We are talking about less than $10 a month, less than $2.50 a week.  And that's if the money actually gets to consumers, something that no law can mandate.  Oil companies can raise their prices and so you'll pay the same anyway.

See this letter from 150 economists, including Nobel Prize winners and economists from the Clinton administration about the proposal:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080 502_list_gastax.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:23:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (none / 0)

McCain came out first with his "gas tax relief" proposal attempting to go straight for the low information voters that would come to associate an immediate steep drop in gas prices to good old John McCain and frame for them that the tax cuts he loves so much aren't just for rich people and corporations.  It would also starkly illustrate to the public, in an election year, the amount of federal tax on every gallon of gas.

You can't fight a ploy like that, designed to target low information voters, with fifty pages of analysis and Nobel Prize winning name dropping.  You have to go after the same folks on the same turf -- at the gas pump with as simple a message -- yeah sure, let's take those taxes off your back for a bit and pass them along to Big Oil.  She brilliantly pierced McCain's biggest show of concern for the working class to date and let all the hot air out of it.

Clinton used to moment to go after McCain -- something everyone's been clamoring for both Democrats to do -- and Obama could't pass up the opportunity to try to turn it against her.  What he needed to do was proposed his own form of immediate relief for rising tax prices and a tax rebate won't do it -- it will hit next April not this summer when both the American people and the Democratic party need it.  

That's what makes the arguments against the Clinton proposal "elitist crappola."  Randomly pick any twenty economists, put them in a room together and they disagree sharply on everything.  It's like trying to predict the weather -- fun for weather junkies but otherwise useless if you are trying to plan a picnic.  

It's all about the messaging -- McCain was trying to co-opt the Democrat's message -- Clinton turned it on him. It's called smart politics.  I know, I know, something we now eschew for the Obama "high road".  Good luck with that in the fall, by the way.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:28:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (2.00 / 1)

So you agree that Clinton's plan won't work to lower gas prices, but you support it because it will fool low-information voters into supporting her? I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:43:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (none / 0)

well, not quite.  
It will lower gas prices in the immediate, then who knows what will happen, how the real powers that be will respond.  
It's not about "fooling" low information voters -- it's about counteracting a McCain ploy to fool them into thinking any Republican gives a good gawd damn about them.  It's about shifting the GOP dialogue off of "high gas taxes" and onto "high oil company profits" where it belongs.  It's about setting the stage for future attempts to tap into if not control high oil company profits.

The point is, while the lower prices might not last or amount to all that much over the summer, it's still a move in the right direction when coupled with other long term solutions.  

Face it.  If Obama had thought of it first we'd be asked to trumpet his "courage in standing up to the lobbyist and the oil corporations."  But because Clinton thought of it first it's pointless pandering.  I just want to make sre we're on the same page.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (2.00 / 1)

McCain thought of it first.  And then Clinton followed suit.  And then Obama decided to tell voters the truth about what it would really give them.

"I just want to make sure we're on the same page."

We're not on the same page.  You want to stay on the same page.  We want to turn the page.  Therein lies the problem.


by The Distillery on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (2.00 / 1)

Randomly pick any twenty economists, put them in a room together and they disagree sharply on everything.

Yeah, except for on this issue when all of them in fact do agree.  There is widespread agreement among economists that the Clinton and McCain plans are stupid and won't do anything to help the economy or working families.

Let's live in the real world where actual solutions matter not pandering and magical thinking.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Elitist crappola (2.00 / 1)

I'm completely flabbergasted that you believe you can take a vacation on $28.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  And actually the fifth week paycheck I used to get would allow me to splurge and go out on the weekend to something non-free, which I normally could not do.  And now as an unemployed person, I can't do that at all.

As far as that "demand" argument, it's called supply and demand economics.  It's the backbone of our market.  Perhaps you've heard of economics?  You may want to take a course in it.  And despite what Cheney may have said, he didn't invent the concept.  It's been around since the 19th century.

As far as the gas tax showing working class voters that politicians care about them, that's what the stimulus package is for.  They should advocate for another one of those.  But don't change a tax that is tied to a very fluctuating commodity that could be negatively affected by the proposed change.  You're right.  No one can predict what the gas price will do.  So you shouldn't go messing around with it, when those changes could make it a hell of a lot worse.

And as always, your comprehensive knowledge of the inner workings of a real working class family continue to amaze me.


by The Distillery on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:22:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There ought to be a way (none / 0)

to help the folks who must drive for a living. Does HRCs plan address this or is it plain pander?


by barnowl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:39:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There ought to be a way (2.00 / 1)

Do you mean truckers?

The savings could add up for them.  But that's if the price didn't change.  If the tax relief drove the prices up, then it would all be for naught.


by The Distillery on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There ought to be a way (2.00 / 1)

Of course, the independent truckers would suffer tangential costs from this stupid idea: for instance, since there would be no money to fix federal roads, maybe that impacts their alignments. Just one example. Or maybe the 300k jobs such a proposal impacts hurts the ability of others' to order products.

It's a bad idea. Trying to fool ill-informed people into thinking it's a good idea is equally bad. For that matter, if this is how you think politics ought to be done, become a Republican. They've been doing this crap for years now.


by jbill on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:50:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There ought to be a way (2.00 / 1)

Of course, the independent truckers would suffer tangential costs from this stupid idea: for instance, since there would be no money to fix federal roads, maybe that impacts their alignments. Just one example. Or maybe the 300k jobs such a proposal impacts hurts the ability of others' to order products.

It's a bad idea. Trying to fool ill-informed people into thinking it's a good idea is equally bad. For that matter, if this is how you think politics ought to be done, become a Republican. They've been doing this crap for years now.


by jbill on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Today the summer, tomorrow forever (none / 0)

Starting it as a summer temporary thing is easier to get through Congress. Then it can be extended and enlarged. That's easier than starting with a big permanent measure.

This gets the issue before the voters as a right-now thing, they tell their congressmen, etc. Easier to get it moving now and small. Adjust and increase later.


by 1950democrat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not accurate. (2.00 / 1)

in hillary's climate and energy plan, the windfall tax is only one proposed source of financing increased investment in alternative energy. the option is for oil companies to directly invest (which they are; they don't plan on going out of business when oil runs out), OR, if they don't, then use the windfall profits tax to finance this. you are presenting a false choice by claiming that the windfall profits tax is already allocated.

i'll provide a link to the climate and energy plan, since it's not in your interest for people to find out what's actually in it.

link


by campskunk on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:19:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (1.66 / 3)

He's got nothin' so he attacks what Hillary's offered up.

And when he's not attacking her plans, he's copying them and releasing them as his own a few weeks later.

Well except for that health care plan - in all fairness that ISN'T a copy of Hillary's and I think she'd point that out every chance she gets because his LEAVES 15 MILLION OF US OUT.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:13:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 3)

Come on Alegre, that's not a response.

The basic fact is that the US Government can do very little to change the price of gas in the short-run.

It's unclear if Clinton's plan would reduce gas prices because 1) demand simply goes up and thus price goes up or 2) oil companies simply raise prices (especially after their hit with the windfall profits tax).

Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to promote driving given the problem of pollution in urban areas.


by tom32182 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:17:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (none / 0)

heh! driving is bad because it causes pollution. yeah, we know.


by campskunk on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:21:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

Umm ... BO, like HRC, has supported an increase in the windfall profits tax.  BO is criticizing Hillary Clinton on the gas tax because it is simply a bad idea -- like privatizing Social Security is a bad idea, like going into Iraq is a bad idea, etc.  The status quo of keeping Social Security as is and leaving Iraq alone seems to be a good solution to me.  A bad idea is a bad idea.

On health care, as an actuary, I do agree with HRC that mandates are necessary to keep costs under control.  That said, BO's plan isn't that far from HRC's plan -- particularly when compared to Gore and Bradley in 2000 and Edwards and Kerry in 2004 where it was about just covering children (no mandate) and covering children and adults.  And that's not even comparing BO's and HRC's plans to McCain's plan.


by Brad G on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 1)

Sometimes the best policy is not to do anything.  Until we support a long term energy independence program, this country will continue to fight higher fuel costs.  India, Singapore, China, Russia, Brazil are not slowing their growth, this will continue to affect our fuel costs.  
What is important, me thinks, is not to pander short term with political promises, especially legislation that is DOA.
Obama has supported this in the past, but sopped well short of making it permanent because he realized it lined corporate pockets.  Good judgment shown, what we need in a president.  
'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'
by stryan on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:08:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Look! Over There! It's NOT WRIGHT!!!! (2.00 / 2)

Yes, bamboozlement in conjunction with most of the leading economists in the country.

It's a vast ObamaEcono conspiracy.


by emptythreatsfarm on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:01:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

conflating (none / 0)

Kind of like conflating the Clinton 90s economy with the Bush economy.


by 1950democrat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MyGOP strikes again (1.62 / 8)

The feigned outrage by Hillbots over Wright has reached beyond the comical to the tragic. Don't worry, your good friends at Fox News, and Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh will keep talking up Rev. Wright to no end. You - and they - don't care about the gas tax gimmick. You all just care about Rev. Wright. Ah, the company you keep.


by elrod on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:04:25 AM EST

Re: MyGOP strikes again (none / 0)

Feigned?

HillBots?

What're you kidding me?

Have you taken a look at the polls lately? Or that Rasmussen poll I noted in the diary?

Oh wait... you forgot to read the diary again - didn't you? ;o)


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:16:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MyGOP strikes again (2.00 / 5)

Did you notice that most of the people offended were Republic