MyDD :: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason

Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason

by Carnacki, Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:35:56 PM EST

The last time I checked, Sen. Robert C. Byrd had not endorsed Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, which I thought a good move considering how much I want him to keep focused on the election of his long-time state director Anne Barth to the House of Representatives in WV-02.

Still, considering how much Senator Obama did for Senator Byrd with fundraising Byrd's 2006 re-election bid, you would think Sen. Hillary Clinton would not want to go out of her way to be so dismissive of Senator Byrd.

Senator Byrd, afterall, is one of the uncommitted superdelegates she's courting.

In an April 18 AP story, Byrd denounced the federal gasoline tax holiday proposal as a bad idea after it was proposed by Sen. John "A Bush 3rd Term" McCain, who was later joined by Senator Clinton.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., called McCain's idea "dangerous."
"This proposal would have dangerous consequences," Byrd said. "It would disrupt road construction projects across the country, and stymie economic development in the midst of a recession.

"Instead, we should be getting tough on oil companies who are reaping astronomical profits, and be pushing oil producing countries to lower prices, especially the ones benefiting from the national security efforts of the American taxpayers."

The estimate I've seen is over the course of three months, it would save Americans about $30 to $35, although in the most likely scenario, price rises from increased demand and the insatiable greed of the oil companies would eliminate even that minor cost savings.

But now Senator Clinton is denouncing those who are critical of her and McCain's idea.

Could she name a single economist who agrees with her support for the gas tax holiday?

Hillary sidestepped the question, and tried to use the complete dearth of expert support for the idea to her advantage, pointing to it as proof that she's on the side of ordinary folks against "elite opinion" -- a phrase she used twice.

"I think we've been for the last seven years seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion behind policies that haven't worked well for hard working Americans," she said.

A bit later she added: "It's really odd to me that arguing to give relief to a vast majority of Americans creates this incredible pushback...Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that don't benefit" the vast majority of the American people.

Another time before, Senator Byrd denounced a major proposal by a Republican as "dangerous," but Senator Clinton's judgment led her to embrace it. That was the Iraq war. She should have listened to Senator Byrd's 'elite opinion' then as she should have this time, too.

Tags: Robert C. Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, West Virginia, energy (all tags)

Permalink :: 116 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 5)

Excellent diary. I think Obama will continue to gain in elected delegates by quite a nice margin.

by Bobby Obama on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:38:52 PM EST

Typical households have 2 drivers /household (2.00 / 1)

Even Obama's numbers don't hold up.

Recognizing that households of working families have 2 drivers each... any discussion that fails to recognize that even Obama's claim that a 'typical" savings of <$30.00 is actually more like a savings of $60.00 for a household is unrealistic.

Not even counting those individuals who have to fill up more than once a week.

by TxKat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST

Re: Typical households have 2 drivers /household (2.00 / 1)

The real oversight is transportation - lower gas costs mean lower transportation costs, which mean that anything from groceries to underwear cost less. The correct way to frame the debate is to look at it as a small (~$6 billion), second stimulus package.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Typical households have 2 drivers /household (2.00 / 1)

Businesses that have transport as a major component of their budgets have been hurting for a long time now. Do you honestly believe that they will bump down their prices, which often haven't yet fully absorbed increased fuel costs, just because of a 3 month bump down in those costs. Most of them will see it as a brief chance to recoup some of their recent losses.

This proposal makes no sense as a stimulus package.

by anoregonreader on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:15:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Typical households have 2 drivers /household (none / 0)

Besides being economically unsound ans obvious in its pandering, her plan is also the antithesis to an energy policy that is good for the environment. I wonder if Al Gore is paying attention...?

by mikeinsf on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

60 dollars over 90 days (2.00 / 1)

is about 67cents. Is that really worth the time it would take in congress, the disruption to road building, to pass this?

Hell no.

by grass on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Disruption to road building? (none / 0)

Are you talking about McCain's plan? If not, please explain the disruption to road building.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Trickster (2.00 / 1)

The federal gas tax goes directly to the Federal Highway Trust Fund - unlike the proposed windfall profits tax.

If you take that source of money out for the summer driving months which are the busiest, the West Virginia's transportation secretary estimated the fund would take a big hit. He estimated about 40 percent of the state's transportation money comes from that fund. A windfall profits tax does not go into that fund.

Mike Clowser, executive director of the state's contractors' association, questions whether McCain's proposal would actually benefit consumers greatly.

Clowser cited two states - Illinois and Indiana - that suspended their state gas taxes in 2001. He said savings were minimal in both cases, and that transportation improvement programs were shortchanged by tens of millions of dollars.

Clowser said he figures that with the way gas prices have been rising without warning, consumers wouldn't feel that much relief in the end.

"The market is what the market is," he said. "Would there be any guarantee the motorists would see a 18.4-cent reduction in gas prices? That would be difficult considering they can fluctuate 10 to 15 cents in any given day or week."

The Contractors Association of West Virginia wants to put the brakes on a proposal from Sen. John McCain that calls for a nationwide gas-tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, this week announced a plan to suspend the 18.4-cent federal gas tax and 24.4-cent diesel tax over the summer in an attempt to relieve motorists of the financial pinch at the pump.

Those federal taxes, however, contribute roughly $400 million annually to West Virginia's roads system. A summer-long suspension of the taxes would result in a $77 million loss in federal road funds for the state, based on an estimate from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association.

Even if it wasn't a bad idea for other reasons (it is) Clinton's call for a federal gas tax would cost a lot of blue-collar people their jobs when there wasn't funding to pay for road and bridge work.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trickster (none / 0)

A windfall profits tax does not go into that fund.

It goes where you put it.

In this case some of it goes into that fund. So you are wrong about that. Obama has spread a false talking point on this subject so I don't blame you if you're confused.

Moreover, Hillary has the most aggressive and forward thinking plan of either candidate when it comes to investing in our infrastructure and creating new jobs in the process.

See here:
http://www.bloggernews.net/114879

It's a great idea.

She is the strongest on this issue, no doubt.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (2.00 / 1)

She's playing with smoke and mirrors, claiming the highway trust fund won't be hurt by her federal gas tax holiday since it will be offset by a tax on oil companies that doesn't exist, so why should anyone trust anything else she's said?

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

Tripe. Disappointed with moderators for letting a smear-job like this sit on the front page to be honest.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 0)

And I'm disappointed with Senator Clinton's ill-conceived pandering on an important issue that even economists who support her find fault with on many different levels for many different reasons. Of the two, my disappointment is the greater and more relevant since mine involves a Democratic presidential candidate's flawed policy proposal and yours involves a blog post on a Sunday afternoon.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:13:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hell yes!! (none / 0)

How many economists do you know also drive an eighteen wheeler? Or a cab? Or have a contracting company?

The vast majority of economists have as much of a clue about daily expenses and budgets for working people as Rudy Giuliani does for a gallon of milk.
Obama is either afraid of being tagged a "socialist" or doesn't want big oil to take the hit. You can believe her solution was vetted by her advisers.

The difference between Clinton's plan and and McCain's is vastly different. McCain's is irresponsible tax cuts - the stock resolution to everything Republican and therefore the people - us - in the end - take the hit. Clinton's plan is exactly the kind of policy we need. Sure to strictly 'inside the boxers' or hard core conservatives it's radical sounding but so was FDR's First One Hundred Days, federally insured banks, the TVA, or social security to the Henry Luce's or economists of that era.
Hillary's plan is not a be all end all and perhaps you're not aware of this - but any short term relief for a majority of Americans is something that would be welcomed.

God forbid these poor souls shoiulder some of the current burden..

Buoyed by soaring crude oil prices, Exxon Mobil announced yesterday that it set new records for U.S. quarterly and annual corporate profits in 2007, and Chevron, the nation's second-largest oil company, also reported big gains in earnings.

Exxon broke the record it previously had set for profits by a U.S. corporation, earning $40.6 billion last year. It earned $11.7 billion in the fourth quarter, or $2.13 a share, up 14 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006. Revenue for the quarter rose 30 percent, to $116.64 billion. Exxon's profit for the year came to $4.6 million an hour.

Chevron said its profit rose 29 percent, to $4.9 billion, or $2.32 a share. Chevron's quarterly revenue grew 29 percent, to $61.41 billion. Profits of the five biggest international oil companies have tripled since 2002.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020100714. html

by durendal on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:24:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

What part of "every single person who understands how the economy works thinks this is the stupidest idea since the Iraq War" don't you understand. It's a shell game. Instead of us paying the gas tax, Hillary would have it moved to the oil companies. Who would make gas station owners pay for it, who would keep their prices the same to make consumers pay for it. All that would happen is a huge waste of government resources to accomplish nothing.

"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson

by belicheat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (2.00 / 1)

Just because it's not pro-Clinton, doesn't make it "tripe".

As I see it, the main headline on the front page is:

"Obama didn't pander before he did" --which is truly "tripe" and deliberate overreaching, misinterpretation and misinformation from Jerome.

What is so objectionable about this diary? This can hardly be classified as a "smear-job". Where is the smear?

PUMA plants.

by jv on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trickster (none / 0)

Deficit spending? If it's good enough for the rest of the budget it's good enough for the Highway trust fund.:)

by usedmeat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Groceries anyone? (none / 0)

The price of groceries, animal feeds, all those things that are trucked in have gone up - uh, reckon it has anything to do with the price of GAS?

Any business where hauling or trucking of goods is involved is really hurt with the astromical oil prices.

A savings of $30 per month, IMHO, is not at all realistic!

We just had to make an unplanned trip to the ER, 25 miles away. Cost that much more.

by Southern Mouth on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only in haulage (2.00 / 1)

does a gas tax effect price. Agriculture used red diesel which is already tax exempt.

by grass on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Horse feed, hay, transport (2.00 / 1)

.... all gone up. Groceries - up. Transport of any items is more costly period.

As for gas tax holiday, don't know. I won't put it down just because HRC is promoting it. It's no different that a lot of ideas about change from the way things are done in DC. You have to have more than ideas in either case.

by Southern Mouth on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Typical households have 2 drivers /household (2.00 / 1)

Here is the calculator.

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cl iid=13lkzo

My wife and I will save a combined 23.03. There, you have my savings, what are yours?

Capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse..." and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse..."

by igottheblues on Sun May 04, 2008 at 10:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the plus side (2.00 / 2)

On the plus side for Senator Clinton's campaign, there was a canvass held this weekend in Berkeley and Jefferson counties for her. It was run out of the Charles Town office so I'm not sure how many people were there. I asked a coordinator at the Berkeley County Democratic Executive Committee's headquarters where she met with a couple of volunteer canvassers (it's next door to the local Obama headquarters, which also sent out canvassers and had people phone banking) to canvass in Berkeley County.

I canvassed for Obama for a couple of hours in Falling Waters, which those with local experience in Berkeley County like the fantastic Beltway Democrat can tell you is a real ball-breaker of a precinct for Democrats because it's predominantly Republican and DINOs. I found one Republican who hates McCain (he's also a Gulf War I vet who said he doesn't agree with anything about American any more and spoke at length against Rev. Wright while at the same time sounding like a carbon copy of him. It was so weird I listened to him much longer than I should have considering it was a beautiful day.) I had one lean Clinton, one lean Obama, one refuse and the rest McCain. Falling Waters is like our own little version of H.P. Lovecraft's Dunwich and not representative of anything but it's own dark corner of the world.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:44:46 PM EST

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 8)

The gas tax is not a sales tax. The gas tax is levied prior to distribution. This means that a gas tax holiday would go right into the pockets of the oil companies and they could choose to pass it along to consumers or not--their choice.

Clinton's proposal is to pay for the reduced gas tax by increasing the tax on oil companies. The gas tax is reduced and the tax on oil companies is increased--the government reduces tax in one form and increases it in another form.

It sounds mostly like election year noise to me.

by smoker1 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:47:00 PM EST

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

You are wrong about that.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:49:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 3)

bobbank, with all due respect, all your number crunching shows is that in the short term, you don't know how it will effect price and yes the 18 cents could be simply tacked back on by the oil companies.

by shalca on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

You are half-right.

It's true that my number crunching proves that you do not know how price will effect consumption, if it does at all, in the short-term.

However, I have updated with links to the only academic study conducted on the subject of "tax incidence" with regards to the federal gas tax - and that study concluded, contrary to what popular economists are saying, that the tax incidence was 50/50 - ie maybe 9 cents would go to the gas companies.

But what I've also updated is an expanded discussion of tax incidence, and what drives it - specifically its all about elasticity.

If supply is more elastic than demand, consumers will get more of the savings.

Do we have any reason to believe supply is more elastic right now than it was when that study was conducted?

Two good reasons to think so:

1. Refiniers are operating below capacity.
2. Refiniers have surplus inventory on hand.

So I don't know - if consumers get 9 cents or 10 cents or 17 cents or 18 cents. But my point is that no one else can claim to know that exactly either. What we do know is that it would not be less than half, so to claim that consumers get 0 is just not in keeping with the research conducted on this subject.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

Right now and the summer are two different things. The fact is refineries historically build up a surplus in the winter and spring to meet the increased demand during the summer. During summer refineries are churning out gas at near capacity. So during the summer, while gas is usually pretty inelastic, it becomes less so, with consumption being used for more trips than work and grocery shopping like vacations. While at the same time supply becomes even more inelastic.

by shalca on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

Sorry for not being more clear - the surplus stock is above average for this time of year. Please see my diary for citation and source.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 1)

I have great respect for Carnaki but he's wrong to say "her and McCains idea". Senator Clintons proposal and McCains proposal are not the same.

by Tolstoy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:19:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (1.00 / 1)

CLINTON = MCCAIN = REPUBLICAN = SHELL

by hienmango on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

your comment = bs

by Tolstoy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 2)

It's a bit over the top, but it's far from bs.

What is fair to say - absolutely - is that Sen. Clinton is defending a policy idea that is pure garbage by attacking the credibility of those who dare point out its flaws. Stephanopoulos' question was entirely fair - who supports your policy? The answer? Crickets chirping. Doesn't that pull you up short, even a little? My god. There's always somebody to stand up for almost any policy idea. Heck, this one's even endorsed by McCain. If there's nobody to defend it, that means there's noone - Republican or Democrat - who thinks this is a good idea.

And it should offend everybody on our side of the aisle to see the way she's defending herself. How many times have we seen the Republicans use this tactic when someone tries to pull them up short by pointing out the truth? They call it fuzzy math, washington math - and now we hear a Democrat dismissing the consensus of "elite policymakers".

I thought we proudly called ourselves the "reality-based community." Apparently that's on suspension.

by TL on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

so you must then be offended by Obama who supported the tax vacation before he opposed it. even more so I'd think for being so wafflely based on political winds.

by swissffun on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 1)

"so you must then be offended by Obama who supported the tax vacation before he opposed it. "

Back when Obama was in the Illinois Senate, he seems to have had the same lack of experience/judgement on this issue that Hillary Clinton is displaying now when she attempts to run for the US Presidency, yes.

If this shows us anything it's that Hillary needs far more experience before she can be on par with Obama.

by Aris Katsaris on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

ha!

by swissffun on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

As he's said - he voted for it, and after it passed he saw it did no good for consumers and drained the state's road fund.

Lesson learned - now he's against it.

And as for why he's making this an issue? Yes, I do think he believes it's going to help him politically. But you have to admit it wasn't the obvious thing to do. Jerome and people on other sites were surprised at first, and thought he'd made a mistake, because people usually don't pay attention to policy details. If you tell people you're going to help them, they don't always do the math (just ask W Bush), and by fighting the idea he risks helping Hillary draw exactly the contrast she wants - she cares about the working people and he doesn't.

This wasn't risk-free for him - far from it!

by TL on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:20:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 1)

What is the anticedent to the pronoun "that"?

Was there an error in syntax or grammar? Is the gas tax levied at some point after distribution? Will oil companies, under the proposal be obligated to reduce their prices? How is that obligation assured? How would the government monitoring be put in place in time for summer?

And the windfall profit tax...all set to go by summer? It sounds like the perfect pander to me--something that cannot possibly happen, so you can just promise all you want and never have to worry about the consequenses.

by smoker1 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:17:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Intellectually dishonest (2.00 / 1)

First you quote Byrd's criticism of McCain's plan - and note that his criticism is that it was not properly funded.

Then you flat-out lie by saying that Clinton "joined" McCain's plan - she has criticized it for the same reason that Byrd did - because it wasn't paid for. And she explained how her plan would be paid for.

So you try to muddy the waters and confuse people. I don't appreciate your intellectual dishonesty here. You should issue and update and clarify that Hillary's plan is fundamentally different from McCain's plan because it is funded.

Also I would ask that those interested in this topic please read my diary - it contains original research and analysis based on raw data from the Department of Energy on actual motor-grade gas consumption - and proves conclusively that small, short-term changes in price do not impact demand of gas. (This is known in economics as inelastic demand - and gasoline has always been a textbook example of this behavior).

It also cites the only serious academic study that has been concudcted in recent years about the tax incidence of the federal gas tax, which concludes that consumers would capture at least half of the savings. This is based on the fact that, if supply and demand are both inelastic, tax incidence is 50/50. Now, however, data indicates that refineries are operating 3 to 8% below capacity (excess supply) and have above average levels of inventory (surplus), which means that actually supply will be more elastic than it was at the time that study was conducted.

There is so much misinformation going around and I would really like people to learn the facts (my diary does not advocate for the holiday it simply gives you facts that you may not have right now).

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:48:36 PM EST

Re: Intellectually dishonest (2.00 / 3)

After reading your diary, I have to say about your "intellectually dishonest" comment - that you project a lot.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intellectually dishonest (none / 0)

Are you capable of making an argument on its merits? Or is personal insult the best you can do?

Please explain why my presentation of actual data was intellectually dishonest (if that is something you are capable of doing).

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intellectually dishonest (2.00 / 3)

Let's see, your comment is filled with personal insults and then you want to criticize me for throwing it back at you. You find comments from Byrd showing he agrees with Clinton's proposal but not McCain's then you can call me dishonest. But he hasn't. She's wrong on this proposal and you can play economist all you want, but even economists who have supported her like Paul Krugman have said she is wrong. Those are the "actual merits" and your claiming otherwise is nothing more than pretend.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:09:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intellectually dishonest (none / 0)

Right, so in other words - you can't respond to the data on its merits. Can you show me the part where I said Byrd agrees with Clinton's proposal, or was that just a lie on your part?

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Intellectually dishonest (2.00 / 1)

You're doing it again. I never said you said Byrd agrees with Clinton's propoosal. I said you were wrong for calling me intellectually dishonest for my correctly pointing out Byrd's views on a federal gas tax holiday. Unless I've misrepresented Byrd's view on a federal gas tax holiday, I've not been intellectually dishonest. Rather, you are by trying to claim her call for a federal gas tax holiday is different than McCain's just because she said she would add a windfall profit tax on oil companies that would not have a chance of passage under Bush and would not go directly into the Federal Highway Trust Fund.

Responding to you on the "merits" of your data when I see it as meritless would be about as useful as responding to the Republican yesterday who hates America and McCain that I mentioned in a comments elsewhere. If you want to claim your "analysis" is right and all of the economists including those who support Senator Clinton are wrong and that makes you happy, go right ahead and be happy. I wasted too much time with the Republican yesterday. I'm not going to make that mistake twice with you. Feel free to declare "Mission Accomplished" if you want to adopt yet another Republican talking point.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 0)

Carnacki at 2:09 pm:

You find comments from Byrd showing he agrees with Clinton's proposal

Carnacki at 3:18 pm:

I never said you said Byrd agrees with Clinton's propoosal.

I guess we have had some kind of misunderstanding.

she said she would add a windfall profit tax on oil companies that would not have a chance of passage under Bush and would not go directly into the Federal Highway Trust Fund.

It goes where the law that enacts it tells it to go. Let me also remind you that most corporations would not even hit their filing deadline for fiscal 2008 until March 15, 2009 - so talking about whether or not Bush would pass this is a moot point. Excess income tax applies to income, not monthly sales, so it is not something that would need to be done under Bush's watch.

Moving on, and very specifically:

(1) You conflate McCain's plan with Clinton's plan when they are different - you constantly refer to the two plans in the singular: "idea". They are two fundamentally different plans, you know that, and you are trying to mislead your audience. That is intellectually dishonest.

(2) You quote Byrd's criticism of McCain's plan and use that as verbal ammunition against Clinton (who is unequivocably the target of your piece). That is intellectually dishonest.

I understand that we all use these kinds of "white lies" when we argue in comments, but this is a front page piece for MyDD, and you ought to be holding yourself to a higher standard.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmm (none / 0)

Amazing how someone with your comprehension difficulties wants to accuse me of conflating and lies.

1. You accused me of intellectual dishonesty.

2. I point out that if you find Byrd calling Clinton's federal tax holiday as one he would support over McCain's federal tax holiday you could call me intellectually dishonest.

3. You point out:

I never said you said Byrd agrees with Clinton's propoosal.

4. That would remain correct because you can't find Byrd agreeing with it. If you had, I would have been intellectually dishonest. But he's not said it.

5. At the heart of the matter, the bottom line is McCain and Clinton both called for federal gas tax holiday for the summer. Her's involve more smoke and mirrors than McCain's but the bottom line is the same.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Explain yourself (none / 0)

If you want to rip on a substantive comment, bring at least a pinch of substance to the table yourself. Your post contains none at all.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:07:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Explain yourself (none / 0)

Just like Clinton's federal gas tax holiday.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Explain yourself (none / 0)

Thanks for your comments Trickster. You have brought much substance and information to this thread.

PUMA plants.

by jv on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Carnacki, pls reply on point (2.00 / 1)

Clinton's proposal is premised on windfall profits taxes. McCain's is not. Byrd trashed McCain's proposal, not Clinton's.

How can this possibly be an affront to Sen. Byrd?

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:25:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

RonK (2.00 / 2)

Senator Byrd's concern is the federal gas tax goes directly to transportation infrastructure.

Any cutting of that fund - whether under McCain's plan or her plan which has offsets by a windfall profit tax that has no chance of passing under Bush - eliminates that pool of money for highway projects. So even if money was directed by a windfall profits tax, which has no chance of passing, to highway projects, that would have to be passed as a separate appropriation, an earmark, that also Bush would veto.

Taking that gas tax money for the summer would hurt the Federal Highway Trust Fund.

West Virginia Transportation Secretary Paul Mattox

Already struggling to find enough cash for road improvements, Mattox said the Arizona senator and Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting would only make matters worse in West Virginia if less funds were available.

"I was driving down the road when I heard that and about had a heart attack," Mattox laughed, when reached at his Charleston office.

Those highway projects also employ people.

Mike Clowser, executive director of the state's contractors' association, questions whether McCain's proposal would actually benefit consumers greatly.
Clowser cited two states - Illinois and Indiana - that suspended their state gas taxes in 2001. He said savings were minimal in both cases, and that transportation improvement programs were shortchanged by tens of millions of dollars.

Clowser said he figures that with the way gas prices have been rising without warning, consumers wouldn't feel that much relief in the end.

"The market is what the market is," he said. "Would there be any guarantee the motorists would see a 18.4-cent reduction in gas prices? That would be difficult considering they can fluctuate 10 to 15 cents in any given day or week."

snip

These cuts are going to hurt, particularly at a time when the state Division of Highways is facing serious funding challenges," said Clowser, a Democrat who serves on Charleston City Council. "West Virginia's highway transportation system is entering a crisis situation. The amount of money available to keep our roads maintained and to build new highways is stagnant or declining. Worse, we're experiencing sudden inflationary cost increases in construction materials that are unprecedented in our industry. These factors are diminishing the state's ability to provide a safe, modern and efficient transportation system in West Virginia."

A windfall tax might make up that money for the overall federal budget, but not the fund that covers the highway and bridge construction projects directly.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:51:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton proposal is specifically (none / 0)

to use the windfall profits tax to fund the Federal Highway Trust Fund in the short term through the period of the gas tax holiday. Thus, the FHTF is not endangered in any way under the Clinton plan. I do not support the plan, but I think that your arguments against it are disingenuous, and I particularly think that you are wrong to use Senator Byrd's objections to McCain's plan in the way you have done.

I say this as a West Virginian. Robert C. Byrd is completely capable of speaking for himself. He doesn't need you putting words into his mouth.

You have a case to make that Clinton's proposal is wrong, but you make it poorly when you: 1. misrepresent Clinton's position; and 2. misrepresent Byrd's criticism of McCain's plan as criticism of Clinton's plan.

by mgee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

mgee (2.00 / 0)

I disagree that I'm misrepresenting Byrd's position. He opposed a federal gas tax holiday. Period. Clinton proposed a federal gas tax holiday offset by a windfall profits tax that does not exist and has no chance of existing. Frankly the comments like yours are convincing me more than anything that Clinton is shamelessly pandering knowing that her proposal is empty words.

But I am certainly not misreprsenting Byrd's criticism of a federal gas tax holiday.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mgee (2.00 / 1)

His criticism of an unfunded federal gas tax holiday is that it would "It would disrupt road construction projects across the country, and stymie economic development in the midst of a recession."

This criticism does not apply to Clinton, who not only intends to fund the gas holiday, but has also stated she will provide additional funding for the Highway Trust Fund, above and beyond what the tax provides, by way of a bond program similar to what was used in past reconstruction efforts.

http://www.bloggernews.net/114879

I don't mind that you didn't know all the facts when you wrote your piece, but you know them now and should at a minimum issue a clarification.

It just doesn't seem right to smear a Democratic candidate on the front page of MyDD with false information, that's all.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You misrepresent HRC's position, and misuse Byrd's (none / 0)

And improperly leverage that misrepresentation to hijack Byrd statement (reported April 18) regarding McCains's proposal ... all before Clinton ever suggested combining a gas tax holiday with windfall profits taxes on oil companies.

There's a place for sleaze like this, and it's called DailyKos.

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

RonK (none / 0)

No. Let's use the Iraq war as an example. Byrd does not specifically criticize Clinton's support of the war in the speeches I link to. Go read them, by the way. They're great stuff and shows the kind of judgment and leadership Clinton should have in the runup to the war. Nevertheless, his comments of feckless senators supporting the Iraq war apply just as much to her as if and others who supported the Iraq war. The same goes for those who propose dangerous federal tax hike holidays whether coming from McCain or Clinton. Considering how misleading Clinton's "plan" to pay for her federal gas tax holiday, I'm surprised you didn't see past it.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, let's use what you said, and what Byrd said .. (none / 0)

... and what Clinton said with respect to the gas tax, which is the subject of this fraudulent post.

Miles below your usual standard. Sad to see.

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:37:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 6)

Just when I thought Clinton couldn't sink any lower, she pulls the "elite opinion" card out of George W. Bush's deck.

This is beyond shameless pandering. It is beyond stupid policy. This is a woman proving that she will say absolutely anything to win this election.

She obviously doesn't believe her own bullshit on the gas tax. What else does she say that she doesn't really believe?

I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland

by alvernon on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:49:36 PM EST

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

its because Hillary knows how to win, something she learned from her husband, in that sometimes you have to pander but to the middle, not the radical daily kos fringes.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 6)

If Hillary has learned how to win, when will she begin to apply that knowledge?

By every metric, she's losing this race.

Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.

by fogiv on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

by "every metric" George McGovern won the 1972 primary. But should he have been nominated? If you had known what was gonna happen that November in advance, and super delegates existed then, wouldn't you have wanted them to stop the nomination? The general, not the primary flooded with the DKos types is what is important. Hillary can do that better than Barack Obama.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:02:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

That's a rather undemocratic view.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

Ok BillO.

John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.

by recusancy on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:10:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Quit the lying (1.00 / 1)

The Clinton proposal is

1. Windfall profits tax
2. If (1)=TRUE, then gas tax holiday.

The McCain proposal is

1. Gas tax holiday

The Obama proposal is

1. (crickets)

99% perspiration

by DaveOinSF on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM EST

Re: Quit the lying (2.00 / 7)

Stop misrepresenting Obama's plan. He does support a windfall profits tax and one much larger than Clinton's.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:04:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh this is fun (none / 0)

I can't wait for your response on this one.

OK, here we go.

Please cite a source from the Obama campaign stating the rate and extent to which he will tax excess profits.

Please cite a source from the Clinton campaign stating the rate and extent to which she will tax excess profits.

You must have such sources, since you know that he supports a tax "much larger than Clinton's", right? Or were you in fact just pulling that out of your fanny?

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quit the lying (2.00 / 1)

I can understand being upset at high gas prices, but the fact of the matter is that demand worldwide has caused these increases. It does not make sense to punish a company that is generating record profits simply because the value of its product has increased due to regular old market forces by slapping a "Windfall Tax" on them. The more responsible step to take would be to reduce or eliminate any subsidies and incentives that those companies currently receive since the basis for them (low profit margin on product) is no longer applicable.

So, in a sense, Sen. Clinton's proposal to levy a Windfall Tax in addition to suspending the gas tax is not really credible or responsible. If she instead suggested that reducing thos oil manufacturing industry incentives be revisited in light of the current economic situation, I would be all for it. Just suspending the gas tax as a supposed short-term stimulus is laughable.

This problem is far larger than a simple tax, and to suggest otherwise shows a lack of perspective.

by liquidbread11 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quit the lying (none / 0)

Huh? Either way, decreased subsidies or a tax increase, it's money out of the Oil company's wallet.

by usedmeat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:50:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quit the lying (none / 0)

He doesn't need to. Corporate filing for 2008 profits is not even do until March 2009.

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:44:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Quit the lying (none / 0)

That's what I say about Clinton. Just because she differed slightly from the reasons why she voted for the Iraq war, it doesn't make the end result any different than McCain's.

by Carnacki on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:20:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is what comes of the dishonest conflation (2.00 / 1)

I'm talking about the conflation of two separate plans into a single "McCain-Clinton" plan. That's what Jonathan Singer's Friday front page piece explicitly did, and that's what this piece does when it says McCain's plan was "joined" by Senator Clinton. What really makes this diary a fit object of ridicule is that it takes Byrd's criticism of McCain's plan--a criticism with which Senator Clinton would entirely agree, I'm quite sure--and pegs it on to Clinton's plan, despite the fact that the difference in their plans makes Byrd's criticism of McCain's plan totally inapplicable to Clinton's plan.

Folks, if you don't understand the plans, don't write diaries about them. Byrd criticizes McCain's plan for "disrupt[ing] road construction" and thereby economic development, but the part of McCain's plan that does that is simply not present in Clinton's plan. It's simple: funding for McCain's plan would come straight out of the highway fund that pays for Byrd's road construction projects, while Clinton's plan would be paid for. In fact, Clinton has specifically pegged the implementation of her plan to the sufficiency of windfall profits tax revenues and guaranteed that it would not touch the highway fund.

What seems to be the theme of this diary--that Clinton is "dismissive" of Senator Byrd--is total bullshit. Byrd criticizied McCain's plan, andhe did so using language that is not applicable to Clinton's plan. The facts in this diary are pretty damned crooked.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:18:14 PM EST

Re: This is what comes of the dishonest conflatio (2.00 / 0)

Well, no. Yes, Clinton has a windfall profit tax. However, she's already promised those funds -- which of course wouldn't come for another year -- to another set of programs. So she's double counting the money and therefore there would be a deficit in the highway fund.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not true (none / 0)

Clinton has previously called for windfall taxes on future oil company profits. However, this proposal calls for taxes on oil company's 2008 profits, which is a brand-new proposal. Further, she has flatly stated that the gas tax holiday would only happen if it were funded and that she would not take funds from the highway program for it.

This diary is just flat wrong.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's not true (2.00 / 2)

So basically what you're saying is... she only supports the gas tax if the windfall profits tax gets passed, which we know won't happen because Bush is president and will veto any such tax.

So, you're admitting that this is actually just political pandering by Clinton because she's supporting a policy decision that she knows has 0 chance of getting passed and has no way to get it passed for this summer.

John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."

by jturn17 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's trying to get it passed (none / 0)

In an election season where the lame duck President's approval numbers are at all-time lows and where Democrats have already won special elections in two reliably red districts, who's to say she couldn't get it through with a veto-proof majority?

Clinton already issued a public "challege" to Congress on Thursday to pass it. She's standing behind it every way she can. If it doesn't pass into law, it doesn't, but that sure ain't her fault. She's giving it the old college try, and I'm not sure how you could ask for more.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:57:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One more thing (none / 0)

This is a "this summer" only proposal, and billed as such. The point is directed fiscal stimulus on a timely basis.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I'm asking for more (2.00 / 1)

I'm asking for honesty and forward thinking vision, not tacky trinkets dangled in front of credulous voters who need good leadership.

This ridiculous, shallow bill has been referred to the Finance committee where it will sit and collect dust. It has only one co-sponsor and it will never make it to the floor for a vote, let alone get passed out of the Senate. And Hillary KNOWS THIS.

It's a deeply cynical panderiffic 11th hour election stunt, indulged in out of sheer desperation by a candidate who's sinking fast and has pitched her integrity overboard.

by Bee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She's trying to get it passed (2.00 / 1)

lol.

Who's to say, you ask?

Well Nancy Pelosi for one, and many other Democratic Superdelegates in Congress, who Clinton needs to give her the nomination, who are against this proposal. Kind of hard to pass something like this through Congress when the Speaker says it's such a horrible idea that it's DOA.

Not one economist has come out and said this was a good idea. They all admit that even with the windfall profits tax that if this was passed into law that it could increase the problems we are currently facing. The long-term problems that this would cause far outweigh the short-term benefits. Coming up with a "solution" for solutions sake is silly. why come up with a solution that is just going to make the problem worse. It's just not a good idea. I don't care who you support. You show me where an economist has said that this could be a good idea in the short and long-term, and then maybe I'll rethink my position on this issue.

John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."

by jturn17 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is what comes of the dishonest conflatio (2.00 / 1)

Please cite the source where Clinton promised "those funds" to "another set of programs".

by bobbank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking of reality checks (none / 0)

Here's one: Byrd criticized McCain's plan, not Clinton's, and his criticism of McCain's plan focuses on the part of McCain's plan that differs from Clinton's. This diary is completely wrong when it says, or at least strongly (and thematically) implies that Byrd criticized Clinton's plan. He flat-out did not do that--what he said cannot even be construed, fairly, as a criticism of Clinton's plan.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:21:27 PM EST

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (2.00 / 0)

Clinton will probably rue the day that she made this such a big argument and the way she dismissed experts and said "you're with us or against us."

Obama is featuring this issue in his two minute closing argument ads this weekend, he's getting a boost in the polls now, and he has a new ad out against it.

This new ad (link below) goes right to Obama's strengths and Clinton's weaknesses. With Clinton's reputation for shading the truth, her statements and stance has brought those problems to the fore right on the eve of two important primaries.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 508/Obama_Boost.html

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:22:14 PM EST

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

are you sure he's getting a boost in polls. I'm not so sure.

by ab03 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

I'm not an economist nor do I play one on TV so I don't know beans about this. BUT ...
If Bush vetoes Hillary's windfall tax increase to make up for the Fed gas tax on consumers, doesn't that put a nail in the McCain campaign coffin?

I can see it now "Senator Clinton wanted to give the average American some relief from high gas prices but President Bush thought Oil Company profits were more important. Do we need another Bush-clone in the White House in 2008?"

Hillary's plan does something to bring relief today. Barak Obama's plan for increasing the windfall profits tax won't happen unless he's elected, right? Then it's got to pass congress.How long will that take?

by usedmeat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:35:09 PM EST

You're not an economist, but ... (none / 0)

... you're an insightful political analyst.

Hillary is playing chess, while Obama and a hundred economists are playing microtic-tac-toe.

¡Si, soy PUMA!

by RonK Seattle on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:04:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're not an economist, but ... (2.00 / 1)

Oh, please! An insightful political analyst wouldn't even be dreaming about Bush vetoing this proposal.

An insightful analyst would understand that the proposal has zero chance of ever getting out of the Senate -- she can't muster a majority, and the GOP would filibuster in any case. That analyst would also note that Pelosi and Hoyer oppose this stupid idea, so it would never get through the House even if a miracle happened in the Senate.

You know who is an insightful political analyst? Hillary Clinton. She knows exactly why she is doing this -- time is running out on her campaign, so she has to throw a hail mary. It's just nauseating to see how little dignity she has left. This is as bad as McCain's confederate flag pander.

I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland

by alvernon on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:24:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

once again (none / 0)

Hillary flatly ignores the fact that she hasn't bought gas since 1982, and is now sitting on a bank account of $110 million, but decides to tell all who disagree with her that they are elitist and she's a regular gal.

What a crock of bull**.

by southernman on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM EST

Re: once again (none / 0)

What has buying a gallon of gas have to do with anything?
Hillary brought out a plan that would give consumers some temporary relief from high gas prices and funded it with an increase in the Windfall Profits tax. Oil companies that didn't lower their prices would do so at their own risk. I could see Hugo Chavez lowering prices at Citgo stations so score points against Bush.

by usedmeat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't be selfish and self centered (none / 0)

Temporary, not to mention little, relief at the expense of thousands of road construction jobs. That's what has buying a gallon of gas has to do with. Do you think Shell will pitch in and pay for road construction? You trust Shell not to bridge the little savings gap with a gas price hike?

Don't be selfish; putting thousands of people out of work so you can save $30. What kind of economic is that? I hope you donate the $30 savings to the unemployment insurance. Better yet, just send it to the people you put out of work so you can get little and temporary relief.

by hienmango on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be selfish and self centered (none / 0)

You don't know me yet because I'm in favor of Hillar's plan I must be selfish. What kind of logic is that? Don't answer.
Putting thousands of people out of work? Hillary's plan is revenue neutral, McCain's plan is not.
Me, I'm not too concerned about it because I drive a four cylinder five speed car that gets better than 30mpg. But what about the person that bought some full sized car or truck before gas prices went crazy and is still making payments on it? Now they owe more than it's worth and can't sell it to pick up a fuel squeezer without losing their shirt?
If we can bail out investment houses that made a mess of the housing market, why not the little guy?
This gas tax holiday isn't the perfect solution to energy woes, it's not even close but it's better than anything Obama proposed. Even though he was for itbefore he was against it. ; )

by usedmeat on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:41:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bleh (2.00 / 1)

Hillary knows this is a bad idea and proposed it anyway. I have been at very times an unenthusiastic Obama supporter and an unenthusiastic Clinton supporter but Hillary/McCain's gas tax holiday idea absolutely finishes off whatever respect I had for her and I will be glad to see her lose.

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain

by lorax on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST

It's amusing to watch people (2.00 / 4)

twist themselves into pretzels to defend this extremely non-progressive, destructive and backward thinking proposal. What a position Hillary's put them in! When will the day dawn that they start directing their frustrations toward her? She's asking people to put their brains on holiday, never mind the gas tax.

by Bee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:14:55 PM EST

Non-progressive? (none / 0)

Since you're talking about tax, I assume you're using the tax definition of progressive, which hews closely to the political definition. A progessive tax takes more from higher-income persons. Since the gas tax takes the same amount from persons of every income, i.e., it is a sales tax, it is a non-progressive tax and in fact is considered regressive because it takes away a higher proportion of your income (on average) the lower your income is. Eliminating it, even temporarily, is most assuredly a progressive tax move.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:13:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh huh (none / 0)

Nice contortion. Don't forget the Ben-Gay.

by Bee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh huh (none / 0)

Listen. I spoke to you. I took your words as if they meant something, and said something back to you that made sense. If you want to talk to me, I'm all ears. If all you can do is snap back with some nonsensical snark, then please just don't respond.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:50:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See (none / 0)

here.

by Bee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See (none / 0)

Please enlighten me if I'm missing something, but that has nothing at all to do with my response to your post.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:36:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your response had nothing to do (none / 0)

with my comment.

by Bee on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Byrd's opinion is 'elite' for a good reason (none / 0)

How did this get on the main page?

It's like a candidate diary on the rec list just jumped to the front page3 for no reason.

What a violation of your privileges Carnacki.

This doesn't seem like anything but loosely tying together exceptions where Clinton and Byrd differed....and not all very recent differences either.

by apolitik on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST

How did this get on the main page (none / 0)

It's certainly more substantive and accurate than the Hillophile/Barackophobe trash the "big boys" have been posting on the front page.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hogwash (none / 0)

Accurate? It calls Byrd's criticism of McCain's tax plan a criticism of Clinton's tax plan, ignoring the fact that it is the very difference between the two plans that Byrd is criticizing. The diary's central theme is flat wrong, because Byrd's criticism was neither directed to nor is it applicable to Clinton's plan.

by Trickster on Sun May 04, 2008 at 04:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hogwash (none / 0)

It's quite clear what Byrd and the diarist is referring to. That is, to anyone not desperate to turn Hillary's and MccCain's sow-ear gas scam pander into a silk purse.

Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129

by Kobi on