Populism lost yesterday

by fairleft, Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:23 PM EST

Obama did better than expected through the huge media firestorm over Clinton's populist push for a gas tax holiday to be paid for by the oil companies. So, populism took a big hit yesterday. With skyrocketing gas prices Clinton advanced what should've been a very attractive populist issue, but was unable effectively to reach voters. The media showed its 'reality' was more influential than a Presidential candidate's reality -- a simple, clear proposal to advance the pocketbook interests of the vast majority of Democratic voters at the expense of a delicious target, a handful of price-gouging corporations.

Critical to Tuesday was the media ignoring that the gas tax holiday Obama voted for in Illinois was effective, passing 60-80% of tax relief onto motorists. And that Obama has repeatedly rewritten that Illinois reality  (i.e., lied), saying no savings at all were passed through to drivers.

Not that this was entirely the media's responsibility, Clinton campaign staffers should've dug up the above facts (I only discovered them on Monday***) and pushed them noisily.

Finally, and by the way, I don't understand what Jerome means here (grammar and spelling corrected):

Though she had a 'divide and conquer' frame of the issue that works well for a GE against a Republican, in a Democratic primary, it allowed Obama to squeeze her from the liberal viewpoint.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/8249/ 04946

Actually, Obama squeezed Clinton not "from a liberal viewpoint" but with the 'pandering' charge after claiming her proposal would be ineffective (and apparently also indicating it would result in 100,000s of lost highway jobs). That charge is not "liberal," it is just more of the long-time (and largely content-free) Republican and corporate media frame placed on the Clintons (and Gore), that they're untruthful and otherwise 'sleazy'. And, of course, he took the anti-populist position on the 'gas tax holiday paid for by Big Oil' itself.

So, Obama wins through the suddenly very heavy return of the anti-Clinton media frame, grabbing her tax holiday proposal as its vehicle. Again, in sum and in other words, the Hillary-hating corporate media won this Tuesday. Not sure what that is but it ain't liberal.

(Well, it is depressing, in that so many pseudo-progressives bought what the corporate media was selling, but, moving on...)

Secondly, Jerome, I have no idea what was 'divide and conquer' about her gas tax holiday plus tax Big Oil idea. Unless it's all of us who use gas over here and the oil companies over on the other side?

***UPDATE: For those of you unfamiliar with the Illinois gas tax holiday facts:
In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/06/gas_tax/print.html

The salon article links to the "only scientific study" done on the pass through of the Illinois tax holiday savings.




Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, populism, Jerome Armstrong, Pander, Pander bear, loves some pander (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 110 Comments :: Post a Comment


McCain is a populist? Whodathunkit! (2.00 / 1)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM EST

A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocketbook (2.00 / 1)

interests of the vast majority of Democratic voters at the expense of a delicious target, a handful of price-gouging corporations

That's populism.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocket (2.00 / 1)

It wouldn't save anyone any actual money.  Haven't we been through this before?


by Lawyerish on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (2.00 / 1)

in Illinois. Whatever economic theory says, the Illinois reality is clear on the matter.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (none / 0)

Link? I recall the oil companies raising their prices to make up the difference.


by rhetoricus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (2.00 / 1)

See the updated diary. I've linked to the study (through an excellent Salon article) there.

It's extraordinary that the Illinois facts are so completely unknown. Media 'reality' won this time.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:00:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (none / 0)

The Washington state DOT estimates that the tax holiday would cost 4,300 highway related jobs in Washington state alone. How is throwing 4,300 workers out in the cold a "populist" agenda?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transporta tion/361912_gastax06.html

From the article:

OLYMPIA -- The gas tax holiday proposed by Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton would save the typical Washington driver $28 this year but cost the state about $126 million in lost highway money and more than 4,300 highway-related jobs, according to a recent report.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (1.66 / 3)

Hillary's proposal was Zero Sum.  Savings to the consumer, costs to the Oil Cos.  Same dollars.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (none / 0)

Again from the Seattle PI;

State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, chairwoman of the Transportation Committee, said the tax holiday "is just the wrong way to go."

"Everybody is suffering under the gas prices," the Camano Island Democrat said. "It's had a huge impact, so I'm not unsympathetic, but the roads they drive on and the condition they are in have to be addressed."

Haugen said she would seek to tax the oil companies instead or replace the tax with something else, but said the idea is a nonstarter because President Bush would not sign it.

"All you'd do is lose the revenue," she said.

There is no "windfall tax" and there isn't going to be one anytime before March '09 at the earliest. This proposal is not populism, it is Grover Norquist "drown it in a bathtub" republicanism.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (1.00 / 1)

Where are Barack's proposals?  Something that might effect the country in two years.  All candidates have those proposals.  In the meantime, I have a BMW X5 in the garage of my high rise condo, am paying over $4/gallon in May, will probably pay $5/gallon by the end of Summer, and the problem for me is I'm not going to the Greek Islands, this year, I'm going to Rio de Janiero, to save money.  You explain it to those living under different circumstances.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (none / 0)

Again, Hill's proposal is revenue-neutral. You had no response to that fundamental, simple fact.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (none / 0)

I responded to that simple fact.  I quoted The state Senator who is the head of the Transportation Committee in my state. Read it again, all the way to the end.:

State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, chairwoman of the Transportation Committee, said the tax holiday "is just the wrong way to go."

"Everybody is suffering under the gas prices," the Camano Island Democrat said. "It's had a huge impact, so I'm not unsympathetic, but the roads they drive on and the condition they are in have to be addressed."

Haugen said she would seek to tax the oil companies instead or replace the tax with something else, but said the idea is a nonstarter because President Bush would not sign it.

"All you'd do is lose the revenue," she said.

I suspect that the transportation chair for the state of Washington is a credible source.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:06:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay, you're against McCain's proposal (none / 0)

and so is that govt official. I get that. Has nothing to do with Hillary's both (the tax holiday and the tax on Big Oil) proposal. Obviously.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:16:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (1.00 / 1)

I think you and I (and most Hillary supporters) are on the same page.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 60-80% of tax saving passed through to drivers (1.50 / 2)

Ooops.  My comment is to fairleft.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocket (2.00 / 0)

How is repealing the federal gas tax done "at the expense of price-gouging corparations"?

It's kind of, well, the opposite of that.  Paul Krugman is fairly good with explaining what's wrong with the whole idea.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't ignore the tax on Big Oil to make up for (none / 0)

the tax holiday. That doesn't advance a civil debate on this issue, if that's what you want.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't ignore the tax on Big Oil to make up for (2.00 / 0)

That's a separate bill.

You have two bills - one would be a temporary repeal of the gas tax.  Bad idea.  Does not deserve to pass on its own merits.

The second bill is a "tax on Big Oil".  Possibly a good idea.  May not pass.  May pass.  Perhaps it should be passed regardless if whether the first bill passes or not.  Maybe it shouldn't pass at all.

Etc.  It's your conflation of the two that doesn't advance anyone's understanding of things.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Put both into one bill and you have Hillary's idea (none / 0)

Silly!


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put both into one bill and you have Hillary's (2.00 / 0)

But no one put both ideas into one bill.  The only bill that existed was John McCain's "gas tax holiday", which Hillary Clinton signed on to.  Her 'tax on big oil' was something to be done down the road.

Seriously, NOBODY but nobody thinks the gas tax furlough is a good idea, except for people who think that it should be repealed on principle.  But it's devoid of economic sense.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put both into one bill and you have Hillary's (none / 0)

And by the way, I had this exact argument with my father, taking your side (although I disagreed with the gas tax cut, I quibbled over it costing infrastructure jobs).  I literally changed my mind as I was speaking.

Think it through for a bit.  We're talking about bills that are supposed to come into effect by this summer.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:45:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put both into one bill and you have Hillary's (none / 0)

Hillary's proposal isn't in the form of a bill yet. Obviously.

McCain's proposal isn't Hillary's. Obviously.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Put both into one bill and you have Hillary's (none / 0)

Okay, we're still talking about bills that are supposed to be passed for this summer, right?  When was she planning on getting on that?

And McCain's proposal is also Hillary's, to the extent that she's endorsed it.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary rejects McCain's plan and doing nothing (none / 0)

"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."

Clinton has proposed making up the lost revenue by imposing a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_o n_el_pr/democrats

There's no argument here: there's the truth on my side and semantics on yours.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocket (none / 0)

Yes, unfortunately, those money-grabbing corporations are publicly traded companies.... there are 401k's and pensions that have ties to them...

They also like money... what on Earth made you think this plan would work?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocket (none / 0)

That's a Republican argument.  


by Dave B on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocket (none / 0)

I've heard it made by neutral economists as well... it's also true of my dad's investment portfolio...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocket (2.00 / 0)

SO is calling someone a San Francisco out of touch elitist but that didn't stop anyone from making it.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocket (none / 0)

The populist attack on Obama's condescending remarks was deserved.

You're an elitist if you think you can mindread the motives of people 'below' you.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A simple, clear proposal to advance the pocket (none / 0)

So we should drop the term "single issue voter" then? You better tell Jerome that since it's in his book.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:27:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

90% of stock is owned by the richest 10% (none / 0)

Populism is doing stuff for the bottom 80-90% of us. This was and still is a perfect, populist policy proposal, one that was effective in Illinois.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 90% of stock is owned by the richest 10% (none / 0)

Someone down thread said they lived in Illinois and it was not effective... what proof do you have that it was?


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 90% of stock is owned by the richest 10% (none / 0)

I answered this downstream and have now UPDATED the diary with the link to the only scientific study done on the Illinois and Indiana tax holidays. Both were effective.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since it wouldn't do that it's just pandering. (none / 0)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Since it wouldn't do that it's just pandering. (none / 0)

The experience in Illinois and Indiana says 60-80% of the tax relief would be passed through to drivers.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Since it wouldn't do that it's just pandering. (2.00 / 0)

So 15-20 bucks?

The windfall profits tax would be vetoed by Bush so even if the gas tax was eliminated for a few months the feds would lose tons of money and our roads and highways (and the working class men and women who maintain them) would suffer.

Illinois lost a lot of $$$ by doing that.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So now you're retreating (none / 0)

You're now admitting it would be effective. Good to do, since the scientific study of the Illinois and Indiana experience shows it would be.

Hillary's proposal is both (tax holiday & tax Big Oil) or nothing. Obviously.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So now you're retreating (none / 0)

I'm not doing that at all but it's funny you think I am.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:28:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (2.00 / 1)

No, hillary lost and PANDERING Lost.

THE TRUTH is what PREVAILED.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM EST

Re: Populism lost yesterday (2.00 / 1)

Doing good for the common people is pandering, apparently. The gas tax holiday was effective in Illinois and it can be effective nationwide. That's reality, but obviously it's not the current media-created 'reality'.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (2.00 / 0)

Not one person who knows about the subject agrees with Hillary or McCain about their gas scams.

And neither did the final arbiters -- the voters.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, reality agrees with them, (none / 0)

whatever the economists' models say. The gas tax holiday was effective in Illinois and it could be effective nationwide.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, reality agrees with them, (2.00 / 0)

You keep saying that but you're not backing it up with anything.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, reality agrees with them, (none / 0)

In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/200 8/05/06/gas_tax/print.html

The salon article links to the "only scientific study" done on the pass through of the Illinois tax holiday savings.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, reality agrees with them, (2.00 / 0)

I understand this, but you're comparing a federal tax cut to a state one.

We have a similar situation in New York - here, gas taxes are quite high, and most people drive across the bridge to New Jersey if they have a chance and fill up.  Local outlets in New Jersey recognize this and have no incentive to raise their prices.  Supply and demand works here.

Taking it to the federal level, you would see gasoline prices respond by to the increase almost immediately.  That 18 cent tax would be turn into a pure profit for oil companies; there would be no reason for them to keep their prices low.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A federal tax compared to a state tax? (none / 0)

You're making me laugh! Your argument is nonsense: Illinois (and Indiana) gas prices went down 3-4 cents when the 5 cent tax was removed.

Dealing with your NJ/NY analogy, this had nothing to do with "keeping gas prices cheap to pull customers down from Wisconsin."

Look around: in-state there is competition in gas prices. There's excess capacity at gas stations, plenty of pumps available at most of them. Lower your prices several cents less than your competitors and you get a big increase in customers. That's the dynamic that would be in play if the 18 cent tax were removed.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A federal tax compared to a state tax? (none / 0)

Please tell me how I can get to your fantasy world of mom n' pop gas stations with local control.  Tell me, do the attendents there wear spiffy uniforms and check your oil for you?

Because in my world, there are a small number of oil companies who are an international cartel.  Local gas stations are franchises, but they don't set their own prices.  I know what you're thinking and you're right - it sucks here.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, reality agrees with them, (2.00 / 1)

And whatever the "scientists" say, the Sun sure looks like it revolves around the Earth.


"I'll bite your legs off!" -- HRC 2008!
by username3 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're the anti-Galilean here (none / 0)

The one scientific study shows the Illinois and Indiana gas tax holidays passed 60-80% of savings onto consumers.

Against that we have Obama's lie that 0% of savings were passed onto drivers.

Who ya gonna believe, Obama or science?


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (2.00 / 0)

To answer your question... some referred to it as "divide and conquer" because, while somewhat politically popular in the short run, the majority of Democrats in Congress oppose the plan.... if it were forced to be voted on, many Dems would either have to vote for it or risk having he issue thrown back at them in the Fall when they are up for r-election....

It's a good talking point but bad policy.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (1.00 / 1)

Is this the same majority in Congress that were given a mandate in the '06 election to end the Iraq war and HAVE DONE NOTHING?  Throw the bums out, starting with do nothing Pelosi and do nothing Reid!


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

Actually, they were not given a mandate in 2006.  There has not actually been a mandate in this country since FDR.  Just as 1994 was not a mandate, neither was 2006... they were both protest votes.

If 2006 had been an actual mandate, the majorities in both houses would have been larger/veto proof.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (1.00 / 1)

No mandate?  Where have you been?


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

In political science, you have a mandate when people, en masse, vote in your party based on a specific theme that they agree to, such as the party platform.  We came the closest in a while in 2006, I'll grant you, but tha still was not a mandate.

Similar is a protest vote... where the minority party drums up support for one popular issue and wins based on that.  1994 was a protest vote, the protest being incumbency... remember the talking point of term limits?  Funny, that one didn't last long did it?  2006 was a protest vote as well, the protest being the Iraq war.  Neither argument worked nationwide, but worked in enough areas to shift the majorities from one party to another.

Mandates generally make a party bullet-proof allowing for that party's platform to, by and large, get enacted.  FDR was able to get much of what we consider to be his legacy accomplished after he received his mandate in the 30's...

Fo the record, I am hoping for a bigtime mandate this year.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (1.00 / 1)

The Democrats took control of Congress for the first time since the '90s.  Don't know how else to explaing mandate if you don't understand that.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

Personally?  Reading about George Bush's vetos in the paper or watching Republicans filibuster in the Senate on C-Span.

Where have YOU been?  

The way to give democrats more power in the Congress is by electing more of them, not less.  They're not the bums that need throwing out.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think Pelosi, Reid, and so on want us out (none / 0)

of Iraq. Electing more of them won't get what 70% of Americans want done, to bring the troops home.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:56:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

Illinois lost millions in revenue and only a few cents came off the price of gas and then it went up and over.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, populism took a big hit yesterday. (2.00 / 1)

No, panderism took a big hit yesterday.

You can also  bet McCain won't be pushing his version of the gas scam any more after seeing all the good it didn't do Hillary.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:17 PM EST

Re: So, populism took a big hit yesterday. (none / 0)

The gas tax holiday was effective in Illinois and it can be effective nationwide. That's reality, but obviously it's not the current media-created 'reality'.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:17:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, populism took a big hit yesterday. (2.00 / 1)

It was not effective in Illinois.  I lived in the state during that summer. The market out-paced the cut - prices were statistically up for consumers that summer.


Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama
by BWasikIUgrad on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, populism took a big hit yesterday. (none / 0)

The only scientific study done on the gas tax holiday showed it passed 60-80% of savings on to consumers. I've updated the diary with a link (eventually) to that study.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's reality (none / 0)

The only reality I've seen is that nobody supports the gas tax scams of Clinton and McCain. Not even voters.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gas tax holiday not enough. (2.00 / 1)

sen. Clinton's only chance now is to call for a parking meter holiday.




Democratic Candidate, US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
by benmasel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST

Re: Gas tax holiday not enough. (none / 0)

Carpool lane holiday is being floated around by the McCain camp...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
by JenKinFLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gas tax holiday not enough. (none / 0)

Soon to be followed by a $500 car tax credit, perhaps?


"I'll bite your legs off!" -- HRC 2008!
by username3 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

It's the governmental/legislative aspect of this that underlines the weakness of the strategy and the politics behind it. She couldn't sell it to her own party, much less build the bipartisan support that she would have needed to get it into effect by this summer, as she said she wanted to do. The great fighter who "gets things done" had no plan to get this thing done.

(Note: For the sake of argument, I am going along with the pretense that this horrible idea was ever anything more than a desperate campaign ploy.)


by BlueinColorado on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:16 PM EST

She couldn't build support cuz from day one (none / 0)

there was a massive corporate media firestorm and Obama attacks on the idea. Obviously. And then there's the fact it is a populist proposal and corporate campaign donors hate populist candidates and populist policy proposals.

So, yeah, it's tough, and populist ideas need progressives to strongly back them instead of 'their' candidate when he or she is taking an anti-populist stance. Progressives going along and enflaming the corporate attack on a populist proposal was a big part of Clinton's problem. They didn't have to do that, and Clinton had a right to think they'd do right thing.

Your argument ends up saying never propose populist ideas cuz you know the corporate media and corporate-aligned Dems and Repubs will be against them at first.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She couldn't build support cuz from day one (2.00 / 0)

It's not a populist proposal, no matter how many times you say it is.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She couldn't build support cuz from day one (none / 0)

You're the one retreating to "cuz I said so."


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (2.00 / 0)

You're presenting Clinton's plan as if it were one separate bill, which it is not.

There's a bill to temporarily repeal the gas tax, which would likely be ineffective for reasons stated all over the place.  Those taxes pay for infrastructure construction and maintenance, which are the source of over 100,000 jobs.  Which brings us to...

The second bill, which exists only in Hillary Clinton's head at the moment.  This would slap a retroactive tax on oil companies.  Would it pass?  Is it good policy?  Who knows.  But in the meantime, you'd have the federal budget hemhorraging money, and prices on gas going up regardless since they are basically set at whatever the ceiling is - taxes included.  It's not like people have an alternative in buying gas; oil companies charge pretty much whatever they think is the highest amount people will pay.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST

The Clinton proposal is both or nothing (none / 0)

Work it out for yourself how that goes through legislatively.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton proposal is both or nothing (none / 0)

Oh, I did.  I don't think you have.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Clinton proposal is both or nothing (none / 0)

Put both proposals into one bill.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:23:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Populism lost when (none / 0)

John Edwards left the race.  Had Clinton ran last year on a more populist agenda, she might have had a better chance.  She chose "inevitabilty" as a theme.  

In some ways, Iowa decided it; it just took a while.


by TomP on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM EST

Edwards and Obama attacked Clinton (none / 0)

from the right on Social Security during the Iowa campaign. That sure wasn't populist of him, and it was very disappointing to see him go along with Obama's crisis-mongering.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:46:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and Obama attacked Clinton (none / 0)

Uh, what?


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

September 26 Debate (none / 0)

Here's the Daily Howler:

Most hopelessly, here is Obama, joining Russert in reciting a piece of pure RNC cant:

   OBAMA (9/23/07): My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available. But what's critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.

   As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don't think Social Security is going to be there for them. They don't believe it's going to be there for them.

   And I think it's important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to acknowledge as Democrats that there may be a problem that we've got to take on.

There are no words for how awful that was. For the most part, young people "don't think Social Security is going to be there for them" because they've been deceived, for year after year, by an army of pseudo-conservative dissemblers who are given free rein by our sad, hapless press corps. But there was Obama reinforcing this framework--and Edwards quickly jumped in to support what Obama had said. (Three cheers for Richardson, who noted the very conservative growth estimates which produce Social Security's small projected shortfalls.)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh092807.shtm l


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sure, the DLC, centrist, triangulating candidate (none / 0)

lost yesterday and that was a blow to "populism."  Yeah right.


by bigdcdem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM EST

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

How did populism lose when a candidate funded by 1.5 million individuals with $100 or less contributions beat the candidate funded by corporate special interests????


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST

Re: Populism lost yesterday (1.00 / 1)

I refer you to Susan Estrich.  Radical left wing of the party nominated Dukakis, Mondale, etc.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

yes, exactly... The populist wing of the party, no matter what you might think.  We're the ones who fight for working men and women, while the blue dogs authorize tax cuts for the rich and wars which kill our working class youth.  Who are the real populists?


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (1.00 / 1)

Who has won the presidency?


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

No one, yet...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (1.00 / 1)

And neither did Dukakis, Mondale, etc.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

Susan Estrich is supporting Hillary.  Thought you'd like to know.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:56:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (1.00 / 1)

Well, I deferred/referred to her.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:01:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

Read the diary.

Anyway, the vast majority of Hillary and Barack's money comes from corporate sources. In Barack's case, if elected he will also be profoundly grateful and respectful toward the corporate media. Their Hillary hate (and anti-populism on real, economic issues) has been essential to his campaign's success.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

And in Hillary's case, she will clearly ignore them that brung her.  Clearly.  Despite the fact that her legislative record is unambiguously pro-wall street.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:06:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's more progressive? Hillary an A-, Barack a B (none / 0)

See my old diary:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/12/1514 22/903

It links to a study by the Drum Major Institute.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: solidarity! (2.00 / 1)

so I guess we do nothing and continue to let the oil companies soak American drivers.

I don't care, I walk most of the time.  Only drive once or twice a week.

Obama isn't going to do a damn thing. On gas prices or anything else. He has a big ego, and winning the Presidency is his big "prize".  Just like both Presidents Bush (except with more brains, granted that).


by WolfmanJack on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:28 PM EST

He's consistently for 'do nothing' (none / 0)

I think he'll be pretty damn active deforming Social Security, though. The message was sent in 2007 to his corporate backers: everything is on the table.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: solidarity! (none / 0)

Saying a repeal of the gas tax is a bad idea is "doing nothing" is one HELL of a leap.

Your rhetoric aside, what do you suppose the position of the oil lobbyists is on the "gas tax holiday"?  I hope you don't need to look it up.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary's idea is to soak Big Oil (2.00 / 1)

to pay for a gas tax holiday. Is Big Oil in favor of her proposal?


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

I know it's bad form to pimp ones own diaries, but I wrote one this morning on this very subject that refutes most of these points
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/12514 7/9362
Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

Oh, the silly "we'll lose 100,000s of jobs" neo-argument. Hillary's proposal is explictly revenue neutral, so how does that create any losses to the highway budget? Obama backers who push this attack should be embarrassed or ashamed.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:51:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

The proposal is not revenue neutral. There is no bill to introduce a 'windfall profit tax'. If there were, it would not pass this congress. Hence, the tax holiday only serves to shrink government spending at the expense of needed infrastructure maintenance. Which is not surprising because it is a Republican proposal. It is more of the same "kill government" rhetoric we have heard since Gingrich's  Contract on America.


Bush murders soldiers for profit. McCain wants to wet his beak.
by awobbly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The proposal's not a bill yet (none / 0)

All of this is pretty obvious stuff.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (2.00 / 0)

At what point are you going to acknowledge that they were separate bills?  If she wants to tie the two together, then she should, umm, tie the two together and not just up and back John McCain's plan before the ink on her own is even dry.  That route will absolutely cost jobs.

I am willing to have a civil debate with you, but your "attacks" and "embarrassed and ashamed" are quickly losing me.  As is the patently absurd idea that Hillary Clinton is the real populist in the race, over and above both John Edwards(!) and Barack Obama.  As is discussion of Obama's "wall street backers" to the exclusion of Hillary Clintons, who are far more numerous and make up a far greater portion of her campaign funds.

Frankly, both of them are fairly pro-Wall Street.  Their legislative records make that clear, even if their rhetoric obscures it.  That's what we should be paying attention to.  And we should be having an honest debate about their plans where we grapple with them squarely, without trying to muddy the waters by throwing labels around.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:03:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She adds her idea to his idea. (none / 0)

She opposes McCain's proposal standing on its own. Duh!


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:36:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Populism alwasy loses in our primaries (2.00 / 2)

God forbid we (Dems) look like we want to solve kitchen-table issues.


by Thirsty Gator on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:00:48 PM EST

Re: Populism alwasy loses in our primaries (none / 0)

I can play too.  Watch:

Who needs roads!  They should be privatized.


by Mostly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're not playing with the facts, (none / 0)

since Hill's proposal is revenue-neutral.

But hey, you and the corporate media's 'reality' won yesterday. Good for you, the corporations who own the media, and Obama.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

Even in the article salon links to, they estimate only 5 cents of the 18 cents would be passed along as savings to the consumer.


by Pravin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:06:00 PM EST

No they don't (none / 0)

I think you're confused, but show us what you're referring to.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:38:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No they don't (none / 0)

We hav ehad this discussion during Jerome's thread yesterday. One can go and check all the sources then. There was no need for this diary. All one had to do was continue the discussion there so we don't have to repeatedly cite the same stuff.


by Pravin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, you were confused (2.00 / 1)

You're referring to this section of the Salon article:

The media has attacked the Clinton plan for not being supported by the think tanks and economists. But there are a few economists out there -- such as Bill Polley -- who point out that if short-run demand is also inelastic, it is "not a foregone conclusion that the suppliers will get all the benefit." In fact, Polley concludes that consumers would get a nickel a gallon or more benefit -- not much, but better than nothing.

That's Polley's conjecture, and it is not related to the Doyle and Samphantharak study of the Illinois and Indiana gas tax holiday, which states they were 60-80% effective. Doyle and Samphantharak don't say anything at all about Hillary's proposal. Common sense applied to their study says it indicates a gas tax holiday applied in roughly the same conditions would be most likely 60-80% effective.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, you were confused (none / 0)

First of all, it is just one study. 60-80% is not set in stone. Let us split the difference and say 70%. 70% of 18 cents is less than 13 cents a gallon. We are already chipping away at meager savings. You are better of just giving a flat tax cut and still make people be conscious of the gas prices.


by Pravin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:38:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And Obama said no savings went thru to drivers (none / 0)

Amazing he gets away with that, in light of the facts.

Otherwise, I agree with you, except that to some people saving $30 a month is meaningful. I've said many times this is relatively small potatoes. But the media 'reality' firestorm was/is not 'small potatoes,' it's 'will have no effect' 'pure pandering' 'there she goes again' and so on.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Populism lost yesterday (none / 0)

It wasn't populism.  It was a band-aid on a bullet hole, and an attempt to buy votes for $30 a pop.

People saw through it.


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:24:52 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: