There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

Palin points that “American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy”…

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

As with everything the Obama Administration is doing, cap and trade also employs the ram-rod technique of shoving legislation down the gullet before anyone has had a chance to give it a second thought. Palin then makes a point I’m sure Obama would rather she gloss over:

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

Governor Palin urges us to move in a new direction and states we can achieve energy independence if we:

…responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

Whether one agrees with her or not, one thing Governor Palin can speak to with authority is energy, given her service at the Oil & Gas Commission:

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

Loved the “Yes, we can” reference. What is your reaction to her position? I do not pretend to know that right answer here, but certainly she raises issues worth discussing.

Everyone else out there is having quite a big reaction. In a few hours, her op-ed in WaPo has attracted over 3,000 comments. All over the blogosphere and on news sites, people are reacting and as usual, Governor Palin is a lightning rod for both love and hate. HuffPo, typically, cannot kill the message, because she does have a point, so they shoot the messenger, claiming she is “too stupid” to have possibly written this piece. I thought the piece was pretty coherent myself, and yeah, I’m sure she wrote it. By the way, did I mention that I despise elitists. You can her article it in its entirety here.

Further, since the surprise announcement of her resignation on July 3rd, Palin has raised over $200,000 for her PAC, in addition to over $700,000 raised in the five months since its formation. CBS just put out a poll saying 65% of those asked think Palin would not make a good president and most pundits left and right are harping about the fact that her political career is effectively over. Wishful thinking, perhaps. I have no idea what Palin’s actions will be or what her political career will look like going forward, but one thing is assured — as long as these ridiculous attacks continue, her following will grow and she will get plenty of free press that she may use to her advantage.

As for the “chattering class,” as Palin calls them, I can only say, gee fellas, that’s an awful lot of copy to devote to someone with nothing to say, no platform to say it, no following and no hope of making a dent. Evah.

Somebody seems awfully scared of this lady.

Just sayin’.

All the conjecture and today’s meeting reminded me of Truthteller’s excellent piece on March 22, “Chávez Calls Obama an ‘Ignoramus’,” which we’re reprinting for your amusement:

No Quarter is a loose but raucous chorus of discordant voices. Some of us are centrists, others are hawkish Democrats, some view themselves as reformers, a few are resolutely independent and others are unabashed Leftists. Consider me one of the latter. In this essay I will not criticize Chávez, and I will not repeat all the threadbare rhetorical bludgeons such as socialist, communist, totalitarian or dictatorial many use to dismiss Chávez and his democratically elected government. If that is what you are seeking, I recommend you take your dossier and go somewhere else.

But at least consider this before you rush for the exit: the candidate who claimed “negotiations without preconditions” would yield amicable and cooperative relations with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela has literally had his Ferragamo shoe shoved squarely in his programmed mouth by Hugo Chávez. I quote Reuters:

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an “ignoramus” for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

“He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality,” said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Negotiations with Chávez and the Leftist Latin American coalition are now foreclosed as a result of Obama’s garrulity and glibness. How else would one expect a country to react if one claims its largest export is terrorism? Here is one effect:

Chavez said Obama’s comments had made him change his mind about sending a new ambassador to Washington, after he withdrew the previous envoy in a dispute last year with the Bush administration in which he also expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.

Obama really is the Democratic incarnation of Bush: so much for change, and so much for meaningful negotiations. Not only are our relations with our neighbors Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Paraguay, El Salvador and Brazil strained; the Mexican government has raised tariffs on our exports, and we are the subject of much ridicule in the British press.

Venezuela, many of you may recall, is an ally of Iran, and Chávez will visit that and other countries in the Middle East in a few days for a summit of leaders from South American and Arab countries. Iran just rebuffed Obama’s recent attempt at negotiations with television and teleprompter, dismissing the staged spectacle as so many “slogans.” Democrats in the US may be duped by Obama’s empty rhetoric, media simulations and other mass ornaments, but true Leftists are always ones to lift the hood and investigate the true operations of the apparatus power utilizes against them. Unlike Andrew Sullivan, they are not mesmerized by brands and “faces;” they need a bit more than just images and surfaces. No wonder why Chávez calls Obama an “ignoramus.” I imagine he thinks that term also applies to all of Obama’s easily duped supporters.

What can one expect now that Obama has alienated Iran, Venezuela and all their allies in the Middle East and South and Central America? Oil prices will rise, trade agreements will become increasingly strained, tariffs on exports will probably increase, the price of imports will increase, and all the populist movements in countries wherein impoverished citizens are demanding something that resembles a suitable standard of living will be hostile instead of receptive to the United States’s particular version of democracy and global unity. With our economy spiraling into bankruptcy this can only engender more problems abroad, especially if our European allies feel we are exacerbating the distrust many countries have for what can broadly be defined as the West. Here is Russia admonishing the US in the wake of Obama’s failed attempt to engage Iran:

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there was no proof that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and urged the West to respect and reach out to the Islamic republic.

While I opposed Obama during the primaries for his lack of an ideological compass and his lack of a bold domestic agenda that would expand social services and thereby provide more Americans with equal access to power and resources, I thought his foreign policy, however vaguely defined, however utterly naïve, however hopelessly optimistic, would enable the United States to marshall the energy generated by all the New Social Movements, populist upheavals and new articulations of ethnic identity occurring throughout the world and funnel it toward a global understanding wherein difference and empathy would be celebrated and cultivated. Instead, we have more of the strained relations that were aggravated under Bush. Chávez, who is the face of some Leftist and New Social Movements, views us as antagonists to be shunned, as colonizers to be ousted, as representatives of a late capitalist hegemony that for him and his followers is the latest iteration of enslavement to the West. Obama promised to change this perception with his “negotiations without preconditions,” but instead all he did was reinvigorate it.

That Obama and his staff are reproducing the errors of Bush does not surprise me. Hopefully Hillary will help Obama out of this latest problem he has created for us. After all, it takes a Clinton to clean the mess created by a Bush. And Obama, to be sure, is nothing more than the Democratic Party’s version of George W. Bush. Indeed, he is nothing more than an ignoramus.

NEW YORK (AP) — Oil prices plunged over $10 a barrel Monday as a U.S. financial bailout plan failed to win legislative approval, increasing fears tat a prolonged economic downturn that could sharply curtail energy demand.

Light, sweet crude for November delivery sank $10.52 to settle at $96.36 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier dropping as low as $95.04. It was crude’s lowest trading level since prices edged back below $100 earlier this month; crude previously hadn’t traded that low since February.

Crude has fallen almost $25, or 20 percent, in the past week amid intense bi-partisan talks to to work out the $700 billion bank rescue plan.

From my blog, Uppity Woman.

It became evident, as I watched the video, that Governor Sarah Palin can more than “hold her own” in a debate.

York wrote the following about Palin’s performance:

And all I have to say is that Palin was good — really good. It wasn’t a debate in which the candidates were in each other’s faces or throwing out zingers, but Palin clearly outshone her rivals — especially Murkowski, the longtime senator who played the role of the experienced statesman.

This debate was not lightweight like the recent Saddleback Forum but one that, according to York, was substantive and “heavy”:

As far as substance was concerned, the debate was heavy — I mean heavy — on oil, natural gas, and the money that comes therefrom. To my ears, Palin knew a great deal about the subject and spoke with real authority about it — again outshining her rivals.

You can watch the video of the GOP primary debate at C-Span’s Web site.

As I watched the video, I was more than impressed. She is truly smart and knows her subjects well. The debate also dispels a rumor about Palin and her personally-held stringent beliefs about contraception. Here is the question that Palin was asked:

In a recent survey you said that you would support abstinence-until-marriage education but that you would not support explicit sex-ed programs. What are explicit sex-ed programs, and does that include talking about condoms in school?

Here’s Palin’s answer:

No, I don’t think that it includes something that is relatively benign. Explicit means explicit. No, I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I’m not anti-contraception. But yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don’t have a problem with that. That doesn’t scare me, so it’s something that I would support also.

I once attended sex education classes for my son when he was in 6th grade. His education began with the birds and bees, which bothered me some. The remainder of the course subject was benign, no more explicit than the books my mother gave me to read when I was young. I was satisfied that the class wasn’t too explicit. The more explicit items are best left to parenting at home.

York learned in his research that Alaska didn’t have a death penalty, something I was not aware of either. I did find out that Palin and I differ on the death penalty. She supports the death penalty when it involves children. My belief is much more broad than hers. Here are her thoughts on the death penalty:

If our lawmakers were to consider such a thing, I think that support should be given for heinous crimes. A murder of a child? I say, my goodness, hang ‘em up. Yeah. A murder of a child, anything to such a degree, I don’t think that there can be anything worse. And if lawmakers were to consider it, that should be the consideration.

In short, this is a debate worth watching. It is my opinion that Biden is going to have a lot on his hands when he debates Governor Sarah Palin. She will certainly do her homework and be well-informed on all questions. Biden has much to worry about in Palin.

OF NOTE: At C-Span, you can also watch the 2006 general election debate between Sarah Palin, the Democratic candidate, former governor Tony Knowles, and the Independent candidate, Andrew Halcro.

What a difference a month makes. Right on the heels of Obama’s dead fish flop on drilling off the coast of FL (even Jeb didn’t want to do this) comes an Obama proposal to sell 70 million barrels of oil from the stockpile.

The WaPo reported Tuesday that during a speech in MI:

Sen. Barack Obama called Monday for using oil from the nation’s strategic reserves to lower gasoline prices, the second time in less than a week that he has modified a position on energy issues, as he and Sen. John McCain seek to find solutions to a topic that is increasingly dominating the presidential race.

——————————

The Obama campaign did not predict how much releasing reserves would lower gas prices. But it said prices at the pump went down more than 19 percent within two weeks when President Bill Clinton made such a move in 2000.

His proposal comes a month after Obama said he would consider using oil from the reserves only in a “genuine emergency,” such as “terrorist acts.” Aides said the plan is not a reversal because he would replace light crude oil in the reserves with less-expensive heavy crude. They also noted that the senator from Illinois last week described the country’s economic conditions as an “emergency.”

On July 24th, USAToday reported that democrats wanted to open the reserves for just this reason.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday scuttled a bill that Democrats hoped would help lower gasoline prices by forcing the Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of oil — about a three-day supply — from the national stockpile.
———————–

Democrats said the release from the oil reserve could provide relief at the pump within two weeks, though they would not say how much it would help $4-per-gallon gas. Earlier releases, such as a 34 million barrel drawdown in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, caused prices to fall.

Interestingly enough, Republicans opposed the sale because Democrats opposed offshore drilling.

Also curious is another story from USAToday on July 23rd about the airline industry supporting selling reserves.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. government should tap the national petroleum reserve to relieve ailing airlines that have been stung by soaring oil prices, the industry’s leading trade group told lawmakers on Wednesday.

“History shows us that even a temporary increase in supply will immediately lower oil prices,” James May, president and chief executive of the Air Transport Association, told the House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Three major U.S. airlines reported second-quarter losses on Tuesday of more than $3.3 billion, blaming skyrocketing fuel costs.

May testified as the House is expected to vote Thursday on legislation to release millions of barrels of light sweet crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and swap it with heavy sour crude in an effort to calm the market.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserves has a website with information on current inventory here.

About the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (Wikipedia)

Access to the reserve is determined by the conditions written into the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), primarily to counter a severe supply interruption. The maximum removal rate, by physical constraints, is 4.4 million barrels per day (700,000 m³/d). Oil could begin entering the marketplace 13 days after a Presidential order. The Dept. of Energy says that it has about 59 days of import protection in the SPR. This, combined with private sector inventory protection, is estimated to equal 115 days of imports.

The SPR was created following the 1973 energy crisis. The EPCA of December 22, 1975, made it policy for the U.S. to establish a reserve up to one billion barrels (159 million m³) of petroleum. A number of existing storage sites were acquired in 1977. Construction of the first surface facilities began in June 1977. On July 21, 1977, the first oil—approximately 412,000 barrels (66,000 m³) of Saudi Arabian light crude—was delivered to the SPR. Fill was suspended in FY 1995 to devote budget resources to refurbishing the SPR equipment and extending the life of the complex. The current SPR sites are expected to be usable until around 2025. Fill was resumed in 1999.
—————–

On August 17, 2005, the SPR reached its goal of 700 million barrels (111,000,000 m³), or about 96% of its now-increased 727-million-barrel (1.156E+8 m³) capacity. Approximately 60% of the crude oil in the reserve is the less desirable sour (high sulfur content) variety. The oil delivered to the reserve is “royalty-in-kind” oil—royalties owed to the U.S. government by operators who acquire leases on the federally owned Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico. These royalties were previously collected as cash, but in 1998 the government began testing the effectiveness of collecting royalties “in kind” – or in other words, acquiring the crude oil itself. This mechanism was adopted when refilling the SPR began, and once filling is completed, revenues from the sale of future royalties will be paid into the Federal treasury.

So, what are the threads here? Democrats and Republicans have been at loggerheads for some time over how to deal with climbing gas prices, with Republicans wanting to drill more and Democrats wanting to use the “oil piggy bank.” Now, it looks as if someone has achieved a “meeting of the minds” with Obama suddenly supporting drilling. Will Republicans suddenly support selling reserves?

We’ll have to see. Right now John McCain does not.

In addition, whether or not 70 million barrels will make a huge difference to the average consumer is a matter of debate. Although any savings is appreciated, such a sale isn’t likely to lower price all that much. Selling oil to make gas prices go down is a little like selling apple trees to lower the price of pie.

So, who benefits the most? Well, consumers who use LOTS of gas. Airlines come to mind. It might help that industry – but that’s not why the idea is being sold. It’s for the driving consumer, stupid.

Lastly, the sale would be of stockpiled “sweet crude.” Reports say this “sweet crude” would then be replaced by the “sour type” (are there crude tasters??). So, that’s not a one-for-one swap. Also, haven’t we been hearing for some time that refinery capacity is a problem and that adds to the price? Just because we could sell it, would we be able to quickly refine it?

We’d be selling the apple trees, putting twigs back in the ground, waiting on a backlogged pastry chef and hoping the pie gets cheaper.

And Obama was against it before he was for it.

So, what’s the calculation, Barack? What changed your mind? And while you talked about this in MI on the 4th, it doesn’t show up in the transcript of your speech in Ohio on the 5th.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Yesterday, the St. Petersburg Times reported that Sen. Obama has "softened" his stance on offshore drilling:

"Long an opponent of offshore drilling, Sen. Barack Obama offered
encouraging words for a bipartisan energy plan that would permit oil
drilling within 50 miles of Florida’s west coast.

"In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9’s Political Connections this morning, Obama commended the self-styled "Gang of 10" senators who earlier in the day introduced a broad energy bill that also would funnel billions into developing renewable sources.

"’My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise,’ Obama told the Times shortly after talking with voters at Gibbs High School. ‘If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem.’" (St. Pete Times)

There’s that word again: compromise.  It’s a reasonable-sounding word, but compromise can have pretty deleterious effects. Is offshore drilling an issue about which we should compromise?

Many of us Americans eat food from the sea: fish and shrimp and lobster (well, I don’t eat lobster, because I really dislike the taste, but I adore scallops).  And hundreds of miles of our coastlines serve as tourist destinations — which pump money into many state and local economies precisely because of the quality of their beaches.

All it would take are a few accidents (like oil spills) to taint the food and scenery, which certainly could cause a drag on multiple industries.  Given that we wouldn’t see any results from drilling for 10 years (according to Sen. Obama’s statement in June), are the risks to our nation’s coastlines worth the meager and long-delayed results of offshore drilling?

I don’t know the answer, but I think it’s a fair question.

Interestingly enough, the St. Pete Times implied that Sen. Obama has not formally embraced the offshore-drilling plan. It seems safe to say that he does support it — given that he said "I am not going to be rigid" about it.

You can’t get a little bit pregnant: either Sen. Obama is willing to allow offshore drilling or he isn’t. Subtle phrasing can cause voters to misunderstand where he really stands on issues.

I can’t help remembering Obama’s stated opposition back in January and March to retroactive immunity for telecom companies (Telecom Amnesty) that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans.  In June, Obama’s stance morphed into qualified support for a House bill that included Telecom Amnesty, which Obama ended up voting for when it came to the Senate.

Similarly, I can’t help remembering Obama’s clear statements opposing NAFTA in March, stating that he would use the treaty’s opt-out clause as a "hammer" to force re-negotiation of the treaty so as to benefit American workers who’d lost their jobs.  In May, after Obama won the primaries, he made a clear statement that he really doesn’t want to force re-negotiation of NAFTA.

Incidentally, if the drilling plan is passed, Florida would not have a choice: the drilling would happen, according to the St. Pete Times, because the Gulf of Mexico is thought to be oil rich. 

Other coastal states would have a choice about whether or not drilling occurred off their shores (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia). 

I’m laughing so hard I am practically crying here. What on earth is wrong with Barack Obama? Is he a simpleton? Is he unable to grasp complex problems? Or is it just that he shouldn’t be allowed to speak without a teleprompter?

As you might recall, Manchild Barack Obama has already told us that as President he will expect us to follow his order: “Don’t Drive. Don’t Eat. Freeze Your Butt ala Jimmy Carter Malaise.

Now, according to this turkey, we actually won’t need to drill for oil if only all of us would just inflate our tires.

That’s right folks. You inflate your tires and it will solve our oil problem. We won’t need to drill, because our properly inflated tires will save us the same amount of oil we would garner if we drilled.

I think Powerline says it best:

Barack Obama is a lot like Sean Penn or George Clooney. If you give him a script, he can deliver it pretty well. But if he tries to talk without a script that has been written for him by others, he quickly reveals that he is poorly-informed if not downright ignorant. Today he delivered another classic, by claiming that if only we would all properly inflate our tires, we could save as much gasoline as “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.” Seriously:

The stunned silence with which the crowd greets this howler suggests that most Americans have a more practical understanding of energy consumption than Obama.

And here’s the “Howler”:

Warning: Do not drink anything while you are watching this. I wouldn’t want your coffee to come out of your nose or ruin your keyboard or anything:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0[/youtube]

Powerline also did the math, which brings us to the conclusion that without a teleprompter and a pre-written script composed by somebody with an IQ,  Barack Obama is truly a stunningly stupid dimwad. While he prances around the country claiming that people will try to make us afraid of him because he doesn’t look like the guys on our currency, it is becoming glaringly apparent that there is good reason to be afraid of him and it has little to do with his tan:

Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let’s be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that’s a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency.

Americans drive approximately 2,880 miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.

How does this stack up against “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling?”

ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels

So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal “all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling.”

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the US Senate is actually in session!! I bet you didn’t realize that since Obama is on his World Tour! But Obama not being in the Senate does not stop him from claiming credit, falsely, for one of the big committees in the Senate, the Banking Committee. He flat out said – with hand on his chest to make the point – that the Banking Committee is HIS committee! Here’s the kicker – he ISN’T EVEN ON IT!!! Wowie zowie – with all of the lies this man has told about his experience, especially his legislative experience, it is sure a good thing that his supporters have finally woken up and realized what a lying, conniving, scheming, Chicago-style politician he is!!! Oh, wait – that hasn’t happened yet. But we can hope that SOMEDAY they will realize they have been had. Of course, it would help if the media actually did their job to facilitate that awakening. This is me NOT holding my breath.

So, yes, the US Senate is in session, and there is someone who has been knocking herself out for her constituents, and all Americans. Oh, shoot – I have already given a clue by the use of the pronoun. I can assure you, it is not Claire McCaskill, one of Obama’s sycophantic “my children convinced me” supporters. No, of course not – you know who it is. Hillary Clinton.

That’s right, Hillary Clinton is currently fighting in the US Senate to get us relief from these exorbitant gas prices. Oh, and to argue against offshore drilling. What a silly little woman – worrying about the little people! Yet, she spoke about this on the Senate floor:

Senator Clinton urged her colleagues to support The Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act to provide short term relief to Americans feeling the pain of rising fuel prices and also called for bold new steps to break the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and achieve long term energy independence based on clean, renewable alternative energy.

Say WHAT? Gee willikers – it seems that all of her talk during her campaigning wasn’t just TALK! She CARES about these issues because she cares about us, energy independence, and the environment. Well, I’ll be darned! She went on to say:

“I believe we can lower gas prices in the very near term by taking smart, practical, sensible steps to address rampant oil speculation,” Senator Clinton said. “And let’s lead our nation to embrace the great next American endeavor, a national effort to change the way we produce and use energy. It’ll serve our economy. It will strengthen our security. It will bring us together as a nation.”

Oh, she just needs to stop – energy independence AND economic recovery? It’s madness, I tell you!!! Maybe that’s what Jim Cramer of CNBC’s “Mad Money” responded EMPHATICALLY when asked by Ellen Degeneres which candidate would be best for the economy: “That’s actually, hands down, Hillary Clinton.” HERE is the link for the interview on YouTube.com. It’s short, but powerful.

But Senator Clinton doesn’t stop there, oh no. She goes on to tackle the issue of offshore drilling:

“Drilling is the wrong answer. It will do nothing right now. It is literally a Shell game, or an Exxon Mobile game. It’s designed to serve the political interests of vulnerable Republicans and the financial interests of profit-rich oil companies. Average Americans will not see a dime,” Senator Clinton said. “The oil companies say, ‘Drill,’ and the President and the Vice President say, ‘How deep?’ I don’t think that’s the smartest, most effective answer.”

Crazy talk, I tell ya! WHAT is she thinking?? Energy independence? Get the economy on track?? NO offshore drilling?!?!? She is out of control!!!

It seems there is some precedent for these wild ideas of hers:

Senator Clinton has previously cosponsored the Petroleum Consumer Price Gouging Protection Act and the Close the Enron Loophole Act, which would protect consumers from unscrupulous energy profiteers and increase transparency in the retail and wholesale markets.

What has gotten INTO this woman?? Concerned about price gouging at the pump? While ExxonMobil continues to rake in record-breaking profits?? What is WRONG with her?! I swannee, as we say down here in the South, she just seems hell-bent on HELPING people! Not in self-promotion! Or being Master of the Universe and pretending to be former American heroes! Good grief.

So, Senator Clinton was on the floor, talking away, pushing this:

Senator Clinton outlined her proposal to create a Strategic Energy Fund to jump start research and investment in clean energy technologies to promote job growth, energy independence and a cleaner environment. She also underscored her support for providing energy relief to low-income families in New York and across the country. Senator Clinton has long been an advocate of fully funding the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

How dare she? She wants a program that will help the people of New York and all Americans? Including low-income people?! She has just gone too far. Apparently, she did not get the memo that her REAL job was to engage in narcissistic, selfish, egotistical, arrogant, CYA actions, not to actually do things that would HELP people, the economy, and the environment! Well, no wonder Kerry, Reid, Dodd, et al, in the Senate didn’t want her!! It has all become clear to me now!

Grrrr. So, to recap: Obama is off on his European vacation on TAXPAYER’S dime, pretending to be JFK but missing the mark by a universe, and Clinton is in the Senate fighting for US.

Once again, Automatic Super Duper Delegates: PICK THE PERSON WHO IS FIGHTING FOR US, who has the intelligence, the passion, the COMMITMENT, to restoring this country to economic health, and to take us to energy independence. HILLARY CLINTON is the only one who will do that. Grow a spine, stop worrying about getting more money for your pet projects, and DO THE RIGHT THING already. Have some integrity. Have some GUTS. Do not foist yet another Pretender on us. Seriously.

For an added bonus, here is the LINK to her speech on YouTube.com. Get a cup of coffee, tea, whatever your beverage of choice is, and watch a REAL leader, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So these must be the “Green Jobs” Barack Obama is thinking about. A couple of hundred thousand consultants. Wonderful. It’s a great way to hire and boost the income of friends and family though. That doesn’t include You, suckers. Just so you know.

While most Americans find that what once was their disposable income is now used to barely feed their families with whatever is on “special” this week at the supermarket (healthy or not), the Democratic Party “of The People” is defining other priorities for them. What will the DNC do for the American people at the convention? Why they are going to make sure that Prissy Barack Obama has his arugula, I am sure. But they won’t stop there. No sir.

They have hired a Director Of Greening. No kidding. That’s the title. You can’t make this shit up.

What’s environmental activist Andrea Robinson’s job as Director of Greening, you ask?

Robinson will work to find ways to make the preparation and conducting of the convention as environmentally friendly as possible, said Leah Daughtry, the Democratic National Convention Committee chief executive, speaking at the committee’s third “Convention Conversations” forum in Boulder.

Does anybody here, after having just returned from an actual day’s work, understand what this….um…means?

Whatever it means, Andrea can’t do this job all by herself. No sir. She has hired a firm to serve as Official Carbon Advisor to:

“measure the greenhouse-gas emissions of every placard, every plane trip, every appetizer prepared and every coffee cup tossed.”

No offense, DNC, but no wonder you can’t keep any money in your coffers.

I wonder if this woman was involved in the legislation that phases out all incandescent lighting by 2012, thus facilitating as many migraines and epileptic seizures as possible. You know about those fluorescent lighting replacements don’t you? They aren’t quite finished yet folks, as in “back to the drawing board, please”. They contain mercury which can cause brain, kidney and liver damage. Then there are those folks who prefer not to burn their homes down with halogens, but ah, screw them too. Just so you know: if you break a fluorescent curly bulb you are supposed to evacuate the entire room for 15 minutes and close off any ventilation. Bet you didn’t know that huh? I threw one out before I found this out. How the hell did I know that the environmentalists are encouraging me to use something that’s hazardous to my and everyone else’s health? I thought they were supposed to be protecting me. Anyways, you should know that if you live in an apartment, you must call down to maintenance to turn off the air conditioning if you break one of those bulbs. Good luck with that. *The EPA has a whole warning page about these bulbs folks. You would think that all of these environmental “consultants” would first insist that these replacement bulbs we will be REQUIRED to use would at least be safe to humans. But nahhhhhhh. It seems like a fair tradeoff for these nutballs, right? And they will look great in the family heirloon chandeliers! Why I just BET Michelle Obama will be sticking those ugly yellow-lighting little bastards in HER chandelier over at the Hyde Park homestead, don’t you? I wonder what the Director Of Greening thinks about all of this?

Ok I digressed. I can do that. It’s my blog.

Back to the Greening of the Convention, I know that this makes you all feel a lot better economically. I know it makes you feel much more secure knowing that the Democratic Party is in tune with your most pressing needs at this time. They want you to know they Care. I know that having a Green Convention will help you to fill up the tank, catch up on last month’s bills and make you feel included along with the left-cliff radical whackjobs who are sponsoring The Incandescent One. (We will have to change that to the Flourescent One in 2012).

It’s good to know that the Democratic Party is thinking of us at all times, don’t you agree? A Green Convention. Whoa, Thanks guys! So what if you have shoved a duplicitous pandering sack of crap down our throats as our “nominee”? We are going to let that pass because your convention will be Green!

I suppose we should at least be grateful that they haven’t assigned Ministers of Plenty and Truth. Yet.

As a side note, I also suspect that if the food is going to be doled out according to Ms. Anderson’s specifications, Donna Brazile is going to be showing up with a HUGE tote bag full of fried stuff she can scarf down in the ladies’ room. Considering her…ah…. constitution, I hardly envision her going for the ratatouille.

* EPA on CFLs

CFLs More Dangerous Than First Thought

Together4US

I want a Democrat in the White House. At the Convention, the sole job of the delegates will be to select the person who is electable in November.

That person is Hillary Clinton. During the primary process BO did not “close the deal” with primary voters. The more voters got to know BO, the more votes Senator Clinton received. By the time she suspended, not ended, her campaign, she led in the popular vote, in the blue states and swing states needed to win the Electoral College, and in the polls against McCain.

She won convincingly wherever one-person-one-vote was the principle of the voting process; she did not prevail in the caucuses – one of the least democratic voting methods imaginable – no secret ballot, limited access, no absentee ballots…

Senator Clinton has the best, most progressive stance on issues of importance to Democrats – truly universal, affordable health care; sensible mortgage relief to avoid the dissolution of our communities; universal pre-k and greater access to high education; energy independence; investments in infrastructure, urban regeneration, stem cell research and other scientific explorations… she has the connections to and the admiration of the world leaders and populations desperate for strong leadership from the United States…

We know Senator Clinton’s record, her ability to bring people together, her intelligence, humor, and that she is a caring person who has worked unceasingly for women, children and families. We know that she understands the issues and nuances of the middle east and has been a proven friend of Israel and other democratic allies.

We know so little of BO, other than he rose meteorically from the south side of Chicago politics, and gives a good speech.

We know that he stood by silently as the media and his own campaign degraded women and the candidacy of Senator Clinton. We know that he encouraged undemocratic practices such as snatching votes and delegates in Florida and Michigan. We know that his associates and friends are not those we would be comfortable bringing home to mother.

Clinton delegates – please hold tight. Do not give up your seat or believe anyone who tells you that Hillary has conceded or ended her campaign. She has suspended her campaign. At a minimum, we must be sure that the Democratic platform reflects her values and programs. We want her to be nominated, speak and to have a roll call.

If BO is the nominee of the party, we will have plenty of time to decide if he has earned the 18 million votes and support of Clinton campaign volunteers.
If he has failed to “close the deal”, we will be there to remind the delegates that their only job is to nominate the ELECTABLE candidate in order to restore the White House to the Democrats.

GO GO GO!!!

Obama and The Second Amendment
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo[/youtube]

“Without Preconditions”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIlhTVyZfYY[/youtube]

Obama’s Ill-Timed Tax Increases
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNMIwx6bGvs&eurl=http://hyper-educated-uppity-woman.blogspot.com/2008/05/rnc-obama-ads.html[/youtube]

Carter-Obama Taxes
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vycxh1oSUo&eurl=http://hyper-educated-uppity-woman.blogspot.com/2008/05/rnc-obama-ads.html[/youtube]

That said, Krugman reportedly heard about (but has not seen) a negative Obama ad that falsely uses Krugman’s criticism of McCain as an attack against Hillary.  At his blog, Krugman made it very clear that he would be displeased if Obama’s ad did this:

"I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits. If the ad implies that I did, it should be retracted.

"The Clinton proposal is financed by an excess profits tax. At worst, it sends money in a circle. In practice, it would probably reduce oil industry profits at least slightly, since the rise in the pre-tax price of gasoline probably wouldn’t wipe out all of the tax cut.

"I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal that while I didn’t think it was good policy, it was not the same as
McCain’s, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they’re being deliberately dishonest." (Krugman blog, emphasis added)

Below is a YouTube clip of Obama’s ad, which does mention a New York Times piece from April 28.  Krugman wrote such a piece: in it, he says that McCain’s plan (not Hillary’s) "would boost oil industry profits." Here’s the relevant parts of that Krugman’s piece:

"The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.

"More and more, Mr. McCain sounds like a man who will say anything to become president."

And more and more, Sen. Obama sounds like a man who will say anything to become president.

At the very least, the people who wrote Obama’s ad copy seem to have been "deliberately dishonest" when using Krugman’s quote against Hillary. ‘So much for the Obama campaign’s purported aversion to dirty, old-style politics.

The decent thing would be for the Obama campaign to broadcast a retraction, as Krugman suggests — and to publicly apologize for having twisted Krugman’s words.

This is not the first time that an Obama campaign ad seemed misleading. Recently, one of his ads stated that he hasn’t taken tainted money (i.e., money from lobbyists and special interests), when evidence suggests that he has.

Memeorandum has commentary.

Related BN-Politics Posts:

* More Hypocrisy: Obama Supported Gas-Tax Holiday in Illinois

* ABC Ignores Obama’s Misleading Messagre re: Lobbyist Money

* Krugman Criticizes Obama’s Statements on Fox Interview

* Dozens of Reasons to Vote for Hillary Clinton

It’s No Wonder Michelle Calls Him Stinky!

Cross posted at: Pagan Power

As everyone knows, we are in a recession. The price of food has gone up dramatically. In fact there is a world wide shortage of food. Home sales are at historic lows. Foreclosures have skyrocketed. Jobs are being lost at an extraordinary rate. And the price of gasoline has gone up incredibly.

Ordinary Americans are having to choose whether to fill up the tank or fill their bellies. Literally.

And two brave politicians have bucked their parties offering a federal gas tax holiday throughout the summer to help out a little, especially to those in greatest need. John McCain first made this proposal but he refused to pay for it, driving us further into debt.

Hillary embraced McCain’s proposal, but did the responsible thing and required that the measure be paid for. Senator Obama has adamantly opposed this proposal. He has stated on numerous occasions that this is a gimmick that won’t really help anyone. And the elite he is, he mocked the small savings that people would experience. Not exactly the compassion that we need in a leader. Especially to the least fortunate that live day to day.

Senator Obama claimed that he has tried all this before and therefore he knows it is a gimmick. In fact, when he was an Illinois Senator, he voted to suspend the State gas tax three times. But he reached the conclusion afterward that it didn’t actually help anyone. But Senator Obama was wrong.

Obama is wrong about the gas tax

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.

The authors concluded that “the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%.”

This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.

This report: $2.00 GAS! STUDYING THE EFFECTS OF A GAS TAX MORATORIUM (PDF FORMAT) is the only one actually done on the gas tax holiday and it proves conclusively that the holiday BENEFITED the citizens of Illinois. So it seems that Senator Obama isn’t curious (like George Bush) enough to actually investigate the results of his actions. Or he is the one using a gimmick to hoodwink voters into believing that something his opponent proposes won’t benefit them when according to the actual science, it will.

Could he be attacking Clinton just to deny her any political benefit? That would be as cynical and “old style” as anything Clinton has thrown at Obama lately.

But Senator Obama certainly has scores of political allies in this battle with Hillary. Some of the people that support his position are not known to support helping ordinary Americans under any circumstances.

Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday slammed as bad idea

“Score one for Obama,” wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers. “In light of the side effects associated with driving … gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower.”

Get that? Gas taxes should be higher! Maybe that is why Obama is against Hillary’s plan. He wants higher gas taxes. It wouldn’t be so difficult to accept considering he has such respect for the outside the box Republican ideas he is always praising. Being all post partisan and all.

We have all heard that so many economists are totally against Hillary’s plan. They claim that any actual savings would be paid to the oil companies and the lower prices would lead to greater demand which would raise the prices anyway. That sounds to me like Washington Can’t Do politics. The exact kind of politics that senator Obama claims to be against. But as we all know, talk is cheap. Especially during an election year.

What the myopic Washington insiders don’t tell people is that the economic theory that has the elite up in arms is called the Tax Incidence theory. And if people only look at the theory it is easy to get up in arms and draw the wrong conclusions. So here is a primer.

The economic basis for attacks on the Clinton tax holiday is a fundamental economic theory called “tax incidence.”It says that the cost of a tax on any consumer product will be borne by those with lesser “elasticity” in the tug of war between suppliers and consumers. “Tax incidence” falls mostly upon the group that responds least to price — the group that has the more inelastic price-quantity curve. In this instance, assuming that the supply of gas is pretty much fixed, it means consumers will end up paying those missing tax dollars directly to the gas companies in the form of higher prices. The increased demand triggered by the price cut will supposedly lead drivers to bid up the price of gas, swallowing the tax cut.

But this is not what happened in Illinois and Indiana back in 2000. And there are factors at work today that might provide equal or more “elasticity” to the producers, and prevent consumers from paying the price for the tax cut.

Notice that last part. There are factors in play today that provide buffers (or more elasticity) to help consumers that were not present earlier. And remember as stated above, that earlier, the consumer did see a benefit, albeit a minor one.

Gasoline inventories are currently very high, and these surpluses can absorb much of any increase in demand.

So our already created stockpiles of refined gasoline and our nearly filled strategic petroleum reserve can take care of any minor increase in demand should that demand occur. But the likelihood of a demand increase from such a small change in the price of gas in the short term is almost none.

On the demand side, let’s face it: This is a tiny price cut. It is not likely to spur demand much beyond the usual seasonal increase in driving. And if oil companies do what Obama says they will do — jack up prices to cover the tax — there would be no incentive at all to drive more.

Economist William Polley elaborates on the Tax Incidence theory and explains how what is happening in the short term is not directly affected by it.

Gas tax holiday: Who gets the benefit?

This is Econ 101–tax incidence theory. This is bread and butter for economists. But our pronouncements are only as good as what we really know about the relevant supply and demand elasticities.

Supply may be relatively fixed in the summer, but if short run demand is also inelastic, it is not a foregone conclusion that the suppliers will get all the benefit.

We take as one of our stylized facts that gasoline demand is fairly inelastic in the very short run. A 10% change in gas prices this month will probably not cause me to change my driving habits much.

So what Obama and his nay saying crowd are claiming is not necessarily true. Because what they take into account is an economic theory alone, not the actual situation.  And that actual situation makes the theory itself variable especially since we have a large reserve supply and the time period for this holiday is very short.

As the Salon article concludes:

Basically, it is absurd to say that a summer-long price drop of this tiny magnitude will have any long-term effect at all.

So we have Senator Obama lining up with the Can’t Do Washington crowd and we have Hillary lining up with and standing behind the hard working people of America. The ones trying to make ends meet every day. And the ones that are hurting the most from these high gas prices.

Senator Obama tries to scare people away from embracing something that everyone knows they will benefit from. It may be that Obama is emulating his hero Ronnie Reagan who he said he admired because he was able to get people to vote against their self interests. It could be just exactly that. A testing of his powers. But facts are on the side of Hillary and the Can Do crowd. Because it is easy enough to implement this program and make it so that the oil companies do not raise their prices.

But under Clinton’s plan, if properly implemented, any additional profit realized by an oil company by passing on the cost of the windfall profits tax to customers would also be subject to the tax. This means a dollar passed through to consumers to offset the tax would appear as profit … and be taxed.

How to enforce this? Make it against the law for oil companies to pass the price of the windfall profits tax on to consumers, and then audit the oil companies’ books. It is not a difficult accounting exercise to tax excess profits above a certain gross percentage per barrel of oil, or gallon of gas. Every major oil company has sophisticated profit segmentation reports that go to the very senior management of the company. These reports identify revenues, costs and profit at each level of the vertically integrated operation, broken down on a per barrel basis by product type, marketing region, you name it.

The oil companies also will have a powerful inducement to avoid being caught — and in this kind of toxic political environment, they may actually swallow the tax.

But it takes a little bit of courage to take them on, and a belief that we do not always have to be victims. Obama — where is your optimism?

Isn’t it ironic that the candidate that represents the Can Do new type of politics is the same candidate that her opponent says represents the old style of politics? But that is the way Washington politicians act. They lie, they smear and they attack. And the only reason they do it is to distract the voters from their true positions. In this case it is very clear whose side Senator Obama is on. And it ain’t ours.

:::::::::

The image is courtesy of Truthteller’s story here, Michelle Obama: “Give Us Something Here”.

It’s a high-profile, high-level signal to other super delegates that it’s okay to switch to Obama in order to finally bring about the inevitable conclusion. … The dam was holding, but it has now sprung a leak. The whole thing now threatens to collapse.

If it were still February, BOKA may have been correct in his assessment. However, as Jerome Armstrong correctly points out about Obama supporters:

They are stuck in February and early March, when they saw Obama as the second coming of 50-state campaigner that would move us beyond the battleground days. That’s not the Obama of late April.

There are two parallel, related narratives replicating in the media and the national consciousness, and neither are good for Obama. The first, of course, is the Rev. Wright debacle. Like the DNA in a virus, the Wright narrative replicates other mini-narratives: it tells us that Obama is rapidly losing working class whites, his overall poll numbers are dropping dramatically, and that Obama as a candidate is fatigued and confused, a candidacy sputtering. Additionally, his campaign has been caught sending out an amateurish polling memo and embarrassing letters to Oregon voters talking about their beautiful Great Lakes.

The other narrative is Hillary’s Gas-Tax plan, panned by critics but loved by voters. This media virus spreads additional information: Hillary cares about and connects with average voters, she responds to the country’s needs now and, most importantly, she is controlling the narrative of the election; long gone are the days of sniper fire in Bosnia. We read about a focused and energized Hillary who puts in 16 hour days and leaves the press corps exhausted and in awe. Hillary is in far better shape now than she was heading into Pennsylvania. Her campaign is a presidency-in-waiting.

This brings us back to Joe Andrew. He literally penned his letter of support at his mommy’s table, wringing his hands over the hard-fought nomination contest, throwing in every tired Obama cliché he could remember (I suggest a four year break on the words audacity and hope), and begging Democrats to stop voting and start buying into Obama. Instead of coming across as a dam breaking like BOKA suggested, the Andrew endorsement was more like a thud, and in an exquisite example of the parallel narratives, Hillary announced her own group of DNC’s chairs arguing for her candidacy:

The signatories, all previously announced Clinton supporters, were: Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, Don Fowler, Kenneth Curtis, Charles Manatt, Debra DeLee, Steven Grossman and the family of the late Ron Brown.

“Hillary can win our party’s nomination,” the former leaders wrote. She is neck and neck with her opponent in Indiana and North Carolina. Both states have sizable voting blocs that resemble constituencies who supported Hillary by large margins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other contests.”

The letter concluded with an understated appeal: “We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country.”

Long gone are the days when we read stories about in-fighting and a lack of focus in Hillary’s campaign. This campaign is now a lean, nimble machine capable of beating both Obama and McCain. It’s Obama who is in the shit storm, and that’s not a good place to be prior to a big contest.

Still, Obama’s criticisms are a tad hypocritical, given his own support for a gas-tax holiday back when he was an Illinois legislator.  CBS News reports:

"Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state’s 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.

"The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.

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

Last night, an Obama-supporting friend told me that Obama opposes a gas-tax holiday NOW, because the one in Illinois didn’t work and he learned from his mistake.

I doubt the accuracy of that interpretation, because I think Obama was as smart and analytical in 2000 as he is now. 

We don’t have to wait for McCain’s proposal to become law (which is like the one Obama voted for in 2000) to know that it might do harm.  Similarly, Obama didn’t have to wait for the Illinois tax holiday to become law to anticipate that it wouldn’t work.

And yet, Obama falsely tried to take credit for lowering gas prices from his constituents back in Illinois when the gas-tax holiday he supported became law.

In other words, Obama is now chastising other candidates for doing the same thing that he did to eight years ago in Illinois.  Different standards, indeed.

To be clear, I don’t support McCain’s proposal, because it would likely do harm.  I don’t oppose Hillary’s original proposal, because it likely wouldn’t do much good.

Even Obama doesn’t think Hillary’s proposal would do financial harm to consumers; he just doesn’t think it would do much good: 

‘I’m here to tell you the truth,’ Sen. Obama says in a new 60-second ad running in North Carolina and Indiana ahead of Tuesday’s primaries. ‘You’re going to save about  $25, $30, or half a tank of gas.’ (MSNBC)

Saving $25 may not be an overwhelming benefit to consumers, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt them.

Let’s get beyond the policy debate because, in reality, neither McCain’s nor Hillary’s proposal is likely to become law.  Too few congressional Dems would support McCain’s harmful proposal.

Oil-company-loving Senate Republicans would likely kill Hillary’s proposal via filibuster, because it includes a tax on oil companies.

Moving on to the public-relations realm, we have McCain proposing a gas-tax holiday that would likely harm consumers, but the Republican machine wouldn’t spin it that way.  It would craft (and transmit incessantly) sound bytes like:

"Sen. McCain wants to cut your gas prices by reducing  taxes — and Dems are against this!"

When Hillary came up with a different proposal, she out-maneuvered McCain, by enabling creation of sound bytes like this one:

"We Dems want to cut your gas prices and make oil companies pay for it — but McCain and the Republicans don’t want big oil to lose money; we need to boot those Republicans out of Congress in November."

Are all three candidates politically posturing?  You bet.  And they aren’t playing to avid readers of Paul Krugman or analytical bloggers who spend hours a week analyzing issues and comparing pundits’ comments.   

They’re playing to people who are "informed" by sound bytes they hear on the car radio or by TV news they catch while they’re fixing dinner.  That’s most of the electorate.

McCain started this ball rolling.  Hillary came up with public-relations protection against Republicans in the form of a harmless proposal that likely won’t ever become law anyway — one that Dems could possibly use to slam McCain.

For that reason, I don’t understand why anyone would demonize Hillary and (in the process) mis-characterize her proposal as "the same" as McCain’s.  Yet, some people  — like Rep. Mark Udall from Colorado — are doing just that.

Even Obama is twisting facts during campaign statements, which isn’t all that unusual. He said:

"’Now the two Washington candidates in the race have decided to do something different,” said Obama. ‘John McCain started it, he made the proposal, and then Hillary Clinton said ‘me too.”’ (CBS)

As Obama darned well knows if he reads newspapers, Hillary did not say "me too," in that she didn’t simply adopt McCain’s plan.  Hillary said, "Let’s do it a different way" and came up with a counter-proposal.

There’s a big difference, not that many people in sound-byte land will actually pick up on the differences.

Yes, silly season is in full swing.

________

Visit my blog, Buck Naked Politics.