Not too long ago, John McCain proposed a gas tax “holiday”. Essentially, the 18¢ federal gas tax will be lifted for a period of time to, in theory, save Americans money. The only problem with this is that most economists don’t think this will work. Decreased price will increase demand, thus raising the price of gas. That’s how capitalism works. Then, once the gas tax is over, it will end up higher than when it started. On top of that, if it does save the average American any money, it will only be about $25. Not much. So this isn’t really the best idea, but that’s what can be expected when it comes to Republicans and taxes.
What makes this all interesting is that now Hillary is following suit (insert pantsuit joke here). She has already taken campaign strategies straight out of the republican playbook, so why not borrow McCain’s tax proposals? I am failing to see how exactly she is the “more electable candidate”, as her supporters would like me to think, if she just copies what the Republican candidate proposes. What baffles me even more than her recent republican tendencies, is that fact that the media is acting as if she came up with it. The very second she opened her mouth in favor of McCain’s gas tax suspension, mainstream media somehow developed selective amnesia about who had actually proposed it and declared it Hillary’s Gas Tax Holiday.
Thankfully, Barack Obama has the chutzpah call a gas tax holiday exactly what it is, a “classic Washington gimmick”. Plenty of his opposition will come back and say he voted for a suspended gas tax in Illinois when he was a state senator. What’s his response to this? “I voted for it. Then six months later we took a look and consumers had not benefited at all. I learned from a mistake.” A politician who is willing to admit his mistakes and subsequently demonstrate he has learned from them by taking the risky step of opposing a tax cut (no matter how fool heartedly it may be) is exactly what this country needs in our next President.
He obviously hasn’t endorsed Hillary, or for that matter McCain, but in watching him continuously harm the Obama campaign with every new word he utters, one has to wonder what his true motivation is. Or, more likely, I’m looking for deeper meaning out of someone simply attempting to stretch out their 15 minutes.
A tie or a loss for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania this past Tuesday would have more or less forced her out of the race, allowing Barack Obama to finally mount a national campaign, with the support of the DNC and other pro-Democratic groups, against John McCain and the Republican Party. Alas, this did not happen. Everyone (even the media!) knows that Barack Obama is going to walk out of the convention with his name on the ticket. He has won more states, he has more of the popular vote, he is leading her in pledged delegates, and none of the remaining primaries are going to change that. By winning Pennsylvania with a 10 point lead, Clinton has gotten the ego boost that she so desperately needed to convince herself and her supporters that it is worthwhile to stay in the race through the convention. No one quite knows what this will mean, as there hasn’t been a brokered democratic convention since the 50s, so this should be interesting.
I forsee an Obama/Clinton ticket to reunite an increasingly divided party and defeat McCain.
It’s all over the news that Mark Penn has resigned (been forced out? fired?) as Chief Strategist for Hillary Clinton’s campaign because of his professional ties supporting a Columbian trade deal that Hillary opposes. Basically, her campaign differed in position from his real job as CEO of Burson-Marsteller, a Public Relations firm. Well, they fired him, he’s no longer involved in the campaign, so the conflict of interest is over, right? Wrong.
What else could you expect from a campaign strategist who specializes in spin, than more spin. Sure, he’s no longer the “Chief Campaign Strategist”, but he is still one of her top advisers and his company, Burson-Marsteller, is still doing the polling for the Clinton campaign. I could be wrong, but that sure doesn’t sound like getting fired. It sounds to me like he just had to step back in to the shadows a bit for fear of hurting the campaign that he has orchestrated. This fact seems to be something that mainstream media has been leaving out and instead going forward with the “he’s fired, lets move on” story. For lack of a better term, that’s complete bullshit. If you’re going to fire someone for a conflict of interest, fire someone for a conflict on interest. Don’t keep them on the payroll in a similar capacity and change their title to look less important.
If we’ve learned anything from Karl Rove and George W. Bush, it’s that sleazy campaign tactics do, in fact, get you elected. I just hope that it is too little too late for Hillary to sleaze her way in to the Whitehouse.
Fearmongering is, for those that might not be familiar with the term, the use of fear to advance one’s own opinions and agenda towards some end. Most recently, it has been used in election campaigns and as a tool to enter an unjust war. It was long ago perfected by McCarthy-era politicians playing on America’s fear of communism. Since this time, the Republican party has embraced the strategy, and all of America should fully expect this as an ongoing campaign tactic of the Republican party. Fear of terrorism was essentially George W. Bush’s campaign strategy in 2004. Sadly, however, history shows time and time again that the masses buy in to it. Sure, it’s sickening to watch, but it’s become a mainstay of partisan Republican politics. Until now. One presidential candidate, who I would have hoped was morally above using one of my most loathed political tactics decided to make the use of fearmongering bi-partisan.
Hillary Clinton’s newest campaign advertisement that has been airing in the upcoming primary states (Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont) explicitly uses fearmongering to scare up some extra votes. Don’t believe me? Watch it for yourself.
Whoever the final nominee of the Democratic Party ends up being, it sure would be tough to support someone who uses the same dirty tactics that helped elect George W Bush.
