The "Gas-Tax Holiday" is the Defining Issue of this Election
Sen. Obama has a put out a response ad that I believe is largely ineffective and walks into a trap that has been set by the Clinton campaign. In Sen. Obama's ad, he mocks the amount of money that the average driver will save on gas and decries the McCain-Clinton proposal as typical Washington game-playing [which is exactly what it is].
However, Sen. Obama has exposed his flank with the ad. It allows the Clinton campaign to respond with the kind of mock-outrage and tsk-tsk'ing for which they have no peers. The Clinton campaign response, which I'm paraphrasing, goes something like this:
Well, Sen. Obama might not think that $30 is much money, but to working families struggling to make their mortgage payments and put food on the table it's a welcome break.
The response plays right into the perceived weakness of Sen. Obama [which I happen to think is ludicrous]; which is, that he doesn't understand the struggles of blue-collar workers and cannot connect with them.
The intrepid folks here at TPM reported the spin from the Clinton campaign in today's conference call this way:
Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called "gas tax holiday"?
On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin claimed that the campaign's internal polling shows that it is.
"We're seeing in our polling that working people appreciate the fact that Senator Clinton understands the incredible economic strain they are facing," Garin said.
Also, Garin sought to spin one of the main arguments against the gas tax holiday -- the fact that it saves consumers a negligible amount on average -- as a further sign that Hillary's in touch with blue-collar workers.
"It may not seem like a lot to some people," Garin said, adding that "every penny counts."
The fact that Hillary supports the gas tax holiday because she understands that the meager average savings involved do matter to ordinary folks is likely to be core Hillary spin as the gas tax argument continues to unfold.
Sen. Obama needs to put out a response ad that basically squarely hits back on the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign spin. No one actually believes that Sen. Clinton thinks this is a prudent policy choice. However, because the Clinton campaign's internal polling shows that this is a good political issue, then Sen. Clinton is willing to crassly milk it for all its worth.
Never mind that no one actually believes that its a good idea. Sen. Obama should be hammering this issue because it plays right into the worst stereotype with regards to Sen. Clinton--and fairly, I believe. That is, that she is willing to do or say anything in order to win an election. That every decision she makes is not about what's best for America but rather what is best for her.
That she has the same position as John McCain on this issue.
That she was with John McCain in voting to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
That she was with John McCain in voting to authorize this disastrous war.
Why? Because she believed it was the right thing to do? No--it was because it was the politically expedient thing to do at the time for her; damn the consequences for the country.
That's why today's conference call should be so damaging to the Clinton campaign. Chief Strategist Geoff Garin only stated what the netroots community already knows: that the Clinton campaign is pushing this proposal because their internal polling tells them it helps Sen. Clinton now.
It's really this simple: Sen. Clinton is doing what she thinks is best for her; Sen. Obama is doing what he thinks is best for America.
Think about the question posed by TPM and the answer for America:
Is Hillary gaining politically by her support for a so-called "gas tax holiday?
When she wins; we lose.
Another point: What would keep the pump-price of gas from rising to the +tax level during that period, resulting in consumer's paying the same price as before, and in effect handing a bonus to the oil companies? Money that should have gone into the our infrastructure fund could go to oil companies instead.
May 1, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
When, of course, thinking that giving a working family or even a working individual $30 a month helps them at all is the real travesty. $30? Thanks for nothing.
May 2, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big oil is already making record profits - some of the highest we have ever seen since audited earning have been reported.
If Big oil's tax costs go down why should they lower their price when consumers have proven they are willing to pay the higher rate?
All this will do is transfer Federal Highway matching funds to the oil companies.
Without the Fedral Match States will cancel highway projects and cause more construction workers to be unemployed.
May 2, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink