Credit Where Due

This is the thing about the Clintons that drives some people bonkers, but I think it's pretty neat. In a piece of egregious political opportunism, John McCain's gotten behind the idiotic idea of a summer gas tax holiday. it's a terrible proposal, but it's hard to argue against politically. Barack Obama tries to take the high road in response:

Earlier Monday at a town-hall forum on economic issues, Sen. Obama rejected the proposal. "I've said I think John McCain's proposal for a three-month tax holiday is a bad idea," Sen. Obama said, warning consumers that any price cut would be short-lived before costs jump again.

That's great for a blog post, but for a campaign I like what Clinton's selling:

Speaking on CNN Monday night, New York's Sen. Clinton outlined a series of steps to address gas prices, including the release of oil from the country's strategic reserves. She said she would "also consider a gas-tax holiday, if we could make up the lost revenues from the Highway Trust Fund," which the federal gas tax supports. She didn't specify how those lost revenues would be recovered.

In other words, Clinton doesn't agree with McCain's idea. She'll do it only "if we could make up the lost revenues from the Highway Trust Fund." But we can't make up the lost revenues from the Highway Trust Fund, so she won't do it. And that's the right answer, but she's successfully confused most of the audience into thinking she does favor the holiday. Anyone who pays enough attention to realize she doesn't favor the holiday is probably high-information enough to realize that the holiday is a bad idea.

The strategic petroleum reserve thing, by contrast, is a tired hack ploy but the answer on the gas tax holiday is pure professionalism, a savvy veteran move to remind us that she still knows how the game is played.

Comments

You're getting soft, Matt.

Posted by gaucho | April 24, 2008 5:27 PM

But we can't make up the lost revenues from the Highway Trust Fund

Why not?

Posted by Al | April 24, 2008 5:27 PM

So it's like saying you support the Iraq war so long as we can get the French to go along?

When faced with the choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, voters choose the real Republican every time.

Posted by southpaw | April 24, 2008 5:31 PM

Sorry, i'd prefer the person who says the correct thing, not the politically weaselly thing.

We all know Hillary's one poll away from changing her rhetoric into solid support for the stupid idea.

Posted by Jon H | April 24, 2008 5:37 PM

One thing that I always liked about the Clintons is how they are able to show ordinary people how government affects their everyday lives and they did it without appearing as stereotypical liberals. HRC's statement is an example of this. Obama can learn about this.

Posted by Micheline | April 24, 2008 5:38 PM

See, I think this is much of the problem with Clinton. You can get away with promises you don't intend to deliver on for a while, but when you already have a reputation for duplicity, it's a very dangerous game.

It's an even bigger problem when issues of politics get into the mix---as you've said yourself, Clinton tries to work within the partisan frames we currently have, Obama tries to change them. And there's the rub: if you say you'd happily support a gas tax holiday if a six-legged pig can be found in the forest, you leave people feeling like you're taunting them (and if your opponent isn't demanding such onerous conditions, all the better for him). But if you can explain, and convince people, that a gas tax holiday is a bad idea, and people should instead be demanding bus service from their city, you've changed the whole debate.

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | April 24, 2008 5:38 PM

Wouldn't it be nice to have a president that was a little more of a straight shooter? You know, that was forthright?

Is it really a good thing that she's willing to let people believe she supports something she doesn't? And, when it doesn't happen, won't they be a little pissed?

Posted by Oaktown | April 24, 2008 5:38 PM

No, it's a bad idea, especially for progressives. You can't keep saying that taxes are an awful thing and we can cut them whenever we want to and nothing bad will happen. You need to make the argument that taxes are good when there is a good public investment that needs to be made.

Posted by Random Dude | April 24, 2008 5:40 PM

But Obama is campaigning exactly against that kind of effortless dishonesty. For him to make that kind of move would harm his own message. She's "politics as usual", and this is simply another case that proves it's true. Promise the world and don't worry about delivery.

Personally, I'd prefer somebody who can tell us that a major reason our oil prices are sky high is due to the weak dollar policy of the current administration. The Europeans are getting 1/3 off their oil simply due to exchange rate.

Posted by LFC | April 24, 2008 5:43 PM

So "pure professionalism"=shamelessness

Posted by John B. | April 24, 2008 5:43 PM

Taxes are never good. They are at best a necessary evil. Arguing that taxes are "good" is a surefire political loser.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 5:43 PM

See, I think this is much of the problem with Clinton. You can get away with promises you don't intend to deliver on for a while, but when you already have a reputation for duplicity, it's a very dangerous game.

It's an even bigger problem when issues of politics get into the mix---as you've said yourself, Clinton tries to work within the partisan frames we currently have, Obama tries to change them. And there's the rub: if you say you'd happily support a gas tax holiday if a six-legged pig can be found in the forest, you leave people feeling like you're taunting them (and if your opponent isn't demanding such onerous conditions, all the better for him). But if you can explain, and convince people, that a gas tax holiday is a bad idea, and people should instead be demanding bus service from their city, you've changed the whole debate.

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | April 24, 2008 5:44 PM

Those skills won't do her much good in hell, which is where she will be as soon as my prayers are answered.

Posted by HillaryistheDevil | April 24, 2008 5:45 PM

See, I think this is much of the problem with Clinton. You can get away with promises you don't intend to deliver on for a while, but when you already have a reputation for duplicity, it's a very dangerous game.

It's an even bigger problem when issues of politics get into the mix---as you've said yourself, Clinton tries to work within the partisan frames we currently have, Obama tries to change them. And there's the rub: if you say you'd happily support a gas tax holiday if a six-legged pig can be found in the forest, you leave people feeling like you're taunting them (and if your opponent isn't demanding such onerous conditions, all the better for him). But if you can explain, and convince people, that a gas tax holiday is a bad idea, and people should instead be demanding bus service from their city, you've changed the whole debate.

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | April 24, 2008 5:48 PM

Not to mention that she, as usual, starts by conceding the Republican viewpoint is correct, and then tries to throw up roadblocks to impede the Republicans' achieving their goal.

Bill Clinton was fairly successful at this in the 90's, but at the cost of undermining the rest of the party and with terrible long-term consequences. And Senator Clinton is no different, only less skilled at the practice.

Posted by Warren Terra | April 24, 2008 5:51 PM

Is this also like that cool way in which she voted to give Bush Jr. his Iraq war resolution but she really didn't want a war to happen, but then it did and pretty much no one believes her when she claims that's not why she voted the way she did? You know, because a lot of us think of the consequences of taking these not-too-clever by half approaches?

Posted by El Cid | April 24, 2008 5:55 PM

Crap. Sorry about multi-posting. Damn you, browser!

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | April 24, 2008 5:57 PM

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

-----

The story of '08 is all about Plouffe. He was very smart for a long time, and now he's been very dumb for a while.

In politics, the real pros shoot the wounded. You don't sit back, relax, and try to bank The Math.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 5:58 PM

I think Matt's right that, in this specific case, Clinton's response is better.

The problem with politically popular bad ideas is that they take time and energy to refute. Obama's response is so compressed that, even if it's technically correct, it doesn't do anything to shift the frame. He's just left saying, "I disagree" which is right on the merits, but doesn't accomplish anything in particular.

Posted by NickS | April 24, 2008 6:00 PM

Um, could Petey please point me to the evidence that Obama's campaign is sitting on its haunches, waiting for the convention?

It is true that only one campaign appears to be willing to metaphorically shoot the wounded, puppies and kittens, children, and anyone and anything else whose demise might somehow give them the slightest marginal increase in their chances of clawing back the nomination they threw away in January, no matter the longer-term consequences. But maybe that's because - as the real theme of this thread suggests - only one campaign really cares about the future of the Democratic party.

Hint: it's not the campaign metaphorically shooting everyone and everything in sight.

Posted by Warren Terra | April 24, 2008 6:05 PM

Don't you need to have some idea how savvy veterans actually think to be able to call this pitch? And aren't you like 26 years old?

Posted by Mike | April 24, 2008 6:06 PM

The cumulative effect of bullshit expediency is bullshit government.

I say give Obamaism a chance.

Posted by chris | April 24, 2008 6:09 PM

The gas tax holiday is the most inane idea I have heard yet.

I am unsure why the media does not jump on this comment and other comments McCain keeps making that are absolutely ridiculous.

Senator Clinton side stepped the issue saying "I might consider it". To suggest such an idea is the same as saying "we will just borrow more money". If you look at the financial shape of her campaign the latter statement may be closer to the truth.

Opening up the strategic reserve will not stop the rise in price of gasoline and senator Clinton knows that (or should). Oil has become a commodity that people are buying, speculating that the price will increase. If more oil becomes available this will make little difference since you must refine it to make gasoline.

Posted by Deward Bowles | April 24, 2008 6:09 PM

Sorry, but this is more triangulated bullshit. This is the sort of crap that leads to policies like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

No thanks. And Petey can suck it.

Posted by Jake | April 24, 2008 6:10 PM

Ugh. Support of deceit in the service of the game-as-it-is-currently-played. Pathetic.

Obama again lives up to his avowed goal of *changing* the way the game is player, and you, a self-described Obama supporter/leaner don't even realize you've missed the entire point.

Posted by sherifffriuitfly | April 24, 2008 6:11 PM

Hey guys, I hear on the news that Hillary was hacked to death with machetes today by an angry mob. Interestingly, her blood was green, proving her demonic origins. In any event, our long national nightmare is over.

Posted by Hillarywasthe Devil | April 24, 2008 6:14 PM

"Um, could Petey please point me to the evidence that Obama's campaign is sitting on its haunches, waiting for the convention? It is true that only one campaign appears to be willing to metaphorically shoot the wounded..."

You answer your own question.

And FWIW, the moment we're discussing has passed. The time for shooting the wounded was during February. The wounded ain't wounded no more.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 6:18 PM

I prefer the straighforward response. Lots of voters want their politicians to at least let them know where they stand, rather than having to guess how the politician is trying to hoodwink you.

I like my entertainers to be clever; I prefer that my politicians are honest.

Posted by blah | April 24, 2008 6:18 PM

Actually, the Republican proposal is to divert general fund revenues into the Highway Trust Fund to make up the difference. Of course, they don't intend to offset the spending so it'll just be added on to the deficit. The problem with Clinton's approach is that she won't have a good answer to this and we'll be in the familiar territory of "Dems just love those taxes."

Posted by DCMike | April 24, 2008 6:20 PM

I don't think it's unrealistic to agree with those (I think Digby) who noted that once you allow the Republicans to take the gas tax away, it will not come back, no matter what 'timeline' they put on it.

Of course, it would just be fine for the Republicans to have the gas tax 'temporarily' repealed and then by the time reality comes crashing back, it has to be re-imposed under a Democratic organization, thus helping to strengthen their Jimmy Carter II / Dolchstoßlegende strategy.

But, sure, YAY for Democratic leaders who seem to bolster Republican talking points! After all, countering them is complicated!

Posted by El Cid | April 24, 2008 6:22 PM

I love that Clinton plays low information voters for fools, that's just f-ing grand.

Posted by tom.a | April 24, 2008 6:26 PM

Well. Reading comprehension 1, Petey 0. Quelle surprise.

After all, his response only make sense if, like (apparently) him, you equate not descending into the worst of the slime pits in ways that threaten to fracture the Democratic party for a generation with not trying to win.

Well, I guess if you're the sort of blog commenter better known for their ad hominem attacks than for their engagement in rational or even civil debate, you wouldn't want to look at destructive campaign tactics with too jaundiced an eye, either.

Posted by Warren Terra | April 24, 2008 6:27 PM

Oops, my bad. Wishful thinking I guess. Though I did just send up another prayer for the death of the she devil. Here's hoping.

Posted by HillaryisstilltheDevil | April 24, 2008 6:28 PM

"But, sure, YAY for Democratic leaders who seem to bolster Republican talking points! After all, countering them is complicated!"

The real pros pick their spots.

Universal healthcare and Social Security are big deals in terms of the federal government. That's where you hold your ground. The gas tax is small potatoes in term of the federal government. That's where you pander.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 6:29 PM

That's exactly why this country is in the mess it is in right now. We need leaders that will frickin level with us and enlist us to make our lives better.

This is one of the many reasons that I support Barack Obama and have finally decided that I will not vote for the Clinton's under any circumstances. I will write-in Barack if she gets the nomination.

Posted by Jessica | April 24, 2008 6:32 PM

"I ... will not vote for the Clinton's under any circumstances. I will write-in Barack if she gets the nomination."

Expect a lot of this for the next couple of months.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 6:35 PM

According to the WSJ piece, Obama himself voted for a gas tax holiday when he was an Illinois senator.

And Obama's stated reasons in the piece for opposing the policy now don't make much sense. Yes, of course "any price cut would be short-lived before costs jump again." That's why it's called a tax holiday. So what?

And his claim that highway funds will be lost is simply false, if money is transferred from the general fund to cover the losses, as McCain has proposed.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 6:37 PM

Petey: Universal healthcare and Social Security are big deals in terms of the federal government. That's where you hold your ground. The gas tax is small potatoes in term of the federal government. That's where you pander.

Petey: in response to a question about how to deal with a future SS shortfall, there are two possible answers: "I'd raise the cap first" or "Everything is on the table". Hillary Clinton has the second position in public, and the first position when talking to primary voters when she doesn't think she's being recorded.

Petey, an advocate of intellectual honesty

Posted by hlah | April 24, 2008 6:46 PM

Expect a lot of this for the next couple of months.

Yes, Petey, in the incrdibly unlikely event that The Monster steals the nomination, you will, indeed, see a lot of it. Enough that the evil piece of shit will lose every one of the 50 states.

Me? If The Monster somehow gets the nomination, I'm not just going to vote for a thrid party, and, despite the fact that McCain is an evil madman who will destroy the country, I will vote for him, work for his election, and devote my life to defeating scum shit Hillary.

And I will laugh in your fucking face as the Democratic party implodes forever.

Of course, Obama will still almost certainly get the nomination. If the Democrats can put a figurative stake in The Monster's campaign in June, he will most likely win the presidency. If it goes all the way to the convention,it's going to be an uphill battle. Thanks to the worst human being in the history of this nation, Hillary Clinton.

And as for you Petey? Die painfully in a fire, asshole.

Posted by LarryM | April 24, 2008 6:47 PM

Pure professionalism? Orwell is rolling in his grave. In fact, I don't think we've left his corpse at peace much in the 50+ years since his death...

Posted by Eli B. | April 24, 2008 6:47 PM

Wow, that's 4 comments from Petey without a single phrase that rhymes with "crust-fund glumbag." Are you OK, dude?

Posted by too many steves | April 24, 2008 6:48 PM

Look, there may be things about Clinton's politics which I think are truly harmful, but still, at worst, far less harmful than another Republican president -- especially now, since there is nothing left of the Republican party but the kleptomaniac authoritarian hawk wing.

Posted by El Cid | April 24, 2008 6:48 PM

Scust Trund Funbags?

Posted by El Cid | April 24, 2008 6:52 PM

"Wow, that's 4 comments from Petey without a single phrase that rhymes with "crust-fund glumbag." Are you OK, dude?"

What's so funny 'bout peace love & understanding?

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 6:56 PM

"And I will laugh in your fucking face as the Democratic party implodes forever."

Barack gets the Naval Observatory. It's all good.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 7:00 PM

I guess Matt is out to confirm the stereotype of Obama supporters as elitist snobs. Only an elitist snob would admire the "political professionalism" of a politician succeeding in pulling the wool over the eyes of 80% of the public, while reveling in his own "high information" immunity from such shenanigans.

Fortunately, Obama himself doesn't fall into this category.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 24, 2008 7:00 PM

"Petey, an advocate of intellectual honesty"

I give you mad props, hlah, because you're a close reader.

And while I stand behind the large bulk of what I wrote in 2007, I did think at the time that Bruce Webb got the best of me in that particular thread.

I stand by my 95% accuracy rate. It's the margin of Petey error.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 7:04 PM

Anyone who pays enough attention to realize she doesn't favor the holiday is probably high-information enough to realize that the holiday is a bad idea.

Anyone who pays enough attention stopped listening to Clinton a while back.

Posted by converse | April 24, 2008 7:05 PM

I'm cynical enough to admit that sometimes a politician needs to duck an issue. But this exchange is good example of why Hillary Clinton is actually a poor politician: it is always completely obvious what she is doing. Indeed, I strongly suspect a person could know absolutely nothing about this issue and still figure out immediately that among the three candidates, Clinton is the one ducking the issue.

No, a true "professional" would find a way to duck this issue without it being obvious that was what was happening--and the best in the business could fool the likes of Matt (or, for that matter, me) into thinking they actually weren't ducking the issue, even when they were.

But Hillary is an amateur at best when it comes to politics, and it shows.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 7:06 PM

Pandering to the sheeple's lust for cheap gas trumps global warming & energy conservation every time.

Posted by kafka | April 24, 2008 7:12 PM

Actually, that's not how the game should be played. All Straight Talk McMaverick has to do is whip up some fuzzy math and say "Hey, we can make up those lost revenues," and suddenly Clinton is left with either caving or trying to fuzzy math herself out of the position. Not a good idea.

I stand by my 95% accuracy rate. It's the margin of Petey error.

5% right, 95% wrong - yeah, that sounds about right.

Posted by Doug H. (Fausto no more) | April 24, 2008 7:22 PM

Pandering to the sheeple's lust for cheap gas trumps global warming & energy conservation every time.

So that's the proper argument against McCain's proposal, is it? (It seems to keep changing.) Then Obama should make it, what with him being so honest and such a straight-talker and all.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 7:23 PM

Yes the Clintons are extremely adept at "playing the game". That's why I'm voting for Obama, who wants to change "the game" and has no interest in becoming adept at playing the existing one.

Posted by Keith from Oxford | April 24, 2008 7:29 PM

Barack gets the Naval Observatory. It's all good.

How generous of you to offer second prize to the frontrunner.

Posted by Marc | April 24, 2008 8:20 PM

Based on the article, Obama's argument appears to be that it is likely the current high prices are not temporary, and that studies done of the similar tax holiday he supported in Illinois back in 2000 ended up not actually saving consumers much money.

Seems like a pretty good argument to me.

Posted by DTM | April 24, 2008 8:30 PM

"How generous of you to offer second prize to the frontrunner."

In regards to "frontrunner", see my comment upthread.

In regards to "generous", I agree. I'd actually prefer someone like Ted Strickland in a lot of ways. But the upscale goo-goos should be kept happy. It's good politics, given that they're a reliable ATM.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2008 8:31 PM

Barack gets the Naval Observatory. It's all good.

Petey, you just don't get it. This isn't about Obama, this is about The Monster. I wouldn't vote for her if she was running against Satan himself, and any party that nominates the horrible creature would not deserve continued support from anyone. If she somehow steals the nomination, the Democratic party will die a richly deserved death, whoever happens to be the VP nominee.

Posted by LarryM | April 24, 2008 8:33 PM

Moreover, all you people congratulating The Monster on her political skills on this point really need to think about the implications of your approval. This kind of mislead-but-do-not-technically-lie is exactly the kind of shit that Bush and Cheney et. al. have been doing for 7 years, and exactly the kind of shit that has outraged you all for 7 years. Yet another reason why The Monster would be Bush 2.

Posted by LarryM | April 24, 2008 8:41 PM

DTM,

Based on the article, Obama's argument appears to be that it is likely the current high prices are not temporary, and that studies done of the similar tax holiday he supported in Illinois back in 2000 ended up not actually saving consumers much money. Seems like a pretty good argument to me.

What's good about it? So what if the current high prices are not temporary? And why does the fact that the tax holiday doesn't "guarantee" a benefit for consumers mean it's a bad idea? Few if any public policies are "guaranteed" to have their intended effects. It's a stupid argument.

Even more stupid is Obama's claim that his vote for a gas tax holiday in 2000 was justified because the price increase at that time represented "extraordinary circumstances." Gas was around $1.50/gallon then. Now it's nearly $4/gallon. Whether $1.50/gallon back then was "extraordinary," $4/gallon is unprecedented.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 8:59 PM

I for one prefer Obama's direct answer. We don't need more lies, deceptions, half truths, etc.

I am surprised that anyone would find Hillary's duplicity to be somewhat admirable.

As for her suggestion to tap the strategic reserve, that too is a very bad suggestion, and would be tantamount to the gas tax holiday in terms of foolishness.

Posted by cm | April 24, 2008 9:20 PM

The really honorable way out for Hillary would be to go on national television, announce the she is dropping out of the race, endorse Obama, and then blow her brains out with a shotgun.

Alas, I'm not betting on it.

Posted by HillaryistheDevil | April 24, 2008 10:13 PM

The tax holiday is one of most idiotic ideas ever. It will do nothing to lower prices as the refineries operate at full capacity anyway and whatever price decline from the gas tax repeal will be covered by the incline from extra demand.

So, we will be paying the same at the pump but with less money to spend on our highways. Awesome!

Posted by djslippyb | April 24, 2008 10:15 PM

The tax holiday is one of most idiotic ideas ever. It will do nothing to lower prices as the refineries operate at full capacity anyway and whatever price decline from the gas tax repeal will be covered by the incline from extra demand.

Good old liberal faith-based economics.

Do you have any actual, you know, evidence to support the empirical assertions in your argument above? Show us the evidence regarding the price elasticity of gas demand that supports your assertion that "the gas tax repeal will be covered by the incline from extra demand," for example.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 10:39 PM

In regards to "frontrunner", see my comment upthread.

Yes, that song quote really put me in my place. I had thought Barack Obama won more states and more delegates (and more people, as long as you don't disenfranchise his Michigan supporters), but Bob Dylan set me straight.

But the upscale goo-goos should be kept happy. It's good politics, given that they're a reliable ATM.

Wow, faux-chummy Petey is actually more offensive than "trust-fund scumbag" Petey.

I also appreciate the irony of a Clinton supporter posing as a class warrior fighting the upscale ATMs.

Posted by Marc | April 24, 2008 10:41 PM

This bugs me. Yes, it shows political mastery, but only that verbal kind of which we've had more than fill of over the past few years.

Additionally, you have the following problem: what if somebody does find a way to do it, however sneaky or self interested, and they just hide it somewhere in the tax code.

Then, if she opposes it, guess what comes up?

If you get too clever by half with what you say, this is the sort of crap that happens. Better to be honest.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty | April 24, 2008 10:45 PM

djslippyb,

Your argument is dumb. If the price of gas doesn't go down as a result of removing the tax, why will demand increase?

Posted by JeffS | April 24, 2008 10:49 PM

Show us the evidence regarding the price elasticity of gas demand that supports your assertion that "the gas tax repeal will be covered by the incline from extra demand," for example.

Well, they don't call it the dismal science for no reason but that's econ 101 supply and demand. I see one out in any economic theory and that would be the worlds out of oil and we are faced with a vertical supply curve in which case gas prices climb no matter what but that doesn't help McCain's gas tax plan much.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 24, 2008 10:54 PM

Gotta have that strategic oil reserve if you're gonna bomb Iran.

Not to keep the price down - I mean, that's why you're bombing Iran, right? But you need to release a few hundred gallons every day to CLAIM you're keeping the price down.

As for replacing the money lost through the gas tax holiday, how about SUCKING IT FROM THE MILITARY BUDGET since those fucktards are partly why the economy is in the toilet and definitely part of the reason the gas prices are so high. So let the military pay for it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 24, 2008 10:59 PM

Well, they don't call it the dismal science for no reason but that's econ 101 supply and demand.

Er, what is? I don't think you understand the point. Demand is generally not precisely correlated with price. Demand may change only slightly across significant changes in price. How sensitive to price is the demand for gas?

But slippy's argument is logically nonsensical, anyway, as JeffS pointed out.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 11:05 PM

Demand is generally not precisely correlated with price.

You apparently don't believe in economics.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 24, 2008 11:14 PM

I think you are trying to address elasticity. Well, for the first time since the 50's America reduced gas consumption last quarter. So there is without a doubt a price where people will curb driving. Orthodox economic theory (ironically especially neo-liberal theory which you probably instinctively cling to) says that tax or no tax that's what people will pay to do the amount of driving they do and will change consumption to maintain that equilibrium.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 24, 2008 11:21 PM

You apparently don't understand economics. You've really never heard of the price elasticity of demand?

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 11:22 PM

I think I addressed that above.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 24, 2008 11:25 PM

So there is without a doubt a price where people will curb driving. Orthodox economic theory (ironically especially neo-liberal theory which you probably instinctively cling to) says that tax or no tax that's what people will pay to do the amount of driving they do and will change consumption to maintain that equilibrium.

You are very confused. His argument is that if the price were reduced by removing the tax, demand would increase, which would drive the price back to its original value. But whether and to what degree demand would increase depends on the price elasticity of gas. What is the price elasticity of gas?

And if the price rose to the original level as a result of increased demand, why would the increased demand persist?

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 11:31 PM

And if the price rose to the original level as a result of increased demand, why would the increased demand persist?

Because the whole theory is based on a market theory that says that price is dictated by supply and demand. People will pay a certain amount for a product. When the price becomes onerous they will quit consuming as much at which point the producer has to reduce prices. This is elemental stuff. All I can image is that the fact that some portion of this price is taxes and that you have a hard time seperating this from normal prices but I assure you consumer behavior has no idea what gas taxes are and it's not a factor in the market result.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 24, 2008 11:41 PM

"...a savvy veteran Move to remind us that she still knows how the game is played."

Read on its own, doesn't this statement perfectly sum up Hillary? Ooo that Hillary is good.

Nevermind if what she says is truthful or sensible, so long as it's savvy or it works.

When the tactic works, the tactic becomes the story and Pouf! there's the next press cycle.

I just stand on the sidelines and Barf, but I'm nobody. Nobody screaming at the T.V. in my livingroom.

Posted by AKBY | April 24, 2008 11:41 PM

Because the whole theory is based on a market theory that says that price is dictated by supply and demand.

Huh? So if the price returns to the original price, why wouldn't the demand return to the original demand, instead of remaining higher than the original? Your "theory" makes no sense.

Posted by Mixner | April 25, 2008 12:08 AM

James Clyburn just burst this whole thing open. He said what I have been saying in these comments, but no one listens.

The idea that Obama cannot win poor whites now has to be countenanced with the pure fact that Black voters will not stand for this. Black voters are tired of being treated as a captive constituency of the Democratic party and this whole business about Obama being unelectable because of poor whites cannot be mentioned without stating that Hillary could very well be unelectable (and a large number of races down the ticket could suffer as well) because of what would smack of disenfranchisement of Black voters.

James Clyburn

“black people are incensed over all of this,”.... Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Clinton’s conduct in this campaign had caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him. “When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.” Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost “unanimous” view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were “committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win.”

I hate to sound like the angry minority, but watching and reading day after day that no one will take accout or even respect Democratic Black voters, the most loyal group of voters for any party over the past 40 years. It is crazy. Obama cannot win because he is or will be labelled as either Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, a Black seperatist, a secret muslim, a Marxist , etc. But no one has yet asked Blacks what they think about all of this.

Posted by Bubba | April 25, 2008 12:18 AM

You aren't getting it. You will pay a price for a product. A producer will demand a price. When the price is too high you won't buy it (or you will consume less as you can). If you consume less the price will reduce. Demand is not a static concept regarding gas consumption, if it's cheap we will use it. If it's not we will cut back (and have done so). I know you tried to throw in inelasticity but if it was true it would make even less of a difference. If we were really using every bit of gas we needed that couple dimes on a gallon of gas wouldn't matter an iota. Prices would be skyrocketing.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 25, 2008 12:25 AM

Bubba: amen to what you said! I really think the Clinton camp is working the press very hard to get them to report the Clinton talking points and ignore the black community.

It will be interesting to see how many major news outlets report this Clyburn story in any major way on Friday...or will they just kind of bury it?

I also agree that the black community has a seething anger towards the Clintons, and Hillary could not win this vote in the general election.

The saddest thing about the Clinton campaign is that it has legitimized racism and far right wing style of attacks far more than any Republican every could. And look at the way the cable networks are loading up on far right commentators...Rove, Snow...etc.

Now there's nothing wrong with an honest conservative on the air, but they are basically bringing in the same people who lied for Bush.

It's time we got mad as hell and told people we weren't going to take it any longer.

Posted by cm | April 25, 2008 12:27 AM

"Pure professionalism" on Hill's part. Kind of like the pure professionalism that sent Bill scurrying down to Arkansas to make sure that retarded black guy got executed.

Posted by phillygirl | April 25, 2008 1:00 AM

If Dems continue to let the Reps define the conversation, it's a neat thing.

If the Dems continue to cede the definition of terms to the Reps ala taxes are bad, liberal is a dirty word, elite is a nasty status it's a neat thing.

Course it's this kind of thinking that gets us a media that simply accepts and circulates the latest *good pol* talking points without question.

It's astonishing to me that the entire status quo structure doesn't get it that Obama's main appeal is changing our politics, changing how we and our leaders interact.

I, for one, am sick to death of neat political tricks. I want good government run by honest and good people more interested in what's good for the country than our own political behinds.

Posted by G Davis | April 25, 2008 1:12 AM

cm, I'm all for an old-fashioned revolution, where we send Bush, Dick, Condi, Rove, and all the other bastards to be tried for war crimes and beat the daylights out of Hannity, Rush, etc. (because AFAIK they haven't done anything illegal, just despicable), but we'd get crushed. The nation is just too apathetic and/or dumb.

Richard Steven Hack, you must be our V for Vendetta.

Posted by 55 | April 25, 2008 1:13 AM

And it's that "game" that we need to put an end to. Surprised to see you asking for more.

Posted by dwoodard | April 25, 2008 2:53 AM

As an Obama supporter I'm really sick of people calling Hillary Clinton a "monster," a "devil" or a "bitch." There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize her about without using chauvinistic language and playing into the idea that Obama supporters are sexist pigs.

In fact the only time I feel sympathy for Clinton is when I see all these misogynistic attacks on her - which fill me with so much feminist indignation that I have to remind myself she voted for the Iraq war and she's a terrible candidate.

One of the many things that inspires me about Obama is how civilized he's been through this whole freakshow of a campaign; why don't we try to follow his example?

Posted by Zoe | April 25, 2008 3:13 AM

As an Obama supporter I'm really sick of people calling Hillary Clinton a "monster," a "devil" or a "bitch." There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize her about without using chauvinistic language and playing into the idea that Obama supporters are sexist pigs.

In fact the only time I feel sympathy for Clinton is when I see all these misogynistic attacks on her - which fill me with so much feminist indignation that I have to remind myself she voted for the Iraq war and she's a terrible candidate.

One of the many things that inspires me about Obama is how civilized he's been through this whole freakshow of a campaign; why don't we try to follow his example?

Posted by Zoe | April 25, 2008 3:15 AM

Now you give a new anti-Clinton argument that I hadn't heard before "professionalism". Apparently if you show the weakness of professionalism you are not qualified to be president.

Fortunately, Obama hasn't shown that.

Posted by bernard | April 25, 2008 7:21 AM

The effects of a tax holiday on gas prices in the short and long terms are complex empirical questions. The primary short run question from a public policy perspective is the economic incidence of the tax during the holiday period, since to the extent producers would be paying the tax during the holiday period, that means they, and not consumers, would be the likely beneficiaries as a result of the tax holiday.

Some of the longer term issues (which are often associated with temporary tax measures in general, not just gas tax holidays) include increasing the complexity of the tax scheme and thus increasing administrative, enforcement, and compliance costs, causing cost uncertainty which leads to inefficient planning by both producers and consumers, inefficient crosstemporal distortions (e.g., people may try to stockpile during the tax holiday, which is particularly problematic if the tax holiday is scheduled during a peak usage period), and so on. All of these issues help explain why tax economists usually strongly favor permanent tax measures as opposed to temporary tax measures.

For a few academic studies of some of the relevant issues, see:

Joseph J. Doyle and Krislert Samphantharak, “$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 12266 (May 2006).

Hayley Chouinard and Jeffrey Perloff, “Incidence of Federal and State Gasoline Taxes,” Economics Letters (April 2004).

Richard R. Hawkins and John L. Mikesell, “Six Reasons to Hate Your Sales Tax Holiday,” State Tax Notes (March 5, 2001).

Arthur P. Hall, “The Cost of Unstable Tax Laws” Tax Foundation Special Report No. 41 (October 1994).

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 7:32 AM

RE: Zoe

Who here called Hillary Clinton a "bitch"? Nobody.

Who was being chauvinistic?

Posted by DDP | April 25, 2008 8:32 AM

RE: 55

We need not have a revolution. We just need to convince people to elect those that have a respect for the rule of law and justice.

Putting key players in the current administration should not be difficult considering that they have - in very real terms - broken the law. This does not require revolution...merely adherence to laws that have been in place which protect the people and the other branches of government from the executive branch.

Posted by DDP | April 25, 2008 8:38 AM

Hey Zoe,

I agree about Bitch. I never have or would call her that. Nor has anyone in this thread.

But "devil" and "monster" happen to be completely gender neutral and non-chauvinistic, and, more to the point, entirety accurate terms. So I will continue to use them, and encourage others to do so as well.

Posted by LarryM | April 25, 2008 8:44 AM

Sorry,

Putting key players in the current administration on trial should not be difficult.

And when I say should not, I don't mean to say that it is possible in the short term...it isn't. Only that, if we hadn't strayed so far away from adherence to our set of laws and values, it should have been easy to do so.

And I find your view of beating talking heads for things that they have said to be utterly repugnant, and is a good illustration of why they are so successful.

Posted by DDP | April 25, 2008 8:44 AM

Me? If The Monster somehow gets the nomination, I'm not just going to vote for a thrid party, and, despite the fact that McCain is an evil madman who will destroy the country, I will vote for him, work for his election, and devote my life to defeating scum shit Hillary.

LarryM, I don't prefer Clinton either but this position of yours is the absolute height of political vanity. Screw all the Americans and foreigners who'd die in McCain's wars, the women who'd lose their rights to control their own bodies and to sue for equal pay from his SCOTUS appointees, all those who'd suffer from more disastrous Republican economic policies. You have an irrational loathing for one politician and so the rest of the country can burn. What are you, six years old?

Shit like this is why I used to consider myself a Hillary supporter (before Iowa) -- she seemed the likeliest to win and yet the nets were full of deranged Dems who insisted they'd never vote for her, and would prefer instead to consign the country to four more years of Republican rule. It makes no sense to me. Either you're a liberal, and you believe progress is possible through the actions of imperfect but well-intentioned political movements (and note by electing a Dem President, whoever it is, you're also empowering Democrats in Congress), or you're a Marxist, and you believe things must get worse, and more people must suffer, before they can get better. You can't switch from being one to being the other just because your preferred Democrat doesn't get nominated. Or at least, if you do, it shows you've got no coherent political world view at all.

Fortunately morons like LarryM are unlikely to have to carry through on their juvenile threats.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 9:10 AM

LarryM, I don't prefer Clinton either but this position of yours is the absolute height of political vanity. Screw all the Americans and foreigners who'd die in McCain's wars, the women who'd lose their rights to control their own bodies and to sue for equal pay from his SCOTUS appointees, all those who'd suffer from more disastrous Republican economic policies. You have an irrational loathing for one politician and so the rest of the country can burn. What are you, six years old?

All of this can be said of Hillary and her zombie supporters. She has almost no chance of winning and yet she's helping McCain and the Republicans by tearing down Obama. Obama's record is similar to Hillary's, in fact it's better. Why is she still in the race is the question I have for the anti-Obama trolls.

Posted by Peter K | April 25, 2008 10:33 AM

It might be political vanity for someone who agrees with Hillary on every issue to vote against her. But I would argue that it would not be vanity at all for African Americans to vote against her or not turn out at all. Because the posure and practice of her campaign has been one that is completely racially polarizing and as Clyburn points out, this is pretty much acknowledged by the entire Black community. I remember when George W Bush won the election and everyone was shocked, shocked that he was so conservative and Bush replied, that he campaigned as a conservative so it is too bad if you thought he was anything but.

Well in terms of racial politics, how has Hillary campaigned? And how has McCain campaigned? If that is an issue that is important to you, it seems that if Hillary got the nomination, the choice right now would be clear as day.

Posted by Bubba | April 25, 2008 10:52 AM

Not even Petey, probably the most prominent of what you call "anti-Obama trolls", has said (to my knowledge) that he would refuse to vote for Obama in the general and/or would work to elect McCain. By contrast the Democratic environs of the net are full of people (like LarryM) who say they'd refuse to vote for Clinton and/or would vote for McCain ahead of her.

I agree that some Clinton supporters and the campaign itself have lost perspective on what's important and what's possible at this point, but Clinton Derangement Syndrome is still a much more pervasive and deep-rooted problem among Democrats, and it takes more extreme forms.

Fortunately its worst implications are unlikely to be realized since she appears unlikely to emerge as the nominee.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 10:58 AM

Why does Hillary have no chance of winning? As someone still on the fence, what's important to me is that the democratic candidate wins. On this basis, it seems to me that the simple logic, who wins Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, wins the election, seems pretty compelling.I prefer Obama as a person, but I don't particularly need to vote for somebody I "like," and I certaintly don't want politics to "save" me. We've seen "revolutionary," feel-good candidates before in the history of the democratic party. They were not successful, for the country or the party. It seems obvious to me that the race is close because there is a serious issue as to who could win and be the more effective president. Let's have that debate and try not to pour scorn on either side.

Posted by greg | April 25, 2008 11:15 AM

Ryan,

Family and other obligations prevent a full response, but briefly:

(1) You argument relies upon a belief that the Monster would make a significantly better president for "progressive" causes. But that belief is laughably mistaken. The Monster would be as bad as McCain on foreign affairs, worse on presidential power, worse on Civil liberties, and more corrupt and dishonest than even McCain, not that I buy that stright talker crap for even a second.

On domestic policy she might be a tiny bit better, but between the fact that a Democratic congress would restrain McCain's worse instincts, and the fact that my own left libertarianish inclinations make me less inclined to favor some of the Monster's big policy initiatives, all that really means ultimately is judges.

And as important as Roe v. Wade and other judicial issues are, i'm not voting for a corrupt piece of shit like Hillary on that issue alone. it isn't enough; it doesn't begin to be enough.

(2) Electing the Monster, especially as a Democrat, will poison the body politic in such a way as to make it even harder to elect sane, non-demonic people going forward. The message will be: the way to win the presidency is to enage in tactics that make Nixon and Rove look like choir boys by comparison. It will also send the message that the candidate who most effectively uses fear to get people to vote for him or her will be elected president. We can not let those messages be sent at any price.

Posted by LarryM | April 25, 2008 11:15 AM

Bubba:

But I would argue that it would not be vanity at all for African Americans to vote against her or not turn out at all. Because the posure and practice of her campaign has been one that is completely racially polarizing

Yes, you could make that case. But the Clinton hatred I'm talking about has been around among Dems since long before any of the racially offensive crap came out of the Clinton campaign. Indeed, I remember fighting it here back when polls showed Clinton was still the favorite among black Americans. I think of it as basically a phenomenon of impressionable, politically immature white folks. (And again, I'm talking about the Clinton hatred that says 'torpedo the party and any chance of even incremental progress rather than vote for the bitch'.)

Well in terms of racial politics, how has Hillary campaigned? And how has McCain campaigned?

To any black person who made this argument to me, I would point out that McCain has hardly been tested on racial matters. He hasn't had a black opponent and (like all Republicans) he basically hasn't gone campaigning for black votes. Meanwhile he campaigns with a guy who thinks New Orleans got what it deserved. What makes you thnk he's a liberal on race? And you have to think about how his policies -- and those of the Republicans in Congress whom a McCain presidency would empower -- would affect black people.

Again -- I say all this as an Obama supporter. I just bristle at all this 'Hillary is the devil' shit because ultimately it's an argument for Naderism which is a tendency I wish Dems would grow out of.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 11:20 AM

Even more briefly, LarryM:

You argument relies upon a belief that the Monster would make a significantly better president [than McCain] for "progressive" causes.

Yes, it does, and yes, she would. I find it astonishing that anyone could think otherwise.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 11:29 AM

I find it astonishing that anyone could think otherwise.

And I find it astonishing that anyone could think that she would.

She is Nixon 2, only far worse. (yes, I know I said Bush 2. That's a defensible analogy as well, but for historical reasons I think the Nixon analogy makes much more sense).

Posted by LarryM | April 25, 2008 11:36 AM

DDP, the Hannity comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. But I have to admit, if he was getting his ass kicked, I would definitely watch.

As for getting the criminals to trial- I have no faith in our government anymore to do that. I can't believe there hasn't even been consideration of an impeachment hearing from anyone outside of Kucinich.

Posted by 55 | April 25, 2008 11:49 AM

Well, let me just join the crowd that will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. Otherwise I stay home so as not to sanction any more of the BS that has characterized US politics my entire adult life.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 11:59 AM

I just want to note it can be a legitimately tough call for partisans whether or not to support a given nominee they think is a poor choice. The argument usually boils down to a short-term versus long-term issue: in the short-term, the other party's nominee is likely to be even worse (assuming you had good reasons for being a partisan in the first place). But in the long-term, you may benefit by punishing your party for choosing a poor nominee, insofar as that may lead to your party choosing better nominees in the future.

And in this situation, I think all that leads to several complications. For example, in addition to whatever merits one might see in Clinton and Obama individually, their contest has raised several process issues which are likely to have long-term implications for the Democratic Party. So, I could see reasonable Democrats making their support for their non-preferred candidate conditional on the basis of whether or not that non-preferred candidate got the nomination in a way they found acceptable. Again, that could make sense insofar as they thought it was necessary for the sake of the long term to punish the Party if it used an unacceptable nomination procedure.

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 12:03 PM

LarryM,

Well, I guess there's no arguing with a fanatical faith. That's some crystal ball you've got there, giving you such insight into how she's act in office. I say, we can't predict the future with anywhere near the certitude you claim, but projecting from the past and present, I rely on Occam's razor: She's a Democrat, she'd appoint Democrats, she'd empower Democrats in Congress, the policies she's said she wants to pursue are much, much more progressive than those McCain has said he wants to puruse. It's a no-brainer: of course she'd be a more progressive President. But if you think all that conceals some deep, dark conspiratorial scheme on her part to destroy the Republic and amass dictatorial powers, I guess there's no arguing with you. For me, the tendencies toward corruption, dishonesty, power-hungriness etc. that she's displayed in her past are very much in the median range for powerful politicians of both parties. And everyone knows the media and (as a last resort) SCOTUS don't let Democratic Presidents get away with shit like that anyway.

Fortunately and unfortunately, the other reason I'll never be able to prove you wrong is she's very unlikely ever to be President.

Finally, this sort of thing:

Otherwise I stay home so as not to sanction any more of the BS

and this:

Electing the Monster ... will also send the message that the candidate who most effectively uses fear to get people to vote for him or her will be elected president.

is noble but ultimately pathetic. Whom do you think you're sending a message to? Do you think the political elites care about what you personally do and don't "sanction"? I'm sure leftist Nader voters though they were sending a message by nobly refusing to vote for Gore the imperfect Democrat. Do you see any sign that that message was received by anyone? Do you think their message altered George W. Bush's conduct in office one bit? Meanwhile, consider the real-world consequences of the last eight years. If you actually care about your country and the other people who live in it who are more vulnerable than you, you hold your nose and you vote for the least-bad option, because otherwise -- even if all you do is stay home -- what you're "sanctioning" is something worse.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 12:21 PM

So, I could see reasonable Democrats making their support for their non-preferred candidate conditional on the basis of whether or not that non-preferred candidate got the nomination in a way they found acceptable.

I could certainly see it (and for me, a superdelegate 'coup' overturning an elected delegate majority would be very, very bad -- i.e. give the outcome a serious stink of illegitimacy), but ultimately I'd argue against 'punishing' the party by not voting for its nominee in such a case. The country and one's fellow Americans are more important than the party, and the short term is more important than the long term. To be a bit flippant: (no time for a longer argument) the short term has real people living in it; the long term only has hypothetical people in it.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 12:33 PM

Ryan,

I have to admit that your argument, written under time-constraints or not, makes absolutely no sense to me. If the long term in question was something like 10,000 years in the future, I might agree. But if you are talking about a long term that will start all of four years away (meaning that is the next time your party might be selecting a presidential nominee), then I don't see how the people in the long term are notably less real than the people in the short term, and indeed they will mostly be the same people.

And I might note this is a classic game theory problem. To summarize, if you do indeed refuse to consider the long term as a general proposition, you then become subject to manipulation by people willing to sacrifice some immediate benefits in the short term for long term strategic benefits. That results in a situation where through an ongoing series of short-term-only decisions, you will end up with a much worse overall outcome for you, and those who were manipulating you will get the benefit of your short-term focus.

That doesn't mean, of course, that one must necessarily conclude that this is the right situation in which to discipline their Party. But refusing to even consider doing it? That basically amounts to giving up control over your Party to those willing to think more long term.

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 12:56 PM

Ryan, think what you will, pathetic or not. The simple fact of the matter is that I would not have voted for Hillary Clinton irrespective of whether there was an alternative to her or not.

Nor will I vote for John McCain. I have never voted for a presidential candidate in my life and I am 56 years old.

There has never been a candidate that met my minimum threshold of acceptability. I do not vote for candidates who do not meet my minimums.

I will vote for Barack Obama because he meets my criteria.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 1:11 PM

To be crude and necessarily brief about it: decisions taken in the short term constrain and foreclose possibilities in the long term. To use the crudest examples: Iranians nuked by John McCain cannot be un-nuked four years from now. SCOTUS apppointments he makes cannot be un-appointed four years from now. American kids who die for lack of UHC (for sake of argument; I don't actually think Hillary could achieve this) cannot be made un-dead four years from now.

Four more years of a GOP Presidency can make many things much worse and also hard for a hypotehtically 'purer', better future Democrat to walk back. That's all I mean.

Do all you can to prevent a bad Democrat being nominated. But if they are, you still gotta vote for them in my view.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 1:18 PM

There has never been a candidate that met my minimum threshold of acceptability. I do not vote for candidates who do not meet my minimums.

Must be nice to be able, with clean conscience, to disregard the negative consequences which your nobly high standards may have for the lives of the rest of us.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 1:24 PM

Ryan, let me propose a hypothetical. If there were a candidate who thought we should execute 1 million people who hold the "wrong" sort of views per year and another candidate who thought we should execute only 500K of them, would you vote for the lesser of two evils? You neglect the possibility of there being issues of such import that no person with personal integrity could vote for either of them.

Think nuclear weapons, even for ostensibly defensive purposes, and then put yourself in my shoes.

My grandfather gave me some really good advice when I was eleven. He told me not to pay attention to what other people think until they demonstrate some capacity for thought. I could give a rip what most politicians think of me.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 1:31 PM

Ryan, let me propose a hypothetical. If there were a candidate who thought we should execute 1 million people who hold the "wrong" sort of views per year and another candidate who thought we should execute only 500K of them, would you vote for the lesser of two evils?

Well, then I think I would emigrate! But that's not anything like the situation we've faced or are facing in this country.

You neglect the possibility of there being issues of such import that no person with personal integrity could vote for either of them. Think nuclear weapons, even for ostensibly defensive purposes, and then put yourself in my shoes.

Oh I'm sure there are some people driven by their views of such issues. But I maintain if you're one of those people, you're not acting like a citizen -- more of a disengaged moral absolutist. Which is your right, but it's inherently dismissive of the concerns, rights, needs etc. of other human beings.

Posted by Ryan | April 25, 2008 1:38 PM

I'll make a deal with them. When they stop being dismissive of my concerns, needs, rights, etc. I will return the favor.

If there were a way to vote with my feet I would have done so long ago. Unfortunately, faster than light drives haven't been invented yet.

Yes, moral absolutist, that is exactly what I am, I admit it, I plead guilty to it, I confess. I do not have a right to throw a hand grenade into a crowd of innocent people simply because someone in the crowd is throwing hand grenades at me. If I don't have that right, then neither does any state. States can only have rights that are assigned to them by the people who comprise the state.

Look, you can try all you want to to pin the stupidity of American politics on me. People get what they vote for or what they are willing to tolerate. Myself included.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 1:49 PM

DTM, the long term in politics, even if by "long term" you mean as little as four years, is not very predictable. To the extent that the effects of a McCain victory in 2008 are predictable, it's that the Republicans will have the advantage of incumbancy in 2012, and thus will be more likely to win that year. But other than that, I don't think that the the effects of a McCain victory on future elections are predictable enough for it to be rational to vote in the current election based on such predictions.

The game theory you cite assumes the ability to predict the future. If the future is not predictable, then it is not possible to obtain long term strategic benefits by sacrificing short term benefits.

To reiterate an example used by Ryan, I don't see any indication that the Nader voters have had any success in manipulating the rest of the Democratic party. As an Edwards supporter, I wish they had succeeded in pushing the party to the left for this election, but instead the nomination is going to Obama. I don't have anything against Obama: the political center is where you have to go to get votes, and Obama is a highly talented individual who could possibly end up being a great president. But as far as I can tell, the only effect of the Nader voters on the politics of this country was to play a role in bringing us eight years of Bush.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | April 25, 2008 2:46 PM

Kenneth Almquist, excellent post. However, are we sure the long term is not predictable? In respect to specifics, I suspect you are correct. In respect to the broad brush, I am not convinced you are correct.

Would it not be the case that discounting the long view for the reasons you suggest would necessarily lead to a downward spiral engendered by increasingly short term thinking? I ask because this is what it seems we have at present.

I am not pretending there was some Golden Age, where things were hunky dory AOK. I am simply wondering if principled stands might not serve as a bulwark against such possibilities.

To use game theory terms for a second, in interactions that can be relied upon with some confidence to be durably iterated, where expense or the impracticality of prediction is a major factor, might a shared set of principles, clung to without the support of clear predictions, offer an organizing framework for the iterations that increase the payoff for all interactors?

I ask because I think this is exactly the role we ask notions of civic participation and social responsibility to play.

Posted by swells | April 25, 2008 3:07 PM

Ryan,

Again, I am not taking on the burden of arguing that in this particular situation, a Democrat dissatified with Clinton should not vote for her. But to be equally brief, a blanket refusal to ever consider disciplining your own Party could in the long run also lead to more War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death.

Kenneth Almquist,

Predictability is not a yes or no proposition. The future is indeed difficult to predict accurately, and generally the farther out in time, the less accurate your predictions. But the game theory in question does not assume perfect predictability, but rather it assumes conditions of uncertainty. In fact, that is part of why this game actually has real world applications: if you knew for certain what the future would hold, you would probably be harder to manipulate by long-term thinkers. But since you don't know for certain what the future will hold, that gives you the psychological room you need to discount the future to zero. But the longer you play the game, the greater the cumulative probability that the future will end up reasonably close to what the strategic thinkers predicted in some period, allowing them to achieve a dominant position.

By the way, I personally think that regardless of what you may feel about Obama in particular, the Democratic Party as a whole has been recentered to the "left" on several issues since 2000, including health care and the environment. I wouldn't attribute all of that to Nader specifically, but I do think the "left" of the Party has become sufficiently well-organized since 2000 that it can now issue credible threats, and those credible threats are disciplining the Party, and hence helping to recenter it "leftward".

Posted by DTM | April 25, 2008 4:15 PM

Ryan, there is plenty in your posts that is dead wrong (well, most everything) though I don't have the time or inclination to make proper counterarguments, especially when much of it is (barely) in the realm of where reasonable people may differ. There are, though, at least two comments you made that are IMO borderline delusional:

She's a Democrat, she'd appoint Democrats, she'd empower Democrats in Congress, the policies she's said she wants to pursue are much, much more progressive than those McCain has said he wants to puruse.

Ah, she is a Democrat - yeah, let's let that fact trump her actual actions and words. But more to the point, while I, unlike the Naderites, will grant that, in the great sweep of recent history, there has, on some domestic issues, been some rather strong differences between the parties, if you look over the course of the post WW II years, it's clear to any objective observer that the Dems have not been even 1% better than the Republicans on foreign policy. And that has been particularly true over the past 7 years.

Now on that point I realize that you are in agreement with most of our fellow citezens - but there have been plenty of times in history when nations have fallen prey to mass delusions. This is one of them.

For me, the tendencies toward corruption, dishonesty, power-hungriness etc. that she's displayed in her past are very much in the median range for powerful politicians of both parties.

Words fail me. That you can actually write that with a straight face (well, maybe you can't) wrecks the credibility of everything else you write.

In any event, I hope that the devil monster strokes out today, and suffers the fires of hell for all eternity.

Posted by LarryM | April 25, 2008 4:43 PM

From Clinton's most recent ad in Indiana(http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clinton_Cost.html):

Announcer:
These days, it costs fifty bucks to fill up the tank.

How can Indiana families afford that?

Hillary Clinton knows it's time to act, take some of the windfall profits of big oil to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer, investigate the oil giants for price gouging and collusion.

Make the oil companies invest in new clean energy sources to free us from foreign oil and bring gas prices down to earth.

With gas this expensive, talk is cheap.

It's time for leadership.

Posted by Stefan | April 26, 2008 7:43 AM

wow

as Stefan pointed out above, you couldn't have been more wrong on this one

Posted by davidv | April 26, 2008 2:28 PM

Demand for gas is sufficiently inelastic, and the distribution system sufficiently diffuse, that it would be a little tricky for the oil companies to completely trouser the entire "giveaway" from a "holiday."

I have a more basic objection to the holiday idea; our transportation systems are underfunded enough as it is, and I do not see the benefit of making them even more underfunded.

Other question. Why no speculation or discussion on the state of the futures market? I realize that with inelastic demand for a commodity, prices are prone to spiking with minimal effort, but a more than doubling of the wholesale price in a year? Ditto the food.

Any suggestions from posters on the thread of what is driving the futures markets?

Posted by DBX | April 27, 2008 5:52 PM