The Full Bush

Howard Wolfson responds to the fact that nobody thinks a gas tax holiday would be a good idea:

“There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with,” spokesperson Howard Wolfson said. “And there are times they will take a position that quote-unquote experts do not agree with.”

That seems eerily reminiscent of a certain least-popular president ever's attitude toward governance. What happened to the idea that Clinton is the candidate of policy substance, competence, and experience?

Comments

Yes, damn all those elitist PhD eggheads with their fuzzy math.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 2, 2008 11:13 AM

What happened to the idea that Clinton is the candidate of policy substance, competence, and experience?

It was just another bullshit talking point pushed by the Clinton campaign (and swallowed in due course by the online bloggerati).

Posted by strasmangelo jones | May 2, 2008 11:16 AM

And there are times, infrequent as they might be, where campaigns' policies attempt to write a $10 billion check to the obviously overburdened and victimized oil industries.

I do appreciate their non-expert stand, though. It actually explains the existence of Wolfson and Penn and their multi-million gravy train.

Posted by norbizness | May 2, 2008 11:16 AM

Well, I guess I can file this into my ever-growing reasons for not voting in November if it's Clinton-McCain

I can play three games of pool. Three! Now that's fresh.

Posted by Andy | May 2, 2008 11:19 AM

"Quote-unquote experts."

What a tool.

Posted by Trigger | May 2, 2008 11:22 AM

There are times that a president will take a position that a broad support of quote-unquote experts agree with, and there are times that Hillary will do, say, or drink whatever is necessary to win votes. But she's the one with experience.

Posted by Michael S | May 2, 2008 11:24 AM

Plus, wouldn't 'quote-unquote experts' read '"" experts'? Shouldn't it be 'quote-experts-unquote'? What a massive douchenozzle!

Posted by norbizness | May 2, 2008 11:25 AM

You, of all people, should know to be skeptical of what the "expert" consensus is.

Not that I agree with Clinton's position, it is an obvious pander, but next time Democrats propose something and a bunch of neoclassical economists have a collective freak out, I'm sure you won't want everyone to have that same deference to them.

Or when the foreign policy establishment reaches the consensus that we should just stay in Iraq for another six months, are you going to be happy that President Obama goes along with them?

I'm not trying to say that experts don't have their place, but their job isn't to veto popular policies.

Posted by Sam L | May 2, 2008 11:29 AM

Clinton's quote-unquote policies make sense if she's come to believe, after the primaries she's won, that her core constituency is the moron vote. She should hope that morons nationwide don't figure this out, because they ought to be really insulted.

I don't think she's proved that she's fully committed to winning, though, until she also has an affair with Monica Lewinsky and then passes out from chugging ethanol out of her limo's gas tank.

Posted by Sittin' on the Electric Fence | May 2, 2008 11:37 AM

it's funny that Obama's supporters are pushing this line. should we ask these experts if they think the ridiculous pander of a "windfall" profits tax on oil companies is a good idea? want to guess the answer?

Posted by Thomas | May 2, 2008 11:37 AM

Sam L:

"I'm not trying to say that experts don't have their place, but their job isn't to veto popular policies."

No, but I would hope that that might occasionally be a political leader's job, along with explaining why the particular policy is misguided.

Posted by Blue Valentine | May 2, 2008 11:37 AM

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/01/costello.no.bridge.tax.cnn?iref=videosearch

Posted by CNN fisks Hillary | May 2, 2008 11:38 AM

The problem isn't Clinton believing in the merits of a plan which some, or even most, experts in the field thinks is a bad idea. The problem is that Wolfson's response is largely dismissive of the very idea of trying to figure out whether McCain's plan is likely to be beneficial. Which is what makes people like me believe that Clinton isn't supporting this plan because she actually believes it is a good idea, but rather for personal political gain.

Posted by DTM | May 2, 2008 11:39 AM

On the other hand, bashing "quote-unquote experts" and other people with a higher education is a good way to troll for votes in Indiana. And I say that as a true Hoosier in the Mickey Kantor sense of the word.

It's a real problem for Indiana and other rust belt areas: they actively belittle and run off the very people who could start new industries and create new types of jobs. "We don't want change," one Hoosier was quoted in the Times recently. "We just want the old ways back." Good luck with that.

Posted by jlw | May 2, 2008 11:40 AM

It's bad enough she's trying to buy my vote, but I'm insulted she thinks I'd sell out so cheap.

Posted by heedless | May 2, 2008 11:46 AM

And aren't we lucky that BushCheney were heartened by Matt quote-unquote expert Yglesias' support for the Iraq war?
Gee, our history is replete with the quote-unquote experts always being right especially about the economy now aren't we!
What the silly wabbit "progressives" refuse to see is that governance is not some yawn of a symposium at Harvard with a bunch of quote -unquote experts telling the rest of us smucks what is right though I know that is Matt's desire for us all.
Yes Matt, politicians pander to voters. Surprise!
The repulsive thing here is the pretense that Obama doesn't.
Wright is instructive for one thing above all... the episode has revealed just what a liar and fraud and panderer Obama is. He puts his competition in the shade.
Gee, back in Philadelphia Race Speech time the progressives called me a racist because I called for Obama to denounce Wright and his "theology" and worse was subjected to tedious lectures about how "it's a black thing" and really all my fault from Obama himself.
Remember how Obama could no more denounce Wright than he could his granny though he went on to throw her under the bus two paragraphs later?
Two weeks later and Obama stages his own denunciation of Wright and suddenly it is all different and all good wittle progressives must denounce Wright. Not a black thing no mo' is it?
What effin hypocrites... good little bots responding to the latest dictat from their very own Charlie Manson, a bunch of 30's Stalinists toeing the party line no matter the absurdities...
And you think we are going to turn our country over to your petty stupidity? Really?

Posted by JTHB | May 2, 2008 11:52 AM

Sam L -

I don't think you can use Iraq as a good example of the "experts" being wrong. It's true that much of the so-called foreign policy establishment was wrong on that one, but many of those people are Iraq experts only in their own mind.

Most of the real experts had a different perspective. However, that perspective was marginalized in the mainstream dialogue, and deliberately excluded within the Bush administration.

Posted by N | May 2, 2008 11:56 AM

Hey everybody, be sure not to miss out on Marc Ambinder's latest bit of wisdom. Here's a tid-bit for you.

Incidentally, when some critics say "report," they really mean "mention" or "put on your blog." Two different things. Reporting entails an open mind and contacting sources; putting it on a blog entails a few mindless keystrokes. I do both, although I check everything I post, and I find it funny when partisans congratulate me for "reporting" on something when all I've really done is to give it a brief mention, as if the very presence alone is all that's required.

Ambinder can't acknowledge the possibility that the *reason* why his readers can't tell the difference between his "reporting" and his "mentioning" something is that the two often seem to be indistinguishable. Why did he ever disable comments? What will I do with my late mornings now?

Posted by wj | May 2, 2008 11:58 AM

should we ask these experts if they think the ridiculous pander of a "windfall" profits tax on oil companies is a good idea? want to guess the answer?

YES! FOR GOD'S SAKE, YES! I'd love to see Obama challenged on any and all of his policy positions. That one in particular because I don't agree with it (though I do agree with his statement that we should yank oil company tax breaks when they're making record profits). Make him defend them. I want to see the same for McCain and Clinton too.

It's a testimony to the stupidity of the mainstream news and their consumers that it takes a policy idea as bad as the gas tax holiday to get them to talk about something remotely substantive. To quote Michael Bloomberg on this proposal:

"It’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time from an economic point of view. I don’t understand why you think there’s any merit to it whatsoever. We’re trying to discourage people from driving and we’re trying to end our energy dependence. We don’t do that -- oh, and incidentally, we’re trying to have more money to build infrastructure. All three of those things go fly in the face of giving everybody $30 a year. The $30 bucks is not going to change anybody’s lifestyle. The billions of dollars that we would otherwise have in tax revenues can make a big difference as to what kind of a world we leave our children."

Posted by LFC | May 2, 2008 12:03 PM

Thanks, CNN fisks Hillary! Great video. If even CNN is looking skeptically at her crass pander, you have to believe that this is an issue that could come back to bite her. Obama really does need to hit this hard and every single day.

Posted by Howard B. | May 2, 2008 12:03 PM

The difference between the McCain fellow's support for a gas tax holiday and the Clinton lady's support for a gas tax holiday - in case it's unclear - is that while we know the Clinton lady knows this is only a short term measure and no substitute for a long term solution to the energy crisis we can't be sure that this is not the extent of the McCain fellow's energy policy.

Posted by Linus | May 2, 2008 12:05 PM

Linus, no, that's not it at all. It isn't that this is "only a short term measure and no substitute for a long term solution." It's that it's worse than useless, short term and long term.

Posted by Thomas | May 2, 2008 12:11 PM

The answer is easy. Policy-expert Clinton was thrown by the wayside for "salt of the earth," pander bear Clinton because focus groups said this would be a good idea.

Posted by BCdem | May 2, 2008 12:15 PM

And if adopted in the short term, will be murder to undo.

Recall that even revenue-neutral attempts to undo a Bush tax cut are, instantly, morphed into a tax increase come campaign commercial time

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 2, 2008 12:15 PM

JTHB writes:

Two weeks later and Obama stages his own denunciation of Wright and suddenly it is all different and all good wittle progressives must denounce Wright. Not a black thing no mo' is it?

Not a bad point. Followed by:

What effin hypocrites... good little bots responding to the latest dictat from their very own Charlie Manson, a bunch of 30's Stalinists toeing the party line no matter the absurdities...
And you think we are going to turn our country over to your petty stupidity? Really?

Stupidest conclusion ever drawn, in history. More intellectually consistent trolling please.

(I say, let's forgive the hypocrites on a SMALL, INCONSEQUENTIAL matter like Wright and prosecute the hypocrites on the issues that actually MATTER.)

Posted by Bill | May 2, 2008 12:23 PM

What happened to the idea that Clinton is the candidate of policy substance, competence, and experience?

Where did that idea even come from in the first place?

Clinton's whole persona in this election is of the "tough fighter" who recognizes political realities, as opposed to Obama's head-in-the-clouds dreamer who harbors this foolish notion about "changing" Washington. The focus on experience and on what she would do at 3 a.m. has all been about this same theme: Change is impossible, so vote for the candidate who knows how to use our current system.

The incredible hate directed at Richardson and the recent news that she would pursue a strategy of purging or otherwise attacking Democrats who endorsed Obama confirm her Bush-like leadership.

Her whole strategy has been to run as a kind of smarter, liberal George W. Bush (though of course it was never expressed in so many words). She's promising to hold on to the heavily overpowered Presidency he created, but use it to advance a liberal agenda. That may or may not be a good thing, but it pretty much rules out the type of respectful balancing of opposing ideas that you'd expect a serious policy thinker to have.

Posted by NS | May 2, 2008 12:31 PM

If ever there was a time to listen to "experts", it's now. People like JTHB are part of the problem, not the solution. The "experts" who got us into the Iraq war were the AEI neocons. I doubt any of them are advising against a tax holiday. The idea that the "experts" are a monolithic block that changes its collective mind chaotically but uniformly is laughable.

JTHB thinks that listening to experts means submitting to them, rather than being advised by them and submitting to the God-given reason in your own damn head.

If ever there was a time to listen to reason, and not pander, it's now. With apologies to the Greatest Generation, Germany was nothing compared to China and Russia. And back then, we had friends. Everyone views *us* as the problem now.

Back then, Britain had handed us world leader status. Now, in order to hold onto it, it's going to take every ounce of brainpower and effort to avoid the slide into "empire" and historical footnote.

The idiots in the rust belt who just want it to be 1961 all over again are holding America back.

Posted by Billy Joe-Bob | May 2, 2008 1:03 PM

The difference between the McCain fellow's support for a gas tax holiday and the Clinton lady's support for a gas tax holiday - in case it's unclear - is that while we know the Clinton lady knows this is only a short term measure and no substitute for a long term solution to the energy crisis we can't be sure that this is not the extent of the McCain fellow's energy policy.

No, the difference is that Hillary will pay for it by increasing taxes on oil companies, so government loses no revenues.

And there are times, infrequent as they might be, where campaigns' policies attempt to write a $10 billion check to the obviously overburdened and victimized oil industries.

See above. When is this bullshit misrepresentation going to stop?

Posted by mq | May 2, 2008 1:33 PM

The difference between the McCain fellow's support for a gas tax holiday and the Clinton lady's support for a gas tax holiday - in case it's unclear - is that while we know the Clinton lady knows this is only a short term measure and no substitute for a long term solution to the energy crisis we can't be sure that this is not the extent of the McCain fellow's energy policy.

No, the difference is that Hillary will pay for it by increasing taxes on oil companies, so government loses no revenues.

And there are times, infrequent as they might be, where campaigns' policies attempt to write a $10 billion check to the obviously overburdened and victimized oil industries.

See above. When is this bullshit misrepresentation going to stop?

Posted by mq | May 2, 2008 1:35 PM

No, the difference is that Hillary will pay for it by increasing taxes on oil companies, so government loses no revenues.

How often is this going to be thrown up by dumbshits? We are talking about a "gax tax holiday" for this summer. Senator Clinton is currently demanding that Congress take prompt action. A windfall tax on oil companies will not be part of any gax tax suspension passed for this summer. Neither the Senate nor the White House would permit it. I know Senator Clinton is smart enough to realize this; she's simply lying for the benefit of herself and John McCain. So which are you, mq? Lying or stupid?

Posted by mds | May 2, 2008 1:55 PM

Howard Wolfson is a quote-unquote asshole.

Posted by Tom | May 2, 2008 2:47 PM

It seems to me that the Clinton plan is just an attempt to inoculate herself against a potential Republican charge that she is against tax cuts. The Clinton campaigns have always featured some sort of Potemkin tax cut and this is the current model.

Obama risks being labeled a tax raiser by not being at least me too on this; a good way to lose the general.

Posted by Carl | May 2, 2008 3:53 PM

How often is this going to be thrown up by dumbshits? We are talking about a "gax tax holiday" for this summer. Senator Clinton is currently demanding that Congress take prompt action. A windfall tax on oil companies will not be part of any gax tax suspension passed for this summer. Neither the Senate nor the White House would permit it. I know Senator Clinton is smart enough to realize this; she's simply lying for the benefit of herself and John McCain. So which are you, mq? Lying or stupid?

I'm neither, you seem to be both. No gas tax holiday will pass Congress without an oil tax paired to it, period, end of story. Nor would Clinton vote for one. She's said it; I have no access to your personal telepathic evidence that she is lying, so I'm going to choose to believe that you are simply making shit up in the usual hysterically anti-Hillary manner of internet Obama supporters.

If an oil tax is paired to a gas tax moratorium, Bush will likely veto, meaning nothing will happen. I assume Hillary is aware of this.

Posted by mq | May 2, 2008 4:01 PM

If an oil tax is paired to a gas tax moratorium, Bush will likely veto, meaning nothing will happen. I assume Hillary is aware of this.

Yeah, Obama supporters are sick and tired of the cynical politics of Hillary and Washington. In reality Hillary is proposing to do quote-unquote nothing. Her rhetoric though, is aimed tearing down Obama and supports the McCain/conservative narrative. Obama supporters are perfectly aware what Hillary would do when President and it would be stunts like this, accomplishing nothing.

Posted by Peter K. | May 2, 2008 4:30 PM

In Sweden the gas price is 8 US dollar per gallon, yet basically no one complains and the economy is humming along very well. The fact that the tax on 3.5 dollar gas is an issue in the presidential campaign is simply sad...

Posted by Johan | May 2, 2008 5:23 PM