Letters to the Editor
-
A ridiculous defense of a ridiculous proposal.
I can see the HRC wing of Salon has joined her in the faith-based community where you must no longer "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."
Since I’m currently working to try and pay for a war here, I don’t have time to dissect this “article” and point out each of its faults. But, here is one example:
The author states that “Obama dismisses Clinton's proposal to suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon federal gas tax as: 1) a political gimmick that will not deliver any significant relief to consumers…” he then notes “each of Obama's attack lines is either factually incorrect, or based on flawed logic” before going on to admit “let's face it: This is a tiny price cut.”
I’m not sure how this tiny price cut amounts to anything significant enough to rise to the level of being factually incorrect or based on flawed logic but apparently the author “believes” it does.
The most ridiculous aspect of this whole “debate” however, is that it is meaningless. As yet, HRC has not introduced the “Summer Tax Holiday Oil Company Windfall Profits Elect Me Act of 2008”. And, as she is still just a candidate for the primary, all this is just campaign trail blather. Could this weakly managed Democratic majority in Congress actually pass legislation that suspends the gas tax and assess a profits tax on Big Oil? No. If they could, would Bush sign it into law? No. Does this amount to more that just a ridiculous debate? Sadly, no. Staking out a position on an issue that doesn’t really exist strikes me as pandering.
If one refuses to acknowledge reality it cannot be. (I think Strauss said that)
Warmest regards,