Pants on Fire: Obama Ad Falsely uses Krugman’s Words Against Hillary
By Deb Cupples on May 6, 2008 at 5:22 PM in Barack Obama, Economy, Gas Prices, Hillary Clinton, John McCain
Last week, economist Paul Krugman made it very clear that he finds John McCain’s gas tax holiday proposal potentially harmful. Krugman also made very clear that he doesn’t like Hillary Clinton’s counter-proposal but considers it harmless.
That said, Krugman reportedly heard about (but has not seen) a negative Obama ad that falsely uses Krugman’s criticism of McCain as an attack against Hillary. At his blog, Krugman made it very clear that he would be displeased if Obama’s ad did this:
"I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits. If the ad implies that I did, it should be retracted.
"The Clinton proposal is financed by an excess profits tax. At worst, it sends money in a circle. In practice, it would probably reduce oil industry profits at least slightly, since the rise in the pre-tax price of gasoline probably wouldn’t wipe out all of the tax cut.
"I was very clear when I wrote about the Clinton proposal that while I didn’t think it was good policy, it was not the same as
McCain’s, and relatively harmless. If the Obama people are suggesting otherwise, they’re being deliberately dishonest." (Krugman blog, emphasis added)
Below is a YouTube clip of Obama’s ad, which does mention a New York Times piece from April 28. Krugman wrote such a piece: in it, he says that McCain’s plan (not Hillary’s) "would boost oil industry profits." Here’s the relevant parts of that Krugman’s piece:
"The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.
"More and more, Mr. McCain sounds like a man who will say anything to become president."
And more and more, Sen. Obama sounds like a man who will say anything to become president.
At the very least, the people who wrote Obama’s ad copy seem to have been "deliberately dishonest" when using Krugman’s quote against Hillary. ‘So much for the Obama campaign’s purported aversion to dirty, old-style politics.
The decent thing would be for the Obama campaign to broadcast a retraction, as Krugman suggests — and to publicly apologize for having twisted Krugman’s words.
This is not the first time that an Obama campaign ad seemed misleading. Recently, one of his ads stated that he hasn’t taken tainted money (i.e., money from lobbyists and special interests), when evidence suggests that he has.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Related BN-Politics Posts:
* More Hypocrisy: Obama Supported Gas-Tax Holiday in Illinois
* ABC Ignores Obama’s Misleading Messagre re: Lobbyist Money
Obama doesn’t care. HE is the one who will do anything to win
I suspect that you may be right.
The NYT better come down hard on this.
(Wish the Indiana poll results would just freeze where they are right now!)
I hope so, too.
has the clinton camp come up with a single economist who thinks this gas tax holiday is a good idea?
Yes, Krugman.
He said a more constructive oil policy is needed, all around, nationally, and he’s right, particularly after the dimmer twins.
A gas tax holiday, courtesy of Shell, Krugman has said, apparently, is harmless.
Do you understand this, or should I explain it more.
And the dimmer twins are Cheney and Bush, a take off on their soulful brothers, Mick And Keith, the glimmer twins.
Then there are the “chemical brothers,” but I’ll save that for “famous politicians who use a lot of drugs to make it through the day” day…
‘harmless.’
boy, there’s a ringing endorsement.
‘harmless’ as in ineffective? inconsequential? insignificant?
The reason that’s significant is that Obama falsely claimed that Krugman had slammed Hillary, when actually Krugman had slammed McCain.
In short, Obama’s falsely used Krugman’s words against Hillary.
Gee Krugman….You just now noticed….Clean the windows of your ivory tower every once in a while…..Sheeeeesh !
Well it certainly saves little money for all of those Americans who get one gallon of gas at a time and thus don’t notice that eighteen cents.
So Obama’s economists may be right.
However, discretionary spending for other items would still occur in light of savings for gas, we’re talking about 11.5-13.5% taxation rate there. Oh, the economy also drives more items, less shelf life, etc.
So it still gets a return on similar numbers in efficiency with regard to generating revenue, only this revenue spreads across more markets than just the oil producers.
Let’s take Exxon’s word for it instead, and keep paying an extra .18 per gallon. Every cent gasoline reduces in price adds a billion a day to our macro economy.
That’s eighteen billion a day Hillary’s proposal would put back into the economy. That money would be taxed at a sales rate and help demand for other financial sectors, in addition to relieving shipping costs that produce higher prices at retailers and grocery stores.
Obama is mocking the gas tax holiday as if saving people 30 bucks isn’t even worth it. His supporters out blogging are really offensive and out of touch, as if 30 bucks doesn’t buy 15 school lunches for a kid. Or two cases of top ramen. I guess it’s a case of “just let them eat argula!”
This is the same response Obama had to capping the credit card interest at 30%. He voted No, claiming it wasn’t good enough. No shit, Sherlock, but it was better then the nothing your “no” vote gave us.
So if you’re poor in this country and Obama becomes your Prez, be prepared to wait a long, long time for relief. He won’t try anything until the perfect plan comes along. And where do we keep perfect plans? I don’t know, I’ve never seen one.
maybe. but only if the oil companies don’t raise the price of gas 18 cents a gallon. there’s no guarantee that consumers will see any benefit from this whatsoever.
it’s a gimmick. a hollow, cynical gimmick.
raising it as an industry to make up for the 18 cents would be very foolish economically and I would think might invite a peak into their practices as it might be an anti-trust violation, but I’m no Constitutional Law lecturer myself …
On average it would probably save .90 to 1.80 at the pump for thjose who don’t fill up at every stop.
Now for those who do, would you want fries to go with that order? You’d save enough from a fill up to buy lunch or breakfast if you commute and are in a hurry.
Krugman won’t stand still for this.
He’s not really someone you want to piss off. He’s no Howdy Dowdy or Rantin’ Frank. He’s a wonk and respected.
I can’t wait for him to take Snoboma to task for being a typical politician willing to say or do anything to get elected.
Funny how the folks in next door Indiana ain’t buyin’ it. So, how many states near and around Illinois have voted for Snoboma?
Bee,
I hope you’re right. I just wish the story could have broken before today’s election.
You people are totally blinded by your ideology. The Hillary/McCain plan is stupid, and all of you know it. When Krugman said it would be a “money circle,” that meant that it would have NO EFFECT on prices. It is a gimmick, just as Barack said. He should know, since he voted for a similar program in Illinois, which failed to make a difference.
Aren’t any of you concerned that Hillary has been railing against economists, and the “elite?” Who is going to advise her on economic issues, then? This was pandering, plain and simple, and Barack was principled enough to call both McCain and Hillary out.