Pander Watch

Andrew Sullivan and Thomas Friedman have called "pandering" on Clinton and McCain's gas tax holiday proposal. Friedman makes a solid case that the tax holiday achieves little but over emphasizes the negative effect on behavior. You can't say the gas tax is so small that removing it won't save consumers any real money and then turn around and say that it will negatively impact behavior. He raises a fair point that even using the windfall tax money to finance the plan is a foolish use of revenue for posturing, but is it really empty?

 
Now Sullivan and Friedman have rightfully criticized the Bush's inept handling of Katrina, Some have even suggested that the President flying to New Orleans and passing out water bottles would have shown leadership. Really? Isn't that little more than posturing according to this argument? Surely the President's presence would cost millions upon millions and disrupt the work effort. The leadership is in the making of the effort despite the otherwise foolishness of the gesture. Giving people the relief of 18.4 cents per gallon isn't much less helpful than the bottle of water the President would be handing to a man who just lost his home.

Friedman makes a solid case which I have also made about the need for an energy policy and we largely agree. Sullivan's criticism is discouragingly vapid in comparison. This is sadly Sullivan's lowest ebb since he imitated Bush's Scotty in the run up to the war. No, not Barnie, Blair.

Hillary is evil because she panders. Obama doesn't pander because pandering involves proposals and solutions of which he has very few. The people want change and what does Obama promise but ethereal change. It is open ended pandering? What kind of change does Obama specifically propose? No one knows, but it will certainly be different. Much like Obama, you can imagine the change however you want to imagine it. Details about policy, like details about Obama, slowly but surely destroy the illusion.