Think candidates should be honest with voters? Let's consider the Dukakis effect.

[Toucano]

I see a lot of posts about Clinton pandering to voters with the gas tax and other issues.

Many posters think she's too dishonest.

I think we should remember the 1988 campaign where Dukakis honestly told the public he would likely have to raise taxes to repair the 8 years of Reagan deficits. George Bush (41) famously said in response "Read my lips. No new taxes." This (and the Willie Horton ad) likely tipped the election in Bush's favor and he won.

He then raised taxes, just as Dukakis had honestly said would be necessary.

Dukakis told too much truth.
Bush lied.

Bush won.
The taxpayer still took the hit.



As a neutral person in the nomination process, I actually think Hillary Clinton's ability to tell the voter what they want to hear goes in the plus column. Pandering and baby kissing wins elections. Voters buy a candidate just like a car or a Coca-Cola. Marketing tricks, political theater, and manipulation work.



As a liberal, I agree with and admire Obama and I even agree with Rev. Wright about most of what he said. The honesty of Obama appeals to us because we don't want to be told what we want to hear.

As an American, I know that the electorate can only handle so much truth. A lot of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans do want to be told what they want to hear. Cynical? You bet!

As a citizen of the world, I know that the planet cannot afford a McCain presidency.

Truthfulness and "realness" aren't necessarily the best measure of a candidate. Sad? Probably.

[Captain Hilts]

1. BINGO. GWB campaigned on an instant tax rebate. nt

[Armstead]

2. Consider the W Effect

Lies lies for 8 years and his party is in shambles.

I think people want some truth at this point, because they are feeling the pain that results from lies.

[Toucano]

15. I hope you're right.

Especially if Obama wins the nomination.

But people appear to be responding to the pretty lies of Clinton and McCain, just like they did for Bush.

[LibDemAlways]

3. In California Ahnold campaigned on rolling back

the dreaded "car tax" and coasted to victory. Now that he's decimating what's left of education in the state, a lot of people are expressing buyer's remorse. Too bad. When will people learn that votes have consequences, and it's important to know just what it is you're supporting when you head into the booth on election day? Vote for a republican, expect bad things. How hard is that to figure out?

[NJmaverick]

4. It's not just telling the truth, it's having the leadership to do it right

As for wanting the candidate that is good at lying to people, you backed the right horse in Hillary.

[Toucano]

14. I've not backed any horse.

Nor any candidate.

Again, the point is you won't be able to lead if you don't win the election.

[MADem]

5. Mondale said the same thing, and he got creamed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale

Mr. Reagan will raise your taxes. So will I. He won't tell you. I just did.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Obama offers other types of tax cuts

and, some would say, with the government $9 trillion in debt, he's pandering, too.

This particular tax "holiday" is not just worthless, it would delay much needed work on our infrastructure and and increase the demand for gasoline, which hurts the environment. I know it's "polling well," but it's bad public policy in every sense of the term.

[Ravy]

7. Why would it delay work on the infrastructure?

Hillary wants to impose a windfall profit tax on the oil companies to offset it.

[redqueen]

8. That has to pass congress. Does she have the votes?

Hell, is there even a bill yet?

[Ravy]

25. Does any presidential candidate have the votes for any of their proposals?

I don't know.

But the exercise of proposing it and standing up for the proposal should give some hints of how she will handle things in office. It tells me she isn't afraid of Big Oil, and that she would offset taxes that are affecting the middle class with increased taxes on those that are raking it in, rather than leaving the debt to be paid by our grandchildren.

[BeyondGeography]

10. That's just her bullshit hedge

And, even in the unlikely event that she delayed relief on the gas tax until it passed, oil companies would penalize the market by slowing down investments in exploration and refineries, leading speculators to bet on future supply shortfalls, which would in turn drive prices up.

Like I said, bad policy.

[Ravy]

26. The right wing agrees with you.

Those taxes all get imposed back on the consumer. We should not tax corporations, right?

Heard it before.

[Occam Bandage]

20. So, basically, each gallon of gasoline will have the exact same amount of tax on it,

if it's fully offset. She just wants to change where it's taxed.

That seems reasonable. And by "reasonable" I mean "stupid."

[Ravy]

27. Doesn't matter if it is stupid or not, Hillary's plan does not hurt the infrastructure or jobs. nt

[Exilednight]

24. I don't believe that I'm going to say this, but I agree with Hillary that oil companies should......

taxed to the hilt. But there is something else to think about. Tax oil companies and where do they get the money to pay those taxes? The tax is now hidden, but you're still paying it.

[Toucano]

11. But you don't get to set public policy if you lose.

So what does it matter if your policy is better?

[BeyondGeography]

17. How about free chocolate chip cookies for everyone while we're at it

and bunnies and puppies for kids?

There's a reason 60% of the population finds Hillary to be full of shit.

[Occam Bandage]

19. And you don't win by abandoning any pretense of having a cohesive frame.

If you're picking-and-choosing bits and pieces of bad policies, while praising the underlying concepts behind bad policies, you don't win. If both candidates agree bad policies are favorable, why not elect the guy who more consistently pushes those bad policies? Triangulation lost 2000 and 2004, and it's why the Democrats lost ground in Congress during the eight Clinton years. You don't convince people to vote like a Democrat by talking like a Republican.

[Toucano]

23. There's merit to that argument.

However 2000 and 2004 are hard to hold up as examples. Kerry got more votes than any other candidate in history (except one :)) and Gore got more than his opponent.

I'm not sure that triangulation was the cause for either loss.

In regard to "You don't convince people to vote like a Democrat by talking like a Republican," that sounds nice, but I'm not sure it's true. I've seen many elections (non-presidential) where the Democrat has won by doing just that.

[redqueen]

9. Oh please. You're conflating raising taxes with refusing to lower them.

The M$M is deliberately spoonfeeding misinformation... choosing NOT to tell its gullible viewers that:

1. The plan won't get through congress anyway.

2. Prices would just rise to meet increased demand anyway.

3. Her plan to pay for this tax holiday would have to get through congress.

This is really sad, when Dems are helping to spread misinformation and dumb down the electorate.

I know that saying "I will raise your taxes" is a way to get voters to turn on you.

I also know that talking about it in the context of discussing two pandering candidates' plans to REMOVE a tax that will only be made up by rising prices (quickly)... well... I don't want to put too fine a point on it... so I'll just say it's terribly dishonest.

[Toucano]

12. My point wasn't the gas tax.

My point is about telling voters lies and winning as opposed to telling the truth and losing.

The only point in repealing the gas tax is winning the election.

[redqueen]

13. Uh... if the opponent does it too... how does that help you win?

Or is the "opponent" you speak of Obama?

[Toucano]

18. I didn't speak of an opponent.

I said "as opposed to telling the truth and losing".

If both candidates tell the voters the same lie, it's moot. The election becomes about something else (hence the political theater and marketing of the candidate).

In my original example, if Dukakis has lied along with GHB and said "No new taxes" he might have won.

He would have then had to raise taxes during his term and been a welsher, like Bush did.

But he might have WON! He could have had four years to reverse the Reagan nightmare.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Congratulations. Few HRC supporters have the courage to claim

that:

1. She's a serial liar and panderer.
2. They approve of lying and pandering.

You have gained a modicum of respect in my eyes.

(Ouch, though, you lost it when you claimed you weren't supporting either candidate. At this late stage in the game? No excuse not to prefer one over the other.)

[Toucano]

21. Whatever.

I think both candidates have fine attributes. An Obama presidency or a Clinton presidency will be like a dawn of a new age.

Many Obama supporters swallow the same lies and spin about Clinton the right has been spewing for 20 years. Most of it, even if true, wouldn't make a gnat's wing difference in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't interest me, nor does it reduce the appeal a positive qualities of Obama.

The dialog I was looking to have was about the power of political theater, pandering, and telling lies to the electorate in order to win.

Are truth and being "real" more important than winning?

[Occam Bandage]

22. "Are truth and being "real" more important than winning?"

This would be a valid question if Clintonism actually led to winning.

Gore lost to an idiot fratboy. Why? He surrendered too much ideological ground, and, with no real points of contention, the race degenerated into sighing, lying, and beer-enjoying.

Kerry lost to an abject failure. Why? He surrendered too much ideological ground, and, with no real points of contention, the race fell into swiftboats and TANG service.

Under Clinton, the Democrats lost seats in the House, the Senate, state legislatures, and governors' mansions across the nation. Why? Because they constantly surrendered ideological ground in pursuit of short-term single-race victory.

Parroting Republican speech does not convince voters to support the Democratic party. This ridiculous gas-tax holiday idea is as irresponsible as it will be ineffective. Its sole merit is that it is temporarily popular--but that popularity is attached to the right-wing frame of governance. Swallowing that idea is not going to help this party.

(I understand claiming you're not a Clinton supporter. It can be a brutal place for HRC supporters here.)