Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

More On That False Quote in the Obama TV Ad

May 06, 2008 10:42 AM

As we recently fact-checked, Sen. Barack Obama has been running a TV ad that falsely uses a quote from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman about Sen. John McCain's gas tax holiday plan and applies it to Sen. Hillary Clinton's plan.

Last night Krugman blogged on the matter.

"I did not say that the Clinton proposal would increase oil industry profits," Krugman writes. "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."

Meanwhile, Obama has launched another TV ad that uses a quote from Clinton-supporting North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley to bash the gas tax holiday idea.

In 2006, Easley opposed cutting the state gas tax, based on oil industry officials telling Tarheel State lawmakers months that such a cut would not cause an equal drop in price. Easley said cutting the gas tax would be "a subsidy for the oil companies."

A permanent cut in the state gas tax is of course not quite the same thing as a federal gas tax holiday, though economists would argue some of the same principles would apply -- that is, the law of supply and demand would mean that oil companies would raise the price regardless. (Especially if Sen. Clinton's "windfall profits tax" were also to become law and the oil companies passed on their new debt to the consumer.)

Last month Easley was asked about the notion again, and he said, "people need to be told the truth, and that is the price of gas is going to go up and up and up, and there's nothing that the state government can do to stop that."

That of course has not stopped Easley from touting Clinton's proposal in robocalls to voters.

Easley's office has insisted there's no contradiction. “The governor enthusiastically supports the proposal in Washington because it taxes the windfall profits of big oil to replace the taxes on the people,” Easley spokesman Seth Effron told the Greensboro News-Record “On the state level, there is not the ability to tax big oil, so North Carolina would have a deficit.”

- jpt

May 6, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (165)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Krugman is never quoted in the ad personally. There were several opinions expressed on the day shown that were critical of Clinton under the headline indicated. Krugman has nothing to worry about. By the way, now that his favorite, Edwards,(and mine) has endorsed Obama, will the brilliant Mr. Krugman follow suit?

Posted by: colinalcarz | May 15, 2008 9:44:28 AM

Last fall the country was in uproar about our crumbling roads and bridges, now because of high gas prices Clinton and her supporters want to take all the money that would go to maintaining those bridges so they don't collapse. What are you going to buy with the estimated $28? Also if Clinton and McCain are serious about this plan why haven't they proposed legislation with Memorial Day so near?

Buy a bicycle or drive a hybrid. High gas prices are here to stay.

Posted by: Steve Passmore | May 7, 2008 12:28:01 PM

This is the "new" politics and "new" washington. He lied when he was first asked about wright, his instinct was to lie. No surprise about his campaign.

Posted by: cbl | May 7, 2008 11:43:30 AM

Why do we have a race about race, and debate what is wrong or right about Wright.Sounds like double talk, well it should, because that is what the media is doing, double talk. Why is it a matter of race when blacks vote for the person who is better able to reshape their country. Thats right people, this country is also made up of black, white, brown and every shade in between. Why can these people not be given credit for picking the best person and not "called to task" because that person happens to be black. Why in the past years did the media not point out that black people voted for the men who have been better able to serve this country. The history of black voters shows that the person that they supports, almost always do a good job runnig this country and raise the standards of respect for America all over the world.

Posted by: We The People | May 7, 2008 9:06:49 AM

Being a journalist doesn't mean never having to say you're sorry. But it does mean you get to say you're sorry five days late in a one paragraph article that will get scant notice.

But, hey, no skin off my back. Obama tackles Clinton's and McCain's plan but offers up nothing of his own. Just "change"!

Posted by: max | May 6, 2008 8:07:54 PM

Good. Now that that's over with will people please stop saying that McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years?

Posted by: max | May 6, 2008 7:08:02 PM

Hey, your average American will drive out of their way and wait in line just to buy gas that's 5 cents cheaper than the gas station across the street. Obama just doesn't get that. We'll buy gas at the cheapest gas station and then go inside the gas station convenience store and spend double the regular price on some snacks and a soda.

Posted by: Staci | May 6, 2008 6:41:57 PM

The ad pointed to says "More low road attacks from Hillary Clinton", and references the New York Times.

This is referring to the NYTimes article "The Low Road to Victory", which criticizes Hillary's negative attacks.

This is not a reference to Krugman's article.

Guess it time to fact check the fact checkers.

Posted by: Kiku | May 6, 2008 5:37:01 PM

Oh...hold on, dora. Now it seems to me you're supporting Obama...I...was a bit confused with your post...

Posted by: What the | May 6, 2008 5:36:28 PM

dora, those mistakes must be intentional. What is your purpose, to try to get Obama supporters to attack you for being "stupid" and get ugly?

Please, no one fall for that, if so.

Posted by: What the | May 6, 2008 5:34:16 PM

The ad pointed to says "More low road attacks from Hillary Clinton", and references the New York Times.

This is referring to the NYTimes article "The Low Road to Victory", which criticizes Hillary's negative attacks.

This is not a reference to Krugman's article.

Posted by: Kiku | May 6, 2008 5:31:36 PM

Henry: that's right, poor oil companies. Barely made a profit last year and this year. Maybe we should start a charity for them - you know, to help them with high gas and food prices.

Who's with me! Get real!

Posted by: Jack | May 6, 2008 5:16:55 PM

Food prices go up, so we throw more money at farmers (including huge subsidies for NOT growing food). Gasoline prices go up and we decide we need to tax oil companies more? This doesn't make any sense. US oil companies made less than 8% profit last year. That is not huge. The price of gasoline is not due to the big bad gasoline companies but due to rising demand for petroleum worldwide, a drop in value of the dollar, high US taxes on gasoline, and US government mandated ethanol. Sadly, both Obama and Clinton are either too simple-minded or too politically motivated to do anything other than demonize oil companies.

Posted by: Henry | May 6, 2008 5:11:27 PM

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt politician. She also covered for Bill while he was taking advantage of women (and that's putting it lightly). Don't think for minute the Republicans won't bring that up, and many other damaging accusations against the Clintons. Have you all forgotten the Clinton scandals already?

Posted by: Jack | May 6, 2008 5:02:02 PM

Donny: prove it!

Posted by: Jack | May 6, 2008 4:59:53 PM

Obama's entire campaign is deceptive. He says he stands for change, but is backed by the same America haters that plant bombs, and spread lies about the US gvernment creating the aids virus.

Posted by: Donny | May 6, 2008 4:53:41 PM

Umm...to "character"...yes, you certainly are that. How about Obama himself -- not the three other people you mention -- be used to represent the character of Barack Obama? Novel idea?

I would also like a list of your lifelong associations, to -- as you do -- use it to determine your "character." Now isn't that silly?

Posted by: Aaron M | May 6, 2008 4:43:49 PM

Obama will destroy McCain in the Federal Elections!
--
A vote for John McCain is a death sentence for thousands of more U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi civilians (CHILDREN, women, and men). You vote for McCain, you will certainly have blood on your hands. When you meet your maker, you will not have the excuse that you didn’t know. You will not be able to hide behind Bush or McCain and blame them for it. With your vote you have sealed your fate. Don’t say you were not warned.

And don’t think that by voting for Hillary you’re clean either. She voted for the war and she’ll say anything to be the next president – she is a corrupt politician.

Posted by: Jack | May 6, 2008 4:43:13 PM

I think that the networks should ban people like Mr. Charlie Gibson after him & George crusified Senator Obama, news people should not show their beliefs just be fair to bothe candidates

Posted by: Bill | May 6, 2008 4:37:18 PM

How can anyone believe some guy who went to church for 20 years and didn't know the tone/preachings of his church? The guy is either a retard or a liar?

What kind of character does someone have, when they get a home basically bought for them from a criminal?

Obama is a terrorist waiting to get into the White house to blow it up.

Actually, I hope he wins the nomination. He will be easier to beat in the general election. Can't wait for the attack machine to start!

Posted by: Republicanforlife | May 6, 2008 4:35:23 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS