Over the past several days, in a number of posts, Andrew Sullivan has touted Barack Obama's opposition to suspending the gas tax as a profile in political courage, and chastized McCain together with Clinton for supporting the proposal. While I agree with Sullivan that the proposal is shameless pandering that doesn't make economic sense, he should also be reminded that when it came to the mother of all shameless pandering -- ethanol subsidies -- Obama wasn't quite as sensible. As an Investor's Business Daily story from last week recounted, with the Iowa caucuses approaching, Obama opted for the pander, while McCain took a position almost unheard of for a presidential candidate -- opposing the subsidies vigorously:
"I oppose subsidies," McCain said. "Not just ethanol subsidies.
Subsidies. And not just in Iowa either. I oppose them in my own
state of Arizona. I am proud of the conservative tradition that the
government can sometimes best serve the interests of the American
people by knowing when to stay out of their way."
As for Clinton, though, I'm with Sullivan, and all of the recent conservative love for her is nauseating. She remains a vile, contemptible, figure who will say anything that suits her political needs at any given instant.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.