Having just read HITS, I'd like to think it was because somebody (Obama) stuck out his neck and fought for common sense.

Out of curiosity, why are members of the media suited to resolve a dispute between "credentialed experts" who disagree?

I don't think those poll numbers cited really help make the case that the gas tax issue has hurt Clinton or helped Obama; to the extent that those surveyed see both the gas tax issue and Rev. Wright as "politicians saying things to get elected" it's not helping the case of Obama as a "different kind of politician". Moreover, the fact that many people see the gas tax holiday as a bad idea doesn't make it ineffective (just as "Wright will have no influence on my vote" doesn't tell a whole story). What you need to know is what it does to the votes of the people who think it's a good idea. And I think the point here is that where it makes a distinction between the two candidates, it does more to move the people who like the gas tax idea... not the ones who don't (just as Wright is more likely to drive the people who say it does affect their vote to do something than the people who say it won't).

I've got an idea -- I usually do :-] : since the price of gas wont be affected by LOWERING the federal tax, maybe the price of gas wont affected by RAISING the gas tax either. If we add a dollar to the tax maybe the gas companies will be forced to lower their price a dollar to get rid of all the supply on hand. So, with allowance for a fair return for the refineries, whenever they are running full out maybe we could up the price of gas a dollar or so in order to take back much of the excess price for taxpayers.

Don't forget to vote for me. :-]

I meant -- in the last sentence just above -- raise the "tax" on gas, not the "price" of gas -- probably self-explanatory anyway. :-[

I agree with Denis. These idiots who think removing the gas tax won't make a difference in the price, should be all for doubling or tripling or quadrupling the gas tax since obviously the price won't change yet the government will collect gobs of additional money.

Gas must be a magical substance whose price never changes regardless of how much or how little it is taxed.

This is uttter BS. Everyone knows if you asked people if they wanted to pay 18 cents less for gas, the answer would be YES, so clearly they didn't ask that question...but let's not question the media nor their methods.

The FACT is the gas tax is only meant to punish poor people for having the nerve to burn gasoline.

The concept that a 18 cent gas take leads to conservation is only if you are poor enough for the 18 cents to matter to your wallet.

ITS NOT THE POOR PEOPLE THAT THIS TAX PUNISHES THAT ARE THE ONES WASTING FOSSIL FUELS YOU DUMMIES!

The people WASTING the fossil fuels that should be forced to conserve aren't affected. Its not stopping Ted Kennedy from filling up his speed boat. Its not stopping the Govanator from flying a jet to work. Its not stopping Gore, Obama, Hillary etc. from riding in Limos and on private or leased jets.

We should be taxing based on the amount of fuel your using. If you are poor and just buying gas to get back and forth to work, why are you being punished more then the rich guy that buying 5,000 gallons to fly alone to Switzerland? He should be paying a 2.00 per gallon tax.

I voted for Obama in the primary, but since March, he's shown me he's not the guy I thought he was, and he doesn't really care about anyone but himself.

Out of curiosity, why are members of the media suited to resolve a dispute between "credentialed experts" who disagree?

That's easy to answer. Sometimes people are hacks, i.e., are obviously telling you something that is not true for careerist or ideological reasons.

A good example, the "credentialed experts" in the tax debates who claim that cutting marginal tax rates will raise revenues and lower the deficit. That just isn't true-- there are debates about how "dynamic" the "scoring" should be and whether income tax cuts don't impact revenues as much as liberals claim, but there is plenty of evidence that that they don't raise revenues and no evidence that they do.

A journalist can resolve that dispute if he or she bothers to learn the issue. Unfortunately, what Ezra points out is true-- they get some Larry Kudlow type making a false claim and they don't want to take the risk of pointing out that it is false.

I think you misread the reasons why the media coverage on this point has been reasonable. I don't think the unanimity of expert opinion has much affect. Instead, the media is reasonable because a reasonable reading in this case hurts a Democrat. If Clinton and Obama were both against the gas tax cut, the media would have jumped all over both of them for being against kindly old Uncle John's efforts to help poor, beleagured reg'lar folks save money on gas.

I'd like to see a party breakdown on that gas tax poll. If you assume that a significant number of Republicans will automaticaly say they are in favor of any tax reduction, then the numbers opposing the gas tax holiday may be even higher among Democrats than the majority of all respondents shown in the poll. If so, I hope a lot of them live in Indiana and North Carolina.

Ok, I'm a gas tax holiday hater, and I like the idea that the public might be on the side of sanity on this as well, but I think the wording of the question:

Is lifting the gasoline tax for the summer a good idea because it would lower the cost of gas and reduce Americans’ expenses or a bad idea because it would not create real benefits for Americans and does not deal with America’s dependence on foreign oil?

leans in the direction of making the case against the gas tax holiday more than for it. I would be interested in seeing the results to a more neutral poll.

Good points. Also they were playing by the Clinton rules that reporters dump on a Clinton when they wouldn't do it to anyone with a different last name.

When was the last time a Clinton made an absurd argument on policy ? I can't remember, but I'm willing to guess (I wrote bet then reconsidered) that the press would report it as an absurd argument even if Democratic hacks argued otherwise (of course Democratic hacks have jobs as campaign consultants and not sinecures at hack tanks).

Note how the www.WashingtonPost.com gradually deleted all reference to the fact that the proposal was originally McCain's in links to their article about how it was a bad idea http://tinyurl.com/6d32qu.