The Only Campaign Ad The Democrats Should Need
Gas Prices :
Oil Company Stock Prices :
Their Campaign Contributions :
You’re paying at the pump. Get payback at the polls.
15 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Not to discount the broader point being made here, which is of course true. But the x-axes here don’t match up. The top two graphs run from 2004 to 2006. The bottom one is from 1990 to 2006. Also, the bottom one could be used to argue that oil company funding of Republicans has gone DOWN during Bush’s presidency, reversing an upward trend under the first Bush and Clinton. So yes, oil companies have done very well under Bush, but their campaign contributions haven’t gone up with their profits. The most interesting part of the bottom chart is probably that it shows just how much more they’re giving to Republicans in general, and how the disparity has only grown–they hardly gave anything to Dems this year.
Comment by James — April 22, 2006 @ 7:51 am
I like the way you think, I do… but unfortunately I believe that actually using this point as a Democratic slogan would be a big mistake. I believe that gas prices are rising and will continue to trend up sharply (with occasional months of relief) for the forseeable future, FOR REASONS THE DEMOCRATS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONTROL. (See http://cunningrealist.blogspot.com/2006/01/event-horizon.html for a good explanation, and that’s not even really getting into the Peak Oil thang.)
Therefore, if your slogan was successful in getting Democrats elected en masse, and then gas prices continued to increase sharply (which I believe is inevitable), I think a lot of voters would subsequently throw out the Democrats at the next opportunity. The Republicans (and their media poodles) would not let the electorate forget about Democratic campaign rhetoric from the year before. It would resurrect the whole wimpy-ineffective-Democrats stereotype.
I think we’d have more success calling for alternative energy in stronger terms (“We’ve got to get away from oil and gas NOW!”)
Comment by Kevin Wohlmut — April 22, 2006 @ 8:29 am
“Payback at the polls” – of course. Payback because we’re paying more at the pump, I dunno.
Bush and company have brought their special blend of ineptitude and malice to everything else they’ve touched, so I hesitate to exculpate them in this area, but pretty much the first thing we learn in Econ 101 is the law of supply and demand. In the real world, easy petroleum is running out, while the world demand is skyrocketing.
The petroleum execs seem to be guilty of ethically (if not legally) criminal behavior, but there’s little obvious to me that politicians could do to increase US oil supplies, except for conquering and controlling oil-producing areas – and although I reject this tactic on moral grounds, the Republicans do seem to have it pretty well sewn up in the focus groups.
Comment by anon — April 22, 2006 @ 8:33 am
Now that I read a little further down your blog, I am in total agreement when you praise that Spanish democratic ad about immigration. They failed. Katrina, they failed. Those are all better slogans, IMHO, than blaming Republicans for gasoline prices — even though it’s obviously true that oil companies collude with Republicans to gouge America. This is a case where politicians need to actually LEAD, and educate the public at a much deeper level than mere finger-pointing. It’s time for that pinko-hippie-1970s push for alternative fuels again. This time the facts are so obviously on our side: Dangerous war and strife in the oil-producing nations, Peak Oil, Global Warming. To say that the problem is simply high prices is a view so simplistic that it’s going to backfire on us even if it actually got Dems elected.
Comment by Kevin Wohlmut — April 22, 2006 @ 8:41 am
I am old enough to remember Ron Ray-Gun when he ran against Jimmy Carter. His big ploy was to convince everyone he would eliminate the national debt. He lied. He doubled it. We will soon forget $2.00 gasoline, and the rich will some how still manage to widen the gap and increase their wealth.
Comment by patrick — April 22, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
To win the Democrats need something to discuss the Republicans don’t or won’t discuss. That is OSAMA BEN LADEN. TRY IT YOURSELF. go to a Republican site and TRY to discuss OSAMA.
Comment by Mike Meyer — April 22, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Democrats Blame Bush for High Gas Prices
Consumer gasoline prices continue to soar as the Bush administration places too much emphasis on dri
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — April 22, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
I don’t like to link to my own site in people’s comments because a) it’s tacky, b) I write for a humor site, not a political blog and c) it’s already linked to if you click my name.
With that said, this post spurred me to revisit something that bothered me last year, too – during the oil embargo in 1974, the price of gas was 55 cents on the average. Adjusted for inflation, that price is anywhere from $2.23 to $2.42 (I guess it depends who is adjusting…). Even with the highest figure, that’s still 45 cents cheaper than the national average right now.
If it was a crisis then, what does that mean now? Anything? Does nothing stir people anymore?
Comment by ChrisV82 — April 23, 2006 @ 1:33 am
It’s called burnout. With this Administration there’s a new crisis or scandal everyday so it’s difficult to muster that much emotional resourse. That’s how they win.
Comment by Mike Meyer — April 23, 2006 @ 10:45 am
links for 2006-04-24
Cinematheque Brooklyn, NY – Insider Pages (tags: Brooklyn Film) Brooklyn Public Library – Central Library Director (tags: Work Brooklyn) Slashdot | HBO Attacking BitTorrent (tags: Networking Film MBA) Reel Life angst (tags: Brooklyn Film) Photoplay Vi…
Trackback by Hermes — April 23, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
Didn’t the oil companies get some attractive tax breaks from the Republicans? I think the American people should be educated about that aspect of corporate welfare.
Comment by Becky — April 24, 2006 @ 6:43 am
Let’s not forget as well, that the SUV phenomenon has made things ripe for these kinds of prices. For the last ten years, the American car buyer seems to have been intent on trying to use as much gasoline as possible to run errands or commute to work. Huge sections of the population have convinced themselves that, since they have 2 kids, that they NEED a 3 ton vehicle with a 260 horsepower engine.
Back in the 80s, a small sedan like a Mazda 626 was considered a family size car, now it’s a frickin’ GMC Yukon. Back in the 80s 23 MPG on the highway was considered shitty mileage, now it’s considered okay.
Suckers have set themselves up for this.
Comment by dAVE — April 24, 2006 @ 8:22 am
oops, that should read ..”now a frickin’ GMC Yukon is.”
Comment by dAVE — April 24, 2006 @ 8:24 am
dAVE, hey, we should demand an end to deductability for “business vehicles” that get less than 40 mpg or cost more than $50,000.
Right now, the tax deduction goes right on up through the Yukon and H3 to the Hummer because their purchase price is fully deductable up to $100,000… Since a lot of the assholes who by these things are self-employed owner/operators, members of LLPs, or independent contractors, who use their work vehicles in their everyday lives, and buy extra vehicles when they’re bored, the deductability of these people’s multiple vehicles does no one any good and is a supreme tax dodge. Next time you talk to a “small” businessman with a new car, remember that this is one of countless direct bribes he gets from republicans to vote for him… I know if someone was giving me thousands of dollars every year and telling me I deserved it, I’d have a hard time being honest with myself. These rich fucks need to be called on this stuff. Whoa, I ‘m ranting off subject here
Comment by Joe — April 25, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
That last post is very narrow minded and trite. You really should get the facts. Yes, buying an H-2 to commute with and writing it down like a dumptruck is immoral. But to then insult all business people with new cars and say they buy them when they are bored is absolute BS. Remember, businesses actually produce things, some of them do anyway, and without production there is no further economic activity. This is what supports all other aspects of the economy eventually.
Comment by Slow-Rion — May 3, 2006 @ 11:16 am