Not a member? Sign up now
Michele Bachmann promises $2 gas
By Alex HeiglAugust 18th, 2011, 11:00 amComments (59)
Michele Bachmann's latest sound bite is a doozy: not only has she taken to blaming President Obama for gas prices, but she's promising that if she's elected president, the country will see gas prices below $2 a gallon again.
"Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again," Bachmann said Tuesday in South Carolina. "That will happen."
"The day the president became president, gasoline was $1.79 a gallon," she noted. "Look what it is today."
Far be it for me to talk down the time-honored tradition of making wild, nearly-impossible to fulfill promises on the campaign trail, but Bachmann has nearly no idea what the hell she's talking about.
First of all, oil prices at the pump are tied to the global crude-oil market, and effecting change in that system is a goal more or less beyond the reach of even the most crazy-eyed president.
Secondly, citing virtually any economic figures from around the time President Obama took office is a bit misleading, since the country was in what Tom Kloza, the chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, called "the 4th inning of the greatest recession of our lifetime."
But you know what? I like this approach. Gas prices are a virtually sure-fire way to get Americans pissed off and cheering, and making broad, wildly uninformed statements seems to be the theme of the campaign season already, so let's run with it. Tim Pawlenty already promised to mow our lawns during the course of the Iowa debate, and he's not even in the race anymore. Let's see if we can get Rick Perry to promise to personally buy every American a ten-gallon hat, and the battle will be joined!
Tags
Michele Bachmann
Commentarium (59 Comments)
*affecting
Effect can be used as a verb. It means to spark or initiate an action/change.
Sorry Zack, it's correct as (well) written, effect = to cause, affect = to touch (feelings).
Not quite. The verb 'affected' means to cause a change in (The ants negatively affected the picnic. They had a negative effect.), and the noun 'effect' describes the change.
The noun 'affect' is associated with emotion, particularly in a psychological sense.
The verb 'effect' does mean to bring about a change, but not in a causation related sense. Rather it means to bring about a change: Indiana lawmakers effected the change from CST to EST for certain counties.
It is correctly written, though.
I'm going to work that all out eventually. Thanks.
I think.
Are we really debating this?
Barack promised "hope" and "change" neither of which has happened. So, I wouldn't expect this gas thing to happen or the lawn mowing, either.
And a pony. Everybody gets a pony, too. Except for the mooslems. They'd just eat it.
$2/gal gas? That bitch!
And good job getting the "crazy-eyed" remark in - can't leave out the misogyny directed at conservative women! You missed any reference to "leathery racists" or Azizonans, though, or was the ten gallon hat thing a veiled reference?
Aziz Ansari has his own country now?
Mr. Perry I want a li'l Sebastian pony.
Since when is "crazy-eyed" - which she certainly is - misogynistic? You leathery racists never get tired of pretending to be victims. Sorry AZ, she's bat shite nuts, you're just sad, and this particular "issue" is as entertaining as the writer suggests.
When you start calling Obama unflattering names based on his looks, let's see how long it goes before it's termed racist.
Arizonan didn't claim to be a victim. Easy to understand your mistake though; claiming to be a victim is de rigeur here.
Obama isn't insane, or look insane, or speak utterly insane words, or act completely insane, or rant and rave - with his eyes bulging and wide wide open - insanely. I have plenty of problems with Obama, you can call him names if you want, I may even BE a racist,Michelle is fucking absolutelycompletely around-the-bendin your face BAT SHIT INSANE. She is not responsible for her gender or her looks, but she doesn't have to stare at cameras like some burned out street preacher/vagrant/mental patient. Claiming "misogyny" is being a victim, and it's - in this case - pure horse pucky.
You truly believe that Bachmann is clinically insane? Are you trying to have her commited?
I think you're justifying your hatred of Bachmann by claiming medical issues which is disturbing; in the Soviet Union, dissidents were often deemed insane and committed "for their own safety and the safety of the State."
I offer your Obama advice back to you. If you believe Bachmann is problematic, address the real issues. Claiming that someone's appearance and behavior is insane just because you disagree with her is beneath you, Gazbo.
Consider, for example, that Ron Paul doesn't get this kind of treatment and he is, imo, way farther out than MB. Misogyny? Maybe, maybe not but it certainly a possible explanation.
Maybe if Republicans would pick actual candidates instead of complete nutjobs who don't know what they're talking about, a female candidate might have a chance. Palin and Bachmann are setting themselves up for misogyny, because they are NOT QUALIFIED. Because they are not qualified for the job, they are reinforcing the idea that even the "elite" women running for president aren't capable and can't succeed in politics. (If there is a candidate who is actually intelligent and capable (ex. Hilary Clinton), then they get called a lesbian bitch). It's set up so that women can't win and as long as Republicans keep picking female candidates that no one will take seriously, it will stay that way. As a woman, I don't hate Bachmann or Palin, but they are part of the system that promotes misogyny and they play right into it. So, all the women who claim that Palin and Bachmann are subject to unfair misogyny, take a good hard look at them and see what they're doing to help women...which is nothing.
Care to detail how exactly our President was qualified when he ran? Palin has executive experience. You can debate whether it's sufficient, she shouldn't have quit, etc, but you can't say she didn't serve as governor.
What did Obama do to qualify him as President?
@yikes - So why wasn't Hillary taken seriously? And why wouldn't a "qualified" conservative woman (eg, Palin) receive the same treatment?
what interests me is that the claim she made of $1.79/gallon isn't disputed by alex heigl or any of the commentors here. Well, I took a moment to look up the price in january 2008. It was over $3.00/gallon. http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/01/us-gas-pricesja.html. Her lies are simply astounding
In Bachmanistan, where truths to to die, gas cost $1.79/Gallon in 2008. In the rest of the universe, however ...
Er, Obama took office in January 2009. Shouldn't you be looking for gas prices in 2009 rather than 2008?
Yeah, according to GasBuddy, prices were about $1.65/gal in Jan 2009. Bachmann was correct but why are you lying to us, allen?
And you, meh? Why are you lying about Bachmann?
Bachmann is, wonder of wonders, correct. It was 1.79 a gallon the week Obama took office. What she neglects to mention is that gas prices had been tumbling down. July 2008, less than 6 months before, gas prices were around 4.14 a gallon. The price was a fluke or, if you are conspiracy minded, probably a plot to make Obama look bad.
allen? allen? Are you lying now or were you lying when you wrote the original post?
meh? How about you? Do you have to lie to discredit Bachmann?
@lessthan - I believe the conspiracy angle. Conspirators installed an utterly unqualified president and now we're all reaping the fruits of a lower dollar, lower international standing and, of course, much higher oil prices.
We're still waiting, allen. Why are you lying to us? Are your own ideas so weak that you must lie about others? And then be silent when you're obvious lies are exposed?
OK, it's true - I'm a dumbass. I take back everything I said about Bachmann and will likely vote for her.
OK then. Fair enough.
well gas buddy lies just as much as she does....haven't seen gas under 2.50 since before Katrina....is this 1.79 before all the taxes....is it even in this country.....our government lies enough to us so for the most part she fits right in.....
Actually, the president does have to power to affect gas prices by directing release of the national strategic petroleum reserves. Release enough of it, and gas prices would decrease because of the increase in available oil. But it would be so irresponsible to do so -- the strategic reserve is designed to protect national security if some kind of extraordinary event occurs that cuts off our access to oil (embargo, war, etc.) -- that only someone like the bat-shit crazy Bachmann would do it.
Obama *did* release 30 million barrels in June. It was an irresponsible thing to do but the Admin decided to attempt to lower prices in advance of the summer driving season. The problem is that the amount of oil in the SPR is way too low to make anything but a minor dent. In June, the effect lasted about a week in the commodity markets and didn't really register at the pump.
Does this make Obama bat-shit crazy or is that label only limited to women?
@profrobert Are you sure you didn't mean "effect"?
[adopts deadpan affect]
There are currently 711 million barrels in the SPR. http://www.spr.doe.gov/dir/dir.html Releasing 30 million barrels, or less than 5% of capacity is not bat-shit crazy, though I question the wisdom of it. For Bachmann to have any hope of affecting gas prices by that magnitude, she'd have to release all of it, and I agree, the effects would not be long lasting.
@thinkywritey: Eh? Feck it.
I didn't say it was an intelligent thing to do; it wasn't. You said the President could release SPR content to lower oil prices. He did, with the intent of lowering oil prices. That it didn't work and wasn't sufficient is another issue and entirely in keeping with the incompetence of the regime.
And I thought the 08' presidential race was full of crazies...
All aboardddddddddddd!
You have to love the political theatre. The Republicans are trotting out their "less balanced" individuals to stir up every marginalized (for good reason) faction in the Country. Pander to the masses. Promise them anything. Tell them exactly what they want to hear. And most importantly, give them a focus on who is to blame. Chant it. Stay on message. The lie that is told repeatedly soon becomes the truth.
Meanwhile, the real candidate (at least the one chosen by big money as their boy) waits, holding himself above the tussle, so that he might be the voice of reason/the sanitized candidate come election time. The pitch then will be, "Who would you rather have as our nominee, these crazies or Mr. Electable?" At which point (during the sham convention), all crazies turn in unison and bow down to the selected candidate....hopefully bringing their individual hoards of wild-eyed halfwits together to vote for him.
Reagan started the Country on its downward path with his supply-side BS. Two terms of Shrub honed the nails for the coffin. If the Republicans had been able to move the Social Security funds into the market like they wanted, where would we be now? In the coffin, that's where.
Repeat this to yourself daily: Never again will I vote a Republican into office.
@ Cheryl: the Democrats do *exactly* the same thing.
@ the author: seems the only thing liberal colmnists hate more than a conservative black man is a conservative woman. I wonder why that is.
I WISH the dems would do the same; not clever enough. As for the crown of thorns you poor cons have to wear, go have a drink with AZ above, you'll get on famously.
@MRAGH: As the above poster put it, we do wish the demos were more skilled in this regard. But let's accept that all sides do it. Both sides have WMDs - Weapons of Mass Distraction - which have led us to the abysmally low voting percentage (as planned), so that energized sub-groups of the populace can be used to win elections.
I'm O+4 now, I will be in 2012.
@MRAGH - Just getting the conservatives back for how they treated Hillary.
I'll have a drink with anyone. No, the Dems held back their truly qualified candidates to nominate an utterly unqualified candidate who has bumbled the country into huge deficits and, likely, a double-dip recession. Funny that Obama claims "bad luck" is responsible. This with a straight face when his predecessor had 9/11 and Katrina, to name but two bits of "bad luck."
I, too, am more libertarian than conservative.
Libertarians= those who just couldn't apologize for Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II any longer
I might agree if any of those candidates had been libertarian in the governing orientation. Clearly Reagan was closest and did the best job. Unfortunately, even he fell well short of the mark.
I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.
Hillary got what she deserved. Power-hungry and filled with bad ideas.
Libertarian, not a conservative... If libertarians are so independent-minded, how come there are no libertarians in the Democratic party? Unless, of course, libertarians are also far-right -- that would make them conservatives in most areas anyway. Actually, that's moot anyway because I'm a Goldwater Republican which, in the '60s made me a conservative. Today, however, my "conservative" friends say I'm a (and I quote) "Flaming Liberal." I heard someone on TV opine that Goldwater -- if he were alive today -- would be considered just a bit right of center politically. So is it possible that what used to be the radical far right has appropriated the name and symbols of the GOP? Of course it is...
How come their are no libertarians in the Democrat Party? Is that even meant as a serious comment? It's because the principles are opposed. There are no libertarians in the Communist Party either. Evidence of a conspiracy? Nope. It's because libertarians want to be left alone to pursue their own interests with a minimum of interference. Democrats, et al, want to control every aspect of our lives.
See?
@MRAGH, your statement about Hilary exemplifies the exact way Republicans want this to work. Hilary is power hungry because she was smart enough to actually get the job done, while Palin and Bachmann are the cheerleaders that the football players let hang out with them because they're hot, even though they're both intelligent. The boys club that is Republican politics lets them in because they are NOT A THREAT.
...*they're both not intelligent. Oopsie.
And who exactly are the prominent women that the Democrats support? Pelosi is as crazy as everyone claims Bachmann is and Hillary has been sidelined as a highly marginalized SecState. It's not an impressive field.
Or is the Democratic party also a boy's club?
Here's how it will happen. Several Latin American countries have revamped their currencies, sometimes more than once, because of inflation: 100 old = 1 new or something like that. When Bachman is elected, the price of gas will rise to $20 in the resulting chaos. The government will establish the New American Dollar at a ratio of 10 to 1. Hey presto: gas at $2.
When Bachmann opens his mouth, truth is never the goal.
petrol (gas) is like £1.30 a litre so a gallon (4.5 litres) is £5.85 which is $9.60. You guys have it pretty sweet.
In the UK, should`ve been evident by the use of the £ sign but still.
In the UK, you can ride your bike everywhere.
Made all the more sad that Brits pay the same for crude. The difference in cost is taxes. Elect a more responsible government and reform taxes, Dr.
Yeah, fuck paying for government services, debt is wicked cool.
Fuck paying so much for so little. Borders and interstate commerce. Too funny that we're spending so much that even raising taxes to 50% on those making more than $1M/yr doesn't even come close to covering our deficit.
E3aJCH Comrade kill yourself.