Democrats Stymied by Falling Gas Prices:

[tigerhonaker]

Democrats Stymied by Falling Gas PricesSeptember 12, 2006



BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
In moves and news that the Drive-By Media and the Democrats certainly did not anticipate, the average gasoline price has now fallen about, gosh, 17¢ a gallon in a week. You know what the lowest price for gasoline is in the country today? It's $2.03 in Ohio. The highest price is $3.59 somewhere. I'm not sure where that is. The average price for a gallon of Gasoline, $2.54. That's the US national average price. USA Today says: "Gasoline prices continue to tumble, almost free falling toward levels not seen in five months. When they went to press the nationwide average for regular was $2.61 a gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration. Some sources some places now say it's actual $2.54."

Oil prices are also dropping. They're dropping so precipitously that our friends at OPEC are concerned. When the prices are sky high, our friends at OPEC say, there's nothing we can do. The prices are now tumbling, and our friends at OPEC are, oh, no, no, no, we gotta have a meeting. They're having meetings on what to do about this. As I say, this has caught the Democrats off guard, ladies and gentlemen, because, you know, we've had the polling data from yesterday. This is just typical of what's been happening to them. Polling data from yesterday, a bunch of different polls cited the economy as most Americans number one concern going into the election.

The Democrats have been going back and forth, "Okay, what do we make our issue: the war, Iraq, or the economy?" They've decided that they're going to focus on Iraq, then the economic news, the economy secondarily. Now, the economic news is improving, and, you know, you don't need Drive-By Media to spin it. I don't expect the whole Drive-By Media to hail the reduction in gasoline prices. I don't expect them to even mention it much, and if they do, it will be within the context of is there anything conspiratorial about this? Is Bush and Cheney and Halliburton working with Big Oil to lower prices temporarily just to facilitate the reelection of Republicans in November?

You'll probably hear that and they'll start caterwauling about it. But the one thing, even if the Drive-By Media ignores it, if they give it scant attention, this is back-pocket news that people are going to realize. It's like a tax cut that people are getting and they'll feel it immediately just as they felt the increase, and they won't have to sit around watching television in order to be told that the gasoline price is coming down. What they'll see is Democrats complaining it's some sort of a conspiracy or what have you. So this is going to confound Democrats because they're off and running on the war and now all of a sudden one of the signal indicators of a robust economy, gasoline prices, literally plummeting -- 11¢ to 17¢ per gallon in a week -- and they are expected to continue to fall for the next three weeks or so, maybe even through Thanksgiving.

Read the Background Material...
(USAToday: Average gas price falls 11 cents a gallon in a week)
(Lowest Regular Gas Prices in the Last 48 Hours)
(WT: Americans likely to vote their wallet)
(NY Times: OPEC Production to Remain Unchanged)

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...ght.guest.html

[RH77]

RH77 D-MO here.

So, Rush is out of jail already for his drug abuse charges?

I respectfully, naw forget it, disrespectfully disgree with the rantings of this no-good waste of space.

Oh yes, that's right, I'm sorry. Fox News confirmed this information.

My bad.

RH77
Democrat, Liberal, Enviromentalist, and doing my best to tick off the Religious Right

[xcel]

Hi RH77:

Originally Posted by RH77

So, Rush is out of jail already for his drug abuse charges?

Oh yes, that's right, I'm sorry. Fox News confirmed this information.

___ROFLMAO Rush also claimed Al Gore created the Internet when what he actually said was a bit different.

___I can’t wait to go out and start a bonfire with that $2.59 a gallon gasoline I purchased tonight. It is only double what I paid 3 years ago … Wooo Hooo!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

[RH77]

Wayne -

Thanks for laughing and not kicking me off the site!



RH77

[Green&Blue]

For those trying to keep this site 'centrist', 'non-partisan', etc., this post fails that test. However, it could have been made better (or at least more representative) with one change - to insert the words "Limbaugh: " at the front of the title.

Nowhere in the article does an actual 'Democrat' appear, to provide basis for the main thrust of the story - that the Democratic party is somehow worried about the fact that gas prices are dropping faster than Katie Couric's overnight ratings (which happened, incidentally, the night she had Limbaugh on for the 'Free Speech' segment). I think, in the current climate, they have plenty of ammunition to use in other areas, and while gasoline prices *are* a 'real-time' barometer for people (excepting the < 1% who actually have EV-only cars), people see the general trend of inflation across all sectors of the economy, while the value of their homes - their piggy banks for the last few years - are declining, and so they no longer have have any buffer against higher prices. Spending has to be cut, and sacrifices have to be made. Energy prices may benefit the GOP in the short-term, but no other sectors of the economy are immune from a spending downturn by consumers, who make up 2/3 of the US economy. Given leading economic indicators for the last few months, the economy, in a larger scale, will not be helpful to the GOP come November. Their only hope to retain power is to emphasise the 'security' and 'safety' angles (real or imagined as they may be). Thus, the recent ramp-up by the Bush administration in speeches, etc, mentioning same. The goal for Democrats will be not to take the usual bait, as they did in 2002 and 2004, and appear 'weak' to the voters. Up till now, they've done fairly well. But I've seen their polling advantage over the GOP drop from +18 to +9, on a national level, in the last few weeks.

Back to the article / post - No people were actually interviewed for this article; thus, it is not 'news', but 'commentary'. Since it's known that Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, receive their topics via fax blast of talking points by the GOP (I should know, because I have access to one of the 1700+ outlets that get them daily), this post, parroted from his website, should at least reference that this is tantamount to a political advertisement. However, since CMPG is not a 'media' outlet, the Fairness Doctrine really doesn't apply; it was tossed aside in 1987 anyway. If there's one saving grace, it wasn't posted under the 'news' section. As an aside, when I hit the 'reply' button to this post, I then saw the active button to "listen to Rush conduct broadcast excellence". This also has no place in a post disguised as 'news'.

Thinking logically - wouldn't the fact that prices seem to be dropping faster than usual fuel (no pun intended) conspiracy theories ? Prices do historically drop a bit in the winter, but it's usually Oct-Nov, not pre-Labor Day when they do.

Now, we seem to be at a crossroads here. IMO, we need to be a little more vigilant by the moderators (I know the OP has this capability, because he can originate topics in the 'news' sections) regarding news bias, or, people espousing different viewpoints (such as Ashen Grey in his recent post) should not be castigated for posting same. While I've tried to keep an objective view here, and not reveal my own bias (although it shouldn't be a surprise or secret to anyone who looks at my handle), it goes without saying that I found the post very subjective, and not befitting treatment as anything but biased commentary, with reference to such. Instead, it is posted as legitimate and objective 'news'.

If I might add one other thing - in other (actual) news posts, there are often editorial captions under the photos. If objectivity and bias are strived for, they should be altered in the future, if the goal is to simply reference actual 'news' articles.

I won't pick apart the statements as quoted by Mr. Limbaugh - that's easy enough for everyone else to do, and the point of my posting was not to rebut him, but to point out the fallacy of posting this as a 'news' article.

Wayne - I will PM you re: your recent radio appearance (which I missed, sadly, and only found out about a couple of weeks ago). Seems like a good time to visit that with you, given the subject of this post (I'm just looking for particulars, not to criticize).

[Chuck]

Among the moderators and members at large, there is a diversity of political opinion

In regards to the article starting this thread, I'm more inclined to think it was a quick search engine hit that got hastily posted, rather than intentional bias.

A time here (and another forum), I got sneaky with my bias. I quoted the article, but put the parts that supported my point of view in boldface. Technically I did not change anything, but I was promoting my POV. I'll avoid doing that in the future.

Everything has some bias, but generally news articles should keep it to a minimum. Maybe hybrid reviews could be an exception as they are notorious for their slant against them and we want to discuss that.

If we post many polarized articles, our credibility suffers.

[tbaleno]

When Terry posted this he was kind of being sarcastic. We were talking in chat. And since I tend to be conservative he looked and saw this commentary and posted it.

Anyone looking at the first post might have seen the "Listen to Rush..." button. I think that pretty much says it all.

Even conservatives like myself know he is a bag of wind.

The fact that the article mentions that a memo was distrubuted also is bold print saying that it is talking points. Both sides use them and it is why I realy don't like either side.

Its like in the news media where one paper will have a story and another paper will have an almost word for word identical story. They get their "talking points" from rueters. Politicians and journalists are very similar in that neither has a mind of their own. They are each part of their respecitive "hive minds."

As far as gas prices lowering, if it were a conspiracy they wouldn't have done it until closer to the election. Remember how the Dems pulled out the "George is a coke head" a week before his first term election? They all do it (both sides) and I'm not saying that the Reps wouldn't do something like this. I'm just saying that in this particular case it seems unlikely. If they were going to do it I think they would have done it mid october.

I hope I'm not to ranty, but when I start hearing the party line from the left "conspiracy theory" being ignored, and "talking points" of Reps being discussed it tends to anoy me.

Lets try to stop talking about how bad one party is vs another and come to the realization both parties are bad in their own ways.

[tbaleno]

[quote=Delta Flyer;12172]If we post many polarized articles, our credibility suffers./QUOTE]

Umm. I disagree. If we post poarized articles we find some of the truth. Both sides have truths. Sure they get clouded by all the ranting, but if you realy look into it you will find the kernel of truth. It just takes some stripping away of the anger and rants.

Ultimatly I think both sides are trying to accomplish the same thing, but they are to pig headed to listen to the other side.

[RH77]

Tiger, I don't mean this personally, but I disagree with political posts on non-political Forums. If CleanMPG.com wants to create a special section for this, by all means have at it. I believe it when you say you "slipped-in" bias -- that's the nature of your Party (and I have comments that I won't share about that here).

My core beliefs were attacked in your post; therefore, I responded with a jab of my own.

I've gotten into political slug-fests in FE forums before and it's not fair to those who come to the site for FE info or to share ideas and science.

I politely recommend that the politics be left outside this site, unless it's a policy issue or legitimate news.

RH77

[Green&Blue]

I can see that the entire point of my post has been missed. So I'll provide some rebuttal to your own, since this thread remains open.

Originally Posted by tbaleno

When Terry posted this he was kind of being sarcastic. We were talking in chat. And since I tend to be conservative he looked and saw this commentary and posted it.

Then, respectfully, it should have been labeled as such - that it was in humor, etc. Instead, it masquerades as a news item. BTW, I wasn't attacking him, or suggesting that he had nefarious goals in mind. It may have been accidental, as Delta alluded to. But given recent conversations on this site regarding keeping things civil, avoiding overtly political conversations, etc by some of the moderators (and the propensity of other mods who have a presence on other sites to close threads down rather quickly, IMO), I felt this was worth bringing up (more on this later).

Originally Posted by tbaleno

Anyone looking at the first post might have seen the "Listen to Rush..." button. I think that pretty much says it all.

When I looked at the first post, I could not see the button (I did not state that specifically, and I apologise if I confused anyone). It was not until I hit the 'reply' that I could. That being said - it does not mollify me that it was there, or send a signal to me that "oh - it's all in fun". Rather, it sends the opposite signal - that it adds legitimacy to what was posted.

Originally Posted by tbaleno

Even conservatives like myself know he is a bag of wind.

*Some* do. However, many (and I would posit 'most') do not. Rather, they parrot what he says as fact (hence, the term 'dittohead', which he espouses as well). Xcel's reply to RH77 exemplifies how this eventually becomes 'mainstream'; ie; "Al Gore 'invented' the internet". We know by now that the real story is that as a senator, he sponsored the bill that eventually provided public access to the internet, where it had been relegated to .mil and .edu before. And thus, we're all here now discussing this, you co-own this domain and the infrastructure that allows us to have this dialogue, etc. So I think we would agree that it's a very good thing, as Martha Stewart would say. However, this was twisted into a 'lie' by the right-wingers, and passed on by the MSM (mainstream media) as fact. Be thankful I didn't say 'SCLM'

Originally Posted by tbaleno

The fact that the article mentions that a memo was distrubuted also is bold print saying that it is talking points. Both sides use them and it is why I realy don't like either side.

Are you referring to the OP ? Because I re-read that article again carefully, and I did not see mention to a memo being distributed. I did not access the links contained within it, so if that's what you're referring to, I will go back and read those.

Originally Posted by tbaleno

Its like in the news media where one paper will have a story and another paper will have an almost word for word identical story. They get their "talking points" from rueters. Politicians and journalists are very similar in that neither has a mind of their own. They are each part of their respecitive "hive minds."

While I agree with you to a very small extent, keep two things in mind...
- Stories taken from news wires are referenced as such (at least by 'mainstream' media sources...as an example, the CMPG team is very careful to do so, is it not ?
- There's a word for journalists / writers who steal each others words in any significance - it's called 'plagiarism', and it's about the worst brand they can suffer. Given that, they work hard to avoid it (I know I do).

Originally Posted by tbaleno

As far as gas prices lowering, if it were a conspiracy they wouldn't have done it until closer to the election.

Remember how the Dems pulled out the "George is a coke head" a week before his first term election? They all do it (both sides) and I'm not saying that the Reps wouldn't do something like this. I'm just saying that in this particular case it seems unlikely. If they were going to do it I think they would have done it mid october.[/quote]

You're actually agreeing with me...read my statement again...
"Thinking logically - wouldn't the fact that prices seem to be dropping faster than usual fuel (no pun intended) conspiracy theories ? Prices do historically drop a bit in the winter, but it's usually Oct-Nov, not pre-Labor Day when they do."
Let's start by stating for the record that I'm not (yet) accusing the GOP and BigOil of a joint conspiracy.
Now, if they were trying to pass it off as normal market fluctuation - then they would time this to have impact in the October timeframe - not August. The point could be made that the speculative forces on the market (global unrest, weather) have stabilized for now. And I'd accept that. But I also wouldn't be surprised to someday hear of a concerted effort by one or both parties to lend a helping hand. US oil companies no longer control the global price of oil. But I wouldn't put it past them to take a short-term loss that they can then recoup after November, either. I think all of us here know - from this point out, the long-term pricing forecast for gasoline / petroleum - is *up*.
Given this administrations tendency to execute so poorly (except for campaign strategy), I'd surmise that they jumped the gun a bit, with regard to timing. If you look at this thread, you have others that are suspicious as well - so it's not just me with a tinfoil hat, here

I'll dispense with the comment regarding GW's (alleged) drug use - it's not applicable to this discussion, as such. However, I'd be glad to comment on it another time.

Originally Posted by tbaleno

I hope I'm not to ranty, but when I start hearing the party line from the left "conspiracy theory" being ignored, and "talking points" of Reps being discussed it tends to anoy me.

Lets try to stop talking about how bad one party is vs another and come to the realization both parties are bad in their own ways.

Well, I won't categorize you as 'ranty', just yet. However, I will accuse you of missing my point. Read my post again. It's not overly critical of the GOP, and it's not overly flattering of the Democratic party. The only reason I mentioned 'talking points' is because they are, indeed, taken practically verbatim from ones that the GOP distributed (I would offer to post a copy of them here, but you're not interested in that). Also, as I mentioned above, I'm not screaming 'conspiracy' yet with regard to gasoline prices. But, again, I'm not alone in thinking something's up, and bears watching. As a newspaper columnist once said:

"If you want a watchdog to warn you of intruders, you must put up with a certain amount of mistakened barking. Now and then he will sound off because a stray dog seems to be invading his territory...or because he is outraged by a postman, and that kind of barking can, of course, be a nuisance.
But if you muzzle him and leash him, and teach him decorum, you will find that he doesn't do the job for which you got him in the first place. Some extraneous barking is the price you must pay for his service as a watchdog.
A free press is the watchdog of a free society. And only a press free enough to be somewhat irresponsible can possibly fulfill this vital function"

Now, I didn't use that quote on behalf of the press (although it certainly applies), but on behalf of those who consider themselves vigilant in uncovering falsehoods, from *either* side of the aisle. I like to consider myself one of those individuals. Thus, I don't wish to silence viewpoints of the 'other' side - their views have validity, as you mention, and so, I don't eschew the right of *either* side to use talking points (although I would like them to have some semblence of accuracy, I do realize they're not meant to be objective). However, I interpret your final statement in this post (not the following one in which you reply to Delta Flyer) as that you'd prefer neither side to have any voice.

Given that you are a co-owner of the website, your words carry extra weight, as you have the power to ban us at will, or close down the site. However, don't tell us to 'pipe down', and then allow posts such as the first one in this thread to be posted as journalistic fact, or brush off our concerns as 'well, any reasonable person would obviously see that it's satire' <paraphrasing>.

It is duplicitous to do so, and suggests that you have an agenda of your own; especially when you (and others) close down threads on other sites when people on 'one side' spew their venom unprovoked, and then the thread is closed before the other side has time to rebut. Rather, it would be better if the thread were deleted entirely - I realize this also smacks of censorship, but again, he who owns the ball can choose the rules of the game, and there are sites where guidelines are posted, and those who ignore or willfully disobey those rules on a consistent basis have their posts deleted. A fine balance between free speech and censorship, eh ? BTW, I know it's bad manners to discuss your conduct on other sites and drag that in the discussion - but I do think it's germane to the discussion.

While there are those who might say...well, politics has no place on a website about fuel economy, they fail to realize that the subject itself has political overtones. Thus, politics will inevitably come up in *any* ongoing discussion about FE.

I realize I may have rambled on here a bit, so I'll restate - my issue with this post (and the other things I mentioneed) is not with who's 'right' or 'wrong', politically. It's passing off editorial as 'news'. And now that we've entered into this discussion, it's also in allowing one side to operate more or less unfettered, and the other side being censored. Either allow both sides or censor both. You may not like hearing the discussion, but the alternative of censoring both sides is worse. And the worst of all is allowing a set of viewpoints you agree with, and disallowing those that you don't.

[/soapbox=off]