You know, it’s one thing to sign on to a bad policy position. Every politician does this once in a while. It’s another to respond to deserved criticism of that position not by adjusting one’s position, but by following the logic of the bad policy position to its stupid and harmful end. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had their initial disagreement about health insurance mandates, Obama’s position was considered the poorer one but not unforgivable. The real harm came when instead of revising his position based on criticism, he adopted even worse arguments to criticize the correct policy.
Now Hillary, having throw in her lot with John McCain on a terrible gas tax holiday policy, is responding to criticism by going all in. She’s not revising her policy prescription; instead, she’s leveling criticism at the good policy punishing the candidate with the courage not to pander. Unfortunately, she’s not stopping there. She’s now attacking the very science behind the criticism. If economics says Hillary’s wrong, then economics can’t be trusted:
This morning, George Stephanopoulos began his televised interview with Senator Hillary Clinton by asking if she could name a single economist who supports her plan for a gas tax suspension.
She did not. “I’m not going to put in my lot with economists,” she said on ABC’s “This Week” program. A few moments later, she added, “Elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantages the vast majority of Americans.”