The Gas-Guzzler Gambit

The New York Times
Author: Unknown
May 4, 2008

In this article, the author is talking about the proposal that John McCain and Hilary Clinton made concerning a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax between memorial day to labor day. The author states, " The proposal may draw applause and votes from Americans feeling the pain of nearly $4-a-gallon gasoline. But it is an expensive and environmentally unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers." Right of the bat, the author is being biased in the first paragraph of the article. This effects the reader from the beginning of the article by thinking, "oh, is this author really credible or is he just trying to argue his point for his own pleasure." He believes that this is the wrong approach for global warming and the rising energy prices. At the end, he states, "Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain have explained the inconsistency in their positions. We know pandering when we see it. We also know that suspending the gas tax for the summer won’t solve this country’s energy problems or even reduce the price of gas." He is reffering to "We" as if everyone reading the article agrees with him. Throughout the entire article, the author is just stating his opinions. Whether his opinions are right or wrong, it would be a more credible article if he would have stated some facts to back his opinions up. This article started off in a bad way which made me not like it from the start. It would have been much better if the author waited until he could prove some trustworthy points before practically blurting out that the proposal is stupid.