As explained before, that's not a comparable question.
Yes, it is.
Clunkers for cash is selling SUVs and trucks, as noted in the story. The piss-por mileage of SUVs and trucks was the war cry for the left over the last several years, as the price of gas climbed, peaking last year, and th eleft blamed these vehicles for every bit of it.
True, that was part of the cry from the left. That said, you stated
"So, when gas prices go up again, are the liberals going to blame The Obama for all the new trucks and SUVs on the road, driving up demand? "
No, they're not, because "all those new trucks and SUV's on the road" aren't going to be driving up the demand, not in the way that you're implying. Your implying through your words that "all those new trucks and SUV's" from cash for clunkers are going to drive up demand as compared to if Cash for Clunkers didn't happen, which isn't the case because "all those SUVS and Trucks" have BETTER gas mileage than the ones prior to Cash for Clunkers.
If you trade in your 15MPG Suburban for an 18MPG Tahoe, you're still driving an 18 MPG Tahoe, driving up fuel demand over the smaller, more efficent cars that the left had championed -- but, apparently, that's OK because even though the mileage still stinks, its "better".
Whether or not its okay, if demand goes up for gas again you can't blame Cash for Clunkers for doing it by putting more "18 MPG Tahoe's on the road" because if they DIDN'T do Cash for Clunkers it would instead be 15 MPG Suburbans on the road and demand would arguably be HIGHER up so instead they could, theoritically, actually THANK Obama for demand not going up AS MUCH because better gas mileage SUV's and trucks are on the road.
Aha!
THAT is a flawed premise, as "better" gas mileage can still be "piss-poor" gas mileage, and STILL drive up demand.
Yes, but it won't drive up demand AS MUCH as the lower gas mileage cars they got rid of, thus you can't blame Cash for Clunkers for INCREASING demand which would be needed if your premise is to be true.
That the demand post-CARS might not be as high as demand pre-CARS doesnt in any way preclude post-CARS demand from diving up prices.
No, it doens't, but it does mean one can't BLAME CARS and Obama on the increased in demand POST-CARS (at least in this instance) because the pre-CARS demand would've been even higher because it would've been more lower mileage vehicles on the road.
But, they ARE going to drive it up compared to if the buyers had bought the more fuel efficient cars previously championed by the left, rather than SUVs. CARS allowed for these SUVs to be purchased, and so is to blame for the difference in mileage between those SUVs and the more fuel efficient cars that could have otherwise been specified.
So you're attempt is saying that because they helped by getting low mileage cars/trucks/suv's off the road...but allowed it to be used for SUVs/Trucks that get better gas mileage than those previous ones but not better than small cars...they should be blamed for the rise in demand?
That's just asinine.
There's many potential ways to blame Obama if the price of gas rises again. Blaming a program that takes low mileage cars off the road and puts higher mileage ones on is not one of those ways.
Under CARS, you can get a SUV or truck with as low as 15MPG.
To have it that way you'd have to be trading in a car/truck/suv that got as low as 13 MPG for $3,500 or 10 MPG for $4,500, which still ultimately putting a higher gas mileage vehicle on the road then previously would've been, which is a net positive for demand.
Not to mention you're also using ANOTHER flawed assumption; that all those people trading in their SUV's/Trucks for ones in the Cash for Clunkers program would've still done it if they would've been forced to get a compact car isntead of another SUV/Truck.
The administratiuon chose to allow that possibility, and so is respobsible for every 15MPG SUV/truck bought under the program, and the demand that these vehicles created over the smaller, more fuel efficent cars the left has been talking about.
Yes, they're responsable for the 2 to 5 mile per gallon demand that they've managed to save.