Feds to tighten fuel rules (Bush is a CINO)

Detroit News ^ | 12/23/03 | Jeff Plungis

[jimkress]

Federal regulators plan to overhaul fuel economy rules for popular trucks and SUVs, including more stringent regulations that would cover the popular Hummer H2 and other extra-large SUVs for the first time.

Two proposals under consideration would revamp what constitutes a light truck starting with the 2008 model year.

[jimkress]

George Bush is a CINO (Conservative In Name Only). The only differences between Bush and Dean are:

1) Bush wants a large military 2) Bush is against blatant infanticide

in every other way Bush is a Big Government Liberal, just like Dean. This 'Fuel Economy' program, the infringement of Free Speech via CFR, and the recently announced implementation of more draconian air pollution rules, are yet more examples of Bush's Liberal, Big Government agenda.

The US Constitution Party is our only hope to escape the tyranny being imposed by Democrats and Republicans.

[Bikers4Bush]

I don't even know who this guy is anymore.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[Archangelsk]

Getting my ringside seat for the ensuing fistfight.

[MarkeyD]

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Why not raise fuel efficiency?

[sarasota]

2008 deadline. Election year.

[cars for sale]

maybe I mised something but regardless the special interest mentioned and you know Dubya could give a good damn about special interests, I remember muscle cars
with huge cubic inches and single digit gas miles per.

now less mass of cubic inches and 20 ish mpg is a damn
GOOD thing. If it follow that SUV's get better gas miles,
damn. And on someone else's dime some engine R&D leaves
a parts trail ,damn.

Again I see this as forward, but that is just this gearhead.

[Steve_Seattle]

Some of my biggest arguments with fellow conservatives are over this fuel-consumption issue. I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism. Frankly, I think when conservatives start thumping their chests about their SUV's, they sound reactionary in the worst sense, i.e., the thinking seems to be, "Liberals support fuel-efficient cars, so I'm against them." I think it would be great if Bush could take this issue away from the Democrats.

[Question_Assumptions]

He's someone who wants to get re-elected and wants to control the Congress. If he took the strict positions of many on Free Republic, he'd get 30% of the vote, tops. I'm most concerned about judicial nominees and, so far, he's been trying to appoint some pretty solid conservative there. I'm not willing to vote for a third party candidate to help Howard Dean nominate the next Supreme Court justice. That's a legacy that will extend far beyond either man's term and it will be far more important than CAFE standards and even outweights the new entitlement he's added, in my opinion.

[KarlInOhio]

NHTSA also is considering breaking up the light truck category by body size.

Then there will be a lot of trucks designed to be one pound over the bottom weight of their class. If one class is 3000-3500 pounds, then trucks which would have been in the 2900 range will be kicked up to 3001 pounds so it can be compared with heavier trucks.

[El Conservador]

Why is the Bush-basher threads is started by the same people, and answered generally by the same people???

Go to DU, your real home!!! (or to a paleocon board, for that matter)

[Miss Marple]

Two proposals under consideration would revamp what constitutes a light truck starting with the 2008 model year.

The new rules, if implemented, could make it more difficult for Detroit’s automakers — and some foreign makers — to continue selling profitable, but gas-guzzling, large pickups and SUVs in such high numbers.

1. This is a proposal UNDER CONSIDERATION, it has not been implemented yet.

2. This is from the National Highway Safety and Transportation Board, which is a bureaucracy which announces stuff like this all the time, regardless of who is president...even Howard Phillips.

3. It doesn't go into effect until 2008, IF it is implemented.

4. Fuel efficiency in SUV's and trucks could help us become more energy independent from the Saudis.

Now, explain how this makes President Bush a CINO. Are Conservatives supposed to be FOR wasting gasoline?

[Coop]

I love the argument. Being conservative means not conserving fuel. ROTFL!!

[COEXERJ145]

What gets me is everyone is blaming Bush and it is very likely that he has absolutely nothing to do with this. Federal regulators have way too much autonomy to create laws without any control from Congress or the Executive.

[SierraWasp]

Wull heck... yew musta been thrilled with Jimma Carter's forcing nose wheel drive on us! Turning our proud American cars from angular, arrogant things of power and beauty into rounded "push-me pull you's" with sidewinder engines that recycled exhaust gasses made of boutique gasolines that cost a fortune and poison the water tables of the nation!!!

Oh! I know... they're good for driving in snow... Phhhht!!!

[Coop]

Are Conservatives supposed to be FOR wasting gasoline?

:-) We had basically the same thought, though you're obviously much quicker to the draw than I!

[nhoward14]

Hear hear! There is no reason why conservatives can't continue to push for better engineering standards in all areas including fuel efficiency.

The trick is to be reasonable in setting the limits so manufacturers can continue to make vehicles the market demands while not allowing them to be sloppy in design.

[adam_az]

Some of my biggest arguments with fellow conservatives are over this fuel-consumption issue. I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism. Frankly, I think when conservatives start thumping their chests about their SUV's, they sound reactionary in the worst sense, i.e., the thinking seems to be, "Liberals support fuel-efficient cars, so I'm against them." I think it would be great if Bush could take this issue away from the Democrats.

There are plenty of high-milage vehicles available, yet many consumers prefer more powerful vehicles, and don't mind paying extra for more gas. In how many other areas do you think our government should restrict and interfere with your private financial transactions? Life, *liberty*, and *pursuit of happiness*. Who are you to say that even though people are more satisfied with larger vehicles, they shouldn't be allowed to drive them?

[Trailerpark Badass]

I refuse to make ANY link between gas-guzzling automobiles and conservatism.

No, but conservatives usually believe in market-oriented solutions as opposed to centrally-planned government solutions, which generally have unintended consequences and rarely solve the problem under focus. It was CAFE originally, that led to the prevalence of SUVs.