Skip to comments.McClintock rips on 'Schwarzennegger's crusade'
Posted on 02/27/2009 1:26:59 PM PST by SmithL
Tom McClintock may have barely squeaked out a win in a congressional district where Republicans hold a 15-point voter registration advantage. But he is clearly savoring his new speech-making perch in Congress.
McClintock, of Northern California's 4th Congressional District, is aggressively attacking Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on global warming. And the man who loves to quote historic figures from Churchill to Jefferson is now quoting himself to take on President Barack Obama's economic agenda.
On Schwarzennegger, McClintock arose to demand that the federal government hold firm against California's efforts to impose stricter emissions standards for automobiles.
"I rise to urge the president not to waive the federal law on emission standards that is currently protecting Californians from Gov. Schwarzenegger's crusade to save our planet by destroying our economy,"
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Good for him.. and US!
“This proves what I like to call ‘McClintock’s Second Law of Political Physics,’” he said, adding laterr, “The more we spend on our mistakes, the less willing we are to admit them.”
Go for it Tom. Put a cork up Schwartzenkennedy’s tailpipe, make his head explode.
An aside...”he said, adding laterr,...” Wondering if “laterr” is later than just “later”?
FYI. Great soundbite, but I can’t imagine a more useless gesture unless BO has another reason to thwart Schwarzenkaiser.
McClintock squeaked in because he ran in a district that was really not his own. He was termed out of the CA Senate and went carpet bagging. He'll do better next election.
The fact that the Bee's news section (note, this was not on the editorial page) should ridicule him in such terms shows that Tom is aligned with California Republicans.
When are conservatives ever going to learn that this is not how you talk about environmental issues if you want to win?
NEVER give the left the moral high ground that what they're doing is of net environmental benefit; it simply is not true. here is how it's done"
I stand ready to teach any conservative candidate how to take the left to task for the environmental damage they are doing while they bankrupt the nation for fun and profit.
Excellent point, Carry. I hope that the conservative politicians listen to you. So much of the debate is about how we define it.
The left has won so much simply because they own the media and have defined the debate.
McClintock Ping List.
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list
I wish somebody would liten to Tom. How in the world will the auto industry ever recover if we (CA) keep adding stipulations that drive up the cost of buying a car?
Just think if every state was given a waiver and they all imposed a different set of standards on the industry.
Arnie doesn’t seem to care about that — only fighting “global warming” windmills.
What a jerk.
Don't you just love Peter, the faithful and loyal foot soldier at McClatchy. Peter would knife his mother in the back if she spoke a conservative word.
Hecht is the same loyalist who heaped praise on Jackie Speier when she ran for congress.
What's wrong with Federalism? Do you think the voters shouldn't have the latitude to cut their economic throats? Do you believe in one-size-fits-all regulations?
When we federalize regulations, we can't learn how stupid they are, especially when the conditions vary from state to state. A place like Anchorage or Denver has very different air quality problems than a place like San Francisco. What is wrong with allowing the car companies to decide how they want to market their products to take advantage of or deal with those distinctions and develop products that optimize the cost/benefit ratio in each instance?
For example, wouldn't it be cool if your car could read a GPS coordinate and adjust its performance once it got out of town? You'd get better mileage.
It depends on your definition, I assume. To the extent that it refers to the division of power between the Feds and the States, I believe in doing that in a manner that makes sense. Individual States imposing different regulations related to the air, in a place like Four Corners, makes little sense to me. Just as most States largely conform their tax law to federal law, there can be a benefit from having a single rule book. Do we really need a fed EPA, a state EPA, and reitional EPAs?
Do you think the voters shouldn't have the latitude to cut their economic throats?
No. But I don't think Austrian socialist State dictators should be allowed to cut the throats of nationwide industries.
Do you believe in one-size-fits-all regulations?
Of course not.
reitional EPAs s/b regional.
So does every regulatory power freak in every single bureaucracy in the country. "Makes sense" according to whom?
Car companies? People with asthma? Government employee unions? Car buyers? Activists? Corporate foundation gamesters? Every one of those groups has a different idea of what constitutes "makes sense." The problem with Federal determination is that it precludes both optimization by niche marketing and natural law competition among control points.
Individual States imposing different regulations related to the air, in a place like Four Corners, makes little sense to me.
That's because you haven't considered transfer functions as a market-based metric (it's in that book you didn't finish :-).
But I don't think Austrian socialist State dictators should be allowed to cut the throats of nationwide industries.
As you know, I despise Austrian socialist dictators too, but I have a lot more respect for the capability of engineering technology to mass-produce vehicles that can deal with trade-offs like differences in local conditions, whether political or technical. We're not in the early 20th Century any more.
Actually, the economics of it all is what I find the most distasteful. (see below)
...the capability of engineering technology to mass-produce vehicles that can deal with trade-offs like differences in local conditions, whether political or technical.
I don't question their ability to comply with whatever crazy regulations is imposed.
I do question how long they will remain in business when those regulations are causing productivity to decline at such a rapid pace.
Think about all the time and money spent in this arena. The legislators making up laws. The bureacrats enforcing them. The Corporate lawyers trying to understand them. The engineers trying to figure out how to comply. The consumer having to modify their vehicles every time they move from one state to another. Etc. etc. etc.
And what does any of that produce? Did it actually increase the productivity (e.g. reduce cost or time for transport of thing/person from point A to point B)? In a world market, it's just tying our hands behind our backs and shooting both our feet. And for what? Global warming?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.