Critics Resigning Over Bush's Green Rules

Los Angeles Times (requires registration) ^ | 06/03/2002 | Elizabeth Shogren

[RFH]

WASHINGTON -- James Furnish is hardly the kind of person you'd expect to quit his government job on principle during the Bush administration. A political conservative and an evangelical Christian, he voted for President Bush and plans to do the same in 2004.

As a deputy chief of the U.S. Forest Service, he was eager to give his new bosses the benefit of his more than 30 years of experience in the agency. He realized his conservationist ethic might not always prevail. But he was ready to say his piece and then accept the new administration's direction.

[RFH]

Wait a minute... According to Drudge and the NY Times, Bush 'Did a U-Turn' and acknowledges global warming, and ends up rolling over to the 'greenies'. U-Turn

Yet the LA Times reports that many long-time EPA and Environmental bureaucrats are resigning due to the Bush team's "strident pro-development philosophy". Which is it? I'm soooooo confused.....

[11th Earl of Mar]

Boy, think of how many greenies we can run out of government in 8 years. This story gives me hope.

[CT]

Funny, the mainstream media never did a story about liberal government employees that resigned during Clinton's time, on the grounds he was dishonest?

[ppaul]

Instead, Furnish reluctantly left the government in the fall, at a substantial financial sacrifice, because he was frustrated by what he called the Bush team's strident pro-development philosophy and unwillingness to even listen to his perspective.

Good.
One less whiner on the government dole.

[wallcrawlr]

Instead, Furnish reluctantly left the government in the fall, at a substantial financial sacrifice

This guys bureaucratic policies have been probably costing me substantially for years. This guy did me a favor for leaving.

[Benrand]

Yeah, what hte hell happened there?

It was a huge story, but they got it toally wrong. The NYT can't get this right?

[rintense]

Ha! That's exactly what Rush said. I'm only listening to Rush today to see what he is saying on this. Otherwise, I wouldn't listen.

[GuillermoX]

The admission by Bush that humans cause(d) globull warming and that it's harmful is the first increment in implementing a "sustainable development" policy.

To put it mildy, I'm very disappointed in Bush. I was never under the assumption that Bush was a hard-core righty, but steel tariffs, nationalizing airport security, 60% increase in Federal education spending, pro illegal immigration, pro Arab/Muslim immigration, embracing Islam, etc. is absurd.

[ppaul]

I'm only listening to Rush today to see what he is saying on this. Otherwise, I wouldn't listen.

Yeah.
Right.

[madfly]

ping

[Eva]

I was thinking the same thing when I read the title. I thought the were talking about conservatives leaving. This is actually good news.

I never really believed the NYT article anyway. I think that the new Democrat strategy is to try to separate Bush from his conservative base. Watch for more articles describing Bush as a liberal.

[Fred Mertz]

Good riddance! And hopefully many more follow his lead.

[monday]

"To sum up, it is a report with so many caveats and sidebars that it says nothing."

Yes, anyone who reads it will understand this. For most people though, all they will know about it is that the Bush administration predicts that Rocky Mountain meadows and coastal marshes will disappear but they don't want to do anything about it. Thats all that will be reported in the press.

Very bad move by the administration in my opnion.

[rintense]

Seriously. I haven't listened to Rush in over four months.

[MeekOneGOP]

Here's the WHINER.............

"I’ve been disappointed and
somewhat embittered" by the
Bush team's actions.
-- Former Forest Service
deputy chief James Furnish
http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/6000/10m/www.latimes.com/media/thumbnails/quote/2002-06/3346156.jpg

[rhombus]

You got that exactly right. Seperating Bush from his base is exactly what the liberals want. It worked against his father very well. Ross Perot siphoned off some of the votes and doing the "read my lips" deal with the devilcrats also did the job.

I see all sorts of "I voted for Bush but..." posts on conservative sites such as this. It's the old I'll die by my principles vs. picking your battles debate. Let's get serious though -- there is a war on. Do you really want to stand by principles and hand the commander-and-chief title over to a democrat? And which one will that be -- they will all be running as tough of the war conservatives... John Kerry, Edwards... McCain... :-)

Me? I'm sticking with Bush. If he has to make the liberals "feeeeel good, I can look past it. I gotta believe he understands picking the right battles and taking baby steps when necessary. The Devilcrats have understood that for a long time.

[Siobhan]

Let the slime slink away. No tears here.

[Siobhan]

A good laxative would help him immensely... ;^)

[callisto]

I think that the new Democrat strategy is to try to separate Bush from his conservative base. Watch for more articles describing Bush as a liberal.

A very accurate assessment. I think we'll see more articles like you describe and more disruptors on the forum.