Replies

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?

The term "more difficult" in regards to buying av SUV from Detroit does not mean IMPOSSIBLE.

In fact, this term more "difficult to buy an SUV" is simply an adjective used by the writer of this article designed to get all these Bush haters up in arms.

SUV's in all forms will continue to be available come 2008, of that I am quite certain.

This is much ado about nothing.

No one is saying you can't have a large, powerful automobile. I think the argument is that we need to create incentive for our market-based economy to produce more efficient vehicles. This efficiency can and should be better fuel economy and power productivity with less pollution. What's so UnAmerican about that?

Our complete addiction to foreign oil is funding the terrorists. Not smoking joints... wasting oil.