Who do you think will sign more regulations, Arnold or Angelides?
Posted on 08/10/2006 9:32:35 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to position himself as a leader on climate change while maintaining support from business leaders has created an election-year dilemma that threatens to undermine his environmental credentials.
The Democratic majority in the Legislature plans to send him a bill this month that would create the country's first law capping greenhouse gas emissions from refineries, power plants and other industrial sources. He has asked for several pro-business changes to the bill that Democrats and environmentalists complain would severely weaken it.
Schwarzenegger has made global warming his signature environmental issue and is eager to sign a climate measure before he faces the state's Democratic-leaning electorate in November. It also would be another way for him to set himself apart from President Bush, who has opposed regulating global warming gases and is deeply unpopular in California.
"He hopes to have a bill on his desk this year that he can sign," spokesman Darrel Ng said, "but he wants to make sure it can be in a way that protects the economy and the environment."
At the same time, the Republican governor must tread carefully in the face of criticism from his own party for even considering signing legislation that businesses oppose.
"This noble goal of reducing greenhouse emissions and making energy use more efficient could backfire," said Dorothy Rothrock, a spokeswoman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. "It could hurt the economy and drive emissions outside California, thereby not improving the situation."
Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial opponent, Democratic state Treasurer Phil Angelides, said Wednesday that the changes Schwarzenegger has requested would create only a voluntary plan.
"He's trying to gut this bill so he can claim an election-year victory, and the people of California and the environment will be left holding the bag for yet another broken promise," Angelides said.
A veto on a bill that is likely to be popular with the centrist voters Schwarzenegger needs in November could leave him vulnerable, despite the pro-environment record he has built since becoming governor in 2003.
In June 2005, Schwarzenegger issued an executive order calling for the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Last week, when British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited the state, Schwarzenegger signed a pact to have California and Britain work together to research cleaner-burning fuels and technologies.
Democrats say they are taking Schwarzenegger's cue and trying to put his ceremonial orders into law.
BTTT
Good grief!
So you support this nonsense?
vomit? you really want to go there? lol
I have been who I am since day 1 here. Can you say the same?
You remind me of a couple who have been banned from here in the past as being nothing more than 'pitbulls' and serving no other purpose than to intimidate and impugn others.
Not much of a calling, imo, or anything I'd be very proud of or want to advertise as you continue to do.
Oh well, Thanks for the bumps. See ya around, p*nk.
PS.. whatever happened to grunt68?
Nobody by that name..
Hmmmm? lol
Good call. That is precisely what it is. And it really does not deserve all the heraldry...pro or con.
Our state of affairs in California is utterly deplorable.
And its vexing to merely have to read or hear about it much less have "freelancers" whip themselves into frenzies over the minutae.
It's tempting to occasionally tweak these old timers who feel somehow superior to everyone and everything. They get so puffed up in their fantasies of self-importance.
Their absence of a sense of humor precludes them from taking jibes in stride or with equanimity. The old "Pride that goeth before the Fall" thing.
I don't understand your post. By "nonsense," I was referring to the climate change legislation.
Do you support that?
I don't consider it "minutae" as there is a lot of momentum behind the bill, including a huge propaganda machine working overtime via television and the print media.
" the climate change legislation."
Are you serious? It's total hogwash. There is not one iota of evidence that man-made anything affects the climate whatsoever. It's an elaborate hoax to extort governments and industries of huge ripoffs by criminal elements and foolish nincompoops who idiotically believe their lies. Not one shred of reliable evidence exists to support any part of it.
That whole Tokyo Protocol thing is a giant extortion scheme devised by criminal third world UN countries to rip off major petro-chem using nations. Its a criminal conspiracy. Nothing less.
Don't worry about this dude! Norm has already pulled his covers as the dude that used to run around here calling anyone that he disagreed with "the ilk!" (see #26, above)
Constitution? What Constitution? Oh... that old doormat thing that no one follows unless some liberal's rights are being stepped on.
Since virtually every part of the Constitution has been trampled on and side-sepped at some point or another, I see it as a void contract these days.
I got to pinch myself. Glad you came out of your little WatcherTower.. Thanks.
You can actually discuss issues and share views about topics posted,, instead of yapping at the heels of posters and assigning blame for them having done so as if you exactly know others motives as to why what gets posted here...
wow
"PS.. whatever happened to grunt68? "
Nobody by that name..
Hmmmm? lol
====
Your Schadenfreude was premature.
Well, they say the memory is the second thing to go...
There never was a "grunt68", but "68grunt" was still posting yesterday, and his account is in good standing, because he still has an account and home page -- and he has about 3 years seniority at FR over you.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~68grunt/
68 grunt
Since Feb 25, 1998
He posted yesterday:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=68grunt
And SierraWasp accusing CBart95, in post 30, of being identical with 68grunt, and not pinging him is also pretty pathetic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1681238/posts?page=30#30
Considering that 85% of Republicans plan to vote for Arnold, I don't see how you can assume that there is only one person in the entire CA, who can see that we need Arnold to help save CA, and that your repeating Angelides' talking points is NOT typical of conservatives in the least.
Does the bill include mandatory rain dances?
So, you support this global warming nonsense, do you?
Regulate, regulate, regulate. Bye-bye business!
Hey FO, How's the bus running? awful quiet lately,
now why would ya want to go and stir things up?
ya got new marching orders?
makes sense you're off the bus for a bit, seeing as how buses pollute and contribute to global warming which we all know the facts are in on, so says the gubby and al gore and lo and behold, bill clinton and john kerry too.
mighty impressive lineup you're onboard with. you should be so proud.
OH and PS, you should know about pathetic. go ahead , slime away.
" He (Arnold) has asked for several pro-business changes to the bill that Democrats and environmentalists complain would severely weaken it. "
are you having problem comprehending?
Here's what I get, FO:
I see a "Republican" governor pushing more job-killing regulation on California. Whether these regulations are monitored by one commission or another (the so-called "weakening") is not of import to me. What is important is that under Arnold's plan, or the Dem plan, they are forcing more regulation.
If you continue to choose to quote Democratic talking points to try to sell your argument, you lose. Try reading AB 32 and you won't look so ignorant. Bottom line: it's more destructive regulation under both plans.
Who do you think will sign more regulations, Arnold or Angelides?
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.