Posted on 01/22/2007 8:06:07 PM PST by kiriath_jearim
America must do more to reduce its dependence on foreign oil and combat global warming, President George W Bush will say in the State of the Union address early tomorrow.
Though he will stop short of calling for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, his speech is a watershed for an administration that has been sceptical about climate change. The annual speech assumes greater importance than some of Mr Bush's previous addresses since he has few remaining opportunities to set the national agenda before he becomes a lame duck president.
Though he will not leave office until January 2009, next year - including his last State of the Union address - will be eclipsed by the battle to find his successor.
Although Mr Bush will talk about Iraq, repeating his determination to put down the insurgency, for once his domestic policy proposals are more keenly awaited than his foreign policy vision.
"I'm going to talk about a bold initiative that really encourages America to become less dependent on oil," Mr Bush said in an interview with USA Today.
Mr Bush is expected to call for higher fuel-economy standards for new cars as well as for greater investment in alternative and renewable fuel supplies, such as ethanol-based alternatives to petrol.
White House aides previewing the speech also suggested that the president will urge Congress to pass measures that would reduce emissions from power stations. "The new technologies I'll be outlining will help us deal with the issue of 'greenhouse gases'," he said.
Though environmental campaigners have pressed the president to commit to a specific target for emissions reduction, Mr Bush maintains that "the way to solve the problem is to promote new technology".
The Bush administration believes that market forces will prove more efficient than government regulation.
The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said: "Carrots work better than sticks."
Mr Bush is responding to Democratic pledges that Congress will act on global warming issues even if the White House does not make the matter a priority.
The Department of Energy's £600 million annual budget for renewable fuel and efficiency programmes has not increased in real terms since Mr Bush took office.
"The science of global warming and its impact is overwhelming," said Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. "We want to work with President Bush. But we cannot afford to wait."
The administration has opened new areas of US territory to oil exploration, granting new licenses for oil prospecting in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska to increase domestic oil production. But imports still account for 60 per cent of US oil consumption - up from 53 per cent at the start of Mr Bush's presidency.
According to a new poll released by ABC News, 65 per cent of Americans disapprove of Mr Bush's performance - a figure second only to Richard Nixon among presidents since the Second World War.
BTTT
So we therefore capitulate logic and reason to political expendiency.
really good work !
Skiers everywhere and the kid hitting the top of a tree.
beautiful
Hey, Heidi Cullen can't be wrong, can she?
Lol, thank you george!
We've heard more from Pelosi in her three weeks as Speaker than we heard from Hastert in eight years. ....by a wide margin.
I'm a former Republican Congressional campaign manager and political activist.
Bush is "manchurian" candiate for the wsocialist cause, just like his father, and all the other Yalies.
There is an uber-party that transcends the 2 public parties. It is comprised of senior member of both parties and their private sector associates.
The "uber-party" is progressive, and its primary function is to maintain stability in society and politics while maintaining and consolidating power within a very narrow circle of people.
A de facto aristocracy has been created.
All political power belongs to the most senior, who chair committees.
The name of the form of governance being practiced is "bourgoisie" or conservative socialism. As Marx explained in his writings, the purpose of conservatism socialism is to maintain stability by issuing sufficient largesse to the underclasses in order to keep them happy and avoid unrest.
With the Republicans in both Senate and House of Reps with Bush in Presidency, an imbalance was created that violated the "gentlemans agreement" within the uberparty.
Thus, Bush became a Democrat, from a substantial policy viewpoint. That is why one his first acts in Congress was to endorse and promote ted kennedy's Education Bill. His big photo op was designed to satisfy his Democrat partners that he would ensure that conservtism would not gain ground.
Since then Bush has been more liberal than Clinton in policy.
As far as the Iraq war goes, Kerry would have also attacked. Clinton was the man who had already begun preparing the military and preparing the nation for a war in Iraq BEFORE 9/11.
Clinton was far more aggressive than Bush in the use of the military.
Now, Bush is burying conservatives. The entire sense of hatred against Americans has beemn squarely blamed on neo-conservatives. (real conservatives are even more extreme in their minds)
There is no stopping it as long as Americans are fat, dumb and happy and have stooped being Christians.
Amazing. In this nation of 300 million, the freest democracy on earth, we have so very, very few families that actually control our politicasl system.
The Bushes. presidents, goernors, etc....are they more brilliant than the other 300 million Americans? the Clintons? All the other sons and daughters of senators and congressmen who have their turn now as senators and congressman controlling the most powerful nation in the history of the world?
It is no accident.
We are living in a despotic state. There are degrees.
This is a constituional republic that has been under 100% control of a very small number of people who have created a fiction for the American people.
This is now an oligarchy. conservative is the only threat to it, and Bush is deliberately choking off that threat.
Except for:
increasing the strength of the US economy
passing massive tax cuts for Americans
removing Saddam Hussein from power
Conducting three democratic elections in Iraq
reducing the deficit ahead of schedule
increasing local control of schools
decreasing global poverty through free trade
installing two solid judicial appointments to the Supreme Court
increasing government spending on defense and homeland security
preventing another attack on the United States
solidifying the US relationship with India as a counterbalance to China
increasing patrols of the US Mexican border
Conducting himself in a professional manner as President
Concluding a 2002 peace deal which ended the genocide in Southern Sudan
Negotiating an end to the possible nuclear escalation of Kashmir
increasing drilling permits for oil both in the Gulf of Mexico and the US
Appointing John Bolton to the UN ambassador position
Creating and implementing the PSI which successfully broke the Khan ring and ended the Libyan nuclear program among several other risks
Puts up with increasingly annoying critics who demonsrate little in the way of critical thinking skills
Apart from these and a myriad of other strong points for the president, you are right
I'm not either.
But the point I'm making is that you were twisting what I said.
Well, he's a lame duck as the political cycle goes.
Algore is cheering this.
Twisting? How else can you interpret such?
It will be tied up in the courts and elections for years before it ever comes to fruition. Gas is suddenly cheap.
I am sticking with my Sen Inhofe -- global warming is junk science!
I just said there would be incessant Bush bashing. I've already been proven right.
Hydrogen fuel cells. I am so hoping that the technology catches up. These cells and nuclear power plants are my energy hope for the future.
This can't be.
The George W. Bush I voted for would never fold like a cheap suit and try to appease the anti-American socialists and the greedy "scientific community" special interest groups who slurp like pigs from the multi-billion dollar "global warming" gravy boat of government "grant" money....
Would he....??
With Bush in office and Republican dominance of Congress the political system still progressed toward more socialism.
Most of the so-called conservative policies of Bush are meaningless in even the short run. They also are not even permanent laws, just window dressing to lull conservative activists until a officla Democrat president comes into office to shut those policies down.
Note: for instance, how Clinton purged the Judicial branch and all other executive offices of all legacy people and replaced them completely with pro-socialist, pro-Clinton people.
Yet when Bush took office he leaves over 95% of them in their seats replacing only the most publicly visible officials to fool the average conservative.
He's right about that.
Because now that the Dems have created their committee for global warming, the President will be asked for his views time and time again.
Best to just set out where he stands in a SOTU as a pre-emptive measure rather than he asked over and over later where he stands.
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.