Say It Ain't So, George

Tech Central Station ^ | 6/3/2002 | James K. Glassman

[Redcloak]

Say It Ain't So, George

By James K. Glassman

06/03/02

White House

Say it isn't so, George.

Today, Americans learned from a front page story in The New York Times that, "in a stark shift, ...the administration for the first time mostly blames human actions for recent global warming. It says the main culprit is the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

In the past, President Bush properly noted that, while the earth had warmed at its surface by one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, scientists were still uncertain what caused the warming and what would happen in the century ahead. In addition, the administration urged the weighing of potential benefits against real-life costs -- which could run to $300 billion or more annually. Bush encouraged more research before drawing catastrophic conclusions.

But now, as a result of the new report, which was sent to the United Nations, the stage is set for an inevitable government-run program to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by cutting energy use. And cutting energy use means reducing the rate of economic growth. There's no other way. No wonder the stock market has been falling lately.

By accepting the basic premise of extreme environmentalists, the president will ultimately be forced to accept the major content of the same treaty that he rejected a little over a year ago as "fatally flawed": the Kyoto Protocol, signed by then-Vice President Al Gore in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate, which instead rejected it before signing by a 95-0 vote.

Bush's about-face, however, fits a pattern. One by one, he has abandoned the principles that attracted conservatives to him in the first place:

"What's left of the conservative agenda that has not been offered up to Democrats?" said Rush Limbaugh today on his national radio program. Let's see:

Free Trade: In order to protect inefficient steel producers and try to win votes in Rust Belt states, Bush agreed to protective tariffs against imports. At every turn now, his attempts to get Europeans and Asians to drop their trade barriers are being met with (accurate) cries of hypocrisy.

Farm Bill: To pander to farmers, he agreed to a bill which, as the Associated Press put it last month, "will shower billions of dollars in new subsidies on political battleground states and scrap a 1996 law that was intended to make growers less dependent on government." The reforms of six years ago marked one of the great achievements of the late Republican Congress.

Spending: Farm subsidies will rise 80 percent under the new bill, but that's hardly surprising since the President -- in nearly every other area of the federal budget -- has decided to abandon fiscal discipline. Surpluses have turned to deficits in the years ahead.

Campaign Finance: In the wake of the Enron scandal, Bush signed a new campaign-finance law that would hurt his own party, enhance the power of organized labor and liberal special interests and limit free political choice.

Education: To get his education bill passed, Bush dropped the most important reform: vouchers. Instead, in league with Sen. Ted Kennedy, he has helped entrench and empower the federal education bureaucracy.

What's going on? It is hard to say. These steps aren't effective even as cynical political maneuvers. Look at the reactions….

Conservatives: Bush's base is becoming demoralized. No, hard-core Republicans won't vote for a Democrat for president, but if Bush gives up on principles, they won't campaign hard for his re-election either.

Liberals: Will environmentalists be won over by the president's about-face on Kyoto? Hardly. In fact, after effectively silencing them with his strong stand, he has now energized them. They have a strong logical argument to make: If warming is as bad as Bush says it is, then strong remedies are necessary, not the soft stuff he proposes. (Said a headline today on Lycos.com, Bush to Earth: Drop Dead.") Protectionists won't want to stop with steel. They now have ammunition for other fights. The same with campaign reformers, farmers and big spenders.

Independents: Will voters on the fence be drawn to Bush now that he has flip-flopped on Kyoto and signed a farm bill? I doubt it. Bush's greatest asset was his self-confidence, his strong advocacy of principle, his almost ingenuous belief (like Reagan) in doing the right thing. By going wobbly, he impresses no one -- least of all the soccer moms and blue-collar dads who, most of all, want to see a president who knows where he stands and defends what he believes.

So why?

Bush may be suffering from Front-Runner Disease. Out ahead for 2004, Bush does not want to blow his lead by opening himself up to criticism from any quarter: environmentalists, good-government types, protectionists, farmers. He now has an answer for each of them.

He was better off running as an underdog. Back then, all he knew was what he believed in. That's the kind of president Americans want.

[Redcloak]

I keep thinking of that letter Rush read today. It asked what Bush would be doing any differently if he were actually trying to get the base to stay home in November.

[Poohbah]

It ain't so. It has been debunked thoroughly here on FR, starting when Matt Sludge put it on his webpage just to generate buzz for his talk show...

[Mike4Freedom]

I am guessing that this is the Republican foolishness (that has become quite common) of trying to make friends of your enemies. In the process, you make enemies of your friends.

This is caused by a lack of solid principles. Republicans say all the right things most of the time. They know what is right. They are just too willing to give up their principles for short term political advantage and this usually backfires.

[RAT Patrol]

What are you going to do if it turns out to be right? Will you just offer more excuses on why this is really a brilliant plan to steal platforms from the RATS?

[Geezerette]

What you said ... especially the part about trying to make friends of your enemies and end up making enemies of your friends.

g

[SerpentDove]

What does Bush care about "conservative principles"? He is a rich politician first and foremost, just like Pa.

He makes me sick.

[Poohbah]

What are you going to do if it turns out to be right?

Since it isn't, and has already shown to be such, your hypothetical question is specious.

[RAT Patrol]

LOL! Okay, we shall see. I don't trust the NYTimes but I don't much trust Bush these days either. Drudge does sensationalize but I basically trust him....and I definitely trust Rush! So, considering the sources I lean towards "it's another sellout"!

[Belial]

It ain't so. It has been debunked thoroughly here on FR

From what I could see, that "thorough" debunking was essentially posters screaming 'Read the report'!

And the report said exactly what the Times and Drudge said. Bush admitted that global warming is (a) occurring and (b) partially caused by humans. As a solution to warming temperatures, no change in our energy policy was proposed. There was something about using more air conditioning, bizarrely.

[Poohbah]

It may be as described, but it was not as spun by the Bush-basher-bots.

[Belial]

It may be as described, but it was not as spun by the Bush-basher-bots.

Well, it is a reversal of the administration's position on the cause and existence of global warming.

[GuillermoX]

Your head is in the sand.

Defend CFR, Tariffs, Nationalizing an industry, Immigration, 60% increases in the Education budget, Accepting globull warming, Extension of unemployment benefits, Farm welfare...I'm certain I've left out several other abominations committed by the Idiot Dumbya. The Borrow and Spend Republicans deserve to, and will, lose in 2002.

[Deb]

What do you mean "if it turns out to be right"?

It's a total lie. How could it turn out to be right?

This is another article that only builds on a false story without even bothering to check the facts. Glassman is up there with Bill Kristol.

Have you read the report? It's posted. Do you know who the EPA is made up of? Do you know when the report was authorized? And by whom? Do you know that it was scheduled to be released independently and Bush had stalled its release as long as he could?

Do you know anything except what was in a lying NYT piece? Apparently not.

[what's up]

However, MAJOR moves have been made by Bush on the conservative front.

The move by the DOJ alone to define the second amendment as pertaining to individuals as opposed to militias should be applauded by conservatives for months instead of being forgotten within 2-3 days.

Refusing UN funding for abortions is a major turnaround from years of our country advocating the killing of infants. (Not to mention the plethora of abstinence teaching now being promulgated.)

Withdrawing from any discussion of belonging to an International Court should make all conservatives breathe a LOT easier about global control by a tiny minority of judicial activists.

Also, the reform of Defense, Intelligence, INS now taking place is what should have been done in the 90's but now is finally taken up as a serious responsibility by the Bush administration.

Remember the above - tremendous moves which should make conservatives grateful and joyful. True, we must continue to be vigilant...but I love the direction things are now moving. What a relief after the close call in Nov. 2000! We will see what takes place on the global warming front. I suspect that the end result will be the destruction of much of the global warming myth that the greenies have put forth for 3 decades.

[what's up]

Another huge accomplishment perhaps overlooked in the day to day emotionalism of the news media hype. The complete destruction of the militant, hostile goverment in Afganistan to one that is now friendly to the West. This done in a few short months contray to the the overwhelming number of negative predictions that it couldn't be done.

This along is cause for celebration by conservatives.

[colorado tanker]

Mr. Glassman and you might try reading the report. www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car

The report supports the Presidents' announced policy of voluntary curbs of greenhouse gases coupled with existing pollution controls and says that policy will remain in place until the next review in 2012. Sure, the report says human activity dumps a lot of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and as a result there has been some rise in temperature. So? That's probably right. The report quickly adds that the present science does not understand the timing, magnitude and distribution of the problem, if there is one, and that present projections of temperature may have to be revised downward if and when the scientists ever figure this out. Just what he said on the campaign trail.

There has been no change in policy, just wishful thinking by the New York Times that there will be.

You guys have been had by the New York Times.

[Redcloak]

Oh... It's been debunked? Then I guess that the steel tariffs, the farm subsidies, caving on education, caving on campaign finance reform and all were just works of light fiction by the media.

[Belial]

I suggest you attempt to read my post again (#9). You'll notice I said no change in policy was proposed.

You're too busy shilling to grasp the substance of the debate.

[colorado tanker]

OK, so if in fact, as you admit, the policy of the Bush administration has not changed, what is your oh so subtle debate about, exactly?