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.

[Belial]

There's nothing subtle going on at all. Don't be a blockhead.

The point is that the administration has reversed its position on the existence and cause of global warming.

[Redcloak]

Did Bush or did he not sign off on the steel tariffs? Is that a "NYT lie"? Did he or did he not sign off on the farm subsidies? Did he or did he not sign campaign finance reform? Did he or did he not cave on vouchers as an integral part of his education program? Are these all lies?

[colorado tanker]

Ah, so you haven't read the report. Need the link again?

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

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.

No, in contrast to the above, most of which have been extensively and fruitfully argued and debated here, the media's version of this particular report has actually been debunked here (again, extensively and, i might add again fruitfully) .

[Belial]

Ah, so you haven't read the report. Need the link again

No, I'd prefer you to explain how I'm wrong. Giving me a link looks a lot like misdirection.

[AAABEST]

Your head is in the sand.

Always the nice guy as usual Guillermo? I was gonna place his head in a much more unusual place.

[Captain Kirk]

Hmm...are you saying that Dubya is lying about global warming now in order to attract liberal votes. If so, he is even worse than we thought!

I agree that Dubya is pretty good on gun control but there is precious else left. He has already sold conservatives down the river on SS privatization, Americorp, foreign aid, farm subsidies, tariffs, aid to education, drilling on the Florida coast (same arguments as the Greenies use on Alaska), and a whole lot else. In fact, federal spending has grown at a faster annual rate under Dubay than it ever did during the Clinton years.

I'll also give up him another tentative kudo, however. Dubya is to be praised for resisting the reckless and suicidal clarion call to invade Iraq.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Poo, your going to need some more fingers, to plug all the holes in the dam of reality.

[Captain Kirk]

Don't forget his support for Clinton's Americop, the promise to increase foreign aid 50 percent in three years, and his support of socialized prescription drugs.

[Redcloak]

I'm sure that that's all be debunked somewhere.

</sarcasm>

[RAT Patrol]

I have read most of the stuff posted on FR about it, fyi. I am reserving judgement. The Bushbots are no more interested in the facts than the NYTimes. It would not be the first time Mr. Bush flip-flopped -- and in a hurry.

[what's up]

He's pretty good on being the commander-in-chief overall, I would say

As well as the other items I mentioned.

We would be in an incredibly more dire situation had any other man been elected President among the contendors.

And I haven't given up on CFR, Govt Spending, SS Privatization or any other issue either. We're only 2 years into Bush's tenure.

[colorado tanker]

"We cannot rule out that some significant part [of the temperature change] is also a reflection of natural variability." "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases . . . current estimates of the magnitude of future warmings should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." To reduce the "wide range of uncertainty" about global warming science must produce "major advances in understanding and modeling" climate change in six specific areas, including determining what percentage of fossil fuel emissions actually produces radiative warming, the actual impacts of climate change and the impact of natural variability (i.e. the fact that we are still warming from the last Ice Age). From Chapter One, Introduction and Overview.

Sure sounds like what Dubbya said on the campaign trail to me.

[goldstategop]

I think the odds are good the base will stay home in November and Bush will end up facing a Democratic Congress for the next two years of his term. Like Clinton, but only in reverse. See what happens when you take your own base for granted, like he is doing now.

[RamsNo1]

This bush basher would like to ask you if you want to invest in blindfolds. I hear that the bush administration is selling them cheap these days. Too bad that he can't protect our money like he protects his poll numbers.

[what's up]

Good things are happening around the country.

Here in Hawaii the Democratic front runner just dropped out of the Governor's race (only about a week or so after a visit here by Rudy Giuliani). Hawaii has never had a Republican Governor...the Democrats are racing around trying to find a candidate...major changes in this liberal stronghold in November!

[Arioch7]

Really? I think his approval ratings speak for themselves. You do know that the "Art" of politics(COUGH!) is about compromise. I understand calling him on his breaks with Conservative philosophy but sometimes, you have to sacrifice a battle to win the war.

I have seen things done in one year that I would not have believed possible.

However, keep up the good work of calling the Prez on his shortcomigs. JUst dont vote for some Dem. Can you do that for me? :D

[goldstategop]

Its called a flip flop. Look, if the President wants to govern as a Democrat, he and Karl Rove shouldn't be surprised if the voters take him at his word and give him exactly what they think he wants... a Democratic Congress. From where they sit, it doesn't look like he's governing as a conservative. I mean why have a Republican Congress when the President is pandering to the likes of Ted Kennedy on education and that prescription drugs benefit and the enviro nazis on global warming? The public is a lot smarter than this Administration gives them credit for.

[Deb]

And exactly what is the "flip-flop" you speak of?

If you check the archives you 'll notice that when he extracted us from the Kyoto agreement he said something about some scientists feeling the effect of global warming was caused by human activity. He also said, regardless, US policy would not change because of the stress to our economy. The only policy proposal I know of was a request for a voluntary attempt by businesses to curb emissions. The press screamed. The ecology lobby screamed. Bush didn't budge.

But, please, inform me of the "flip-flop" in policy that has caused you so much personal pain.

[usmc_chris]

Right on. To think that I was foolish enough to believe that W was the next Reagan.