Posted on 06/03/2002 5:08:19 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Since the report states that Global Warming is possible it gives the DemocRATS some talking points which the same report then shuts down by saying that no action can or should be taken. CASE CLOSED.
OBTW: Has anyone seen any reports of laudatory noises being made by any environmentalists, Greenies, DemocRATS, or liberal press and media about this report?
The newly deaf hear echoes of past sounds, I am told. So it seems with the Limbaugh Wing of Wishful Thinking, which wants its President to echo its every gilded radio wave.
Hate to inform, but he's not Rush's President: he's our President. Rush's 20 millions elected Bush? Maybe Rush didn't work hard enough last November.
Rush has fallen in love with his ideas. We enjoy his arrogance, but self-love is not for public consumption. His intellectual-high of late is as embarrassing as it is self-defeating. To say that Bush has "highjacked" conservativism is stupid. Show me a single Bush lie from the campaign. Come on, try. You'll have to uhhuh and yeah but alot, but you aint' gonna find any smoke.
What Bush has done is become President. If Rush was fooled, the foolishness is on his part. I see nothing in Bush that has changed. These inane attempts to read between the lines of his policies are just that: listen to what he says.
I'd like to say I'm dissapointed with Limbaugh. I can't. I'm just sad. A closed mind is a sad thing to flaunt. Or maybe Rush is just pissed off that Bush hasn't replaced Powell with Netanyahu.
Your political philosophy is flat, boring and self serving but that doesn't make you dishonest as some are claiming Rush to be.
Keep telling yourself that.
to depress turnout by rightist voters, by inducing apathy through disillusion.
The Dems can't control rightist voters -- only Bush can depress rightist turnout. And he can easily increase rightist votes by loudly proclaiming that global warming is bunk.
Why isn't he?
Me either. I do care about a president I funded and voted for enacting statist measure after statist measure. I care about a president I funded and voted for operating a "justice" department I can't tell from Janet Reno's, taking zero action to bring criminals to justice.
Rush's golf, acquaintances, callers and cigars don't mean diddly, you're right. Perfidy by a guy I helped elected means a whole lot.
Demonization of projected motives, typical liberal tactic.
sounds like another vast right wing conspiracy (TM),
boo scarrrry!
I didn't say we should necessarily attack Saudi Arabia. I said they shouldn't be called a "friend", because they aren't.
Shame on us.
Unless he adapts to the changing situation post 9/11 Rush will become an anachronism and increasingly less significant for all his oratorical skills.
He's becoming boring because he's in danger of becoming irrelevant.
RAINES OF TERROR: Did you get through that New Yorker Ken Fellata piece on the New York Times under Howell Raines? Okay, I did. But I share Tim Noah's skepticism about the caveats in the piece about the Times' doing well under Raines. Pulitzers are establishment prizes given to establishment friends (with occasional credentializing outreach). And as Tim points out, "Chatterbox would argue that a major newspaper that can't sweep the Pulitzers in a year when a gigantic disaster befalls its hometown is a very poor newspaper indeed. The awards are as much for the disaster as they are for the coverage." I'm not just saying this because Mr Raines banished me, but I used to feel I was missing something when my Times didn't get delivered and I read the Washington Post instead. Now I don't. What I got from Auletta's piece was that Raines is a left-liberal populist ideologue, who likes to big foot his reporters and editors. Not that there's anything wrong with it! There are plenty of great editors who have been from a similar mold, and having a crusading, left-liberal paper, with more pop-culture and vivid writing could be a great addition to the reading world. But one thing it isn't: the paper of record. It has excised almost all non-left commentary from its op-ed and editorial columns. It is skewing news coverage in ways that will please Nation-readers like the hysterical Enron coverage, the bogus poll designed to argue that the public blamed Bush for Enron, or the burying of politically incorrect studies about the validity of racial profiling in speeding tickets. And it's increasingly happy assuming its readers agree with it. So it explains less and hectors and preens more. Again, this is fine. But let's acknowledge what it is. Raines is on a crusade for the populist left. And Raines is now the New York Times.
-snip-
(Andrew Sullivan in the Daily Dish, June 4, 2002)
To Read This Article Click Here
In the future, on this issue, jobs will flow into the country for one of 2 reasons:
A) We have reasonable enviromental controls
B) We have unreasonable environmental controls.
With Bush ACTING on emissions INDEPENDANT from Kyoto, he has positioned the country to react pro-activly as the issue unfolds in the future.
It's gonna shake out like this:
1) If the whole of the planet boycots every American product or service because of our lack of emission standards, Bush can act, INDEPENDANT from Kyoto, and save jobs.
or
2) If the whole of the planet can't afford American products and services because of overly opressive emission standards, Bush can act, INDEPENDANT from Kyoto, and save jobs.
Bush wins, the country wins, jobs win, warming wins. It's a quadrupal win that puts us first.
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.