Sure thing, we'll start here:
Posted on 06/04/2002 7:14:24 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
President Bush has dismissed the report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment. The report to the UN, written by the EPA, puts most of the blame for recent global warming on the burning of fossil fuels by human beings. The president said, dismissively, as described by AP, "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy."
Folks, I had a conversation with people in the White House this morning over all of this, and this is pretty much what I heard. The EPA was referred to as a "bureaucracy," that did things on its own over there, and the report went out, with not a whole lot of attention paid to it. Much of what was interpreted by the New York Times was not correct, in terms of the administration's view of the report. Now we have the president dismissing the report.
We played the sound bite of the president's remarks on Tuesday's show, and you can hear it for yourself in the audio link below, along with more analysis, but here is a transcript of the question, and the president's entire answer:
QUESTION: Mr. President. Do you plan new initiatives to combat global warming?
BUSH: No - I have laid out that very comprehensive initiative. I read the report put out by the bureaucracy. I do not support the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty would severely damage the United States' economy. And I don't accept that. I accept the alternative that we've put out - that we can grow our economy and at the same time, through technologies, improve our environment.
This sounds to me like a pretty clear, open and shut case dismissing the contention of the report. One of the central aims of the Kyoto Protocol is to blame human activity for global warming. The president is saying that he does not agree with that when he says, "I read the report put out by the bureaucracy. I do not support the Kyoto treaty." This is a big step. There are few who would do this, who would make a correction like this in the heat and the thick of things. President Bush has done the right thing here, and that is ultimately worth a whole lot of support and applause.
Perhaps this episode is sort of like when we learned that the federal government was going to buy up all those oil and gas leases in Florida to see to it that there was no new oil drilling or gas drilling either in the gulf or on three wildlife reserves in Florida. The reason the administration gave was, "We don't want to destroy the environment. We don't want to do damage to the pristine countryside." In the process, they undercut their own desire to do just that, drill for oil in ANWR. We were all scratching our heads trying to figure that out. I don't know that I have an answer, but it may well be that some things are just not calculated as far out as they should be. It will be interesting to see if anyone is held responsible at the EPA for this, as we discuss in From Rush's Stack of Stuff: Bush Dismisses EPA Report, But Will He Dismiss Those Who Put It Out?
One thing that we know for sure, my friends, is that in most cases the attempt to do the right thing is always there with this administration. I know that actions are more important than intentions, but couple that with the fact that we're talking about somebody here, George W. Bush, who has a profound level of integrity and decency. People want to believe and trust the president. That's why his approval numbers are so high. What he has done today is one of the reasons why his approval rating is understandable, and greatly deserved.
Folks, here's just a little bit more on the Bush strategy, and a few things to keep in mind as you try to analyze this: The White House thinks their strategy is working like a charm and, really, who could argue with them? Their strategy is not to really spell out their own agenda and fight for it no matter what. Their strategy is to advance a centrist agenda that consists of a sizable percentage of the left's agenda, issue by issue. In the process, they're picking off Democrat votes. They're doing two things. They're denying Democrats issues to run on, and at the same time giving specific members of the Democrat coalition reasons to vote for Bush or against the Democrat candidates. The way they're looking at it, it's working.
The second element to this is a little less clear, but there's something at play here that I underestimated for a long while and I won't again. Whether it's right or wrong, or whether it's an incorrect standard, is not the point now. Bush is benefiting from the fact that there was a far greater dislike and disgust with the Clinton administration among the general population than we ever knew.
We were following presidential approval polls and concluding that over half the country thought Clinton was just the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that's not the case. What we saw in those polls was the natural tendency of people in this country to support their president, whoever and whatever he is. It takes a lot for presidents to destroy the bond of trust they have with the American people, because the American people have such respect and awe for the office of the presidency. So in contrast, Bush is so far ahead of Clinton when it comes to these basic human characteristics - honesty, integrity, decency, and character - that he's getting a double whammy benefit from all of this.
Plus, we can't leave the war out of the equation. The way he has conducted himself in the aftermath of September 11th inspires confidence. As long as he doesn't do anything to interrupt or weaken the bond of trust that people have, he's going to be riding high, and it's going to be smooth sailing ahead. Bush doesn't look political at all. He doesn't appear to be doing anything he's doing because of politics, even though he is, but it doesn't look that way. He's just riding high for all sorts of reasons. As far as he's concerned, this strategy of his is working and I don't see what there is to suggest that he needs to change the way he's doing things.
The desire that so many people have to want to believe the absolute best of this man is not going away. This belief is being reinforced every day by his own actions, as it was on his dismissal of the EPA report on global warming. The investment in George W. Bush is being validated each and every day as people see him, listen to him, and hear him speak. He's really riding the crest of a wave that few presidents have, and he's making the most of it, in his own way.
No, when asked I reply that I'm a 'Reagan-Conservative'.
Just curious, Texas...In '79 who'd you vote for in the Republican primaries?
(That was a rhetorical question, I'm pretty confident I know the answer.)
I supported Reagan the MAN from the get go, not the myth. If you want to debate Reagan with me you had better do your homework.
You people who question the integrity of Rush are a joke.
Limbaugh, who almost single-handedly dredged shell-shocked conservatives and the GOP out of the political cemetary 10 years ago, is now considered a "turd" because he dissents with Dubya now and then?
My loyalty, just as Rush's loyalty is to principle. NOT personality. Period.
The man's been in office a mere year and the half, and already he's the second coming of George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, AND a Ronald Reagan "clone" to boot??
Oh come on. Rush rode Clinton's coattails from a local AM station to national prominence. There is nothing wrong with that but Clinton was to Rush like mother's milk is to a baby. He is just keeping the heat and anger going until the next democrat wins. Rush is very good at what he does but torch bearer for the "cause" is NOT part of it.
I think Rush knew, because he said that 1 year after Clinton was impeached, the poll numbers that the dems touted so proudly had totally reversed. At impeachment, the polls supposedly said 75% of the public did not want Clinton removed from office. However, 1 year later, 75% of the public felt he should have been removed.
If you look at the President's numbers, at 76% ... to me it says the 75% of the public is still in the right corner.
This also reinforces my theory of why the dems cannot get anything to stick to Bush; people don't trust the dems because they lied about Clinton and his mess.
Can you tell me tax increase Reagan did not sign?
Debate's over...Me, & The Gipper, win.
And Reagan was not Reagan untl given the chance. Reagan defended Social Security as the best thing FDR, a president he voted for 4 times, did, Bush is trying to privatize it, Reagan only threatened the Soviets with "Star Wars" Bush is actually implementing it, Reagan only seriously mentioned abortion in his campaigns and NEVR conceded life begins at conception, Bush has. The list goes on and on. The ONLY thing Ronald Reagan did in 8 years that Bush has not done in 17 months is to raise taxes. Bush has followed the Reagan model of governance closer that Reagan himself and in many areas with better results.
Are you kidding?? Rush was THE straw that stirred the GOP's drink for years.
And when the time comes that Dubya eventually get slammed by the Dems and the media, I suppose all the SOS calls will be fired out to Rush to "help put a band-aid on the boo-boo"...
No need to address the absurdity of your remarks, the evidence against them is outstanding & readily available.
Is Murrysville in Texas by any chance?
Sure thing, we'll start here:
Yeah and he made millions doing it. Rush was never political at all until he saw a market for being the voice of conservatism. He provided a great service and is very well compensated for it. I am not slamming Rush, I am just pointing out that he used Clinton to go from a wannabe sports announcer to national "spokesman for the conservative cause". You will notice that his "criticism" of Bush coincides with the heat he was getting for the interminable cigar and golf shows. He needed heat and he has created it. That is good business and I don't fault him for it.
Can you name a budget that Reagan signed that did not increase spending.
This isn't fair. All of President Reagan's budgets were gleefully declared Dead On Arrival in Congress. The budgets he signed originated from the Democrat congress. Things could have been different if Bob Dole hadn't been a spineless weasel as Senate Majority & Minority leader.
Can you tell me a law that Reagan got repealed?
Not any off the top of my head, however, he made a good start at it. The total number of Federal regulations went down over his term. He was also able to slash a significant portion of the Internal Revenue Code (the 1982 income tax rate reduction).
For someone working with a hostile Congress and a hostile press for 8 years, and a hostile Senate for 6 years he did a remarkable job.
IOW you have nothing to fall back on. LMAO
Reagan also grew the federal budget 46%
He advanced many, many wacko enviro laws
He gave the lowest military pay raises in 100 years
He made deals he had to make the same as Bush is doing
However, some of Dubya's national security policies seriously lacking. For some of the so-called "Bush-bashers", as with Rush, our only sin is in disagreeing with ANY policy position Dubya has taken.
Is that really a good thing?
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.