President does the right thing (dismissed global warming report)Rush Limbaugh

rushlimbaugh ^ | 6/4/2002 | Rush Limbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

President does the right thing

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.

[Texasforever]

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).

And the Bush tax cut also cut marginal rates. There is always that "hostile congress" excuse". Reagan had a GOP senate for at least 4 years. Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in the 20th century. However, he was NOT a hell fire and brimstone conservative. The same ilk that are castigating this president today were saying EXACTLY the same things about Reagan for 8 years.

[Texasforever]

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.

No, there are many of us that would join in the constructive criticism IF, at least in my case, the rants going on around here were not so damned outrageously incorrect and over the top that they cannot be left unchallenged. Rush in particular went off on the so-called U-turn based on a Drudge report of a NYT story that bore NO relationship to the facts in any respect.

[freebilly]

This stuff happens everywhere, and all the time. There is no such thing as micro-managing an organization with three million employees. You can't even do it with two hundred. There's always some bastard out there whose motto is to seek forgiveness instead of permission, and the worst thing is, he's the only one getting anything done.

Hate to disagree, but leadership means taking responsibility for what your organization does (whatever that organization is) and holding others accountable to implement your vision.

Bush needs to do some serious house cleaning over at the EPA.

[Texasforever]

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

Sort of like GW Bush for the last 17 months huh?

[Texasforever]

Bush needs to do some serious house cleaning over at the EPA.

Is that before or after the demands to "clean house" at the FBI, The CIA, The INS?

[freebilly]

LOL! Yeah, come to think of it Bush has got several can o' worms to deal with. Personally I think they should take ten of the most disloyal gov't officials and string their @$$e$ up. That might get the attention of other bureaucrats, ya think?

[self_evident]

All ya hear is how everything will change if we gain control of the Senate.

I have one question I would like to ask the Adminstration. If regaining the Senate is the motivation for the compromises of the past couple of months (CFR, Tarrifs, Farm Bill), then why the heck didn't we just compromise with (buy out) Jeffords in the first place when we had the Senate? Back then, the President was on shaky ground (narrow victory and all). Now, he is on strong ground. Yet they stuck to their principles then, and now.... Not so much. I don't get it.

[Texasforever]

When Bush mentioned the "bureaucracy? he sent a real message. The fact is that those career "civil servants" actually run this country and the ONLY answer is to change the laws protecting them Ashcroft literally begged congress for the power to fire incompetents at the INS and the congress in effect told him to Pi$$ up a rope. If that does not change and change soon then NOTHING an elected official does or says will have any effect whatsoever.

[self_evident]

"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy."

I couldn't, not in a million years, come up with a better one line answer to calm conservative fears on this issue. Awesome.

[freebilly]

Ashcroft literally begged congress for the power to fire incompetents at the INS and the congress in effect told him to Pi$$ up a rope. If that does not change and change soon then NOTHING an elected official does or says will have any effect whatsoever.

Maybe the Republicans need to play power politics the way that Dems do. Clinton(s), Reno, and Albright had no problem torching anyone and anything that got in their paths.

[Texasforever]

That 70-80% approval rating means absolutely NOTHING to Dashhole. The Dems have decided the best strategy is to mouth support for the WOT while blocking every move the administration makes. They have only one arrow in their quiver and that is control of Senate committees. The media only shows the "bi-partisan" cooperation shown before the cameras. The reality is only seen on C-span when the votes are taken and the nominees for any position are routinely discarded like so much morning trash. That is why control of the Senate is so damned important. The issue is not a rino, the issue is who chairs the committees. That is the issue, if we have to suffer a rino to get Fred Thompson as chair of a senate committee then so be it.

[Texasforever]

I agree. The problem with us is that we still try to play fair and by the rules. The dems are like JR Ewing when he said,” once you get past the ethics and morality the rest is a piece of cake".

[altair]

Reagan had a GOP senate for at least 4 years.

Oops. I should have checked my facts. Howard Baker, Jr. was majority leader from '81 to '85, Dole was majority leader from '85 to '87 (US Senate website).

The same ilk that are castigating this president today were saying EXACTLY the same things about Reagan for 8 years.

President Reagan made some terrible mistakes (asset forfeiture laws and the successful demonization of the term "money laundering" which is really only financial privacy to name two). President Bush has made some terrible mistakes too. I don't see what's so wrong with pointing that out.

The difference between us and them is what we will do in the next election. The unions weren't happy about NAFTA and GATT and swore revenge against impeached ex-President Clinton, but when the next election came they supported him and voted for him anyway. I think President Bush's support will be weaker in '04, getting him the same treatment his father got.

[freebilly]

Pubbies think politics is like golf. We need to start seeing it for what it is, a knife fight in the street.

The closest thing we have to James Carville is WHO? Anne Coulter????

Our freedom is at stake and we're afraid that environmental, gay, pro-choice, black, hispanic, and/or feminists won't like us, or will call us racists, or homophobes, or rightwing extremists, or some other BS title. Maybe it's time for us to fight back like we actually mean it.

[Texasforever]

I take no pleasure in pointing out Reagan's compromises. Reagan is my FDR. The problem with many today is that they demand things a president cannot do and still be effective. Any president has to face two realities or they will fail. The first is they have to play the hand dealt them. IOW, know when to fold and when to hold. The second is that even though the members of his party elected him he still is the president of the country. Reagan understood that and so does Bush. That is why both have been granted, at times grudgingly, respect from those that never voted for them in the first place. IMO Bush like Reagan has been right on the BIG things, that vision thing. Has he made concessions yes in some but none that, in the scheme of things, matter a whole lot other than to the purists. Reagan did the same and as a result it is the BIG things Reagan is remembered for. Bush's book is still being written and it remains to be seen what the last chapter will be but he is doing good so far.

[ArneFufkin]

Tex, the Democrats are lockstep right now ... they don't have a "maverick" contingent like Lott and Hastert have had to manage the last 6 years. Lott has had 4-6 Senators who would cross party lines with no hesitation if their social liberal ideology was not accounted for. The Senate has 43 solid Conservatives in their caucus. The House has approximately 170 (out of 220) solid Conservatives. These are guys who would vote for 95% of everything "conservative" malcontents here on FR desire. These are the "Contract With America bunch". The Democrats have 0 in the Senate. They have about 3 in the House. Yet, it is not the Dems or the GOP 15%ers that are the problem, it's Bush, the GOP ... "THERE's NO DIFFERENCE". How do you craft a honest debate with folks who are that myopic about the world as it exists, and in which Bush and the GOP are fated to govern?

The guy I can't figure is Zell Miller. How can this guy, in good conscience, abide the tactics and malfeasance that the Senate Majority is conducting right now? He's an untouchable, he's a former Governor and multi millionaire and an Old southern Democrat ... how can he sit and watch Daschele and Leahy shirk their duty to get Federal Judgeships filled in Districts that are drowning in backlog?

Bush needs to sit down with Zell and hold a reality check pow-wow. Miller doesn't belong in the Democrat Party. Nor does Breaux, but he can't fight that Moriel Mafia and keep his job. Miller needs to switch parties, and get the process moving for the American people. Zell isn't there to sit on his ass for six years - he's got everything he needs in life already.

[Starwind]

I'm a bit confused by your position. When you suggested that I do some homework on 'Reagan the myth' you pointed me to a John Birch website article.

To: Starwind

Here is an example of what one right wing organiation said about Reagan. Replace the name Reagan with Bush and you have an idea of how RR was viewed by the far right in this country. It is a long read but maybe it will soften your stance just a bit

Here

362 posted on 6/3/02 10:23 PM Pacific by Texasforever

Your reply to jla

We haven't strayed...George W. Bush has.

LMAO Tell me are you a Bircher?

would imply a derision of John Birch viewpoints.

So, which side of John Birch are you on?

[Texasforever]

Our freedom is at stake and we're afraid that environmental, gay, pro-choice, black, hispanic, and/or feminists won't like us, or will call us racists, or homophobes, or rightwing extremists, or some other BS title. Maybe it's time for us to fight back like we actually mean it.

There is nothing there to argue with at all. You nailed the problem any conservative faces when telling the truth about anything . I wish I knew the answer I really do.

[Texasforever]

So, which side of John Birch are you on?

Way to the "left". That puts me squarely in the conservative realist camp.

[Starwind]

So, why would you advocate that I spend my time reading John Birch material?

Why would you not make your point with a reputable, centrist source?