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.
I pointed you to that material to show you that many of the accusations against Bush were also being made against Reagan by segments of the "right". The entire spectrum loosely called Paleo-conservatves hated Reagan with a passion. There is a very vocal contingent of Paleo-cons leading the charge against Bush on this forum. The name has changed from Reagan to Bush but the rhetoric is identical.
Do I have that right?
Funacial advice like that, will land its followers in the poor house .
The Birchers are clearly extremists, and I fail to comprehend how you thought you'd advance your argument relying upon them.
My views of Bush/Reagan have changed little (I'm sure that surprises you - LOL), but I'm even less enamoured of the party faithful.
2) Reagan has been metamorphoaized into demi-godhood, by Conservatives. He has also become the template for presidencial Conservatism.
3) Leaving the " myth " behind, it is far better to state he facts; they're good enough.
4) During Reagan's run for the presidency, as well as during his presidency, Reagan was slammed, trashed, bashed, and shredded by the far right, the " purists " , and the Dems / lefties.
5) Birchers may now call themselves other things ; however, thee aresome on FR, and they aredoing to Bush, what they did to Reagan.
I can't make it any more dumbed down than this . If you still can't comprehend what has been shown you, just forget it and try to find another hobby / interest.
Why is it, that when you don't agree with something, you claim that you don't understand the post / get insulted / see that which is not there / and / or forget what you have previously written and reply with something 180 degrees away from that post ?
Those who vote Democrat don't contribute any personal money to candidates. Their local media don't explore votes from their Democrat reps that disserve their interests. Never happenes, I see that ALL the time with MN media and Paul Wellstone. The Dem entitlement groups don't pay, their Unions or organized identity groups do. They rent buses to pick all the confused and dependent up on election day and haul them to the polls. Nobody in North Dakota is funding Byron Dorgan's Senate campaigns ... it's Terry McAulliffe. He needs to please Terry McAullife -not some Catholic plumber in Grand Forks who didn't hear about the Late Term Abortion vote from his news media. The media keeps the riff-raff in the dark, and Byron votes the way Terry and Tommy and Harry tells him to. As do Breaux, Bingaman, Cleland, Harkin, Baucus, Wellstone, Conrad, Stebanow, Carnahan, Landrieu, Wyden, Graham etc. They represent conservative people. They win because they have the coffers of the special interests in DC, and the Advertising of the socialist press, scaring off challengers and buying elections. CFR is a good thing for Pubbies and Conservatives, notwithstanding the Constitutionality. That's why it was so reviled here, it was a strategic win for Republicans that might actually move the ball. How can you bitch incessantly about that?
The poster is too cute by half. I am amazed at their delusion that they are fooling anyone.
I do try, sincerely, to understand others viewpoints. It is the only way to communicate effectively.
Your thread was an open invitation to suggest alternatives to increase 'conservatism'. I took you up on it. It was educational for me. I'm sorry if it wasn't for you.
Nice hook, on which to hang a last hurrah. Thanks . : - )
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.