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.
Why does Congress have that authority? They are only empowered to fund the activities of agencies ... why can't the Executive Officer hire and fire his employees at will? The bureaucrats work in the org chart under the President, not the Senate Majority Leader. Reagan fired the Air Traffic Controllers. Linda Tripp was fired. Clinton fired the Travel staff, he fired 50 something Federal Attornies, many RTC staff and investigators, etc. etc.
Obviously not Bush.
Yeah, putting your money into shorting stocks is not jeopardizing your family in any way. Gold is fine ... but 10 years ago the Dow was about 2800 and the Nasdaq was about 600. Even after ALL this give back, it's still a tripling of your money in one decade. What was Gold's price per ounce in 1992?
Investing in companies like 3M, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, WalMart, Kroger, HomeDepot and Phillip Morris will always be smart. MyStinkyBum.com was dealt with. The companies that grew off of the ridiculous IPO proceeds of MyStinkyBum.com (Cisco, JDSU, Global Crossing, Razorfish, Schwab, Yahoo, Akami, Qwest) are being dealt with. People are still buying diapers, underwear and laundry detergent at Target. They're still buying cereal from General Mills, burgers at McDonalds, laundry detergent from P&G and twelve packs of Coca Cola. They're buying cigarettes, clothing, televisions, band aids, ketchup, soap, prescription drugs, CDs, paper towels, light bulbs, movie rentals and dog food. They use credit cards, take out mortgages and buy insurance. I invest in those companies, and I'm doing fine.
Christine Todd Whitman "runs" the EPA as the top administrative manager. She reports to George W. Bush.
It's like asking ... who "runs" GE? Who "runs" Dell Computers. Hundreds of thousands of GE and Dell employees accross the world do. The Chairman of the Board and the Directors represent the ownership and manage the CEO, the CEO is the executive officer who manages the operations of the entity. The head of GE Capital "runs" the financial arm, the head of GE Engines manages that division, the President of NBC runs that group, and the the head of Light Bulbs runs the light bulb operations. They report to a Chief Operating Officer. The Chief Financial Officer "runs" the financial and accounting groups. The Chief Administrative Officer runs the human resource, investor relations, regulatory and legal staff. The COO, CFO, CAO and International guy report directly to Jack Welch or his successor. He reports to the Board. The Board serve at the pleasure of the investors.
If Michael Dell "runs" Dell Computers, or Bill Gates "runs" Microsoft, then George W. Bush "runs" the EPA. That's not how complex managed organizations work though, eh?
But for purposes of FR debate, let's just say it's all George W. Bush's personal fault. K.I.S.S.
I sure hope Bush had the foresight to get Whitman's letter of resignation before she was appointed to the EPA.
The results of a study commissioned by any Agency has no bearing whatsoever on the policy or legislative agenda of the Administration. Whitman couldn't kill that thing, it was leaked to the NYT before she probably knew that it existed. Big deal.
"White House now says it hasn't changed its position. EPA boss Christie Whitman sure has a knack for blind-siding her boss; someone should inform her that Al Gore lost the election."
A liberal policy is a liberal policy whether it's advocated by a "conservative" or a liberal.
1. The spell checker police are nit wits.
2. I did NOT mis-spell any words. I did miss getting one letter in my haste. Technically this is a mis-spell but it is more indicative of my poor tying abilities than of my intelligence.
3. Interesting you did not have an intelligent rebuttal to my accusations.
4. I never defended Rush. Why the animosity? I call stupidity on the carpet when I see it and I saw lots in this thread. Why?
Seriously, which posts or posts offended you? And did I do anything except call a pig a pig when I saw it? Notice I did NOT defend Rush. I do not listen to him more than a few minutes a week. I personally do not like him. But that does not change the fact that the posters I responded to were full of bull crap.
Well, the definitive RINO, Christine Todd Whitman oversees it -- I guess when she's not on the ski slopes of Switzerland...
As for "running" the country (and world for that matter), I was under the impression all major decisions still have to be rubber-stamped by the Bilderbergers, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission.
Would anybody care to refute the fact that NO ONE has done more to rally the conservative cause in the last ten years or so than has Rush Limbaugh?
Has Limbaugh been selling KoolAid on his web site?
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.