Candidates' "green record"

Two related questions. In all of the mass media (other than Mother Jones, etc…) candidates have been reviewed and interviewed on a variety of “litmus” issues. But nowhere in Newsweek, Time, Today, etc… have I noticed any information about the environmental records or policies of the various candidates, from Dubya to Jesse. (Gore’s stances are well known on those issues, though.)

  1. Nobody cares anymore ? I recall this was a stock question in elections past.

  2. Anybody have any comment on GWB, JV, et al. on this matter ?

“Proverbs for Paranoids, 3: If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”

  • T.Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow.

That’s the best on-line source I can find on environmental views on the campaign. I’m sure there will be a lot more info later on.

I visited but they only had info on Congress. Good site anyway.

Green, schmeen.

The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

Thanks. Any thoughts on why it hasn’t already come up in “major” media ?

Was curious; heard that one of the candidates was a poacher, er, I mean non-traditional sportsman. Similar to an LA Times article on Gramm during the last primary season.

Is there a reason that ANY major issue hasn’t been brought into this campaign by the media.

I think they’ve been covering the “celebrity” of this campaign for TOO long, starting TOO early. They’ve been talking about this campaign since LAST YEAR this time. The election isn’t for another ENTIRE YEAR.
And what was all of this coverage about.
Who’s raising money?
Who’s more carismatic?
Is everyone tired of Clinton?

Any substantive issue that does come up, dies just as quickly.

Remember when the big issue was guns?
How about campaign finance?

I’m a political junkie, and I’m already sick of Campaign 2000.
I’ve promised myself to abstain from campaign coverage until next February, which is nearly impossible at this point.

"If you don’t think the campaign isn’t about celebrity, look at the big stories in Decision 2000.

Warren Beatty may runfor the Democratic nomination.
Cybil Sheppard is interested in running.
Donald Trump is interested in the Reform Party Nomination.
Donald offers Oprah the VP position on the ticket; she declines.

If you wantanydebate on any whether environmental or otherwise, I wish you well on your search. Let me know what you find in February

If you’re still interested, here’s so info about Bush’s clean-air legacy in Texas

Texas Environment Could Work Against Bush

To lying, cheating, stealing, and drinking.

Always lie to save a friend, cheat death,
steal your love’s heart, and drink with good friends.
—*Madison Michele

The first paragraph of that G.W. Bush article says:

Is that because Houston has gone to hell in a handbasket smog-wise, or is it because L.A. has cleaned up its act?

Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

Our (U.S.) waters and air are much cleaner overall now than 20-30 years ago. This is due in part to the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other legislation. It is also due to a change in attitude independent of legislation.

So, to answer tracer’s question, I would think it is because the situation in Los Angeles is improving at a faster rate than in Houston.

Well, I’m sure that LA has cleaned up faster than Houston has, Bush sure hasn’t helped things along.

From what I’ve read, his ideas for polution control is having the watchdogs be the industry folks; folks whose first interests aren’t necessarily the cleaning up of the environment.

First I’d heard of that, but believable (thanks for the reference, SterlingN).

Assuming the info to be credible, odd it hasn’t popped up in “major media”. What, Time Inc.'s ink factory in Houston ?

Actually, Jorge, I don’t really know. I have a feeling that environmental awareness has kinda fallen out of vogue.

Where are all of the “Save the Rainforests” protests?

What about all of those eco-friendly ways to produce electricity? Any wind generators go up yet? What about the solar energy races?

Anyway, I’ve just saw some new advocacy ads about stopping global warming. ( ) They’re trying to bring it back into awareness.

Has anyone outside of Washington DC seen these ads?

It’s cool to be black in America. You get all this extra attention from sales people in fancy stores.
SterlingNorth, First Runner-Up

Haven’t seen those advocacy ads, there… The wind, solar, etc… ? Oil prices been so low, there hasn’t been much economic incentive, although they do pop up a fair amount in the West. (This may change with the ability of small-producer energy re-sales to the grid.)

I s’pose that ultimately was my question, there. Seems that a few years ago, when Newsweek or Time or whatever had a “profile” of a candidate, enviro-issues were one of the paragraphs/sections/headings (after defense, economy, education, foreign policy, etc).

Now I’m more likely to see a heading about extramarital sex, or military service, or anything at all other. For example, while Ventura has been written about quite extensively, I never saw in major media any reference, much less analysis, of his opinions on environmental issues, other than to say he’s “fiscally conservative, socially liberal…” or words to that effect.

Assuming anyone with some interest in environmental issues (BTW, I’m not some Luddite wacko, but have what I reckon are reasonable concerns…) was gonna vote, it seems the Democratic Party takes them for granted - although Clinton’s record in this regard is positively horrid - and it is anathema to any GOP platform… apparently too for the Reform Party. (Trump ? Set up a casino at the Grand Canyon, pave over Yosemite, I can see it now…)

While this may not be completely relevant to this thread, The Washington Post will be hosting a chat with Maureen T. Koetz, the Nuclear Energy Institute’s director of environmental policy today (Wed, Oct 27) at noon EDT.

It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either.
Mark Twain