Apparently not:
Bush Backs Off Campaign Pledge on Pollution
At least it wasn’t anything important, like a blowjob.
Did you read the article you linked? Or did bashing Bush ASAP prevent it?
**
Why don’t you try reading the Kyoto Treaty hot, sweaty, in the dark with no air conditioning in California this summer?
Does this mean CO[sub]2[/sub] doesn’t cause problems, and doesn’t need to be regulated?
Bush as usual, is mixing his rationalizations. Whether or not CO[sub]2[/sub] should be regulated as a pollutant is one issue. If he feels it doesn’t need to be regulated, fine, that’s one issue.
If it is, but because of a current crisis, we’re not in a position to regulate it, then we postpone regulation, or make an exception, because of the current crisis, not because it’s harmless.
I certainly don’t know all the legalities of pollutants and their regulation, but I was under the impression that CO[sub]2[/sub] was something that was thought to need control.
You misspelled “Gore” in the thread title. And I don’t know why you’re bringing him up, since the election is long over.
God forbid we had an honest president like Clinton.
“I did not have sexual relations…”
“I will provide free health care for all…”
“I never lied to the Grand Jury… I just didn’t tell the truth”
Oh hell… why bother even continuing
Maybe SPOOFE and Turbo could consider staying on target instead of reverting to toddler-like accusations of “But look what he did…”
Nowhere in the OP did anyone say, “Is Bush capable of telling the truth like Gore or Clinton?”
It is an attack on Bush, yes. However, George is a big boy now–he’s President even. I think you could probably find some way to defend him if you wanted that didn’t involve childish slams on other people.
Let’s not forget that this is “Great Debates”, not “Great (Not So) Witty Comments.”
I think a question to answer is whether Bush actually changed his mind because of the fear of higher energy costs at a time when that wouldn’t be advisable or if it because, as his aides said, CO[sub]2[/sub] has not been declared a pollutant so therefore not so important as to regulate–or a combination of both.
See Fear? I forget who said it first, but never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.
You’d think somebody on the Bush campaign would have checked that first.
Gee, I’m just STUNNED to find that Bush is weaseling out of his concern about carbon dioxide.
Cuz ya know…it’s so much more important for Americans of right now to have cheap energy than it is for humans of 100 years form now to have a planet.
Gotta love those oil guys…always thinking ahead.
stoid
Yeah, I really do hate George W. Bush. More every day. Lucky me.
If he had said, i am going to cut taxes and screw the poor then would he have got elected ?
You get what you vote for.
I thought that the Conservative Position is “Less Federal Interference With State’s Rights?” If so, then the Official Republican line should rightly be: “Screw California, they got themselves into this mess, let them get themselves out.”
California’s self induced problems should not be an excuse to back out of campaign promises, especially one that affects us all, not just California.
wipes tears for California from eyes.
Oh yes, almost forgot, us here in electricity deregulated Pennsylvania will do just fine this summer. Just fine.
Being properly chastised earlier, I will answer the OP in a more correct manner. The question is whether or no he is capable of telling the truth. Yes, he is. Think tax cut.
“The question is whether or no he is capable of telling the truth. Yes, he is. Think tax cut.”
When he makes such a lame excuse about his CO2 flipflop “at the time we thought it was a pollutant”, you have to wonder if his big tax cut policy is based on a similar lack of analysis.
Bush’s excuse reeks of bovine excrement. There are only seven pollutants on the EPA’s “criteria pollutants” list (and he was, IIRC, talking about criteria pollutants at the time). CO2 has never been a criteria pollutant. Now I’m quite willing to believe that Bush himself is too incompetent to have known that, but the environmental policy advisers who told him to talk about regulating CO2 unquestionably were aware of that simple fact. His excuse is nothing more than a pathetic rationalization.
Sure, it was a mistake, written down and publicly endorsed by the EPA:
“As recently as 10 days ago, Christie Whitman, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, had described Mr. Bush’s campaign promise as if it were already policy. Administration officials would not say directly today whether Ms. Whitman had supported the change in position but suggested that she had not. They said the views of Vice President Dick Cheney and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham had been most instrumental in the final decision.” – NY Times
and
“It also effectively overruled Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who had said several times since she took office that Bush would keep his campaign pledge.” – Washington Post
So “mistake” though it may have been, it is a de facto reversal of policy. However, since since the reversal seems to be consistent with this administration’s approach to emissions and energy policy, I’d hesitate to make too much of the incident–really, is anyone suprised about this? No. Politicians and press are just getting a little bit of mileage out of it, is all.
(Note to self: You should be proud! Not once did you use the phrase, “it depends on what your definition of ‘carbon dioxide’ is.”)
Two things, pumpkin. Bush did say he was going to cut taxes. He got a plurality of counted votes anyway. So you’re wrong there.
And if honesty doesn’t get you elected, as you assert, then you plainly don’t get what you vote for–except insofar as what you voted for was a dishonest politician. So you ain’t too right there, either.
So Bush breaks another campaign promise. Is this really a surprise? I mean, I thought the whole Ashcroft nomination proved that “I’m a uniter, not a divider” was just so much bovine refuse…
Isn’t it funny how we have already accepted to such a degree the fact that W Bush is ignorant that nobody even blames him for it anymore? Has this ever happened before in recent history, where when the leader of a country makes an ignorant mistake they blame not him but his advisors, like blaming the babysitter for letting the kids put the cat in the microwave?
Yeah, but he lied about that too. IIRC, the tax cut he’s pushing is $300 billion larger than the one he promised during the election.
Reagan.