AutoblogGreen

Wow...Linton...you got it right. Bush does have an exemplary record on green transportation and I'm proud of you for recognizing that fact. It's okay to not like Bush, but it's important to recognize the sucesses that he has had that have helped us towards our goals. I'm very happy with your recognition of this fact.

Reply

Yes Mr. Linton! George Bush has spent more money on the development of alternative energy than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison all put together. But, if I were him I would fear how the ex-CEO of Halliburton, who really sets the energy policy, feels about this. After all Cheney has a history of face shooting you know!

Reply

It's pretty sad that Bush is advocating electric cars with 10 months left in his dismal presidency.
Just think, Bush could have truly been a "Uniter" if he had aggressively pursued "energy independence" starting on Sept.12th,2001. I did. I bought a Jetta TDI 5-Speed in 2002 to lessen my dependence on foreign oil. Everybody else I know bought an SUV. #2, Lad, Great, funny response to #1!

Reply

Dave -- you've confussed sarcasm with funny. They are rarely the same thing.

Reply

By the way Dave, what about Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton? Where is the anger at them?

You have a small mind as proven by your love of sarcasm.

Reply

And Dave, while were at it, where is the anger at congress? Where is the sarcasm towards Pelosi and Reed, who have not yet stood up to say that America needs to get off oil? Congress being the group that actually legislates and has the power to really do something.

Less weed Dave. Less weed.

Reply

Dear Wise Golden, thanks to you and your Limbaugh- loving minions, we have to pay for a 2 trillion dollar war of choice that your esteemed prez put on the national (read Chinese financed) credit card. How did our oil get under their sand. Oh and by the way, I think McCain will make a terrific new Captain of the Titanic. As for weed, I don't smoke it, I'm all about family values.

Reply

I'm angry at all of them since the 80's when they let the ball drop. I have to admit that I'm most angry at Bush for his stupid war and ever more for his terrible prosecution of said war. Worst president in modern times and those that supported him are in the same boat.. :)

Reply

No Dave -- only congress approves wars. It was Congress, a Democratic Congress that approved the war. Get you facts straight -- Rush Limbaugh does not approve wars.

Okay - you don't smoke weed, and I don't like Rush. Lets just agree that you started it.

Reply

You guys are going to be so upset when they carve his face on mount Rushmore. You know the last President that upset Democrats this much was Lincoln.

Reply

Dave - "Captain of the Titanic"...is that what you think of America? America is the Titanic? Man, I wish you and your "I hate America club" would just move to whatever country you think has it right and leave the rest of us alone.

Reply

Hah, Lad thinks VPs set energy policies. If so, then I think we have to face an inconvenient truth about the last one.

The 70s should indeed have been a wake-up call for everyone, but face it, we all pretty much were blinded to the potential issues by cheap, seemingly guilt-free energy. I mean, I remember buying premium unleaded at 79 cents a gallon just ten years ago. Global warming was a hotly contested concept in academia then and the western world was still in a state of post-cold war bliss. Yes, we missed an earlier opportunity to start reducing fossil fuel consumption, but 99.9% of the population just didn't see forest fire for the burning tree. Now we have to get over the past and move on.

Bush does need to be commended for turning his back on his most vocal conservative backers and 1) acknowledging global warming, 2) promoting and signing higher CAFE standards, 3) bringing national attention to the need to reduce our ridiculous dependency on foreign oil, and 4) actually pushing for a real energy policy, something that nobody's done since the 70s. He's far from the greatest president ever and likely will be remembered for blunders more than for accomplishments, but to blindly bash him even when he's pushing forward positive ideas is simply, well, blind.

And one final word on the war. I think even Bush in his private moments with Laura recognizes that the invasion of Iraq was in hindsight a horrible blunder. However, now we're stuck. To think that we can just end it now without DIRE consequences is beyond naive. The world right now is so complex and delicate. I just hope people realize that before November. If you have to elect a Democrat, at least let it be Hillary. Obama is plain scary. THINK about where we're going rather than lashing out at where we've been. Obama has no clear concept of foreign policy. He's protectionist sometimes and at other times insanely irresponsible with power (he wants to send special ops forces into Pakistan for crying out loud...pretty much the only friendly democracy in the region). There aren't any great choices, but please don't choose the worst of all evils.

Yikes, that was quite a soapbox speech...sorry...

Reply

Wise: You know that Bush wanted weaker CAFE standards than were passed, and that his administration has blocked California's attempt to raise their standards, right? They've long been trying to hold them back and only take baby steps. Example:

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/05/11/cafe/

I will, however, say that his environmental record on transportation hasn't been entirely one-sided. I'll also state that CAFE didn't rise at all during Clinton's two terms. But that doesn't excuse Bush for taking a "slow, easy changes only" strategy, one that is less than the American public as a whole has been clamoring for.

Reply

Wow, what are you Bush boot-licks doing on our Greenie website? Let me address Wise Golden's comments one-by-one. "Congress approves wars" yes, they did vote in favor of the Iraq war with the aid of bogus, trumped-up "weapons of mass destruction" intelligence data. Also, Lad thinks the VP sets energy policy, because this VP did when he lead the secret energy task force that concluded, "I think we all agree, oil is the future!" Lincoln is my favorite president, followed by TR. Both we brilliant men that did what was in their gut - instead of the being the lap dogs of their party and special interests. Both would have probably been able to correctly pronounce "nuclear". As for my patriotism, loyalty to my country always, loyalty to the government when they deserve it. And Paul, you know what else I heard about Obama? He's a black guy!

Reply

One by one:

1) "acknowledging global warming"

The Clinton Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol. When Bush took office, he immediately "unsigned" it and his cabinet spent most of his time in office trying to raise doubts about whether GW was even happening at all. Only in the past year or so have they been openly admitting it, but have been downplaying it and actively obstructing any action on the subject.

And I say this as someone who was no big fan of the Clinton administration.

2) "promoting and signing higher CAFE standards"

As the article above references, they continued to attempt to delay CAFE standards, then pushed a weak improvement. Kudos to him, however, for not vetoing the bill because of the stronger CAFE standards.

Your #3 and #4 are your personal opinions, and you're certainly entitled to them. Many people, including myself, will strongly disagree. Where our oil comes from and the consequences of it has long been an issue in this country, and Bush's energy policies have long pushed us *backwards*. He's stressed coal, made lax the Clean Air Act, refused to prosecute cases where power plant operators replaced parts but didn't upgrade emissions controls as required in the act, and on and on. He's earned terrible ratings from the Sierra Club as a consequence.

3) "To think that we can just end it now without DIRE consequences is beyond naive."

To think that our presence there isn't grossly aggravating the situation is beyond naive. "Leaving" doesn't mean the end of all carrots and sticks. It simply means that you don't have targets in humvees rolling through their streets every day.

Let me take a second here to commend the Bush administration for the Awakenings militia strategy. Long, long overdue. Unfortunately, it looks like they're completely bungling it; many militia commanders are complaining that the US isn't delivering on any of its promises to them. If they blow this opportunity, they're not going to get another one. Let's hope, for the sake of the Iraqis, that they don't blow it.

4) "he wants to send special ops forces into Pakistan for crying out loud...pretty much the only friendly democracy in the region"

Amazing how much his comment has gotten distorted, isn't it? This is as bad or worse than the "Al Gore invented the internet" meme. Obama was asked whether, if we had solid intelligence that high-level al-Qaeda members were meeting in Pakistan and the *Pakistani government was refusing to act*, whether we would take them out. Obama said yes. That's hardly a controversial view. It's more hawkish than I would prefer, but no more hawkish than responses given by Clinton herself in the past.

5) "Obama has no clear concept of foreign policy."

He's probably had the clearest, most distinct foreign policy stance I've ever heard a presidential candidate enunciate: We will meet with the leaders of any country, without preconditions. And, wow, what a breath of fresh air. We've always treated meetings with the president like a privilege that you have to "earn". You know how that looks to other countries? It looks like we think that we're better than everyone else and are rubbing it in their faces. And I'll be damned if what this world doesn't need is more dialog between the leaders of nations. Listen whenever Clinton talks about "diplomacy" -- it's always a "stick" approach, never a "carrot". Labelling part of Iran's army a "terrorist organization"? Diplomacy. Authorizing the invasion of Iraq? Diplomacy. On, and on. All she knows of diplomacy is punishment and condescention to other nations. And you know what? That's why the world has largely grown sick of us. Diplomacy is a lot more than that. Diplomacy is give and take, finding solutions that work to both nation's benefits, restoring trust between parties that have lost it.

6) "He's protectionist sometimes"

Here's an analysis of his, and his advisors, economic policies:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html

I agree with the assessment of "Left libertarian" (although I'd be more precise and call it "Keynesian").

Reply

If the author really thinks Bush's record on green transportation is exemplary it would be nice to see some facts and argument for this judgement rather than its empty assertion.

The risk presented by human caused climate change is a sufficient threat that the administration should have a plan and policy in place to content with it. I have never seen the administration produce anything like that.

Paul, acknowledging global warming is not any kind of accomplishment especially when your administration took special efforts to silence government scientist who were seeking to raise the issue further to the public and Congress's attention. It took several years for the truth to surface under this administration and no real action has been taken.

WG, I don't think Bush has upset Democrats, its the whole country that can't wait to get rid of him.

Reply

Nevermind the current administration, what about the next one? Are they going to have the same naive outlook on biofuels and hydrogen?

Can't remember (Automotive News?) where I saw the positions of the 3 leading candidates but it was clear they ALL were clueless about it.

The one that stuck out the most was Obama. Not to single him out (they were all uninformed) but I think he suggested he'd increase CAFE 4% per year, unless the National Academy of Science says it's not feasible. He basically said nothing of substance, and demonstrated that.

Reply

Folks, I've a feeling that Lacelles was being a wee bit tongue-in-cheek in his assessment of Bush's record on "greenness." Unfortunately for him, he found an audience that thought that, in fact, he did have a good record.

Anyway, WRT to Obama's foreign policy, meme, I really think that you are HOPING for an Obama with those "left-libertarian" policies based on this (and parhaps other) article's analysis of his campaign speeches. His record and his unprepared comments tend to point far, far more towards the left than towards the libertarian. I personally think that any "keynesian" ideals are crafted to try and increase his appeal to the college crowd who tend to be idealists too desperate for their ideals to know the difference between spoken words and actions and without the real-world experiences to really grasp the impact of the actions.

If I believed for a second that Obama were truly Keynesian in ideals and had the advisorial capital to put these ideals into practice without mucking things up royally (I'm sorry, but Powers does not qualify as advisorial capital) then I might have a different opinion. I just don't. Give him another ten years in congress fighting for these ideals from the bottom. Prove it. Until then, I'll hold to my opinion that his past actions and stances are more real than his current, campaign-crafted speeches.

As for foreign policy, your reference article mentions nothing except for his stance on immigration. The author construes a stance on free trade, but apparently Obama didn't get the memo since in an unscripted moment he spoke of withdrawing from NAFTA (or perhaps it was scripted and was simply an appeal to an as-yet untapped set of potential voters). I saw nothing else on foreign policy. Yes, he's spoken at length about talking to everyone but hasn't addressed the political realities that stance. Talking in political terms means recognizing sovereignty and in many cases that can pump up the perceived legitimacy of a bad regime and/or cause strife with other more friendly nations/parties who are at odds with the person being talked to. It isn't black and white. "I'll talk to the leaders of Iran" is a great ideal, but you can see clearly how well that policy has worked for the European powers, all of whom strengthened Iran's coveted leadership position in the Middle East, got burned, and are now firmly entrenched in the sanctions camp that we started out in (only now things are worse).

Look, at best Obama is a smart guy and a good guy with good intentions (at best, mind you). Jimmy Carter was one of those, too. They had similar agendas and policies and the country is in a similar, divided state to that of the mid 70's. Carter at least had some real experience to aid him. I think to hope that an Obama presidency would be as successful as Carter's would be optimistic.

Reply

"Bush administration has an exemplary record on green transport"

Why the support for coal then? That's like ordering a small diet coke with a double big mac.

Reply

Josh... no sh*t! The first commenter is obviously brain dead. Prez Bush has done little to improve green transportation... but lots to line his own pockets. He grants great gov't subsidies to ethanol farmers to boost production and increase his lobbyist payments rather than invest heavily in revising our energy infrastructure to support electric vehicles. Ethanol is just as polluting "well-to-wheel" as gasoline is.... if not worse.

If you're not mad, you're not paying attention. I hate when idiots vote.

Reply