Candidate Review - the Environment - Wrap Up

Well, this probably wasn't my strongest candidate review. I know that there will be some out there dissapointed by this, but the Environment, as an issue, doesn't motivate me all that much. So I didn't have as much of a feel for this issue. And we are coming to the end of this series--probably do one next week, but I don't know that that won't be the last one.

Anyway here's the Environment Sheet.

New Link

This is another one I should have linked to a long time ago. The Daily Howler is a media watchdog site, and they do a very good job.

Candidate Review - The Environment - Senator Joe Lieberman

This is from an Op-Ed published in the Financial Times, written by Joe Lieberman.

The record on this is as clear as the sky is blue: voluntary programmes like the one proposed by the president simply do not work. At the 1992 summit in Rio de Janeiro, the US agreed to the convention on climate change and signed up to a "voluntary" goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Voluntary programmes were attempted. But US greenhouse gas emissions instead increased by 14 per cent between 1990 and 2000.

In fact, under the logic of the Bush administration's plan, the faster the US economy grows, the more greenhouse gas emissions will be allowed to increase. This perverse result reflects precisely the wrong-headed, zero-sum approach that has been rejected by Democrats and Republicans alike in recent years.

. . . Senator John McCain and I have a legislative plan to start reducing harmful emissions immediately by harnessing US private sector innovation. The plan is called "cap and trade". The government sets an overall limit on the amount of greenhouse gases nationwide, then businesses have total flexibility to cut their own emissions as they see fit. They buy and sell credits to other companies on the open market instead of paying penalties to the authorities."

Candidate Review - The Environment - Representative Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich under the section of his platform that covers the environment and clean air.

"The EPA under Bush stands for Every Polluter's Ally. The air and the water and the land are viewed by this administration as just another commodity to be used for private profit. We have to be about what one writer called 'the great work' of restoring our air and our water and our land. We have to look at it as the common property of all humanity - as the commonwealth, rather, of all humanity. And so my candidacy arises from a philosophy of interdependence and interconnection which respects the environment as a precondition for our survival.

I'm not tied to any corporate interests that would strip our forests, that would pollute our air or water. Throughout my career, I have worked for structures of law that protect the environment, and the principles that animate my campaign are principles of sustainability. The principles that animate my life are principles of sustainability.

. . . My administration will act on the fact that the air we breathe is essential to life. Even unseen pollution harms all our lives and destroys some of our lives. All of us pay for the pollution of others. Pollution is not necessary and the price of pollution is not something we need to pay to maintain our lifestyles. In many cases, the cost of cleaning up the pollution is less than the medical costs of treating the effects of pollution. I will continue to cleanse the air and drive down the cost that everyone pays for a dirty atmosphere."

Candidate Review - The Environment - Senator John Kerry

These are comments from a speech made on October 20, 2003, at the University of New Hampshire.

"As President, I will put environmental justice center stage. For too long, poor and minority communities have been overlooked when it came to the environment. And for too long, polluters thought they could get away with breaking the law as long as it was in someone else’s back yard. Those days need to end. Under a Kerry Administration, no community will have their environment overlooked. They will have the power to fight back. And the polluters won’t get away with it any more.

What will America look like when we are done? We will have pollution-free cars drawing their energy from redesigned fueling stations. We will see gleaming high speed trains carrying passengers from city to city. Our oceans and rivers and forests will move out of intensive care and back into health, so that they are once again teeming with life. In rural America, people will be as connected as anyone living in the city; and our cities will see almost as much green as out in the country.

America faces a choice: do we wish to be remembered as the last generation of the foolish – those who believed that the earth could be stripped without conscience – or as the first generation of the wise?

George Bush has offered his answer – time and again.

We need to offer a better answer. We need to unlock the force of invention and imagination. We need a President who will lead the country and the world in tackling the challenges we face. We need a President who’ll protect our rivers and lakes, our oceans and forests. We need to make sure our children’s children know the true meaning of “America the Beautiful.”

And from his webpage on his environmental platform.

"John Kerry understands the connection between air pollution and public health. As President, he will immediately reverse the Bush-Cheney rollbacks of our nation’s Clean Air laws, plug loopholes in the laws, and vigorously enforce them. He will take bold steps to protect the health of all Americans – particularly our most vulnerable seniors and children – by adopting an aggressive program to meet ozone and air quality standards, stop acid rain, and reduce mercury emissions. His plan also includes addressing global warming emissions through a combination of innovative programs that will drive technology change and create jobs."

Candidate Review - Senator John Edwards - The Environment

This is Edwards reaction to a proposal of the Bush administration to exempt large hog farms froms and other farming polluters from clean air standards.

""This plan was a bad idea when it was first considered, and it's still a bad idea today. The only safe harbor here is the one the Bush administration gives to big corporate interests everyday, while regular Americans lose out," Edwards said. "There's something wrong in America when the EPA wants to give amnesty to factory farms that pollute and drive families from their homes, instead of making sure they abide by clean air and water standards. It's time for a real policy that cleans up factory hog farms by imposing strict standards and tough penalties."

And this is from the environmental section of his website.

Lead the Fight Against the Bush Administration
Senator Edwards has led the fight against increased air pollution resulting from the administration’s rollback of the Clean Air Act. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to make it much easier for old factories and power plants to increase their pollution levels without having to clean up the air. Edwards led the fight on the Senate floor to block the Bush administration’s rollbacks.

Work With Our Allies
Edwards supports U.S. leadership to establish international agreements to tackle world problems, including climate change, and to ensure that our competitors meet minimal environmental standards. Edwards opposes measures that empower closed tribunals to overrule America’s environmental laws.

Candidate Review - Former Governor Howard Dean - The Environment

This is from a speech Dean made in San Francisco, July 31, 2003.

"We will finally make the EPA a cabinet-level agency with a Secretary, not an Administrator, who will have not just the symbolic support of the Administration, but the actual support as well. And we?ll ensure that the agencies created to oversee our precious environmental and natural resources aren?t co-opted by the very forces they?re supposed to be guarding against.

We?ll place tighter controls on air pollution immediately. New legislation will reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury and carbon dioxide. We?ll strengthen New Source Review requirements to undo the damage done by the Bush Administration. And I?ll ask Congress to close the loophole in federal law that allows old, polluting power plants to continue to foul our air."

And from the section of his website detailing his position on air pollution.

"To reduce these health threats, one of the first actions Dean will take as President is to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, mercury, and carbon dioxide by fully enforcing the Clean Air Act and seeking new legislation to further strengthen that law. (In contrast, President Bush has dramatically weakened clean air safeguards and proposed so-called ?Clear Skies? legislation that would actually allow more power plant pollution than current law. Bush also refuses to curb carbon emissions that cause global warming despite his pledge to do so in the 2000 campaign.) A Dean administration will also protect our health by directing the EPA to accelerate adoption of health-based standards for other toxic air pollutants.

Dean will also faithfully enforce the Clean Air Act?s provisions to clean up disproportionately high pollution from older power plants and other industrial facilities. The Bush administration has violated the Clean Air Act and created a huge new regulatory loophole allowing power companies to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in rebuilding old power plants without installing modern pollution controls. "

Candidate Review - General Wesley Clark - The Environment

Hey it's time for another candidate review, this time on the environment. I will be focusing on the clean air aspect of the environment as much as I can (well, as much as I can find quotes on that specific subject.

Here's Clark's plan from a speech in New Hampshire, December 9, 2004.

"We need a President who protects the public's health, not polluters' pocketbooks. We need a President who will tell the truth to the American people about the risks posed by air pollution, not one who hides data and distorts the science. We need a President who understands that clean air and a healthy economy go hand in hand.

My Clean Air Plan will improve America's health and America's economy. Compared to the Bush administration's policies, my Clean Air Plan will prevent more than 100,000 premature deaths and more than two million asthma attacks through the year 2020.

Specifically, my four-part plan will:

Set tough standards for the worst sources of air pollution, starting with electric power plants;

Crack down on corporate polluters;

Use American technology and market-based approaches to meet air pollution challenges with innovative, job-creating solutions; and

Restore trust in the environmental stewardship of the White House."

State of the Union

I have been perhaps a bit to hard on President Bush's State of the Union. Or at least that is the implication one could assume by reading my posts. The truth is his section on foreign policy was not as weak as I expected. Of course he failed to accept any reponsibility for the inaccurate statements in last years State of the Union. He also didn't openly suggest we would be attacking anybody else soon.

For the most part, however, I'd say his state of the Union did exactly what it was supposed to do. It set up the differences between his vision for America and those of his opponents. And based on that, yeah, I'd choose Howard Dean over him, rebel yell and all (That's not an endorsement, just so you know).

State of the Union and Rebuttal, Part 5

"Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off and far more secure without weapons of mass murder.

Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."
President George W. Bush, State of the Union

"But their dissing the U.N. — that palace of permission slips — and their doctrine of pre-emption are just as hot, and so was Mr. Bush's cocky implicit defense of the idea that if you whack one Middle East dictator, the rest will fall in line. "Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not," he said. "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."

Maybe he's right, but what about Bill Clinton's line that unless we want to occupy every country in the world, maybe our policy should also concentrate on making friends instead of targets? The president and vice president like to present a calm, experienced demeanor, but their foreign policy is right out of the let's-out-crazy-the-bad-guys style of Mel Gibson's cop in "Lethal Weapon" movies."
Marueen Dowd, "Riding the Crazy Train."

State of the Union and Rebuttal, Part 4

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization.
President George W. Bush, State of the Union (For those who don't know, last week, President Bush proposed spending $1.5 million on to Promote Marriage).

"The money will be used to teach couples how to manage their conflicts in healthy ways, and, yes, to fund ad campaigns publicizing the value of getting hitched. I can just picture the PSAs starring Trista and Ryan: "Hey, kids, we were paid millions of dollars to tie the knot on national TV. So don't believe anyone who tells you that marriage isn't worth the trouble!" Federal dollars will also be earmarked for mentoring programs that use married couples as role models. Here's a suggestion: why not start with conservative icons such as Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm. They can all tearfully testify how much those ads might have meant in their own unsuccessful attempts to keep a marriage together.

Now I'm not saying that helping married couples stay together is a bad thing. I'm just saying that it's not a job for the Federal government. At least not a government that is faced with far more pressing problems than what to do when he wants to watch football and she wants to cuddle. We have 9% unemployment, 12 million uninsured children, record-breaking $500 billion deficits, unfinished business in Afghanistan and Iraq, porous ports and vulnerable airports, and every state in the union cutting back on vital social programs, and the president wants to spend precious resources convincing young people that marriage is better than shacking up? Just whom is he protecting here? Aside from his own electoral backside."
Arianne Huffington, "Bush Leaves No Bride Behind"

State of the Union and Rebuttal, Part 3

"In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland, and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. (Applause.) This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending, and be wise with the people's money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years."
President George W. Bush, State of the Union, January 20, 2004

"Bush claimed that the budget he will soon send to Congress will "cut the deficit in half over the next five years." Here was the latest installment in a long run of fuzzy math. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bush's projections "show a large decline in the deficit by 2009 only because the [Office of Management and Budget] figures will omit a series of very likely or inevitable costs in taxes, defense spending, and other areas." The center explains:

"A series of analyses -- including analyses by the Brookings Institution, Goldman-Sachs, and a joint analysis by the business-led Committee for Economic Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- all have found that recent budget projections omit a number of likely costs that must be added back to gain a realistic sense of the budget deficits we face in coming years. The administration's forthcoming budget is expected to have approximately $200 billion in missing costs in the fifth year."

"Specifically, the OMB figures are likely to exclude the costs of fighting terrorism internationally after September 30, 2004; to fail to reflect the full costs of the Administration's own "Future Year Defense Plan;" to omit the costs of extending relief from the mushrooming Alternative Minimum Tax after 2005; and to omit the costs of extending a series of very popular tax breaks."

Using real-world assumptions, the center calculates that the deficit is likely to rise from $374 billion in 2003 to between $440 billion and $500 billion in 2009. It adds, "The administration's contention that the deficit will be cut in half in the next five years thus is essentially an accounting fiction, derived in large part by omitting very likely or inevitable costs, including costs for proposals the administration itself hopes and intends to submit in the years ahead." Let's see Bush keep his word on his deficit pledge."
David Corn, Capital Games, "Bush's Defiant State of the Union."

State of the Union and Rebuttal, Part 2

"By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of our country. We are providing more funding for our schools -- a 36 percent increase since 2001. We are requiring higher standards. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing. We are making progress toward excellence for every child in America.

But the status quo always has defenders. Some want to undermine the No Child Left Behind Act by weakening standards and accountability. Yet the results we require are really a matter of common sense: We expect third graders to read and do math at third grade level -- that’s not asking too much. Testing is the only way to identify and help students who are falling behind.

This nation will not go back to the days of simply shuffling children along from grade to grade without them learning the basics. I refuse to give up on any child -- and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children. "
President George W. Bush, State of the Union, January 20, 2004

"Here's how No Child Left Behind and your tests work in the classrooms of Houston and Chicago. Millions of 8-year-olds are given lists of words and phrases. They are graded, like USDA beef: some prime, some OK, many failed.

Once the kids are stamped and sorted, the parents of the marked children ask for you to fill your tantalizing promise, to "make sure they have better options when schools are not performing."

But there is no "better option," is there, Mr. Bush? Where's the money for the better schools to take in the kids getting crushed in cash-poor districts? Where's the open door to the suburban campuses with the big green lawns for the dark kids with the test-score mark of Cain?

. . . Here in New York City, your educational Taliban, led by Republican Mayor Bloomberg, had issued an edict to test the third-graders. Winnow out the chaff and throw them back, exactly where they started, to repeat the same failed program another year. In other words, the core edict of No Child Left Behind is that failing children will be left behind another year. And another year and another year.

You know and I know that this is not an educational opportunity program -- because you offer no opportunities, no hope, no plan, no funding. Rather, it is the new Republican social Darwinism: Identify the nation's loser-class early on. Trap them, then train them cheap. The system will provide the new worker drones to clean the toilets at the Yale alumni club, to punch the McDonald's cash registers color-coded for illiterates, to pamper the winner-class on the higher floors of the new service economy order."
Greg Palast, "No (Rich) Child Left Behind"

State of the Union and Rebuttal, Part 1

"Tonight I also ask you to reform our immigration laws, so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the job. This reform will be good for our economy -- because employers will find needed workers in an honest and orderly system. A temporary worker program will help protect our homeland -- allowing border patrol and law enforcement to focus on true threats to our national security. I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life. "
President George W. Bush, State of the Union.

"Bush made clear that this program is not just for workers presently in the country, as the press has mostly been reporting. It is not just for those who may soon arrive. No, it is far broader than that. Here's the president's speech: "If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job."

This program will permit any employer to admit any worker. From any country. At any time. The only requirement is that it be for a job Americans are not willing to take. But it is easy to create such jobs: Cut wages. Terminate the unions. Lengthen the hours. Speed up the lines. Chicken farmers have known this for years. Bush's plan is a blank check for every bad boss this country has.

There is no reason why principal recruitment of new workers would be from Mexico. It might be, very massively, from China. Or perhaps from India, with its large English-speaking population. Temp agencies would go out on recruiting missions. Some of this competition may displace Mexican and Central American nationals presently working illegally in the United States (and hoping to stay). That would only drive them even further underground.

And for those who take up the program, register as temporary workers, and then see their permits expire? Bush is at pains to say that he expects this group to go home. But who will make them? Will the government organize a mass campaign of roundups and deportations? Or will the workers just quietly disappear back into the sub-underground of the truly illegal?

And for those who do go home, who will replace them? Another cohort of strangers? This is a program to create a rotating underclass of foreign workers, who never assimilate to American ways or adopt American values. It's hard to imagine anything worse for our social life -- more productive of petty crime -- or for that matter, riskier for our national security."
James K. Galbraith, The no jobs President.

Walter E. Williams on Education

Apparently it's important to distinguish Walter E. Williams from Walter Williams, who is a commie economist. Walter E. Williams, on the other hand, is a conservative nitwit. His latest article talks about Black Education; explaining that it's the things that don't cost any money that make a school. For example, kids using foul language and loitering around in the hallways hurt grades (I know they didn't help mine any). In successful schools, the parents are involved; the teachers are demanding. He then says, "None of these ingredients are budget-busters, but if they're not present, no matter how high the budget, education won't occur.

The cruelest hoax of it all is the fraud perpetrated on black students and their parents. This was forcefully brought home to me over the holidays in a conversation with an in-law who boasted about how his son, a senior, was on his school's honor roll at one of Philadelphia's inner-city high schools.

While it was not thrilling, honesty compelled me to inform him that the average black high school graduate has an academic achievement level on par with that of an average white seventh-grader. His son's A's and B's would probably translate into C's, D's and F's at most other high schools."

Basically the education system doesn't fail Black Kids. The Black Kids and their families fail the system. Therefore, presumably, there's no need to worry about educating black kids. If they don't get the education they need, it's their won fault.

Also, on another note, what a total jerk Walter E. Williams is. He really told an in-law that his child was probably just as succesful as a white seventh grader? What a jerk.

David Brooks Condescends to a Nation

David Brooks explains to us all the lessons of Kerry and Edwards victory in Iowa with typical grace and humility (I.E. none at all). He concludes it with his most condescending paragraph.

"I'm struck by how oblivious this campaign has been to the consequences of 9/11. I'm struck by how the grand idealism of the crowds is out of proportion to the smallish policies on offer. Nonetheless, it's sort of inspiring in this cold Iowa winter to see at least some Americans who have preserved, despite decades of discouragement, a stubborn faith in politics, and the possibility of change."

First of all, all of the campaigns have addressed the lessons of September 11th, and in many cases better than President Bush, in my opinion. So I don't know what consequences Mr. Brooks is talking about. Is he saying, and he probably is, that the lesson Iowa voters are supposed to learn is that only President Bush can protect us from Terrorists.

Secondly, does Mr. Brooks really find concern about education, poverty and health insurance really quaint?

New Links and more Clean Up

In our baffling effort to give you better value, we have cleaned up some of the links, and added two. Working for Change is like a smarter version of Commondreams (no offense). They have some really good writers, including Molly Ivans. I think she has a very attractive voice by the way, as well. I got Bushwacked on CD, and enjoyed it a great deal.

Also the Columbia Journalism Review has a website on coverage of the upcoming election entitled the Campaign Desk.

New York Times Editorial

Yep, that title says it all. I read a New York Times Editorial.

"John Kerry, who came in first last night, and John Edwards, who scored a surprising second, appeared to be the men voters thought looked most electable. That throws cold water, at least temporarily, on the long-held theory that primary voters favor candidates who are too far to the left or right to win in the fall. In this era of attack-dog politics, it's nice to have a moment of pragmatism."

The problem with laying it at the doorstep of pragmatism, however, automatically discounts any policies that Kerry and Edwards might have. It discounts the possibility that Iowan voters might have looked at the platforms of Kerry and Edwards (and Dean and Gephardt) and voted for the one who more closely matches what they actually believe. Instead the assumption is that if the voters voted for who they actually thought was the best man, that man would be Dean or Gephardt (or Kucinich, the most liberal candidate). I'm not sure that's a fair assumption.

One theory

This was floated at Democratic Underground, but I have to say, it makes sense to me. Edwards and Kerry both made it fairly clear that they were not going to remove the middle class tax cuts President Bush had instituted. Dean and Gephardt were less clear on the issue, and both seemed to say that they were going to repeal President Bush's tax cuts entirely. I'm sure this doesn't explain Kerry and Edward's success completely, but it is possible.

Gephardt is going to drop out of the race. I've not been a big fan of Gephardt, but I do appreciate that he has the wisdom to get off stage when its time.

Also President Bush's State of the Union is tonight; trying to decide if I have to watch or not. Maybe I can just read it.

What Yesterday Means

Which would be a good name for an album, if anybody is paying attention.

I don't know who the final Democratic Nominee will be. Could be Clark, Could be Dean, Could be Kerry, Could be Edwards. And, while I do favor one of the candidates, I could live with any of those guys as the candidate.

But up until yesterday it seemed like we had a scenario fairly well set. Dean would clean up in Iowa and New Hampshire; get that early lead and hold it until the convention. As candidate, the press has already decided they don't like him, and he can't challenge President Bush on Foreign Policy. So in November we lose, and maybe lose big. That's the scenario a lot of the right wing has been pushing, and, sad to say, I bought into a little bit. And I should know better.

But Kerry and Edwards victory in Iowa upsets the balance a little. It reminds me, and possibly reminds us all, that the electoral process is not a smooth and easily foretold road. So whether or not either man goes on to the grand finale, at least this day they give me hope.

What a Difference a Day Makes

Well a week ago Kerry and Edwards weren't really on the map, and today they are dead center. Good for them.

More analysis to come on how Kerry and Edwards are both just as crazy as Dean, I'm sure.

New Logo

Yep, we got a new logo and a little different look. Hope you like it.

Ann Coulter - Nuttier than 15 Squirrels and still counting

This week Ann takes on Wesley Clark, and, in a bit of projection, describes him as totally nuts.

Apparently Clark has the crazy idea that Intelligence information is kind of murky. He described it, in a quote that Coulter quotes twice, as a "a sort of gray goo as you look at it. You can't see through it, exactly, and if you try to touch it, it gets real sticky and you might actually interfere with the information that you're getting back. So you have to draw inferences from it." That's not the most elegant or the prettiest analogy, but it strikes me as pretty accurate.

Of course, were Ann president there would be little to no need for any intelligence. We would have invaded the middle east, killed their leaders, destroyed their armies, forcibly converted all the civilians, and demolished all the mosques. Simple. No intelligence needed. So, I guess it's understandable that she doesn't understand intelligence.

She also denigrates his work in Kosovo, and minimizes the menace of Slobodan Milosevic (some on the right now wonder if we judged Milosevic to hard; after all, he was killing Muslims).

Of course the scariest part about Clark is that he has stated that September 11th may have been preventable, but that the Bush Administration failed to put the pieces together. And for that he must truly pay; some questions nobody should ask, not even in an election year. But, since he asked it . . . Well, now I'm curious.

Clean up

First of all I added a new quotation to the Quotes page and the top of the page.

Secondly here is the sum up to the Tax Reform Candidate Review. Sharpton's website is finally back up, but it still doesn't have all that much on it. And Ms. Moseley Braun dropped out. I have to say after doing these candidate reviews she was a much better candidate than I originally gave her credit for. I am also updating the Candidate Review for the War in Iraq.

Finally, have a nice weekend.