Presidential Race

[dstark]

<p>Meanwhile, Hillary just got on Olbermann and told a baldfaced lie, attacking the Prez for his pre-emptive war which, “I said at the time I was against.” </p>

<p>No lie.
You can be for and against something at the same time. :)</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>"No lie.
You can be for and against something at the same time. "</p>

<p>Or you can be for it before you are against it. That worked out well for John Kerry.</p>

<p>So, the “flip flop” thing worked with Kerry. Can we show up at Hillary appearances and chant “liar, liar pants on fire?” Maybe wave pants instead of flipflops?</p>

[dstark]

<p>The flip flops work for everybody. Everybody but Bush.
I wish Bush would flip flop. :)</p>

[Hanna]

<p>“I wish Bush would flip flop.”</p>

<p>He just did! Suddenly, global climate change is a real and pressing problem, and we all need to start using less gasoline.</p>

<p>Now, I care much more about policy than politics, so that makes me happy no matter why he said it. But it is, without a doubt, a gigantic, shameless flip-flop.</p>

[dstark]

<p>lol…</p>

<p>Somebody must have found out that there is money to be made with global warming and told Bush.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>Personally, I think he’s making nicey-nicey with the dems cause they’re going to be working so closely and happily together on immigration. (Big, giant eye roll.)</p>

[mini]

<p>I hope we don’t have to see any of that bipartisan nonsense. If I wanted bipartisanship, I would have voted for them.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

But it is, without a doubt, a gigantic, shameless flip-flop.

</p>

<p>Not really … this is what he said about it almost 6 years ago:</p>

<p>

First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today. </p>

<pre><code> There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

</code></pre>

<p>He also committed to spend money on research to learn more:</p>

<p>

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change commences to stabilizing concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate; but no one knows what that level is. The United States has spent $18 billion on climate research since 1990 – three times as much as any other country, and more than Japan and all 15 nations of the EU combined. </p>

<pre><code> Today, I make our investment in science even greater. My administration will establish the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative to study areas of uncertainty and identify priority areas where investments can make a difference.

I’m directing my Secretary of Commerce, working with other agencies, to set priorities for additional investments in climate change research, review such investments, and to improve coordination amongst federal agencies. We will fully fund high-priority areas for climate change science over the next five years. We’ll also provide resources to build climate observation systems in developing countries and encourage other developed nations to match our American commitment.

And we propose a joint venture with the EU, Japan and others to develop state-of-the-art climate modeling that will help us better understand the causes and impacts of climate change. America’s the leader in technology and innovation. We all believe technology offers great promise to significantly reduce emissions – especially carbon capture, storage and sequestration technologies.

So we’re creating the National Climate Change Technology Initiative to strengthen research at universities and national labs, to enhance partnerships in applied research, to develop improved technology for measuring and monitoring gross and net greenhouse gas emissions, and to fund demonstration projects for cutting-edge technologies, such as bioreactors and fuel cells.

Even with the best science, even with the best technology, we all know the United States cannot solve this global problem alone. We’re building partnerships within the Western Hemisphere and with other like-minded countries. Last week, Secretary Powell signed a new CONCAUSA Declaration with the countries of Central America, calling for cooperative efforts on science research, monitoring and measuring of emissions, technology development, and investment in forest conservation.

We will work with the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research and other institutions to better understand regional impacts of climate change. We will establish a partnership to monitor and mitigate emissions. And at home, I call on Congress to work with my administration on the initiatives to enhance conservation and energy efficiency outlined in my energy plan, to implement the increased use of renewables, natural gas and hydropower that are outlined in the plan, and to increase the generation of safe and clean nuclear power.

By increasing conservation and energy efficiency and aggressively using these clean energy technologies, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by significant amounts in the coming years. We can make great progress in reducing emissions, and we will. Yet, even that isn’t enough.
</code></pre>

<p>

<a href=“Briefing Room | The White House”>Briefing Room | The White House;

<p>Sounds to me that his current position is nothing more than an extension of what he has been saying all along and far from a “shameless flip-flop”.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

Somebody must have found out that there is money to be made with global warming and told Bush.

</p>

<p>Cheney probably got out his Halliburton order pad and wrote up some big requisitions for alternate fuel technologies. While they were at it, Bush probably ordered some more of those WMD detectors for Iraq.</p>

<p>Speaking of Iraq, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the mood of the congress this way. Even Bush’s supporters don’t think his troop escalation in Iraq will work. Between the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan sentiment of Congress, the polls, and the election results, it’s just amazing the degree of pig-headedness Bush is demonstrating.</p>

[dstark]

<p>fundingfather, flip flops can be good.</p>

<p>When circumstances change, facts become known, when you realize your opinions are wrong, etc., flip flops can be better than the alternatives.</p>

<p>The idea that flip flopping is a bad thing is erroneous.</p>

<p>Those dolls that speak when you pull on the string. They never flip flop.</p>

[mini]

<p>Stay the course!</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

I hope we don’t have to see any of that bipartisan nonsense. If I wanted bipartisanship, I would have voted for them.

</p>

<p>What choice do the Republicans in Congress have? They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Between the Democrats and the poll numbers of a failed President.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>dstark - I agree. But when the flip-flops are blatantly politically based as exemplified by the Kerry campaign or the Gore speeches on the topic the flip-flops are not only bad but are dangerous for the country.</p>

[dstark]

<p>I agree about Kerry. I am glad to see he is not running.</p>

<p>I think the Gore of today is more like the Gore before he ran for president. I like him much better now than when he was running.</p>

[Dorothy_ParkerX]

<p>Much as others like him, Al Gore is most often preferred from a distance…the greater the better, it seems.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

@interesteddad

Between the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan sentiment of Congress, the polls, and the election results, it’s just amazing the degree of pig-headedness Bush is demonstrating.

</p>

<p>The day that military strategy is determined by Congress, the average American and/or polls is the day that we are really in trouble. Wasn’t it just a couple of years ago that the media was making a big deal about the fact that we NEEDED more troops in Iraq – and that Rumsfeld et al weren’t listening? So, now that the Pentagon agrees we need more troops, the media and the liberals flip-flop that we don’t need more boots on the ground. Watching the liberal left is like watching a tennis match.</p>

[mini]

<p>General Petreaus did indeed say he needed more troops. In his book, he says that to pacify an urban area, he needs one for every 20 residents. That means, according to General Petraeus, he needs 250,000 additional troops in BAGHDAD ALONE. </p>

<p>The Prez ain’t listening. Instead, he is trying to stay the course.</p>

<p>But I give him some credit - no more of that nonsense about training the Iraqis. The more training we give 'em, the more likelihood they’ll kill us. (We’ve actually just seen a prime example of that, where they even used American uniforms, if we believe the press accounts - of course, it could have been Americans killing Americans, for all we really know.)</p>

[Hanna]

<p>Setting aside the fact that there is a huge leap between directing one’s Secretary of Commerce to “set priorities” and actually telling people that there’s a problem and they need to use less gas…</p>

<p>I judge the president not by what he said he was going to do in 2001, but what he’s actually done over the last 6 years. And what he’s actually done is boost subsidies to oil companies amid record profits, fight higher emissions standards for cars, and completely abandon the idea of using government policy to encourage conservation. Government funding for alternative energy is a complete joke compared to the money devoted to preserving the oil supply (like, for example, military intervention in the Middle East).</p>

<p>If W is actually going to treat global warming as a serious problem and tell us to save energy from now on – and you trust him, don’t you? – then that’s a radical shift in policy.</p>

<p>“Wasn’t it just a couple of years ago that the media was making a big deal about the fact that we NEEDED more troops in Iraq – and that Rumsfeld et al weren’t listening?”</p>

<p>I’ll accept for the sake of argument that liberals were indeed calling for massive troop deployments 2-3 years ago (a curious trick of memory). Isn’t it possible that back then, the war was winnable, and now it isn’t?</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

I think the Gore of today is more like the Gore before he ran for president. I like him much better now than when he was running.

</p>

<p>Actually the Gore of today is the Gore of yesterday - always trying to find the most politically expedient path to follow. This is what he was saying in early 2002 when Bush’s popularity was at its highest:</p>

<p>

Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an “Axis of Evil.” As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name. </p>

<hr>

<p>Our most important immediate task is to continue to tear up the Al Qaeda network, and since it is present in many countries, it will be an operation, which requires new forms of sustained cooperation with other governments. </p>

<p>Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. **And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. </p>

<p>As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. **

</p>

<p>Does this sound at all like the Al Gore of today with his speeches of how Bush “betrayed” the country? The best Supreme Court decision that ever happened to this country was the one that denied Gore the presidency.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Fundingfather, we disagree on Gore and Bush.</p>

<p>I don’t remember that speech from Gore.
I just remember he was anti-war and in my opinion he was right.</p>

<p>I like his personality better now than when he ran for president. He is much looser, less robotic, funnier.</p>

<p>If you don’t like what he stands for, you aren’t going to support him.
I like a lot of what he says and would weigh that against how much he is going to affect my pocketbook.</p>