User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 63

  1. #1
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default Obama continues to abandon eco base - Hilarity Ensues

    From Politico:

    Ozone decision: The final green straw?

    For green groups, President Barack Obama’s retreat on ozone standards is another reason to question how aggressively they want to support his reelection in 2012.

    Even more bruising: The realization that they may not have much choice.

    “We have no place else left to go but home,” said one official at a major environmental group, speaking on background Friday. “So the enviros come out looking weak once again because of today and we’re all screaming bloody murder.

    “But you know what,” the official said. “At the end of the day, I don’t think the White House is unhappy to hear us complain.”

    That could be a dangerous assumption for the administration to make, warned activist Ralph Nader, the former Green Party candidate who siphoned off enough votes in 2000 to deny the White House to Al Gore.

    “I know [Obama] thinks all these people voted for him and they have nowhere to go in 2012 because the Republicans are worse,” said Nader, speaking during yet another day of White House protests against a proposed tar-sands-oil pipeline from Canada. “But they can stay home.

    They can closet their enthusiasm. They can end their contributions to him. And that’s not what he needs to be reelected.”

    A similar warning came from MoveOn Executive Director Justin Ruben, calling the ozone decision just the latest in a series of disappointments.

    “Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama's reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal,” Ruben said in a statement. “This is a decision we'd expect from George W. Bush.”

    The White House insisted that electoral considerations had nothing to do with Obama’s announcement — on the eve of the Labor Day weekend — that the administration is withdrawing efforts to tighten EPA’s rule on ozone until the 2013 cycle.

    “This has nothing to do with politics, nothing at all,” one White House official said to reporters on a conference call following the announcement.

    Still, the move earned raves from Republicans and industry groups that have mounted fierce attacks on the president’s regulatory agenda — though they also served notice that they plan to continue trying to upend a host of other EPA regulations.

    Friday’s decision unquestionably provides Obama with breathing room by punting on perhaps the most controversial of all the pending EPA rules. It also came on a day when the new jobs numbers underscored the fact that voters will head to the ballot box next November with the unemployment rate at a dangerously high level for Obama’s prospects.

    On the other hand, the decision further sours the mood of green activists at the center of Obama’s liberal base. They were already disenchanted with the administration’s failure to enact major climate legislation, its consideration of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, and other issues.

    Some greens weren’t offering any predictions on what the decision means for 2012.

    "It’s sort of premature to say what we’re going to do in the elections today," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president for government affairs. “I think obviously the administration has done some great things. But there’s also been some real disappointments and today’s ozone announcement is at the top of the list."

    Other groups were livid.

    "This is a new low for President Obama," said Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity. "He sold out public health and environmental protection to appease polluters.”

    Both the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association said the decision means more litigation from environmental groups that had been challenging what they called a weak ozone rule from the George W. Bush administration.

    And still others tried to put the best face on the administration’s overall green agenda, while urging Obama to fight harder next time.

    “The decision creates a clear blemish on an otherwise positive record of this administration in supporting initiatives that reduce pollution,” said the Center for American Progress, adding the action “is deeply disappointing and grants an item on Big Oil's wish list at the expense of the health of children, seniors and the infirm.”

    “The president must continue to fight and defeat efforts to block and weaken other clean air health safeguards,” CAP added.

    The White House may have calculated that its base in the environmental community will still be there for Obama, especially given the track record of leading GOP presidential candidates who question the science behind climate change and oppose a host of EPA regulations.

    The first environmental official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision potentially “makes Obama look like a centrist and will garner him more votes among independents and people in the middle than he would lose due to any lack of enthusiasm from his base in the environmental community.”

    “I believe that is their calculation,” the official added. “I don’t know what else it could be. This decision today is not based on science and good health.”

    EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson looked to help stanch the bleeding by issuing a statement emphasizing that the agency “will revisit the ozone standard, in compliance with the Clean Air Act.” She also defended the Obama administration’s performance on the environment.

    “Since Day One, under President Obama’s leadership, EPA has worked to ensure health protections for the American people, and has made tremendous progress to ensure that Clean Air Act standards protect all Americans by reducing our exposures to harmful air pollution like mercury, arsenic and carbon dioxide.”

    Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change, sounded the same theme in a blog post Friday on what she called the administration’s “record of success” in promoting “cleaner air and a stronger economy.”

    n a letter to Jackson on Friday, urging her to pull back on the ozone rule, White House regulatory chief Cass Sunstein said EPA has already pushed ahead on a series of regulations — on issues such as heavy-truck emissions, mercury and cross-state air pollution — that “are projected to reduce ozone as well.”

    “Cumulatively, these and other recently proposed and finalized rules count as truly historic achievements in protecting public health by decreasing air pollution levels, including ozone levels, across the nation,” he wrote.

    But Friday’s decision "puts even more pressure on them to aggressively move forward in other areas," Sittenfeld said.

    Obama still has chances to reinvigorate the environmental base in other upcoming EPA air quality initiatives — including finalizing mercury and air toxics standards for power plants — as well as in the State Department’s pending decision on the Keystone XL pipeline.

    “People are going to look at a record as a whole and like in any race will compare to the other candidate,” said Daniel Weiss, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “Does the president then issue an air toxics standard that gets real reduction from utilities? That will make a difference. Will the president approve the Keystone XL pipeline? That will make a difference.”

    Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and ranking member on the Natural Resources panel, emphasized as well that the administration needs to move more boldly on other regulations.

    “In light of today’s decision, I urge the president to direct EPA to move forward aggressively and use its full authority under the Clean Air Act to address the other clean air challenges facing the nation — from carbon pollution that is warming our planet, to mercury and other toxic air pollutants that are making the air unsafe to breathe,” Markey said in a statement.

    Overall, the reaction from key congressional Democrats was relatively mild — strangely so, some Republicans said.

    "They let him get away with murder here," one Senate GOP aide said. "If this had been the Bush administration, I can guarantee you there'd be outrage and we'd be holding hearings."

    In fact, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works clean air subcommittee, later announced that he intends to hold a hearing on the White House's decision. "This decision leaves me with more questions than answers," he said.

    Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said in a statement that she was "disappointed" but also "heartened" by Obama's announcement.

    "I strongly believe that protecting air quality based on the science leads to more job growth because it brings so many positive health benefits to our workers," Boxer said. "Although I am disappointed with this decision to delay action, I am heartened by the president's commitment to vigorously oppose any efforts to dismantle the Clean Air Act and the progress that we have made."

    But Republicans and industry officials are just as forcefully suggesting that Obama needs to use the ozone decision as a precedent.

    “Absolutely, we think the announcement today is very good news for the economy,” American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard said in an interview. “And we hope it’s a new direction and positive sign that the administration understands that many of these regulatory proposals have had a chilling effect on job creation.”

    API and other major business and industry groups met last month with White House chief of staff Bill Daley and other administration officials about the ozone rule. “They’ve heard our message now with this,” Gerard said.

    Just this week, Obama — in a response to a request by House Speaker John Boehner to identify upcoming regulations with an estimated annual cost topping $1 billion — said the ozone rule was the most expensive of them all, with an estimated cost between $19 billion and $90 billion per year.

    Boehner spokesman Mike Steel wrote that Friday’s decision “is certainly a good first step, and we’re glad that the White House responded to the speaker’s letter and recognized the job-killing impact of this particular regulation. But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats’ agenda of tax hikes, more government ‘stimulus’ spending and increased regulations — which are all making it harder to create more American jobs.”

    House Majority Leader Eric Cantor last week announced plans to hold votes this fall to repeal the administration's "10 most harmful job-destroying regulations," including seven from the EPA. That had included penciling in a winter vote repealing the ozone rule.

  2. #2
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    The now well established Democratic policy of disappointing the base in order to fail to appease the opposition.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #3
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Is there fucking anybody with a basic understanding of politics in that man's staff? I mean, anyone?? Jesus fucking christ this man.

    I love my president dearly, but 2008 was a very fortunate fluke for him, I believe.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  4. #4
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The now well established Democratic policy of disappointing the base in order to fail to appease the opposition.
    HATE HAATTTEEEE
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The now well established Democratic policy of disappointing the base in order to fail to appease the opposition.
    You nailed it. This has me thinking I may go kamikaze come 2012 elections. I am sick to death of this non-strategy.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    This must be a disappointment, to idealists and retards alike.

  7. #7
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    At least you guys have gotten used to disappointment at this point...

    Face most serious economic downturn in several generations.....

    Pass hugely expensive Health Care overhaul.



    Fail to ensure stimulus money goes where it's needed.

    Sneak in funding for Democratic (wet) dream projects, under the umbrella of stimulus, as opposed to public works funding.

    From CNN:
    Obama's three big mistakes

    By, David Frum

    Over at Bloomberg, Jonathan Alter poses a question to non-supporters of President Obama:

    "Tell me again why Barack Obama has been such a bad president? I'm not talking here about him as a tactician and communicator. We can agree that he has played some bad poker with Congress. ... (But) what, specifically, has he done wrong on policy?"

    OK, I'll play.

    Obama made three crucially bad economic decisions in the first year of his presidency:

    1) Obama deferred to Democrats in Congress on the writing of his fiscal stimulus. He fought for a big total, but he paid much less attention to what was included in the total. The predictable result: a stimulus that most economists condemn as very poorly designed.

    Congress larded up the stimulus with ancient Democratic wish lists utterly irrelevant to the crisis at hand: $15 billion for more Pell grants, $9 billion for community and rural development, $20 billion for the renewable energy tax credit and so on. $87 billion was used to bail out state governments that had overspent on Medicaid. About $140 billion was put toward individual tax rebates that -- most economists warned -- would do little or nothing to stimulate economic activity.

    Only about $100 billion of the stimulus -- one dollar in eight -- went to support new infrastructure projects. When Americans wonder: "Where's our Hoover Dam? Where's our East River Drive?" the answer is directly traced to Obama's abdication of decision-making in 2009.

    Obama may have assumed that if his first stimulus failed, he could always go back for a second. But his mission in 2009 was to overwhelm the crisis. Instead, he allowed congressional Democratic spending priorities to overwhelm his economic leadership.

    2) Obama failed to mobilize the Federal Reserve to support his fiscal stimulus.

    During the financial meltdown of 2008-09, the Fed acted boldly and decisively to save the banking system. Once the banking crisis was contained, however, the Fed's boldness faded. It ended its first round of quantitative easing in spring 2010, for fear of sparking inflation. Yet inflation barely existed as a problem in 2010, while unemployment remained desperate.

    When the economy sputtered and stalled in summer 2010, the Fed reacted slowly. Not until almost the end of the year did it try a second -- and much smaller -- round of quantitative easing. QE2 provided a little economic impetus in early 2011, but by summer 2011, the U.S. economy had stalled again.

    The Federal Reserve has not delivered anywhere close to the monetary stimulus the U.S. economy needs. Yes, the Fed is independent of the president. But presidents can shape the Fed through their power to name Federal Reserve governors. Obama has failed to get his people on the board. Yes, he's encountered Republican obstruction. I make no excuse for such behavior by some figures in my party. On the other hand, Obama is hardly the first president in history to encounter obstruction. The difference between Obama and his predecessors: When obstructed, Obama usually yields.

    3) Obama bet his presidency on the best-case scenario.

    By happy coincidence, the best-ever study of the aftermath of financial crises -- Kenneth Rogoff's and Carmen Reinhart's "This Time Is Different" -- was published just in time for 2009.

    They warn: Recovery from a crash like 2008 can take years. Yet even armed with this information, Obama did nothing to prepare the public or his administration for the worst. Instead, he allowed his vice president to tout 2010 as "recovery summer."

    There was no contingency plan, and by the time Obama at last produces his Plan B when he gives a jobs speech in September, he will face an implacably hostile Congress. That September plan will become his 2012 campaign manifesto -- which means that the unemployed can hope for no action from him until early 2013.

    I can anticipate the reaction of Obama defenders like Alter to this indictment: "Obama did all that was politically possible."

    To which I can answer: Invoking the limits of the possible may be a sympathetic excuse for failure -- but it does not transform failure into success.

    I don't minimize the difficulty of the situation Obama faced in 2009. Maybe no president could have been equal to the crisis. But let's not pretend that the right choices were made in those critical months. They were not, and the country is now suffering the consequences.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,392

    Default

    Weak

  9. #9
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Unfortunately, short term economic issues take precedence over long term environmental issues. The president needs to do what he feels is in the best interest of the country, not what he feels will get him elected. I might have not agreed with what President Bush decided to do in office, but I respected him for his adherence to his values, and his attempts to do what he felt was right. Frankly, I find it rather interesting that Discobiscuit is posting this, given that he is a self proclaimed conservative. Are you faulting President Obama for not putting politics over policy? I suppose from your perspective, anything he does can be spun into doing something wrong.

    I will tell you this Disco: use any sway that you may have among conservatives to get someone else nominated besides Perry: Romney, Hunstman, etc. I may not like the current state of the economy, but I don't blame it on President Obama. If fixing the economy were really so simple as some would like to believe, then there wouldn't be so much contradictory empirical evidence (contradictory in terms of fitting a particular model of policy). I will not vote for Perry, and in fact if there was anything that might get me to become an activist for President Obama, it would be the nomination of Rick Perry. Don't let it happen.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #10
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Oh and we're still waiting on that jobs plan of yours.

Similar Threads

  1. An alternative to capatilist profit based Economy
    By bluemountaintree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-22-2012, 06:02 PM
  2. So Obama wants to take away summer vacation
    By Giggly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 09-30-2009, 06:45 PM
  3. Obama pledges to cut nation's deficit in half
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 03-03-2009, 11:19 AM
  4. People continuing to smoke Cigarettes
    By Athenian200 in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-17-2007, 11:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO