On Republicans 2009 - and hidden reservoirs of sanity

Remove all ads!

AMaster posted that remarkable quote by David Frum.

He was, of course, speaking of the likes of Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. It made me want to read the whole article and it made me curious and prodded me to look up what Frum's actually doing these days. He is apparently serious about providing an alternative to the lows the current GOP leaders have descended to. He is the editor of a new blog named 'New Majority'.

Now, whatever to make of that blog, and whatever to make of Frum (he's still a neo-con, but one to be respected because he is intelligent and is in his way very principled) - I didn't believe my lying eyes when they glanced on this site advertisement on the top of Frum's 'New Majority':

A hoax? Satire?


​

Apparently not! That about reflects my conservatism. I am thrilled. And the site - Republicans for Environmental Protection ... ... I became used to the reality that for a true Republican forests are primarily a great source of matches, and that global warming is a hoax, and that anyone who is an environmentalist could only be a demented tree hugger. And now that ... what is this - hidden reservoirs of sanity? Good news! And then such a spirited article on Global Warming from a Republican: Absolutely Amazing Distortions Related to Global Warming,

Yes it is!

I'd like to hear more of them, because the nutters, and the opportunistic (Beck, Limbaugh ...) and unscrupulous inciting and exploiting their activism (i.e. industry lobbyists like Armey astroturfing ...) won't go away by themselves.

 

Hey, for most, your first steps are baby steps. Even if a very small portion follows this lead, it is a step in the right direction. Wishful thinking on my part, but who knows, maybe some more votes in Congress can be stolen down the road that can get some sorely needed bills pushed thru? Yeah, probably not, but who knows....

 

Tal, big business has gone on an exploit-the-environment binge, and the Republican leadership has supported them for years, but I'll bet the vast majority of Republicans like trees, forests, clean rivers, and such. I know I do, and my family, and my wife's family, and a ton of people in my church, and people I knew at school, and at work, and... well, I think you get the point. The caricature of the Republican party as a bunch of burn-it-all nuts is a bit of liberal propaganda, just like the caricature of Democrats as a bunch of socialist, pity-party hippies is a conservative propaganda piece. Don't buy it.

 

Yeah, I was complaining in the other thread about the Dems being a bunch of cowards, but I think it would be more accurate both parties are a bunch of cowards. It's just that the Dems are afraid of the GOP while the GOP is afraid of its own base (there was this hilarious account of a GOP congressman saying to Henry Paulson something along the lines of, 'boy, I sure am glad you have enough votes to do the TARP thing without me, because my constituents would eat me alive if I voted for it' either in the New Yorker or Harper's recently; whichever it was who published the lengthy 'tagging along with Paulson during the meltdown' piece).

 

That caricature appeared quite real and accurate to me during the eight years of deliberate non-enforcement and undermining of environmental regulation during Bush's presidency, or during the various republican conventions ... 'Drill Baby Drill!', or "Drill here, drill now!" (I remember that guy from a McCain/Palin event)

​

So they're all for drilling for oil in an Arctic wildlife resort. Or think of Bush's apparent indifference to historical landscapes like the Apalachian mountains, favouring the abhorrent practice of mountain top coal mining. Under Bush the EPA ordered to drop enforcement actions under the Clean Air Act against 70 power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities that received a Notice of Violation under the New Source Review rules of the Clean Air Act. By 2002 already criminal prosecutions against polluters for violations of the Toxic Substance Control Act, Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act had been down 50 to 80%. Federal Courts have ruled that the Bush crew did not enforce existing environmental protection laws. The Bush administration had a report on Global Warming rewritten, by American Petroleum Institute lobbyist Phillip Cooney, who, after finishing this work, went on to become Exxon Mobil's Corporate Issues Manager (Lobby interests transcend governments, which is to say that their efforts continue).

I am supposed to believe that's all liberal propaganda?

There is evidence that during the Bush years the burn-it-all nuts have been occupying the Whitehouse, operating under the rule 'What's good for the industry is good for everybody! And as they know best what's good for them, let them regulate themselves!', with a smaller dose of 'God gave man dominion over earth!". In fact, it is fairly safe to say that the lobbyists changed from industry to government and back so fast that they needed to water cool the revolving door.

 

Ragusa, do you actually know anything about drilling in ANWR? I'll give you a hint: if it's done halfway right, it would take up a few thousand sqare feet, have little to no risk of spillage, and make about as much impact on the ecosystem as the prop-plane tours flying overhead do.

Now I'll agree that mountain top coal mining is a terrible thing, and that the laws should be enforced, but again, that's the leadership (as you yourself have pointed out), not the constituency. As I said to Tal:

 

This report suggests detrimental effects on endangered species who might be displaced by the industrial activities. The effect of spillage, when things are not done halfway right, which happens, will be devastating. What's the point of having a wildlife resort in the first place, when you undertake steps that have the realistic potential of defeating its purpose?

But that aside, I used the ANWR as an example, not because it is a matter close to my heart, but because it is part of a pattern that I described above.

I have little doubt that if you asked them directly the vast majority of Republicans will profess that they like trees, forests, clean rivers, and such. But why do we hear so little of preservation of the environment in Republican politics? I mean, just look at Bush's record - companies polluted soil, rivers and air, often recklessly so, and remained unpunished because as a matter of policy the Bushies chose to not enforce environmental laws. It suggests that there were other things closer to their heart than trees, forests, clean rivers, and such - or for that matter, the law (environmental laws included) that to faithfully execute they had sworn an oath - things like industry interests.

I think you kid yourself about the extent of hostility towards any environmental regulation from the Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey types in the Republican party. These types were basically given a free hand under Bush, and that expressed itself in roll-back and non-enforcement of environmental laws under Bush. What else to expect when one tasks industry lobbyists, who have fought environmental legislation as a matter of principle, with enforcing environmental laws. It's putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

 

For whatever reason, I can't get the website to work. I don't know the specific data they used, but I can't imagine how they could actually come up with any noticable displacement of endangered species. As for how things are done, I'd definitely want strict restrictions and public oversight on such a project, but that's hardly unheard of.

Simple, because the politics have been lumped into two major parites. The Democrats want things like universal healthcare, big government, high taxes (as a result, not goal), and environmental protection (often to the point of rendering whole industries dead). Republicans want individual freedoms, small goverment (in theory at least), low taxes, and big business. People who want some mix of the two are stuck trying to figure which group fits their ideals best.

I don't kid myself at all. I think it's you who kid yourself about just how many of those people there are. Remember, we're talking about a movement in the mass-party, about popular support, not about the official leadership. It doesn't matter how many Senators sign on, it's about how many voters sign on.

 

NOG,
the link works for me; it is a report by the U.S. Department of Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Another formulation would be 'paying lip service'.

 

So, what you're arguing is that one should agree wholeheartedly with every point that a political party makes, or should distance themselves from it entirely? I'm sorry, Tal, but that's BS. A realistic approach to politics is one that balances the positives and negatives of each option. No political entity in existance matches my ideals 100%. I go with the one that matches the most of the most important ones.

I don't know, it actually sounds a lot like you did say that:

I know, you didn't say it exactly, but there was a strong implication.

 

That's your opinion, but in my opinion, that's just a big heap of....

 

If they Republicans did care that much it would reflect itself in GOP policy. That is quite simple. Because they don't I presume they have other priorities.

And before anyone or someone particular complains, yes, I do paint that with a broad brush, intentionally so, and indifferent to doing injustice to individual Republicans. That is not the point here.

The GOP is strong on guns rights, yet oddly, them gun toting hunters appear to care much less about the integrity of the environment they hunt in than about their fiercely defended right to bear arms. They emphasise self defence against physical assault (i.e. crime), but when a company pollutes soil, air or water (indirectly endangering their physical health), enacting laws to preventing risks from that is a bad thing, because it is about regulation and regulation is always bad for the economy and will cost jobs etc. pp. Before they pay more for fuel, or buy more and smaller economic cars, they'd rather drill in the ANWR. I could go on.

Many things come before the environment. The low emphasis on the environment is the result of a mentality.

 

Too late, and yes I take great offense to the above statements. You are making it seem like us mean old conservatives love nothing better then to pour a little dioxin into the water supply or to turn the soil into a superfund site and thank God (although they would never use that term) that the liberals are here to save us from ourselves.

Yes you are correct, we believe that we should be drilling in ANWR and offshore also. If the assets are there we should be using them. How long has the Alaska pipeline been there? To the best of my knowledge the pipeline hasn't "destroyed" the environment. The same is true with off-shore drilling. Now that Uncle Ted is gone and it won't ruin his view maybe we set up some wind farms and drilling rigs offshore. They have been drilling in the north sea for how many years, does anyone consider it an ecological disaster?

Being willing to drill does not mean that we want to pollute. Being willing to consider to send money to the middle east for fuel is foolish and to pin our "dreams' on alternatives is wishful thinking in the short and probably long term. Especially when we are a country that because of environmentalists we haven't been able to build wind farms off of Cape Cod, we can't build new nuclear plants, or newer and more effiecient coal or natural gas plants.

I personally believe environmentalists do more harm then good as they don't think out the ramifications of their choices.

 

No, but it means giving business a benefit of a doubt, in generous doses. And it means a willingness to brush off environmental concerns, after all, do we really believe that a for profit company doesn't take precautions against damage of property and loss of life?

As a matter of fact, some don't. You give them a benefit of a doubt without checking on them and odd are that at some point you have mayhem. Wall Street's excesses are a point in case.

What I wanted was to sketch out a mentality and inner contradictions, not describe THE REPUBLICAN. So if you're offended - for naught.

And considering American's somewhat bipolar nature, maybe indeed the liberals are there to save America's conservatives from themselves. Maybe it is just time to talk with each other again instead of talking at each other and formulating claims to truth. D's and R's could learn from each other, but what would be the result? Horrors! The dreaded, pragmatic centrist!

 

Ragusa, I have to call you on this. That's largely propaganda, and what isn't is painting all Republicans with the single brush of Bush&Co. There were Republicans before Bush, and there are now Republicans after him. There are plenty of regulations on the books, and I support more in some cases, but the kinds of things that the Democrats propose are all too often self-destructive madness. Sure, lets put a massive tax on anything that emits CO2, killing our already strained power supply before we have alternatives. Oh, and anyone who opposes the idea must be in favor of strip-mining the Amazon, spilling oil into every gulf they can find, and pumping raw nuclear waste into our food!

I'm sorry Ragusa, but there's a longer history of companies responsibly managing the environment and not making disasters than there is of them doing so. The disasters are the big, publicized exceptions, not the rules. It doesn't take the benefit of the doubt to allow a corporation to do something, it just takes oversight.

 

It's just not about energy but clean water, the air we breath and the food we eat as well. I'm not blaming any particular political side for this, but it points out the need for a stronger EPA, one that can stop this kind of thing from happening:

How can that be?

BTW, the school my girls used to attend is one of those schools. Even though they are at a new school, it has still requested that we include bottled water inside their school kits everyday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33008932/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

 

Yes, the EPA needs to take more action in certain areas. Not only that, but the state environmental agencies need to take more action as well. I remember at one point while I was working at DEQ there was some serious talk about shutting down a coal-fired power plant outside Richmond that wasn't even trying to meet their compliance restrictions. It should have been shut down years ago, and now they were talking about expanding. Long story short, the power plant exclusively fed power to the DC grid, and the people in DC (I don't even know what organization or level) decided it would be bad to loose power. So, they used their political power to pressure the state agency to overlook this one plant (and any others in similar situations). Richmond, in the mean time, was on orange air alerts all summer. In other cases, the DEQ simply didn't have any teeth because the Governor (democrat at the time, though republicans had done the same) refused to back anything they did.

I'm also glad you realize the problem is cross-party, that Dems are as eager to overlook things like that in favor of their constituents and power as Reps are.