McCain will discuss environmental policy specifics today
Photo by Marcn. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Following the economist revolt against John McCain's "gas tax holiday" idea, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is going to try and change the current dialogue about his stance on climate change. He will do this by getting into specifics today, according to chief McCain surrogate and economic adviser Carly Fiorina. As WIRED puts it, Fiorina is working hard to distance McCain's environmental stances from those of President Bush, and it's likely that emphasizing this difference will be a big part of the new message. We don't know if McCain will offer any new ideas for cleaning up transportation, but there is that McCain-Lieberman carbon emissions bill that's been floating around for five years. We'll see what, if any, new details emerge before we take a stand on the latest proposal from McCain. Daily Kos, though, is ready with their take on McCain's environmental record.
[Source: WIRED, h/t to 1985 Gripen]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tim 9:14AM (5/12/2008)
I can't wait to learn if he says anything about honoring his oath of office:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Including the 10th Amendment which says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The supreme law of our country says specifically that the United States can NOT control "environmental regulation" for the states because it does not give them that power.
If you don't like it, then change the Constitution! Why? He who can ignore ONE law, can ignore ALL laws. Example: G.W Bush and ALL of Congress pandering to Special Interests with stolen tax money.
Reply
Dave 9:34AM (5/12/2008)
It wasn't him Tim. It was the courts that expanded the power of the federal government. We could argue about this all day, but that little clause that gives the power of the feds to regulate commerce, as interpreted by the courts which gives the pres and Congressional jackasses so much power that apparently authorizes them to regulate all things environmental. The president is not a dictator, but certainly we've never seen one relinquish power. Damn courts.
Reply
sensitive_man 9:40AM (5/12/2008)
LVC Score this year is ZERO! I think that should pretty much sum up his position on the issue of environmental policies.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 10:02AM (5/12/2008)
I remember in 2000 Bush promised to regulate CO2 emissions. He had absolutely no intention of doing that, but he was running against Al Gore, and he was willing to say anything to get elected.
How can you tell when a politician is lying? Their mouth is open!
Reply
Tim 10:17AM (5/12/2008)
Dave #2:
McCain, Obama, Clinton II… there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE!!!
Voting is only there to give us the fantasy that we live in a free democracy. To make us believe that we have some measure of power. WE DON'T!
The established oligarchy power base chooses the candidates and the final winners. The 2-party system, electoral college, electronic voting, party rigging and Supreme Court vote overrides just make that easier.
The reality is that we are just tax slaves in a Socialist Oligarchy who own the media, the banks and the government and we're just too programmed by their schools and their Media to see it.
Congress runs purely on “implied powers” derived from the “necessary-and-proper” clause of the Constitution. If anything can be interpreted as necessary-and-proper, then everything can. Why do they even give lip service to an ignored Constitution? So we don’t revolt! It will be interesting to see what happens if the Supreme Courts outlaws citizens from owning firearms so they can no longer defend themselves from government tyranny.
Reply
Paul 10:45AM (5/12/2008)
Gosh Tim, you're right! The US government has no right to negotiate Kyoto or other environmental treaties. They have no right to impose ANY regulation on states. Even if congress ratifies these treaties, individual states can just ignore them. Hopefully that means that California will continue to up their environmental regulations (disrupting their economy but not mine) and hopefully that means that the industrial states will now be able to pollute however the f**k much they want. I for one am going to lobby my state government to sue over the CAFE regulations (my goodness how unlawful to try and impose such damaging regulations on my sovereign state) and to ban the sale of small cars (since they obviously aren't safe). I think diesel particulate filters should be outlawed, as should catalytic converters (sheesh, they are expensive and are really depleting those precious metals that would better be used as daubles for our wives). Then I want to make sure that I'm allowed to reroute my sewage directly into a river that flows down to Florida. It costs WAY to much here to clean our waste water. Florida has more money and they are all old snow birds anyway so who cares if they get some kind of disease from my rotting sh*t.
Tim, you can't use the constitution here and hope to win your stupid argument since the arguments are easily turned around. I've made the case multiple times why your argument is stupid, but if you want to make it then the constitution is probably not your best starting point.
Reply
goehring 10:46AM (5/12/2008)
"The supreme law of our country says specifically that the United States can NOT control "environmental regulation" for the states because it does not give them that power."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
The court ruled that the EPA is required to regulate CO2.
Reply
Dad 4:24PM (5/12/2008)
Eight years of Bill Clinton who did nothing for the environment. Never once raised the CAFE, never once did anything to reduce our addiction on oil and never did anything to reduce the demand for gas guzzling SUVs.
Now, as a direct result of Mr Clinton's failures we are in trouble. If Mr. Clinton had done anything, we would be closer to a solution.
Now, 2 years after the Dems took control of Congress, we are still in trouble.
Reply
Tim 1:17PM (5/12/2008)
Paul (#6), if you don’t understand the difference between the original USA’s Democratic Republic (We, the People) with Natural Unalienable Rights which cannot be taken away by government and today’s US Legislative Democracy with Human Inalienable Rights and Privileges which CAN and are being taken away by government, then you need to educate yourself and FAST. You snooze, loose and ignorance is NO defense.
About Rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_rights
About Policy:
http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210213951&sr=8-1
Reply
Tim 1:21PM (5/12/2008)
Sorry, I meant to say today's Constitutional Republic NOT Democratic Republic. (It’s hard to break decades of bad government school programming)
Reply
1985 Gripen 4:10PM (5/12/2008)
Wow, I didn't see this small tidbit of news (thanks, Sebastian) causing a Congressional law debate in comments. Talk about going off-topic! :-)
Anyway, like I mentioned before I like that McCain is the ONLY presidential candidate talking about the environment right now at any length.
As is mentioned in the Wired snippet global warming doesn't even register as a major concern in most voters' minds.
Here's a quote from Wired: "...polls consistently show that the environment ranks near the bottom of voters' list of concerns generally, trailing their worries about the economy, the war in Iraq, terrorism, health care, education and illegal immigration."
While the environment is VERY important to ABG regulars the truth is to the presidential candidates it's not a issue you pander with. I think McCain is genuinely concerned about global warming if he's bringing this up rather than screaming about building walls to keep out illegal aliens, which is a much more popular idea amongst Republican voters.
Reply
1985 Gripen 4:45PM (5/12/2008)
Luckily it seems as no matter whether Clinton, Obama, or McCain becomes president the environment should be better for it. Each candidates' plans vary a bit, but they're all on the same page. They all agree global climate change is a threat and concrete plans need to be enacted NOW in order to address it. That's a welcome change from the last presidential administration.
However, I do worry that all three major-party presidential candidates (sorry but I'm discounting both Nader and Barr for now unless they can make a major showing anytime soon, which I doubt) have been United States Senators and have gotten NOTHING done about climate change. It'd be one thing if they drew-up a bill and had it vetoed by the president, but they've not even been able to get legislation through both the House and Senate to the president's desk. If they can't do that when Democrats control Congress, what's going to change even with a Democrat in the White House?
Reply
mike 6:01PM (5/12/2008)
I find it interesting that MOTORWeek is Still SHILLING 400 hp cars( BMW X6 and Nissan GTR ), while we're complaining about global warming, foreign oil, and terrorism.
Is the Auto Industry run by the Insanely stupid?
Reply
1985 Gripen 6:25PM (5/12/2008)
Mike: the auto manufacturers make what people will buy. The sad thing is that just the other day I saw a brand new extended-length Cadillac Escalade parked down the street as the record-high price of gasoline makes headlines.
Anyway, back to the post at-hand. Here's a recap from the Associate Press of what McCain had to say in his global warming speech today:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1lnDN47XfRwq7TtD30hwUCcb6JgD90K6AGO0
In summary he's for expanded nuclear power (no word on his stance on reprocessing of spent fuel rods, which I would hope he'd be FOR) and a carbon cap-and-trade system being set-up. He proposed the goals of returning to 2005 carbon emission levels by 2012, 1990 levels by 2020, and a carbon emission level 60% lower than 1990 levels by 2050.
McCain also vowed to "return to the negotiating table" on the Kyoto protocols which Bush refused to ratify.
Reply
Kevin Nugent 9:09PM (5/12/2008)
He need to go sit down somewhere. No matter how much good crap he talks i will never vote for him
Reply
Kotse 11:51AM (5/13/2008)
Mr. "Straight Talk" express is actually "double speak"...Mister "Conservative" (poseur) will say anything (and deny his past voting record) to get elected in November...
"100 years in Iraq," this guy is scary!
Tim, you're absolutely correct. Obama, Clinton, McCain (liberal GOP) makes no difference...they're all socialist "pink commies" & will TAX (monetary & otherwise) America to death!
Reply