Thursday, December 20, 2007
What Would Reagan Say?
“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules. I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.” [Italics added]
—EPA chief Stephen L. Johnson, explaining the EPA's ruling that 17 states do not have the right to establish their own carbon dioxide limits from cars.
Whatever happened to the Republicans' faith in state's rights over the acts of the national government? This is the clearest, most literal statement I've seen of the Bush administration's betrayal of conservatism; its hatred for environmentalism has trumped its belief that the federal government should let the states do their own thing. No wonder the party has become incoherent.
By the way, ever since the Bush administration commenced, I've been fascinated by the anonymity and lack of qualification of his cabinet chiefs. (Yes, I'm dorky that way.) During the Clinton administration, I knew who all the cabinet heads were because they were busy making policy and because they were serious people who had accomplished quite a lot in life. I can think of only a couple of the Bush cabinet heads.
Who is EPA chief Stephen L. Johnson?
This from Wikipedia:
Johnson attended Taylor University, receiving a B.A. in biology followed by a master's degree in pathology from George Washington University. Before working for the U.S. Government, he held a number of positions in laboratory and bio-technology companies. He was also the director of Hazelton Laboratories (now known as Covance).
Not exactly logical preparation for heading the EPA, wouldn't you say?
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Johnson was criticized for his support for using human subjects in pesticide testing. In April, a hold was placed on his confirmation vote after he refused to cancel the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, which advocated recording the effects of pesticides on children from infancy to age 3. On April 8, Johnson canceled the study. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 29.
Let's just think about that for a moment, shall we?
George Bush named as head of the Environmental Protection Agency a man who wanted to use human subjects, children younger than age 3, in pesticide testing.
The mind reels......
Oh, and if you don't know—Taylor University? It's an evangelical school.
Again, Wikipedia:
Students, faculty and staff are required to sign the "Life Together Covenant" (LTC) upon joining the University.[8] Community members pledge to adhere to certain standards of conduct and refrain from certain behaviors, including social dancing (excepting marriages taking place off of school property and choreographed or folk dance), premarital sex, homosexuality, smoking, and the consumption of alcohol, with the intention of strengthening the community as a whole.
January 2009 can not come fast enough...... ¶ 8:33 AM
—EPA chief Stephen L. Johnson, explaining the EPA's ruling that 17 states do not have the right to establish their own carbon dioxide limits from cars.
Whatever happened to the Republicans' faith in state's rights over the acts of the national government? This is the clearest, most literal statement I've seen of the Bush administration's betrayal of conservatism; its hatred for environmentalism has trumped its belief that the federal government should let the states do their own thing. No wonder the party has become incoherent.
By the way, ever since the Bush administration commenced, I've been fascinated by the anonymity and lack of qualification of his cabinet chiefs. (Yes, I'm dorky that way.) During the Clinton administration, I knew who all the cabinet heads were because they were busy making policy and because they were serious people who had accomplished quite a lot in life. I can think of only a couple of the Bush cabinet heads.
Who is EPA chief Stephen L. Johnson?
This from Wikipedia:
Johnson attended Taylor University, receiving a B.A. in biology followed by a master's degree in pathology from George Washington University. Before working for the U.S. Government, he held a number of positions in laboratory and bio-technology companies. He was also the director of Hazelton Laboratories (now known as Covance).
Not exactly logical preparation for heading the EPA, wouldn't you say?
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Johnson was criticized for his support for using human subjects in pesticide testing. In April, a hold was placed on his confirmation vote after he refused to cancel the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, which advocated recording the effects of pesticides on children from infancy to age 3. On April 8, Johnson canceled the study. His nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 29.
Let's just think about that for a moment, shall we?
George Bush named as head of the Environmental Protection Agency a man who wanted to use human subjects, children younger than age 3, in pesticide testing.
The mind reels......
Oh, and if you don't know—Taylor University? It's an evangelical school.
Again, Wikipedia:
Students, faculty and staff are required to sign the "Life Together Covenant" (LTC) upon joining the University.[8] Community members pledge to adhere to certain standards of conduct and refrain from certain behaviors, including social dancing (excepting marriages taking place off of school property and choreographed or folk dance), premarital sex, homosexuality, smoking, and the consumption of alcohol, with the intention of strengthening the community as a whole.
January 2009 can not come fast enough...... ¶ 8:33 AM
Comments:
<< Home
"This is the clearest, most literal statement I've seen of the Bush administration's betrayal of conservatism; its hatred for environmentalism has trumped its belief that the federal government should let the states do their own thing."
Okay, Richard, I'll bite. How far back can I go and find something equally clearly shocking to ostensible conservative respect for federalism?
How about the Bush brief to the US Supreme Court, 11 December 2000?
"There is a strong federal interest in preventing questionable applications of state law that could force Congress to arbitrate divisive electoral disputes." (19)...
"Respondents assert that the Florida Supreme Court's so-called 'standard' based on the 'clear indication of the intent of the voter' represents 'a uniform, statewide standard' for conducting manual recounts. Indeed, respondents even go so far as to call the infinitely elastic phrase 'a clear standard -- one that has been in place in Florida ... for years.'... [But] if the State of Florida wishes to implement a manual recount procedure, it must ensure that meaningful [sic] guidelines are established for determining whether and how to conduct such a recount, rather than leaving such crucial decision to the unbridled discretion and arbitrary decisionmaking of local election officials." (42, 54)
There is an even more egregious violation in the decision itself -- drawing on reasoning that's murky in the brief -- having to do with the federal government's right to impose 'safe harbor' intentions ex post facto on every state law -- meaning that no state could ever miss a preliminary deadline, even if it wanted to (in order to, say, get the result right). This despite the fact that there are extraordinarily detailed provisions in the law for what happens when a state misses such a 'safe harbor' deadline.
But that's even less clear. In any case, my point is -- Richard, where have you been for the past seven years? These people have NO principles except what they can get away with.
Justice Stevens called it at the time:
"What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
It will take a while for the many Bush-appointed federal judges throughout the system to make their mark in pursuance of this same vendetta against the rule of law, but the effect Bush has had on the DOJ could not be clearer and more consonant with this prophecy. Moreover, we have a good example of the Bush judge in Judge Mark Fuller of Alabama, the Rove crony who made sure Don Siegelman was locked up for potentially a decade for the crime of Doing Politics While a Democrat.
The main point of this post, I suppose, is as always -- Don't get me started about the Bush idea of government. No, really. Don't do it. You'll be sorry.
Standing Eagle
Okay, Richard, I'll bite. How far back can I go and find something equally clearly shocking to ostensible conservative respect for federalism?
How about the Bush brief to the US Supreme Court, 11 December 2000?
"There is a strong federal interest in preventing questionable applications of state law that could force Congress to arbitrate divisive electoral disputes." (19)...
"Respondents assert that the Florida Supreme Court's so-called 'standard' based on the 'clear indication of the intent of the voter' represents 'a uniform, statewide standard' for conducting manual recounts. Indeed, respondents even go so far as to call the infinitely elastic phrase 'a clear standard -- one that has been in place in Florida ... for years.'... [But] if the State of Florida wishes to implement a manual recount procedure, it must ensure that meaningful [sic] guidelines are established for determining whether and how to conduct such a recount, rather than leaving such crucial decision to the unbridled discretion and arbitrary decisionmaking of local election officials." (42, 54)
There is an even more egregious violation in the decision itself -- drawing on reasoning that's murky in the brief -- having to do with the federal government's right to impose 'safe harbor' intentions ex post facto on every state law -- meaning that no state could ever miss a preliminary deadline, even if it wanted to (in order to, say, get the result right). This despite the fact that there are extraordinarily detailed provisions in the law for what happens when a state misses such a 'safe harbor' deadline.
But that's even less clear. In any case, my point is -- Richard, where have you been for the past seven years? These people have NO principles except what they can get away with.
Justice Stevens called it at the time:
"What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
It will take a while for the many Bush-appointed federal judges throughout the system to make their mark in pursuance of this same vendetta against the rule of law, but the effect Bush has had on the DOJ could not be clearer and more consonant with this prophecy. Moreover, we have a good example of the Bush judge in Judge Mark Fuller of Alabama, the Rove crony who made sure Don Siegelman was locked up for potentially a decade for the crime of Doing Politics While a Democrat.
The main point of this post, I suppose, is as always -- Don't get me started about the Bush idea of government. No, really. Don't do it. You'll be sorry.
Standing Eagle
Standing Eagle, you don't go far enough. Is there any evidence whatever that Reagan cared seriously about states' rights in a consistent way? "States' rights" is now and always has been nothing more than a high-toned way of defending slavery and segregation.
The Bush Administration is not conservativism betrayed; it is conservativism in full flower. (This is a stronger claim than the one made above, though, so feel free to agree with only the above point, if you like.)
The Bush Administration is not conservativism betrayed; it is conservativism in full flower. (This is a stronger claim than the one made above, though, so feel free to agree with only the above point, if you like.)
# posted by 
: December 21, 2007 9:44 PM
: December 21, 2007 9:44 PM
I agree with both statements. Paul Krugman is more specific, using the term 'movement conservatism.'
The Bush Administration is movement conservatism in full flower.
Not all conservatives are complicit. But most are. The ones that aren't better think up another name asap.
SE
Post a Comment
The Bush Administration is movement conservatism in full flower.
Not all conservatives are complicit. But most are. The ones that aren't better think up another name asap.
SE
<< Home
