bigbadwimp

https://www.snopes.com/politics//bush/house.asp

I've got no agenda or anything, just found this amusing.

Bikepacker67

The Chimp still isn't doing squat re: GW.

maddyfish

Gore has only latched onto enviromentalism in an attempt to bring himself back to the public eye.

cosmo starr

i dont like bush or gore but i do like geo-thermal heat pumps

bragi

Don't be silly; Gore is indeed a hypocrite, but his environmental stance is long-standing and well-documented. And, let's be realistic: W's stance on the environment, his eco-friendly, 4,000 sq ft vacation home aside, doesn't exactly inspire confidence. (Unless you work for or own stock in an oil company.)

maddyfish

Gore was in the white house for 8 years and got little done for the enviroment. It is all lip service. I'm not interested in docomentation, I am interested in results. He didn't get any.

CaptainTandem

I'm impressed with the makeup of that Crawford house. Regardless of who owns it.

bragi

The Clinton/Gore White House didn't accomplish everything they set out to do, but but they did accomplish quite a bit, and what they failed to do wasn't for lack of effort. At least they didn't come up with proposals for weakening enviromental laws with Orwellian-sounding names (eg, "Clear Skies"). Even though I know that Gore is a hypocrite, and possibly a complete jerk in person, I'd still vote for him if he ran for president. At least he's intelligent and has an agenda that involves doing more than emptying the treasury and deposting the money into the coffers of his friends and allies.

acroy

+1

TimJ

Let's see, Bush has a decently environmentally friendly house, so therefore he cares about the environment. Gore, hypocritically, has a big, energy consuming house, so therefore he never did anything for the environment. Right? Did I get that right?

Allow me to point out, yet again, many of you are just bs-ing and don't know what you're talking about.

The public record says otherwise. The Bush administration has severly weakened and modified our core environmental protection laws and stacked agencies like the interior department, epa, etc., with political ideologues with no applicable training or knowledge, or former lobbyists in charge of the agencies they once battled against. For instance, Gale Norton, former mining industry lobbyist was secretary of the interior, J. Steven Griles was an oil and coal lobbyist was (is?) Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Lynn Scarlett, CEO of the Reason Foundation, some b.s. libertarian outfit funded by paper, oil, and chemical companies is Undersecretary of the Interior, David Lauriski, a coal industry executive and lobbyist is Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety, and on and on and on.

Any cursory look at Bush and Clinton's environmental records show a huge difference between the two. Bush has rolled back more laws, dismantled more protections, and gutted regulations more than any other president. The Clinton administration was far from perfect but they strengthened most aspects of clean air laws, they continued superfund cleanups (Bush has stopped all of them), the implemented new-source review, they helped craft the Kyoto agreement (congress wouldn't ratify it), they protected an enormous amount of land, creating parks, wildrerness areas, monuments, and they created energy effeciency standards and they created the National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which was one of the most kick-ass acts of large-scale conservation any president has ever done- and Bush dismantled it.

You don't think Clinton accomplished anything because, yet again, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

https://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/qroadless.asp#3

https://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2...1-01-19-06.asp

https://www.wilderness.org/Library/Do...BushRecord.cfm

https://www.nrdc.org/legislation/rollbacks/execsum.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep24.html

https://cooperativeresearch.org/proje..._enviro_record

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900776_pf.html

ModoVincere

What I find so amusing in so many posts here is the constantly blaming of Bush.
The real power and therefore blame for the items you are complaining about actually lies with the congress. The House and the Senate are the true sources of the regulations, the Administrative branch follows through. Now, this does not mean there is no blame on the Administrative office, but if you desire change in Washington, IMO you would be better served to focus your attention on the legislative branch.

TimJ

This is one of the lamest "you're wrong in this incredibly strict, technical sense, so therefore you amuse me, plebian!" arguments I've ever seen. All of the "Department of's" are executive branches. They set the regulations that are supposed to fullfil whatever the law is. They also recommend regulations. The president issues directives, decrees, all kinds of stuff that don't have to be approved by congress. Setting aside wilderness by executive order, or doing the opposite, doesn't require congressional approval because it's not legislation. Yes, law is created by congressional approval, but congress doesn't create all the laws they approve. It's not a binary system and... why am I even bothering to explain something so absurdly obvious.

I keep forgetting:

Brief declaration = irrefutable internet scholar!

TimJ

Oh yeah, not to mention how the president appoints judges, who interpret the law. So if a department changes regulations that are supposed to support a law but they don't, what happens? Congress doesn't do anything, what happens is some concerned group sues and the issue is taken to court, and if it's stacked with partisan loyalists you have judgements upholding the department's interpretation of the law.

I don't mean to be so harsh, you might be from Macedonia or something and just not know.

Nickel

I dislike all politicians equally...that being said, the report does not give the full story on Gore's home. It is large. It also houses both his and his wife's offices and their staff, which happens to be mostly family. They also need to keep security detail on site.

Bush's house is very neat.

Tom Stormcrowe

You should remember, though, he was the VICE president. That's essentially being the spare tire unless there is a senate vote tie, then he casts the tie breaking vote.

bragi

I think blaming the Bush administration is entirely appropriate. Most of the truly disgusting governmental actions of the past six years originated there: the progressive dismantling of environmental protections, the Iraq war, the seemingly magical transformation of the largest budget surplus in decades into the largest deficit in US history, the Patriot Act, vindictively attempting to destroy the personal lives of political opponents, openly and arrogantly defending the use of torture, firing DA's who wouldn't get with the Fascist program- need I go on? Congress, during the first six years of this administration, just acted like the Reichstag in the late 1930's, meekly rubber stamping everything spewing forth from the minds of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. And it's not that amusing, either.

ModoVincere

My point, although poorly worded was: If you want change in DC, start with the legislature. They set the laws, they set the budget, and they generally control the direction of the country. Blaming it all on the Presidency is pointless if you don't change the laws and or the flow of funds first.

Bikepacker67

All this Gore vs Bush debate is so much ad hominem bunk.

The facts are:

Gore is a private citizen and Bush is the (presumed) leader of the "free world"

Therefore, Bush has an inherent RESPONSIBILITY given his position. <- PERIOD

Roody

The Bush administration has consistently stalled or outright refused to enforce the pollution laws passed by congresses going back to the Nixon era. They just lost a big Supreme Court case because they wouldn't let the EPA classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Gore has done a million times more for the environment than Bush has. Arguably, Gore has done more than any other American in this decade. Bush, on the other hand, has dome more for the oil industry than any other president, possibly excluding his own father. (Like two wars if you're keeping count.)

Roody

But Gore, as a self-described environmentalist, also has a responsibility to walk the walk. I hope he cleans up his own act so I can give him my full support as the next president. (as opposed to what he now calls himself: "the man who used to be the next president.")

Wogster

This goes to show the fundamental flaw in the US form of government, too much of the day to day operation of the country is in the hands of POTUS and his unelected staff.

Personally, I think the US system should be changed, so that all of the day to day operation is done through Secretairies who are members of the House of Representatives, those Secretaries would be answerable to the house, which is answerable to the people. The President could consentrate on entertaining visiting dignitaries, and signing legislation into law. In fact the President, being a largely ceremonial job and much less important, could be even appointed, possibly by congress. Of course the majority house leader would become much more important, a Prime Secretary, if you wish. In fact most constitutional monarchies and republics do work this way, although the terminology is often different.

I like the idea of a congressional appointment, once congress (house and senate combined) is elected, they would form a committee to find a President and Vice President, this committee would consist of 20 members of the house, 20 members of the senate, and one person who is part of neither, possibly the Mayor of Washington, D.C. so that there is no possbility of a tie, and neither house has more influence then the other. This committee would select a candidate for President, and a candiate for Vice President, the house and senate as a whole would then vote to accept the candidates. That President and vice President would then be appointed, they would remain appointed until Congress appoints someone else. Yes that means that a President (that Congress is happy with) could remain President for many years, but so?

A Temporary unavailability of a President, say during a short Illness, would not be an issue, because everything would continue to operate, but no legislation would be signed into law, a longer illness, incapacity or death of a President would result in the Vice President becoming acting President, Congress would then appoint a President and Vice President to complete the term, they could appoint the acting President as President and appoint a new Vice President, or appoint a new President and re-appoint the acting President as Vice President, or appoint a new President and Vice President. The only restriction would be that neither the President or Vice President could not be a member of either the house or senate. Congress would likely appoiint a Republican President and a Democrat Vice President, or vice verse.

By putting all departments under the House of Representatives, it would be much harder to shut down the government through assassination.....

ModoVincere

Would that not negate the checks and balances that are supposed to be inherent in the current system?
Would a better answer not be to have the Federal government reduced in scope and size such that it is more in line with what the founding fathers of this country had intended?

Roody

No. Of course the checks and balances aren't working well right now, although that seems to be improving with a more independent congress.

The founding "fathers" did not speak with one voice as you imply. VERY far from it. For several years the US was a confederacy with a weak central government. That didn't work at all, so the founders ratified the Constitution and a federal system was created with a strong central government.

But the dispute continued throughout the nation's history to the present day: Jefferson (weak govt.) vs. Adams & Hamilton (strong govt.), the Great Compromise, the Civil War, FDR's court packing, the states' rights movement of the mid-20th century, the Gingrich-Reagan thing, the current screw-the-poor-and-middle-class Republican philosophy of pretending to shrink central government, and on and on.

Bikepacker67

You know that when Republican Senators like Ron Paul start enunciating the truth, the big lie is unraveling.

TimJ

Oh come on. I like how you throw these broad ideas out as statements of fact, as if it's all so obvious everyone should be on the same page so you don't have to explain yourself, or back up any of these broad ideas with salient facts or examples. Especially this one, this Scalia wisdom that our 21st century government is out of whack because it doesn't reflect what the fouding fathers intended, as if they intended to create a system that would remain fixed regardless of circumstance, or thought it was so perfectly crafted context and/or history would be forever rendered immaterial. Or as if they even thought they were up to the challenge of creating the last word in government. These are the guys, this is the system that refused to touch slavery for 100 years because the system was so insanely fragile. Puh-leeze.