President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming

September 17, 2006 9:18 AM

President Bush is preparing an astonishing U-turn on global warming, senior Washington sources say.
posted by stbalbach (78 comments total)

Hey it's election time again ?
posted by elpapacito at 9:21 AM on September 17, 2006

I believe the appropriate term here is "flip-flopper."
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:22 AM on September 17, 2006 [2 favorites]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is "deeply alarmed" by the rumors. They are the group behind the "We call it life" anti-global warming commercials.
posted by stbalbach at 9:24 AM on September 17, 2006

He's trying to steal the hippie vote. That bastard. ::shakes fist::
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:27 AM on September 17, 2006

Sources say that the most likely moment is the President's State of the Union address in January.

You would think he would do it before the elections. If he does it in January, who cares?
posted by delmoi at 9:28 AM on September 17, 2006

I'll be very surprised if practically this boils down to anything more than a pollution credits scheme that only spreads the problem around, rather than lowering the total number of emissions globally.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:30 AM on September 17, 2006

I'm guessing that Halliburton has decided to get into the hybred car business....
posted by HuronBob at 9:30 AM on September 17, 2006

Moderates will imagine that Bush changed his mind and not just his tactics.
posted by Brian B. at 9:32 AM on September 17, 2006

Sucker bet. This is DHS all over again. The bill will have something that will make it impossible for a dem to vote for the bill, then come election time, the Democratic candidates will be abused for voting against fighting terrorists global warming.

It'll probably be some "sell off the national parks" type of thing. It will also be loaded with "support" for industries "affected" by the changes needed -- in other words, it'll be the energy and Medicare bills all over again, with the bonus of no enforcement.
posted by eriko at 9:33 AM on September 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

If it's bad, what eriko said. If it's good - well, the Bushies are afraid of impeachment and war crimes investigations if Democrats win enough seats. This is belt-and-supenders in case election fraud doesn't work.
posted by jam_pony at 9:35 AM on September 17, 2006

Hmm, speaking of global warming deniers, google just hired the company that made anti al gore video.
posted by delmoi at 9:40 AM on September 17, 2006

Kyoto is already a pollution credits scheme. My guess is that as China's CO2 emissions start outstripping Americas that sort of thing suddenly gets more attractive.
posted by Artw at 9:41 AM on September 17, 2006

The GOP will say and do anything. Totally shameless.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:44 AM on September 17, 2006

Is this gonna be like his energy policy? Lots of talk about how important is, but not actually do anything?
posted by neuron at 9:55 AM on September 17, 2006

If this is for real, it has to only be intended to provide cover for Republicans worried about November. I can't imagine anyone who is serious about environmental issues taking Bush at his word these days. Might as well extend that to any issues. The man is simply a lying sack of shit.
posted by hwestiii at 9:59 AM on September 17, 2006

This is all hat, no cattle. Just like going to Mars, just like fighting AIDS in Africa, just like No Child Left Behind, just like getting Osama dead or alive, just like stopping illegal immigration, just like rebuilding the World Trade Center, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

That's what he does. He talks a big game and then makes absolutely no commitment to getting the job done--see our half-assed adventure in Iraq.
posted by EarBucket at 10:04 AM on September 17, 2006

surely this...

I jest.

This is just hybrid cars, steroids in baseball, and going to Mars revisited. It's all about lip-service to ideas that the administration has no interest in actually pursuing. The only thing that makes this one different is that it contravenes a topic that they have previously made a stand on.

Which makes DenOfSizer's I believe the appropriate term here is "flip-flopper." all the more brilliant.

I am so cynical at this point, I find it impossible to believe that Bushco has changed their minds on anything. This is pure political posturing, nothing else.
posted by quin at 10:04 AM on September 17, 2006

On post: uhh, yeah. What EarBucket said.

[jinx]
posted by quin at 10:06 AM on September 17, 2006

our president is filth.
posted by DragonBoy at 10:11 AM on September 17, 2006

Because at this point, his legacy is going to be as durable as the 'rubbles' (sic) of Trent Lott's house after Katrina.
posted by vhsiv at 10:12 AM on September 17, 2006

While I am just as cynical as the rest of you on Bush's intentions (and I believe HuronBob is the most on target as to motive), I don't think you should be including "going to Mars" in your inventory of rhetoric flourishes that Bush doesn't actually commit to. NASA is most certainly in the process right now of reconfiguring itself for the purposes of meeting the man-to-Mars goal. CEV development, the Lockheed award, push to finish ISS and retire the shuttle, COTS cargo capabilites, etc. Administrator Griffin routinely refers to the presidential directives as justifications for what they're doing. In another example, the entire NASA facility in Ohio is turning on a dime to change missions in order to support manned Mars exploration.

All the other things are fair game, I'm sure.
posted by intermod at 10:14 AM on September 17, 2006

Yes to quin and EarBucket. George bush = human garbage. Now move along.
posted by scatman at 10:18 AM on September 17, 2006

NASA is most certainly in the process right now of reconfiguring itself for the purposes of meeting the man-to-Mars goal.

I'm not positive here, but wasn't NASA already working towards Mars long before this administration came to office?

Administrator Griffin routinely refers to the presidential directives as justifications for what they're doing.

And why not, it guarantees them continued funding. But again, isn't this something that they would have been working on with or without the President making a big deal about it?

Nevertheless, I concede your point.
posted by quin at 10:23 AM on September 17, 2006

Bush: Kittens are cute.

Metafilter: Hypocrite! This is the most contemptible political trick since the beginning of time. He is blatantly pandering to the kitten vote in November. Where will all this kitty-love go after the elections? You know he is going to veto Lamont's universal health care for cats bill. What about all the Iraqi kitties killed in American air strikes? Impeach Bush now!
posted by LarryC at 10:40 AM on September 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

Yes Kyoto is flawed. Nothing would have thrilled me more than to see Bush or Gore reject Kyoto and take leadership on the issue with the same zeal that we approached moon travel with during the 60's. Hell, anything resembling vision would thrill me at this point.
posted by 2sheets at 10:42 AM on September 17, 2006

No they can 'leak' this before the election to make the GOP look fucking human and then *poof* we'll never hear about it again.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 10:48 AM on September 17, 2006

I don't think you should be including "going to Mars" in your inventory of rhetoric flourishes that Bush doesn't actually commit to.

I do. It was just a simple way to get a defense contract a nice juicy cost plus contract. These are goldmines for the contractor -- all they have to do is spend the money, and they get it back, plus a few percentage points. Thus, when costs skyrocket, they actually make *more* money that if they hit the cost targets, and they almost always get paid, regardless of the projects ultimate success.

If they'd done this with a performance based contract, I might have believed that NASA was really changing. But we still have four manned spaceflight centers, when we need one. We're still doing cost+ contracts. IOW, it's the same thing, in the end.
posted by eriko at 10:49 AM on September 17, 2006

"I'm not positive here, but wasn't NASA already working towards Mars long before this administration came to office?"

Not really. There's always been a faction favoring it and therefore there's always been some continued planning, but nothing compared to what's happening now.

As for this...I still think that Bush is more of a dupe than the evil string-puller I think Cheney is. Though I stopped caring whether Bush himself is evil a long, long time ago. But because I think Bush is a dupe, and not that bright, I think that for the most part he actually believes most of the policies he pushes, up to and including his Iraq policy. He believes this stuff because of an extreme example of confirmation bias: he dissuades people from giving him info he doesn't agree with, those in thrall to him are afraid to give him info he doesn't agree with, those who manipulate him give him info that bolsters his preconceptions to serve their purposes, and he's in no manner a critical thinker and is incapable of recognizing his own biases. Finally, he values belief over truth. In this way, I think he's not unlike Reagan.

And because of this, I think it's possible for him to go an unexpected direction if something does manage to leak through his shield. He won't recognized that it leaked through his shield and if its source is someone he really trusts, then the other advisors who try to manipulate him will find him intractable and sure of himself (as he always is).

So I can believe that the fact of human-caused global warming may have finally gotten into his head. However, I do think that people like Cheney will see to it that any policies that might result from this are toothless.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:51 AM on September 17, 2006

The Jedi said what I was thinking.

Over the past few days rumours swept the capital that the "Toxic Texan" would announce his conversion this week, in an attempt to reduce the impact of a major speech tomorrow by Al Gore on solutions to climate change...

"We are left with the unpleasant conclusion that the only motivation is political."

posted by taosbat at 11:14 AM on September 17, 2006

Wow, this could really hurt the global warming people's cred.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:14 AM on September 17, 2006

"We are left with the unpleasant conclusion that the only motivation is political."

NO!!! No way! Surely that cannot be.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:24 AM on September 17, 2006

Sources say that the most likely moment is the President's State of the Union address in January.

AFTER the November elections? In the SOTU? In front of a Democratic-controlled house and senate? Such a u-turn doesn't make any sense at all. The drunken swine must be hitting the sauce again.
posted by three blind mice at 11:27 AM on September 17, 2006

Can't wait to see the faith based-emission controls.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:47 AM on September 17, 2006 [4 favorites]

You're all so cynical. Maybe his long restrained passion for good governance has finally come to the fore.
posted by Jasper McLean at 12:20 PM on September 17, 2006

2sheets: Anything resembling leadership would thrill me at this point!

Anybody? Anybody?
posted by jenii at 12:23 PM on September 17, 2006

Doesn't ANYONE have anything good to say about this?

I mean, I sure don't, but but surely somebody somewhere.

Unless all his pals (even here) are waiting for the gov to tell them what they think.
posted by hexatron at 12:24 PM on September 17, 2006

hwestiii: The man is simply a lying sack of shit.

Dear sir, the Lying Sacks of Shit of the world take umbrage at your libelous equivocation and requset that you demur from any further slandering of their good name in such a manner.
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:25 PM on September 17, 2006

Even if this goes nowhere, it still badly damages the "no global warming" case.
posted by No Robots at 12:55 PM on September 17, 2006

If the Democrats have any sense, the poker game will go like this....

Democrats: "Check."
Republicans: "I'll raise you global warming."
Democrats: "All in."

If the Democrats want to do anything serious about global warming (and why wouldn't they) they should propose a counter plan that makes them look like they've taken the leadership on this issue and makes the Republicans look weak for offering less.

This, of course, presumes that the Republicans aren't dangling this out there as bait to make the Democrats look like a loony fringe to Joe Sixpack. "Well, sure the Republicans want to do a little about global warming, but those crazy Democrats want to take away my Hummer! I'll take the lesser of two evils."

Seriously, how does Global Warming play in the battle-ground states? This would be an easy place for Dems to outdo Republicans.
posted by Richard Daly at 1:03 PM on September 17, 2006

Bush: Kittens are cute.

Metafilter: Hypocrite!
posted by LarryC at 10:40 AM PST

For that to be true, Bush would have to have been on record abusing kittens or saying they are not cute.

But keep swinging for the fences, one day you might just be able to hit one.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:23 PM on September 17, 2006

Tactic. Bush will finally cop to understanding the nuances of global warming science but WILL NOT CHANGE A SINGLE POLICY. Because he HATES us. His people, the rich, will BUY their own water and air. Or they will take ours by force. They don't care.

You want proof the man hates his own country? Look:

Bush admitted that Bin LAden and Saddam were not in cahoots.
It didn't matter. His base believes it anyway.

Bush admitted that Saddam did not have WMD.
It didn't matter. His base believes it anyway.

Bush admits the withdrawing troops and command structure from Afghanistan cost us the capture of Bin Laden. It didn't matter. His base believes Iraq was "the next front on terror" anyway.

Bush admitted that Pakistan was illegally selling nukes to our enemies WITH out knowledge. It didn't matter. His base believes Musharif is a "democratically elected leader of a free country".

Ok. You know how for a while it became hip at parties to scold other liberals about "treating the right like they were stupid." so "no wonder we, the left, lose elections treating half the country like they are idiots." Remember that.

Your first instinct was right. The right IS a bunch fucking retards and Bush KNOWS the right are a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots. That is WHY they win. They openly HATE their own constituency. For fuck sake he is busy getting their faithful but dim-witted children killed in Iraq. He despises the "common" man far more than the supposed "intellectual elite left" does.

Bush could come out tomorrow, fucking a goat and eating a baby on live TV and wouldn't matter as long as he mumbled something about 9/11 and "fags get'n married."

We are doomed. We simply cannot fight the tide of stupidity arrayed against us with out stooping to the same shit. Doomed.
posted by tkchrist at 1:27 PM on September 17, 2006 [2 favorites]

If Bush acknowledges the reality of global warming, or "Global Warming" as Matt Drudge likes to call it, watch for the usual clapping monkey bloggers to demoan this as yet another sign that he's not a "true" conservative".
posted by slatternus at 1:50 PM on September 17, 2006

I say he gets confused and, instead of doing a 180°, he does a 360°
posted by WhipSmart at 2:31 PM on September 17, 2006

And now, a complete list of the great achievements that will constitute the Bush legacy:






posted by Twang at 2:41 PM on September 17, 2006

If Bush said that kitten were cute, you could be sure he is currently working on some scheme to fuck up kitten cuteness forever.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:08 PM on September 17, 2006

So I can surmise he really thinks the Presidency is cute.
posted by toma at 3:38 PM on September 17, 2006

Wow tkchrist, so angry and yet so... oh, what's the word I'm looking for?...

Accurate.

Well said.
posted by quin at 4:18 PM on September 17, 2006

A sneak peak of the President's upcoming address.
posted by EarBucket at 4:27 PM on September 17, 2006

Watch and see if he walks the talk.

Taking bets.....
posted by trii at 4:40 PM on September 17, 2006

WhipSmart wins!
posted by sfts2 at 5:52 PM on September 17, 2006

Bush: Kittens are cute.

Metafilter: Hypocrite!

I am ashamed to be a liberal! All this time, when I supported science I was really supporting kittens! Conservatives have all the answers!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:21 PM on September 17, 2006

I call bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!
posted by parmanparman at 8:26 PM on September 17, 2006

Can someone explain to me exactly why emission trading is bad?

I can see a lot of merit to the scheme. Due to the nature of capitalism, the only way to get big players interested is to proffer (or enforce) a "solution" that can be seen in market terms. Turning carbon emissions into a commodity seems a pretty smart move.

That's not to say I think it is the long term solution, but it can't help but encourage emission cuts by the very institutions and businesses that need to make them most in the short to medium term. At the same time it might provide investment in companies that are actually doing something about global warming.

Or am I totally misunderstanding how carbon trading would work? (I have a feeling this might be my next askme question)
posted by davehat at 11:35 PM on September 17, 2006

"Can someone explain to me exactly why emission trading is bad?"

They're not, assuming the emissions market is well-designed.

The theory behind this is less kludgy than you imply (creating a market incentive by fiat) because the truth of the matter is that there is an economic cost associated with pollution, it's just that businesses aren't seeing it on their books. It's also being carried, mostly, by other individuals and businesses over time, but the main thing is that these real economic costs are sufficiently hidden that they are creating a large inefficiency in the markets where they are involved (all of them, really).

The real economic voodoo, and where thinly-disguised ideological clashes arise, is in how you value quantized pollution. That amounts to valuing a bunch of straightforward things like degradation of capital resources and labor, and things most of us already agreed to agree upon, but also a bunch of things that most of us have not already agreed to agree upon such as the value of a particular quantity of "unspoiled" environment and things like that.

Nevertheless, I personally think it's the right direction to go not only because it works with the status quo rather than cutting against the grain, which I think is an important consideration in purely pragmatic terms of wanting to see actual, implemtented solutions, but also because this is very certainly a macroeconomic problem and I believe that we are still incapable of engineering a top-down macroeconomic solution that is as efficient as a market-driven one. But then, in the real world, that all depends upon whether the suppsed market-driven solution exists in a well-designed and healthy market (and of course that the valuation is correct for the given purpose). If the market is broken, or likely to be broken (or rigged), then a top-down fiat solution is going to be better.

You can see I'm a pragmatist. I think most people, in answering your question, will reveal themselves to be ideologues either of an anti-market or market sort, in both cases probably appealing to some metaphysical principle of what is "right" that trumps simple effectiveness.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:19 AM on September 18, 2006

intermod: NASA is most certainly in the process right now of reconfiguring itself for the purposes of meeting the man-to-Mars goal.

Yes, and in that lies the crux of the problem. It's going to cost a truly immense quantity of money to go to Mars, no matter what anyone says, and NASA isn't going to get it. They'll end cutting all their worthwhile programs to fund a half-assed Mars program that won't get enough money to actually get anywhere. Then the Republicans will show up and caw about how NASA is so incompetent and inefficient because they basically failed to build the Pyramids with 10 guys and a backhoe, and slash their budget down to nothing. Another glorious victory in the war on Science.

Bush has done that very same strategy several times already, to other groups. I can't believe people don't recognize it for what it is.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:33 AM on September 18, 2006

At least at the end Nixon had the decency to recognize that he fucked up and resigned.
This stupid BRA when the Republican senators and even the guy he sent to the ONU to try convince the world that Saddam had WMD, showed their opposition to torture, he throw himself to the carpet screaming and yelling face down and kicking and fisting against the floor saying "How can they do this to me !!, I am the only one with the right to decide!!, I want to torture the prisoners!!". Just like a bad behaving child.
The other thing to keep in mind is that this "Cheaper price in GASOLINE” will LAST only to the ELECTIONS DAY in November.
Let's not forget the noise that all the media controlled by the republicans and right wing made when the price of the GASOLINE went from $0.79 cents to $0.99 cents during the Clinton Administration.- Now, they are trying to convince us that $ 2.50 for a gallon of gas is Cheap and Great!....NO IS NOT CHEAP AND NOT GREAT EITHER!!... WE CAN GET BACK TO 79 CENTS PER GALLON OF GAS IF WE THROW THEM ALL OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT, Bring our troops back from Iraq and Send Bush and Rumsfeld and all the others to Iraq and let the Iraqi people to decide what they want to do with them.
posted by CRESTA at 12:39 AM on September 18, 2006

I believe the appropriate term here is "flip-flopper."
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:22 AM PST on September 17 [+ 2] [!]

Like Father...Like son!!... Remember ..."READ MY LIPS....NO MORE TAXES!!
posted by CRESTA at 12:43 AM on September 18, 2006

...that would be "NEW TAXES"
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:44 AM on September 18, 2006

Just taking the opportunity to pile on here, but...

"That's mighty touchin', but it's BULLSHIT, son."
posted by pax digita at 3:10 AM on September 18, 2006

"The atrocity still happened even if Prime Minister Halifax [insert Republican name] said it did."

- George Orwell, Reflections on the Spanish Civil War
posted by trinarian at 8:07 AM on September 18, 2006

Fun drinking game!
posted by taosbat at 8:17 AM on September 18, 2006

Next: The War on Hernias.

posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:46 AM on September 18, 2006

So as with many issues in the past I believe one day global warming will move from being a liberal/conservative issue to being a flat out non partisan issue.

We've moved slowly towards accepting the science on this and will probably get to the point where it's fully accepted. At that time we'll be debating how to do things rather than whether to do things. I fully expect Bush to fall into the how camp before the end of his term and perhaps this is his 180. I don't expect his solutions to really have any teeth as I don't have any faith that he'll do anything that will hurt his oil and gas buddies.

Fact #1 in 2000 Bush all but acknowledged global warming was real and even had a campaign promise that he'd regulate CO2 emissions.

Fact #2 This was the first campaign promise he broke
posted by aaronscool at 10:15 AM on September 18, 2006

The next President will be more aggressive in taking action against global warming than George W. Bush, one CEO argued, so "this may be the best deal we'll ever get."
posted by giantfist at 10:17 AM on September 18, 2006

"I have a secret plan to end global warming. I will disclose it after the elections ..."

He's emulating a myth!

QUOTE:

"... soon it became widely accepted that Nixon had said, "I have a secret plan to end the war."

"Years later, when a New York Times columnist attributed that direct quote to Nixon, a White House speechwriter challenged him to find the quote in anything taken down by pencil or recorder at the time. The pundit searched high and low and had to admit the supposed remark was unsourceable. (Look, the Nixon speechwriter was me and the columnist was my current colleague, Tony Lewis; I didn't have to research this.)
-- WILLIAM SAFIRE
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:LhBZfT2sf80J:www.bebeyond.com/LearnEnglish/BeAD/Readings/SecretPlan.htm+%2BNixon+%2B%22secret+plan%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7&client=firefox-a
posted by hank at 11:01 AM on September 18, 2006

So we bitch and moan about how the president cares none whatsoever about the environment. Then, when he may possibly start getting smart about the problem, we lambast him?

Look, I'm ALL for the end of the GOP control of the government. And there is no love between me and this administration. But it sounds like no matter what good Bush tries to do, the Blue will only want to crucify him. Say it ain't so guys!

On a side note, I don't have the time to hunt for this, but didnt Cousteau's kid show a documentary to George and Laura and then George, so moved, signed into legislation the largest national wildlife conservatory (or something) in history? The underwater area in NW Hawaii? Could this be coming out of that?

I cannot wait for a regime change in this country. But if Bush, in his last throes, starts doing good, each one of us should scream our support for his actions. This is what we want. Why look a gift horse in the mouth?
posted by Dantien at 1:39 PM on September 18, 2006

Hey, I thought he was going to stay the course.
posted by muppetboy at 7:49 PM on September 18, 2006

Then, when he may possibly start getting smart about the problem, we lambast him?

Yes, because the bastard has a six year long record of lying to us. If Bush told me the sun rose in the east, I wouldn't believe him until I saw the sun rise in the east at least 100 times.

When I see Bush apologize and actually make an attempt at contrition, I might give him a break. But for six years, he's lied to us, and when called out on those lies, he just tells us that he's the President, and were at war.

Fuck that, and fuck him. I'm assuming any program of his is meant to fuck us over, because he has a *long* streak of doing just that.
posted by eriko at 8:13 PM on September 18, 2006

Hey! Look over there!
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 11:30 PM on September 18, 2006

So eriko,

assuming he has seen the error of his ways, what would you want him to do?
posted by Dantien at 5:33 AM on September 19, 2006

assuming he has seen the error of his ways, what would you want him to do?

1) Fire Cheney
2) Appoint Al Gore as Veep.
3) Apologize to the nation. Detail the exact lies he has made, and explain why they were wrong to make.
4) Resign.
5) Dedicate his life to cleaning up the mess he made.
6) Keep at #5 for at least six years.

I need to see penance and contrition before I'll start thinking reconciliation. His apology isn't enough, because he's shown that his word has no value whatsoever.

He won't do any of this. He'll talk a game plan until he decided that he's going to do something else, and in the end, only he and his cronies would profit by this. Given the constant abuse of power he has shown, I cannot, and will not, trust him to fix it. I categorically refuse to belive the fox isn't going to eat chickens anymore, esp. when he keeps coughing up feathers.
posted by eriko at 6:00 AM on September 19, 2006

Let me flip this goddamn thing on it's head. He's lied to us before about this issue specifically. He's been responsible for the worst abuse of subverting the scientific process of any president ever on this issue specifically. For six years his agenda and his goal has been clear on this issue specifically.

Now there is a rumor he wants to make a change? Why would we ever trust him until he actually proves he means it in a real and substantive way?
posted by aaronscool at 9:55 AM on September 19, 2006

I agree with all the previously stated reasons why we shouldn't give Bush a break and take him at his word.

However, there is a political reason to do so: because you gain centrist and opposition credibility. When the shoe was on the other foot, we were always annoyed when the GOP knee-jerked against anything and everything Clinton did or said just because he did or said it and they didn't trust him. The few conservatives that were able to say, "Okay, this one thing makes sense" we thought better of, and rightly so.

I recognize that both the farther left and farther right think that worrying at all about credibility with the center and the opposition is a form of pandering. But I don't. It's pandering only when you betray your principles. But when you support an opposition politician in his support of a policy you favor, you send a message that policy is important and not mere partisanship and cults of personality. American politics needs way more attention to actual policy and way less attention to blind partisanship and allegiance to personalities.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:15 AM on September 19, 2006

Wow Eriko. I can't imagine any sitting leader, in any country, following those steps. Your guidelines are impossibly stringent. Perhaps you should lower your standards? What sitting president of any nation would ever do what you require? Or will you continue to "categorically refuse to believe"? Nice open, forgiving mind you have there.

Look, my point is not that he is suddenly not lying, or not appealing to a centrist position, or anything excusing him for his past behavior. We all know he's a moron and won't apologize for his errors. But what if he is actually changing his stance? What if he suddenly has heard a different voice in his insane head? Wouldn't we want to support him on the good things he will try to do? Don't we want Bush, in his last two years, to right his wrongs? Fix his mistakes? Change his tune? Or are you saying he should keep going in the direction he is until we replace him?

You won't get an apology I bet. You can damn well predict he won't pull Gore as a VP (you were joking right?). But what if he does change his course and repent through action?? What then? Wouldn't you be happier?

What would happen if all of us "lefties" suddenly lauded Bush for a positive move...swinging his approval rating significantly? What message would that send the government? Or are we just happy being angry and disillusioned? If we are going to get what we have been asking for, I don't see any practical benefit to continue to treat him as poorly as he treats us. It only makes us look like whiners.
posted by Dantien at 1:09 PM on September 19, 2006

Gosh, Ethereal Bligh put it so much more succinctly than I could have. Well done.
posted by Dantien at 1:10 PM on September 19, 2006

What would happen if all of us "lefties" suddenly lauded Bush for a positive move...swinging his approval rating significantly? What message would that send the government?
posted by Dantien

[They fell for it.]
posted by taosbat at 1:20 PM on September 19, 2006

Final point: Actions speak louder than words.

He wants to change his stance? Fine. DO SOMETHING, then I'll give him some credit.

Let's be clear he gets NO credit from me based upon his history of deception and inaction based on words alone.
posted by aaronscool at 10:44 AM on September 20, 2006

Wow Eriko. I can't imagine any sitting leader, in any country, following those steps. Your guidelines are impossibly stringent.

And this is what we call a straw man. I wasn't asked what I'd expect Joe Countryleader to do. I was asked what George W. Bush would need to do.

I flat out do not believe him, and I flat out will not belive him, because his record is based completely and utterly on lies and sucker plays against the opposition.

However, there is a political reason to do so: because you gain centrist and opposition credibility.

No, you get fucked over by Bush. AGAIN. This isn't Ronald Reagan we're talking about it. The Bush administration's record is crystal clear. Any time he crosses the aisle, it's only to do so to sink an shiv into the back of the opposition.

This has happened repeatedly. This is Lucy with the football. I'd give Reagan a chance. I'd give Bush Sr. a chance.

Not this asshole. This country has given him far too many chances, and he's fucked us over *each and every time.*

If he wants to fight global warming, there's exactly one way I'll believe he's not lying -- he leaves office in such a way as to put Al Gore into the office.

Anything short of that is a sucker play, and I'm not buying it. If there was a market in evil, I'd be very long in Bush, and I wouldn't be making much money, because *every other economically rational person* would be long in him as well.
posted by eriko at 5:12 PM on September 20, 2006