Well, if he wants to get some support from the environmental community, perhaps he should confiscate some land in states that won't be voting for him in the election anyway and turn it into a "national monument." That approach worked fine and dandy for Our Bill about this time in the last election cycle for getting fawning attention from the eco-nuts.

The administration's record on environmental policy remains excellent, as good or better than Clinton's by almost any measure

They've redefined 'routine maintainance' (meaning no upgrading of pollution control tecnology) from .75% of the plant value to 20% of plant value. They're making the air dirtier than it would have been if they'd changed nothing. And if you think its got nothing to do with campaign contributions, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for you. Their record is worse than Clinton's on this particular environmental policy among others. Facts schmacts, eh Dean? I thought it was the Democrats who were supposed to be allergic to them! Evidently not.

Max: You're guilty of swallowing dogma, nothing more. Do your homework, I've linked to other things like this on the past. Easterbrook, no Republican, has done a particularly good job of documenting this going back to the very first days of the administration.

If you pick and choose your facts carefully, and ignore others completely, you can make anyone look like the devil. Start just by reading the article I linked, and if you want more, ask. But I'm not going to get into a pissing match with someone who won't research what both sides are saying.

Come on Dean... I read the article, believe it or not. My point was, if you're going to say Bush's environmental policy is 'excellent' and as good or better than Clinton's 'by almost any measure', its incumbant upon you to note that by the measure being debated, 'new source review', Bush is unequivicolly worse than Clinton. Far worse. Two numbers, .75% and 20%. Not much wriggle room,is there? The Times article doesn't mention the good bits; you don't mention the bad bits. I wouldn't be so confidant of occupying the high moral ground of the rational sober analyst if I were you.

If you pick and choose your facts carefully, you can make anyone look like an angel, too, you know.

One further thing, Dean - you're the first person to condemn ad hom and personalised attacks, and yet your first response is to accuse me of swallowing dogma. You know what, I did read the article - but unless you can point out what proves I didn't, some area of ignorance, accusing me of not reading it is pure ad hom. Double-standards, eh? Ya gotta love em.

Maxie, Maxie, Maxie; what will we do with you? Every thread I read, there you are pestering Dean with "But, but..." Heh.

Ok. You mention one set of data. Now for us dummies, please put it in context. And while you're at it, how about substantiating those claims about "making the air dirtier," and losing the cracks about campaign contributions? It makes your side look weaker.

And get me a side of fries, while you're at it. Heh.

Actually, Dean's point was that you (apparently) had not read the article, as you provided nearly no data to refute his original post. Even the .75% to .20% doesn't mean anything out of context.

A classic example of data out of context: the old "we raised it/they cut it" argument.

Normally a federal program has a projected (or expected) rate of increase based on several factors including inflation and an increase in demand for that service or program.

Just for example, let's say expected rate of inflation next budget year was set at 3%, and expected rate of increased demand was set at 5%. A total of 8% increase (let's avoid compounding, for simplicity)

Then, let us say that actual inflation was only 2%, and the increase in demand was only 3%, for a total of 5%.

Now, if the GOP raises the budget for that program 6%, they can honestly say they increased funding

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, can honestly say that the GOP cut funding, since the original increase was set at 8%.

It's all context. Pull the numbers out of the context, and you can prove anything you want.

Almost forgot why I was originally going to comment!

Dean: remember when Ashcroft tried to conflate the War on Terror with the War on Drugs?

"Buying dope funds terrorists!"

Christ on a crutch...

One must also remember, Max M, that Policies-as-written should always be considered in light of Policies-as-enacted.
Thus, while President Bush lowered the standards for power-plant upgrades, President Clinton's standards were such that it wasn't worth it to upgrade. Thus, Clinton could say he was enforcing tougher standards, but the effect was dirtier air than under lesser but far more realistic and achievable standards.

As an example: if you only take classes you know you can get an A+ in to maintain your GPA, you are going to learn far less than someone who is willing to risk getting a B to actually expand their knowledge.

Nathan, that's a valid point but as far as I know its not the case. I'm not definitive on that point, though.

Casey, inflation has nothing to do with it. I'm not gonna berate you for not reading the article, but if you do you'll understand the context.

Oh, and BTW, I didn't get my gratuitous rant out of my system today:
Free Tommy Chong! Where's the Anthrax Mailer! Why is Ken Lay still free?
J.Kerry: "John Ashcroft is what is wrong with the Patriot Act."

Ahh, that feels better. :-)

On the contrary Casey, I wouldn't have any reason to doubt the motives of Bush & Co if they didn't have such a cosy, one might say symbiotic, relationship with the fossil fuel industry - much as I doubt the motives of the Democratic party when their policy positions coincide with the Lawyer lobby. Big Business TM doesn't spend all that money out of altruism.

Max, so the context is in the article? Ok, I'll make a point to read it.

I have a slightly different POV when it comes to contributions; Dem or GOP. I don't see it as "critter gets money, critter gets bought." I see it more as "contributors give money to people who they agree with."

Dems (generally) think it's a good idea that government sticks its nose into a lot of things, which makes lawyers happy. Someone has to keep track of all the regulations, no? Besides, the Dems go librarian-poo when anyone talks about tort reform. Some of them might even actually think they're doing the "little people" a favor by doing so. :)

Mark: do those idiots still have Chong on ice? I would have figured he'd pay the fine and get it over with. Or are they after giving him jail time?