http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/opinion/18SAT1.html<snip>Bush's nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency, Mike Leavitt, finally won committee approval this week, but not before a half-dozen senators had openly expressed exasperation at his habit of retreating behind ecofriendly phrases when asked about his record as Utah's governor. Which means, of course, that Mr. Leavitt will fit right in with the Bush administration. Indeed, Mr. Bush himself may fairly be said to have become the master of the ostensibly ecofriendly sound bite, offering oversimplified solutions to complex environmental problems and wrapping them in tempting slogans that hide their generally pro-business tilt.
...
The only explanation for what amounts to a willing suspension of history and logic is that American industry, which for 30 years has cried wolf about the costs of major regulatory initiatives — the phaseout of lead in gasoline, catalytic converters on cars, controls on acid rain — has at last found a sympathetic ear in the White House.
It is this reality — the relationship between Mr. Bush and his corporate underwriters — that could give his frustrated critics an opening. This week, a group of people responsible for environmental policy in the Clinton administration — former officials like Carol Browner, Mr. Clinton's chief of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Bruce Babbitt, his secretary of the interior — announced a campaign to mobilize voters unhappy with Mr. Bush's environmental record.
</snip>
Pretty tepid editorial, but at least it's drawing attention to the environment, which I rarely hear any of the Dem candidates (exception Lieberman) talk about.
s_m
...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
