elections

Startling stats on Bush’s and Kerry’s energy agendas

$13.3 million — amount George W. Bush has received from the energy/natural resources, agribusiness, and transportation sectors during the 2004 presidential campaign1 $1.9 million — amount John Kerry has received from the energy/natural resources, agribusiness, and transportation sectors during the 2004 presidential campaign2 40 — number of recommendations made by Dick Cheney’s energy task force […]

All the mus(ing) that’s fit to print

In its Sunday endorsement of Kerry and scathing critique of Bush, The New York Times spends more time on the environment than the candidates did in their three debates. (To whom does such an endorsement speak -- do any undecideds read The Times?) Amidst the many many paragraphs that lay out an argument against a second Bush administration, the patient greenie finds this one:

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.

The editorial spends more time condemning Bush's record than building a case for a Kerry presidency. Yet, the editorial board found space among the relatively few sentences allocated to praising Kerry to call attention to this environmental matter:

The environmental issue in the debates

In comments here, clark and da silva agree (more or less) on the following proposition:  It would be great if the environment mattered more to swing voters, but it doesn't, and the tactical goal of the debate is to move swing voters, so maybe a green rooting for Kerry should be happy the question didn't come up -- particularly given how Kerry botched it in the second debate.

Well, yes and no.

Debate wars episode II: the empire strikes back

The second presidential debate was, by any measure, better than the first. Bush recovered from his twitchy, petulant performance of Sep. 30 and Kerry was, if anything, even more concise (lo, a miracle!) and direct. More importantly, the questions from audience members were better -- more substantive, less circumspect -- than anything asked by the "official" media-types refereeing the VP and first presidential debates.

However, Kerry flubbed one question that should have been a home run for him.  As you might guess, I'm talking about the environmental question.  Here's a policy area where, unlike many others, Kerry has a clear, consistent, and almost uniformly strong record.  Bush, on the other hand, is rated the worst environmental president ever by just about everybody -- including, increasingly, members of his own party, mid-level officials in his agencies, and conservationists from the traditionally right-leaning hook-and-bullet crowd.

But Bush dodged the bullet.

Pump it up

Thomas Friedman is back at The New York Times after a two-month hiatus. I don't always agree with his stands (and enjoyed the alternative voices that appeared in The Times during his absence), but find it heartening that his second op-ed upon returning has an environmental bent:

Of all the shortsighted policies of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, none have [Editor's Note:  Grist editors would not have let slip this misuse of have] been worse than their opposition to energy conservation and a gasoline tax. If we had imposed a new gasoline tax after 9/11, demand would have been dampened and gas today would probably still be $2 a gallon. But instead of the extra dollar going to Saudi Arabia -- where it ends up with mullahs who build madrasas that preach intolerance -- that dollar would have gone to our own Treasury to pay down our own deficit and finance our own schools. In fact, the Bush energy policy should be called No Mullah Left Behind.

Interesting perspective -- and certainly not one we've heard from the Kerry campaign.

How to Make the Environment a Hot Election Issue

Grist chats with Andre Heinz, environmental activist and stepson of John Kerry

Some may cry nepotism when they see Andre Heinz, the middle son of Teresa Heinz Kerry, take to the podium as one of the leading spokespeople on the environment for John Kerry’s presidential campaign, but his ascent is hardly without merit. True, he has deliberately steered clear of a career inside the Beltway, so in […]

Bush campaign tries to trash Kerry’s environmental record

The wrestler in chief. Photo: White House. Over the past few weeks of Presidential WrestleMania MMIV, the Bush campaign has fired off more than a dozen press releases about John Kerry‘s policies on energy, nuclear-waste storage, forest and water protections, and other environmental issues — a hodgepodge of smears, exaggerations, and obfuscations intended to besmirch […]

Umbra on strategic voting and writing to legislators

Dear Umbra, I’m a dislocated Texas resident living in Georgia, and I frequently send action emails to congressional leaders on environmental issues. Which leaders should I be sending my emails to: those I vote for in Texas or the Georgia ones? I’m afraid that when I email the Texas leaders they’ll see my present Georgia […]