WaPo Hypes Sen. Boxer Comment, Ignores Bigger Story In Bush Global Warming Speech

Photo of Amy Ridenour.
  • Bookmark and Share

I already knew Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wasn't a clear thinker, but I still had to chuckle at her quote in today's Washington Post article on climate change:

The president's plan to have America stand by while greenhouse gases reach dangerous levels and threaten America and the world is worse than doing nothing -- it is the height of irresponsibility.

What's the difference between "standing by" and "doing nothing"?

Why, no difference at all.

Even more amusingly, this was probably a prepared quote taken from a statement issued by her office rather than something she said off the top of her head.

Speaking of this Washington Post article, by Juliet Eilperin: It quotes six people taking the alarmist, hurt-the-economy position on global warming, and not one who believes either that alarm is unnecessary or that the hurt-our-economy approach is the wrong way to go. An acknowledgment is made that "senior GOP lawmakers... continue to reject mandatory curbs on emissions," but that's it. No reason why is given. Nor is a reader told that not all of Bush's critics are found on the anti-energy left, and what their take on all this might be.

There's a news story to be found in why President Bush took the action that he did, but the Post had no inclination to cover that story. A insipid statement by Barbara Boxer was a higher priority.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Califorinia Experiment

I think that Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Boxer should be given fondest greenhouse wishes.  Let's make Californial the model state for carbon taxes and greenhouse gas restrictions.  If it works, the rest of the country can follow.

I propose for California

  1. A ban on the construction of all power plants (except solar and wind)
  2. A ban on any  new carbon emitting industrial facilities
  3. Strict price controls on the cost of electricity.
  4. A surcharge on any  plants which emit CO2
  5. A registration tax on cars which use "fossil fuels"
  6. A pay at the pump gasoline tax of $4.00 a gallon.
  7. Mandatory installation in all homes of meters which restrict electrical use during "peak" periods.
  8. Banning the sales of motorized vehicles which use an internal combustion engine.
  9. Ban on the removal of foiliage or trees, except trees in the way of sacred solar panels.
  10. A tax surcharge to fund tax credits for the use of solar panels. Your 100K investment could yield as much as 200Kwh/month.
  11. A tax on overweight people who emit more carbon.
  12. A tax on blowhard politicians who emit too much carbon.

Let's call it the "Boxer-Schwarzenegger Experiment". Go for it Barbara and Arnold. Enjoy.

Go all the way

Don't forget:

10. Ban for use all internal combustion engines.

11. Ban the purchase of any/all electricity from non in-state facilities.

12. While their at it, restrict shipping into the state as that adds to their carbon footprint.

 

The list is endless.

 

During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.

Make California the Model

If I were in Bush's position, I would suggest to the Euro-Socialists that they become the model and leader in the restriction of Carbon Dioxide. Once they succeed, we will attempt to emulate them.

Given the strong feelings of Senator Boxer and Governor Schwarzenegger, I think it is appropriate for Congress to implement legistation allowing California to serve as the prototype for the rest of the United States.

Let's let these people live by their rhetoric.

Arnold

Make Arnold build a stable (sans electricity) next to his office building and ride a horse and buggy to work. No more private jets for you, Arney, baby!

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Boxer

Barbara Boxer= airhead = U.S. Senator --'nuff said. We are in deep soup.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Also 13. Ban the

Also

13. Ban the production of wine and beer. Or any other beverage that produces CO2 in it's process.

14. Ban bread and bakeries. Or any food that produces CO2. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

#1 Done deal, they won't

#1 Done deal, they won't allow any coal fired plants

#2 Done deal, they are chasing out industry with onerous taxes. 

#8 is for the rich people who can afford the $100k Tesla Roadster (all electric car http://www.teslamotors.com/ 2008 is sold out, so get on the list for 2009) all the rest get to walk or take a bus. 

#9 is already in force, there is someone in the news who has to take down a tree or branches due to a solar panel being installed. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/07/america/tree.php

 

 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

Solar Fantasies

The only problem with an all electric car is that it won't have the wattage (or horsepower) to get over those mountains outside of Los Angeles.

Last weekend I dashed through I-5 at 75 mph in the mountains outside LA. In the thirties cars used to break down on the side of the road going through the mountains. Look for electric cars to fail on I-5 outside LA. 

For those with solar panel wishes, if you are lucky you will get 200Kwh/month for 100K down.

There's no need to fear....

"Bag Monster" is here to save the planet!

http://sgvtribune.my...

More student indoctrination:

http://www.whittierd...

Ehem, didn't someone do a

Ehem, didn't someone do a carbon calc. that showed walking and running emit more carbon than driving?  The calculation included the diet of the person which means all the CH4 and CO2 emitted by the cows and chickens they eat in order to have the energy to walk?

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

AMY

In all honesty I don't know of anyone that claims she is the brightest light in the harbor. That belongs to Hillary.

If you ain't the lead dog, the scenery never changes.-Lewis Grizzard

"What's the difference

"What's the difference between "standing by" and "doing nothing"? Why, no difference at all."

Amy, That reminds me of the old cartoon character Snagglepuss, who would say something like, "I'm exhausted - mildly tired, even". :)

Exit, stage left!

If only Barbie would "Exit, stage left!"

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

If only

<sarcasm>Alas! The president isn't proposing legislation or regulation to do something about greenhouse gases! If only this country had some branch of government, besides Bush, that could pass legislation! If only we had some branch of government that was in charge of proposing and passing laws! </sarcasm>

This goes back to the old dilemma for presidential candidates who come from Congress (like this year). If these plans and programs you're offering are so good, why didn't you propose them while you were a legislator?

Real Answer = because they wouldn't have passed.

When Boxer argues that the president is "irresponsible" for not proposing environmental legislation, it's ridiculous rhetoric. Why didn't Boxer, who is herself a legislator, propose new laws herself? Answer - because her proposals have no chance of passing. So she blames her own futility on Bush, because that's where Democrats place all blame.

A better question

A better question is...what's the difference between Barbara Boxer and doing nothing?  Answer: A hell of a lot of damage is avoided by doing nothing.  Barbara Boxer ignores the fact that her original election to the Senate was simply an embarrassing anomaly of the mythical "Year of the Woman" and her subsequent re-elections were due to no-name opponents running with no money.  She is under the delusion that she is wildly popular and highly powerful...of course if she was as popular and powerful as she thinks she is, her own party's leaders wouldn't go to the lengths they do to marginalize her.  I am so ashamed that this poor excuse for a human continues to misrepresent my home state.  You'd have thought she'd keep a low profile in an election year when the sister of her deadbeat dad son-in-law was running for President.  But she loves the camera attention. 

YOu think you've got it bad,

I'm stuck with Debbie Stabenow. And Carl Levin. 

  MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.

YOu think you've got it bad,

I'm stuck with Debbie Stabenow. And Carl Levin. 

  MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe.

No doubt, you've got it

No doubt, you've got it pretty bad.  But we got stuck with Boxer and Feinstein on the same day.  Not to mention Pelosi at the back end.  I couldn't wait to get rid of that worthless Alan Cranston, but it only got worse.  And Boxer would have lost if her campaign hadn't floated an unsubstantiated rumor involving her opponent and a strip club in the closing days.  Now we're stuck with her until at least 2011 when, if we're lucky, Schwarzenegger will have beaten her (and I detest Schwarzenegger).  And it's only a matter of time before Bag Lady Feinstein retires and Loretta Sanchez (or Gavin Newsom, Fabian Nunez, Jane Harman, Antonio Villaraigiosa...) swoops in to replace her.  Boxer is a stupid joke, but I suppose even if she lost that election in 1992, some creep like Bill Press would have won the seat back in 1998.   

Congressional Representation

Boxer and Feinstein both come from Northern California, specifically the San Francisco area, [as does Nancy Pulosi] so please don't paint the conservatives in Southern California with the same brush. We don't have the numbers to elect a Senator that represents our interests, or the water to secede from the state and become the 51st state, so we keep getting stuck with those loons. Thankfully, we have the good sense to elect men like Duncan Hunter and Brian Bilbray to the House, so we have some hope.

Chai

Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain. – Thomas Sowell

I'd love to agree with you,

I'd love to agree with you, CTL, but Northern California isn't the only problem.  Los Angeles is the 2nd largest city in the country and growing.  San Diego is, I believe, the 5th or 6th largest city in the country...and though it's much more conservative than LA, it's gotten more and more leftist over the last several years.  Orange County is relatively conservative, but you've got the surf rats along the coast who are as eco-maniacal as just about anyone.  If Southern California was its own state, I'm afraid we'd still be represented by a couple of libs in the Senate...Villaraigiosa, Nunez, Loretta Sanchez, Jane Harman, Arnold Schwarzenegger...something along those lines.

While I realize that

While I realize that targeting CA is soothing for some, the real target should be DC and the surrounding states, where most of the politicians actually live. Make the politicians live by those rules, and you will get very quick results. DC should be closed to anything other than pure electric vehicles. Let's see how that works.

SD & OC

I guess LA is considered part of Southern California, but living in SD and, previously, Orange County, I tend to block it out of my consciousness as often as I can [except when the Padres play the Dodgers]. So the new state would consist of 2 counties, with Senators more like Hunter and Bilbray. Yes, there are more leftists in SD than there used to be, there's more everything. But we still have a lot of Sailors and Marines to keep us level headed.

As for the surf rats along the Orange County coast, they're just a small part of the county's population, and if they're really surf rats, they don't know when, where, or why to vote.

Chai

Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain. – Thomas Sowell

 OC don't call it

 OC

don't call it that

 

 

"As a news consumer, however, the word of an MSM journalist isn't good enough." - Dabird

It's ok

for an adult to write "OC" as a shorthand, but it is absolutely unacceptable to call it The OC, like that stupid teenage soap opera that didn't know a thing about Orange County, except that there's a coast there.

Chai

Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain. – Thomas Sowell

And then there's this from the good Senator...

Resolution Welcoming Pope Hits Abortion Snag in Congress Before Passing

A resolution welcoming and honoring Pope Benedict XVI to Washington hit a temporary rough patch on the way to its eventual approval — and the rough patch involved the always-nuclear topic of abortion.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., crafted a resolution "Welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States and recognizing the unique insights his moral and spiritual reflections bring to the world stage."

But when the resolution was circulated for approval of all the members, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an outspoken "pro-choice" advocate, put on the brakes.

The offending language: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life."

A Boxer aide pointed specifically to the last 10 words of that sentence, saying it points directly to "pro-life" language.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351613,00.html

Every human life has value?  Who woulda thunk it? 

Certainly not the Democratic Party.

If them ten words

Chaps her a$$ so much, shouldn't she abstain from celebrating mass with the Pope? Boxer, Kerry and the rest who don't believe in "pro-life" should stay clear. If they are true catholic's, would they not celebrate the creation of life instead of ending it? Sounds like they are hypocrites

Hypocrite: (Merrian/Webster)

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Yep, sounds like them.

During this time with political correctness at its zenith, I reserve the right to let you know you're an idiot.

Boxer's not a true

Boxer's not a true Catholic.  She's Jewish.  As for Gigolo John Kerry, Stretch Pelosi, Fat Drunken Uncle Teddy, Schwarzenegger, Dick Durbin, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy...well, that's another story.

Wait, is she Catholic or

Wait, is she Catholic or Jewish?

Boxer is Jewish.   I

Boxer is Jewish.

 

I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.

Boxer is Jewish. I

Oops. Double post.

 

 

I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.

What "bigger story", Amy?

Was Eilperin incorrect to state that Bush's speech was "widely criticized by Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists"?

Or to note that "senior GOP lawmakers, including Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.), the ranking members on Boxer's and Markey's committees, both continue to reject mandatory curbs on emissions"?

You criticize Eilperin for not telling readers that "not all of Bush's critics are found on the anti-energy left, and what their take on all this might be," and you tell us that "There's a news story to be found in why President Bush took the action that he did, but the Post had no inclination to cover that story."

Well, I believe - so what IS the rest of the story, that Eilperin so shamelessly left out? Who are all of the other critics of Bush? You don't tell us here, and I've looked at your blog - but there's no extra story there, either. Are you not a critic of Bush, or are you simply too busy writing criticizing the Post for leaving out the critics from the right to actually take the time to be a critic of Bush? And I've looked at what Sen. Inhofe has to say - and is he critical of Pres. Bush? Nah ... this is what Sen Inhofe has to say:

I applaud the President for outlining a bold alternative climate initiative that rejects the concept that the United States must adopt economically ruinous cap-and-trade legislation such as the Lieberman-Warner bill ....

"I have long advocated a technology approach that brings in the developing world nations such as China and India as the only viable approach. ... The President’s approach serves multiple purposes – it will reduce air pollution, expand our energy supply, increase trade, and, along with these other goals, reduce greenhouse gases.

"Importantly, I believe the President’s proposal is the right one for Oklahoma. We have a proud tradition of leading the country in energy development."

http://epw.senate.go...

Sure, I distrust the liberal media, too. But if there's a huge story about criticism of Pres. Bush from other than the "anti-energy left" that PaPo just glaringly missed, maybe you could be so kind as to point it out? And if you're not happy with the speech, then why not venture to critize it yourself - instead of the Post's coverage?

After all, if the speech deserves criticism from the right, then why don't we criticize it too, directly, instead of just the messenger?

What's the difference between "standing by" while the President advocates policies you don't like and "doing nothing" but criticize the media for not reporting criticism from the right?

Any difference at all?

Pres. Bush: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.

More "Conservative" commentary from BlindSight

BlindSight with "Conservative" commentary like this who needs liberals here?

In case you missed this Amy's post:

"It quotes six people taking the alarmist, hurt-the-economy position on global warming, and not one who believes either that alarm is unnecessary or that the hurt-our-economy approach is the wrong way to go."

Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills (The Heritage Foundation)

Cap and Trade - Cap and Trade: A Bad Trade-off for the Economy and Company Earnings (Free Enterprise Education Institute)
Cap and Trade - Cap-and-Trade Could Cost Average Family $10,800 in Lost Income (US Newswire)
Cap and Trade - Cap-and-Trade Scheme Would Deepen Economic Downturn (Competitive Enterprise Institute)
Cap and Trade - Global Warming Bill Could Cost Every U.S. Man, Woman and Child Up to $494 Annually (Business & Media Institute)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

What is the rest of the story?

Why the obvious one -- the one so obvious, I thought I did not need to point it out.  The story the Post should have told was why Bush took this step; what he hopes to gain from it; if it was his idea or advisors', and if the latter, which and why; who in the Administration was for or against this and, the core and crucial point, if the speech portends changes in the Administration position that increases the likelihood of the passage of mega-billion dollar climate change legislation before the end of Bush's term (which, up until the speech, seemed unlikely).

THAT's the story the Post should have reported.

Instead we got warmed-over rhetoric from Democrats disagreeing with Bush, and not even very interesting disagreements -- the usual warmed-over partisan pap the press offices of both parties issue routinely.  

Eilpirin wrote a dog bites man story and left her readers to wonder why Bush did this and if there are likely to be any important repercussions.

 I'd give the New York Times coverage (http://www.nytimes.c...) of this story only about a B minus, but compared to the Post's offering, it's excellent.  Times readers are told Bush's motive and also that Bush's action is not a sign that the Administration's prior position on climate change has weakened.  While the Times article could have been stronger in a number of areas, especially sourcing, it did address the most important questions raised by a president apparently opposed to climate change legislation suddenly giving a speech in favor of action against climate change.

 

I'm an idiot, so please spell out the obvious

Amy, your initial point seemed clearly to be that not only the liberals were unhappy with Bush's speech, but many on the right, too, and to criticize Eilpirin for not providing that story. Now you refer somewhat approvingly to Revkin's story in the NYT, which is less well sourced but offers no conservative views but only the speculations of liberals.

So what are those conservative views? First you hint broadly that you are unhappy with the speech, now you point to a news article that seems to suggest that the speech was designed to throw sand in the wheels of legislation that doesn't stand a chance of passing until he leaves office. Well, what is it? Is it a master stroke of strategy for Bush to concede that we have to do something about climate change and getting within an inch of proposing cap-and-trade "incentives"?

And if you think Bush's speech wasn't a master stroke but a mistake, why the heck aren't you saying so? Don't tell me that the "obvious" answer is for these news reporters to dig and report the discontent of conservatives who are too afraid to come straight out and say it themselves.

And what do conservatives think? They seem to be all over the place, and not particularly happy:

Chris Horner on Planet Gore says:

what one sees when reading the speech is — consistent with published reports today and private conversations with relevant folks — what it looks like when someone prepares to roll-out an endorsement of Kyoto-style "cap-and-trade" only to pull that particular specific at the 11th hour. This leaves a speech that could say everything (from the global-warming industry's perspective) or nothing at all. I fear, however, that the only policy that could match the call to avoid tax increases and job loss with a demand to "carbon-weight new incentives" is a tweak of the tax code to allow for expensing of capital equipment, to pull through more efficient technologies sooner.

Given this, and in context of what we now know, this speech begs the question of what in the world was the point of doing this, particularly since there is no chance of President Bush actually attaining the legislation that he so vaguely outlined, before leaving office? Read the President's speech and ask yourself, if the purpose going into this wasn't cap-and-trade, what was it? More curious is, with cap-and-trade having been taken out after the brief but fierce firestorm, what was the purpose of continuing on?

http://planetgore.na...

The posts also at Planet Gore by Marlo Lewis and Samuel Thernstrom also express considerable befuddlement.

And I also note that you were also involved in the "brief but fierce firestorm" that Chris alludes to - the joint letter to Bush spearheaded by CEI: http://cei.org/node/...

If you disagree with the President, why don't you say so, instead of simply critizing the media for failing to report a discontent that you are unreluctant to express?

Pres. Bish: Our guiding principle is clear. We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.

Newsbusters is for critiquing media, not for discussing my views

Blindsight, I apologize for only replying to this now.  Don't know if you'll even see it after all this time, but just in case, here goes.

Basically, a blog such as Newsbusters is set up to critique the media's presentation of the news, not to report the news itself.  To critique the Post story, I am not required to report the story myself.  Nor is my own opinion of Bush's speech the issue.

In brief, and as I noted previously, I believe the Post story was lacking as it did not report the important facts surrounding why Bush gave the speech and the policy implications of him doing so, if any.  (My very limited praise of the NY Times story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg is because the Times did cover some of this.)

Juliet Eilperin (or her editors) decided instead to do a story focused only on the reaction of those who heard (or heard of) the speech.  A peculiar decision, but having made it, the Post could at least have done it well, which would require, among other things, an attempt to do so objectively.  It chose otherwise.

As to my own views on climate change and politicians, among other things, if you genuinely are interested, I invite you to visit the blog I host at http://www.nationalc..., where we have not been at all reluctant to criticize politicians of all political parties.  It would be indulgent of me to include my personal views on non-media-related issues at length in blog posts here, however, as that is not the purpose of Newsbusters.