Democrats & Liberals Archives

Stop Dingell & Boucher Now

Representatives John Dingell and Rick Boucher are Democrats. However, they are defying Speaker Nancy Pelosi by writing a bill that would prevent California and 7 other states from enacting climate change legislation that is stricter than federal law. The federal law they are proposing would be timid. The Dingell-Boucher legislation is not what a real Democrat would write. They must be stopped now.

Dingell and Boucher say they want one law for the whole country, not separate laws in each state. Dingell states:

Unlike local air pollution, which can be cleaned up by requiring cleaner cars to be sold in that area, climate change is a much larger problem that must be addressed nationally and internationally.

Of course, he is right. But Dingell and Boucher are up to no good. They want to keep requirements on American car manufacturers to a minimum. Some lawmakers say that Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Boucher, the chairman of the key subcommittee writing tthis bill, are trying to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision that EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

California Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is upset with these 2 Democrats. He and 8 other governors sent a letter to Boucher that said:

While federal action is necessary and long overdue on climate change, Congress must not deny states the right to pursue solutions in the absence of federal policy.

It's a shame that Dingell and Boucher are kowtowing to car manufacturers, when they should be working for the benefit of all Americans. They should be leading the fight, together with Speaker Pelosi, to reduce global warming. At the very least, the average miles per gallon of gasoline a car gets should be raised to 50 or 60 by 2010 - not 36 miles per gallon for passenger cars after 2021 and 30 mpg for trucks after 2024, as these guys want.

By 2020 we should have phased out most gasolione use.

Write to your representative and let him or her know that straying Democrats Dingell and Boucher must be stopped.

Posted by Paul Siegel at June 8, 2007 4:32 PM
Comments
Comment #222663

Paul- I would say, maybe we should follow the

money trail an go from there. I would think , if

you allow states with more pollution, may have more

concern for their safety than those states that

are more rural with fewer concerns and most likely

have a great deal less money for taxes for

increased pollution laws than the wealthier

States have. The Feds an States have cut back

on environmental laws an fines almost Neill.

The first action taken would be to enforce

all the laws on the books then check all States

for Faults that need attention. Most definitely

keeping all eyes on John Dingle an Co. at all

times.

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 8, 2007 6:02 PM
Comment #222678

Paul

You are a man of integrity.

Posted by: Jack at June 8, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #222680

Paul
I doubt if their legislation will go anywhere even though it is likely to recieve Whithouse support. I wouldn’t be too hard on them either. They are responding to the concerns of their
constituents no matter how short sighted. That is their job. It will be interesting to see how many Rep “states right” members sign on to it. Seems states rights only applies to pick on minorities.

Posted by: BillS at June 8, 2007 9:40 PM
Comment #222681

Paul
FYI
His green proposals were the ONLY reason Arnold was re-elected.Most politicos are aware of this.

Posted by: BillS at June 8, 2007 9:45 PM
Comment #222690

Dingell and Boucher would do themselves and their party well to find an honorable way to follow the rest of the party. I think they need a good talking to by the political leadership.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 8, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #222691

BillS

no, he was re elected because angeledes was a complete moron. he would have run even more businesses out of california. the dems screwed up when they picked angeledes over steve wesley. he was much more charismatic and IMO was capable of beatng arnold. personally i’ve always liked tom mc clintock he’d get this state straightened out. at this point though this state is to far gone. it would take an armed revolution to turn this mess around.

Posted by: dbs at June 8, 2007 11:56 PM
Comment #222692

paul


“By 2020 we should have phased out most gasolione use”

not gonna happen. car mfg. build what sells, and at the rate hybrids and other alternatives are catching on it won’t happen. honda is discontinuing the accord hybrid because they’re not selling, but will keep making the civic hybrid.

Posted by: dbs at June 9, 2007 12:07 AM
Comment #222745

Paul,

Maybe some Dems just don’t buy into the notion that global climate change is such a big issue. Why is it that you imply that they are being bought by the car manufacturers just because they happen to be against particular climate change legislation? Is it not OK to think differently than the Democratic hierarchy? Does everyone march in lock-step over there, or is there room for even a little dissent? Says something about the Democratic Party, methinks!!

JD

Posted by: JD at June 10, 2007 12:21 AM
Comment #222784

JD:
Amen! Let me add a thought to your sentiment from someone that is conservative, but not registered with any party. Methinks a pattern is evident and the liberals/Democrats that post here have been inconsistant to a fault and have exposed their biases to the extent that IMHO their credibility has been severely reduced, well actually eliminated.

The theme of this thread is to stop two Democrats(one of wich I personally know and have supported when I lived in his district, as he is conservative), because they have the audacity to oppose the liberal Democratic leadership in the House in the stead of listening to their constituents. Not once have I heard the liberals/Democrats use the same rhetoric or standards when it has applied to a Republican or conservative not going along with the majority leaders.

More to the point, where are the great “Free Thinking and All Inclusive” liberals and ‘Big Tent Democrats” rising up to defend the ideals held by members of their own party? Held by the very same people that put the Democratic leadership in the majority? It has been 19….thats NINETEEN hours…. and not one liberal/Democrat has mustered enough integrity to defend a vote based made by a member of ones own party that may disagree with the leadership. NOT ONE IN ALMOST A FULL DAY !!!!!!!!!!

I see how it is with the liberals/Democrats, especially on this site. Either you tow the liberal party line or you are a thing that needs to be controlled or put down. I have read, listened, given the benefit of the doubt, understood and even started believing some of you, but you have exposed yourselves as the prostitutes of ideas and ideals you are. I have posted here and argued with some people that I think are great informed minds here, and had to stop due to time constrants on my research ability. It just shows me that my time was wasted doing that research and making my arguements.

To further my point on the bankruptcy of the left/Democrats/liberals, I challange anyone on this board to count the number of threads involving the “illegal” actions of President Bush, Rep “Duk Cunningham eor Scooter Libby and compare/contrast them to the number and substance of the posts involving William Jefferson(D-LA), who has been indicted for bribery. Although I do not condone misleading a judicial proceeding, I also dare anyone that consistantly posts and/or defends the left/Democrat/liberal positions to compare and contrast their posts/positions to the positions they took during the Whitewater investigations and explain their silence on Rep. Jefferson.

This is very important to me for a few reasons, including, but not limited to:

1. If you are only going to attack or persecute ideas and ideals that are politically expediant, then your core beliefs are exposed and any “stat” or source is at best reduced to a tidbit used out of context to further a political agenda.

2. If you cannot allow that someone with a different perspective may have his/her beliefs grounded in a few facts, then you are neither open minded nor intellectally superior to those Draconians whom you despise. I constantly see people here totally disregard and degredate others not based on facts, but rather on the fact that they dont hold to the same principles that you do. Please, somebody, explain to me what is liberal about this method.

I understand that the point of debating is to minimize an opponent’s strengths and to exploit his/her weaknesses; howevrer, IMHO, the dividing point should be where the integrity of the point in question be preserved. Someone can have more facts, opinions, stats and be a better orator/writer and still be morally and factually incorrect. Some would rather swallow their morals and core beliefs to further their political beliefs. While debating, some are either and both……are you?????

When reading the “Antiwar” or “AntiBush” posts, it is common to come across the sentiment that if you believe in the policy, you should go. I have and my only son is there now. When the post is on carbon credits/taxes no allowances are made for computer errors(including the limitations of programming) and natural cycles, but allowances are made for the lifestyles of those that preach it. When the subject is taxes, the penalty is always on those who have achieved and not on those that have not. When debating evolution versus creationism, the creationists are crazy, and their theories, however much based in scientific fact, are not treated as scientific theories. When debating civil rights, the voting record and KKK membership of only one party/ideology should be taking into account( David Duke versus Senator Byrd). False allegations of rape should never be accounted for, as so long as the accused is white(Duke Lacross Team) and the accuser is not. No apologies are demanded from the “Civil Rights Leaders” that publically convicten those men , but use the term niggardly correctly just once and you should be fired from a government job.

Please, someone who is liberal/Democratic explain to me how you are consistant on the issues while being silent on the same issues when they counter your own beliefs and party affiliations. How much of your core beliefs are you willing prostitute for power? What does that say about your core beliefs and integrity? Avoid the question now, ignore it, but you will see it again.

Do not feel too smug Republicans/conservatives, I pose the same query to you.

Posted by: submarinesforever at June 10, 2007 10:02 PM
Comment #222812

Good post Paul -

Rick Boucher is my Rep here in southwestern Virginia and he has been a disappointment for many years - I think he served his first term about the time I started school at Virginia Tech. He voted for the latest Iraq Quagmire Funding bill, voted for a law to allow states to not recognize marriages from other states (anti-gay marraige stuff), and now this. Not to mention that he isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I wish my party could get someone to run against him - he has been in congress too long -is too beholden to corporate interests (I am sure his participation in this bill relates to the huge Volvo truck plant here). I would almost vote for anyone who runs againts him except the GOP seems only interested in sending people in the mold of that racist Virgil Goode up against Boucher. My apologies to everyone for having this guy in congress.

submarinesforever,
You are right on target with the hypocrisy in my party as well as the same in the GOP supporters. William Jefferson is a crook and the Dems did not distance themselves from him in a significant way. I also hated the way Bill Clinton came down on the militia movement in a way that violated thier Constitutional rights and said so at the time. I thought those people were generally racists, religious zealots, and wrong on almost every issue but they were my fellow Americans and deserved the same protections that I deserve. Anyone who cannot defend the rights of people they don’t agree with does not defend the Constitution it is the same with liberals as well as conservatives.

We should take the lesson of Sam Adams defending the Brits after the Boston Massacre. Or a better modern example is the Jehovas Witnesses who are very far on the religious right end of the spectrum though they have been very outspoken proponents of the right to free expression and are perfectly fine if these rights are used by those whose beliefs they do not agree with - including pro-choice folks, athiests, and the like - they also stand strongly for the separation of church and state.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at June 11, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #222869

submarinesforever,

Thank you for your family’s sacrifices for your country! The Dems usually criticize when we conservatives say this, and I know doubt will take the heat once again, but it is heartfelt.

It is not an everyday occurence that a Democrat agrees with me, being that I am pretty ultra-conservative. However, I have to point out, just take a look at the way the Dems railroaded their Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman right out of their own Party. I thought that was shameful! But, that is the treatment one can expect with dissent even on one issue. Let it be the War on Terror and you’re lucky to last half a term.
But it doesn’t stop in Washington. In my home state of Illinois, it was reported that former Representative Rod Blagojevich, who is now Governor, has threatened a Democrat in the Statehouse with ruining his career in Illinois if he doesn’t support Blegojevich’s huge tax hike proposals. They nearly came to blows over this. That is what happens when Democrats think they are too powerful to be questioned. Seems Gov. Rod learned a few arm-wrenching terror techniques from the Washington Democrats while in the House of Representatives. It is precisely where the Democrats are going with their newfound Congressional power. All Bush has to do is give them enough rope to hang themselves. He is now able to play the part Reagan played which threw the Democratic Congress into fits of rage during the 80’s. Democrats are about to once again lock-step into the same dog-doo they did with Reagan in the 80’s! Just watch.

JD

Posted by: JD at June 11, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #223399

This is about saving the planet,does Dingell and Boucher not get it.All they care about are the Big Three Automakers,and idots in big fucking trucks with gun racks,with NRA stickers.

Posted by: the libertine at June 18, 2007 4:58 PM
Post a comment