SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT BUSH - UNFIT FOR COMMAND -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/6/2005 7:22:41 AM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 660
 
LOL!!

I see the "quality" of your posting remains unchanged....what a dumbass you are.....



To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/7/2005 7:26:53 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 660
 

Shameless Photo-Op


April 7, 2005
EDITORIAL
The New York Times

Imagine this: On his next trip to Japan, President Bush visits the vault at the Bank of Japan, where that country's $712 billion in United States government bonds is stored. There, as the cameras roll, he announces that the bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, are, in fact, worthless i.o.u.'s. He does the same thing when he visits China and so on around the world, until he has personally repudiated the entire $2 trillion of United States debt held by foreigners.

Mr. Bush rehearsed just that act on Tuesday, when he visited the office of the federal Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va. He posed next to a file cabinet that holds the $1.7 trillion in Treasury securities that make up the Social Security trust fund. He tossed off a comment to the effect that the bonds were not "real assets." Later, in a speech at a nearby university, he said: "There is no trust fund. Just i.o.u.'s that I saw firsthand."

Social Security takes in more money than it needs to pay current beneficiaries, and the excess is invested in the Treasury securities that Mr. Bush was discussing. They carry the same legal and political obligations as all other forms of Treasury debt, every penny of which has always been paid in full and on time.

In his speech, Mr. Bush went on to acknowledge that future generations would have to make good on the debt. But the intended meaning of the photo-op was clear. In the hope of persuading people to privatize Social Security - a move that would only add to the growing debt burden for future generations - Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that the trust fund is a joke. But if the trust fund is a joke, so is the full faith and credit of the United States.

Fortunately, the governments, institutions and individuals who hold United States debt can tell a publicity stunt from a policy statement. Still, casting aspersions on a basic obligation of the United States government is insulting and irresponsible.

nytimes.com

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/9/2005 12:48:05 AM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 660
 

U.S. Report Sees Gasoline Prices Moving Higher Still


April 8, 2005
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
and MATTHEW L. WALD

WASHINGTON, April 7 - The government projected on Thursday that gasoline prices would surge even higher in coming weeks and remain high through the summer, a forecast underscoring both the economic effect of the sharp rise in energy costs and growing political risks for President Bush.

The Energy Information Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, said it expected the price of unleaded regular gasoline to hit a peak national average of $2.35 a gallon in May and to average $2.28 from April through September. Last week the average price was $2.22.

With crude oil prices at record highs in recent weeks and still close to them, the White House is casting itself as immersed in addressing the problem. It is using the increase in oil and gasoline prices to raise the pressure on Congress to pass Mr. Bush's stalled energy bill, which the administration says would encourage domestic oil exploration and production, support alternative energy sources and improve conservation.

Mr. Bush discussed energy prices with his cabinet on Tuesday and is sure to raise the subject during a meeting being planned for this month with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer.

But Democrats say they intend to use the renewed focus on energy issues to revive their case that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, both of whom worked in the oil business, are more interested in helping oil companies than in helping consumers. And several recent polls suggest that the spike in oil prices and the resulting rise in gasoline prices have undermined Mr. Bush's political standing.

"When gas prices go up to the level they're at now, they are in some ways the economic equivalent of the color-coded terrorism alerts," said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster. "They work their way through into public opinion very quickly in terms of affecting people's opinions about the direction of the nation and raising the stakes on pocketbook issues generally."

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey published Thursday showed a drop in approval of Mr. Bush's handling of the economy to 41 percent from 46 percent two months ago. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll released this week found an even sharper drop, to 41 percent from 48 percent five weeks earlier.

Analysts said consumer concern about what it costs to fill up at the pump was also pulling down the percentage of people who think the country is on the right track. In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 34 percent of respondents said the country was headed in the right direction, down from 42 percent in February.

The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll found the price of gasoline rivaling terrorism and health care as the top issues among respondents, well ahead of the priority Mr. Bush has put at the top of his agenda, overhauling Social Security.


"Certainly if it goes on for a while, it's a risk," said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster.

The administration has shown no sign of rethinking its opposition to releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a means of trying to force prices down.
"We are concerned about rising gasoline prices and rising energy prices," said Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary. "They are a drag on our growing economy. That's all the more reason why Congress needs to act to pass the president's comprehensive energy strategy that he outlined four years ago."

Energy Department officials said that despite the higher gasoline prices in coming months, with the average projected to be 38 cents a gallon more this summer than last, they did not expect any drop in demand.

Though gasoline has established itself well above $2 around the country lately, demand is up about 1.8 percent over this time last year, said Guy F. Caruso, administrator of the Energy Information Administration.

Mr. Caruso added that the price of gasoline was still a small part of the cost of driving a car, including insurance and car payments, and that for a typical car, driven 12,000 miles a year and getting 20 miles a gallon, the increase would mean about $180 in higher annual costs.

But steep increases in gasoline prices tend to have repercussions as much political as economic.

"This is not just an economic problem," said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. "It is also, in the public judgment, a national security problem. There is a widespread belief in the country that the problem could be solved or a real dent made in it, but that this administration, because it is tied to big oil, is unwilling to take the steps necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."


Administration officials said they were assuming that the surge in prices would help put pressure on Congress to pass Mr. Bush's energy plan. Already, Republicans in the Senate have shown for the first time that they have the votes to include in that bill the authorization for drilling in a section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The rise in oil and gasoline prices could also provide another reason for the nation to embrace Mr. Bush's call for the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a source of nearly 20 percent of the nation's oil. A more stable, democratic Middle East would presumably reduce concerns about interruptions in the flow of oil.

For now, though, the first signs that the seeds of democracy are germinating in the region are being accompanied not by lower crude oil prices but by near-record highs.


And Democrats say they intend to use gasoline prices to reopen issues they have previously invoked to hold up the Bush energy bill, among them their call for an increase in fuel economy standards.
nytimes.com

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top




To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/12/2005 1:40:36 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 660
 
A NEW ATTACK ON WOMEN'S SPORTS


April 12, 2005
EDITORIAL
The New York Times

The Bush administration has mounted a surreptitious new attack on Title IX, the 33-year-old law that has exponentially expanded the participation of girls and women in sports.

Last month, a memo went up on an Education Department Web site that was billed as a "clarification" of Title IX regulations.

But the memo amounted to a major weakening of the criteria used to determine compliance with the rule that all schools receiving public funds provide equal sports opportunities for men and women.
Under the new guidelines, on campuses where the proportion of female athletes falls notably below the proportion of women in the student body, and sports programs for women are not expanding, a college will still be able to show it is "fully and effectively" obeying the law by doing an online survey that shows women have no unmet sports interests.

The department says that if the rate of response is low - as it is with most such surveys - that will be interpreted as a lack of interest.

Currently, such surveys are just one factor used on the college level to gauge interest in women's sports, along with more accurate measures, like participation rates in "feeder" high schools or recreational leagues, and the opinions of coaches and administrators. There is no similar burden on male athletes to register their interest, and surveys are a poor predictor of behavior if sports opportunities are afforded equally. The president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Myles Brand, worries that this loophole "will likely stymie the growth of women's athletics and could reverse the progress made over the last three decades."

This harmful change, made without public notice or debate, marks a dismaying turnaround. Two years ago, the administration rejected a set of hobbling proposals to alter the criteria for Title IX compliance, including a change similar to the one it has now quietly instituted. Still, there is cause for hope. The Bush administration supported the Supreme Court's important ruling in March extending Title IX's coverage to whistle-blowers who complain about a school's treatment of female athletes. A public outcry may yet persuade the administration to withdraw the new regulation.

nytimes.com

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home



To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/14/2005 7:57:52 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 660
 
AN ECONOMY ON THIN ICE

By Paul A. Volcker
Sunday, April 10, 2005; Page B07

The U.S. expansion appears on track. Europe and Japan may lack exuberance, but their economies are at least on the plus side. China and India -- with close to 40 percent of the world's population -- have sustained growth at rates that not so long ago would have seemed, if not impossible, highly improbable.

Yet, under the placid surface, there are disturbing trends: huge imbalances, disequilibria, risks -- call them what you will. Altogether the circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember, and I can remember quite a lot. What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do much about it.

We sit here absorbed in a debate about how to maintain Social Security -- and, more important, Medicare -- when the baby boomers retire. But right now, those same boomers are spending like there's no tomorrow. If we can believe the numbers, personal savings in the United States have practically disappeared.


To be sure, businesses have begun to rebuild their financial reserves. But in the space of a few years, the federal deficit has come to offset that source of national savings.
We are buying a lot of housing at rising prices, but home ownership has become a vehicle for borrowing as much as a source of financial security. As a nation we are consuming and investing about 6 percent more than we are producing.

What holds it all together is a massive and growing flow of capital from abroad, running to more than $2 billion every working day, and growing. There is no sense of strain. As a nation we don't consciously borrow or beg. We aren't even offering attractive interest rates, nor do we have to offer our creditors protection against the risk of a declining dollar.
Most of the time, it has been private capital that has freely flowed into our markets from abroad -- where better to invest in an uncertain world, the refrain has gone, than the United States?

More recently, we've become more dependent on foreign central banks, particularly in China and Japan and elsewhere in East Asia.


It's all quite comfortable for us. We fill our shops and our garages with goods from abroad, and the competition has been a powerful restraint on our internal prices. It's surely helped keep interest rates exceptionally low despite our vanishing savings and rapid growth.

And it's comfortable for our trading partners and for those supplying the capital. Some, such as China, depend heavily on our expanding domestic markets. And for the most part, the central banks of the emerging world have been willing to hold more and more dollars, which are, after all, the closest thing the world has to a truly international currency.

The difficulty is that this seemingly comfortable pattern can't go on indefinitely. I don't know of any country that has managed to consume and invest 6 percent more than it produces for long. The United States is absorbing about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. And at some point, both central banks and private institutions will have their fill of dollars.

I don't know whether change will come with a bang or a whimper, whether sooner or later. But as things stand, it is more likely than not that it will be financial crises rather than policy foresight that will force the change.

It's not that it is so difficult intellectually to set out a scenario for a "soft landing" and sustained growth. There is a wide area of agreement among establishment economists about a textbook pretty picture: China and other continental Asian economies should permit and encourage a substantial exchange rate appreciation against the dollar. Japan and Europe should work promptly and aggressively toward domestic stimulus and deal more effectively and speedily with structural obstacles to growth. And the United States, by some combination of measures, should forcibly increase its rate of internal saving, thereby reducing its import demand.

But can we, with any degree of confidence today, look forward to any one of these policies being put in place any time soon, much less a combination of all?

The answer is no. So I think we are skating on increasingly thin ice. On the present trajectory, the deficits and imbalances will increase. At some point, the sense of confidence in capital markets that today so benignly supports the flow of funds to the United States and the growing world economy could fade. Then some event, or combination of events, could come along to disturb markets, with damaging volatility in both exchange markets and interest rates. We had a taste of that in the stagflation of the 1970s -- a volatile and depressed dollar, inflationary pressures, a sudden increase in interest rates and a couple of big recessions.

The clear lesson I draw is that there is a high premium on doing what we can to minimize the risks and to ensure that there is time for orderly adjustment. I'm not suggesting anything unorthodox or arcane. What is required is a willingness to act now -- and next year, and the following year, and to act even when, on the surface, everything seems so placid and favorable.

What I am talking about really boils down to the oldest lesson of economic policy: a strong sense of monetary and fiscal discipline. This is not a time for ideological intransigence and partisan posturing on the budget at the expense of the deficit rising still higher. Surely we would all be better off if other countries did their part. But their failures must not deflect us from what we can do, in our own self-interest.

A wise observer of the economic scene once commented that "what can be left to later, usually is -- and then, alas, it's too late." I don't want to let that stand as the epitaph of what has been an unparalleled period of success for the American economy and of enormous potential for the world at large.
The writer was chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987. This article is adapted from a speech in February at an economic summit sponsored by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

washingtonpost.com



To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/16/2005 11:58:27 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 660
 
“One of the things that I can't figure out about the Bush team is why an administration that is so focused on projecting U.S. military strength abroad has taken such little interest in America's economic competitiveness at home - the underlying engine of our strength. At a time when the global economic playing field is being flattened - enabling young Indians and Chinese to collaborate and compete with Americans more than ever before - this administration is off on an ideological jag. It is trying to take apart the New Deal by privatizing Social Security, when what we really need most today is a New New Deal to make more Americans employable in 21st-century jobs.” Thomas Friedman

Message 21231594



To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/26/2005 10:50:05 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 660
 
N. KOREA, 6, AND BUSH, 0


April 26, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The New York Times
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Here's a foreign affairs quiz:

(1) How many nuclear weapons did North Korea produce in Bill Clinton's eight years of office?
(2) How many nuclear weapons has it produced so far in President Bush's four years in office?

The answer to the first question, by all accounts, is zero. The answer to the second is fuzzier, but about six.

The total will probably rise in coming months, for North Korea has shut down its Yongbyon reactor and says that it plans to extract the fuel rods from it. That will give it enough plutonium for two or three more weapons.

The single greatest failure of the Bush administration's foreign policy concerns North Korea. Mr. Bush's policies toward North Korea have backfired and led the North to churn out nuclear weapons, and they have also antagonized our allies and diminished America's stature in Asia.

The upshot is that there's a significantly greater risk of another Korean War, a greater likelihood that other Asian countries, like Japan, will eventually go nuclear as well, and a greater risk that terrorists will acquire plutonium or uranium.


In fairness, all this is more Kim Jong Il's fault than Mr. Bush's. Right now some administration officials are glaring at this page and muttering expletives about smarty-pants journalists who don't appreciate how wretched all the options are.

But if the Bush administration had just adopted the policies that Colin Powell initially pushed for - and that Mr. Bush largely came to accept several years later - then this mess could probably have been averted.

You don't have to take it from me. Charles Pritchard, the ambassador and special envoy who was the point man for North Korea in the first Bush administration, says of this administration's decision-makers: "They blew it." Another expert still involved in North Korea policy puts it this way: "Their A.B.C. approach - 'Anything but Clinton' - led to these problems."

A bit of background: North Korea made one or two nuclear weapons around 1989, during the first Bush administration, but froze its plutonium program under the 1994 "Agreed Framework" with the Clinton administration. North Korea adhered to the freeze on plutonium production, but about 1999, it secretly started on a second nuclear route involving uranium.

That was much less worrisome than the plutonium program (it still seems to be years from producing a single uranium weapon), and it probably could have been resolved through negotiation, as past crises had been.

Instead, Mr. Bush refused to negotiate bilaterally, so now we have the worst of both worlds: that uranium program is still in place, and the plutonium program is churning out weapons material as well.

Now the administration talks about asking the Security Council for some kind of limited quarantine for North Korea. That won't fly, because China and South Korea won't enforce it.
It's more likely that North Korea will continue to churn out plutonium as well as uranium, and perhaps conduct an underground nuclear test. And administration hawks will again consider a military strike on Yongbyon, even though that would risk another Korean War.

North Korea is the most odious country in the world today. It has been caught counterfeiting U.S. dollars and smuggling drugs, and prisoners have been led along with wire threaded through their collarbones so they can't run away. While some two million North Koreans were starving to death in the late 1990's, Mr. Kim spent $2.6 million on Swiss watches. He's the kind of man who, when he didn't like a haircut once, executed the barber.

But Mr. Bush seems frozen in the headlights, unable to take any action at all toward North Korea. American policy now is to hope that Mr. Kim has a heart attack.

Selig Harrison, an American scholar just back from Pyongyang, says North Korean officials told him that in direct negotiations with the U.S., they would be willing to discuss a return to their plutonium freeze. Everything would depend on the details, including verification, but why are we refusing so adamantly even to explore this possibility?

The irony is that Mr. Bush's policies toward North Korea have steadily become more reasonable over time. Perhaps by the time he leaves office, he'll finally be willing to negotiate seriously with the North Koreans.

But by then North Korea will have well over a dozen nuclear weapons, the risks of a terrorist nuclear explosion at Grand Central Terminal will be increased, and our influence in Asia will be in tatters.

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com
nytimes.com

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company



To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/28/2005 7:44:04 PM
From: Mephisto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 660
 
A MATCH MADE IN PETROLEUM

by Joan Vennochi

From the from rising gasoline prices sure can make a fella melt.

Looking macho but sensitive, President Bush held hands with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah and the two men kissed. Like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, the two leaders engaged in a public display of affection that delighted comics and Democrats everywhere. ''What happens in Crawford stays in Crawford," joked Jay Leno, in a ''Tonight" show take-off on the Las Vegas tourism commercials. And humorist Andy Borowitz said, ''After the picture came out, President Bush reiterated his opposition to gay marriage -- unless one of the partners has several billion barrels of petroleum."

Close physical contact is common between Arab men and considered a sign of mutual friendship and respect. But here, the gestures seemed less than sincere on Abdullah's part. The president and crown prince emerged from their meeting with no agreement that would lower gasoline prices in the near future, although the Saudi Arabian leader reiterated plans to increase oil production in coming years.

The absence of a promise for more immediate relief is not good news for Bush. With the price of crude oil hovering around $55 a barrel in recent weeks, gasoline in the United States averages $2.22 a gallon. Some analysts predict even higher gas prices this summer. And, as gas prices go up, Bush's popularity goes down.


Two new polls make a connection. In a new Gallup poll, respondents list fuel and oil prices at the top of economic problems facing the country; however when it comes to personal economic problems, the respondents list low wages and healthcare costs. Gas prices are also cited as a reason for flat consumer confidence in the latest ABC News/Washington Post survey, which puts Bush's job approval rating at 47 percent.
But John Gorman, president of Opinion Dynamics, the company that conducts the Fox News poll, cautions that it is hard to isolate gas prices as the sole driving force behind Bush's sinking poll numbers. Other factors also drag down Bush's popularity and job approval ratings: The president continues to push an unpopular proposal to change Social Security; Republican Party leaders face ethics questions; and the GOP angered the American public by taking up the Terri Schiavo case. The continuing GOP charge to commingle politics and religion is also controversial. Meanwhile, Iraq hovers in the background.

Still, said Gorman, ''There's no doubt you see consumer confidence dropping. All the national polls show people are pessimistic about the economy. This is clearly driven in large part by gas prices. When you drive into the gas station and it costs $35 to fill up your tank, when it has been $20 as long as you can remember, that does something to you."

Gasoline prices make the average American driver scowl and shake his fist at the gas pump. They also make an American president hold hands with a crown prince as they sashay down a path of Texas bluebonnets.

Saudi officials are said to be seeking to improve their relationship with the United States, which suffered after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Fifteen of the 19 suspected terrorists were Saudi citizens. However, US economic realities, and their political implications for Bush, currently strengthen the Saudi hand.

Bush and Abdullah issued a joint statement pledging cooperation in the war on terror, a promise to work together toward a peaceful settlement between the Palestinians and Israel and support for Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. The joint statement cited US appreciation for the Saudi pledges to increase oil production. And it also said the two countries would work together ''with the aim of welcoming Saudi Arabia" into the World Trade Organization. In an editorial headlined ''Abdullah at the Ranch," the New York Sun pointed out that while the WTO is dedicated to free trade, Saudi Arabia maintains a strict economic boycott of Israel. Asked the Sun: ''Why should America support membership in a free trade organization for a country that by its actions has shown its hatred of Israel outweighs its interest in free trade?" The answer, is of course, oil.

Under pressure to address rising gas costs, Bush is outlining new steps to increase domestic energy prodution, including incentives that could result in construction of nuclear-power plants and building oil refineries on abandoned military bases. But the president has already acknowledged it would take years before the ideas generate results.

The pressure is on Bush, and the leverage remains, as always, with Abdullah. The US-Saudi relationship went beyond hand-holding a long time ago.
© 2005 Boston Globe



To: Mephisto who wrote (433)4/30/2005 10:31:30 AM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 660
 
ENERGY FOLLIES


April 30, 2005
EDITORIAL
The New York Times

It was fascinating to watch President Bush lay out intelligent approaches to pressing problems at his news conference on Thursday night, and then urge Congress to pass bills that would do almost nothing to solve them. Social Security was one case in point, but another egregious example was energy, an issue that has moved to center stage in the White House because of public concern over high prices for oil and gasoline at the pump. Mr. Bush had trouble with this issue all week, beginning with an embarrassing effort to persuade the Saudis to gin up production. He then stumbled through an almost incoherent presentation of his larger energy strategy in a speech on Wednesday at a Small Business Administration conference.

Mr. Bush was more honest than his Democratic critics when he conceded that nothing would reduce gasoline prices in the short term except an agreement by the Saudis and others to turn on the spigot, a step that is not all that easy when global demand is pressing up against supply. He was also unusually forthright in saying that America must reduce its dependence on foreign oil, begin to wean itself from fossil fuels generally and invest in technology to get to a cleaner, more sustainable energy future.

Yet, as always, he completely ignored the surest way to reduce demand and thus oil dependency, which is to improve the fuel efficiency of America's cars and trucks. Indeed, everything Mr. Bush said seemed designed to divert attention from this simple and technologically feasible idea, which nevertheless seems to terrify both him and the Congress.


In his Wednesday speech, for instance, having asserted the pressing national need to reduce dependency, he veered off into the merits of nuclear power and liquefied natural gas - potentially useful ideas that have nothing to do with oil imports. Cars and trucks don't run on nuclear power and rarely run on natural gas. They run on gasoline, and if we are to reduce oil imports we must find substitutes for gasoline or use less of it, or, preferably, do both.

In addition to confusing things, Mr. Bush offered no guidance to Congress beyond an exhortation to the Senate to replicate what he described as a "good bill" approved last week by the House. In fact the House bill is dreadful, and even insulting to Mr. Bush in that it fails to include the few good things - tax credits for purchasers of hybrid cars, for instance - that he had originally requested.


Then, too, he could not resist the deceptions that make debating energy in Washington such a frustrating matter. These included the familiar assertion that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be restricted to 2,000 acres, which is akin to counting just the greens on a golf course because it includes only the area to be occupied by drilling pads, not the spider web of roads and pipelines.

All of which leaves the job of fashioning a coherent strategy in the Senate's hands, specifically those of Pete Domenici of New Mexico. Mr. Domenici is first and foremost a nuclear power enthusiast and agrees with Mr. Bush on moving briskly ahead with domestic exploration. But he has also said he is willing to explore new ideas much favored by the think tanks (and mentioned in passing by Mr. Bush), like coal gasification and creating "biofuels" from agricultural waste. The key question is whether, unlike Mr. Bush, he has the political courage to push for the stricter fuel economy standards that are essential to any serious effort to lower consumption.

nytimes.com

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company