SOTU: The Dean of Shrill responds 2

Ah, The Mustache is not the only NYT columnist to take on Bush's energy plan today. Unlike Friedman, Paul Krugman, the Dean of Shrill, does not temper his comments:

There is a common theme underlying the botched reconstruction of Iraq, the botched response to Katrina (which Mr. Bush never mentioned), the botched drug program and the nonexistent energy program.

John DiIulio, the former White House head of faith-based policy, explained it more than three years ago. He told the reporter Ron Suskind how this administration operates: "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. ... I heard many, many staff discussions but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues."

In other words, this administration is all politics and no policy. It knows how to attain power, but has no idea how to govern. That is why the administration was caught unaware when Katrina hit, and why it was totally unprepared for the predictable problems with its drug plan. It is why Mr. Bush announced an energy plan with no substance behind it. And it is why the state of the union -- the thing itself and not the speech -- is so grim.

Feel the shrill!

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Drew Posted 8:25 am
    03 Feb 2006

    PoliticsIt is increasingly clear that politics on BOTH sides of the aisle is responsible for lack of progress on clean energy and the environment.  Here on Cape Cod, for example, some extremely powerful pro-environnment, liberal voices have done more to set back offshore wind than President Bush could ever dream of doing.
    Partisan politics is doing more damage to environmental causes than the people who are openly fighting them.  Looking at local issues here, it concerns me that non-profits are so open (and sometimes so fanatic) about their politics.  The only purpose it serves is to alienate people who may not share the same beliefs.
    Environmentalism should be a bipartisan effort.  Our politics should be checked at the door.  If progress will ever be made, it will be when people realize that we all have a stake in this.

    "Wherever I go, there's my bicycle."

    Permalink

  2. birdboy Posted 10:39 am
    03 Feb 2006

    Their choiceIt is impossible to separate politics from the struggle for good environmental policy. It is our government that makes the decisions that determine policy, and it is the Republican Party that has chosen consistently (of late) to be on the anti-environmental side of the aisle- they have clearly taken a 'pro-business at any cost' (to society or to the ecosystem) stand. Look at LCV's scorecard- the trend is clear- Republicans vote down any environmental protections that might adversely affect their pals in big business who consume Mother Earth for profit. Don't blame enviro's for choosing to be anti-Republican when Repub's have chosen to be anti-environment.
    Oh, and sorry if those who love the Earth and her creatures tend to respect personal freedoms of religion and lifestyle, and think it is our duty to share the wealth (which comes from the Earth) with those who have less (i.e., liberal views). It comes naturally.

    a liberal in redsville

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement