At 09:27 PM 4/24/01 -0700 Matt Grimaldi wrote:
>??? My email was responding to the first one, which advertised
>that the article would convince me that GW was "much greener than
>you think." It hasn't.
Bait and switch, Matt.
Your first post on the subject was devoted to attacking the idea that
somehow the article was trying to paint Bush as a proactive force for
environmental regulation.
Mr. Easterbrook, however, was arguing that Bush was, quote. "much greener
than you think" - because many people thought that Bush would be a
proactive force for the systematic rolling back of enviornmental
regulation. More importantly, it was widely thought that the Bush
Administration would be a step back from the pro-environmental policy of
the Clinton Administration.
IMHO, Mr. Easterbrook effectively demonstrates that there has been no
systematic rolling back of environmental regulation so far, that there is
no indication that there will be in the future (rolling back regulations
becomes much harder once you leave the statutory review period), and that
the Bush environmental policy is not substantially different from the
Clinton policy.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"The point of living in a Republic after all, is that we do not live by
majority rule. We live by laws and a variety of institutions designed
to check each other." -Andrew Sullivan 01/29/01
