Still Hating America.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think you're opverlooking Hank's primary point. The aim of the CAFE rule is to require the entire industry to work toward reducing hydrocarbon consumption and emissions.

The current work Ford is doing with alternative fuel and Flex-Fuel vehicles is exactly what the rules are aimed at. It odesn't matter if they build an Exploder or a Prius, if they can get both vehicles to run on hybrid engines that get 100 miles to a gallon, or safe hydrogen fuel cells that don't blow up.

I'm not overlooking it at all. The question is what gives them a greater incentive to conduct such reasearch? A government mandate or the knowledge that failing to do such research allows them (but does not require them) to pay someone else to do it. It's classic outsourcing.

Why should we waste societal resources forcing Ford to come up with solutions if someone else (GM, Toyota, BMW) can do it better, for cheaper, and then sell those benefits to Ford?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I'm sorry if I ever suggested that all of the global-warming deniers are bought and paid for by industry.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sorry if I ever suggested that all of the global-warming deniers are bought and paid for by industry.

Why is he naked?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[n.b. -- it's a composite, but I liked it]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Why is he naked?

It's literary imagery. He's got nothing to hide. Unlike those heavily layered global warming hysterics.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Then why all the defense of Christianity?

I'm an equal opportunist as well.

[SlaveNoMore]

The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Albert Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Why is he naked?

The Goracle...er...Emperor has no Clothes?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The Hubbell Standard
Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Albert Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York.

This is as stupid as saying that there is no difference between closing a factory and firing all the black workers but only the black workers.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is as stupid as saying that there is no difference between closing a factory and firing all the black workers but only the black workers.

It's funny how they attack Clinton on the firings and think that exonerates Bush - if they think Clinton done wrong, then they should be savaging Bush.

But then, it is the WSJ, the self-professed mouth organ of Wall Street hucksters. By the way, how has that market been doing? Didn't someone around here suggest that the strength of the market was an endorsement of Bush's job performance? How's that going?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's funny how they attack Clinton on the firings and think that exonerates Bush - if they think Clinton done wrong, then they should be savaging Bush.

But then, it is the WSJ, the self-professed mouth organ of Wall Street hucksters. By the way, how has that market been doing? Didn't someone around here suggest that the strength of the market was an endorsement of Bush's job performance? How's that going?

I'd think that they'd focus on the AUSA that Carter fired because he was looking too closely into some Democratic congressman's dealings than the mass dismissal at the start of the administration.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Mr. McKay, a Democrat,

He's a Republican.

Anyway, it seems pretty odd to justify the action based on what Clinton did. And based on what Bush set out to do at the start of his second term.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
He's a Republican.

Anyway, it seems pretty odd to justify the action based on what Clinton did. And based on what Bush set out to do at the start of his second term.

2. And there isn't much comparison between a wholesale house cleaning at the start of an Administration and selected firings in the midst of one.

I did enjoy the WSJ's jab at the Administration as so damn incompetent that they even screwed this up. Bitter conservatives. : - )

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How are they not on the hook if their option when producing another gas guzzler is to pay Toyota $5000 for a credit that allows them to do so instead of building another small car and paying a customer (in the form of a discount/subsidy) $5000 to buy it?

"hooking" ford or not isn't the point. It was not the stated purpose to "hook ford." I assume the law was intended to reduce fuel consumption. Consider this allegory:

5 years ago at Florida Coastal LS, Sebby was a senior with a 2.8 GPA. adder was finishing up his first year with a first semester 1.9 AND midterms had not gone well. Sebby had this problem, he had just been served a Ketel 1 vodka drink and didn't think he could swill back the Mohawk any longer BUT he had little money. adder had his own problem: FCLS had a minimum 2.0 GPa at the end of the year or you weren't allowed to register for next year.

Adder offered Sebby $1000 for some GPA "credit." sebby jumped at it- free money! Adder took it to the FCLS administration as a proposal- Admins said no:

The purpose of the minimum 2.0 was to ensure that the public wasn't subject to some lawyer with a FCLS diploma on his wall and who couldn't even get a 2.0. they pointed out that Sebby already had a 2.8 so the accomadation didn't raise any average GPA, it just would let Adder be below the minimum. And for that matter it would probably lower GPA average for 2 reasons: first it took away Adder's incentive to do better and get his GPA up. Just as bad, it ensures Adder's below minimum ass was around next keeping everything low when the standard is intended to weed him out. Adder got it together and maintained good status. Why let ford do it?

You say it makes tons of unsellable focuses to meet the standard. I doubt that is true, especially with it's current cuts.

what might be true is that the realities of the market are catching up to the big 3. I think the % of sales for GM/DCX/Ford that are pickups or SUVs relative to cars is probably higher now than it was 5 years ago. I'm sure the Mack truck is allowed higher MPg standards than is Toyota, so maybe there should be some distinction for bigger vehicles (maybe there is already) but I would rather a different standard for bigger vehicles than telling companies they can but their way out of any minimum.

See all that the law is asking for is MINIMUM COMPLIANCE. some companies have done what is hoped by such a law, exceeded the minimum. Why would we throw away the benefit of some company actually growing. Letting Ford do bad isn't raising any average. Would FCLS be better off if Sebby had graduated with a 2.7?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm not overlooking it at all. The question is what gives them a greater incentive to conduct such reasearch? A government mandate or the knowledge that failing to do such research allows them (but does not require them) to pay someone else to do it. It's classic outsourcing.

Why should we waste societal resources forcing Ford to come up with solutions if someone else (GM, Toyota, BMW) can do it better, for cheaper, and then sell those benefits to Ford?

because then we aren't having ford avoid the emissions we are having Ford avoid the regulation?