|
Friday, October 18, 2002
In one of the Times' most inarticulate and gratuitous Bush-bashings, the Gray Lady runs the alarmist headline "White House Joins Fight Against Electric Cars" over an article that completely fails to prove its thesis, but does a scrappy job trying (link via IdealRhombus). The article comes off like a paid advertisement for the Natural Resources Defense Council (full disclosure: I asked for a job there, they said "no").
Let's take this piece by piece. First, the lede:
The Bush administration went to court today to support the automobile industry's effort to eliminate requirements in California that auto manufacturers sell electric cars
First off, this makes it seem as though the Bush is the leading party in the case -- it's not, the automobile manufacturers are. Second, as the article notes later on, the reason why the White House is participating in the suit is due to a basic issue relating to federal/states' rights: according to the White House, only the federal government has the right to set emissions standards, not the states. One can respond by saying "Well, wouldn't W normally be for states' rights?" And the answer would be "yes, of course, except when it goes against his interests, as it does here." But the NYT never discovers this argument, so one can't defend them with it. Besides, the federal emissions standards are part of an implicit compromise by Republicans in which they'll allow fuel economy standards so long as any state has to take on the national oil/automobile lobby to make those standards better, and it is completely predictable that the White House would assert its jurisdiction.
Then, in an apparent attempt at "gotcha!" journalism, the article reveals in its second graf:
President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., was the chief lobbyist for General Motors, one of the plaintiffs in the case. Mr. Card was also head of an auto industry trade association when California proposed to require electric vehicles, and has publicly opposed such a requirement.
Dun-dun-dun! This intrepid reporter has found an ever-elusive link between the automobile industry and a Republican White House. *Gasp* -- can it really be true? Apparently, the huge auto-industry PACs hadn't already tipped them off.
But the article doesn't stop there: it needs a better motive. So, it gives a shot with this:
The brief does not appear to raise any new substantive arguments, but it carries some political significance in that it appears to favor Detroit over Los Angeles. Mr. Bush lost Michigan in 2000 to Vice President Al Gore, and while Mr. Bush was defeated in California as well, the vote was far closer in Michigan. Mr. Bush has been reaching out to union voters and is hoping to capture the state in 2004 while the likelihood of California voting for him appears more remote.
Ummm...hmmm...no, not likely. Bush has been campaigning vigorously in California of late (though his candidate there, Bill Simon, can't seem to ever fully remove his foot from his mouth), and it's really stretching it to say that Bush has hopes of winning over union voters, especially after he pulled a near-Reagan with the dockworkers. Michigan is a swing state, but automobile manufacturers don't stay in Michigan because of emission standards, they stay there because it's either economically or politically more advantageous, and it would be positively impossible for any Republican to swoop into Michigan and pick up union votes because he fought against cleaner cars.
When the NYT's own arguments fail, it goes directly to the source:
"The major issue isn't the substance of the brief but the fact of the brief," said Daniel Becker, director of the global warming and energy program for the Sierra Club. "The fact that the Bush administration, with the former chief lobbyist of G.M. as a chief of staff, is weighing in on the side of G.M. to overturn California's efforts to clean the air that Californians breathe is outrageous."
Maybe, but it can only be said to be as outrageous as potential deals with oil companies and military manufacturers. This is more tapping into a general pool of outrage than anything specific. Yes, Andrew Card was GM's lobbyist for a year before entering the administration, but Cheney actually ran Halliburton. But, again, to say that the White House wouldn't be fighting in this case if Andy Card either weren't in the White House or hadn't been a GM lobbyist would seem ludicrous, so why make the argument?
What is the lone grounds for any of this? Well, buried way down in the article is this handy paragraph:
Congress has long allowed California to set its own emission standards because smog there is so bad. As a result, the state has set emission requirements that have forced car companies to invent new technologies for pollution control.
Well, now we have something new, and something worth arguing about. What does it mean? We don't know, the NYT doesn't bother to figure it out, even though it is the sole premise upon which their argument lies. Maybe some of us doing a little independent investigation can figure this one out?
Steven I. Weiss 9:41:00 AM
|