PDA

View Full Version : Obama positioned to reverse Bush actions. List includes 200 Bush/Cheney policies.




Prof.
Nov 9, 2008, 01:14 PM
Stem cell and climate rules among targets of president-elect's team
http://tubestroker.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/barack_obama.jpg
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27628719/)



Anuba
Nov 9, 2008, 01:27 PM
There you go. I always had a feeling that when someone takes a washed out, overused word like "Change" and has the audacity to make it the focal point of his entire campaign, he must be really hell bent on delivering.

It's like a song that's been done in so many cover versions that it's lost all its power, then after 30 years someone comes along and trumps the original.

Some of these last-minute executive orders by the Bush administration transcend the usual ignorance and carelessness, they're downright evil. Like that stuff about mining in the Grand Canyon, what the hell is that? What's next, drilling for oil on Mount Rushmore? Cutting down General Sherman, the largest tree in the Redwood forest?

.Andy
Nov 9, 2008, 01:35 PM
policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights.....
Tantalisingly promising on the science front but lets see some details baby. I'll hold back my applause.

Thomas Veil
Nov 9, 2008, 01:43 PM
Obama continues to impress the hell out of me. As .Andy says, the proof's in the pudding, but Obama continues to lay out ambitious plans.

JG271
Nov 9, 2008, 01:46 PM
Great, nice to see some solid commitments from him!
Especially about the environment, it is hard to take on an issue that is very low down on the list of voter's concerns.

Much Ado
Nov 9, 2008, 01:52 PM
Without wishing to count chickens, it looks like you guys have elected a damn good President. So far so good.

it5five
Nov 9, 2008, 01:55 PM
Like that stuff about mining in the Grand Canyon, what the hell is that? What's next, drilling for oil on Mount Rushmore? Cutting down General Sherman, the largest tree in the Redwood forest?

That Grand Canyon thing is especially frightening, considering Bush wants to allow uranium mining, which would poison the Colorado River which supplies drinking water to Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. I don't know who suggested Bush allow uranium mining, but if he actually goes through with it the SW United States will be in a world of trouble regarding water supply (which is an already touchy issue).

synth3tik
Nov 9, 2008, 02:03 PM
Obviously we will not really see anything until Jan.20. Obama is right "One administration at a time". Judging from what I have seen in the days past it does seem the people of the US selected the right man for the job. Someone who seems eager to show he is not all words.

So far I am impressed. We will se though. Obama has set out on a steep climb, and I am going to hold him to it.

NT1440
Nov 9, 2008, 02:08 PM
That Grand Canyon thing is especially frightening, considering Bush wants to allow uranium mining, which would poison the Colorado River which supplies drinking water to Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. I don't know who suggested Bush allow uranium mining, but if he actually goes through with it the SW United States will be in a world of trouble regarding water supply (which is an already touchy issue).
Intrestingly enough one of his new policy changes (talking bush here) RAISED the acceptable levels of radiation in drinking water.


Can i get a WTF?!?!

OutThere
Nov 9, 2008, 02:14 PM
Intrestingly enough one of his new policy changes (talking bush here) RAISED the acceptable levels of radiation in drinking water.


Can i get a WTF?!?!

Corporate interests. It's good for the big mining companies to be able to mine where they want and to not have to worry about polluting while they're at it. All those pesky pollution controls get in the way.

I'm glad to hear about this list...I think that the worst is yet to come as far as last minute Bush administration executive orders go...

bradl
Nov 9, 2008, 02:19 PM
That Grand Canyon thing is especially frightening, considering Bush wants to allow uranium mining, which would poison the Colorado River which supplies drinking water to Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. I don't know who suggested Bush allow uranium mining, but if he actually goes through with it the SW United States will be in a world of trouble regarding water supply (which is an already touchy issue).

What drinking water out of the Colorado?!?

I mean that facetiously, because I've seen the Colorado and Lake Mead water levels drop significantly over the last 8 - 10 years. Just about anyone can see it! Drive across Hoover Dam or look out towards the Lake Mead recreational area just north (on the Nevada side) of the dam or US 93, and you'll see the different colour of shale/limestone on the mountains. Where it is lighter is where the water used to be.

So the little water that there is left, Bush wants to poison. I wish every corperation that lobbies for/wants this gets to taste their own poison. :mad:

BL.

Blue Velvet
Nov 9, 2008, 02:22 PM
Can i get a WTF?!?!

Don't you know that internally irradiating your liver and kidneys is an acceptable form of detoxing these days? All the best people are doing it.

NT1440
Nov 9, 2008, 02:34 PM
Don't you know that internally irradiating your liver and kidneys is an acceptable form of detoxing these days? All the best people are doing it.

Lol, i forgot Bush is such a health nut :p

voxnj
Nov 9, 2008, 02:40 PM
Don't you know that internally irradiating your liver and kidneys is an acceptable form of detoxing these days? All the best people are doing it.

Had this done last year. Top four benefits:

- It saves energy since I can l lower the thermostat (never cold)
- I'm now my own night light.
- No more cold pizza
- Lost 50 pounds!

Anuba
Nov 9, 2008, 03:15 PM
That Grand Canyon thing is especially frightening, considering Bush wants to allow uranium mining, which would poison the Colorado River which supplies drinking water to Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles. I don't know who suggested Bush allow uranium mining, but if he actually goes through with it the SW United States will be in a world of trouble regarding water supply (which is an already touchy issue).
Yeah, that's what I meant when I said that these last-minute orders are different from the usual recklessness of the Bush administration. There's something more here, something sinister, like he actually wants to wreck stuff out of pure spite.

Obama continues to impress the hell out of me.
Yup. It's sad that it comes across as impressive, though. These are perfectly normal, rational decisions that only look impressive next to the trainwreck that is the Bush Administration.

it5five
Nov 9, 2008, 03:19 PM
Yeah, that's what I meant when I said that these last-minute orders are different from the usual recklessness of the Bush administration. There's something more here, something sinister, like he actually wants to wreck stuff out of pure spite.


I think you're right, because I certainly can't think of any other explanation for allowing uranium mining near a vital water source for large population centers.

IJ Reilly
Nov 9, 2008, 03:32 PM
What drinking water out of the Colorado?!?

I mean that facetiously, because I've seen the Colorado and Lake Mead water levels drop significantly over the last 8 - 10 years. Just about anyone can see it! Drive across Hoover Dam or look out towards the Lake Mead recreational area just north (on the Nevada side) of the dam or US 93, and you'll see the different colour of shale/limestone on the mountains. Where it is lighter is where the water used to be.

True story. Here's a photo I took at Hoover Dam just last month.

solvs
Nov 16, 2008, 06:46 AM
Dems eye midnight regulations reversal (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15530.html)
Congressional Democrats are eyeing a little-known, Clinton-era law as a way to reverse Bush administration midnight regulations — even ones that have already taken effect.

It’s a move that would undermine the White House’s attempt to finalize its energy and environmental regulations by November so that Barack Obama couldn’t undo them after he’s sworn in as the 44th president on Jan. 20.

“Fortunately, [the White House] made a mistake,” said a top Senate Democratic aide.

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”

President Bill Clinton finalized regulations within 60 days of the 2001 inauguration, meaning Bush could come in and easily reverse them.

It could take Obama years to undo climate rules finalized more than 60 days before he takes office — the advantage the White House sought by getting them done by Nov. 1. But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.