Same Old McCain redux

Monday I wrote on my response to McCain's Portland speech on global climate change. This story was picked up by all the biggies in the MSM for a couple of obvious reasons: McCain is trying to find some way, any way, that he doesn't represent a linear continuation of Bush Policy- up with which the country is understandably fed. (see note at the end) The other is that environmental concerns, GCC particularly, are a fairly high priority for many voters. Maybe not as high as Iraq, economic issues, the price of oil and health care, but still a priority. This is part of the problem: there are so many issues at or past the flash point of escalating into full-blown crises (as a result of seven years of being governed by a man intensely interested in winning, but with zero interest in governing), that whoever is sworn in next January is going to have to get everything right.

The NYT has an editorial today pointing out that, "However this election turns out, the United States will have a president who supports mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases." They seem pleased with that conclusion, but also note that McCain's overall voting record with respect to GCC is not strong.

Michael O'Hare published more favorable comments at The Reality-Based Community: "...this was an admirable speech." He makes some good points, for example that McCain came out strongly for nuclear power. (For the record, I am dubious and waffling on fission, but more on that later.) But it seemed to me that the main thing that pleased O'Hare, was, like the Times, simply that McCain claimed be be in favor of mandating reductions of carbon emissions. He also made the point that McCain was actually addressing the issue. I agree with him there, but am disappointed that we have come to expect that candidates won't. I also feel compelled to point out that Bush, when campaigning in 2000, also claimed to favor government controls on carbon emissions.

One of Oregon's progressive blogs, Blue Oregon, has a couple of articles dealing with the speech. The first, by Jon Perr, is focused almost exclusively on the political aspects, ramifications and implications of the speech, with very little attention to the policy meat that McCain laid out. He does note McCain's poor environmental record, and provides a link to a Washington Post article I missed. But again, his main interest seems to be politics rather than policy: "this week's greening of John McCain has little to do with the natural environment and everything to do with the political environment."

The other article, by Kari Chisholm, was concerned first and foremost by McCain's visit and its political aspects, and not by his speech per se. Still, in two concise sentences, he captured what I was trying to say in my Monday post: "He talks a good game about climate change, but just like his pal Gordon Smith, he's a fraud. He simply won't take the steps necessary to really reverse gears on global warming."

(Note: Someone supposedly told Winston Churchill that ending a sentence with a preposition was against the rules of good English grammar. Churchill purportedly responded "That is a rule up with which I will not put." I've always enjoyed that construction.)