From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Mon Jun 11 2001 - 08:46:07 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Spike Jones wrote,
> > For instance, they cite Red Davis
> > petitioning the Clinkton administration to withdraw the requirement
> > for ethanol additives, since Taxifornia fuel can meet air regs
> > without it. The Clinkton people refused to take this action,
> > for fear it would dump Iowa into the Bush camp in the 2000
> > election, which the shrub lost by 5000 votes.
>
> Strange, CNN had a very similar yet different story on Sunday. They said
> that Davis asked the Bush administration to withdraw the requirement for
> ethanol additives since California fuel can meet clean air regulations
> without it. The Bush administration refused to take this action for fear it
> would anger corn-growing states such as Iowa and push them into the
> Democratic camp in the *next* election.
>
> Are these two spins of the same story? Or did Davis really appeal to both
> administrations and get turned down by both for the same political reasons?
> Or did someone "revise" the story later? Or just plain misquote the same
> source?
Same story, and same self interests involved, its just that both administratins
had the same self interest. Clinton had the additional goal of forcing the Bush
white house to rescind the subsidies so the shite will fall in his camp, one
more example of Clinton sowing political land mines in the waning days of his
administration..... What I find most ironic is the rabid democrat, Davis,
lobbying for the ending of government subsidies.....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:04 MST