Just PR BS. If Bush were serious he'd stop joyriding in his 747 and replace the armor plated fleet used by the politicians with hybrids. There's a better chance of me growing hair than that happenning.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JimN @ Feb 23 2007, 07:41 PM) [snapback]395548[/snapback]</div>

More Bush hypocrisy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JimN @ Feb 23 2007, 06:41 PM) [snapback]395548[/snapback]</div>

And just what do you consider appropriate for the President of the U.S. to fly around in?

And I suppose you forgot all about a certain day in Dallas in November of 1963?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Feb 23 2007, 09:10 PM) [snapback]395593[/snapback]</div>

Only one president got shot riding in a car. The others that were shot or fired at were not in cars. Funny how members of Congress had armor plate when combat troops in Iraq didn't. Since our streets are so unsafe armor plate and bullet resistant glass should be profitable options.

Here's an ad slogan: Built Ford tough means taking a .45 without leaving a dent.

I don't think he should be flying around at all. If he's going to fly to Iraq for a photo op with a plastic turkey (according to my uncle) on Thanksgiving the least he could do is have Air Force One drop off some supplies and return with some of our servicemen.

If politicians had to pay for their own transportation what do you think they'd use?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JimN @ Feb 23 2007, 09:38 PM) [snapback]395601[/snapback]</div>

The only reason the president goes anywhere other then Washington or Texas is to promote some new (and usually stupid) policy of his.
e.g. Bush Heads To Tennessee To Promote Healthcare Initiatives
or President Bush's visit today to North Carolina to tout cellulosic ethanol
or President Bush Visits Shenandoah To Promote Parks Initiative
(and that's just the last few days)

Why do the taxpayers have to pay for the president's photo opportunities?

I think you are absolutely right. If they had to pay for there own transportation they would choose something more cost effective. Instead, we pay for their travels. Rather then using the travel sponsored by us to really meet and get to know what we want, they use it to run for office.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JimN @ Feb 23 2007, 08:38 PM) [snapback]395601[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps we figured out how to protect our president while driving in a car!

Talk to some of the anti-military politicians!

Sounds like you have no clue about what a visit from the commander-in-chief means to a troop on the ground. Never been in the military, I suppose!

They'd go nowhere, based on the salary we pay them!

Bush standing next to a Prius?!?! What's next - him landing in full flight gear on an aircraft carrier...oh wait..never mind. B) Hypocrisy at it's best.

Acting like Bush is the only transportation hypocrite in DC is disingenuous at best. More like stupid. It is truly bipartisan. Or can we expect the Democratic Congress to raise the CAFE standards? Don't hold your breath with Dingell (D-Mi) as head of the energy and commerce committe. But if it makes you feel better - BUSH SUCKS!!!

Ya, George(the oil man) Bush interested in an electric plug-in vehicle. LMFAO!!!



By the way, that truck is the one that Ed Begley Jr. is involved with.

http://plugsandcars.blogspot.com/

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Per @ Feb 23 2007, 07:10 PM) [snapback]395593[/snapback]</div>

Certainly there are better alternatives to a highly modified Boeing 747-200 that guzzles down several olympic sized swimming pools full of jet fuel on each flight. The B747 is designed to carry 500 passengers, not one Texan. A nice Gulfstream Jet would carry the president and several neccessary accomplices much more quickly and efficiently. For domestic travel it would be nice if there was an efficient electric high-speed rail line much like in Europe and Asia, then the president would not have to leave the ground at all.

Quite. How many other world leaders fly around routinely in a 747? Just another example of the USA's profligacy.

I saw the Whitehouse event on CSPAN last night. Man-O-man did the shrub look out of place and truly disinterested in the whole thing.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Feb 24 2007, 12:58 AM) [snapback]395685[/snapback]</div>

Dubya had the opportunity, rarely seen in our time, to unite America behind in him the wake of 9/11 to push through sweeping energy reforms and to TRULY pursue alternative energy sources. I believe what he did instead was give incentives to buy SUV's. Maybe I'm wrong, but to then have him state last year that "America is addicted to gasoline", to me, is the height of hypocrisy.
It was not a bipartisan comment (if your reply was directed to me) - I hold no party line, I vote (for the good it does) with my conscience.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 24 2007, 08:20 AM) [snapback]395767[/snapback]</div>

The incentive to buy SUVs predate President Bush by a long shot. SUVs are classified as trucks, and so the CAFE standards for cars don't apply to them. If they did, a lot of the SUVs would carry gas-guzzler taxes. How about getting Congress to reclassify SUVs as cars--which is what they are used as!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 24 2007, 09:20 AM) [snapback]395767[/snapback]</div>

My irritable response was not directed specifically at you but at the usual piling on, usually deserved, but this time a bit excessive and missing the point. For instance, Bush favors removing the ethanol tariff; Congress is bipartisanly opposed. Bushes motives aren't pure, either, but it is an alternative fuel.

As to Bush's post 9/11 honeymoon, I agree somewhat. But look at all the carping about how the money's spent now. Think the urban faction of Congress would have thought windmills were more important than harbor defense? Congress has pork down to a science, the true bipartisan effort.

Junior taking a photo op next to a hybrid is as ludicrous as Hillary standing on the deck of a carrier in full flack gear stating 'mission accomplished' or Hillary standing breast deep in water in New Orleans and stating 'good job Brownie'. No better, no worse. Just the theater of the absurd.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RonH @ Feb 24 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]395821[/snapback]</div>

Ageed, but I don't think it most of the posts were truly missing the point. An analogy would be akin to Bill Clinton preaching about fidelity in marriage for a photo op.
I have no way of categorically stating that anyone else in the presidency after 9/11 WOULD have gotten the reforms and alternative fuel activity that would help to reduce our dependence on foreign, no, ANY fossil fuel. What I can categorically state is that Bush DIDN'T, at a time when I believe the majority of Americans would have been behind him if he would have.
This is why I don't eat pork. B)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 24 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]395824[/snapback]</div>

Call me cynical, but -
Bush: ...therefore I have called for a sweeping reform of our energy policy to combat the GWOT...
Joe Sixpack: ...gas taxes?!?
Chad Gulfstream: ...windmills on Martha's Vineyard!?!

Sadly, Mr. Prez's puppeteers make him to say what ever they think folks want to hear. If they think U.S. citizens want to hear BS about the fabled hydrogen highway, then that's what they make the puppet Prez say. Similarly sad are the folks that believe what his puppet masters make him say. Meanwhile, the oilies keep on keep'n on. Status Quo.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 24 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]395767[/snapback]</div>

Yes, and within a few days of 911 the good folks at BMW, Lexus, etc. had their ad departments running ads about how powerful their 'driving machines' are . . . not how fuel efficient they are. Like I said ... status quo