And he says that for a damned good reason:
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency for two Republican presidents criticized President Bush’s record on Monday, calling it a “polluter protection” policy.
Russell E. Train, who headed the EPA from September 1973 to January 1977 – part of the Nixon and Ford administrations – said Bush’s record on the environment was so dismal that he would cast his vote for Democrat John Kerry.
“It’s almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection,” Train said. “I find this deeply disturbing.”
In 1988, Train was co-chairman of Conservationists for Bush, an organization that backed the candidacy of George W. Bush’s father.
Wonderful. It’s so sweet when solid Republicans like Train and Lee Iacocca, not to mention Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke, see the light. It’s plain as day: Bush is the most dreadful president of our lifetimes and must be stopped. Even Republicans think so!
Now, I’m just waiting for Conrad to come around. It can’t be long now.
Link via Eschaton.
1
By jeremy
Pollution enabler would probably have been a better term to use – Dubya’s environmental record seems to go out of its way to enable companies to pollute more, and promote pollution.
Copy edit time – Lee IacoCCa
A Detroiter always knows….
July 19, 2004 @ 6:36 pm | Comment
2
By Conrad
I would have voted for Lieberman. I would have given Clark a serious look had he been nominated. I certainly don’t vote for Bush with any enthusiasm and still may not vote at all. But I cannot and will not cast a vote for Kerry/Edwards. I’m going with, what is in my judgment, by far the lesser of two evils.
July 20, 2004 @ 1:48 am | Comment
3
By vaara
As am I. I’d rather gnaw my own hands off than use either of them to vote for Bush, but Kerry certainly isn’t the face in my locket either.
July 20, 2004 @ 6:16 am | Comment
4
By richard
Well, I had lots of reservations about Kerry, but seeing him in person did help me overcome them. Not entirely; he’s not at all my first choice. But I’m still glad he won the primary, because Dean, who I like more, could not win the general election. For all the cliches about Kerry having served in Vietnam, it makes a huge difference — it draws a very sharp distinction between him and Bush, as does their work history. Kerry’s entire life is about service. Bush’s is about failed businesses and cowardice. Kerry’s war record makes a world of difference, and when I saw him speak I was thrilled to see how many “Veterans for Kerry” were in the hall, men of all ages.
So Vaara, bite the bullet and vote for him. Conrad, would you consider doing it as a personal favor to me? Just this once?
July 20, 2004 @ 1:26 pm | Comment
5
By David Mercer
Seeing as how Kerry has missed, what, 2/3rd’s of the Senate votes since he’s been in office, just exactly WHO has his life been one of service to?
July 20, 2004 @ 5:57 pm | Comment
6
By richard
Um, David, last time I heard he was campaigning, which means travel across the country. It’s not like he was off at his ranch clearing brush or putzing around somewhere.
There’s no denying Kerry’s record pf service. He immediately enlisted after college and clicked the little box that meant he was off to Vietnam. Whether he was right or wrong, he then spent his time as a peace activist. He didn’t go get drunk and play volleyball. He later became a district attorney and everything he has done since falls under the category of “public service.” It’s unfair (to say the least) to look at a man’s 20+-years career and then judge him solely for his number of votes missed during a presidential election campaign.
July 20, 2004 @ 6:29 pm | Comment