http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...&sid=175&n=156

You'd think if these types of CAFE changes are infact made, it would help the matter.

Not that Camaro really gets bad milage, IMO, but we have heard CAFE issues from many people in the past, RP included.

 

I hope that passes, that whould be sweet, now we can get 4.10's as a factory installed option and NO skip shift

 

Just wait, the Democrats will slam the plan and slam Bush as being anti-environment. Regardless of if the plan is rational or not, that's what they'll do, because its what they always do. Mark my words.

Because of that, I see it as an uphill battle to get Congress to pass any CAFE legislation. THat is, IF it is proposed as legislation. If Bush can put this plan into action through an executive order then we may be in business.

 

I dont think it well help becase then GM will spend more R&D money on things like making the Hummer more fuel effienct. That is money that cold be used for a new Camaro

 

You can bet uranus that you would get that good ol GAS GUZZLER TAX!

 

Here we go, blame the Democrats.

All politics are local my friend. That means everyone in office votes in their area's best intrest. Michagan is pretty democratic, but the way they vote on auto related bills is what you would consider Republican. Former California governor George Dukmeijin was a conservative Republican as was Pete Wilson, yet both were more enviromentally friendly than most southern Democrats.

There are games played by both sides, but at the end of the day, those congressmen have to go back to their districts & explain themselves. A Democrat going back to "tree hugging" San Francisco most definately won't have the same view or votes on this as the Democrat that has to go back to "car crazy" southern California... and that's in the same state!

Politics is far more complex than you think!

 

OMG you are going to lecture me about politics. Perhaps its best to know something about who you're talking to before you tell them what you think they don't understand.

I have a Bachelor's degree in political science and a Master's Degree in Public Administration, I have worked for state government and currently work for a consulting firm which manages state government relations programs for large corporate clients. I think I know something about politics.

"All politics is local" is the famous phrase, but there is another less-famous phrase which is "all generalizations are false, including this one". Simply put, not everything is local.

Fact is, democrats are usually politically liberal (except for your occasional Zel Miller) and Republicans are typically conservative (except for your Olympia Snowe's, etc.). By and large these labels indicate something about where a candidate stands on specific issues, be they abortion, gun control, taxation, national defense, freedom of speech, church/state separation, etc. etc. etc. Therefore, not all politics is local. I'd think the last election would have shown you that there are large national issues which carry elections. Do you not think the war on terrorism and the perception that the Democrats were weak in that area led to the gains the Republicans made in Congress?

Anyway, that's enough political tangents for now. Lets get back to the issue. The Dems will oppose this measure just as they vehemently opposed drilling in ANWAR. The party leadership hates Bush and still hasn't moved past the 2000 election (you can hear their anger when they talk about the "unelected" President). Fact is they oppose him on almost everything regarless of the merits of the individual policies, because they are engaged in a plan of obstruction because they believe that is the best way they can regain power in the future.

Do you realize how rarely congressional back benchers break from their party leadership on big votes? If what you're saying is 100% true, then you'd have people crossing party lines all the time to vote the interests of their constituents. Sure, it happens on inane legislation all the time, but if the issue has any political fuel behind it, it will be used as a partisan tool.

The fact is in this increasingly bipolar political climate we have, the minor leaguers are well advised to vote in lock-step with the party leadership or risk being oscracized from the group, risking their political future, backing of the party come election time, and potential shots at leadership positions, committee chairmanships, etc.

I have no doubt the Dem leadership would use such a bill as an opportunity to illustrate W.'s willingness to destroy the environment to help his partners in crime, big oil and big business. And it doesn't matter if the bill is really a good one at its core, they can twist the rhetoric in their favor and block the bill. They did it on ANWAR, and before that they did it on Medicare and Social Security, and tax cuts about a dozen times by itself.

I am always impressed with the information you have to share about the F-body, I respect that from you. I don't come on here and take a patronizing tone to you when you post F-body information, so I would expect, even if you do not agree with me, that you would show me the same respect (i.e. not treating me like an 18 year old newbie poster). So please tread lightly when you stray into areas in which you are less well equipped to discuss.

Let me apoligize to everyone now for the strong tone of this post.

 

Yeah, not flaming off on you Chris 96 WS6, but the "blanket theory" really won't hold up in this case. There are too many auto workers and local suppliers that work and vote in too many districts across this nation to throw the "liberal blanket" across it all. You will likely see as many Dems vote for as Reps vote against, and vice versa. I actually think the proposal will be a very close call, at least this early on.

To all reading these boards, PLEASE use your own minds and read the issues as well as what's driving them. So many people are bamfuzzled by the media and propaganda these days. For heaven's sake, in an overall picture of the country, half are Democrats, and half are Republicans. Look at the ratios in the House, Congress, and Executive offices throughout the years. Moreover, I think that way over 75% of the voting public simply votes on a one-by-one basis, choosing the individual for some reason rather than his/her party. If people always voted on party lines, the same districts would always have the same party winning the elections - and that simply DOESN"T HAPPEN.

Personally, I'm not as big on CAFE leniency as I am on dropping the safety inspections across America. Maybe they work where you live, but they are a big, money-making JOKE where I live. If your car won't pass emissions, and you know "Bubba" that's doing the test, he just hooks up the sniffer to HIS car for your "patronage". Check lights, signals, and horn... yeah, right. Bald tires, no pads... well it got you here, they must be workin'!
$23.95 please...

 

To be perfectly honest, most congressional members are incumbents, and in most elections only a small fraction of seats are actually in a toss-up. This means that most districts, most of the time, are stable with only rare switches between parties.

 

As a Political Science and Public Administration degree holder, I would expect you to know better, Chris.

You ignored New York's Govorner Pataki, New York's former mayor Rudi Gulliani, New Jersey's former Governor Christine Whitman, and to a lesser state (no pun intended) Pennsylvania's former Governor & Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge. All were NOT exactly in this so-called "Conservative Republican" catagory that you seem amoured with. Yet at the same time, Pennsylvania's former Govorner Robert Casey was a anti-abortion, conservative democrat as was former democratic Georgia senator Sam Nunn. Also, Bill Clinton was not exactly a "liberal" democrat till he ran for President, and had to appeal to the envelop stuffers & volunteers (the real "get out the vote" people who are motivated by "Conservative" and "Liberal" labels)

As a degree holder, you MUST know that to get into public office, you need the votes in whatever area you are campaigning in. There are some backward area where simply mentioning the name of a certain political party stirs up the extreme stereotypes of that party. And as a degree holder, you are aware that in a campaign, the object is to dig up those stereotypes, whether true or not (both parties do this).

But to say that politics isn't local isn't honest Chris. Ronald Reagan was far more liberal as a California Governor than he was as President. This is because he needed to get elected. Bill Clinton learned this the hard way after he was defeted following his 1st term as Governor in Arkansas...badly! 4 years later, he came back & won, and pretty much had a job (winning multiple terms) till he became President.

Texas has a history of going back & forth between Democrat & Republican, but I don't think there's anyone on the face of the planet that would call Texas "Liberal". As Governer, our President won praises from Texas Democrats as being easy to work with. He also was the ONLY Governor in recent history to win back to back terms in the state of Texas. Again, as I said, it's all local.

I'll give you that Politics on a National level are different than on the state level in that you can perhaps write off more groups, and focus on more money, and I'll also give you that the divisions are more distinct on a National level, but the blanket statement you made isn't all correct. Most all politics is of a local & state level, which is maybe where I'm coming from on this, but in general, it's all the same.

When people do vote party lines that are contrary to what their constituants want, you can bet your life that there is something they are getting in return for that vote for their district. If they weren't, they would as a group have extremely short carreer.

Excuse me for treading less than "lightly", but I am a bit of a political activist, and have supported people in both parties.

 

I did go a bit overboard, but you telling me that politics was more complex than I think it is really hacked me off.

I don't really disagree with anything you said in your most recent post. Similar to Reagan, Gore was a very conservative Democrat as a senator here in TN, but showed himself to be pretty darned liberal once he hit the national stage. It simply illustrates your point...you have to pander to your electorate. The liberal Gore wouldn't stand a chance here, as evidenced by the fact he lost TN in the 2000 election...a state that had he won, would have made the Florida debacle irrelevant. I think I made mention of the fact that there are exceptions to the generalities of party and ideology, and supplied one example for each, but I didn't see the necessity of naming a list of all exceptions for each side.

My main point--one I want to get back on--is I just don't see this CAFE bill breezing through with legislators voting their constituent interest. It could happen, IF the Democrats don't need cannon fodder. If they do, however, a bill like this, if it can be perceived as giving the car companies a break, will be politicized as bad for the environment.

I think for the most part the system does function as you suggest, but if the CAFE bill has utility as a political tool, rest assured the party leadership, which is liberal (Pelosi, Daschle et. al.) will strongarm their members to vote against the bill. As usual, a few folks from each side will cross over, but we could probably look up their voting records right now and determine who those people would be.

What will happen is the Dem Caucus will get together and say "look, we are going to oppose this bill, and we need X votes to do it. But we know some of you need to vote for this bill for your constituents, so we will pan for that." They basically give certain members a pass for voting against the party line in order to preserve their standing with the constituents. The sort of pass this "bong" around during the year...folks that voted with the party on one issue will be given a pass when a bill sensitive to their constituency comes along next time, and vice versa.

Sorry again for coming on so strong in the above post. Your comments just really, really hit a nerve with me. We obviously both care about our politics...which is a good thing...I'd rather people care and disagree with me than be apathetic about their government.

 

No problems. We're all on the same team here!

It's just that I've seen how many people in politics fan flames and generalize for nothing more than votes and no party has a lock on that. I've met some really decent Democrats and Republicans, and I've seen people of both parties I think very little of.

CAFE has become an emotional issue with alot of treehuggers. Even though alot of Democrats in places like Northern California know about the benefits of revamping CAFE, they won't because alot of radical enviromentalist (who unfortunately are probally the most steady voters there) means they can't support it and get reelected, regardless as to how much fuel it could save. In that area, you most certainly are dead on correct. Politics by it's very nature is pandering, and hoping you can do some real good. Not great, buy consider the alternatives.

I 100% and more agree with you that people should get more involved in the political process, regardless as to which side you're on. But people gotta dig a bit and actually make an informed choice. If you don't, you'll allow some complete idiots to hijack an entire political party despite the fact that most don't agree with them.

Case in point: San Francisco mayor, Willie Brown, is arguably one of the most liberal Democrats in the country, yet even he derided the war protesters as a bunch of "out-of-towners" (which turns out 75% were) who should go back & protest in their own city.

He's viewed in SF as a "the pro-business conservative" by the radicals & city council (which aren't), yet outside of the Bay Area, he'd be viewed in the opposite extreme. Go figure.

Now to "un-hijack" the thread:
It seems much of the CAFE debate is geared towards SUVs, and not cars. Anyone here get the news that some are trying to actually get people out of SUVs and into big cars instead!

 

Well we've gotten into such an era of demagoguery and labeling that its hard not to fall prey to it. Both sides do it, and quite frankly the much vaunted "moderates" do it as well.

Party politics on a national level has become so much of an all-or-nothing, slash and burn scenario that nothing gets done anymore. I much prefer state and local government/politics, even though the issues aren't always as significant, just because it seems that's where the greatest differences are made and the more local you get the less relevant party labels become.

 

I can talk about politics all day. Think we need to move this off thread before people start thinking they came to the wrong website.

 

Agreed

So what's the latest on the 5th gen? [weak attempt to get back on topic]