4 ms·
“They’re definitely rolling things back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era,” This is a flat lie, given that the Obama rule wasn't even put in place until the last
by masonic 8y ago
“They’re definitely rolling things back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era,”
This is a flat lie, given that the Obama rule wasn't even put in place until the last 18% of his administration (barely 14 months before Trump's election).
- windexh8er 8y agoHonestly curious: why does the timing make it untrue?
- masonic 8y agoBecause what they are rolling it back to is just the pre-August 2015 rule. In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.
- maxerickson 8y agoThat's a really confused way to look at policy.
- masonic 8y agoIt's not a reflection on policy so much as on media coverage of policy changes.
- maxerickson 8y agoIn the comment I replied to, you plainly try to invalidate a policy goal based on it being rolled out near an election, a thing that is pretty much always true (nationally significant elections occur every 2 years...).
- masonic 8y agoa thing that is pretty much always true How many examples can you give from the Bush 43 administration? Or Bush 41? Or Reagan? The practice of implementing major policy changes as a lame duck was pretty much nonexistent before 2000. It becomes an even bigger problem when rules are implemented that conflict with law, like the 2014 DACA expansion[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_Arrivals#Expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_...
- gpm 8y agoOn the other hand the context of this discussion is > back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era The comment you objected to was, in my reading, mainly noting that this was reverting to the policy in place nearly 2 full presidencies after said era.
- rco8786 8y agoBy this logic everything passed during the last year or two of Obama’s (and I guess any president’s) 2nd term is political chits? Just because they didn’t pass the law for a few years doesn’t mean they didn’t care. There’s only so much any body of people can do at once.
- shard972 8y agoThe claim wasn't at it's core about Obama caring, it was about the false media framing this as a return to the bush era (between 10-18 years ago), when really its a change that happened in the Obama era (2-10 years ago).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- rco8786 8y agoThat claim is fine. I was responding to this: > In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.
- mc32 8y agoI believe they use the Bush claim because Bush put in a provision in his act that no wetlands (acreage) would be lost. [I.e. Obama added to the protected wetlands but Trump is proposing to take some of those added by Obama back] Bush's provision would disallow clawing back. But that is definitely not the same as taking regulation (or protected wetland or clean water) to the state before Bush I was in office. So, the article begins with that Bush claim but then references Obama implementations thereafter, so it does seem a bit disingenuous by them, but then, if they told it like it is, it would get people less agitated about it given it keeps some of the major provisions and isn't undoing regulation and setting it back to the way it was prior to Bush 1.
- cazum 8y agoThe Bush rule is that "wetlands will keep their federal protection" The Obama rule is "farms near those wetlands cannot do bad thing to the wetlands" By repealing the Obama rule, they are inherently repealing the Bush one.
- trothamel 8y agoIsn't the flaw with this that the two rules use a different definition for wetlands?
- mc32 8y agoSure, but that is not the same as the tacit claim "They’re definitely rolling things back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era".
- addicted 8y agoExcept that comment is likely referencing the regulatory environment, for which it is correct to state that the regulations are being rolled back to what they were before HW’s changes in this area.
- masonic 8y agoNo, you can't know that. The Trump rule, when it comes, doesn't have to correspond to any prior content. Note that the Times never criticized the existing rule until after Obama changed it late in his tenure, giving him political cover.