PDA

View Full Version : Clean air act's derailment



frankcornbread
07-28-2004, 10:23
I'm sure this will cause some heated debate, which isn't all bad, but I just felt this issue hits pretty close to home. Forgive me if I have placed this in the wrong forum, I'm new to this process ( thread starting and forums in general.)

Appalachian Voices is an org. devoted to environmental and quality of life issues in the southern Appalachains, the home of a substantial part of our beloved AT. Their most recent issue of Appalachian Voice offers a report on air quality in our national parks. To note, GSMNP is the MOST polluted with SNP third on the list. This more than a decade after the signing of the first CAA by George Bush Sr. In the years since the signing our air quality has gotten worse, not better. Heavy contributions to pollution friendly politicians and subsequent lax enforcement of CAA regs are suspected causes of this sad situation. To make matters worse, the current admin. is proposing modification to the CAA that would that would make it legal to do in the open what has been done under the table since the act was signed. They are proposing to weaken an already failed act rather than fix whats wrong, ie. enforcement. This issue hits VERY close to home I would think, in light of the AT's existence within the boundaries of these polluted parks. Of note, there were 100 days last year when ozone levels were so high that it was recommended to not exert oneself within the boundaries of the GSMNP. How about hiking. Thats not too strenuous, is it? If there was ever one singular issue to rally around and generate a passion to get out the vote, I truly believe this to be it.
I am not a member, per se, of Appalachain Voices. I contribute and receive the magazine but am really not active. I guess I should pay more attention. This article GOT my attention as I do spend a lot of time in the woods. I grew up in the Blue Ridge in the Shenendoah Valley. Spent many days in the mountains enjoying the vistas that are now mostly haze on all but a few precious days. I live in Staunton VA now and am planning some AT hiking this fall, hence my membership to this site.

Below are relevant links.

http://www.appvoices.org/
Appalachian voices homepage

http://www.appvoices.org/air/polparks.asp
AV report on Nat.Park pollution

http://www.appvoices.org/air/app_factsheet.asp
Current admin. CLA proposed revisions

I'm really not sure where this will lead but felt we as members of WB should be as aware as possible of whats afoot in Washington and how it may impact the future of the AT experience.

Brushy Sage
08-04-2004, 08:05
Today's news brings an announcement of lawsuits being planned by states attorneys general against several polluting power plants.

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19442/

Jack Tarlin
08-04-2004, 18:40
Frank--

There will be those who bitch and moan about your injecting politics to this website.

There are others among us who feel that it is incumbent on those of us who spend a lot of time in the backcountry to get informed on environmental issues and events, and to get involved with the political process as well. (I.e., this is an election year, people. Wherever you stand on the political spectrum, get registered, get involved, and vote----people died to help safeguard your right to do so, the least we can do is take part in the process!)

Those who feel that Frank's comment here is out of place can ignore it.

Others may wish to follow thru with his suggestion and get informed/involved with this and other environmental issues, and like myself, appreciate Franks's raising this issue and supplying some websites so folks can get more information.

Chip
08-04-2004, 21:06
Frank,

I share your viewpoint and Jack is right, we need to vote! This November now more than ever (I am a registered Independent voter). The bushwhacker is cutting into everything possible where power and greed can get control and profit. There are no clean air days here in the mountains of Western North Carolina during the summer. We watch for the ozone level readings when the weather reports are given. When I was a boy the trees on Clingmans Dome and Mt. Mitchell were green and growing. Now those same trees are brown and dead !

Politicians, regardless of party affiliation should do the right thing and protect the environment, health and safety of the people of this country and have the USA lead by example for the world to see ! Unfortunately this is not the case.

With pollution, rising health care cost and terrorist at our borders we need to vote this November and encourage those who don't but should because we need to leave a trail of "good life" for future generations to follow.
:)

Chappy
08-05-2004, 09:07
Chip,
I thought the trees were killed due to some type of blight or insect. Is this incorrect?

smokymtnsteve
08-05-2004, 09:16
Chip,
I thought the trees were killed due to some type of blight or insect. Is this incorrect?

the balsam wooly adelgid is blamed for the death of the trees on top of ole smoky..but if one looks just a little deeper into the subject you will find that one of the reasons that this insect was so successful is that the tree's resistance, to attack by the adelgid, was weakened by exposure to air pollution such as increased ozone and acid rain.

these issues are not all cut and dry..one factor causes.

Chip
08-05-2004, 19:02
Hello Chappy,

SmokyMtnSteve is right. The acid rain does alot to trees and plants. If you have a chance (maybe you have) to visit Mt. Mitchell you will notice a display, actually it is a wall mural that is mounted to the side of the concession building in the breeze way between the craft shop (parking area below the tower). That mural explains how acid rain has made an impact on the mountain top environments in this area.

I have read the article that Frank refers to in his thread. Here is alittle something to think about. The bar chart in this article shows the ranking of the following cities and national parks with unhealthly ozone days.

Cities:
Los Angeles, over 360 days, Atlanta, 85 days, New York, 75 days, Knoxville 73 days, Washington DC, 42 days, Chicago, 37 days, Denver, 10 days.

National Parks:
Sequola-Kings Canyon, 300 days, Great Smokies, 83 days, Yosemite, 43 days,
Shenandoah, 38 days, Mammoth Cave, 36 days, Acadia, 30 days, Rocky Mtns, 20 days.

This info can be found on the web site that Frank listed in his thread.

Everyone (I think) that participates and shares their input here on Whiteblaze
loves to hike & camp on the AT as well as other trails and forest across this country. We hike today but can we hike 25 years from now? Will the air quality be any better ? What about those generations yet to hike ? What will we leave for them ? I care about my fellow hikers and those hikers of the future.

Thanks for reading this post, it's just my humble two cents worth. I plan to vote come November.

Happy Trails,
Chip :)

Rain Man
08-05-2004, 19:53
... We hike today but can we hike 25 years from now? Will the air quality be any better ? ...

Obviously not if we keep electing the current crop of Republicans.

slatchley
08-05-2004, 22:07
While I am a hippie, pinko, liberal, who hates the current administration, I think you would all be well advised to REALLY look at even Clinton's record. While he hastily passed all sorts of laws as he was leaving office (legacy?), his record was nearly as dismal as Bush's. He just isn't as big a nutcase in other ways. There has been very little real progress made by any recent president, imho. Trying to buck the big corporations is very hard for someone in politics who needs money and votes to stay in office. I am very pessimistic about anything good ever happening in this country. We seem bent on polluting and consuming our way into oblivion.


Obviously not if we keep electing the current crop of Republicans.

Rocalousas
08-05-2004, 22:23
Obviously not if we keep electing the current crop of Republicans.
We didn't "elect" Bush. Gore won the popular vote. Then, before the electoral college vote could be determined, the Republicans on the Supreme Court put an abrupt stop to the democratic process and appointed Bush.

BeaverTrapper
08-05-2004, 22:52
before the electoral college vote could be determined :jump


*** are you talking about? You people are such a bunch of crying whiners. Bush won Florida. Every single recount - even ones done by liberal dominated newspapers well after the election showed that Bush won Florida.

I personally challenge you to show me one single recount done by ANY reputable organization that shows Gore won Florida. Put up or quit crying. It's embarassing to see a grown man cry. :rolleyes:

Rocalousas
08-05-2004, 23:51
After the fact recounts by newspapers and others mean nothing. The tragedy is in the Supreme Court stopping the democratic process. Do you want to live in a dictatorship and hear the goons justify their totalitarian acts by saying, "Well, our iron-handed actions turned out to be correct after all." If that's OK with you, go live in Red China.

But you miss the point I literally underlined. Gore won the vote. More people in the United States voted for Gore than for Bush. Get it? The people elected Gore, not Bush. Even with that psychopath Nadar taking away enough votes from Gore to deprive him of a clear electoral college win.

BeaverTrapper
08-06-2004, 01:49
After the fact recounts by newspapers and others mean nothing.:rolleyes:

I see. Facts mean nothing. Why does that not suprise me?


More people in the United States voted for Gore than for Bush. Get it? The people elected Gore, not Bush.Yes, I do. The law of the land means nothing to you. The Electoral College was enacted for a reason. You may disagree with the reason, and that is fine. Work to change the law if that is the case. But to claim that the winner of the popular vote is actually the winner of the election only illustrates your ignorance of the law as well as the principles upon which this country was founded.

We are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Do you have any concept of the difference between the two?

You seem to think that since more people voted for Gore than for Bush, then Gore should be President. If that is the case, what if more people voted to deny Blacks basic civil rights - should that then become law?

Of course not.

We have laws to prevent tyranny by the majority. The Electoral College is such an attempt. Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. In the future, try educating yourself before publicy embarassing yourself. On second thought - don't; I enjoy posting links to these discussions to show how stupid and shallow the average liberal is. :banana

frankcornbread
08-06-2004, 08:03
Hi all.
Thanks for getting involved with this discussion. Many good thoughts out there. One in particular regarding party vs. party and political agendas taking precedence over simply "doing the right thing." I think this will always be part of the process of government in our current system. A little work toward living the campaigned "ideals" in the beginning of the term and a lot of prepping for re-election in the latter part of the term. Unfortunate side effect of our election, not electoral, process. My solution is to work at staying informed about the few issues which are most appropriate to me on a local scale and the few larger national/multinational issues that are important in a big-world context. What follows this education in the issues is talking to my community, raising awareness, and generally being vocal to my local (statewide) elected officials. TRYING to keep them honest by way of reminding them that we are watching and taking notes. It takes some time and often seems fruitless but it beats sitting back and watching our country and it's resources fall to ruin while politics goes on as usual.
So keep talking, and listening. Tell your friends who aren't part of this forum. Tell them to tell their friends. And all of us tell, in our loudest voice, the people who make and enforce policy that we are watching and taking notes and actually give a damn.
Something to think about: Big Energy and Big Money finance the campaign but WE pull the voting lever. We DO have a choice and a voice, sort of.
My soapbox for this morning, thank you very much.
FC

Rain Man
08-06-2004, 15:34
We didn't "elect" Bush. Gore won the popular vote.

I agree that Bush had and has absolutely no mandate to be doing all the radical things he's doing. But I said "current crop of Republicans" and plainly the Republican-controlled Congress has been elected by majority votes.

And, as long as we keep doing that, even a good President will have problems defending the environment against greedy, above-the-law, multinaltional conglomerates.

Rain Man

.

eyahiker
08-06-2004, 16:56
If one drives a car, one shouldn't bitch about the air.


Suggestion: Put your energy and time into promoting alternatives, instead of bashing the puppets that run the country.

rumbler
08-06-2004, 18:01
But you miss the point I literally underlined. Gore won the vote. More people in the United States voted for Gore than for Bush. Get it? The people elected Gore, not Bush. Even with that psychopath Nadar taking away enough votes from Gore to deprive him of a clear electoral college win.

I with respect have to point something out here: The popular vote BY DESIGN has never elected a President by popular vote under the guidelines of the US Constitution. Maintaining that ANY candidate from any party "won" the Presidency through the popular vote demonstrates a very shallow understanding of the Constitution and the principles of government and freedom upon which that Constitution is based.

So I'll take the liberty to underline this point: Gore never in any way shape or form won the 2000 election. Get it? If you feel he should have by virtue of the popular vote, then lobby to change the election laws rather than advocating ignoring them because many of us may be unhappy with the outcome.

There are a great many sources of information for US history and the creation and implementation of the Constitution. You may wish to read some of them before advocating the dismissal of Constitutional procedures to justify an election process that you basically made up on the spot due to circumstance.

Of course, a election by popular vote would change the dynamics of this country dramatically, in many ways that you probably would regret tremendously. If this election, the 2000 election or any other election going forward would be conducted under a popular majority wins basis, both parties would never get outside of New York, Texas, California, Illinois, Ohio and Florida. Governmental policies would be dramatically skewed towards large metropolitan cities.

In short, if you really want to avoid living under the tyranny of government which you so passionately and correctly decry, don't be so hasty to completely disregard the laws of the Constitution just because you as well as a lot of others are pissed off at the results.

eyahiker
08-06-2004, 18:04
Sore/Loserman

Ahhh, like the hike, life moves on..............

frankcornbread
08-06-2004, 20:31
Let's not get off task here. The point is that our currently elected officials, however and by what process they were elected, ain't doin' diddly about what really matters. The bureaucrats love it when we waste our precious time debating details of the electoral process and draw focus from the issues thet they have been sweeping under the carpet. It gives them more time to plot investment strategy.
End of the day soapbox, Thank you.
FC

rumbler
08-06-2004, 21:02
Not exactly off-topic. If national politics were entirely directed by popular vote, populated states and large cities would have a disproportionately greater impact on national policy.

And since most cities require huge powerplants to provide their energy needs, and since most city dwellers already inhaling city-quality air would not put the environment on the AT on higher prioroty than their pocketbooks, national policy skewed towards population centers would likely result in LESS pressure on politicians to care for less populated areas, of which include parks and wilderness areas.

It can be argued that the Clean Air Act has proved to actually stifle air quality improvements by requiring massively expensive upgrades rather than incrementally improved steps whose cost is more palatable to consumers who will ultimately pay for said improvements. It will be an even tougher proposition if policy representation becomes even more weighted towards population centers.

I believe that the Clean Air Act should be revisited, if nothing more than to provide energy suppliers with greater incentives to adopt newer and cleaner technonogy. It is notable that NO significant plant upgrades have occured since the passage of this legislation. And I believe that it is important to pursue policy through Constitutionally sound methods that provide the framework for such legislation, because if we start promoting avenues that are not even Constitutionally rational then it will be far more difficult for our politically weakened voices to be heard.

steve hiker
08-06-2004, 21:29
Funny how muddled political positions can be. In college I was a liberal Democrat because of the right-wing attacks on the Bill of Rights, but in recent years have grown disgusted with Democrats for supporting affirmative action and jumping in bed with the naacp. But I'm no Republican because they're a front for unbridled corporate greed AND have also sold out to the naacp and don't give a *** about the environment and would just as soon cut all the forests down for short-term profit. So where on the political scale would I be? Ought to move up to Montana and hunker down in a bunker in the mountains.

Mountain Dew
08-07-2004, 05:19
Beaver Trapper <--- :clap

AND then the...

liberal that ruins good threads on whiteblaze ------> :bse

frankcornbread
08-07-2004, 07:56
Good morning all. A great crisply cool morning in the Shenandoah Valley here. Now back to more pressing matters.


Not exactly off-topic. If national politics were entirely directed by popular vote, populated states and large cities would have a disproportionately greater impact on national policy.

And since most cities require huge powerplants to provide their energy needs, and since most city dwellers already inhaling city-quality air would not put the environment on the AT on higher prioroty than their pocketbooks, national policy skewed towards population centers would likely result in LESS pressure on politicians to care for less populated areas, of which include parks and wilderness areas. (Rumbler)

Rumbler it's off topic because we're not debating changing the electoral process.

My point in starting this thread was to bring to everyones attention the Bush plan to create a new piece of legislation which would effectively nullify the Clean Air Act.
The Bush plan, Clear Skies Initiative, extends the timeline for reduction of nitrogen oxide (asthma and lung disease) and sulphur dioxide ( acid rain and deforestation) emissions another 11 years into the future.

For current Clear Skies Initiative details see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/clear_skies.asp


It can be argued that the Clean Air Act has proved to actually stifle air quality improvements by requiring massively expensive upgrades rather than incrementally improved steps whose cost is more palatable to consumers who will ultimately pay for said improvements. It will be an even tougher proposition if policy representation becomes even more weighted towards population centers. (Rumbler)

Again with the electoral process, but initially a good point. I agree that the CAA needs some restructuring to make it more achievable. It can be done within the existing act through the process of revision and ammendment. I just am not convinced that our current administration has that in mind. They seem to prefer to author their own set of rules ignoring what's already there.


I believe that the Clean Air Act should be revisited, if nothing more than to provide energy suppliers with greater incentives to adopt newer and cleaner technonogy. It is notable that NO significant plant upgrades have occured since the passage of this legislation. (Rumbler)

Let's see...Clean Air Act, 1970, New Source Review ammendments by Clinton administration and resultant law suits ( empowered EPA vs. many different non-compliant energy facilities,) Bush anministration relaxation of NSR ammendments(the only really sharp teeth of the CAA and EPA) and now Clear Skies Initiative, no NEED to enforce (there is nothing to enforce because it's all voluntary) for another 11 years. That's alot of incentive there. 45 years of incentive to do nothing. But pollute.


And I believe that it is important to pursue policy through Constitutionally sound methods that provide the framework for such legislation, because if we start promoting avenues that are not even Constitutionally rational then it will be far more difficult for our politically weakened voices to be heard. (Rumbler)

There is nothing Constitutionally irrational about voting. Yet. And this is where we get to vote. Not on the act or initiative, but the authors.

So let's stop wasting time and bandwidth debating the electoral process and who really won the last election. Let's focus on the immediate threat of 11 more years of pollution. If we don't we may well find ourselves debating the merits of air filters vs. ultralight oxygen tanks instead of tarps vs. tents in the years ahead.

Thanks again for participating in this dialogue. Good points, everyone.

FC

Chip
08-07-2004, 08:23
Right On Frank !!!! Like I said before there is no excuse. Politicians regardless of party or platform should "do the right thing !!" If they can't, then let's vote them out ! Voting is one of the things we can do to make a difference.
;)

slatchley
08-07-2004, 08:43
Right on Frank. Let's get back to the topic. Everyone, Republican, Democrat, Independent,etc., etc., should be concerned about the deterioration of the environment. Say hallelujah!

eyahiker
08-07-2004, 10:49
Excellent Point!

How many of us drive a car? Most folks here can manage to walk for 2000+ miles over often rough terrain, hmmmm. But nobody wants to find oil in the US and sacrifice a small percentage of wild area, so the gov. has to go elsewhere, like say the Middle East, which doesn't want us there. Common sense?
Good idea Steve Hiker.......Northwest.

slatchley
08-07-2004, 10:56
Oh yeah, I would have a real fine job if I hauled all of my tools on my back. That's a bright idea. And god forbid we should make any attempts at conservation and alternative fuels. Lets just drill the whole world like the lazy, fat bastards we are. Keep up the great work!

eyahiker
08-07-2004, 14:16
Oh yeah, I would have a real fine job if I hauled all of my tools on my back. That's a bright idea. And god forbid we should make any attempts at conservation and alternative fuels. Lets just drill the whole world like the lazy, fat bastards we are. Keep up the great work!Wow, I didn't say anything like this. Just tired of seeing anti-war rallies and whining way-green folks getting in their SUV's and Deisel's and heading home to their toxic houses (which could most likely house several more people) and not putting their talk to task.

Annoying as it is, most american's ( you and I included) use hundreds of products in their daily lives from plastics, hiking gear and other oil by-products; we bury and cremate millions of people annually with mercury amalgams in their teeth ( sans Sweden and other European countries), are the tools that you use for 'new' building? Cleaning? hmmmmm.

Even voting is not going to "save the air", but I wish you the best! We are all in this together. I think there is hope, but to put your hope in a government (all parties included) to pass, restore and actually police the CAA itself is foolish.

Have you been to Europe lately, Holland or Denmark specifically? Even in their pristine greenness, super eager to be self-sustainable world with more folks per sq.mi. than we have here, their air is the same as "ours".;)

But I think this is a very cool discussion nonetheless. I shall step down from my soap-(organic, not tested on animals not air-polluting)-box:D

Thanks for listening.
I personally don't own a vegetable-oil fueled vehicle to get around in, but would like to have the opportunity to buy one.

slatchley
08-07-2004, 16:38
Sorry, I ignored my own advice about staying on topic. I just get irked when it seems people would rather drill than cut consumption and find other ways to save oil. It is ridiculous to me that the average fuel economy of most vehicles is worse now than twenty years ago. I turned in my truck for an outback, and am anxiously awaiting a hybrid 4 wheel drive to come out that makes sense. I tried a Prius, but hear in NW CT and being a builder, I need 4 WD. Also my Prius mileage was not as advertised, so it was definitely not worth doing without 4WD, although I would have if it had gotten 50MPG.

eyahiker
08-07-2004, 17:29
Sounds like you are making a valiant effort to do your part:jump

I also pray, which I believes changes things.

Hopefully the entire world will catch on, but for now greed rules.

On the bright side - we have the AT and many other incredible places to go outdoors so we can focus on what is meaningful to us. Something certainly worth fighting for.

Rain Man
08-08-2004, 23:10
... I just get irked when it seems people would rather drill than cut consumption and find other ways to save oil. ...

Especially when drilling would be just sending us over the edge,-- and putting us TOTALLY at the mercy of Mid-east oil,-- that much sooner!

I fail to see how using up the little oil we do have can do anything but make us even worse off than we are now, while keeping our oil in the ground makes us safer from blackmail.

Rain Man

.

Nightwalker
08-08-2004, 23:33
Obviously not if we keep electing the current crop of Republicans.

My friend,

Do you really think that this happened only in the last four years?

I don't trust any of the big-party pols. None of them speak for me, or speak the truth.

I'll probably vote for Nader again, even though I consider myself a conservative. I suppose that's as close to "none of the above" as I can get.

Frank

frankcornbread
08-09-2004, 02:03
My friend,

Do you really think that this happened only in the last four years?

I don't trust any of the big-party pols. None of them speak for me, or speak the truth.

I'll probably vote for Nader again, even though I consider myself a conservative. I suppose that's as close to "none of the above" as I can get. (franklooper)

Although Mr. Nader is a noble choice he cannot win. I think we all know that. I think we all knew that not quite four years ago, but then as now, it was a vote for "none of the above." It was a noble vote. As a consequence, in part, of that noble vote we have George Bush as our president. We have a president and an appointed administration who together have demonstrated a belief that the environment, clean air, endangered species and wilderness are a lot of left wing nonsense that just gets in the way of business as usual. In terms of this thread, clean air and the environment, I do not think President Bush has done a good job. I do not think he has shown any desire to do better. In fact he continues to evade the truth and spin the facts like a circus ball, enticing us to gaze into it's hypnotic orbit and forget about what is real. Clean air is real, wilderness is real, the stewardship of our natural resources is real. Real issues with real problems and real consequences if they're not addressed. We simply can't afford for more years of the steady neglect and outright destruction the Bush administration has fostered. A vote for Mr Nader, at this very crucial time in our history, is not noble. It's wasteful and may even be irresponsible.
Just a thought.
FC

Rocalousas
08-09-2004, 02:39
A vote for Nader = A vote for Bush

Nader cost Gore the election in 2000. Sure, Gore won the popular vote despite Nader, but if Nader had not been on the ballet in Florida, Gore would have won the electoral votes there, clearly.

So if you want to give Bush another 4 years to continue his rabid attacks on the environment, you may as well vote for him directly instead of doing it through the back door by voting for his partner-in-crime Nader.

Lone Wolf
08-09-2004, 08:18
Rabid attacks on the environment? Where and what exactly. You sound like Wingfoot the Envirowhacko.

frankcornbread
08-09-2004, 09:11
Rabid attacks on the environment? Where and what exactly. You sound like Wingfoot the Envirowhacko.
LW
Read the whole thread and provided links. Just the tip of the iceberg.
New Source Review ammendment to the Clean Air Act, Clear Skies Initiative, Endangered Species Act (specifically the No Surprise provision revision,) and most recently the convenient "transfer" of Gary Frazier, senior career official in the Endangered Species Office. Gary was given a new job liasing w/ the USGS where he will be less problematic. You see he was doing his job a little TOO well. In short, he was telling the truth. Not only is our president anti-environment, he's anti-sunshine. Prefers the backdoor, under the cover of night approach. A "transfer" here, an "investigation" there. Throw in a few "acts" in the interest of national security. An "ammendment" or two for good measure. Nice tidy little package. Of deceipt.
Do the research if you really care to learn. There's plenty of evidence for anyone willing to open their eyes.

FC, just another envirowhacko, proudly so.

Here's a link from the logging thread that is yet another "eye opener"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/bush.environment.ap/index.html

Nightwalker
08-09-2004, 11:45
A vote for Nader = A vote for Bush

Not in my case. As I said, I'm a conservative, I just can't vote for Bush--or Kerry for that matter. They both come across as people who'd sell their children for enough votes.

In my case, if I didn't vote my conscience, I'd be voting Republican, so my vote for Nader could actually be seen as a vote for Kerry, which I honestly can't do directly.

Frank

PROFILE
08-13-2004, 22:57
[QUOTE=Rocalousas]A vote for Nader = A vote for Bush

I guess we are seeing more misinformation. What is often over looked by most (and I am not wanting to start on the media) But Nader did not get the most third party vote. As a matter of fact Nader was not on the ballot in every state. The third party with the most votes was the Libertarian party. Most (not all) of the votes for this party would have gone for Bush. So if we want to play "what if" games. Bush would still be President (and may have won the popular vote as well). I am libertarian and wish everyone would look into the party. The libertarian's are the only third party with a pres. candidate on all state ballots.