Looks like both sides have exaggerated the benefits/dangers of self-audits, Necros. I’ll definitely learn more before denigrating the self-audit concept, which on its face seems beneficial; but I have to say I find the idea that audit information should be priveleged (under any circumstances) a bit iffy. In any case, we’ve strayed away from the OP quite a bit, and I remain unconvinced that Gale Norton should not be considered extremely right wing in her views regarding states’ rights and big business.
…and therefore her nomination by Pres. Bush would be decidedly divisive rather than unifying…
Democrats have a very unique notion of what constitutes ‘compromise’. To them, compromise seems to mean “agree with us, or else”.
Look - for Bush to be a ‘uniter’ means appealing to BOTH the left and the right. And that means both sides have to give something up. But people here seem to be saying that any cabinet appointment that doesn’t line up on the center-left is ‘divisive’. This ignores the fact that a center-left cabinet would piss off a great many conservatives, and don’t forget that a REPUBLICAN won the election.
Bush’s cabinet is full of moderates, with a sprinking of conservatives. It has several Blacks, Hispanics, a Chinese-American, and several other ethnic minorities. There are a number of pro-choice cabinet members, even though Bush himself is pro-life. How many pro-life cabinet members did Clinton appoint?
A good example of how Democrats are willing to ‘compromise’ is in the new education bill. Bush gave Democrats almost everything they wanted, including some hefty funding increases. The main objection was the inclusion of vouchers, which are REALLY important to the right. Nonetheless, in the spirit of compromise Bush watered down the voucher proposal heavily. It now only applies to schools that have failed for more than three years, is not available to parents who already have their kids in private schools, etc. Nonetheless, Democrats immediately announced that the bill was a ‘non-starter’ until vouchers were removed completely.
Really? I’ve seen several people here specifically say they expected “center-right” appointments from Bush, and find the “far right” appointments divisive.
You realize, don’t you, that the pro-choice views of, say, a Transportation Secretary don’t really have any bearing on their conduct of the office, but that the extremely pro-life views of an Attorney General just might have some bearing on his official conduct?
xenophon, you said:
But she’s from Colorado, and we’re talking about land-use issues with regards to the DofI. I challenge you to find a long-time resident of a Western state who really understands all of the issues facing this area who is not a proponent of states’ rights, at least when it comes to land use.
Where do you live? I know that in Colorado, and many other Western states, this is a lot of resenment brewing about Eastern and Left-Coast urban environmentalists basically deciding what is good for our state. And Colorado’s more liberal than most. I think if a former AG of Wyoming or Nevada was Bush’s nominee, you’d see how un-extreme Gale Norton really is.
I’m not completely assured that our hijack is that far off the OP’s intention. After all, if some Cabinet nominees are being seen as dividers, when in reality they are not as extreme as some would have us believe, I think that’s a valid discussion.
Don’t get me started on Ashcroft, though. Woo boy, what was GW thinking?
Hee hee. Atlanta, GA. We’re still fighting the Civil W – er, the War of Northern Aggression here. I can relate to “states’ rights.”
BTW (since we don’t seem to be in any disagreement regarding Ashcroft), do you really think Bush was totally unaware of at least the perception of Norton as an extremist?
<< I know that in Colorado, and many other Western states, this is a lot of resenment brewing about Eastern and Left-Coast urban environmentalists basically deciding what is good for our state. >>
Right, I think turning Colorado into a second New Jersey (once “The Garden State”) would be of great benefit to all.
I do apologize. At the time of my earlier remarks, I was unaware of Mineta. I have been travelling in and out of the country, and miss a fair amount of local (i.e., U.S.) news.
I would be very happily surprised if Bush turned out to do something to appease the Democrats. I would think that, rather than assuming he has a mandate, it would be very reasonable for him to say, “Slightly under 50% of voters approved of my campaign promises, perhaps I should revise my agenda.” I don’t expect it, of course.
And, hang on, tourbot, you’re saying that a politician keeping just over half (60%) of his campaign promises is GOOD? I admit, I would have thought the percentage was lower. But, hell, by that standard, someone who said he was both pro-abortion and anti-abortion (that is, promised to support antithetical ideals) would be doing a fine job, he (or she) would be keeping 50% of what was promised??
I repeat, campaign speeches and campaign promises are adveritising, pure and simple. You don’t preach socialized medicine at the AMA convention, you say what will “sell” your candidate to each audience. “I’m a uniter, not a divider,” and “I’m a nice guy” and “The other guy lies but I tell the truth” are meaningless blather.
Dex said:
See, this is what I’m talking about. The unspoken (or sometimes spoken) assumption on the part of Easterners is that, given our own choice in the matter, we’ll screw it all up, and turn a beautiful, pristine wilderness like Colorado into New Jersey. It’s the assumption that we’re either too dumb or too short-sighted to decide for ourselves. And that is, pardon my language, a total crock of shit.
Just remember, Dex, it wasn’t Coloradans who made New Jersey (or Boston Harbor, or Love Canal, or…) what it is, it was the people who live in New Jersey. People with one (or two, or fifty) massive failures on their records don’t get much respect for their theories of environmentalism out here.
xenophon, I honestly don’t know what G Dub was thinking. I certainly wasn’t aware of the perception of Norton of an extremist before this. In fact, she’s been off the radar screen of Coloradans in general for a while.
My theory is that, as long as his fellow ideologues don’t “pull a Chavez”, Dub will stand behind their postitions, and defend against ideologically-based attacks.
I also don’t think it’s fair for Dems to expect every Cabinet choice to meet their approvals, and act all offended when someone out there like Ashcroft gets nominated. I mean, c’mon. This is George Bush, here. He’s not Mr. Moderate. I think he’ll make compromises, just like any successful politician does, to get programs he wants passed. And he may be more willing to compromise than others. But that doesn’t mean all his nominations have to be milquetoast middle-of-the-roaders. And some have genuinely been uniters. I didn’t hear much controversy over Rod Paige, and education is one place a rabid right-winger could have really had a negative impact.
That’s the thing, he made himself out to be a moderate during the election.
The people that he’s nominated are too far to the right for a majority of the people that voted. While Bush is trying to “repay” the people that got him there (religious right, oil biz) he should remember that he did not get a majority. If he doesn’t want to continue in his daddy’s footsteps, then he better turn things around (yeah right) or right along with dad he’ll be a single termer.
Actually, I think he made himself out to be someone who could “reach across the aisle” and generate compromise. That’s not the same thing as a moderate. It’s more someone who is willing to bend on his own stance in order to get something done. That doesn’t mean he holds middle-of-the-roads ideas, just that he is willing to forsake some of his right-wing ones in times of need.
:rolleyes: This is the same argument that has been used against any of Clinton’s policies for the last eight years. It was a BS argument then, and it’s a BS argument now.
Okay, how about this – Clinton got more votes for President than any other candidate running against him. Bush did not.
Neither man got a “greater than 50% ‘majority’”, but at least Clinton got a “most votes cast for him ‘majority’”, which is what I think the original poster was referring to.
Sorry got to disagree…the lands we are talking about in Colorado as in California and Alaska do not belong to Coloradians, Californians and Alaskans alone. They are federal lands, parks and monuments that belong to all of us. People who are concerned about the enviroment and preserving these wilderness areas are not afraid of ranchers and citizens who live, work and earn their living grazing etc. on these lands. We know that these people above all others have a keen interest in the ecology and management of these lands. It only makes since that ranchers, environmental groups and the government should work together and should share the same interests. No these lands don’t need to be protected from the average citizen and certainly not from native Coloradians. They need protection from big industry, logging, mining, and the oil companies and those who hold a financial interest in their promotion. People who might not be interested in preserving them for much of anything but a quick profit to be realized in their own lifetime.
Needs2know
Or how about this? Clinton got more electoral votes (the votes on which the president is decided) than any other contender. So did Bush. Look, we’ve been over and over this here. Regardless of whether or not you think the popular vote should matter in determining the president, it doesn’t. Deal with it. Bush is no more an “invalid” president for losing the popular vote than Clinton was for not getting a majority of votes cast.
Needs2know, it would be nice if people would realize that ranchers and others have as much right to usage of the land as environmentalists do. But most don’t realize that. And they don’t realize that, just because something is federal land, doesn’t mean that someone’s life doesn’t depend on using that land for whatever purpose. And that many of the diputes are not over federal land, but are lands which environmentalists would like to be federal lands.
Any time Bill Clinton federalizes some forest or creates a national monument, people need to realize that the community might not be happy about that. Many times they are, but not always. And arbitrary federalization without due weight given to local input is basically a slap in the face to the people who actually have to live here.
I’m glad, though, that you realize most of the time that the people who’s livelihood depends on that land are often the most concerned about its welfare. As opposed to Dex, who seems to assume, if you don’t live in an urban section of the Eastern Seaboard, that you’re a dumbass who wants to turn the Great Wide Open into New Jersey.
Please let’s leave Bill Clinton out of this for now. Yes, he designated some lands there at the last minute as national monuments but EVERYTHING I read about these designations stated that they would not effect ordinary citzens who use lands for grazing. Then later I caught a program on CSPAN with some director of some wildlife/ecology group talking about doing just that cooperating with locals because locals have the best interest in preserving these lands. I know he also signed some bill that would block the further building of roads on these lands and a holler went up. But then I saw the Secretary of the Interior (or someone like him) talking about how we have hundreds of thousands (he gave an exact figure) of access roads now already built on federal lands. Sounded like an awful lot to me.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t it be nice to preserve a few of these lands just as they are, pristine, untouched by humans? Not all of them for sure but some. Do we need unlimited access to logging interests, oil companies, and tourists on 4 wheelers and snowmobiles?
Needs2know
Most of those were already federal lands, so making it seem as if Bill took some rancher’s lots away is patently misleading. They were generally lands already administered by USFS or BLM (Dept. of Ag and Interior respectively), and the use classification changed to reflect the inability of the previous “management plan” to either pay for itself, or reflect true costs. Whether it means dumping Canadian mining interests who pay virtually zero for gold-mining claims on US Federal land (with US-taxpayer funded roads) putting up a few mediocre jobs and leaving some horrid cyanide drainages (Nevada), tossing a couple ranchers who refuse to honor streamside protections - primarily state requirements, too - well, heck. That’s not to say that there aren’t some excellent loggers, ranchers, miners, etc… who are responsible and creative, but they ain’t the ones complaining. Reminds me of the “save the poor American farmer” violin solos used in defense of ADM, Exxon, etc…-owned commercial farms, or Mercedes-driving desert cotton farnmers, while the handful of actual farmers (overalls and John Deere hat and all) continue to get screwed and don’t know why.
To use an older example I know pretty well, BLM lands in the vicinity of Joshua Tree Nat’l PArk were tacked on (and the whole thing called a Nat’l Monument). The multiple uses, which previously included anything from ATV use to jojoba farming, left quite a bit of destruction to pristine areas, rare habitats, cultural artifacts, etc… Jojoba farmers dropped of the map with a drop in the wholesale price, and left bankrupted leases of desert with the usual pesticides and other chemicals, and no $$ to clean up. Won’t even try to describe the gradual decline of the desert courtesy of ORV use, first unregulated, then “self-policed”, then BLM-regulated… Well, if the less restrictive means ain’t working, tightening the leash is a fair thing to protect everyone’s interests.
I’m getting close to a TOOMA debate (Talking Out Of My Ass), so I’ll have to go find some cites. I’m not ignoring the thread, I’ve just reached the limit of examples I can remember. 