Bush attacks national parks
A fan of Western Democrat dropped this note in our inbox:
Apparently looking to score another 25-75 type public relations boon, Bush attacks our national park system. J.T. Reynolds, superintendent of Death Valley National Park said, "They are changing the whole nature of who we are and what we have been. I hope the public understands that this is a threat to their heritage. It threatens the past, the present and the future. It's painful to see this."Bush attacking national parks sounds to me like the regional equivalent of Arnold attacking California nurses (and teachers) (and firemen) (and policemen) (and pets)--ok I made that last one up, but you really do have to give the guy some points for sticking to his guns against the polls and punditry that might have advised him otherwise, eh? :)
Thanks for the heads up, AA.
Kari Chisholm | August 28, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
Actually, Schwarzenegger did go after pets:
http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=81034
Posted by: Colorado Luis | Aug 30, 2005 3:53:55 PM
Schweitzer advocates using coal. This will require some consideration of the reality that a few of the most promising coal reserves are in National Parks (Utah). Plus, alternative energy resources may need to be located on national park land, for example, solar, wind, and geothermal.
Based on this, are we in danger of criticizing President Bush for something we Democrats will be advocating. I agree with a plan to use coal and alternative energy resources, so I hope we continue to advocate our position. However, I worry that we are not being consistent.
Maybe I am reading our criticism of Presient Bush in the wrong light. Or, I may be reading our position on coal in the wrong light. Take care.
Posted by: Tim | Sep 1, 2005 6:12:18 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
