NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9809

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.5 KB | 108 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!pmafire!cdm
From: [e-mail] (Dale Cook)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 18:58:51 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Environment
Summary:
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Followup-To:
Organization: WINCO
Keywords:
Lines: 93

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A.P.K.) writes:
>
>Therefore, I would contend that the media coverage has completely
>overshadowed any gains he may have made.  Look at the spotted owl
>coverage, for example, as compared to the example of wetlands that
>I sited elsewhere.  Good news might make it on the local
>level, on occassion, but it seldom sees national coverage.

The "spotted owl" issue is perhaps a hallmark of Bush's true environmental
colors.  Bush wanted to put the economic issues ahead of the scientific
ones in this case.  Here we have a law that puts science on equal footing
with politics, and when some economic toes get stepped on, look what
happens, the politicians scramble to gut the law.  And Bush was leading
the charge.

What is the "spotted owl" issue?  Contrary to common opinion, it is NOT
about owls; it's about habitat.  The owl is an "indicator species", meaning
that the health of its population indicates the health of the underlying
ecosystem upon which it relies.  We could eradicate the owl with [probably]
no adverse effects to the ecosystem.  If we endanger the ecosystem, the
owl suffers.  By spouting nonsensical hyperbole about owls vs. jobs, one
is misleading people.  Again, Bush was a visible proponent of this nonsense.

No, the true issue is why should an industry (big timber companies) be
allowed to raze the last 5% of old growth timber to provide 5-10 more
years of jobs?  And it's a red herring anyway, since only a particular
type of job will be lost, with a shift in milling operations to younger
timber resulting.  Bush and anyone else who argues for continued non-
sustainable clearcutting of old-growth forests do not give a damn about
the local economies.  What happens when the old-growth is gone?  The big
timber companies move out, on to greener pastures (pun intended), leaving
the locals to fend for themselves in retooling mills to handle the smaller
less profitable logs.  Nope, Bush was catering to big business and at the
same time resorting to demagoguery with his rhetoric.
>
>>Back to the point, however:  when our man Bush spouted off about wanting
>>to be [known as] the environmental president, he certainly misled a
>>whole bunch of people.  Maybe you don't call this a lie, but in my book
>>it is.  He misled the people on a variety of fronts, and this was
>>perceived by the people as even more of a character flaw than anything
>>he could dredge up on Willie.  Hence, the results of the election.
>
>I wouldn't call it a lie as much as I'd call it politics.  Politicians

Call it what you like.  If it quacks like a duck...

>have a way of trying to say things which sound great without actually
>saying anything.  I know that Bush did this a little.  Unfortunately,
>listening to president-elect Clinton, I heard him doing this a LOT
>during the election.  I suspect that much of what he said was political
>hype, and I know that he's going to be called up for some of it during
>the next election.  He's said too many things to some groups which

As he should be.

>contradict what he told other groups.  Rush is putting out a list of
>campaign promises Clinton made (in his next newsletter) and I suspect
>that many of these will be the VERY similar to when Mr. Bush said he
>wanted to be the environmental president ... not exactly statements of
>"I will do this" as much as "I intend to try to do this."  Although
>people accused Perot of not saying anything, that was one of the things
>I DID happen to like about him ... everything he DID say was of the "I
>will do this" variety.  In Bush's case, the voters had his public

Anyone who makes promises about what they *will* do beyond stating that
they will *try* to do this is a fool, as are those who believe it.

>record blasted at them daily, and it stuck.  However, in the case of

As it should have.

>Clinton, who also had public record of doing the same stuff, it
>wasn't heralded at them daily by the news media (in general) and when
>it was brought up, people simply refused to believe it in many
>cases (i.e. like when he promised Arkansas, just two years ago, that
>he wouldn't run for president if re-elected to the governor's position,
>or WAS that a blatent lie to his people?)  Then again, perhaps
>politicking and lying are synonymous...

Or maybe they believed, but thought Bush's failures were worse.

All one can reasonably expect out of a politician is general policies that
create a climate favorable to the issues important to you.  There are far
too many specific issues to reasonably expect the federal executive branch
to address individually.  Bush created an environment of hostility towards
environmental issues, and it cost him my vote.  Apparently, he failed in
other areas as well, especially in his perceived inattention to domestic
economic issues, which cost him votes on those issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------