It's been nearly four years since Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said he would support drilling for oil beneath Everglades National Park if there were substantial reserves there.
Well, Mr. Thompson soon left that race, but another GOP presidential hopeful says she'd do the same thing if it could be done "responsibly."
U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann was quoted the other day in an Associated Press story that she wouldn't automatically rule the park off-limits if oil were found beneath it.
"The United States needs to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy and more dependent upon American resourcefulness. Whether that is in the Everglades, or whether that is in the eastern Gulf region, or whether that's in North Dakota, we need to go where the energy is," she said. "Of course it needs to be done responsibly. If we can't responsibly access energy in the Everglades then we shouldn't do it."
Those comments immediately drew a reply from the Everglades Foundation.
"NRA card-carrying hunters, fishermen, waterfowlers, and other outdoors enthusiasts do not want to see oil drilling in their Everglades wildlife paradise. In addition, the Everglades is the source of fresh, clean drinking water for more than 7 million Floridians," the organization said. "Congresswoman Bachmann needs to understand that oil and drinking water do not mix.”
Comments
You have to love that term "responsibly," as in "Of course we will do this responsibly. We love the Everglades." Then, of course, we find out that the word meant nothing because, either it was not said sincerely or intelligently or, guess what, stuff does happen after all. Then we have a Gulf oil spill type disaster under the Everglades. People like Michelle Bachmann make themselves scarce at that time on the bare chance that folks remember what she said and decide to hold her accountable for it. I like the Everglades Foundation quote: "Congresswoman Bachmann needs to understand that oil and drinking water do not mix.”
"Congresswoman Bachmann needs to understand that oil and drinking water do not mix.”
There are a couple layers of subtle sarcasm in that comment, whether intentional or not.
Congresswoman Bachman and sanity don't mix, either.
You guys are a hoot. Bachmann makes a perfectly sensibile statement and you anti-oil "environmentalist" go nuts. Contrary to the title of the article, Bachmann didn't say she would support drilling she said she 'wouldn't automatically rule the park off-limits". In otherwords, she wants to see all the facts and not just kneejerk reach a conclusion without consideration of all the facts as you have. In otherwords - she is viewing the issue with an open mind not an uninformed bias.
And Bruce - I hope you are walking to work. When you get there, let us know all the longer term effects from the gulf "disaster".
Anon -- This wasn't the first time Michelle has gone off on something of this sort. It's part of a much larger pattern from her. Which coal or oil company do you work for?
Lee - I never have worked for any coal, oil, gas or related company. But not surprised that would be your counter argument - attack the person not the points. Perhaps you would like to identify some of the other things "of this sort" that Michelle has "gone off on".
Justin - I don't have any problem at all drawing a conclusion from her statement. She would consider it after looking at the facts. Unlike those (such as you) that dismiss it outright. If you aren't an "environmentalist" or "against oil". Why would you outright dismiss drilling in the Everglades without knowing anything about the proposal? Looks like clear uninformed bias to me.
Anon,
There's nothing "sensible" about Bachmann's statement. The word "responsibly" has no semantic value (i.e. could mean anything here), as Bruce noted, so it's impossible to make any real sense of what she is saying.
And your comment that the responders above are "anti-oil 'environmentalists'" sounds itself pretty "kneejerk." (I oppose drilling in the Everglades, but I'm neither an environmentalist nor "against oil.")