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
EC,
Just for clarification: What type of specifics are you looking for? That she sticks her foot in her mouth in general, or in connection with energy development? If it's the latter, don't forget that she lamented that the president was taking something like 200 staff with him on his Asian trip and that the recent earthquake and hurricane in the east was God's way of showing his disapproval with Washington.....
And, for clarification, my POINT was that there are millions of people like myself who consider themselves environmentalists who do simple every day non-terrorist things to support the environment.
Your logical fallacy is that you chose to narrowly define 'environmentalist' only in your extremist terms. We don't meet that biased criteria, but then few do.
I feel that taking a pro-environment stance is the most patriotic position possible. I am proud to call myself an environmentalist, because it means I am looking at what is best for future generations of this country.
I can see it now............the upcoming Republican National Convention with Bachman supporters holding their Drill Baby Drill signs!
Kurt - I'm looking for examples of where "Michelle has gone off on something of this sort."
What was wrong with her "200 staff" lament? How does her obviously metphorical statement about the hurricane and earthquake relate to energy developement or reflect something she has "gone off on"?
To Rick: I defined "environmentalist" as I meant it to apply in my first use of the term. If that doesn't describe you fine. You might also note that I used the term " anti-oil "environmentalist"" together with the latter in quotes. So again - if you aren't "anti-oil" the comments did not refer to you.
There are many people that are concerned for environmental issues (including me) that don't do so while totally dismissing all other considerations. Many of those that have objected to (and misrepresented) Bachman's statements don't fit that mold.
Then, Anonymous D, you wouldn't fit ecbuck's defintion of an environmentalist, because you have "other considerations." Then again, I'm not sure many people would fit it.
Justin - Unfortunately - as exhibited on this board - too many fit. Of all the post so far, not one has made a legitimate argument to refute Bachman's statement or suggest why it is wrong. No one has made an argument (other than demagoguery) why it should be automatically ruled out.
EC, actually, I misspoke on the "200 staffer" mention. Here's what she really said to Anderson Cooper:
"The president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India
that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day," Bachmann
said. "He's taking 2,000 people with him.
"He will be renting out over 870 rooms in India. And these are five-star
hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. This is the kind of
over-the-top spending. It's a very small example, Anderson.
"And I think this is an example of the massive overspending that we
have seen, not only just in the last two years, really in the last four.
That's what we saw at the ballot box last evening."
Now, the subject is not oil, but she certainly went off.
As for the other remark I cited, the accounts I saw didn't attribute it to metamorphical useage.