Posted on 11/09/2005 7:10:25 PM PST by sonsofliberty2000
Just wait until the elections next year........
I stand corrected. Thanks, that's one of the things I really like about FR! There's almost always someone around to set me straight when I get my facts confused.
I would hardly characterize USGS as anti-ANWR, but everybody can seize on parts of a report and say that it argues for their cause.
As for the bridge, given where it's located, impact on wildlife would be *very* minimal.
Ketchikan's a nice place to visit, but it's not a wildlife refuge.
Thanks. I'd forgotten about that aspect of Bartlett's view.
According to the Washington Post, the group is called the Main Street Coalition.
Members no longer have to pack their own lunches, and the group now only includes Houses members (a separate group known as the Republican Main Street Partnership includes moderate House and Senate members). But the focus on fiscal matters has remained constant-and the agenda in past years has grown to include the environment, science and defense.
Unlike the Study Group or Blue Dogs, the Tuesday Group does not make a list of their members public. It has no Web site, and even the some of the group's members are reluctant to label themselves "moderate."
This was taken directly from a Boston U Journalism Center article entitled: "Bass Takes the Reins of Tuesday Group".
Time for a bit of Freeping I'd say -
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/11/10/where-art-thine-hammer/
Why don't you post a vanity about it?
The Main Street Partnership (I mistakenly called it Coalition) were the authors of the letter opposing ANWR drilling sent to the House leadership. This is from the Washington Post, which quoted the MSP spokeswoman. I would be unsurprised if the Tuesday Group shares membership with the MSP, but the MSP members are known. (And apparently George Soros contributes to them.)
My original intent was not to argue about the specifics of the impact on caribou, but to show that the area slated for development is utilized by the wildlife of the refuge. It is, and it is used in an important manner by them. Everything else -- whether it would be to the benefit or detriment of a specific specie or species -- is speculation (with some speculations being more "informed" than others). The bottom lines are: the area would be altered, and the area is utilized by the wildlife of the refuge.
Our Alaska Senators Stevens and Murkowski are right up front explaining how the game is played. Murkowski was on radio today explaining this ANWR maneuver. Don't know that anybody is listening outside of Alaska, but here we are fairly cosmopolitan in understanding the doings of Congress.
Neither was ANWR until Carter said it was. It's not like they brought a bunch of wildlife over into Alaska and put it in a refuge.
Aren't there any animals living where they have to build the bridge and the roads on those islands?
Maybe all the animals were chased away when they build that city. How did they get to build a city there, with all the wildlife? Did the take the wildlife over to the wildlife refuge?
BTW, I guess I'm still upset that the federal government can come into a state and just claim millions of acres.
Hear that clunk? That's the sound of the testicles of the House Republicans falling off and hitting the floor.
No, I agree too. However, unlike some here I do think there's still hope-guys like Ken Blackwell, and Mike Pence, and Mark Sanford, and Tom Coburn...
Those are good men and real conservatives. I just don't know if there are enough non-Marxist voters to elect them nationally. When Reagan left office, the role of teacher of conservatism went unfilled.
The RINOs sat at home or voted Dem in NJ in 2001 to sink Bret Schundler. I wouldn't be suprised to see them do it again in Ohio, frankly.
Heck, even so called conservative Weekly Standard is writing articles entitled "Surrender to Big Government"
OK, that's all for my pessimistic rant for today.
I will believe it when I see it. Until then I'm not running up to kick the football....(/charlie brown)
Well, I think Reagan could still win today. He had a charisma, an appeal about him that people just liked.
Pence, Blackwell, and Sanford all possess that quality to some degree or another. Coburn not so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.