Posted on 01/06/2002 8:15:38 AM PST by KQQL
Bears repeating. I must tell you however, that I'm not at all apposed to kissing his butt if it will get him to act on this and I agree further that the God Squad could/should have been called. Thanks again for all your hard work, Carry_Okie. One day you'll know how much we appreciate you.
Nonsense. Bush could have come out of this smelling like a rose by doing the right thing for the farmers and the local habitat while making the RICOnuts look like the crooked idiots that they are. It would have given Gale Norton the opportunity she needs to clean house too.
Because as soon as he made a positive statement about helping the farmers get water - you and many others here jumped all over him.
You will continue to lambast Bush on these threads and I don't think that is helpful. Bush does not have to jump when you say jump. He is the president and will determine when and how he takes on a fight - whether you or I like it or not. The fact that he does not run in and meet your demands does not necessarily mean he will do nothing or does not care. It could mean that he can't because of what the costs will be at this time, because he does not have the support, because your methods will not work. I don't know - but I still say Bush is not your personal superman to do all things you order him to do or you will trash him.
With your attitude about him, why in the world would he want to deal with you. As soon as he doesn't do what you want, you will publicly bring bad publicity against him.
The effort would be better served to deal in a positive manner, to bring to the public knowledge exactly what is going on with the environmental groups. To continually trash Bush because he has not acted on your timeframe and how you want it done does nothing but make some wonder what your goal is.
This is exactly what needs to be done. Instead of going after Bush and the federal government day after day, they need to expose the environmental groups and their efforts loudly.
Very seldom do I hear talk of what the environmentalists are actually up to. I only learned of their true actions in the last few years - while I have heard continually how we must not drill in Anwar, we must protect the environment, we must do this, we must do that.
Yet, these threads prefer to go after Bush and what he did or did not do to their liking. I will not be a part of tearing down Bush, but I would and have supported the efforts for the Klamath farmers. I would suggest that efforts are needed to advise Congress of their concerns loudly, question why we allow the environmentalists this much power, question, question, question until the public begins to question also.
Going after them this year without senate support and with the democrats just lying in wait for something to use on him, may not be the best move. The upcoming elections could be thrown to the democrats if they could paint Bush as an enemy of the environment and animals.
Of course, maybe that is what many here want.
Bush is probably working on getting the drilling in Anwar and another battle with the enviros may really paint him into a corner and give the democrats exactly what they want to use against him.
Sometimes you have to pick and choose when you take on battles or you win nothing.
Let's analyze that. What is he able to do and what is he willing to do?
What authority, standing, or legal position does he occupy to make a difference? Can he convene a God Squad of one with himself being God? Is he King? Can he issue an EO? Can he elevate the farmers to a position superior to the ES and/or the tribe, or to a position of equal footing? Can he do something that partially mitigates the problem and would include some water and some cash? Would youd expect him to do something that would result in the issuance of a judicial injunction? Be sure, whatever Bush does will be based on the best legal advice available. And it will not include the "lawyers" at FR.
So whats he willing to do. The first thing you need to do is forget what is politically popular at FR. This place is not the real world. What do the focus groups and the polls say. What do advesaries say. How will this influence opinion of those in the cane fields, fish farmers on the delta, stockmen in the Trans-Pecos? Would these people think Bush is squandering his political capital. What about those people who's issue is education, defense, or energy? Be sure, whatever Bush does will be based on the best political advice available.
As I've said before: I hope Bush is able to help, but I'm confident that whatever he is able and willing to do, it won't suit bashers.
"The Secretary" (and if you are familiar with the ESA you know that in this case it means Gale Norton) has the power to convene a cabinet level review of the suckerfish listing. The "God Squad" is made up of seven Cabinet level officials and has only been convened three times in the past. Interior Secretary Gale Norton refused to convene the body because of a technicality in the request. Both she and President Bush have the power to demand that the agency redraw the request, if not convene the review themselves.
Can he convene a God Squad of one with himself being God?
He doesn't have to.
Is he King? Can he issue an EO? Can he elevate the farmers to a position superior to the ES and/or the tribe, or to a position of equal footing?
There are several things he CAN do that are within his powers and would not change a thing in the lake.
As you know, Ben, the President takes a sacred oath to the Constitution. The 5th Amendment is very clear about public use of private property. No matter what the claim is, whether it is a claim levelled by the tribes agains the United States or it is ESA protection of suckerfish, if the United States is bound to satisfy those claims it can do so by paying the owners of the water full market value for its use. At that point, the US government can do whatever it wants with the water it bought.
Instead, what we have here is a disproportionate burden placed upon the farmers. They are expected to pay the entire cost for redress of claims against the United States. It doesn't matter if the US government gave it to them illegally or not. It is up to the US to fix those claims and it is not entitled to do so by stealing the water.
Can he do something that partially mitigates the problem and would include some water and some cash? Would youd expect him to do something that would result in the issuance of a judicial injunction? Be sure, whatever Bush does will be based on the best legal advice available. And it will not include the "lawyers" at FR.
So you see Ben, we have two issues: one is water and what is best to do with it, the other is money to buy the use of the water. As you can see, so far I have made no argument that disputes the listing itself or any court order. I have plenty to say about that (and have said it here at FR). As far as I am concerned it is a listing and a remedial management regimen that is destructive to habitat, not just for suckerfish, but also for salmon and migratory waterfowl. It was incredibly poor management science.
No, what I am telling you is that President Bush is accountable for upholding his sacred oath to the Constitution. If that means that he requests Congress for an emergency appropriation by which to fund compensation for the farmers, he can do that.
He didn't. Nor has he publicly discussed the importance to every citizen of protecting private property rights. He has the bully pulpit and has not taken advantage of it. He could have explained how protecting private property is key to protecting the environment. We will never have investments in natural assets without that protection. To steal them, renders them economically valueless. It has been a terribly destructive process to habitat, as I have documented in my book.
So whats he willing to do. The first thing you need to do is forget what is politically popular at FR.
Are you accusing me of pandering to an audience? Really? What am I doing now?
This place is not the real world. What do the focus groups and the polls say. What do advesaries say. How will this influence opinion of those in the cane fields, fish farmers on the delta, stockmen in the Trans-Pecos? Would these people think Bush is squandering his political capital. What about those people who's issue is education, defense, or energy? Be sure, whatever Bush does will be based on the best political advice available.
I take it that you believe that in the "real world," when the people want something the government steals it for them. This is not a democracy, yet. Under the Constitution, when the United States government needs property from one of its citizens, it is not entitled to steal that property; it must BUY it. It is the one thing about this issue that is not negotiable (no matter how many FReepers seem to be tragically willing to do so). That government is not entitled to steal property even if the entire country desires it. It is the one thing that protects every citizen. This is not a political decision. It is a Constitutional decision.
As I've said before: I hope Bush is able to help, but I'm confident that whatever he is able and willing to do, it won't suit bashers.
If he upholds the Constitution, I won't bash, even if I disagree with the technical judgement. If the finding is that the dam has to go and the tribes get the water, so be it. Buy the land and the water rights. I may disagree with it, and may make suggestions as to what could have been done better and what the destructive consequences might be, but there is no way I would call it Constitutionally illegitimate. If they steal it, I will fight for the farmers' rights, along with the rest of us who remember what "unalienable" really means, and so should you.
You may say that the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution and there are those who would point out that he is also sworn to not uphold the laws of the land
I hate to have to keep pointing this out to you, but the Pres could care less what yours or my legal/political opinions are. He has advisors and they are creme de la creme.
Just for the record: I support the concept of "first in time, first in right". I am also realistic enough to know that the days of "use or lose it" and "right of capture" are numbered.
I am curious about your phrase "willing to fight for the rights" and would hope that you would expand on that.
Respond at your leisure, I've got to go TCB.
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.