The Last (Wildlife) Refuge of a Scoundrel
Tucked into the fiscal relief package for Puerto Rico this spring was a provision to give away a national treasure that belongs to all Americans — 3,100 acres of the Vieques National Wildlife Refuge. The proposal had nothing to do with the economic recovery of Puerto Rico. But it would have handed an important victory to extremists in Congress and state legislatures who want to grab national lands and turn them over to the states to be sold or leased. The measure to give Puerto Rico nearly one-sixth of the island of federally protected coves, beaches and subtropical forests had the support of the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Representative Rob Bishop, Republican of Utah, who is a leading proponent of an agenda to dispose of America’s public lands.
Fortunately, Hispanic and conservation groups helped rouse opposition to the effort, and the provision was taken out of the bill.
But that was only one of several efforts in Congress and elsewhere to dismantle the nation’s system of more than 560 wildlife refuges and 38 wetlands totaling about 150 million acres of land and water. Opponents of federal land ownership also want to dispose of hundreds of millions of acres of forests and rangelands owned by the American people. If they succeed, not even the national parks will be safe.
The lawmakers behind these attacks are determined, as they put it, to “reduce the federal estate” and give these public lands to cash-hungry states or territories, where they could be leased, drilled, logged or sold to the highest bidder.
— Don’t Give Away Our Wildlife Refuges, Jamie Williams, op-ed, New York Times, today
I remember when, back during his 2012 presidential campaign Mitt Romney, speaking somewhere out west, suddenly (or so I thought) included a rant about the vast amount of land the federal government owns, and said he would propose that most of it be turned over to the states. I believe he made clear that this included most, if not all, national parks.
I was stunned, but quickly learned in reading a couple of articles about Romney’s proposal—there were, best as I could tell, only a couple articles mentioning it—that this is a top item on the wish list of some west-of-the-Mississippi Republican mega-donors, who want to be able to buy the land on the cheap.
It’s also of course a key theme of Cliven Bundy-type ranchers, although Bundy himself and some of the other virulent ones don’t even recognize current federal ownership of the land. And that’s not where the votes are, in the Electoral College, anyway. And it’s not why Romney, who already had the Bundy-crowd vote, was saying this. Publicly. What Romney wanted was a sort of quid pro quo, and the votes of the donors themselves wasn’t what he was after.
But the few pundits who noted Romney’s statement and commented on it pointed out that although Romney apparently didn’t realize this, most Americans, unlike members of his family, can’t afford lakefront summer homes. And some can’t afford to stay in resorts. Nor buy their own leafy acreage in a former wildlife preserve or national park in order to have a place to put down a tent or park an RV.
Romney never mentioned it again. But I wondered why Obama didn’t.
Well, actually, I knew why. It’s the same reason that election year after election year, the Democratic candidates, for reelection or election to the Senate or the House don’t mention the things the Republican members of Congress have proposed, sometimes successfully, that are appalling policies dictated by their donors, and that the public does not know about: Apprising the public of these things isn’t on the list of recommendations their political consultants advise them to do. If it’s not a culture-wars issue or something else that most of the public already knows about, it won’t be on any of their consultants’ list of things to mention. And if it’s even slightly complex, or the Wall Street folks don’t want the Dems to talk about it, then it’s per se not on the list.
Especially—especially—if it means “nationalizing” the election by pointing out what actually will happen if the Republicans gain control or keep control of the Congress. As opposed to what will happen if the Dems do.
What won the election for Obama in 2012 was a series of ads run in the spring of that year by a sort-of-independent super PAC that educated the public about what Romney actually did as a venture capitalist, coupled with the 47% videotape in the early fall. But the spring super PAC ads were attacked by some establishment Dems, including Bill Clinton, and by a few centrist pundits with ties to Wall Street, as class warfare and as attacking capitalism. And the issue was not “nationalized” for congressional elections, even though the Republican budgets and antiregulatory proposals and other proposed legislation—some of it slipped into an unrelated bill at the last minute, a constant in fact with that crowd—because as always, the Dem consultants were horrified at the prospect of a nationalized congressional election.
“As always” included the 2014 elections. And best as I can tell, this year’s congressional elections, too.
I had envisioned Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—the two highest-profile progressives—neither of whom is on the ballot this year, and therefore both who are free to do so, barnstorming the country in an effort to apprise voters of the really ugly things that the Republican Congress keeps trying to force via one or another trick, on behalf of the party’s establishment donors. Including the divestment of federal lands of all sorts to Republican donors via pass-through to, and then from, the states—not only in and of itself but as lucid illustration of the extremes to which the Republican Party is a party of oligarchs.
A party. Invitation only. Admission is steep but well worth the price for invitees. And that whatever else you can say about the Democrats, their donors aren’t trying to turn vast public lands into private preserves of the Republican donors’ industries.
Oh, the horror of nationalizing the congressional elections. (If you’re a Republican oligarch, not if you’re, well, not.)
Sanders has been aggressively soliciting campaign contributions, via Act Blue, for certain progressive congressional candidates. And a few days ago he began soliciting contributions for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, in an email with the subject, “Time to elect a Democratic Senate”, or some such.
But I think he and Warren have been held back somewhat by Clinton’s open, aggressive courting of high-profile Republicans. And now, as of yesterday, her weird and awful selection of—good grace—Ken Salazar as her transition team head seems to like a deliberate slight to progressives. Young voters, at least outside of Colorado, don’t know about him, so she thought this would be freebee, but given social networking, it may well not be. But Sanders and Warren know about him. How do you campaign for a progressive Congress to team up with, well, someone who thinks Ken Salazar should head her presidential transition team?
I don’t know who it is that has her ear and is so enamored of uber-triangulating Colorado pols, but it’s someone who thinks it’s still the 1990s. Okay, I do know. Probably. It’s Bill Clinton—the same person, I’d wager, who told her to jump right on it in going after those Republican endorsements and those Republican donors. No time to waste. And no time was wasted.
Maureen Dowd, in a stunning column last Sunday perfectly titled “The Perfect G.O.P. Nominee,”, got pretty close to the heart of why Clinton is so widely viewed as untrustworthy. And as long as she remains under her husband’s spell there will be no easing of that view.
I’ve repeatedly analogized Donald Trump and Paul Ryan to Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen, but both parties have nominated puppets as their presidential nominees. I’ll certainly vote for Bill Clinton over Paul Ryan.
Although if Edgar Bergen’s name appears on my ballot, all bets are off. I like transparency in presidential candidates. And, who knows? Maybe he likes the national parks system enough to mention its political endangerment while campaigning.
____
POSTSCRIPT:
In November, 2012, asked a question he did not like by a reporter for The Gazette of Colorado Springs regarding Salazar’s association with [a] hauler who shipped wild horses to slaughter plants, Salazar told the reporter, “If you do that to me again, I’ll punch you out”. Salazar later apologized.
Great. Also great:
US presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has raised eyebrows with the hiring of Washington DC powerbroker and vocal Trans-Pacific Partnership supporter Ken Salazar.
Mr Salazar will head Ms Clinton’s White House transition team.
The appointment adds weight to speculation Ms Clinton, who became a TPP opponent when running for president, was a closet supporter of the proposed landmark pact between the US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and seven other Pacific Rim nations.
“The TPP is a strong trade deal that will level the playing field for workers to help middle-class families get ahead,” Mr Salazar, a former Colorado senator and interior secretary under President Barack Obama, co-wrote in a USA Today op-ed in November.
“It is also the greenest trade deal ever.” Ms Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump have both vowed to nix the TPP, a move that contrasts with Mr Obama’s pro-TPP stance. Ms Clinton’s vice president running mate Tim Kaine was also pro-TPP.
If Ms Clinton wins the November 8 presidential election, Mr Salazar will guide her in the months leading up to Mr Obama’s January exit from the White House. It is during that “lame duck” period Mr Obama has the best hope of pushing the TPP proposal through Congress.
Mr Salazar, who has worked at the influential Washington DC firm WilmerHale that has lobbied on trade policy, has also shown support for fracking and the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
“He is pro-Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), pro-fracking and pro-Keystone XL pipeline,” Molly Dorozenski, campaign director for Greenpeace Democracy, wrote.
“If Clinton plans to effectively tackle climate change, the last thing her team needs is a fossil fuel industry friend like Salazar.”
On a trip to Australia in 2012 as US secretary of state Ms Clinton declared in Adelaide the “TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade”.
— Clinton supporters query pro-TPP hiring, Peter Mitchell, NZN US Correspondent – NZ Newswire, today
Dowd has it right.
Added 8/17 at 8:06 p.m.
*** I’ll certainly vote for Bill Clinton over Paul Ryan. ***
Was this a typo?
In any event, what are we going to do if Trump drops out – or is tossed out – and Romney or Ryan are installed as the candidate.
As of now, I’d personally leave that part of the ballot blank, for I still believe those two ********* were on the 2012 ballot for the sole reason of re-electing Obama. Any decent Republican candidate would have made BHO a single-term president, IMO.
No typo. Bill Clinton is Hillary’s Edgar Bergen, just as Paul Ryan is Trump’s Edgar Bergen on taxes and regulation. That was my point.
I don’t know if it would be possible for the party to replace Trump. If it is, though, it wouldn’t shock me at all if he agreed to step down in favor of Pence. Early voting begins late next month in a couple of states, and I don’t know how much time there would have to be before that for those states to be able to make the change.
I think maybe more likely, Trump would announce that he will not take office, and that Pence will, instead. Of course, that, like a lot of other things with Trump, could be subject to change. But, given the various possibilities, Clinton might come to realize that alienating Sanders supporters might not be all that good an idea. Pence could never get elected if people knew what his ideology is and what he’s done as governor. But there may not be enough time for the public to learn of it.
Really scary.
I would like to understand more about the refusal of Democratic consultants to sell the Democratic Party and demolish the Republican Party. It looks from out here away from Beltway Land as a refusal to fight — something the Republicans don’t do — and a refusal to advance the Democratic brand. That also means a refusal to give support to local candidates who might have a chance to pull out upsets but who do not get direct support from the party organizations. No wonder the down-ballot performance in 2010 and 2014, and the teeny-tiny coattails the President had in 2012, has caused the worst Congressional debacle in over a century — with the result that nothing major can be accomplished despite a Presidency easily won.
Why do they do this, when it is obvious they are harming the Democratic Party brand by this refusal? Is it all about having access to the best Georgetown cocktail parties? Do they totally not care about having control of the Congress and other offices?
If the Clinton team adopts the same “where else are they gonna go?” attitude that Obama and Rahm Emanuel reverted to in 2010, it will invite another 2010 debacle. Are these people so stupid that they still don’t recognize it’s the Democratic base, which nationally is a lot more progressive than the DC insiders, who do all the crap work of punding the pavement and making cold calls? Without their enthusiasm, there will be another turnout disaster.
Yeah. Although, courtesy of Trump, I don’t think this election will be a turnout disaster. But Clinton’s attempt to bring Republicans to the polls to vote for her, who otherwise might sit out this election, could undermine Dem Senate and House candidates in close elections.
It also–as SEVERAL pundits have written in the last two weeks–could nullify her claim to a mandate for her progressive policy proposals. Not that she gives a damn. She’ll always have Paris–I mean, triangulation.
It’s a special kind of insult to say that a woman is her husband’s creature.
I think Hillary Clinton is more than objectionable enough on her own without suggesting that her husband’s ideas are the ones that fill her head instead of herown.
It’s objectionable to say it if there isn’t strong evidence of it. If there’s strong evidence of it, that’s what’s objectionable.
And, y’know, there’s that thing about Bill Clinton pushing Kaine as his wife’s running mate. And his pushing John Podesta as her official campaign guru. And his reported editing and changing her campaign speeches. And his forcing his wife’s breach of her agreement with Obama in December 2008 to erect a wall between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. And ….
Here’s the REAL insult: the reflexive criticism of a suggestion that it is an insult to say that a woman is her husband’s creature when extensive evidence shows that she is.
The odds against Maureen Dowd being right about anything are astronomical.
There is a far better chance of hitting the powerball than stating Dowd is right and being correct.
Sanders lost.
This is beyond old, and the damage being done to the work Sanders did, and is trying to do, cannot be measured.
It is why Dems always lose the midterms while those that caused it cannot figure it out.
Here’s the thing, EMichael: I know you can’t, and never will, understand this, but the issue isn’t whether Clinton or instead Sanders won the DEMOCRATIC nomination.
The issue is why, having won the DEMOCRATIC nomination partly by making certain promises in the last few months of the primary season—among them, but by no means solely, on the issues of trade, on fossil fuel policy, AND on the political power of Washington-based corporate lobbyists—she is running a general election campaign geared to Republicans, INCLUDING signaling by her selection of (good grace, seriously?) Ken Salazar TO CHAIR HER TRANSITION TEAM.
Brian Buetler of the New Republic posted a really good article there yesterday (flagged by Greg Sargent) on the shortsightedness of this and Clinton’s apparent inability to recognize this and to recognize the potential this has to actually undermine her effort to win a landslide. The article is at https://newrepublic.com/article/136102/liberals-wrong-fears-hillarys-nevertrump-outreach.
And Paul Krugman, who during the primaries signaled almost hagiographic admiration for Clinton—and grossly distorted Sanders’ some key Sanders proposals (especially on healthcare), and went bizarrely overboard in trashing Sanders’ campaign’s invocation for two or three days of an unsolicited, deeply erroneous statement by a U-Mass economist about the potential effects Sanders’s fiscal proposals—has now written twice (once directly, the other more subtly and without mentioning Clinton) in the last two weeks warning Clinton to, well, not go there.
But there is a separate, and I think, also obvious problem with Clinton’s tack to the right—especially her selection of Salazar for that critically important position: She’s burrowing further into the already-deep hole that is her (very) negative ratings on issues of trust. And on the obviously accurate perception, in an election cycle so dominated by antagonism toward elitism and a strong desire for change in who has input into government decision-making, that she is, really, nothing BUT an elitist, someone incapable of detaching herself from elitists. Someone incapable of mentally leaving the decades-long political era we’re just emerging from.
And someone who—for all her vaunted I’LL BE THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT thing—can’t untether herself from her husband, now all-but-officially a moderate Republican, and utterly unable to recognize that this is no longer the 1990s.
Just as you’re utterly unable to recognize that the issue isn’t which candidate won the Democratic nomination, but instead which party won it.
Yeah, asking Rep to vote for her is “tacking” to the right.
Bev, we cannot disagree more on this. Mainly on a couple of things.
First, she has not done anything that you are accusing her of doing, yet somehow you have a trust problem based on your predictions predicated on past statements and behaviors. People change all the time. Mostly for their own self interests, but every now and then because they take in more info and change.
Second, Congress makes legislation. Ya’ think Warren and Sanders are going to let her “tack right”?
I sure don’t.
Well, it depends on HOW she is asking for the votes of Republicans. Here’s what I think: Her choice of Salazar (good GRACE) was a signal to Republican donors that she will indeed triangulate on what they care about. After all, no one but Coloradoans (those older than about 35) and people steeped in politics knows anything about Salazar, other than that his name is Hispanic. It’s a dog whistle.
As for the ability of Warren and Sanders to halt much triangulation by conservative Dems like Wasserman Schultz and Republicans, even if the Dems do control both houses of Congress, is … I don’t know… not likely. And her attempts to bring Republicans to the polls to vote for her rather than just stay home, notwithstanding that she would win easily with just with the votes of Dem and independents, undermines Dems’ chances to swing control of Congress.
Wait till you see her Secretary of Defense nomination. We will think Donald Rumsfeld was a dove.
BTW,
We always here this around POTUS elections. We need to get a “mandate” from the people.
Beyond stupid. You get elected or you don’t. You do not get a mandate regardless of how many votes you get.
The only way, the only way, for a POTUS to move their platform into law is to have a compliant Congress.
Amazingly enough, these people that talk about mandates are also the ones that believe in the fictional bully pulpit. As in,
“If Obama would have given more speeches and yelled increasingly louder, we would have had a publci option!”
Um, no.
Do you DENY that Clinton has announced that KEN SALAZAR will head her transition team? You seem to be.
And using Obama as an example is counterproductive, given that he did not announce before the election whom he would appoint to head his transition team–and then appointed someone (I can’t remember who) who thought it would be a great idea to nominate Geithner as his Treasury Secretary and to effectively recreate the Bill Clinton team in important respects.
Really, that didn’t work out so well.
geez
nice spelling
“hear this”
The issue is why,..she is running a general election campaign geared to Republicans.
Because she and the control unit of the democratic party believe they are safe now to do what they have been doing since Bill.
My one thought is that one of the consistent criticisms of Hillary was that she stick her finger in the wind to find the direction and then steers with it. Thus, she would do it currently and move accordingly. Obviously not.
At the same time, she is obviously not in charge or feeling free enough to not have to pay off debts to those in the party that have behind the scenes getting her here.
Lastly, the top of the party has not seen the true message that Sanders run proved. Trust the people to get you elected. With the machine structure of the whole party, the party really could rid it’s self from the burden of fund raising via the elites. Or at a minimum reduce their dependency and create more space.
I got an email message a couple of hours ago from Sanders notifying all of us that he will be giving a major speech via video conference to his supporters, introducing his new Our Revolution group, on the evening of Aug. 26. He’ll be getting fairly specific about some things, apparently; he’s asking the hosts of the gatherings to set aside a couple of hours for it.
It sounds like it was just put together within the preceding few hours, because right now there’s only one gathering listed in my college-town small city. There probably will be a couple more, I’m guessing.
None of the things that she is doing are things that I regard as being some sort of alien mind control thoughts that Bill is injecting into Hillary Clinton’s mind.
They are all 100% in line with what I expected to happen.
Hillary Clinton’s actions are in line with her character and established practice. No one has to control her to make her do these things. I haven’t heard from any other source that Bill Clinton was editing her speeches (if I was making a speech, I’d probably have my significant other run over it…) or any of these other things.
It wasn’t that long ago that there was a 3rd term of Bill Clinton meme going on out there about how great the 90s were and how we should all elect Hillary Clinton because man it will be awesome to have lecher Bill back in the white house.
The truth is, Hillary Clinton is and has been more right leaning than Bill, more willing to “compromise” in all of it’s meanings than Bill, but they’re two peas in a pod. If they weren’t then they wouldn’t still be married after 40 years, especially given the infidelity issues (unless Hillary Clinton is a conniving power hungry person willing to compromise even her personal life to gain power…)
A few days after the Dem convention, if I recall correctly, the NYT, I think it was, although it might have been Politico, ran a long piece by a couple of their reporters assigned to cover the Clinton that had a title something like “How Clinton’s speeches are written.” It was based on conversations with her main speechwriter and one of her top policy advisers. They were surprisingly open in saying that a lot of what they, together, write is removed or significantly changed by Bill Clinton, to whom their drafts are sent, and who adds as well as removes things.
Only after Bill has finished is the speech sent to Hillary.
The problem with this is that he is not merely making suggestions for tone or phrasing, or even making a few suggestions for substantive changes. He’s apparently having major input on policy.
Also, I’m betting that he’s the one who advised Hillary the very day after the California primary to get right on the phone to Republican donors. It’s not that she wouldn’t have thought of it herself, but … the very morning after clinching the nomination?
By the way, Vieques is gorgeous and a true national treasure (I’d encourage everyone here to check it out if you have any interest in beaches, it’s like Hawaii before the 1950s, but with wild horses), but there are large no go areas of the island that may be designated as wildlife refuges, but they are also extremely dangerous because of unexploded ordinance from military exercises. I’d be interested in seeing in detail what the plan was here, because someone has to eventually clean that stuff up, and it’s not going to be some private company unless they’re paid to do it by the government.
It sounds wonderful. Despicable that it’s only by the grace of Dem members of Congress who actually have guts and a backbone that it still belongs to the public rather than to, say, the Koch brothers.
Ken Salazar averaged over 90% on his Americans for Democratic Action voting records over his four years in the Senate. Is there a reason that should be ignored in our reaction to his appointment? It sure beats zero per cent from most Democrats, or the 50 – 60% you might see from genuine Blue Dogs.
Isn’t it possible it’s as much a strategic appointment as a philosophical one: some props to Hispanics while also comforting moderates who might support her?
Very few Democratic politicians talk about anything. They send out fairly bland newsletters on non controversial topics to their choir.
They don’t usually hold press conferences or take positions unless they it is required.
One of the reasons that Bernie Sanders did so well was that for years he was a weekly guest on the Thom Hartmann show on Air America. Bernie and Thom would spend an hour or so discussing a variety of issues.
The Democratic party, of which I am a member, is so beholden to it’s top donors that it can not do much. The period of 2009-2010 is a case in point, with all levers of government, it was barely able to pass a health care bill, but did nothing on union cards, immigration, climate change, or the worst, the Bush tax cuts expiring.
I still have hope. Maybe the Bernie folks will stay engaged and move the party forward.
“The period of 2009-2010 . . .”
Makes it sound like two years. In reality, it was only a few months. And Joe Leiberman was not a Democrat.
So depressing.
I guess the key to the next several months is for people to decide whether Bill Clinton or Ken Salazar will be the next President.
Are there any other candidates?
Bill Clinton AND Ken Salazar. President Bill Salazar.
It only belongs to the public at all because the military wanted to use it for training. It’s not like the US government intended to set it aside as a national treasure when it started, unlike other locations in PR that were set aside as parks in early 1900s.
The parts of the island that don’t belong to the government / public are similarly tranquil. The undiscoveredness of the island has as much to do with that as the refuge. Culebra is almost as nice, and has no set asides, and the areas of Vieques that are set aside are not accessible at all (as I noted, unexploded ordinance)