~~ Click HERE to break out of someone else's frames! ~~
By PAT WILLIAMS
O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West
Jim Jeffords doesn't abide bullies. He is a gentle, quiet fellow who is
impossible to push around. You know the type: resolute, patient, purposeful. Up
here in these northern-latitude, long-wintered states we find such people. They
have a special way of leaning into the wind.
Before Jim became a U.S. senator in 1990, he and I served together in the U.S.
House and were colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee. He came to
Montana for meetings in the late '80s, and in the '90s I went to his state of
Vermont for a hearing. I believe our friendship has to do with where we are
from rather than our politics. Vermont and Montana are both northern states
sharing the beauty of bountiful lakes, rivers and mountains. Our states are
lightly populated with folks scrambling to make a living.
I once remarked to a crowd in Burlington, Vt., that their congressman, Jim
Jeffords, reminded me of some Montanans I knew, quiet fellows who stand with
their hands pushed deep into their pockets, looking you straight in the eye and
truly listening. Hearing that, Jim flashed an embarrassed smile and said to his
constituents, "Pat is from Montana. I've been there. You would like Montana."
Jeffords was elected to Congress in 1974 as a moderate -- a kind of Dwight
Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller Republican. He has deplored the
take-no-prisoners, angry politics of the Newt Gingrich era. He understands the
dangers of the conspiratorial anti-government anger of the Far Right. He
rejects the hubris and arrogance of today's GOP majority. He is particularly
put off by those who are confrontational and that includes President George W.
Bush. Jim is too polite to say it, so the Republican stalwart John McCain said
it for him, "The Bush White House and Republican operatives were abusive of Jim
Jeffords. It's time for my party to grow up."
President Bush talks a good game of conciliation and moderation, but Sen.
Jeffords is a case study in the reality of the Bush approach. The White House
tried to muscle Jeffords into abandoning his moderate policies toward the
environment, education, taxes, and health care. Jeffords is no Democrat, but he
is a genuine progressive who knows who he is and where he stands.
The bullying tactics of this White House have gone, until now, almost
unnoticed. George W. Bush has not only given the thumbs up to these efforts, he
has personally engaged in them. During his first three months in office, he
visited more than two dozen states in an all out effort to pass his $1.6
trillion dollar tax proposal. More than occasionally his tactics were, at best,
less than sophisticated and, at worst, rude. In South Dakota the president did
not even invite Sen. Tom Daschle, now the majority leader, to join him on the
platform. Bush would not go to Arizona until he knew that Sen. John McCain was
out of the country. During stops in Georgia and Nebraska, he purposely
embarrassed the Democratic senators of those states: Senators Cleland and
Nelson.
During the president's stop in Billings, he did the same thing to Sen. Max
Baucus, who had graciously joined the president on the platform. Bush invited
former governor and now Washington, D.C., lobbyist Marc Racicot to the platform
and then, speaking into the microphone, Bush actually turned to Racicot and
publicly asked him to run for office. Bush knew full well that Racicot's
opponent would be Baucus.
C apitol Hill has been abuzz with similar stories. Is this president just
inexperienced, or, due to having received fewer votes than Al Gore, is he still
staggering and trying to find his footing? Perhaps Bush is a Right Winger
unwilling to accept moderation. Maybe Bush, like too many of his Texas allies,
is simply a bully. If so, in Jim Jeffords, he certainly picked on the wrong
guy.
http://www.headwatersnews.org/pat52501.html
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/052001/05272001/290622.XML/index_html
Tim-ber! There goes Bush credibility on U.S. forests
May 27, 2001 6:36 am
BLAND--One really doesn't have to imagine too hard to conjure up an image of President Bush and his staff hovering around the table behind closed doors, plotting the best possible way to reverse the expressed opinion of millions of Americans and undo the "roadless-area conservation rule."
This rule, the momentum behind the Wild Forest Campaign that would have spared 58.5 million acres of public forests from the dozer, was the largest public rule-making process in federal history. More than 1.6 million comments on the proposed rule were received nationwide, with more than 95 percent of respondents favoring full and permanent protection of these roadless areas.
The timber industry was so threatened by this assault on what it considers its own private stock that Bush took time off between the swearing-in and the inaugural balls to head to the Oval Office. There, flanked by Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, he placed a hold on the implementation of the rule already signed into the federal register on Jan. 5 and scheduled to be in effect in March--this to give time for his cronies to figure out their offense. And that they did.
After freezing the plan until May 12 to "review" it, the first thing to do was to get Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft to cross his fingers during his confirmation hearings when he swore under oath that he would defend the rule.
Idaho (the only state with under 50 percent expressed public support for the rule) headed into federal court along with timber giant Boise-Cascade to sue the federal government to block the rule's implementation. The Justice Department rolled over: At one point, the defense took five of its allotted 45 minutes to present its case.
On May 9, Bush announced that although he would "allow" the rule to go into effect May 12, the administration would announce "revisions" in June permitting more "local control." Translation: Toss roadless-area protection back to the individual national forests, where it was as more than 51 percent of federal public forests were destroyed.
Without a doubt, these "revisions" will be designed to overturn the final rule and replace it with hollow language that will provide little if any protection for these national treasures.
Two days later, on May 11, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge in Boise, Idaho, issued an injunction against implementation of the plan for an undefined period. Astonishingly, Lodge said that protecting the last undisturbed areas of our national forests would cause "irreparable harm" to federal forest lands and those that neighbor it.
Without doubt, we are looking at a long court battle to take back what rightfully belongs to the American people. At the least, we'll be fighting the "revisions" due in June.
The Bush administration has managed to block protection of almost 60 million acres of public land, including Alaska's Tongass National Forest, in opposition to public opinion, yet has hardly gotten its hands dirty. The decision he circum-vented grew from the largest and longest rule-making process in history. Overwhelmingly, as reflected in the 1 million comments received during the process, the American people support-ed this protection.
One of Bush's most misleading assertions, parrot-ed ad nauseam by his Cabinet, is that the federal rule to protect Americans' national forests for future generations was an "11th hour" move by the Clinton administration. In addition, the Bush administration and its timber-industry allies continue to mislead the public with the straw men of road closures, restricted access, fire danger, and so on.
These are the facts:
The roadless area conservation rule would by itself protect only 15 percent of the 4.7 million acres of national forests in the Southern Appalachians that remain "roadless"--a U.S. Forest Service term describing relatively unspoiled, remote areas having few if any roads, where the landscape retains its natural character.
Nationally, the wild-forest policy would protect 58.5 million acres of public forests from subsid-ized commercial logging and road construction only, keeping them open for recreation, wildlife, and drinking-water supplies. The only people "locked out" of these areas under this rule would be those wielding the chainsaws, graders, and dozers for a profit. Even so, the rule affects less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the U.S. timber supply.
This rule in its final year of discussion involved more than 600 public hearings covering all 50 states. It was developed by soliciting input, developing a draft position, again soliciting input, developing a final position, and soliciting input yet again.
In Virginia, 45,513 comments supported the policy; 504 did not.
In July 2000, more than 2,000 leaders and others from the U.S. religious community asked the Forest Service to fully protect all National Forest roadless areas. "It is often in wild places, such as pristine forests, that we encounter Creation's sheer magnif-icence," the signatories stated. "There, in awe
and serenity, our hearts turn to God."
Last October, 393 scientists from across the nation wrote, "In light of the irreplaceable functions these [roadless] areas serve, it is wise to provide them as much protection from develop-ment as possible."
Some 83 percent and 86 percent of hunters and anglers, respectively, favor keeping our wild areas roadless.
In anticipation of another cruel attempt to whip up public hysteria that will certainly be resurrected by the plan's opponents, it should be noted that on March 21 the U.S. Forest Service testified before Congress that the wild-forest protection policy would not affect fire manage-ment or increase fire threats to communities. Indeed, roadless areas are more resistant to fire than cutover areas.
One thing is clear. Whether it's the Bush administration bowing to Big Timber to scuttle this rule, or caving in to the coal industry to rescind limits on carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, or kowtowing to the mining industry to eliminate protections for communities from hard-rock mining-waste cleanup, or attempting to justify drilling in one of the nation's most pristine wild areas for a short-term gain benefiting oil companies, the "compassionate conservative's" honeymoon with the American people is on hard times.
According to ABC/Washington Post polling (March 2001), the public increasingly feels that Bush cares mainly about the interests of large corporations (61 percent) versus the interests
of ordinary people (31 percent).
Americans are recognizing that the Bush administration is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream. As corporate campaign contrib-utors are calling in their chits, the public understands that the back seat is theirs while the logging, mining, oil, gas, and coal industries are riding shotgun.
The values of clean water, backcountry recreation opportunities, and diverse wildlife habitat are more important than adding to the bottom line of Boise-Cascade and other firms that would hold hostage the public forests. Only if the public speaks out strongly, and soon, will these wild areas have a chance to remain intact.
I would like everyone to make a mental note here that Jim Jeffords - for following his concience and having the integrity to act on his feelings by moving from within the republican stronghold - is now receiving DEATH THREATS. Republican sponsors are demanding their donations be returned. WHY all of the sudden does something like this start AFTER Bush spent one full hour with Jeffords trying to convince him not to defect (bogus bushs word)????? We hear of things happening and turn our heads - my friends....if anything happens to Jim Jeffords that is a statement in my own mind that someone in power can have anything if they want it bad enough. Senator Jeffords to Refund Donations
G.O.P. Senator Plans Shift, Giving Democrats Control in Setback for White House (May 24, 2001)
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Sen. James Jeffords, who last week left the Republican Party to become an independent, will return campaign donations to Vermonters who request it, his spokesman said Thursday.
Jeffords' announcement last week threw the Senate to Democratic control by a 50-49 majority.
Jeffords was attending an environmental conference in Italy on Thursday and could not be reached. His spokesman, Erik Smulsen, said the senator was prepared to return money to individual Vermont donors who requested it.
``I do know there have been a number but I can't say how many'' requests for refunds, Smulsen said. Smulsen said along with those requests, the senator has received unsolicited donations from Vermonters and others who were pleased with his decision.
Smulsen said Jeffords did not plan to return donations that came from business political action committees or from individuals outside Vermont.
``At this point, we're taking one thing at a time,'' Smulsen said.
Jeffords is a 26-year veteran of Congress who was elected to the Senate in 1988. He won re-election handily last year.
Skip Vallee, a Republican national committee member, said he and his wife each gave $2,000 to Jeffords' campaign last year and don't believe they've gotten what they paid for.
``A lot of us who supported him supported him because he was a Republican,'' the Shelburne businessman said. ``We feel misled, and we think he should at a minimum return the money.''
Aside from donations and requests for refunds, Smulsen said Jeffords' offices had received responses ranging from bouquets of flowers to death threats.
Smulsen said Capitol Police provided Jeffords a security detail last week for the first time. He would not elaborate, saying, ``The Capitol Police have asked us not to comment about current investigations.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/politics/AP-Jeffords-Refunds.html
ENDANGERED SPECIES: CLINTON 41, BUSH 2
At this point in his first term in office Bill Clinton had listed 41 species
under the Endangered Species Act. George W. Bush has listed just
two. The Ventura Marsh milk-vetch and the white abalone both occur in
southern California and were listed in May. The milk-vetch was listed in
response to a Center for Biological Diversity lawsuit and the abalone
due to a Center petition.
Bush has proposed suspending Endangered Species Act listing deadlines,
preventing citizens from being able to effectively petition or sue to protect
imperiled species, and turning over all endangered species listing
decisions to the sole “discretion” of Gale Norton, his anti-environmental
Secretary of Interior. Norton has argued that the Endangered Species Act
is unconstitutional, should not apply on private lands, and should not apply
to species which do not cross state lines. If her ideas were implemented
as law, 75% of all currently listed endangered species would be taken off
the endangered species list.
 
Images on this page created by the author Credit for the individual articles is given the respective authors. |Email|Home|Wildlife Backgrounds|THE PREDATOR|
|
