President? [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: President?

Nathan Smith
10-26-2000, 01:04 PM
Wow is this going to start something but I am asking this anyway. Who do you think would be best for ff and hunting. Bush seems to be more pro hunting and fishing. I also understand Chenney is a big ff. Gore would be better for the enviorment? WHat od people think. This is am important question for me.

10-26-2000, 03:08 PM
This question is a good one provided we stick to just this one issue. Both parties have pluses and minuses to offer. But on this one issue I tend to favor the track record of the Dems (with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt who founded the National Park system). First, Bush and Cheney have big oil roots. The are in favor of developing/or exploiting more federal lands and off shore locales. In particular Bushs response to the latest gas prices was to drill in the Artic Wildlife Refuge. Gores response was being in favor of developing newer technologies. Honda and Toyota have brought to market the new "Hybrid" vehicles that get in excess of 60 MPGs. We could too.
I also have to throw out the record of James Whatt who was known to think the messiah is coming, so why preserve anything? James Watt was the secretary of the Interior under Reagan and tried to open vast tracks of public land to strip mining and other industrial development.
It's pretty simple to me: When we are all driving SUVs that get 12 MPG and leave them running in the parking lot for 20 mins, and piss away energy like crazy, there is plenty of room for energy conservation gains. No need to pollute more.

As for hunters, the NRA claims that the dems want to take away all guns. But their track record has showed no problem with hunters, and Gore states that in his campaign. As for Bush, very pro gun.

Ya know, they both promise too much during the campaigns. That's why I like to look back at the track records of the parties. Those are the larger philosophies we will dealing with for the next term.

As far as morality and taxes and healthcare, that's a different debate altogther (thank god).


10-26-2000, 06:44 PM
Nate -

I was kidding buddy! Well, just for due dilligence's sake - I prefer a balance between congress and the whitehouse. I also prioritize environmental issues over empowering people to manage a little chunk of their own money. I am not in favor of ultra-liberalism but on the other hand a right wing house and senate scares the crap out of me. In fact going all the way to one side or the other is scary. It's a tough choice, but things are pretty stable right now. I say if it ain't broke why fix it?

Funny conversation on the Thompson the other day... we were talking about GWB saying "you democrats want to claim credit for the strength of the economy". Gore didn't jump on that one, like Benson did to Dan (potatos) Quayle with the Jack Kennedy quote, but I thought he blew a good chance... to reply "because we can". Dangerously close to a dirty joke involving a dog though!

Count me out of this one, my replies have been getting a lot of misreading lately -or- I just am not writing them carefully.

10-26-2000, 10:08 PM
They both suck.

i'm so outta here
10-26-2000, 10:20 PM
Vote Nader. He can't win, and this absolves you of guilt or blame if we end up getting screwed over the next four years.
Have a look at <!--http--><a href="" target="_blank">Combat Fishing</a><!--url--> from the Steelhead board. The antics here really lead me to question GWB's committment to conservation.

10-31-2000, 10:20 PM
Al, In all fairness, if the same thing happened on a Gore trip, I'd say this the same way(though I don't trust Gore , that lying SOB!!!) lol ... you can't blame these guys. at this point they zip in and out in a flurry of activity, don't have a clue that some campain organiser had this done before they got there. there is so much activity going on that unless someone gets the ear of GWB, or big Al they'll never have time to notice details such as cut brush. just my $.02 Tom D
P.S. how abou Juro for sec. of the int.

i'm so outta here
10-31-2000, 10:44 PM
I think Gore pays closer attention to things such as this. He learned the finer points of better spin from slick Willy.

On a completely unrelated topic, have you ever noticed that guys named Al seem to end up either in prison or the butt of everyone's joke?

Al Bundy
Al Sharpton
Al Packard (ate his clients on Ute Pass in Colorado)
Al from Happy Days
Big Al's Gay Animal Bar (South Park)
Alfred E. Newman
Alfred Loyd Tennyson
Fat Albert
Al Capone

The list goes on. It's been 1100 years since someone named Al got any respect -- Alfred the Great, of course. If history is any indication, Dubba-ya has it cinched.


11-01-2000, 11:56 AM
Al, I think Al-lasaurous probably got respect!!! lol Tom D

11-01-2000, 12:05 PM
but not from the big comet!
Tom D

11-01-2000, 12:43 PM
How about...

Pacino? <b>Greenspan</b>? B. Shepard Jr? Jareau? Lindner? Alda? Poe?

Then there are the celebs...

Kaprelian? Yankovich?

11-01-2000, 12:51 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why GW Bush would be a better choice for the enviroment. I have an open mind and I'm really interested in his positions regarding the outdoors beyond what I've characterized his party as having. Are there any? Or is it hands down the dems own the enviroment issue. (reminder: this has zero to do with interns, tax cuts, morality etc.- just the outdoors please)

Added on: There are other dimensions of the enviroment to consider, and there must be positions to go with them. For instance:

Scrubbers on coal burning plants?
Dams on our nations rivers, in particular the PNW?
Invocation of the Endangered species act for Salmon?
Appointments to the Dept. of Commerce and that influence on the fisheries management?


i'm so outta here
11-01-2000, 01:17 PM
Terry -- sorry to get off the topic. I think Dubba-ya and the whole Bush clan have the rep of being in the pocket of big money oil companies. I don't have any particulars, but I do see that perception hanging over his head.

You bring up a good point. Republicans are labeled "conservative," but that's no more or less true than Democrats being labeled "liberal." A true conservative fights for conservation tooth and nail. Some of the most conservation minded people I've ever met vote Republican, but always bitch about how the party has strayed from the tenants of the conservative agenda. I think whenever big money is involved, the environment suffers, so Sully's comment is probably the most apt in regards to the outdoors.... "They both suck."

Juro -- Thanks. I hadn't thought of your first list, but Kaprelian? Yankovich? they definitely go in the too-weird-to-be-believed column ;)


11-01-2000, 01:20 PM
Terry - the answer is, IMHO he wouldn't. If anyone looks back at the last few decades and concludes right-wing policies are good for the environment, I'd have to bring up a river in Egypt... de Nile.

Watt. Babbitt. Any questions?

Ooops! Al snuck one in between Terry's and mine... geez mine is not as "subtle" as Al's!

i'm so outta here
11-01-2000, 01:41 PM
Subtle, yes. Substantive? Not so much.

<!--http--><a href="" target="_blank">Project Vote Smart</a><!--url--> -- this is perhaps the most unbiased way to track candidate voting records. I hope it helps answers some of your questions, Terry.

11-01-2000, 01:43 PM
Thanks guys. In case you missed my additions to my post above:

Scrubbers on coal burning plants?
Dams on our nations rivers, in particular the PNW?
Invocation of the Endangered species act for Salmon?
Appointments to the Dept. of Commerce and that influence on the fisheries management?

Further, I was wondering if the CCA supports any candidates?
It would be an interesting quandery to support CCA yet be a conservative that is against the economic pain that would be inflicted on the Salmon Aquaculture industry if the endangered species act is invoked for Atlantic Salmon. We know reuplican senator Olympia Snow is against it. And we also know the Sierra club backs Gore.