portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

environment | government | imperialism & war

"Monumentally Irresponsible"

"The damage the President has done to the environment far outweighs the gains Mr. Nader made in this area during his career. Free from the threat of electoral defeat, a second term for the President could spell disaster on many of the issues Mr. Nader claims to hold dear.
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund Statement on Ralph Nader: 'Monumentally Irresponsible'
2/22/04 11:40:00 AM

To: National Desk, Environment Reporter
Contact: William Lutz, 202-772-0269 or Brad Devries, 202-772-0237, both of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund President Rodger Schlickeisen on Ralph Nader:
"In the last three years, the Bush administration has mounted arguably the greatest assault on our conservation laws ever seen. Mr. Nader's entry into the presidential race only increases the likelihood that assault will continue for a second term. It is monumentally irresponsible for Ralph Nader, who professes a reverence for our natural environment, to take any step that aids the President's re-election bid.
"The Bush administration's environmental policy has been a boon for the big oil, gas, and timber industries. Clean air and clean water laws have been rolled back. National forests have been opened to increased logging and public lands to more oil drilling. The framework of laws protecting our wildlife and habitat have been all but dismantled. Time and again, the President has placed the needs of corporate special interests ahead of the needs of our environment.
"The damage the President has done to the environment far outweighs the gains Mr. Nader made in this area during his career. Free from the threat of electoral defeat, a second term for the President could spell disaster on many of the issues Mr. Nader claims to hold dear.
"I urge Mr. Nader to please reconsider his decision; the harm done by his candidacy could far outpace any gains."
------
Affiliated with Defenders of Wildlife, the Defenders Action Fund is 501(c)(4) organization created to provide the wildlife conservation community with a voice in the political process. For more information on the Fund, please visit  http://www.defendersactionfund.org.

 http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-

 http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=103-02222004

you what's really monumentally irresponsible? 23.Feb.2004 00:49

ex-democrat voter

Blaming Bush for the attacks on the environemnt, particularly on the forests when the democrats have gone along every step of the way, and even led the way. Who's more in the pocket of the timber industry, I'd say the democrats (though they are the cheaper whores). Who sold out our forests, the democrats. Who's going to save our forests, not the democrats.

hey 'Milo' 23.Feb.2004 00:59

whether OR NOT Ralph Runs

are you and your DNC/Defenders of Wildlife buddies gonna let Bu$h get away with rigged elections again?

blah blah blah

EVERYONE knows how bad Bu$h & Co. is, and has been since his daddy started Zapata petroleum -

the question is,

why'd "roll over and play dead" Al Gore allow the Supreme Court *appoint* Bu$h to the White House?

also:

1) For all this anger directed at people who voted for Nader, is there any for the 310,082 Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida (13% of the Democrats in the state, up 5% or 120,000 votes from 1996)? Because it seems that Gore's loss of Democrat votes hurt him much more than Nader's votes.

2) Polls in Florida that asked "If these were the only two presidential candidates, who would you vote for?" Bush still came about ahead by 2% (49 to 47). That seems to negate any argument that if Nader hadn't been running Gore would have picked up votes.

So to those who say Nader cost Gore the election, can you offer any evidence to support your claim? Or are you willing to accept that the polls indicate the Bush would have picked up votes in Florida if Nader hadn't run.


Moreover; there is a more fundamental question here... 23.Feb.2004 08:34

qwe

We have been told for over two decades that it is best to vote for the lesser of two evils (purportedly being a cheap whore is better than being a rich killer) so that we can get some of what we need. What we urgently need, however, is leaders that are not bending over for the corporate hell-born that are even confusing our needs and values and leaving us devoid of any options in either party. The difference between Kerry and Bush (if you put aside Bush's unique mental inadequacy) are so minimal as to be laughable - they both are servants of the evil corporations and the whore corporate press. There is no reason to continue voting for the lesser of two evils with the promise that in the future our democracy will be more adequate because it just gets us further away from the goal each time we do it!