You are here

Vice President Cheney To Dedicate Grand Teton Visitor Center


Sen. Craig Thomas long was an advocate for the national park system.

If you're planning to be in Grand Teton National Park on Saturday, you'll be sharing the park with the vice president of the United States, the Department of Interior secretary, and the National Park Service director. All will be at Moose to dedicate the Craig Thomas Discovery and Visitor Center.

It's hard to say whether Dick Cheney, Dirk Kempthorne and Mary Bomar would have turned out for the dedication had the visitor center not been named after U.S. Sen. Craig Thomas, who died suddenly earlier this summer from complications in his fight with leukemia. That the three are crossing the country to honor the Republican from Wyoming is truly a tribute to the senator, who was a staunch advocate of the national park system and long campaigned for greater funding for the National Park Service.

Also expected to speak at the dedication are the senator's widow, Susan; Grand Teton Superintendent Mary Gibson Scott, and; U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, also a Wyoming Republican.

The 22,000-square-foot visitor center has long been needed at Grand Teton, as the Moose location is the main entry into the park. As a result, the visitor center there attracts large crowds of visitors searching for information on the park, books and gifts, campsites, and backcountry permits.

Dedication of the $18.5 million center is scheduled for 10 a.m., and if you're planning to attend it's recommended that you arrive between 8:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. and carpool if at all possible.


The irony of Tricky Dick Cheney, lackey to any business interest who can even slightly smell cash in the air, taking a photo op at the Grand Tetons - as if he gives a moose's butt about land if you can't drill, mine or blast a road through it... well, the bitter irony is not lost on most of us.

That the memory of this august Senator (one who advocated for public lands in a state that often fights against such a stand) will be shamelessly used for such a cynical posture makes my skin crawl.

Shame on you, Dick Cheney. Stay in your cave and leave the parks alone.

I'd like to quote you from a previous post, Glenn...."There's certainly nothing wrong with passion (see my original post). But when passion and outspokenness becomes personal, it can change the debate from something constructive and problem-solving to something merely mean." I looked really hard at this post, and couldn't find the constructive part, or the problem-solving part.

Obviously you don't respect Dick Cheney..I'm always disgusted by people that can't respect the office, however.

Dennis, in all due respect, why should we respect Mr. Cheney and his administration when they make back room deals with the oil, gas and utility companies without public oversight.
It's quite obvious that Mr. Cheney could careless how majestic the Grand Tetons's about rape and pillage that concerns many Americans about the Bush & Cheney public land grab. In regards to Sen. Craig Thomas, perhaps one of the better republicans who had some sympathy for the NPS.

Very well put Glenn, very well couldn't of express it better!

You misunderstand my past post, Dennis. I'm referring to attacking the personalities of the debaters. For instance, your saying that I disgust you. I disagree with your stance on Dick Cheney, but you don't disgust me. I think you're wrong about what I'm saying, but I'm not attacking you directly. I'm simply disagreeing with you.

As for those in public office, we as free Americans should always critique them and call them into question (read your Thomas Jefferson, your Thomas Paine or your John Adams for details). There isn't a thing I said in my Cheney post that doesn't point to that man's immoral and money-centric public stance. I don't know the man personally. I can only judge his position based on his actions. And man, his actions blow.

You also misunderstand my position on the office of the Vice Presidency. I have great respect for the office. It's Mr. Cheney that does not. He has done everything he can to abuse the public trust and his power in office and deserves immediate impeachment. In fact, impeachment isn't enough for a man who has committed treason during war time. There was a time when that called for more dire punishment.

Here's what's constructive in my post: People, don't believe in sound bites. A dragon showing up in front of the sheep's pen doesn't make him pro-sheep.

Here's what's problem-solving about my post: Let's actually start calling our public servants to account for their illegal and immoral actions and stop handing our public lands over to the highest bidders.

(PS. It is extremely ironic that those with historically the strongest vitriolic diatribes against the "other side" are always the ones who leap to the "you-have-no-respect" wagon when the other side argues back. It's an old tired political tactic and I'm here to tell ya the "other side" ain't gonna take it anymore.)

There does seem to be a double standard here.

A previous comment ("or the protection/management of national parks should somehow be pried from the talons of vultures who circle Capitol Hill, and the reigns transfered to a non-governmental organization.") got the response: ("This serves my point exactly, though. By putting the commentary outside civility, by making the argument about the arguer and by using tones that beg for irrational, emotional response, you cease the flow of creative ideas altogether.")

Does saying "shame on you" to the veep and telling him "stay in your cave" encourage the flow of creative ideas?

Reform the National Park Service!

Yes, Frank, it does. When speaking to a public servant who no longer serves the public and is acting vampiric the best language to use is vampire-speak. I would never use that language with you or other commentators. In this case the issue IS the VP and his immoral, illegal actions and I am attacking the issue here... not you or any other commentator.

My comment "this serves my point exactly" was not in reference to that quoted comment of yours, but in your insistence to personally attack other commentators rather than attacking the issue. Somehow you are not seeing the distinction. Attack the issue, not other commentators.

My "insistence to personally attack other commentators": I apologize if anyone has felt personally attacked by me. Often, I feel that I am mostly under fire (if you look at the record, you'll see others personally attacking me and telling me they'll pay for my move to Canada). Under attack, I feel the urge to defend myself. I apologize for falling for the bait. However, I think some confuse attacking an individual's logic and experience (or lack thereof) and challenging an individual's bias with attacking the individual. Look through the last few weeks of comments and you won't find me calling other people names or otherwise attacking the individual.

I look forward to more constructive debate on the issues and hope we can all thicken our skins a little because debate sometimes get a bit heated.

Disgust with government and the corrupt politicians of every political leaning is understandable. As for the VP's trip, if we don't want the executive branch using the parks for political gain (photo op), we must separate government/politics and park management.

Reform the National Park Service!

Add comment


This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

National Parks Traveler's Essential Park Guide