Reader Participation Day: Which Presidential Nominee Would Be Better For The National Park System?

There's not even a question that it would be Hillary, especially if she follows in her husband's footsteps by placing a conseravation minded individual like Bruce Babbit to head the Department of the Interior.  While Hillary doesn't really excite me as a President, the choices of her cabinet are what strike my interest.  I think she would create a better cabinet than Obama has over his 8 years.  I just haven't been overly thrilled with the Sally Jewel era, and look forward to seeing some change...  We just have not had a great DOI head since Babbit.  It's rumored Trump would just dump his son into the Department of Interior.  His son has no experience or comprehension about conservation, and that just seems like that would be a terrible move built strictly on nepotism.  Great for the teabagging consortium and anti-public lands type, but not good for those that want to see conservation of public lands carry on into the future. 

Personally, i'd like to see Raúl Grijalva have a shot as the Secretary of Interior.

Love to see that, too, Gary.  But with Ken Salazar heading up Clinton's transition team, I'm not holding out too much hope for getting someone like Grijalva.

Certainly like the bloodline, Kurt.

Utah Republicans would like to see someone like Rob Bishop or Cliven Bundy in the secretary's office.

I wouldn't be too upset if it was Mark Udall.  He's a progressive, and a westerner, and has definitely been a large supporter of the National Park system. 

It's rumored if Trump were to win, he'd also potentially tap Butch Otter - which might as well be like putting a Cliven Bundy into the slot...  I'd be ticked off by that selection.  I've got to experience life in Idaho under Butch Otter, and he would be a terrible choice for public lands protection.  He would cater to the extraction and ranching industries, since he's their puppet, but would not do anything for conservation, and especially would attempt to undermine major parts of the ESA. 

One candidate said she'd like open borders and letting 600 million new immigrants into the country.  How would that impact the National Parks System in the long term.  That, I would think, would require some serious thought as to "real" outcomes.   Crashing the economy as well might have an impact on dollars to the Parks, no?   Things can't continue going out of wack without a reconning.  If one's in the bag and accepting corruption at the highest level as long as one gets their funding than I guess everything is real groovy.

Yes, Bruce Babbitt was one of the better secretaries of the interior, but that is no indication whom Clinton would appoint--or Trump. Meanwhile, the Democrats persist in reminding us how "great" they have been. We're not supposed to look behind the curtain and concede how much they, too have given away of our public lands. Just three weeks ago, Jewell turned over another 10 million acres in the Mojave desert for wind and solar power. That's five Yellowstones, folks--FIVE. So what if President Obama declares more national "monuments?" His administration has been giving land away as fast as he has been "saving" it.

One's ideology is no excuse for being blind, is it? Back in their Arkansas days, the Clintons were no friends of the environment either, as then reported by THE NEW YORK TIMES. My ideological friends here in Seattle threw me out of their coffee house for daring to quote those articles. Seriously, they said don't come back. Then I joined the board of NPCA, and through one of its members who happened to live in Arkansas personally confirmed everything THE NEW YORK TIMES had said.

What do you want, good people? The facts or your ideology? Answer: America now hates the facts, unless they happen to come over the Internet and confirm everything we "believe." As Peggy Noonan said, we want the movie and don't read the book. Well, it's time to read the book.

In this case, the books on both candidates are depressing. This time, there is no such thing as "the lesser evil." Since evil seems the best we can do these days, look in mirror and not to the election to understand how we went astray. Nor is that my advice. Actually, it comes from Gaylord Nelson, the late senator from Wisconsin, with whom I shared the dais at a conference years ago. I was railing on about the National Park Service, and the good senator cut me off. "Look in the mirror," said. "You are the voter. If you don't like what you voted for, change your vote."

Amen. It's just that. . . How do you do that in 2016?

Trail are you sure she stated she wants 600 million to enter the US?  Are you sure about that?  Right now there are about 350 million people in the US, and I doubt very much by the end of Clinton's first 4 years we would see this country grow to around 1 billion people.  That sort of hysteria doesn't hold much weight. 

I also don't think the economy willl be saved by someone who has a history of multiple bankrupcies as a planned method of escaping debt.

I see plenty of hispanics, indians, and asians in our National Parks.  Enjoying National Parks is not strictly a whitewashed venture, so i'm not sure I agree with you Trail.  I don't think race as a big of a factor in protecting landscapes as some want to con us into believing.  At this point in our human evolution, conservation is an internationlly accepted concept that crosses many political persuasians, and many different races.  So, try, try again.

The biggest anti-park screamers in this day and age seem to be old angry white guys that vote the R.

Of course, those old angry white guys still made the country that everyone else in the world is running to.

There's not even a question that it would be Hillary

I wouldn't be so sure of that.  While no doubt she is a "big government" politician her bottom line is her pocket book.  As she has done in the past she is likely to cowtow to anyone that can directly or indirectly put money in her pocket.  She sold out our uranium resources, our state department amoungst many other sell outs.  I have little doubt she would sell out our federal lands if she gets the green.  

Oh gosh, here comes the tin foil hat brigade.

I dunno, Alfred.  What about those angry young liberals who signed the Declaration?

Am I wrong to believe that the people who made this country are really a mix of all kinds?  Isn't that diversity one of the strongest parts of our democracy?  Trying to hand all the credit -- or all the blame -- to any single group of people ignores our history.  Our history has been one long, endless, tug of war in which the rope has pulled backwards and forwards, but has somehow managed to achieve a sort of tenuous balance.  A very fragile balance, and a balance that shifts from day to day.  In the end, however, it generally seems to somehow remain at least sort of in the middle of the stream of history.

In my mind the current explosion of extremism on both sides is a terrible danger to all of us.  It has led us beyond mere disagreements into outright hate and an awful potential for violence.  That, and politicians of all stripes at all levels of government who seem to have forgotten that they should be serving their constituents instead of trying to enrich themselves in various ways.

And if this thread seems to be straying from the subject of national parks, it's probably because our parks are only one very small part of a much larger picture.

 someone who has a history of multiple bankrupcies as a planned method of escaping debt.

Bankruptcy is a legitimate and common business practice.  I would hope we would have a president that would exploit every arrow in his quiver to serve his constituency.

So MichiganRunner, what policy statement has Trump made that indicates he would sell off the parks to private industry?

Trumpty Dumpty is all over the place.  One day he says he doesn't support transferring lands when he's being interviewed by a outdoor oriented magazine, then in another state at another venue he says to the contingency that wants to hear he would sell them that land - that he should do just that.  So, I guess it depends on whose listening at the time.  In the end, it's obvious he has no real set plans.  I think that became evident during the presidential debates.  He's all boisterous chatter, with no real plans.  He'll be the wing-it wingnut.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/21/sportsmen-conservationists-candidat...

He won't sell them.  He'll just buy them.

I can see it now.  Advertisements enticing us to visit Trumpowstone or Yosetrump or Donaldsbad Caverns.  He'll probably update the Statue of Liberty, too, with a bikini and Miss Universe Tiara so she won't be only a 4 any more.

Just think, all our national park money woes will be instantly solved by adding casinos to all the visitor centers.  If that doesn't work, there's always that legitimate and common business practice to fall back on.

Wow.  I'd never have thought of all those possibilities!  Maybe America really can be great again!

Just think of all the posibilities for Mt Rushmore, Lee.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLGVZ4eUYAAQJJC.png

Gary, I believe you are accurate in saying he has no set plans related to federal lands which is what makes Michigan's accusation so baseless.  But to say he has no plans at all is foolish.  He has well defined goals and plans in many areas including the economy, immigration, energy, healthcare, child care, national defense, taxes, trade  ........  You may not agree with them and I don't agree with all of them, but he does have plans for many of the more pressing issues facing our country.  Also while it helps some to imply so when stuffing their strawmen, being for the sale/transfer of some federal lands is not the equivalent of wanting to give away the National Parks.  I challange anyone to provide evidence he has said that the National Parks as a whole should be sold or given away.  

Lee, what angry young liberals are you talking about? The last time I heard, universities were indicting the author of the Declaration of Independence as a Virginia slaveholder and womanizing hyprocrite. There is even talk now at the University of Virginia of repudiating Jefferson entirely.

This is to explain why Donald Trump has come so far. The so-called Left, in forming its arguments, cannot resist impugning everything held dear by the Right. Why, if we are so smart today, how can the past have been so dumb, i.e., so bigoted and so racist as to declare "all men created equal" while forgetting "diversity?"

It's a fair question, but only if you judge everyone by the same standard. But no, the Left's shortcomings are out of bounds. Were there not free blacks in the South who also owned slaves? Out of bounds. Did not Africans themselves sell one another into slavery? Out of bounds. And so we get to the Left's insistence that only old white guys are to blame for the sorry state of a country missing the right mix of diversity. 

Next up (and I do believe it is coming) is to suggest that our national parks are innately flawed. How? There is nothing in their story for the Left. People worry that Donald Trump will sell off the national parks? The point is that they have already been sold. Mount Rushmore, for example? Yes, today an expensive parking lot, whose entire profit goes to the concessionaire.

Get real, good people. This is our culture. Unless we can profit from the government, neither "side" gives a damn. The one historical difference in the formula has been this. Democrats claim to be taking from the rich and giving to the poor, as opposed to those dastardly Republicans doing just the opposite.

How dare the Republicans now insist that the Democrats are also thieves--that Secretary Clinton, for example, now a multi-millionaire herself, engaged in influence-peddling to gain her fortune?

History will not be kind to either side, is the point. But once it was kind (at least understanding) of what goes into building a nation state. Are we to remain that nation, or is diversity now good enough for all it seeks to replace?

No civilization has ever run that experiment without falling flat on its face. Now we'll see. . .

Right, Alfred.  You just provided support for my thesis that it's extremism on the left and right that is, I believe, the greatest danger we face.

Look where it has taken us . . . two completely unpallatable candidates for president.

Two of Trump's "ideas" I can agree with : The Swamp needs to be drained (although I call it a cesspool); and Term Limits.

But I'm sure neither of the current candidates or their respective parties are the answer to any of our problems.

We must somehow find a way to establish a viable third party of some kind with honest people stepping forward.  But that means we have to eliminate Big Money from the equation.

All I can say is that, for myself at least, and based upon what I've been able to try to learn, we will be in deep doo-doo with either Hillary or DJT in the big white apartment house.  I'm just hoping that with Hillary it will be only about waist deep instead of up to our ears.

Now it's probably time for all us regulars here to step aside and allow other voices to be heard.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4493952-155/bagley-cartoon-trump-gets-down-to

Trump lacks substance, and it was evident during the debates that he had a limited understanding of how our government works. He wouldn't even make it through civics 101 course, but here we are with him so close to obtaining the most powerful seat in our government.  How many times did he blame Hillary for all the problems of the last 30 years during the debates?  Many of his comments were so off the cuff crazy, that you would have thought Hillary must have been a dictator, not just one of 100 senators, or that she had a limited role as a secretary of state.  The way Trump came off durign the debates, one would have thought she had all power within the system of our federal government.   It's evident he's not prepared to be President. 

As the debates wore on, it was evident he couldn't answer many of the questions without tossing together a giant word salad that had no substance.  It became very annoying to sit there and try and piece together his rhetoric.. 

Don't get me wrong, there were segments during the debates where even Hillary failed to touch on many key issues, but there were many times she answered questions with knowledge, and showed some marginal consistency in her views.  She's much more prepared to deal with the chaos of world affairs than a narrcissist like Trump. 

I agree with many that she is not a perfect choice, but she's better than the alternative. 

Yes, Lee. A good idea, but again (and just for the record), the Secretary of State is fourth in line for the presidency behind the Vice President, Speaker of the House, and president pro tem of the Senate. It's a very powerful office indeed.

Bankruptcy may be a common and legal method of doing corporate business, all considerations of ethics aside. Not so much for running a national economy.

There is nothing unethical about declaring bankrupty.  And who said that was his strategy for running a national economy?  Is Tim Tebow using football strategies to play baseball?   Does a former prosecutor turned defense attorney use the same arguments and tactics?  Does a doctor perform brain surgery to fix a broken leg?  In his role as businessman he used the tools and strategies that best serviced his businesses and constituents.  As President, his constituents will change as will the available tools and stratagies. Now if you have anything that shows he wants to sell off or give away the National Parks or declare national bankruptcy let us know.  Although at the rate we are going the later may be inevitable.  

Right, EC. We keep ignoring the context to make an ideological case, and are in fact encouraged to ignore the context when our candidate is being scrutinized. Nowhere have I seen any compelling evidence that Donald Trump is anti national parks. Here is a relevant article done by Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/16/gop-platform-proposes-to-get-rid-of-nat...

However, none of this is to prove what Trump is FOR, either, when it comes to our public lands. I suggest Kurt give him a call!

Please, let's not act like republicans are stewards of job creation let alone masters at controlling the debt or getting the deficit under control.  Since i've been alive, when a republican has become president, the deficit has always spiraled up.  However, Clinton and Obama have lowered the deficit during their respected administrations.  Granted, congress plays a major role in that, but it takes both to tango since they both pass the spending bills.  The republican trifecta that was during the Bush administration spiraled us into a great recession that pretty much created a lost decade.  I'm one of the few voters that must not suffer from short term memory loss.

As for states that currently bleed deep red with deep red republican leadership, well I can say that i've lived in two such states where republicans pretty much run the states political system with an iron fist, and it's usually a sad state of affairs.  Poverty is much more rampant, job creation is usually mixed but never as good as in states that have either a more balanced political system or more progressive policies, and funding for education is abysmal since the good ol' boy networks love to keep a majority of the populace fixated on gods, guns, anti-abortion measures, and bashing gays and minorities - and they spoon feed them that rhetoric ad nauseum.  I guess to some extent, the taxes are usually much lower, and usually real estate costs are lower than in more progressive regions of the country.  So it has it's benefits and detractions, but let's not act like republicans are the master of job creation or running governments in a fiscally sound manner.  That never is the case, and I have yet to see that.

Sounds like some of you might live in the wrong state.  Backwoods Alabama or Mississippi is more your calling.

Gary, I would enjoy exposing your ignorance (or intention distoration) of the aboved mentioned events but that would be off topic.  Lets stick to Trumps policy on the National Parks  To the best of my knowledge he has not expressed a policy and thus accusations he will sell of the parks is utterly baseless.  

A word about that term "reduced the deficit." In a few annual budgets, yes, but NOT in actual, long-term fact. That is another sleight-of-hand used by both political parties when it suits their interests. To actually reduce the deficit, that is, the $20 trillion sitting on the books, MANY annual budgets would have to address it seriously, and neither political party wants to do that. So they say, "We reduced the deficit," and let us think they mean the bucket of debt rather than the drip, drip they allow.

In other words, will Secretary Clinton reduce the deficit? How, when this summer she joined Senator Sanders in promising free, free, free? Isn't it wonderful? Debt be gone! Wave the magic wand and believe the Wizard! Fine, believe in your candidate, but don't think for a moment he or she will reduce the deficit by saying "I will reduce taxes" (Trump), or, in Secretary Clinton's case, tax the rich and give you college for free. Win or lose, the rich are not going to stand for it, to say nothing of the middle class. And you can take that prediction to the bank, where no withdrawal is for free.

Go for it then.  I'll play your games today, since i have some time to kill.  When have you ever shown restraint to not venture beyond the topic at hand?  So, go for it.  I have experience living in deep red states.  I more than likely have lived in deeper red states than you, so I'll play the game.   Plus, the budget that congress will whip up is very much related to what could happen to the National Parks over the next few years.  

The house and senate that form congress over the next 2 years will very much play as important of a role as the president.  

----

And Alfred, I don't disagree with your comment.  However, from what I see when there is a democratic president, and a slightly red house our deficiet tends to go down.  When it's heavily republican at all levels, or heavily blue at all levels that is when things go out of whack.  

Ironically, most millenials today are fiscally conservative but extremely liberal when it comes to social platforms.  In the end they would be better off with a social libertarian party, than the two parties we have now.  

  However, from what I see when there is a democratic president, and a slightly red house our deficiet tends to go down.  When it's heavily republican at all levels, or heavily blue at all levels that is when things go out of whack.  

You need to learn that correlation is not causation

Frankly, I don't really care about Trump's plans [if any] for the NPS, any more than I care about Jill Stein's. As abstract conjecture, maybe, but as a real exercise, not so much. Today, the chances of either of those two being inaugurated this coming January are identical to the chances of Eric and I holding hands on a long moonlit walk. [Sorry Eric - it isn't you; it's me].

Kurt - with you until the FICA ceiling and means testing.  That's nothing but income redistribution.  But bottom line is, we need our fiscal house in order if we are ever to get our Parks properly funded.  Conservative economic policies work.  Unfortunately, Republcan policies haven't always been conservative.  

After questioning whether comments should be allowed, you picked a live one, Kurt!  Your re-framing gets close to the case -- we need to look at those folks and issues where we can have the most impact.  Not to say that presidential or or party matters are unimportant, but look to local and state reps, congressfolk, and initiatives to make the real difference . . .   while every vote matters, they are "bigger"in those cases.  And, with regard to the National Parks, the intentions and actions on both parties are, for better or worse, influenced by . . .

I'd probably give the edge to Hillary not because I think she values the Parks at all but would tend to try to appease those who do for the sake of votes more than Trump. And not that I think my view on this topic will influence anyone in any way but I refuse to vote for either of these candidates.

Thanks, Kurt, for pointing out the role of the cesspool in governing our country and creating the mess we are in.

Unbelievable what many of you would accept.  Geez, unbelievable!  Maybe George Soros should run on a Pro-Environmental Platform.  Big big supporter of Hillary and everything anarchy.  How about someone that doesn't have their fingerprints on everything that is wrong with the world at present.  Is there any connection to Parks by the Clinton Foundation or is it just their wealthy international friends buying access and an avenue to sweet deals.  She got a Russian company 20% of our Uranium reserves for a bunch of millions.   Okay fellows and gals kneel to the Hillary Throne.  Sorry guys, you are oblivious as to the real threats before us.  

Wow - what a blitzkrieg of rapid-fire Republican speaking points, paranoia, and falsehoods! We'd been doing fine and fairly politely here, TA.

Okay, explain the falsehoods.

Don't hold your breath Trail, this is about the time in the thread that Rick makes his accusations and runs.  But then he is questioning the ethics of bankruptcy (which average over 1 million per year) but he supports Hillary in the face of this: http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/ethical-deficit-new-concerns-over...

Maybe what we really need is the option to vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE in all elections.  If None wins, incumbents remain in office and another election is scheduled within 90 days or so.  This is repeated until a decent candidate comes forward.