It's been nearly four years since Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson said he would support drilling for oil beneath Everglades National Park if there were substantial reserves there.
Well, Mr. Thompson soon left that race, but another GOP presidential hopeful says she'd do the same thing if it could be done "responsibly."
U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann was quoted the other day in an Associated Press story that she wouldn't automatically rule the park off-limits if oil were found beneath it.
"The United States needs to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy and more dependent upon American resourcefulness. Whether that is in the Everglades, or whether that is in the eastern Gulf region, or whether that's in North Dakota, we need to go where the energy is," she said. "Of course it needs to be done responsibly. If we can't responsibly access energy in the Everglades then we shouldn't do it."
Those comments immediately drew a reply from the Everglades Foundation.
"NRA card-carrying hunters, fishermen, waterfowlers, and other outdoors enthusiasts do not want to see oil drilling in their Everglades wildlife paradise. In addition, the Everglades is the source of fresh, clean drinking water for more than 7 million Floridians," the organization said. "Congresswoman Bachmann needs to understand that oil and drinking water do not mix.”
Comments
Toothdoc, if you want a full, unbiased report on Michelle Bachmann and the bridge, try Googling up Thunderbear and check out the latest issue.
Thunderbear is the official spokesbear for all of us who treasure our parks. His words cannot be disupted because his factual research is far more thorough than that of any of our Congresscritters.
I keep it bookmarked and just read the most recent yesterday.
I'd say he is more "unofficially the official spokesman for all of us".
Thanks for the heads up on Thunderbear--I had not heard about it before. I did not realize that the span was in such a state of disrepair! I have to admit that from what I remember in reading the original article awhile back, it sounded like the bridge's sole purpose was to support more traffic for Bachmann's constituency. I would agree that if its safety rating is that poor, it does need to be replaced; but Bachmann's way of charging ahead because it what she wants, all others be damned, is still wrong and still strikes to the heart of the matter 'refuted' by the first anonymous and ebuck.