And with the ignorance of living on the other side of the 'big pond', and looking from afar at the fascinating political processes that contributes to the make up your country. I also realise that posters in this Forum are representing both sides of the political spectrum.
So, with every State Government in my country probably using California as a model, particularly for implementing greenhouse abatement schemes etc. Particularly as about 80% of our electricity is generated by brown or black coal, which is very greenhouse unfriendly, and on top of that our same State Governments are spending Mega$ on improvements & expansion to public transit, particularly in our capital and regional cities. Which I might add is paying big dividends in increased patronage particularly in my state of Victoria.
So again with all this in mind, and, from my perspective, the seeming failure of your present Federal Government to grasp the issue of climate change & the inevitable decline of oil. I read with interest the discussion on these two threads....
Do you think the election of a Democratic Party Government will see a greater emphasis on Greenhouse/Climate Change abatement schemes and the need to greatly increase spending and investment on public transit, particularly interstate rail (Amtrak), commuter rail, light rail & commuter bus services?
Thanks, Mike in Australia Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
Generally speaking the Democrats are more environmentally friendly than the current Republican crop. But it wasn't always so.
Many successful environmental initiatives began under two Republican presidents, specifically Nixon and Ford. They were particularly aggressive towards energy efficiency, with Nixon having implemented the national 55 MPH speed limit (which remained in effect until the early 1990s) and providing incentives for alternative energy research. But after Carter expanded these programs, conservation suddenly became a "liberal" cause and when the next Republican (Reagan) was elected the incentives were withdrawn.
Ever since the Reagan years American politics have grown more and more divided. At this point, I'm sorry to say, both parties are more interested in beating the other side than in getting things done. I wish I could say that the Democrats will do better than the Republicans when it comes to energy and transportation policy, but I am not hopeful. While Republicans rely too heavily on unguided market forces, which tend to be short-sighted, Democrats tend towards forced regulation which ignores market forces altogether.
Democrats like to require industry to adopt specific technologies, whether they are effective in a given situation or not, costing lots of money with dubious results. Republicans, on the other hand, have chosen to ignore the problems altogether in the hope that somehow things will work themselves out through good old Yankee ingenuity and free markets.
What is needed is a clear set of goals that both sides can agree on and a regulatory framework with appropriate incentives (tax the bad stuff and give tax breaks to the good stuff) to guide the free market towards cost-effective solutions.
How might this approach apply to rail? We should start by finding out where the travelers are and where they want to go. From that we can develop a route network that is based on demonstrable needs rather than politics. Federal matching funds should be available for state corridor and local transit projects while federal leadership and funding should be provided to coordinate interstate routes. Tax breaks and other financial incentives should be made available for any privately owned rail line that serves passenger trains and funding should be available for capital improvements to them. I would also support bonus incentives given to any freight railroad that chooses to revive and operate their own passenger trains.
Disclaimer: the above are my own theories and observations and should not be interpreted as gospel. Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Mr. Toy gave a pretty good synopsis of the cluelessness of both parties on the real issues.
I would fully expect a democrat win to result in a lot of additional regulation of virtually everything, and given their usual ineptitude in understanding how "normal" people react, with results in outcomes that are usually contrary to desired outcomes. They are actually so wrapped up in pandering to various fringe social issues, I would expect the real issues to get very little serious work. The party's controlling elements in general seem to think that everything needs to be controlled, regulated, and directed by an essentially socialist nanny government.
The republicans on the other hand have a noisy minority of virtual libertarians that seem to oppose any assistant to anything. This group is played by the highway / air lobby for all they are worth and fund them to concentrate on certain areas of government “waste” which they seem to think consists primarily of funding anything rail related. These gullible nutcases use this funding operate several "think tanks" that present canned anti-rail speeches for all occasions while presenting themselves as concerned standard “middle of the road” republicans. These people’s noisiness has managed to obscure the fact that most of the people that pull the republican level are holding their nose to deal with their stink and are pulling the republican level primarily because they regard a lot of the "democratic" party’s hangers-on as stinking a lot worse.
Like Mr. Toy, these are just my opinions.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Mr Toy and George Harris have a good perspective of what's happening. The only kicker I can add are the socialists that infest our Congress want to take down our society and ...
Wait... I'm ranting...
Democrats are interested in controlling our society. Republicans are interested in maintaining their positions. Neither one of them are interested in what's good for the USA, right now.
When it comes to public transportation, there is not enough "noise" to boost Amtrak into Congress's gameplan to keep their power/control our world/be the "pig" class {reference to Animal Farm} .
Visited the link. What a load of Owellian doublespeak. Minitrue at its best.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
BTW,
Most Democrats do not understand that anything they mandate on a Corporation will be passed straight through to the Consumer.
Republicans do not understand that a proper stewardship of the planet is in their long-term business interests.
A pox on almost all their houses.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Almost completely correct PullmanCo. Guess who has the most "planet friendly" home.
Al Gore, Jr. Ted Kennedy Michael Moore Bill Clinton Jimmy Carter George W Bush
If you picked the last one, you would be correct!
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
In my opinion the reason the last one who has a planet friendly home is because he lives on a differnt planet from the rest of us. This opinion is based partly on his statement that we don't need trains. People can fly or drive. Sorry Mike, I know you and I are on differnt sides on this .
Posted by dfwguy (Member # 3082) on :
since someone else is linking to lists- here is another list to enlighten.
Dear Train Lady, you are missing the point. The point is that the ones that are making the most noise about the issue are not applying anything they say to their own personal lives. That is the basic definition of hypocricy. Of the names on the list, the point is that "W"'s personal house is the least hog of energy. Al Gore, the author of "Convenient Lies" which is a far more apt title than "Inconvenient Truth" lives in a mansion that consumes something like 12 times the energy of a normal house. As has been said, a man no matter how rich can only sleep in one bed and sit in one chair at a time. At some point way below where Gore is living you have passed from comfort and conveinece into ego satisfaction. Until these guys start "putting their money where their mouth is," I have no time for them. And, by the way, that is their money not my money and somebody else's money.
Could you give a source or time and place for "his statement that we don't need trains. " I don't believe that this is what was actually said.
George
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
Sorry George it was last year and I can't remember if it was on TV or in the paper. I just remember the quote. Btw the White house is not exactly a hovel. Since this is not a political forum I shall restrain (with difficulty) from any further discussion on the subject.
Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :
I think it best if we keep the discussion on trains and not houses.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
If any of us has an opportunity in the next election cycle to query a candidate on their passenger rail position, we should do so.
If enough of us do it, they might even start thinking about it.
Gov. Richardson has some credibility for getting New Mexico's Rail Runner built. A practical and inexpensive project. He may have even preserved the current route of the Southwest Chief. Tommy Thompson is a proven friend of Amtrak. There is enough time for some of the front-runners to start slipping. Anything can happen.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: I think it best if we keep the discussion on trains and not houses.
I agree... Its just a habit of mine to debunk democrat myths when I see them in print.
With immigration, the war on terror, the early kick-off to the 2008 presidential race, and our "stuck on stupid" energy policy, I don't see much of an opportunity for Amtrak to "get a voice" and be seriously considered as a national priority by our congress or our President.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I googled Bush and "we don't need trains". I came up empty. However a lot of "other" people {bloggers} made that statement.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Tommy Thompson is a proven friend of Amtrak. There is enough time for some of the front-runners to start slipping. Anything can happen.
The New York Times recently had an article on Secretary Thompson's flailing Presidential bid. There was not one word about his passenger rail initiatives while Wisconsin's Governor.
Now that TV actor Fred Dalton Thompson has "not entered" the race, I think it takes an IQ of 75 to know where the Thompson name recognition will go.
It's over, Tommy.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Agreed, Mr. Norman. When he drops out it will probably be page 12 news. Of course we can always hope for a cabinet position. If the other Thompson wins we can even get Secretary of Defense Bruce Willis and Attorney General Sam Waterston.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Remember that before Fred Thompson had screen presence in Hollywood, he was the Minority Counsel for the Select Committee on Watergate.
I trust him to know the right folks to find.
BTW, of my issues in selecting a President, transportation and carbon, lumped together, are somewhere in the middle of the pack. Defense policy that grows the force to support the missions at hand comes first, tax cuts for the $50K-150K family gross income comes second, permanent repeal of the estate tax comes third, and draconian immigration management (converting extralegal to illegal and making it a capital offense to employ illegals) comes fourth.
Posted by vline (Member # 1132) on :
Thanks all for your interesting and informative replies.
We here used to consider the Labor Party(left of centre)to be very 'nanny state' however that appears to have changed and there's a lot of targetted support for the down at heel, and seemingly a lot of support, particularly come election time for the middle classes as well.
Though it's difficult to extricate a lot of people from their cars, where frequent, inexpensive, extensive public transit has been implemented; it's been taken up by the general population, though it's extremely difficult to extend our fixed rail suburban services unless the land has been kept aside, as much due to the saturated networks in the inner city due to a lack of investment over many decades.
Now that Governments here are realising the value of expansion, particularly fixed rail transport, a lot of $$ has to be spent on particularly the inner urban network so the outer urban network can expand.
The general feeling amongst public transit fans, particularly judging by the investment in my state of Victoria so far, is we are experiencing a public transit renaissance.
Needless to say, I'm looking forward to my next public transit based holiday in the US.
Mike. Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Fred Thompson was the Thompson I knew, and he had a serious career before he was an actor. I regard his acting period as all but incidental to his other self. Tommy Thompson was (and is) my who are you? Thompson. Mr. Norman, remember your home base is near TT's home base. For a lot of the rest of us it is a different story.
I'm sending emails to Newt and Fred to see if they will endorse or denigrate passenger rail. I'll post what they state {or don't state}.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by train lady: In my opinion the reason the last one who has a planet friendly home is because he lives on a differnt planet from the rest of us. This opinion is based partly on his statement that we don't need trains. People can fly or drive. Sorry Mike, I know you and I are on differnt sides on this .
Hi Train Lady (and Mike.....)
It might be friendlier to our planet if certain politicians really were on different planets.
If George Bush really does have the greenest house you can be certain it was an accident.
Had he planned it that way it would have instead been a huge disaster because he would have hired inept cronies to build it!
Yes......I lean left on the matter of mass transit (Amtrak included) and am extremely unhappy with the record on this during the Bush years. I only wish that I had confidence that the next Democratic administration would be a significant improvement. I don't.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: I googled Bush and "we don't need trains". I came up empty. However a lot of "other" people {bloggers} made that statement.
Might have been more related to something Norm Mineta said during his brief period as appointed Amtrak Hatchet Man for the Bush Administration. Perhaps the rhetoric that first surfaced during the Carter Administration that it would be cheaper to buy every passenger on the Sunset Limited an airplane ticket from New Orleans to Houston than to continue subsidizing that train.
(Of course I wondered how many passengers on the Sunset wanted to go to Houston from New Orleans pre-Katrina......)
I attended one of Norm's press conferences BTW and my blood still boils when I think about it.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Mineta (a democrat in the Bush administration) made some public comment about "empty trains running through Montana" and quoted boarding statistics that were blatantly false. His numbers were two-thirds right. He just didn't include the one in the hundredths column. Something along the lines of 58 vs. 358. What a guy.
I doubt if there are any President Bush comments out there about Amtrak, or that it even shows up on his radar. There are executives at UP who have been big Bush contributors, so he does think about them.
As Texas Governor, there was a comment Bush alledgedly once made that he was not aware Texas had trains. He said he thought everybody in Texas either drove or flew on planes (using the first name of the CEO to refer to the airline they used). I read this on some rail website so I don't know if it was accurate, and it may not have been a public comment.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Presley, may I respectfully address the Forum with the thought that no official of the Bush administration ever suggested "doing away with Amtrak". There was no suggestion, even during the 2005 "Marionetta Pup and Pony Show', to do away with intercity rail passenger service in its entirety, such as there was during the Reagan administration.
No wonder Mr. Smith's Google search of "Bush we don't need trains" came up dry.
Now admittedly the Administration through former Secretary Mineta, did propose draconian measures regarding the LD's, but when they realized what I have stated "ad infinitum' (OK some will say ad nauseum) how LD's are the catalyst for any federally funded service, they "put tail between legs'.
But I should acknowledge and respect that many here and the other forums I visit think of Amtrak as the LD system. Even though essentially any Amtrak trip I take involves use of an LD, I only think of LD's as "doing what needs to be done" to have a federal-level legislative majority, i.e. Mr. Pullman's 218+51+1, to ensure the meaningful services are funded. Therefore, the existing LD's count, but if more of them could be "pruned' without upsetting the noted majority, I would not oppose such an initiative.
Finally, as I conclude my "politalk', let us not forget that the draconian cuts seem to have occurred during the past two Democratic Administrations - and it seems that if the Members of the various railforums out there comprised the electorate in its entirety, any Democrat for any Federal office would win election by a landslide.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: let us not forget that the draconian cuts seem to have occurred during the past two Democratic Administrations - and it seems that if the Members of the various railforums out there comprised the electorate in its entirety, any Democrat for any Federal office would win election by a landslide.
Points taken Mr. Norman. You and I are probably closer on most topics than we realize. Although I have only quoted a portion of your post, I agree with some 95% of the rest of it. Note that I don't expect significant improvement in Amtrak's lot should the Donkeys return to the White House in the next election.
I suppose the thing that bothered me about the Mineta show was that tracking and disputing his misinformation distracted from what instead should have been productive conversation about what future role rail transit in it's various forms might play in this country. We proponents of an Amtrak which keeps the current LD network intact and perhaps even adds a few more routes (this is the only point where Mr. Norman and I consistantly but respectfully disagree.) came out of the process distrustful of Mineta and the administration that gave him his marching orders. (Frankly, in seeing an administration so eager to wage a misinformation campaign on something as inconsequential to most people as Amtrak, aforementioned administration is probably cooking up some really tall tales on the more important stuff!)
I'll add that I attended Mineta's press conference (in Charlotte, NC) as one of 10-12 picket carrying protesters. We behaved in a respectful manner, were allowed to attend the press conference, and got ourselves in the newspaper and on television with our signs. Not a bad day actually.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
George Bush's ranch in Crawford was built in 2000 specifically so that he would have a ranch when he ran for president, because of its appeal to the rugged image being created for him for the campaign. So I'm sure the ranch was made "green" for the same reason--something that could be cited in that election. Remember, in that election, there was an effort made to make him seem pro-environment in several other ways--e.g., in one of the debates, he promised to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions (and then backtracked after he was elected).
As for judging how Tommy Thompson will behave toward Amtrak based on what he did as governor, I'm afraid I'm a little cynical about that too. George Bush was reasonably Amtrak friendly as governor of Texas.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
The Texas Eagle and Heartland Flyer were very popular in Texas. Popular Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison(R) of Texas was one of Amtrak's most vocal supporters. It was politically expedient for then Governor Bush in his first elected office to support Amtrak.
The "neo-cons", who seem to have had the most influence in President Bush's administration, are philosophically opposed the the government running anything private enterprise could do instead. Hence, Amtrak does not fit into to their ideal free market economy.
As for the manufactured Bush rugged image, those many photo ops of him cutting brush are ample proof. Not too much is hyped of him being a prep-school cheerleader in his youth. It wouldn't even surprise me if we get to see Hillary Clinton hunting this year. It is all the carefully crafted image.
Tommy Thompson (though he has no chance of winning) was a proponent of expansion when he was on Amtrak's board of directors, and he opposed the proposed cuts in Amtrak funding by the Bush Administration. He wanted to be Bush's Transportation Secretary, but he was given another cabinet position, probably because he was thought to be too biased toward passenger rail. Maybe they were worried he was foamer waiting to come out of the closet.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by sojourner: So I'm sure the ranch was made "green" for the same reason--something that could be cited in that election. Remember, in that election, there was an effort made to make him seem pro-environment in several other ways--e.g., in one of the debates, he promised to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions (and then backtracked after he was elected).
Sorry, I don't remember anything about Bush's Ranch House being environmentally friendly, back in 2000. I heard it was built to give the Washington press corps something else to complain about {Central Texas heat during the annual August "vacation"}.
And I never heard him state anything about CO2. FYI: That's another farce being scammed on us by the whackos {global warming paranoia}.
And Mineta had a ton of latitude on what he did as SecTrans. Bush focused on our War on Terror, not Amtrak.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
Mike, I did also hear about the press corps (and assumed that was a joke) but the main reason it was built was to show the rugged image, as I said. I am speculating that it was easy to put in the environmental friendliness when you are just building something for show anyway--and just because you never heard it in 2000 doesn't mean environmental people didn't hear it--you clearly don't travel in those circles but I know Bush did try to present himself as reasonably friendly toward environmental issues in 2000. Anyway, as far as his promise about CO2 or carbon emissions I don't know the exact phrase, but I heard it with my own ears live out of his mouth in a debate. I think it was the debate hosted by Jim Lehrer but there you'd have to check. And I remember the environmental people expressing suprise and pleasure in hearing it in the post-debate discussions on TV.
BTW I don't think global warming is whacko paranoia; most reputable scientists think it's happening and the ones who say otherwise are almost invariably in the pay of the industries to whose advantage it is to pooh pooh it. It's not really global warming, though, it's climate change, climates getting more drastic, not always warmer, though warmer in spots (like the Poles). In fact, that is yet another reason to like trains; they use less fossil fuels. Amtrak even mentions it (or did) at their website.
Twin-star, I think you are confusing the neo-cons with economic libertarians. Though some people can both, I suppose.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Mineta did have a ton of latitude when talking about Amtrak, ....with facts.
Prior to being in the Bush Administration Mineta might even be considered pro rail, but was obviously willing to switch for a good job. Extremely pro-rail Tommy Thompson was far more qualified to be Trans Sec and wanted it badly (just Google 'Amtrak Tommy Thompson' for proof). Bush went for the "yes man" for Trans and his big contributors at UP were happy.
Sojourner, I'm sure you are right about economic libertarians and neo-cons. I'm not good with political labels. The faction I was trying to identify was the circle of Bush advisors who were devoted to a business friendly pro-investor administration (and who also thought a war with Iraq would be a good thing).
These political discussions can be fun, but I respectfully suggest we stick to politics that are rail related.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
Yes, TwinStar, I think you are right. I try not to go off on political tangents here; in fact, the only reason I posted about the Bush ranch is because I saw ads at the top of the page for Ann Coulter and decided the conversation must have gotten very one sided if the computerized ad generators thought people here were interested in reading Ann Coulter! Besides, I think politicians from both parties are all, pretty much, full of *** (I am typing the word that means "not a cat" because I know this server will turn that into a lot of expletive-deleted stars!!!). Since all they really care about are their loyal hacks and contributors, I think the only way to get long-distance passenger rail properly supported is to get companies looking for their corporate welfare to think of passenger rail as helpful in that regard. For instance, if there were a heavy move to expand long-distance passenger service and a lot of government money to be poured into the building of tracks or engines, the corporations doing that building might lobby for long-distance passenger service and then we would suddenly find lots more political action (as opposed to mainly hot air). That, after all, is how Amtrak got started, isn't it? Wasn't it mainly just Nixon looking to please his Southern Pacific pals, who wanted a place to unload some of their equipment and stuff, getting the government to buy it for the then-new Amtrak?
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
I believe that Norm Mineta was stumping with scripted talking points at the direction of someone higher in the administration to promote an agenda of eliminating anything Amtrak ran that the states being served were not footing the bill for. They carefully avoided calling outright for eliminating passenger rail altogether or any specific route in particular. Mineta's role was to be both attack pooch for and yes man to his superiors. (word substituted.....I didn't want the canine censor to get me!)
I believe that these talking points were generated by any of several conservative think tanks. I don't believe that anyone inside the administration ever spent more than 30 seconds tops considering the myriad of facts and figures cited by either side in the Amtrak debate. Amtrak is a very small thing, a minnow really, in the eyes of those who determine national policy.
I believe that someone, perhaps the Vice-President, perhaps Scooter Libby, perhaps someone else in the inner circle probably formulated the 'plan' and communicated that to George Bush in the form of "Sir, here's what we're going to do about Amtrak." The presentation may have taken up to 90 seconds and no more. When it ended the President probably said something like "You're doing a heckuva a job" or "Let me know how it worked out when you get done." We're fooling ourselves if we honestly believe the President devoted more than a minute or two attention to Amtrak and other rail transit issues.
Just my opinion...and I really wish that we had had a chance to see what Tommy Thompson might have done as Secretary of Transportation. His being passed over for that post was evidence from the outset that this administration had no real interest in doing anything to impact rail transit in a positive way.
Posted by vline (Member # 1132) on :
Hi again all and thanks again for continuing your interesting input to this thread.
Though the Democrats in the past may have been unfriendly towards LD rail, this was 7 years ago now and in my opinion, things may well change, as some of the states appear to be supporting public transit quite strongly, and I hope the flow on effect from this could be improved LD services as well.
I also believe that Amtrak will always carry a mixture of tourist and ever increasing numbers of domestic travellers who no longer desire to fly, and are seeking a more civilised travel experience.
The weight of ever increasing passenger numbers will, in my opinion, demand an improvement in the quality of the LD rail travel experience, and an increase in the frequency of many services.
Mike.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by notelvis: Just my opinion...and I really wish that we had had a chance to see what Tommy Thompson might have done as Secretary of Transportation. His being passed over for that post was evidence from the outset that this administration had no real interest in doing anything to impact rail transit in a positive way.
Mr. Presley, I don't think Tommy was "passed over" for SecTrans; that is simply railfan lode.
While not State, Defense, or Treasury, HHS is a "mite bit" higher on the pecking order than is Transportation. Tommy delivered Wisconsin to W during 2K where we know every vote counted, what did Norm ever deliver?
In short, Transportation is a throw away appointment used for either lesser "rewards" (Clinton appointing Pena), racial balance (Ford/Coleman) or statements of bipartisanship (Bush/Mineta). Tommy did more deserving than a throw away Cabinet appointment - and he got it!
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
A quote from that article: "It also would mark the second time in less than six months that Mineta won a job coveted by Thompson, who had sought to become transportation secretary."
There were other articles claiming he sought to replace Mineta after he resigned from HHS.
Posted by PullmanCo (Member # 1138) on :
Four Quotes:
This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer. - Will Rogers
The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best. - Will Rogers.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Samuel L Clemens
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. - Ronald Reagan
... and that, Ladies and Gentlemen, pretty well deals with my view of politicians and the political process
Posted by RRCHINA (Member # 1514) on :
Those who take a published report by scientists without question should read this story in the Sydney Morning Herald (smh.com.au ) which informs that humans, meaning all of us, are using too much of the suns energy.
I wonder who provides the money to conduct a study analyzing how much of the suns energy is used by the various species who benefit from it. Perhaps they can also propose a way to speed up, or slow down the earth's rotation so that desired locations can have more or less sunlight. How much silliness will we put up with?
Yes, there is an ongoing climate change and it has been ongoing longer than we can accurately measure it. And we certainly cannot determine how our activites can be measured in comparison to those things we cannot control. Example: the receeding of the graciers at the close of the the Ice Age obviously took a climate change much more dramatic than is now occurring. I cannot get too excited when I find politicians and celebrity persons portraying doomsday.
Posted by notelvis (Member # 3071) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: [/qb]
Mr. Presley, I don't think Tommy was "passed over" for SecTrans; that is simply railfan lode.
While not State, Defense, or Treasury, HHS is a "mite bit" higher on the pecking order than is Transportation. Tommy delivered Wisconsin to W during 2K where we know every vote counted, what did Norm ever deliver?
In short, Transportation is a throw away appointment used for either lesser "rewards" (Clinton appointing Pena), racial balance (Ford/Coleman) or statements of bipartisanship (Bush/Mineta). Tommy did more deserving than a throw away Cabinet appointment - and he got it! [/QUOTE]
Here in North Carolina we had been hearing back in Y2K that George Bush wanted our outgoing Governor, Jim Hunt, for Secretary of Education.....based on North Carolina's standardized school testing program which served as a model for some parts of 'No Child Left Behind'.
Hunt, a lifelong Democrat and four-term governor, issued a statement saying that he was ready to step away from politics and not interested in being a lone Democrat among Republicans on Bush's cabinet.
Mineta, I think, was tapped for Transportation Secretary to be the token democrat in a 'harmless', relatively unimportant position. (another point where we agree.....transportation is of little importance in the greater scheme of most administrations!)
Had Jim Hunt agreed to the Education post, the token Democrat would have been in place and Tommy Thompson, who as TwinStar points out was documented as having lobbied for Transportation, may have gotten that post instead.
Maybe.
Posted by Tanner929 (Member # 3720) on :
Stay away from New England democrats they talk about mass transportation but only pour money into more poorly designed and poorly built highways.
The liberals up here all chuckled at George W's "switchgrass" alternative fuel source instead of corn based ethenols "cuss people still need to eat corn!" well low an behold have you checked the price of your groceries?
Here in CT our rail system has the oldest, dirtiest and most uncomfortable rail cars, our senior senator has wondered off to run for president, anyone see Chris Dodd ? anyone? could you recognize him in a line up? sorry about the rant but if they could refine the hot air that comes out of our politicians we'd never go dark.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)