Don Baccus wrote,

>> >Option 9 wasn't all that bad. Not all that good, but a great step
>> >forward.
>> ...
>> >Oh, sorry, being cynical again...

>> Cynical? Sounds like you're inventing your own cover to hide behind
while
>> trying to defend a man (Clinton) who is politician first and idealist
>> somewhere down the line.

>First, I stated that it was politically smart. Thus, the fact that
>Clinton is a politician first and foremost fits. He made it clear
>that he was doing it for political reasons. Events have shown him
>to be politically astute - he (and we) have had our butts kicked
>recently.

Sorry I misinterpreted your intent. However, my belief is that if a
politician is true to his values, he shouldn't have to play political
games. If you misrepresent yourself to the people you deserve to get your
butt kicked.

>Why are we doing this in private instead of in public?

>Duck and cover is a paradigm well suited to politics. You're pulling
>a Clinton, here...

Thanks for the compliment.

>> In cases whre a win-win solution is possible, Clinton comes up with a
>> lose-lose solution.

>OK. What was the win-win option endorsed by the scientists? They
>all offered less harvest to the industry than Option 9 - how was
>that a win for industry? Please keep in mind that the industry has
>made it clear that they reserve the right to declare a win for them
>to themselves, on their own (short-term) terms.

Thanks, you just shot the win-win option out from under me. The win-win was
to protect the ancient growth for the environmentalists while opening up
other timber sources for industry. I buy into the concept of our public
lands as a buffer to insure continuing supplies of natural resources. But
if either side for whatever reason wants the whole thing, which is not in
the end a winning situation for either, unless we all go away tomorrow...
I'm talking about win-win for people with their heads screwed on tight and
who really need the jobs.

>Which of the 8 options looked better to the industry? "win-win" implies
>good to industry as well as forests, so please be *specific*.

>> Clinton only remains where he is (and will) because no one with any
merit
>> has come forward to challenge him.

>Like Newt? Bob? Gordon? Larry? Helen? Just who?

I repeat, NO ONE.

>- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>

Jerry_Tangren at tfrec.ncw.net