Natural Patriot’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  that voice

  Darth,

  We've already spent eight years listening to the voice of George Bush and, more painfully, the "thinking" behind it.  How much worse could Hillary's voice be . . .?!

  The Natural PatriotOn The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 10 months ago 32 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I never understood the Hillary buzz

  She's got a lot going for her, no doubt.  She's smart, and she's tough as nails (the latter of which, alas, will probably still work against a female candidate in modern America).  She's a battle-hardened political survivor.  She's got a well-oiled political machine. She'd probably make a damn good President.

  But can anyone imagine a realistic scenario that would end up with her winning the general election?  Consider this: 1) She is possibly the most polarizing figure in American politics of the last few decades.  We can be reasonably confident that not a single Republican would vote for her in the general election, possibly with the exception of a handful of New Yorkers.  That means she has to get literally every Democratic vote in the country to win (since a Hillary candidacy would probably be a more effective get-out-the-vote weapon for the GOP than anything they themselves could muster).  2) Then there is the news from Iowa that she led only among the over-65 crowd (I think I remember that correctly).  That doesn't bode well with an electorate seething for change.  That she is the ultimate insider also doesn't help in that respect. 3) I still can't shake the suspicion that, in the final moments alone in the voting booth, too many of our fellow Americans will blink before they can vote for a woman President. They will vote for a black man first. Just a hunch.

  Despite her many merits, I just can't see her winning. I'm with Obama.  Or whoever the other Dem will be.

  The Natural PatriotOn The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 10 months ago 32 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  An alternative view

  Hey guys, let's step back for a moment.  Yes, Gingrich is a divisive hard-core politician.  Yes, the book is superficial and breezy.  That's because it's not written for the choir at Grist to whom you're preaching.  Instead, it aims at a much more important purpose, which is to reach the average American, or even the average Republican -- many of whom still don't believe in global warming, some of whom still think (to paraphrase the late Jerry Falwell) that environmentalism is Satan's way of distracting us from society's "real" problems, presumably gay marriage and abortion.  And probably none of whom read Grist.

  This book is not intended to be a detailed tome on how to fix the environment for a simple reason.  Few people, least of all that critical conservative demographic whose minds need changing on environmental issues, would read it.  On the other hand, they might well read this one and come away with the sense that a hard-core conservative (former) leader believes that global warming is real, that environmental degradation is a major problem, and that doing something about it should be a core American value.

  If the book succeeds in converting even a relatively small fraction of that audience to a more sympathetic view toward environmentalism (or perhaps I should use the preferred conservative term "stewardship"), it will have done a lot more than hundreds of essays in a liberal echo chamber have. And, as a committed, life-long liberal, I would consider that real progress.  
  On A review of Gingrich's new book on the environment posted 1 year, 11 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Patriotism revised (new and improved!)

  Hey Andy,

  Many thanks for the plug and link to The Natural Patriot.

  And thanks, Caniscandida, for the comments. Teddy Roosevelt probably said it best:

  "Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation."

  and . . .

  "Conservation of our resources is the fundamental question before this nation, and that our first and greatest task is to set our house in order and begin to live within our means."

  And -- credit where it's due -- let's not forget Richard Nixon:

  "Environment' is not an abstract concern, or simply a matter of aesthetics, or of personal taste--although it can and should involve these as well. Man is shaped to a great extent by his surroundings. Our physical nature, our mental health, our culture and institutions, our opportunities for challenge and fulfillment, our very survival -- all of these are directly related to and affected by the environment in which we live. They depend upon the continued healthy functioning of the natural systems of the Earth."

  In addition to the Natural Patriot, heavyweights Environmental Defense and Tom Friedman of the NY Times are on the same page.  See, for example, Friedman's compelling article, The Power of Green.

  Arise Patriots!

  Emmett DuffyOn A few random notes posted 2 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Who needs a huge political coalition?

  Dave is right, I think, that little real-world political support will be forthcoming from the Republican party for progressive approaches to environmental problems, at least in the near-term future.  The party is too beholden to the hard-core activist elements of its base (as is of course also true of the Democrats). That could change, slowly, if they take a few more drubbings at the polls.

  But maybe we don't need a huge coalition with centrist libertarians (whether small or large L) and so forth.  All that's needed is the proverbial swing voters.  After all, George Bush became leader of the free world in 2000 because of only a few thousand votes (no wait, Al Gore was elected! Oh never mind). If enough centrist Republicans come to believe that their leaders are out to lunch on climate change -- which would not be a hard conclusion to reach -- they may just pull the lever in the opposite direction.  And if the candidates are as evenly matched as they have been for the past several years, only a few such flip-floppers (did I say that?) would be needed.

  The bigger problem we face, which I don't think has been mentioned in this long thread, is that the environment is down around # 346 on voters' list of priorities after terrorism, health care, imagined child kidnappings, the "death tax", etc. etc. etc.

  The Natural PatriotOn There's a coalition waiting posted 2 years, 8 months ago 60 Responses