I feel like Salazer slipped in with no media attention during the media storm that surrounded Obama’s election. Maybe environmental groups can actually speak up this time and not assume Obama will do the right thing like they assumed a year ago.
First of all, not a done deal until a press conference is held. There are two other folks here in Colorado that want that chance to run, and the party wants to avoid a blood bath. Hickenlooper and Romanoff are interested. Second, according to sources inside the House, the money is on Hayes, with Strickland running a close second. Grijalva is not being mentioned. Hayes would probably be the better choice substantively, and has already survived a confirmation battle. Third, to give you an idea of how bad rumors can be, the “Terminator of Californea’s” name has been mentioned. I am sure he would THRILLED to leave the mess California is in, but really…Arnold running Interior? Fourth, you can be sure it won’t be a career person from a non profit, activist background given the path Obama followed in his other appointments. The West is not high on his priority list..we now know this for sure.
I want SB to give up the names he is hearing…I mean, why not? My sources in DC are pretty good, but SB could be more highly connected…
Environmental groups will speak out,or rather, through back channels, but don’t expect the Obama folks to pay much attention this time around either. It isn’t like Salazar..assuming he IS leaving…left under a cloud of corruption, and they need to get it “right” this time. It will be most likely one of the vetted folks to avoid a battle. I am just hoping SB is not thinking one of the govs of Montana or Wyoming. God save us.
Mike – is that how it is in Chicago? You folks stick together now do you? Still covering for the disgraceful politcal class. You are one tough cookie – I cannot imagine being you – wake up everyday and have to cover for the Chicago disgrace. You go my brother.
“Obama has been 10x better than Bush”
Not to start a big political debate but I just ain’t seeing it.
By that logic he would have had to do at least 10 things better than Bush. I can’t name one. Not saying it’s worse but certainly no better. If you want to talk wolves probably as many or more have died since he’s been in office than while Bush was there.
Nice try but that’s his agenda, not a single one of those thigs has actually been done yet. He was also going to end the war, close Gitmo, make the skies safe, have an open debate on health care, blah blah blah.
I will give you he’s bailed out wall street so they can get richer, nationalized the banks, insurance and auto industry, is attempting to do the same with the health care system and failed miserably at creating jobs and keeping unemployment below 8%.
1.Health care had the town hall meetings which were hijacked by anti-reform whackjobs, but health care will still pass. It won’t be a dream bill, but all of the major progressive legislation of the last century had small starts only to be improved later.
2. The environment: Bush rulings have been pushed back or reversed.
3. Gitmo is still up in the air
4. The skies are safer than they were under Bush so far. Remember 9/11?
Did I mention his appointments, a blantant tax cheat to run Treasury, a militant gay as Safe School Czar, a totally incompetent Home land security director, a CIA head with no intellegence background (that showed Christmas day), a Supreme Court Justice that has had 65% of her rulings overturned, etc, etc. And then there is Salazar. Even a dummy like Bush coould have done all that.
The only name I have heard seriously floating around would not make anyone happy, I got a call this morning from an associate that stated if this goes through that the Governor of Montana may be tapped. Now of course that was a call from someone I worked with, and not an official call, so take it for what it is. As I said, it could be worse than it currently is, and with the way politicians do things, leaves it up in the air…
I think the decision would be based more on politics rather than who would be best for the job.
Gov Dave is term limited (although he is considering a court challenge on that); he is an Obama supporter; and if he was appointed he wouldn’t be opening up an elected position that could go to a Republican in an election year where the pendulum may be leaning towards the right.
Plus the rumors out of Cheyenne last year, were that he was on the short list when Salazar was selected.
I wonder if Richardson, NM, the original pick could be brought in, if his legal stuff is solved. He has a good reputation and he is fair. I have a feeling no matter whom get the spot, that the states will fight dirty if any laws get put in effect that they feel will infringe on their rights to kill or protect cattle. the people and the WLS of certain states are the number one danger to the wild life we treasure, not the FEDS or Obama!
Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think the Richardson thing has been resolved. Besides, I think he would have made a better candidate for State than for Interior, but Hillary made the deal and so far has been doing a good job.
I hope no Montana or Wyoming Gov., but it sure fits the past patterns, especially if Obama is as non caring about the West as he has demonstrated so far. I am still hoping Obama does the easy thing, and picks someone from Interior like Hayes. It may be as good as it gets. I could deal with that; despite his corporate stuff, he has the right instincts. Of course, if it is politics as usual out here, Secretary position won’t matter much; it will the local and regional powers that rule.
Ralph, thanks for the blog site, coloradopols.com. It was interesting to surf around in it. I have not checked it this morning..the latest rumor on it last night had Salazar all but checked out of DC, and the others were ready to defer to him if he decided to make the run. I guess according to the press releases, the Gov. position has been a lifelong goal, and if Ritter had announced a year ago he wasn’t going to run, Salazar never would have gone to DC, and we would have a different..maybe not better…scenario out here now.
Oh yeah – I think Freudenthal makes the most sense. All the brouhaha about the worhtless “We Can Have An Oil Well On Every Section And Have Oodles Of Sage-Grouse” nonsense publicity of this week.
NO credible Bio would believe that. The Audubon fellow promoting it is just not credible, and appears to have sold his soul to industry.
Here’s the scenario: Salazar makes sure FWS does not list sage-grouse next month because of the wonderful “conservation” effort of the Freudenthal-Audubon oil drilling proposal. They will be writing that language right now for the Federal Register Notice. Then, sometime in the next couple of months, after authorizing the BLM Right-of-Way for the Ruby gas pipeline that is going to tear up 4 states, and fast-tracking even more sweetheart Industrial Renewable wind and solar deals and transmission lines for every energy speculator under the sun, Salazar goes home to Colorado to devote more time to this cows and his campaign.
Then Freudenthal parachutes into Interior, cheered on by the Big Greens and industry. Folks, this is all one big slick PR process being played out.
You know what I think brought Salazar’s downfall: The wild horse issue, and the utterly inept and corrupt way BLM has handled it. Angering a lot of people with connections.
Wellll, it is a political job…VBG….and electability is often the primary concern, along with fund raising. Hickenlooper has proven to be very good at fund raising, but as if this morning, no work on his decision and I don’t expect one on the news dump day of Friday, so we shall see.
I like Hickenlooper, but I think Salazar could have been less damaging as Governor that Sec of Int.
Either way, he is a bad choice for any office, unless he was running for ‘Rancher of the United States’.
Hickenlooper is bright, and fairly ‘eco-friendly’, but he is a businessman.
I doubt he will have a very green impact here in CO. Particullarly since the revenues from hunting and fishing here are huge, bigger than skiing.
The only way to get green around here, is to make it good for hunters…and push ranchers off of public land.
I think skiing generates more gross dollars for the economy than hunting and fishing generally, but if you are talking about direct contributions to the state coffers, yeah, I think you are correct.
I think one of the ways to get Colorado more “green” is to go to a more general tax-based support for wildlife and lands management programs. I think it is only fair that we all pay for maintaining and enhancing the health of the lands and animals that are so celebrated in promoting the state. As I have said before, this would, however, diminish the influence the hunting and fishing community has on the policies and conduct of the DNR here in Colorado, and I think that constituency understands that, and would resist that kind of change to a more egalitarian system of support.
Salazar was a huge disappointment to me. I had voted for Obama for one reason, and that was for wilderness and wildlife. His appointment of Salazar made my vote worthless. Hopefully, he’ll get it right the next time around.
It does generate more than skiing. And I think that hunters/anglers have a place, and a need for their voice also.
I hear what you are saying, and agree. We will see what happens…hopefully to our pleasant suprise.