Final Thoughts on Gale Norton

By March 15, 2006General

Interesting WaPo editorial yesterday on Gale Norton, their view of beauty. They were — as usual — left of us but right of the NY Times. (Is anyone ever left of the NY Times except maybe Mother Jones….?) They hemmed and hawed a little bit about her tenure but finally concluded that she “never successfully brokered a compromise” between business and enviros on some tough issues. They end up accusing her of leaving behind “bitterness and division”. But here’s the rub: all the bitterness and division came from the enviros and the left. To the extent she was unable to brook any compromise, it was because they wouldn’t have any of it. Where will they allow us to drill, to explore, to tap our resources of oil and natural gas? Nowhere, that’s where. So much for compromise.

Gale Norton had a great tenure, did the right thing. The enviros’ man lost the election so they didn’t get their hand-picked person at Interior. Instead they got a fair-minded person who was committed to ending our dependence on foreign oil and on tapping our own resources in an environmentally safe way. And the enviros are still steamed about it.

Join the discussion One Comment

  • Karyn Errington says:

    No, Gale Norton was fully on the side of business. The oil in the Artic Refuge would not meet the needs of the US – it would only serve as a precedent so that she could exploit any of our national parks at a future date. The oil extracted from the Artic Refuge would in all likelihood be exported to the Far East. So, how would this help us?