Election Divides GOP On Whether To Seize And Sell America’s Public Lands

[ashling]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/07/3590195/election-divides-gop-public-lands/

Proposals to seize and sell federal land are not only fundamentally unconstitutional, but also would cost state taxpayers millions of dollars, and in many cases, force the sale of public lands to the highest bidder.

Land grabs are also deeply unpopular among voters. Recent public opinion research, conducted by a bipartisan polling team, found that the majority of Western voters firmly oppose proposals to transfer America’s national forests and public lands to state ownership.

...

For the Republican Party, the growing internal debate over whether America’s public lands should be seized and sold represents a choice between the conservation values of Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and the power of a special interest-driven agenda. Former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar observed in August that the RNC’s endorsement of land grabs would “cause Teddy Roosevelt to turn over in his grave.”

With the debate escalating over whether public lands should be seized or sold, candidates who dodged the issue but won on Tuesday will likely soon have to say whether they are with the party of Teddy Roosevelt or Cliven Bundy.

[randys1]

1. If allowed repubs will sell everything and privatize all govt functions

Picture a Halliburton division tasked with guarding the white house

[Wellstone ruled]

2. All of the Western Rethugs have been using this as a

issue for reelection. Maybe on the East Coast folks might be surprised. If you know anything about the Southwest you would have some idea what is in play here. Look up the state of Deseret and understand what is in play here. Same game hundred and fifty years later. Prove me wrong if you can.