Alan at IdaBlue has some interesting analysis on the open space debate and the fears and frustrations that many sportsmen/women, anglers and recreationalists have with public lands being closed off or sold off. It continues with how Democrats may be able to claim some of that territory through rebranding. Go check it out.
I agree with most of his analysis on the whole; I do have a small quarrel with his closing comment:
I don’t think it really matters if any of these bills get passed. The point is to show Dems responding to hunters’ concerns, and to drive a wedge between two R bases.
I think that if Democrats want to be known as the party of protecting access to public lands, the issues shouldn't be taken up merely as a vehicle to garner support for the party. The issues should and do matter.

I agree that the issues should and do matter, and if any are proposed I hope they pass. My point would be better stated thus: Even if none of the legislation passes, Dems and voters can benefit. If sportsmen/women will start to vote Dem, sporting issues are more likely to get a better reception from a more balanced legislature, one that isn't so skewed toward resource extraction interests.
Posted by: Alan | February 15, 2007 at 07:22 PM
Thanks for clarifying Alan. Definitely got some promising ideas there; hopefully others are listening.
Posted by: MountainGoat | February 16, 2007 at 07:57 AM