I hesitate to post this message, since it's a touchy topic and most minds are
made up.   But I will speak once and then forever hold my peace.  Feel free
to skip what's below if you are weary of this subject.

1.   Some states, at least compared to other states, have
environmentally-friendly governors, legislatures, budgets, and voters.
These states have demonstrated their willingness to go above and beyond
federal standards, programs, and funding to protect the environment.

With certain notable exceptions, Iowa does not fit this description.   To a
large extent, our environmental policies will depend on what is handed to us
by Washington.   In that sense, Iowa has a bigger environmental stake in this
presidential election than some "greener" states.

2.  Fear can be a legitimate motivation.  I have a deep fear of waking up on
Nov. 8 to the realization that President Bush will be choosing new members of
the Supreme Court and appointing a new cabinet and otherwise setting
environmental policy for the next four years.    Given the effect of Supreme
Court decisions, he'd actually be setting environmental policy for decades.

I also fear what it may do to my nervous system in the following weeks if
political analysts conclude that the deciding factor in electing President
Bush was the Ralph Nader vote.

3.  I know several Iowans who would like to vote for Nader, but who have
carefully considered the potential consequences, especially in a state that's
still considered to be undecided.   They have decided to vote for Gore
instead.   I am grateful to them.

Now I'll shut up.

Cindy Hildebrand
[log in to unmask]
Ames, IA  50010

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]