Why do so many Republicans vote against animal rights and environmental issues?

Mitt Romney tied his dog to the top of his car for 12 hours





Huckabee voted Yes on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge


News reported that he covered up his son hanging a dog, who died from the hanging He declines he covered it up but did say it happened





John McCain voted NO on continuing desert protection in California





Ron Paul voted Yes On promoting Yucca Mountain





I'm NOT a democrat

Why do so many Republicans vote against animal rights and environmental issues?
The acts against animals are one thing, but I don't hold a politician accountable for the deeds of their children. Romney's dog was in a carrier but still it shows ignorance. But to the more pressing issue Republicans don't buy into the environmental wacoism's of the extreme left. For instance ANWAR is an area with 1000's of square miles of frozen tundra and they need 20 square miles of it to produce enough oil to drop 12% of our imports. It makes no sense not too do this and the environmentalist are not so much against it as they are wanting a pay off from it.
Reply:psh democrats are all about kill the babies and save the trees
Reply:save a dog... treat unborn babies like ticks on a dog
Reply:This is a very interesting point and to the person who said the dog was in a carrier, there is a lot more to the story.





http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...
Reply:I would not say that.





1. Wind farms on New England coast was shot down by Hollywood elites because it would ruin their view.


2. Hollywood liberals own many large homes and consume more fuel, excess, excess, excess, etc..... But think driving a Hybrid negates this wastefullness.


3. Environmentalists did not want nuclear power and succeeded in preventing nuclear power plants from being built. What is the alternative but to use more fossil fuels if a viable energy source is shot down?


4. Who says drilling in the Arctic refuge is going to damage the environment? Supporting mid-east oil and giving them money to invest in China and educate their children to hate the west is good for the environment?


5. Etc.....
Reply:Its better for business and making money.


Environmental issues and Animal rights means more government control and taxes.
Reply:It's not so much that they are against animal rights as they understand they are animals and should be treated kindly, but are not human. As for environmentalist, I live in the South. You'll find no finer conservationist than most hunters and fishermen. Being careless destroys their opportunity to hunt and fish.
Reply:It could well be that they are standing up for the top animal on the list. HUMANS. The environment will fix itself and putting the US as the bad guy is simply a sign of stupidity. China and India will dwarf our contamination of the environment and they go unchallenged by the activist. People need to understand they can act rationally to save the world and not waste more protesting than they can hope to save. Al Gore is a prime example of taking one way and acting another. His cross glove private jet flights cause more harm than the people of small city. Naturally libs put the blame on conservatives as liberal giants fly around (like Hillary) in helicopters trying to convinced the people of Iowa how likable she is.
Reply:A lot of them are full of anger and/or hatred and are brought up thinking animals and the environment are God given rights that will always be around,no matter what.


Look at Todd O's answer...


1.) He's talking about an elite view of HUMANS, that really has nothing to do with how the average person thinks or behaves


2.) First off, I believe this is a direct reference to Dole. His house is large so it uses a lot of electricity BUT he also has a generator that uses renewable energy and he donates money to some tree planting operation. L. di Caprio could afford to have any d@mn car he wants but he chose some hybrid that was around $20,000-30,000. There are tons of actors/actresses who do something for the environment, if nothing else, they get tens of thousands to become aware of the problem and all those people do something themselves to conserve electricity.


3.) An alternative has not been found but denying the problem certainly won't get you far.


As far as nuclear power goes, it's very explosive, therefore extremey dangerous and the biproducts are as bad or worse for the environment.


4. 'Who says drilling in the Arctic refuge is going to damage the environment?'-I'm pretty sure it was said by environmental scientists. And, except you, I've never heard anyone question that. Just if it the end result would really bother us that much since we don't use the majority of the land anyway. Sheesh.


Giving money to China to train their kids to hate us?...something like that. I believe dear old George Bush, Jr. just named them top country to trade with so it doesn't seem like Republicans give the human population more consideration than business pockets. Gee, what a surprise.
Reply:As long as we humans EAT animals, you gonna have trouble getting the respect you deserve as an animal. No judgment here. I like a good steak. I just hope the poor animal was not unduly terrorized or mis treated prior to it's death ...I take to heart that I am what I eat.





Environment? We live here. Is you house clean? Does everything in it work? How do others that live around you feel about your house? and YOU? I think a good Rep. kinda thinks this way. We are masters of the land, stewards to a healthy and prosperous world and if we have to choose between living well, longer and in a more balanced world ...to HELL with the in dangered Spotted Owl!
Reply:Ron Paul sees the role of government more as a ref/host/mechanism. Not as a player in this experiment we call the USA.





Having real free trade and less government is more effective.





Just a small thought from me: Imagine the government had bids for sub-contractors vs what we have now for building highways.





Completion is healthy for a strong economy and advancement.





As for the environment: none of us need to argue that our government is corrupt. Last time I looked the ones who pollute (the corporations) don't seem as concerned as the general public does. If you followed private property laws without most of the restrictions which have been placed by our government against you, you'd be able to sue them!





So I finish with a question:


Do the polluters listen to the government or their losses more?
Reply:The are all just egotistical dogs so they should take better care of the creatures great and small. But not now. This is their 15 minutes of glory the always dreamed of. Only one will come out the winner and the rest wil evaporate. Hope it will be be accelerated by removing the majority from office in coming Congressional elections. It is time for them to go. They preen and strut now, but they are the past and not the future.
Reply:There are those on this planet who believe we should be the caretakers of that which sustains us; and there are those who do not. It doesn't take a genius to figure out if you fail to protect the land we live on, the water we drink, and the air we breathe, what's left ? Oil ? Mighty filling in the wallet, but it will hardly sustain life. I don't thnk you have to be a "hippie" to understand that concept.
Reply:Because there are always two sides.





Huckabee did not see himself as voting Yes on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He saw himself as voting yes on energy security.





You'll get no where only thinking about the side you like.
Reply:Reading people's responses here about how "Republicans are worried about more important things" makes me want to vomit. Somebody even said "the environment will fix itself". Are we serious people? People get so defensive when saying "we aren't hippies"...





Last I checked showing respect and compassion for the world around us was pretty much the path to peace. In my opinion, I'd like to believe mankind is inherently good. And if you want to argue for saying it isn't, you go right ahead. You go right ahead and argue against respect and compassion.





Don't get me wrong, I understand when people say that we have more important things to worry about, but I'm pretty sure that we should care about everything and not just discard something as not good enough to be concerned about. It is our jobs as humans, Americans, and a democracy to GIVE A SH*T.
Reply:I agree with a couple others here. Republicans worry more about the more important issues.
Reply:Because there are more important things to think about...





We're not hippies.
Reply:I like how the last poster "pshhs" saving the trees. I can see her first point. But one shouldn't equate abortion with evironmental protection.





I think it's more because they are very against science or simply not interested in learning about it - so any environmental issue or concern They also are conservative and care about the people directly for the moment and making money now. They don't think of the long term effects that not protecting these regions has on people. I think you can have a balance between profit but also protecting nature.





For example Huckabee still thinks evolution has a theory on the origin of life (it does not). Although he is open to evolutionary process as he said on O'Reilly. But I think they also don't have to respect for animals. They consider themselves master and the animals and land are there to serve them.





I am not sure if this is true. But this is the current explanation I will go with until someone convinces me otherwise.





I also don't see the validity with a previous post about Hollywood Liberals. Hollywood Liberals are nutjobs. Not all people who are what is considered "left" leaning are crazy just like not all right wing conservatives are ranting religious nuts. Hollywood Liberals are a poor example, just like Ann Coulter would be a poor example of the typical conservative.





EDIT: I also think that they don't want to turn off the right wing nutjobs who do support him - those ones are adamant against environment protection and consider it hippie nonsense. Meanwhile the normal Republican supporters may care about the environment, but it just isn't a priority and won't base their vote on that. So the person running might as well feed into the nuts without suffering a loss from their broader mainstream Republican base.
Reply:i dont like mitt but the dog was in a carrier get the story straight , did you know its illegal to have you dog unsecured in your car to begin with so why arent you going after that, how about the fact a dog can go blind from hanging its head out of a window with all the debris flying in their eyes, so your point is moot

Apparel