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

Question

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

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

Democrats: Here's are the top 10 reasons to vote Democrat: 1 – The United States’ Constitution: Remember Habeus Corpus? The Fourth Amendment? Privacy? Free Speech? Democrats support those things. They vote for them, fight for them, and have died for them. 2 – Presidential Accountability: From the outset the founding fathers never intended a jovial relationship between Congress and the Presidency. Single party rule at the hands of the GOP has created a rubber-stamp Congress that simply bows to the whims of the President. The result is corruption, incompetence, and nepotism. A Democratic Congress won’t, as so many allege, begin immediate impeachment proceedings against Bush. What it will do it hold the White House accountable for its actions, it’s rhetoric, and its policies. 3 – A Fresh Look at Iraq: Regardless of how you feel about the current Iraq policy, the previous one can be agreed to be an utter and dismal failure. The military blunders that got us here need examination and the military decisions that we’re making right now need even more. The Bush Administration has lost almost all credibility in the eyes of Americans and the eyes of the world through its horrid mis-management of Iraq. If the United States is to avoid in Iraq the same sort of political defeat we suffered in Vietnam, the US occupation requires political legitimacy. That legitimacy can only be gained through the approval of a critical, not a lapdog, Congress. 4 – A Sane Look at Immigration: Illegal Immigration is a problem in the United States, no doubt about that. Making immigration about national security, however, is a pathetic political ploy that detracts from the issue itself. More than 50% of illegals entered the country legally. More than 50% of the Mexican boarder won’t be addressed by the Republican Congress’ new fence. By making immigration about national security, the GOP is ignoring more half of the problem. That’s not a solution, it’s pandering. Addressing the problem from a social and regulatory standpoint is the only solution that is even remotely viable. Who’s the party of social and regulatory policy again? 5 – A Judicial Meritocracy: The Conservative litmus test for judges and justices brought us the glowing candidacy of Harriet Myers – a candidate the GOP Congress seemed eager to approve of. Though the Democrats often take fire for being “Ivory Tower Elitists,” shouldn’t we want the best and brightest serving on the bench? The Senate should be making these appointments about qualified and not – not about conservative and not. 6 – Fiscal Responsibility: There used to be a time when the GOP was the party of Fiscal Responsibility. I’m sure we all miss those times. Americans spend more than they make, and our government is doing the same thing. It’s unsustainable. The sooner we clean that mess up the sooner we can re-kindle our economy. Remember how we were going to pay off the Federal Debt in a few decades when Clinton was in power? It’s close to 9 Trillion now. 7 – Tax Reform: To whom much is given, much is expected. No economist in the world has ever endorsed the “voodoo economics” of trickle-down theory. Yet, here we are giving massive tax cuts to the upper 1% while most of America doesn’t get enough back to buy an iPod. No one’s talking about raising your taxes, but rather your boss’, boss’, boss’ taxes. Maybe his boss’ taxes. 8 – Energy Policy: The GOP isn’t called the party of Gas Oil and Petroleum without reason. As the energy crisis deepens, compromise and middle ground will have to be found between the public interest and the interest of the energy companies. Shouldn’t at one side of that debate be – well – not the energy companies? 9 – Education: Ask any teacher in the country – no child left behind is an unmitigated disaster. Under-funded, over-regulated, and over the top, the program puts the entire public school system at risk. Public schools need work, but that work needs to come from those most able to respond to the needs of the schools in question. The GOP has decided to regulate our schools rather than fund them. That doesn’t seem to be working very well. 10 – Social Programs: Health Care, College Access, Broadband Access – we rely on social equality and technological advancement to strengthen our economy, protect our country, and build our future. Democrats believe making these twenty-first century utilities available to the least of us benefits all of us. It won’t be easy to do; but neither was landing a man on the moon.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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?

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

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.

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

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.....