I found a news item in the Seattle Times this morning, Saturday, rather hard to believe.

The governor of Oregon (won't try to spell his name without help) sent a letter to the US Forest Service protesting the Bush administration's plan to relax roadless area restrictions in national forests.

He also said, according to this article, that he wants governors/states to have more say in the way national forests within the state's borders are managed.

HOWEVER, and it's a big however, one of the primary points in the Bush administration's reversal of Bill Clinton's lame-duck roadless declaration is that state governors can be involved in the decision process of whether or not a roadless area stays in the designation.

In other words, Bush is trying to give the states the ability to decide, or input in the decision, on how federal lands (or roadless areas in this case) are managed. So the Oregon governor (Kulongske?) is objecting to a proposal that will give him what he wants.

Is he really: a) ignorant? b) that stupid? c) hypocritical? or d) just trying to get re-elected in a Democratic state?

I'm voting for B) with the belief that the guy is trying to be partisan and that the Bush proposal, since it comes from Bush, must be bad.

I would hate to think that the governor of Oregon believes all his citizens are that gullible.

My $.02,

Keith