So I got an email from the Sierra Club mailing list about a new scorecard put out by the League of Conservation Voters for the first session of the 110th Congress. The link for the main site is here: http://lcv.org/scorecard/
Apparently, according to McCain's record, he has been absent for every single major environmental vote for the first session. You can find the total record here: http://capwiz.com/lcv_stage/bio/keyvotes/?id=192&congress=1102&lvl=C. The votes recorded were on things like Oil Refineries, CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards, Farm Subsidy Reforms, and Water Resources with links to more information about each bill. The only thing I'm wary about is a lack of a link to the actual proposed bill, which I like to see simply because there's usually things hidden in bills that people who vote know by reading it that we may not see on a summary.
Nevertheless, his record isn't particularly exceptional for the other years the scorecard was done, but it isn't as dismal as this one. So, I'm curious as to what this could mean. I know that the conservative base were worried about his stance on things like the war, so maybe he's avoiding making an environmental vote that would further alienate them? Or maybe he's avoiding making an environmental vote that would bite him in the butt in the general elections. Or maybe it's both. Or maybe the study itself is skewed.
Any thoughts?
I don't know what this means if he winds up as our president. If he's missed every vote, its probably intentional, so he either has a passive stance, or, like you said, one that most conservatives would disagree with. A passive environmentalist wouldn't be too bad, because with our democratic majority in congress, some bills will be able to go without being vetoed. It's too bad he doesn't have a history one way or another for us to go on. Charles20, do you have anything to say on this issue?
A passive environmentalist wouldn't be too bad. Maybe he just doesn't know what to make of the present opinion climate on the environment and is playing it safe...
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
For a Republican he's not so bad. He's not particularly good per se, but he's not terrible. This years voting record was just a shameless pander to the base while attempting to maintain a "moderate" image -- after all, how can you be pro/anti-anything if you never vote on it? This is probably a pattern which he will likely continue if elected. Post-2000 his career has been defined by his efforts to make himself more attractive to the Conservative Base, and it has worked.
If he continues to BS his way through things while in the White House -- as I suspect he would if elected -- then the EPA will become even more of a joke then it already is.
But, if I were voting purely on environmental issues (rather than the whole package) I'd pick the Democrat. Both Clinton and Obama have better records and better proposals.
My Blog
"We cannot redeem evil, we must combat it." -- Jean Paul Sartre
Interesting. I suppose this does make him seem like a moderate to some, but I agree that abstaining looks more like he just doesn't care about it. The Democrats do have better proposals on the environment. Out of curiosity, feel free to ignore the question, but who do you like as far as candidates and what are you looking for?
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
At the start of things was Al Gore -- not for his environmental stances, but because of his emphasis on civil liberties. After that (and after a brief flirtation with supporting Senator Dodd) I moved on to Senator Biden because of his experience, knowledge, and -- again -- views on civil liberties. After they all either didn't enter or dropped out, I moved behind Edwards because I figured he wouldn't get the nomination but he would move the debate. After he dropped I found myself in quite a predicament. I didn't like Obama's lack of mandates for health care (they cause the program to cost more) or his foreign policy (surgical strikes x economic sanctions = bad^2). On the other hand, I didn't trust Senator Clinton and her foreign policy wasn't much better.
In the end, I settled on Senator Clinton. I have a soft-spot for policy wonks.
My Blog
"We cannot redeem evil, we must combat it." -- Jean Paul Sartre
I had a similar process. If Al Gore had run again I would have been ecstatic, but it twas not to be. I supported him on just about everything he stood for. I went with Obama for a while, but I just have a problem with all the talk about change and the few feasible plans he has. The healthcare thing you mentioned really bugs me, too. Hillary's my candidate, too, now.
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
They each dig a cap and trade system that I've never really understood. I've read articles relaying the message that they are each in the coal lobby's pocket. So I'm convinced that Nader and his solar enterprise is something environmentalists should consider backing. If for no other reason to say to the main candidates, you could have had me but you chose to court the middle and industry.
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly