McCain’s Legislative Record On the Environment

Face it, if you’re John McCain, you hate like Hell that eight years of Bush’s anti-environmental policies have created so much havoc with the environment that suddenly it’s an issue people care about.

In the past, McCain has run as a moderate Republican and pro-environmentalist.  Is there anything to back up that assertion?

Follow me below the fold to see more of McCain’s record on the environment.

First, what does his fellow Republicans say?  Check out the video, it might surprise even the staunchest McCain supporter.

Even Republicans don’t know of anything he’s done to help the environment or the energy situation in the twenty-six years he’s been in office.

But then again, Republicans aren’t notoriously pro-environment.  

Where does he rank as far as wildlife organizations are concerned?

The Wilderness Society gives out the Ansel Awards.  Is McCain on that list? (A few other Republicans are.)

Name Year

Sen. Ernest Hollings 2005

Rep. Nick Rahall, III,

& Sen. Harry Reid 2004

(Not awarded)        2003

Sens. John Kerry &

Joseph Lieberman 2002

John Lewis        2001

John Porter        2000

Kathleen A. McGinty 1999

David Obey &

Dale Bumpers        1998

Albert Gore, Jr.        1997

(Not awarded)        1996

(Not awarded)        1995

Bruce F. Vento        1994

(Not awarded)        1993

George Miller        1992

George J. Mitchell 1991

Gaylord Nelson        1990

Allan Cranston &

William V. Roth, Jr. 1989

John H. Chafee        1988

Sidney Yates        1987

Stewart L. Udall 1986

Cecil D. Andrus 1985

Morris K. Udall 1984

Phillip Burton        1983

John F. Seiberling 1982

Jimmy Carter        1981

Ansel Adams        1980

The League of Conservation Voters have officially endorsed Barack Obama over John McCain.  Of course, they wisely endorsed John Kerry over Bush, so it’s not too surprising.  

Does the Sierra Club give out awards or endorsements to John McCain?  Hell no!  Not according to the Washington Post where they describe exactly why they won’t endorse McCain:

The Sierra Club announcement was not a surprise: the group’s executive director, Carl Pope, had hammered the presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain, for months over his missed votes in the Senate and his support for nuclear power subsidies as a way to address global warming. Pope criticized McCain this week after the senator from Arizona said he now supports lifting the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling.

“We believe Senator Obama is the change our nation needs — he is the leader who will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that creates and keeps millions of jobs, spurs innovation and opportunity, and makes us a more secure nation,” Pope said in a statement.

While McCain touts his commitment to addressing climate change during every campaign stop, he has angered many environmental activists by voting inconsistently on their key issues and insisting that building dozens of nuclear power plants would be key to reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.

So while McCain thinks it’s cute to dig at the Senators and House members who have taken the time off and gone to their districts, who can forget his sudden somersault on the oil drilling issue?

Nice to get big campaign donations from oil companies in exchange for those backward somersaults, isn’t it?  (NOT)  Given the Olympics this year, I guess big oil rewarded McCain with a perfect “10″ for those backward somersaults–the reward…a sudden burst of donations.

On Monday, after the Web site, Talking Points Memo, listed the names of the Hess contributors, scrutiny fell on a couple, Alice Rocchio, who is identified in campaign finance records as an office manager at Hess, and her husband, Pasquale, who is listed as a foreman at Amtrak.

They each gave a whopping $28,500 to Mr. McCain and the Republican National Committee.

John Kerry said on MTP that McCain’s not the same person on environment that he was in 2004.  He said,  ”John McCain has changed in profound and fundamental ways that I find personally really surprising, and frankly upsetting.”

When I was a kid we had a saying after a statement like that…”You can say that again!”

The LA Times wrote about McCain’s confused record on the environment.  He apparently hasn’t made many maverick-like decisions since 2002 (so I guess that would put it in the John Kerry was right category.)

Here’s what the LA Times wrote:

“We must steer far clear of the errors and false assumptions that have marked the energy policies of nearly 20 Congresses and seven presidents,” the presumptive Republican nominee told a crowd of oil executives in Houston.”

Sounds good so far but keep on reading.  Amazing somersaults to follow…

McCain’s changing energy agenda:

*He has championed standards to require that automakers make vehicles more fuel-efficient, yet opposed standards to require that utilities use less fossil fuel by generating more power from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.

*McCain has rejected federal tax breaks for renewable energy producers, but backs billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear industry.

*He has criticized corn-based ethanol for doing “nothing to increase our energy independence.” Yet while campaigning in 2006 in the Midwest corn belt, McCain called ethanol a “vital, vital alternative energy source.”


Somersaut=inconsistant to some, right?  You make the judgement call.  

Here’s more:


*McCain has shown more interest in confronting global warming than most of his GOP colleagues…

*A self-proclaimed acolyte of former Democratic Rep. Morris K. Udall of Arizona, the legendary environmental lawmaker, McCain was among the first Republicans to call for action by the federal government.

*In 2002, he collaborated with Democrats on legislation to require automakers to increase vehicle fuel efficiency. And he has broken with his party to push legislation to create a federal system for capping greenhouse gases.

At the same time, McCain became a vocal critic of government subsidies, particularly for oil and gas producers. In a debate, he derided the 2003 energy bill for “increasing our dependence on conventional fuels” and was one of six GOP senators to oppose it.

But here’s the contradictions:

* McCain — who argues the federal government should not be “picking favorites” — has routinelybacked federal subsidies for some energy producers but not others.

*While McCain has talked tough about giveaways for oil companies, for example, he has only occasionally challenged the industry.

*In 2003 and 2005, McCain criticized his colleagues for giving tax breaks to oil producers. “It doesn’t make fiscal or common sense,” (snip)”to provide billions of taxpayer subsidies to encourage the production of energy by companies that are a
lready gaining tremendous riches at today’s sky-high oil and gas prices.”

*He has also acted to protect the industry’s bottom line. In 1999, McCain backed efforts to prevent the Interior Department from collecting more royalties from oil companies drilling on public land.

*The department wanted payments to reflect the market price of oil, a change that could have boosted receipts by an estimated $60 million a year or more.

*Six years later, after rejecting offshore drilling, he voted for legislation that opened up large sections of the Gulf of Mexico to exploration, a major industry priority.

Holtz-Eakin said McCain believed that states should have the authority to decide whether there was drilling along their coastlines. (In contrast, McCain voted to deny governors authority to veto liquefied natural gas terminals in their states.)


*On his recent energy tour, McCain also called for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, a goal he is prepared to back with billions of federal dollars.


*before he was an opponent of subsidies for nuclear power, voting five times in the 1990s against taxpayer aid for research on new-generation nuclear reactors. As recently as 2003, McCain opposed federal loan guarantees to help the nuclear industry finance new plants.

Three years ago, however, McCain began pushing more taxpayer assistance to help develop nuclear power as part of his proposed legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Public Citizen estimated a version of McCain’s bill would authorize more than $3.7 billion in subsidies for new nuclear plants.


“Sen. McCain was a leader in going after subsidies,” Ellis said. “Government support for an industry that can’t stand on its own two feet seems to contradict his record.”

McCain now defends the subsidies as essential to kick-start the industry. “If we’re looking for a vast supply of reliable and low-cost electricity, with zero carbon emissions and long-term price stability, that’s the working definition of nuclear energy,” he said recently.

On the campaign trail, McCain has also said the federal government should spend $30 billion over the next 15 years to help companies develop less polluting ways to burn coal.

And he has indicated support for legislation to force automakers to build more vehicles that can run on fuels other than gasoline.


Yet McCain has been a consistent opponent of standards that would require utilities to derive a minimum percentage of their power from renewable sources, such as wind, solar or geothermal.

“I have heard from utilities in my own state that a federal mandate of this sort is largely a requirement to import wind,” McCain said during a 2005 Senate debate. McCain has voted against renewable standards at least four times since 2002. He has also opposed tax incentives to encourage the development of power from sources other than nuclear.

In 2002, he ridiculed a proposed federal incentive for companies trying to convert animal waste into power,


He opposed tax credits in 2001 and 2006 for companies that generate power from solar, wind, geothermal and ocean wave energy, all of which produce no greenhouse gases.


But when McCain summed up his energy initiative last week — recapping plans for more oil exploration, more nuclear plants, and federal support for cleaner coal plants and new car batteries — he offered no proposal to expand the use of renewable energy.

Clearly his record seems to be hit or miss.  But another important question is to know what he’s said about Bush’s junk science on climate change.

I think that’s for another diary though.

So let’s just chat about the policies that have been put forth.  Wil they truly reverse the damage that eight years of Bush and his junk science and junk policies has caused?  What will the next Congress and President be able to accomplish in order to reverse the damage?  Will the Republicans filibuster every bill or will they finally show up for their committee meetings?

What do you think about all this?


I know those were long blockquotes and I snipped away so you definitely want to go check out the link at the LA Times.



ProSense has added more important information From thinkprogress:

McCain’s has actually missed several “crucial” energy votes. In July alone, he missed every single energy vote brought to the floor.


“It’s interesting to hear Sen. McCain talk about bringing Congress back” for a vote on offshore drilling, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said this week. “He wasn’t even in Congress when we had two very important bills on energy.”

This post was originally published with Soapblox and contains additional formatting and metadata.
View archived version of this post


56 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. One of the few times recently that Tom Friedman

    gets it right in recent years.

    "Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year - which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn't leave his office to vote."

    • Excellent article. But another question would persist...

      McCain gives handouts and pork all over the place--at least to the oil-rich industries and their lobbyists who donate to him--but while he talks about better fueled cars, what was his vote on helping the American car makers research and implement cleaner air cars.

      Still trying to find the vote at, but I believe he voted no.

      (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

  2. Short on time

    but wanted to say thanks for the diary and taking the time to shine a light where it belongs...

    Bottom line - McCain can be bought, and I think that answers a lot.

  3. Doesn't look good

    Here are McCain's interest group ratings.  He tends not to do well with conservationists.

    • Great link, Christopher! I didn't know there was that site.

      I hope you'll post it in this other thread.

      • done

        I linked the front page to your other diary.  I find it a convenient way to compare actual records to perception.  For example, Sen. Lieberman seems to be thought by some as Republican-lite, maybe based on his support of the Iraq campaign and of Sen. McCain.  The interest group ratings, however, paint a picture that is much more Democrat than Republican.

        • Oh. he's Republican as often as he can be. I'll never forget what he did

          with the Alito filibuster.  First he voted for cloture (which in essence would have prevented Alito from being confirmed) but then he voted no on Alito.

          He wanted it both ways.

          I'll never forget his campaigning against Obama too. And if he goes to the RNC, he should be kicked out.

          I think McBush will take LIEberman as his VP though.

          • Both ways

            He actually did exactly what I would have done on Alito.  I would almost always vote for cloture because I object to filibusters on principle as being anti-democratic.  I then would have voted no on the question of confirmation itself.  I'm not sure about kicking him out of the Senate Democratic Conference either since I don't want to burn bridges and risk losing his vote on other things.  I do want the Democrats to get a bigger, possibly filibuster-proof, majority so we ultimately don't have to worry about his vote anyway.  I don't believe he'll be VP as the GOP base would have a fit.  After all, his Vote Smart ratings to have him at 100% for groups like NARAL and the Human Rights Campaign.

            • They're not anti-democratic. In fact, they're the only way a minority party can get

              all their voters heard!

              The problem is when they get used and abused by one party to obstruct work getting done.

              The original intent of a filibuster was to get the majority party to NEGOTIATE with the minority party.

              However, without the filibuster, you increase the likelihood of majority parties pushing forward bad bills--exactly like what the Republicans did in 2004-2006 when some of the worst bills for the American people but the best bills for the corporations were enacted.

              • OK

                I guess we just philosophically disagree on this one.  One thing I learned in my Legislative Politics class in college is that cloture doesn't take effect right away.  Thirty hours of debate is allowed AFTER clouture is invoked.  I'd be open to Constitutionally requiring a 3/5 vote for federal judges (or at least Supreme Court), but I would leave the checks and balances to the fact that we have a second chamber and two more branches.  If the other side controls everything as they have in recent years, it just means we have our work cut out for us politically.

          • The Democratic side of the gang of 14

            got absolutely nothing for the Democrats with their deal. The Republicans got enough Democrats to push through the set of completely awful judges, yet when it came time for the gang of 14 to swing to the other side to stop a completely out of the mainstream person from getting on the supreme court - they STILL refused to filibuster. As Senator Kerry said in his speech asking for a no vote on cloture: "Many on my side oppose this nomination. They say they understand the threat he poses, but they argue that cloture is different. I don't believe it is. It is the only way that those of us in the minority have a voice in this debate. It is the only way we can fully complete our constitutional duty of advice and consent. It is the only way we can stop a confirmation that we feel certain will cause irreversible damage to our country."

            What were they afraid of? Has the country really blamed the Road Block republicans from filibustering everything. (Here is a cute cartoon of McConnell leading on that - http://www.roadblockrepublican...

            • They got to keep the theoretical right to filibuster

              They had zero leverage, as they were 100% certain to lose anyway.  Had they attempted to filibuster, the existence of the filibuster would have ended.  Presumably, they thought that would not be a good thing, long term.  Perhaps they think differently since Jan 2007.

  4. Drill more and build nuclear power plants..

    McCain's frightening environmental plan seems to consist of little else, and even that only seems to be lip service considering how he's not interested enough to show up for votes.

    • Listen to conservative business tv and radio on the

      weekend and you will have McCain's policy for the week layed out for you.  

  5. Charlie on the MTA...

    Thanks for posting Cadmium's link to Tom Friedman's column and thanks as well for moving this to the home page!  

    I'm honored.

    I think you're absolutely right that McCain=hypocrisy on green energy and that it clearly defines him.

    But I'd take it one step further, and I don't believe I'm over-reaching on it either.

    McCain's behavior is reckless and McCain's behavior creates a MASSIVE blow to our national security.  

    1.  Right now truckers are getting charged a dollar more per gallon to drive our food, our hospital supplies, and our goods across this nation.  They are going out of business right and left.  They can not continue to get extorted on those prices while the oil companies and execs get richer and richer.

    ~~This is our national security in a nutshell. We are starving and will lose valuable medical care (if we're lucky enough to have it) while McCain cozies up to his money men.~~

    McCain's somersaults and twisting verbal acrobatics does nothing to ensure that our food and goods can be transported across this globe.  He's accepted money from oil execs and lobbyists while pretending that drilling is the answer.

    It's not.  They need to crack down on price gouging and windfall profits.  They need to get off foreign oil by finding alternative fuels.  And they need to support the infrastructure of this country by providing green vehicles, green trucks, and by making sure that the well-being of the people who support the infrastructure so much are better taken care of.

    2. Those solar panels you linked to...Well, tell me this...How do those solar panels affect Mr. T. Boone Pickens and his sudden "coming to Jesus moment on the environment"?  We all know that suddenly oil-robber-baron Pickens proclaimed himself to be an environmentalist--just out of the blue.

    I'd like to know if these votes have helped make a number f robber baron even richer.  His sudden shift for off-shore drilling and drilling in the Anwar certainly is a clear attempt to cozy up to them--or their $$$$$$.

    Clearly, McCain hasn't been an environmental maverick since 2002 as I pointed out in my diary.  

    At any rate...thanks again for promoting this diary.  

  6. Clearly , the Environment is an Issue Democrats Respect!

      On Saturday, August 16, there was a pre-convention  Issues Meeting held in Peabody.  The event was attended by Governor's Councilor Mary Ellen Manning, Middleton selectman and Governor's Council candidate Timothy Houten, Lynn School Committee member Maria Carrasco, Peabody mayoral chief of staff Sean Fitzgerald, Peabody Democratic City Committee chairman and economist Dr. Russell Eckel, former State Department staffer and diplomat Josef Leary, and other concerned individuals. This event provided an opportunity for those gathered to discuss issues of concern to all Americans.  Participants in the roundtable discussion appreciated the opportunity to vigorously share their ideas about issues ranging from the war on terrorism, the economy, health care, education, the environment, the referendum on the state income tax, and many other matters.

    The ideas from this event will be shared with the delegates going to Denver from Essex County and the co-chairs of the Massachusetts delegation, Governor Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray.

    The Democratic National Convention is truly a people's convention.  Much as the Democratic Party is a people's party.

    The environment is on the mind of Barack Obama and the supporter!

  7. - It takes 60 votes pass legislation in the Senate - everyone knows that.

    - The noses are counted well in advance of the votes - everyone knows that.

    - The vote was 51 to 43 - a fact conveniently absent in this jive, math challenged diary.

    • Bull sh*t. Not unless you REWRITE the Constitution does it take 60 votes.

      It takes 51.

      51 VOTES to pass a law.

      It takes 60 votes to break up a filibuster.  A filibuster is when the minority party refuses to allow the bill to come to the floor for a vote, instead they debate it.  THIS is what the Republicans have SHAMEFULLY used throughout these last 2 years to prevent bills from being voted on-- even though in 2005, they threatened to get rid of the filibuster through a nuclear option.

      They've even set the record of MOST FILIBUSTERS in one Congress.  

      Furthermore, they've refused to come to committee hearings to even get bills to the floor for debate.  That's obstruction and that behavior has harmed our country!

      Read these comments leading Republicans have made about how they legislate:

      "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. So far it's worked for us." - Senator Trent Lott Republican Minority Whip

      "The strategy is to lay low and then blame them for not getting anything done." - Representative Ray LaHood Republican, Illinois

      "I am quite apologetic that we have not very successfully used the filibuster. I am a proud guardian of gridlock. I think gridlock is making a big comeback in the country. People are yearning for gridlock." - Senator Mitch McConnell Republican Minority Leader Speech to the Heritage Foundation in 1994

      Absolutely, disgustingly shameful behavior from a set of people elected to better this country and help the people in this country!  AND paid for by our tax dollars!

      Now if those shameful Republicans had allowed these votes to come to the floor and had they passed by 51 votes, then it goes to the White House for the President to veto.  

      Then if the President vetos the bill, it takes 2/3rds to over-ride the President's veto.

      ~~ So apparently nobody in this "math challenged diary" is actually math challenged or civics challenged-- except you, geo999.

      Here's a helpful link to help you catch up on your civics education.

      • Theory vs. Practice

        Unfortunately, given the willingness to use, or even just threaten, a filibuster much legislation and confirmation votes in effect require 60 votes.  I'm confused now though.  Previously it sounded like you would have prefered a filibuster vs. Alito to survive a cloture vote and thus prevent his confirmation.

        • Christopher, I have nothing against filibusters when they're used because

          something so outrageously wrong is about to happen--like the confirmation of a judge who allows strip searches of a ten year old girl.

          Or allows the big corporations to continue a policy of racial discrimination.

          Alito ruled to "make it easier for corporations to discriminate" in Bray v. Marriott Hotels. In that case Beryl Bray, an African-American woman who was housekeeping manager at the Park Ridge Marriott in New Jersey, applied for an open position to be the hotel's director of services -  a promotion. Bray argued that she had been told she was the top candidate for the job at a lunch meeting with one of the members of the panel reviewing her application. She testified that she also discussed what she would do in the new job after she was officially promoted. She said Marriott's written policies required that after being informed that she was the top applicant, she should either be given the job or notified formally that she had been rejected.  

          Bray was not given the promotion, however, nor was she given formal notice that she was rejected. Instead, the review panel brought in a white woman, Therese Riehle, who was hired April 10, 1993. Riehle had been the Assistant Director of Services at the Marriott Marquis in New York, a larger hotel than the Park Ridge . Bray claimed she was denied the promotion because she was black and filed a lawsuit against Marriott for discrimination.

          The district court threw out Bray's lawsuit, granting summary judgment in Marriott's favor on the basis that Bray had failed to produce the necessary evidence that racial discrimination was the reason she didn't get the promotion.  Bray appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case Oct. 1, 1996 and ruled in Bray's favor April 11, 1997 - sending her lawsuit back to district court where she and Marriott later settled on undisclosed terms.

          Alito was the lone vote in Marriott's favor. He conceded that Marriott had failed to follow its own rules, but said that was not enough to allow a claim of racial bias to go to trial.

          However, the strategy of using filibusters to obstruct ALL government work to make one party look bad is shameful and disgusting.

          There's a huge difference!

        • The differece is that Republicsns are

          filibustering even fairly routine legislation - and even requiring time be taken for cloture votes on things that have more than sufficient votes behind them.

          In the case of Alito, he was far out of the mainstream on issues like unitary President. It was a life time appointment. This was exactly what the gang of 14 was supposed to shift to the Democratic side on. Instead, the gang of 14 just worked for the Republicans.

          Here's a paragraph from Kerry's speech asking people to vote no on cloture.

          "This is a lifetime appointment to a Court where nine individuals determine what our Constitution protects and what our laws mean. Once Judge Alito is confirmed, we can never take back this vote. Not after he prevents many Americans from having their discrimination cases heard by a jury. Not after he allows more government intrusions into our private lives. Not after he grants the President the power to ignore Federal law under the guise of protecting our national security. Not after he shifts the ideological balance of the Court far to the right."

          There is a huge difference in filibusting something of this importance and filibustering nearly every bill or amendment the Democrats put up.

          • Eye of the beholder?

            There is a huge difference in filibusting something of this importance and filibustering nearly every bill or amendment the Democrats put up.

            Here's the stats on cloture votes. I don't see any historic use or abuse by either party.  

            • The numbers back up my assertion

              Here, from the NYT:

              "So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78. In 1967-68, there were 5 such votes, one of them on a plan to amend cloture itself, which failed. "


              If you want the current number, I think the site is keeping a tally. As you can see in this December 2007 article, there were 72 in ONE year (when the Democrats were in power) compared to 68 in the TWO years before. So, filibustering more than doubled. Then look at the trend.

            • Table update

              They point to their source which shows that so far in this congress there have been 131 cloture motions filed, a 60 percent increase over the prior record of 82.

              No, I don't think there's been any historic abuse; it's just being abused by the Republicans in this particular Congress.

      • Why, I had no idea!

        It takes 60 votes to break up a filibuster.

        Let me explain to you how things are done in the Senate:

        If a bill is written in such a way that one side or the other can't abide it, then the mere THREAT of a filibuster stalls the legislation. Period.

        No "real" filibuster takes place. Nobody talks till they're hoarse or pees in a whiskey flask. Only the THREAT is necessary.

        The bill now requires 60 VOTES if it has a prayer of passage.

        THAT, cougar, is why the whips carefully assess the vote count before a bill comes to the floor.

        And THAT, cougar, is why Senators who are out of town frequently don't return to D.C. to vote, knowing that their vote will not change the status of the legislation.

        And THAT, cougar, is why I said that everyone knows that it takes 60 votes to pass anything more contentious than the naming of a post office - because it does.

        But thank you so much for the civics lesson.

        • You're still wrong. The whips do count heads. BUT it only takes 50 votes to pass a bill.

          If the President is going to veto a bill, then let him veto it and send it back to Congress.

          If the filibuster is indeed happening, then it's a counting process instead of the whole Mr Smith Goes To Washington scenario.

          However most bills should not be filibustered.  Filibustering was suppose to be used for extreme circumstances.

          So sorry.  51 to pass a bill.  60 to achieve cloture if the bill is filibustered.  2/3rds to override a veto.

        • By the way geo999, the Republicans have shamefully filibustered most pieces of legislation

          and thus they've come to the bargaining table with bad intentions.  They've intentionally obstructed most bills from being heard.  They haven't represented the people who elected them in their states with an honorable intent.

          So for this Congress, those Republicans have gone to the filibuster not because the bill was bad but they've filibustered because they wanted to make the Democrats look bad.

          One serves the people--coming to the bargaining table honestly with the intent to compromise.

          One serves himself or his party only--coming to the table with no intent to compromise and only the intent to obstruct legislation.

          Shameful,shameful behavior on these Republican's part.  They should pay back the tax payers for all the times they failed to show up at committee hearings--where bills are adjusted.  They should return to the tax payers the money because they negotiated in bad faith.

          They committed bad faith acts to not only the Democratic party but to the American people!

  8. A couple points

    On McCain and the Environment-  It is important to remember that, when running for president in 2000, then Governor Bush promised to regulate mercury and global warming pollution from power plants.  

    Once he got elected he tried to re-classify mercury as "non-toxic," pulled us out of the Kyoto protocol and refused to even open the email from the EPA containing their plans to reduce global warming pollution.

    I fear that we can expect the more of the same from McSame.

    McCain always has done just enough on the environment to look better then his republican colleagues without putting in jeopardy his big money from the oil folks.  The strategy is simple- stand up for the environment on a couple high-profile issues when it is safe and get a lot of good press, but on all the little votes that don't make headlines or where your vote might count- stick with your fossil fools.

    The renewable energy tax credits are a key example.  These are tax credits that are in place right now.  They have made wind farms, solar facilities and other cutting edge clean energy projects make economic sense.  They have allowed businesses to thrive, created jobs and attracted floods of private investment capital to the industry.

    At a time when fossil fuel prices are skyrocketing and our economy is sputtering, this seems like a no-brainier, right?

    Unfortunately, this is not the case.  It turns out that these tax credits for clean energy are paid for by a tax on the oil industry, which despite record profits doesn't want to see any of that money go to clean energy.  (Wind farms?  Daddy needs a 12th yacht!)

    So here is where this leaves us.  The renewable energy tax credits that could create a ton of clean, homegrown energy for America are about to expire.  If they do, we lose all the projects they support along with over 100,000 jobs and billions of private investment in America's clean energy sector.

    What does McCain do?  He misses the vote, it loses.  He comes out in favor of offshore drilling and rakes in the contributions from big oil.

    And this isn't the first time.  The senate has taken this issue up many times only to see it come within a vote of overcoming the republican leadership's filibusters.

    McCain claims to be an environmentalist (as did Bush) but when the chips are down, they stand for Exxon making a few extra billions at the world's expense.

    On the other hand, Senator Obama has said that if, by the end of his first term, we don't have a plan to make this country energy independent and curb global warming he would not consider it a success.

    The future of the world is at stake here, we have prescious little time left to address the climate crisis and for us to have a chance at success, we'll need bold American leadership.  Obama will provide that, McSame won't.  

    I know which side I am on.

    • For the record

      What does McCain do?  He misses the vote, it loses.  He comes out in favor of offshore drilling and rakes in the contributions from big oil.

      For the record, Mr. Obama also failed to vote on this on July 30.

        • ?

          The screaming intro to this thread says:

          Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year - which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn't leave his office to vote.

          When in fact, Obama missed the vote too. AND, McCain missed 8 votes over the past year while Obama missed 6.  Of the 2 votes in which he participated, Obama voted NO on one.  So, while McCain effectively voted no on 8, Obama effectively and actually voted no on 7.

          What's your ad going to say:  McCain weak on the Evironment--Obama weak too, but not so much.

          • The into needs to be placed in context of his whole behavior..

            btw..I'm sure Charlie appreciated your rudeness, since it wasn't my intro.

          • For the record. McCain got gifted tons of $$$ for somersaulting on oil drilling.

            That shows his character as well.

            He's buyable to the highest bidder.

            • He did?

              He received $$$ for seeking that oil drilling be expanded?  Is this an inside scoop?  

              Because, as the contribution records show, Mr. Obama too received significant monies from the oil industry.  In fact, ExxonMobile execs contributions to Mr. Obama exceed those to Mr. McCain.  Did Mr. Obama excuse himself from voting because of the big money from big oil?

              • What utter nonsense! Again, you don't have your facts straight.

                Multiple Oil Company Executives Gave Huge Contributions To Electing McCain Just Days After Offshore Drilling Reversal

                Key word here is AFTER.  Key fact is that he was bought and sold and his policy CHANGED after someone gave him money.

                Does that make McCain a prostitute too?  Or maybe it's a pimp.  

                After all, money changed hands and then someone got *******.

                • Before and after

                  You say execs gave huge contribution AFTER offshore drilling reversal.

                  Then, you say he changed his policy AFTER someone gave him money.

                  You're right.  The keyword is AFTER, but you do see your illogic between your 2 statements, don't you?  Note too, that Mr. Obama is beginning to embrace offshore drilling AFTER receive significant $$$ from big oil.

                  • bull. Once again your facts are INCORRECT

                    1.  He said he's willing to NEGOTIATE with the Senators to create a bill where Republicans might get their wish to drill some, if they are willing to make concession on other aspects of the same bill.

                    The Democratic candidate had staunchly opposed new drilling on the outer continental shelf, but then shifted his position on Friday to say he would be open to some drilling if it were necessary to reach compromise on a broader energy plan -- like the one introduced by a bipartisan "Gang of 10" late last week. That plan, which Obama indicated he could support, calls for limited offshore drilling as well as increased investment in clean energy, with the overarching aim of reducing America's oil dependence.

                    That's called COMPROMISE.

                    It use to be part and parcel to the democratic process.


                    BTW...where's your link that shows Obama has accepted money after making that statement.  

                    There's no such information available, because it's not true.

                    Obama has flat out refused lobbyists money and has refused to allow the DNC to take it either.

                    So what you just did is called lying.

                    • Lying?

                      First I'm rude, and now I'm lying. Can't convince anyone on the merits, go for the namecalling, right.

                      Stick with the BEFORE, and the AFTER.  In a good shakedown, take the money upfront, then deliver.  It's politics 101.  

                      First, the BEFORE, it's widely known that Mr. Obama has received more money from Exxon Mobile than his opponent.  Cash upfront.

                      Then, AFTER receiving Exxon fatcats cash, what does he do?  Why, he says maybe drilling isn't so bad after-all.  Did those execs 'convince' him to change positions? I can't say the cash caused him to change his position, but it's possible, no?

                    • Exxon employees. Not the lobbyists and not the CEO's. Big difference!

                      That's like me working as a gas station clerk who makes minimum wage choosing to donate 100 bucks to his campaign.

                      Lobbyists and CEO's are roaming the offices and trying to WRITE the bills.

                      Still doesn't equate to anything that you're trying to make of it.

                      Obama isn't taking money from the lobbyists he's taking money from small donors all across this country.  

                    • Exxon $quot;Fatcats$quot; that cracks me up. Talk about distortion of facts.

                    • Distortion

                      Exxon "Fatcats" that cracks me up. Talk about distortion of facts.

                      Since you own the truth, take up the distortion with the Washington Post.  They reported it. Report: Exxon Execs Gave More to Obama

                    • Gary, I guess to you, Mandy who works at the Clark station up the street and donated

                      her 50 bucks to Obama is a fat cat.

                      I'll tell her.

                      And Rob who owns the Amoco up the road who works from 6 am to 10 pm (He's the owner of the place) 7 days a week and donated part of his hard earnings is a fat cat too.

                      And the trucker who lost his business because oil companies need to make record profits each quarter, but donated his portion to Obama is a fat cat too.

                      So I don't really need to take up any distortions with the Washington Post.  I'm already seeing all the small donors who you've called an "Obama Fat cat" up close and personal.

                      Oh.  And the point remains.  Obama may have taken money for donations--that is our current system--but he's given them no favors.

                      You have no proof to suggest otherwise.

                    • I agree

                      Oh.  And the point remains.  Obama may have taken money for donations--that is our current system--but he's given them no favors.

                      How do you know he's given them no favors?  

                      That's my point to you, Senator McCain may have taken money for donations -- that is our current system -- but he's given them no favors and you have no proof to suggest otherwise.  

                      That is, I can craft a set assumptions based on the fact that the money he's received caused policy shifts he announced (i.e. let's not drill.  Ok, now let's drill) to conclude the Obama is in Big Oil's pocket just as you've attempted to do with respect to Mr. McCain.

                    • Except that

                      when Obama accepted a compromise it included promises by the other side which included:

                      1. They must drill on land they already own first.

                      2. They must work for creating clean energy immediately!

                      3. They would spend more money to create renewable fuels.

                      However, if Obama didn't have those things, which are part of the energy plan on his website, then you might have had a good point.  In this case, it's just not true.  All three of the things listed were things that Obama includes as part of his energy plan and in order to get what he wanted, he had to give up something he didn't want.  Obama wanted them to clamp down on the rampant speculation which has caused an increase in prices but Republicans are unwilling to do so; however, even without that concention, this plan is better than others presented and has the benefit of being somewhat bi-partisan.

                      link 1: Obama's webpage (or the piece I wrote on Obama somewhere earlier today. or Obama on the issues

                      link 2: Tampa Bay

                      The plan, offered Friday by 10 U.S. senators as a way to break the partisan impasse over energy policy that has stalled Congress in recent weeks, would expand drilling but also set new goals and establish new funding for the use of alternative fuels.

                      In an interview with the St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9's Political Connections on Friday morning, Obama commended the self-styled "Gang of 10" - five Democrats, five Republicans - for their cooperation and broad plan.

                      Obama didn't specifically endorse the bill, but his willingness to consider more oil drilling represents a significant change in position. And it dramatically alters prospects for the bill.

                      Republicans have been pushing for more drilling, but Democrats who control Congress have resisted. If Obama sees this plan as viable, congressional Democrats are likely to fall into line.

                      "My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise," Obama told the Times shortly after talking with voters at Gibbs High School. "If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem."


                      The New Energy Reform Act of 2008 calls for spending $84-billion over 10 years on research and development of better batteries, fuels and energy-saving technologies and includes tax incentives for people who buy hybrid and alternative-fuel cars and trucks.

                      Funding would come largely from the royalties energy companies pay the government for the right to drill in federal waters, as well as closing loopholes and repealing tax breaks for oil and gas companies worth some $30-billion.

                      The bill doesn't address issues that have doomed past compromise attempts. Although the Southeast could be opened for drilling, the plan doesn't mention California, where political opposition remains firm. It doesn't mention drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another traditional flash point.

                      Nor would it clamp down on energy speculators, which some experts believe have helped drive rising oil prices. In recent days, congressional Democrats have been trying, unsuccessfully, to pass a bill that would more closely regulate the practice.


                    • That headline doesn't even match the information in the article.

                      The non-partisan center writes: "Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500."

                      "McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver in the oil and gas industry, though -- Koch Industries, Valero, Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips," the report says. "McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. -- $91,000 to Obama's $8,000 -- which has gotten some attention. And, overall, McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to about $394,000."

                      Yellow journalism?

                    • Gary, don't mind cougar....

                      that seems to be her M.O. to be very confrontational.  She's done it to me several times and she did it to Geo999 up above in this post as well.

                    • Paul, what do you think is hapening with the donations to Obama?

                      And the donations to McCain?  Are they what they claim?  Do you think we should drill off our coasts?  Do you think that McCain's being honest about his energy plan?

                      Enquiring minds want to know.

                    • BTW...Whose policy is EOR closer to? McCain or Obama?

                    • Geo99 was stating a fact that is not supported by the Constitution. Or

                      would EOR say that it takes 60 votes to pass a bill as well?

                      Does that mean that when Democrats take office they will need 60 votes to pass every bill?

                      What is your belief on this Paul.

                      51 votes as the Constitution states


                      60 votes because the Republicans in the Senate are constantly filibustering and by doing so have obstructed the peoples' work.

                      Does EOR have a statement on this?

                    • I was not commenting on the substance

                      of your arguments, but rather how you present them.  They are very confrontational.

                      Also, you keep bringing up Ed O'Reilly there.  Those are some good questions and you should ask him at one of the many Democratic events he attends or call his campaign and ask.  Or wait for a Debate to happen, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that.

                    • I hope EOR will follow the traditional professional path to set up a debate.

                      In the meantime, don't you have any statements or information about his specific views?  Or copies of interviews he's given? (by copies I mean transcripts or press releases)

                    • lol

            's like trying to debate a whack-a-mole. ;)

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Fri 19 Dec 3:53 PM