Why did Edwards vote against renewable and solar energy?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
In June of 1999, Senator Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment which would have added $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs. This action was blocked by Senator Reid (D-NV).
Status: Motion Agreed to Y)60; N)39; NV)1
Reference: Motion to table the recommital; Bill S. 1186 ; vote number 1999-171 on Jun 16, 1999
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Energy_+_Oil.htm

And Kerry?

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy.
In June of 1999, Senator Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment which would have added $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs. This action was blocked by Senator Reid (D-NV).
Status: Motion Agreed to Y)60; N)39; NV)1
Reference: Motion to table the recommital; Bill S. 1186 ; vote number 1999-171 on Jun 16, 1999
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Energy_+_Oil.htm

This vote shows a contrast, but follow the links and look at Kerry and Edwards overall records and you'll see that the real contrast is in the length and depth of their committments to the environment. There is a reason that the League of Conservation Voters have endorsed a Presidential candidate (Kerry) for the first time ever in the primaries.


Why did Edwards vote against renewable and solar energy?

[Tweed]

1. Yeah, I want a strong enviornment

That's why I'm voting for Kerry.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. The very next time I see Sen. Edwards, I'll ask him.

Let me jot a note to myself to do so. :eyes:

[CO Liberal]

3. You'd Have to Check The Entire Bill

Knowing the Repugs, they may have stuck a rider on that bill to allw something unpopular on our side, such as drilling in ANWR. Perhaps something like that explains Edwards' vote.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. You are acting like I didn't include a link to the bill - I did

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN01186:@@@D&summ2=m&

Here it is. There is no need to speculate about what's in the bill, it's right there for you to look at.

[lcordero]

4. then they both start from zero on environment

NAFTA = ANTI-ENVIRONMENT
LACK OF CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY = ANTI-ENVIRONMENT

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. All politicians are 'anti-environment', right?

:eyes:

So, what was the reason for Edwards voting against this again?

[lcordero]

71. DAMN STRAIGHT they are ALL ANTI-ENVIRONMENT

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. Thank you for clarifying your position.

[GRClarkesq]

5. You have to look at the entire bill

Hardly any bill is a black/white issue. Sometimes the bad outweighs the good and you vote no, and open yourself to criticism about the good parts.

No info about these particular bills, but I dont find these posts useful other than a starting point.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. You are acting like I didn't post a link to the bill - I did.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN01186:@@@D&summ2=m&

Here it is. There is no need to speculate about what's in the bill, it's right there for you to look at.

[GRClarkesq]

27. Thats a summary - not the whole bill

n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. So why did Edwards' vote against it?

[GRClarkesq]

34. I dont know and you dont either

could have been multiple reasons other than opposition to the substance of Jeffords amendment.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

39. Well, that's why we are having a discussion.

This is a discussion board. What do you think might have been the reason?

[GRClarkesq]

46. In the title of your post you made

the assumption that Edwards had voted against the substance of the proposal. I am justing pointing out there could be other reasons for his opposition, and as other have pointed out this was a procedutal vote, not substantive.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. Edwards did vote against renewable energy.

And the only explanation offered so far is that he didn't want to make an exception to Senate rules.


Kerry thought adding $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs was more important.

[AP]

6. Environment is a wedge issue for the left. Sometimes conflicts with

wealth flowing down to the middle class (specifically, bills which promote jobs), which forces Dems to make hard choices.

Also, you have to ask yourself if you think it's cool that a Dem scores well on all the single issue liberal litmus tests, but generally doesn't stand opposed to the corporate hegemony.

Are they covering their corporate (upwards transfer of wealth)-friendliness behind the skirts of the environment, etc.

For example, the HRC is very corporate-friendly, and doesn't mind supporting Al Damato. You have to ask yourself, is Al Damato better for the overall liberal project just because he was able to cast himself as gay-friendly? The answer is no.

[AP]

7. That bill covered LOTS of things. Here are the title headings:

Title I: Department of Defense

Title II: Department of the Interior

Title III: Department of Energy

Title IV: Independent Agencies

Title V: Rescissions

Title VI: General Provisions

Perhaps Edwards didn't like things in Title I?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. You are acting like I didn't post a link to the bill - I did.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN01186:@@@D&summ2=m&

Here it is. There is no need to speculate about what's in the bill, it's right there for you to look at.

e.g. Title I

Title I: Department of Defense - Civil - Makes appropriations to the Department of the Army and its Corps of Engineers for FY 2000 for: (1) authorized civil functions of the Department of the Army relating to rivers and harbors, flood control, beach erosion, and related purposes; (2) expenses necessary for the collection and study of information related to such purposes; (3) the prosecution of authorized water development and related projects; (4) certain flood control projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries; (5) water development projects operation and maintenance; (6) the navigable waters and wetlands regulatory program; (7) formerly utilized sites remedial action program; and (8) general expenses.

Authorizes the use of certain funds for the collection and study of basic information on water development projects for: (1) a general reevaluation report on the flood control project, Park River, Grafton, North Dakota; and (2) the study for the flood control project, Yellowstone River at Glendive, Montana.

Authorizes the use of water development and related project funds for: (1) a decision document for a project sharing agreement for the Rochester Harbor, New York, (CSX swing bridge) project; (2) shoreline protection measures in Brevard and St. John's Counties, Florida, and Assateague Island, Maryland; (3) Everglades and South Florida ecosystem restoration; (4) a study of the economic justification and environmental acceptability of the Matagorda Ship Channel, Point Comfort Turning Basin, Texas, project (and its maintenance, if justified and acceptable); (5) development of technologies for control of zebra mussels and other aquatic nuisance species in and around public facilities; (6) commemoration of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial; (7) the Minnish Waterfront Park project, Passaic River, New Jersey; (8) the Lake St. Clair, Metro Beach, Michigan, project; and (9) construction of an emergency outlet from Devils Lake, North Dakota, to the Sheyenne River (subject to a specified condition).

Authorizes use of the Revolving Fund to renovate certain office space for use by the Corps and the General Accounting Office.

(Sec. 101) Bars application of a fully allocated funding policy to projects for which funds are identified in specified Committee reports. Directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to undertake such projects using continuing contracts.

(Sec. 102) States that agreements proposed for execution by the Assistance Secretary of the Army for civil works or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall be limited to a single agreement per project. Limits credits and reimbursements per project, and total credits and reimbursements for all applicable projects, to specified amounts in each fiscal year.

(Sec. 103) Prohibits the use of funds under this Act to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual when it is made known to the pertinent Federal authority that such revision provides for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow melt period in States with rivers draining into the Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.

(Sec. 104) Instructs the Secretary of the Army to continue funding wildlife habitat mitigation work for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota at levels previously funded through the Pick-Sloan operations and maintenance account.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN01186:@@@D&summ2=m&

Just what is it in Title I that you think caused Edwards to vote No?

[AP]

21. What's a CSX swing bridge?

Isn't CSX the company packed with Bush cronies which is in charge of dismantling the rail network and selling it off for private profits so that the oil industry will never have to compete with the rail industry again?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Google would have told you what a swing bridge is:

The fact is, Edwards' environmental record doesn't even come close to Kerry's environmental record, and this vote is indicative of Edwards' lack of committment to the environment.

[AP]

55. It was the "CSX" I wondered about. But it's all moot. See mohc's posts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. You may consider Edwards' lack of commitment to renewable energy moot.

I don't.

[AP]

73. I consider the argument that he lacks committment moot, because mohc

showed you why.

[mohc]

8. This is a procedural vote

The motion to recommit was out of order, and the chair ruled it so. Then the ruling was appealed, and then they took a motion to table the motion to appeal the motion to recommit. Would it have been beneficial if the appeal was upheld, yes and no. The appeal would have failed, and we end up with the same result. Unless the Dems needed to stall, this motion was pointless. I'm all for the environment, but holding up parliamentary procedure votes as examples is not going to sway me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Your attempt to muddy the issue is valiant, but wrong.

Trying to confuse people is not going to work.

[AP]

12. It made sense to me, despite you putting the "confuse/muddy" label on it.

[mohc]

13. How am I confusing people

I was simply stating what happened.

Jeffords made a motion to recommit S1186 to the Senate Committee on Appropriations with an amednemnt (SP682).

A point of order was raised about Jeffords motion to recommit.

The chair, yes this guy is a Republican, ruled that the motion to recommit by Jeffords was out of order.

Some Democrats wanted to appeal that ruling, just because an appeal is heard does not mean it will be upheld.

Republicans made a motion to table the appeal. That motion passed 60-39 and Edwards did indeed vote Yea on it.

But this is a procedural vote, the appeal would have lost. And regardless, the eventual bill was vitiated the next month and replaced by the House (conference?) version. Now, you are perfectly welcome to make the argument that this was so important that Edwards should have made the No vote out of protest along with the 39 others, but it in no way reflects his position on the environment.

[AP]

15. You just earned a bookmark.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Well, you aren't confusing me, lol

As you state, Edwards did indeed vote against this attempt to add $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs.

You've discussed some parliamentary procedures, but you haven't said anything about WHY Edwards voted against renewable energy.

[AP]

20. You seem confused. Perhaps you should reread the post.

[mohc]

23. Because its just a protest vote

If he had voted No along with the 39, AND another 11 Senators came along, the motion to table would have failed. Would that mean another $62 million for the bill? NO! It would mean the appeal would have gone ahead, maybe that wins, maybe that loses. But lets just pretend it wins. Now does that mean another $62 million? NO! It means it goes back to committee, where it may or may have not included the amendment from Jeffords.

Things can get complicated in procedural votes, Jeffords had an admirable amendment, but his motion was out of order, and would probably have required unanimous consent to make the motion at that point, which he never would have received. Now, as I said in the last post I made, there is something to be said to always standing up against a bad bill. But it had to actual effect on the bill. And on the final passage, only Jeffords and Wellstone maintained their stand, if Kerry really felt the bill had to have this amendment, he would have voted No then as well. I just do not believe Edwards or anyone else deserves to be punished for how he voted on a procedural vote, Jeffords was out of order and Edwards simply voted to say that he was.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. What was Edwards protesting? Renewable energy?

Now we've heard the claim that it was a procedural vote, and also the claim that it was a protest vote.

What we haven't heard is an explanation of WHY Edwards voted the way he voted - against adding $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs.

[mohc]

31. Ok one more time.

He was not making a protest vote, the 39 that voted No were. I consider it a protest vote because it would have NO EFFECT on the outcome of the bill. The chance that the appeal would have been upheld are slim to none when Republicans are in charge of making those decisions. Edwards was in no way voting against Jeffords amendment, he was voting against the timing of Jeffords motion because it was against Senate rules. Just because you support a bill or amendment is no reason to break the rules in order to get it passed.

[mohc]

33. The actual Congression Record:

This starts right after Jeffords offers his amendment...

Mr. REID. I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada objects.

Mr. REID. I object and call for the regular----

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has objected. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the only amendments in order are those that have been filed.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not believe that the order includes a motion to recommit with an amendment. I ask for clarification in that respect.

Mr. REID. I submit to the Chair that it includes all amendments.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is advised that the instructions that all amendments must be filed applies even to amendments that would be included within a motion with instructions to recommit.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The appeal is debatable. Is there debate on the appeal?

... end record.

To explain for the lay person:

The Senate agreed to a rule that all amendments had to be filed in order to be considered. Jeffords amendment was not filed, and therefore he could not submit it. He then attempted to make a motion to recommit with his amendment attached. Jeffords believed that amendments in a recommital motion were not covered by the rule. Reid (D) believed that the rule did indeed cover that motion, and the chair concurred. Jeffords appealed the ruling and the appeal was tabled.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. But WHY did Edwards vote the way he did?

Kerry voted in favor of renewable energy, Edwards voted against.

Why?

[mohc]

45. The vote was not on the amendment

The vote was on if Jeffords should be allowed to break the rules in order to recommit the bill so that his amendment could be considered. Kerry did NOT vote for Jeffords amendment, he only voted that Jeffords should be allowed to break Senate rules in order to consider it. If Jeffords/Kerry really wanted to change the bill, they should have voted down the eventual bill so that it could have gone back to the committee by the rules. Jeffords in fact DID vote that way, so did Wellstone. Kerry however voted for the bill.

Edwards did NOT vote against the amendment, only FOR tabling Jeffords appeal since it was AGAINST Senate rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. As you point out the effect of Edwards vote was AGAINST renewable energy

You are claiming that Edwards thought it was more important to not make an exception to the rules than to add $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs?

Well, at least someone has finally offered a theory as to the reason for the vote. I don't think it is going to win any environmental voters for Edwards, however.

By the way,

"Jeffords in fact DID vote that way, so did Wellstone. Kerry however voted for the bill. "


this passage gives the impression that Wellstone and Jeffords were on one side of the issue, and Kerry on the other. However, the facts are otherwise:

Jeffords (R-VT), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00171

[mohc]

50. You're quoting Vote 171

Which is NOT the vote on the bill, just the vote on the rules. Vote 172 was the vote on the bill, which passed 97-2, Kerry was among the 97.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00172

Only Jeffords and Wellstone voted Nay, Harkin was not present.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Yes, that is the subject of this thread. LOL

[mohc]

61. And as I have said

Vote 171 was a procedural vote on whether or not Jeffords motion was against the rules. It was against the rules and Edwards voted that way. On the only vote on the bill, 172, both Edwards and Kerry voted Yea. You claimed they should make an exception to the rule, well an appeal is not the way you do that. Jeffords could have made a motion for unanimous consent to recommit. Thats how exceptions to the rule are made in the Senate, but Jeffords knew a unanimous consent motion could not have passed. In reading the Senate rules, I am not even sure what happens if an appeal is upheld by Senate vote, as I believe it takes more than just a majority to suspend the rules.

Find a vote that is actually a vote on the environment, not a vote on a procedural rules. The ends to not justify the means, there are ways to get good bills passed without breaking rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. That's how you're spinning it, but you're wrong.

And the facts are here in the thread for everyone to see.

[SangamonTaylor]

65. I happen to beleive that you are taking this vote out of context

and that you are wrong.

Friday, August 1, 2003

DES MOINES, IA - North Carolina Senator John Edwards released the following statement today about the passage of the 2003 Energy Policy Act.

"I am pleased that the energy bill that I voted for more than doubles the use of ethanol in gasoline and encourages energy conservation. I have long supported increasing our commitment to renewable energy. It’s just common sense. Expanding renewable energy options decreases our dependence on foreign supplies, helps protect the environment, and boosts our economy with new jobs and investment - particularly in agricultural states like Iowa.

"While I believe this bill was significantly better than the original Republican bill, I remain convinced that we can and must do far more to help protect our environment. And, if Republicans want to get a bill enacted into law, it is critical that they not load this bill with anti-environment, anti-consumer provisions that are bad for Iowa and bad for America."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. Speaking of context

2003 Energy Policy Act. "the energy bill that I voted for":

Sierra Club Blasts Energy Policy Act

The Energy Policy Act of 2003 introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) threatens the environment and takes us backward by increasing our dependence on polluting and dangerous sources of energy such as coal, oil, and nuclear power. Instead of putting America on the path to a clean and affordable energy future, the Senate energy bill opens up our wilderness areas to oil and gas drilling, increases our dependence on polluting and dangerous sources of energy by throwing billions of dollars in subsidies at them and fails to offer meaningful measures to cut global-warming pollution.

The Energy Policy Act of 2003:

* Threatens our coasts and other public lands by allowing new fossil fuel exploration all along the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and more public lands. This will destroy some of our nation's most unique wilderness areas and critical fish and wildlife habitats.

* Puts consumers at risk from electricity markets. Power companies will be allowed to set up multiple subsidiaries and blur their financial reports, leading to market manipulation similar to that seen during the California energy crisis.

* Funnels billions of dollars to polluting industries. This bill gives away 10.7 billion dollars in tax breaks to polluters and 30 billion dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry.

* Ignores the property rights of farmers and ranchers and provides incentives for destructive coal-bed methane drilling that threatens thousands of acres of sensitive lands in the West and its scarce water resources.

* Opens Native American lands for mining and drilling by preventing the nation's hallmark environmental law, the Environmental Protection Act, from applying to Native American lands.

* Allows automakers to sell more gas guzzlers by failing to raise fuel economy standards.

* Fails to increase our use of clean, renewable energy by excluding a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) that would ensure that more of our electricity comes from clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
More: http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/bush_bill.asp

[mohc]

66. You're the one spinning

A procedural vote as a vote on Jeffords amendment. The facts are indeed laid out, and from most of the posts in this thread it seems most are in agreement with my position. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I'm not going to hold Edwards accountable for upholding Senate rules.

[GRClarkesq]

52. You must have rules in a legislative body

or you get chaos all the time. Find a vote where Edwards voted directly against a renewable energy bill and then make your case.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

54. So now I'm against rules?

:eyes:

The facts are here in the thread for everyone to read.

[GRClarkesq]

59. I dont know - but you seem anxious to

condemn Edwards despite the circumstances of the vote.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. This is a political discussion board. We discuss politics here.

I'm not 'condemning' anyone, I'm looking for a reason for Edwards' vote. You've given one, but I consider it pretty weak, and I hope there is some other reason.

[GRClarkesq]

64. No, I have not given a reason - I dont know why Edwards

voted the way he did and I dont care.

You are trying to make the case he is opposed to renewable energy but have failed to make a case.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. If you don't care about the answer, why are you posting in this thread?

I asked a question, now, after a plethora of posts, you say you not only don't know the answer, but don't care what it is.


:shrug:

[GRClarkesq]

72. I care that you are trying to attach a label to Edwards

and you dont have the evidence to back it up.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. Is asking why Edwards voted the way he did - attaching a label? No.

The readers of this thread are welcome to draw their own conclusions from the facts presented.

[SangamonTaylor]

78. Saying he voted against renewables but there could be many reasons

and you don't know why he voted in a procedural vote. You only have unsubstantiated claims that he's 'voting against renewables,' when that's clearly not the case. This is not a black and white vote, and sadly, you are trying to make this into an attack on Edwards' record.

You want a reason? A hypothetical reason is that Edwards voted the way he did because he honors the system of procedure. He knows that legislative procedure is what makes our democracy work the way it does. Who knows.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. So again, the only excuse given

is that Edwards chose form over substance.

[SangamonTaylor]

83. start bending the rules and the other party will bend them more

Form is much more important to stability in our rule making.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. Uh-huh.

[SangamonTaylor]

24. Thank you for clarifying it.

Typical of the internet. Without understanding the circumstances, it is impossible to judge someone's vote as 'pro' or 'anti' anything.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. What was the reason for Edwards' vote?

That seems to be missing in all these 'answers'.

[GRClarkesq]

30. We dont know the reason for his vote

but it could have been a hundred things other than his opposition to renewable energy.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. That's why I'm asking.

If his opposition to renewable energy isn't the reason, what is?

[GRClarkesq]

40. Guilty until proven innocent?

Edwards probably has lots of items in his record to quibble about but you need to do better than this.

You need a floor vote on the substance of a bill.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Are we having a trial, or a political discussion?

Why did Edwards vote the way he did?

[GRClarkesq]

48. If you are so interested go find out and report back

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. I am reporting now. Edwards voted against renewable energy

and the only reason offered in this thread for him siding WITH the majority of Republicans and AGAINST the majority of Democrats on this issue is that he "didn't want to make an exception to the rules".


Now THAT's commitment to the environment. :eyes:

[RafterMan]

16. Good for K

Most of my support for Kerry comes from the fact that my guy is out and Kerry is not John Edwards, but he did have a high-quality, insightful energy plan out in circulation before any of the other candidates.

I wish the issue had gotten more traction, and hope it does in the GE.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Kerry's energy policy is really the centerpiece of his security policy.

Nothing will protect America more than reducing dependence on Middle East oil.

[Snivi Yllom]

22. Apparently Kerry wants to drill ANWR

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4302564/
Hardball transcript 2/17/04

MATTHEWS: How about ANWR? You guys want to see ANWR because you want to see guys working in your business. I guess there‘s a lot of Teamsters jobs up there lined up and organized, if you could put a pipeline up to the Alaska wilderness. He is against that.

HOFFA: Well, we talked about that.

He says, look, I am against ANWR, but I am going to put that pipeline in and we‘re going to drill like never before.

MATTHEWS: What, are they going to run water through it?

HOFFA: ... more jobs than the ANWR would have ever created.

MATTHEWS: What are they going to run through the pipeline?

HOFFA: And that‘s the position he‘s taking.

MATTHEWS: But he is against drilling up there. What are they going to run through the pipeline?

HOFFA: Well, they are going to drill all over, according to him. And he says, we‘re going to be drilling all over the United States. And he says that is going to create more jobs.

MATTHEWS: You got that guy rolling.

MATTHEWS: What position was he in when he made all these promises?

MATTHEWS: It just seems amazing that he has turned around on NAFTA, turned around on WTO, turned around on ANWR, anything to get the Teamsters.

HOFFA: Oh.

MATTHEWS: Who is going to be boss if he gets in there, you or him?

HOFFA: Well, I think that

MATTHEWS: It sounds like you are the boss.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. James Hoffa is in favor of drilling in ANWR

And his ridiculous spin had everyone on that panel laughing.

:eyes:

[GRClarkesq]

36. Kerry buy the Teamsters by drilling in ANWR?

He wants that endorsement this week and needs to slow down Edwards. Would he sell out ANWR to get the endorsement?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. I guess you didn't see everyone on that panel laughing at Hoffa.

He was not credible.

[genius]

25. Kucinich and Kerry are best on the environment. The best labor candidates

are Kucinich and then Edwards. If you want the best on both, pick Kucinich. If you want a frontrunner, then pick. By the way, all the candidates are okay on environment and labor but some are better than others.

[corporatewhore]

37. i think edwardsmight bebetter on environment than kerry cause hes against

Nafta

[genius]

44. Edwards needs to re-think Yucca Mountain. He's shown he can learn.

Yucca Mountain will destroy the water supply for Southern California and risk the radio-active contamination of 38 additional states.

[corporatewhore]

60. didnt know that sept nafta is more dangerous because it is on a bigger

level

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Maybe he thought it would be better not to spend the money

so as not to add to the tax burden of Americans.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. Whereas, renewable energy is one of the best things we can spend on.

I hope if Edwards gets the nomination he will come to see that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. That is if we spend the money is spent at all

[Feanorcurufinwe]

84. That's right, governing is about choosing priorities.

Alternative energy and decreasing America's dependence of foreign oil is a high priority for John Kerry, as it is for me.

"John Kerry is calling for a New American Prosperity based on his view that our economy is best served by forward-looking environmental policies that protect our health, our lands, and our jobs."

Gentle reader, if you agree, I urge you to read John Kerry's energy plan: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy

For those who can handle the details (and they are worth reading), Kerry's complete environmental plan: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/long_enviro.pdf

[mmonk]

67. It's no secret

they are a little apart on environmental issues.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Well, I just want to make sure it's no secret, lol

Edwards: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNC68243#Environmental+Issues

Kerry: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103#Environmental+Issues

Edwards: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Kerry: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Energy_+_Oil.htm


Don't get me wrong -- Edwards' is not bad on environmental issues. But Kerry is way out front on this.

[salin]

74. That is some pretty fine... er... research... had to dig all the way

into procedural votes to find this issue...

Without getting a full recap from the staffers there on the various strategies that were in play - procedure votes are often hard to take at face value - as the procedures themselves are often used for differing ends. Without that info... it feels like pulling something out of context that may be quite germaine... and thus may or may not have the meaning that it has just looking at the surface.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. So what is the excuse you give for Edwards voting the way he did?

[salin]

87. I have no bone to pick in this fight

just commenting that considering a procedural vote to be on point on content, without having the context of the hearing, the dyamics and the strategy... makes it hard to determine much of anything (spent a little too much time in hearings on the Hill back in the 1980s, I guess)... and that to find a procedural vote ... takes a whole bit of digging to find, given it isn't the main bill or final vote upon said bill.

Can't really comment on what any vote (pro or con) means on a procedural vote without the full context of the hearing/strategy/etc. Have seen too many times where these types of votes were about maneuvering other parts of bills... or working to keep something alive to get it to the next stage where it can be amended... or a number of other strategic efforts.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. I don't know why you say

that it 'takes a whole bit of digging to find' this vote.

It's listed right there on OnTheIssues.org's webpage for Energy issues as a vote either for or against defunding renewable and solar energy.

You characterize it as a 'procedural vote'. Obviously OnTheIssues.org disagrees with you.



http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Energy_+_Oil.htm

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Energy_+_Oil.htm

[Padraig18]

79. Why don't YOU tell US, Feanorcurufinwe ?

I'm all ears...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. I'm not supporting Edwards. Why should I explain his actions?

[Padraig18]

86. Ah, yes, the alleged 'innocent question'.

Why did John Kerry vote against the Farm Bill? Illinois farmers want to know.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

89. Ironic.

So where is the link that backs up your assertion disguised as an innocent question?


Where is the link that back up your assertion that "Illinois farmers want to know."

Is that true?