Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

An honest Congressman: Kucinich votes against Waxman-Markey

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 06:32 AM
Original message
An honest Congressman: Kucinich votes against Waxman-Markey
Dennis Kucinich votes against climate change bill

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who is widely known as an advocate for the environment and for clean energy, announced on Friday that he had voted against the climate change legislation passed earlier that day by the House of Representatives.

I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Kucinich stated in a press release. The reason is simple. It wont address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse.

It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods, he continued. It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out coal by giving it record subsidies.

Kucinich was especially scathing in his criticism of the bills extensive compromises with the coal industry compromises that were largely negotiated by Representative Rick Boucher (D-VA), who hails from a coal-mining district in Virginia and has been the recipient of generous coal company donations.

Kucinich is one the the very few political rascals in the US that I have the time of day for, and my respect for him is unbounded. The comparison between his political stands and career and those of Obama show clearly the price of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Egalitariat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. I disagree. He's grandstanding to beef up his uber-liberal credentials for his next presidential
campaign.

"An honest congressman" would have opposed the bill before the vote instead of after it, as Kucinich did. He waited to oppose it only after he knew it had passed instead of working to defeat it. Straight politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. But, politics is the art of compromise, like it or not, or things will never get done.
This bill has many good features. It was strongly opposed by R's which should tell you there were some good things in it. Sometimes you need to make a start and not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Ideological purist zealots seldom achieve much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Let's hope that the climate knows how to compromise.
Doesn't seem likely, but maybe if we explain to the climate about the good features and artistic compromise, the climate will cooperate with us.

Chances are, though, not enough is going to turn out to be not enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Anything is better than nothing
And nothing is what we're going to get if we have to hold out for a bill that meets DK's standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Anything is better than nothing?
Um, that ain't necessarily so, is it? Think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBInMaine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Most adults know you don't always get all you want all at once in politics. Try growing up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Thank you
...for one of the more brainless posts I've seen recently. It was quite entertaining.

Hey, do you suppose if you fall off a cliff and try to compromise with gravity (in a most grown up fashion, of course), that you will fall more slowly? If so, then please stay away from ledges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. There's a reason why Obama is a leader and Kucinich has been relegated to cartoonish "gadfly" status
Politics...American style...is all about the art of compromise.

As usual, Dennis is too cute for his own good. For all his blustery claims of principle, the end result of his posturing is promotion of the status quo. Perhaps he can go back on FauxNews and help us better understand why the bill isn't good enough for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-29-09 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. Kucinich is one of the people Obama has to compromise with.
Kucinich is a leader, Obama is just a follower.
Obama is just going with the flow, following the course of least resistance.
Without Kucinich, Obama would be compromising between DLC DINO's from coal states and Repubicnut wackos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. I like Dennis
but this was a publicity vote and everyone knows it. Maybe a call from Gore would have helped to ground Dennis but I doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
7. Forty Democrats voted against WAxman Markey
I'm not sure all were motivated by a desire for a tougher bill. Crippled as this package is, it will have a very hard road in the Senate. The Democrats need 60 votes, and they are nowhere near that. Clearly, not everyone in the country or in the Congress shares our sense of urgency. For this to get done at all, it will have to be done in stages. It may well be too little, too late, but that's the way things work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pjt7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. good post
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Dems COULD take care of this through reconcilliation
though that would require political fortitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-28-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. One of the Bluest of the blue dogs
Gene Taylor of Mississippi, was pissed that the leadership forced a vote on the bill. He said it would damage Democrats in conservative districts and was going to die in the Senate anyway, so what was the point. "A lot of people walked the plank on a bill that is never going to become law." said Taylor. The quote came from The Hill via David Kurtz over at TPM. Taylor is kind of an asshole, but he's no dummy. I wouldn't give even money right now on this thing passing the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
excess_3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-29-09 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
14. does anybody actually believe the 'only costs $200 per household'
story, if so, that same person

probably also believes/d the story that California gasoline
will only be 5 cents more when the formula was changed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-29-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
16. Many people who have studied the issue think "cap and trade" actually works better
Edited on Mon Jun-29-09 10:15 AM by HamdenRice
It is not a matter of honesty or dishonesty. It's a matter of what people think actually works.

The problem with Kucinich's position is that cap and trade have worked very, very well for other forms of pollution -- iirc, in fact, much more quickly and efficiently than even those who first proposed it thought it would. If I were voting on it, the fact that this mechanism has worked in the past would be a big factor in my decision.

I believe there are very serious potential problems applying cap and trade to carbon emission and to applying it internationally.

But it is absolutely wrong to assume that every congress person who prefers cap and trade to carbon tax is dishonest compared to Kucinich being honest. Support for one or the other method is a topic over which reasonable people can disagree reasonably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC