Clinton, Obama, and the Bush-Cheney energy bill that allows LNG to threaten Oregon
By Paddy McGuire of Portland, Oregon. Paddy is a former executive director of the Democratic Party of Oregon, a former Clinton Administration appointee, and a former deputy Oregon Secretary of State. Last week, he contributed "The Red Sox Should Have Dropped Out".
Critics of Hillary Clinton repeatedly point to her 2002 vote to authorize going to war with Iraq (if Saddam Hussein continued to stymie U.N. weapons inspectors, a resolution supported by U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix) as the primary evidence that she should not be President. Many cite this vote as a reason to oppose Hillary, despite many of those same people having earlier supported John Kerry and John Edwards for President, who voted exactly the same way.
Fast forward to 2005.
Vice-President Cheney crafted an energy bill with corporate energy pals in Congress that stripped authority from the states on the siting of
Today, the Cheney-Bush Energy bill is responsible for no fewer than 3 LNG facilities threatening Oregon coastline, rivers, forests, fish, fishermen, farmers, and neighborhoods up and down western Oregon, and most of that natural gas will ultimately go to California. Let’s see who was for this mess and who was against it: Opposed the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill
Hillary Clinton
Ron Wyden
Earl Blumenauer
Peter DeFazio
Darlene Hooley
David Wu
For the Cheney-Bush Energy Bill
Barack Obama
Gordon Smith
Greg Walden
|
April 7, 2008 |
guest column | Comments (99 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: BCM | Apr 7, 2008 5:28:21 PM
It's actually called the Energy Policy Act of 2005, not the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill.
And if states have no say in the siting of LNG terminals, why then did Delaware just win a Supreme Court fight with New Jersey over the latter state's proposal to put a facility on the Delaware River?
This smells of election propaganda to me...
Posted by: Johnh | Apr 7, 2008 5:28:50 PM
Interesting to finally see pro-Hillary posts. The lack of enthusiasm here was starting to become deafening.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 7, 2008 5:29:34 PM
Paddy, did Hillary speak out against the war before Obama? Because that's what she said in Eugene.
Critics of Hillary Clinton repeatedly point to her 2002 vote to authorize going to war with Iraq...
I don't want the goal posts to be arbitrarily moved here: what I specifically pointed out yesterday is that Hillary misstated Obama's record and her own. So, yes, John Edwards voted for the war, but there's a world of difference in how each has taken resonsibility for the vote.
Posted by: Charlie, puhleeze | Apr 7, 2008 5:54:03 PM
Charlie -
You never address the 2005 vote on the Cheney-Bush energy bill. That is the subject of Paddy's post.
Yes, in your post you were trying to stir up controversy about something Hillary said about Iraq because you didn't want to comment on the prior post about the energy bill and LNG. Once again, when the energy bill is the topic, you want to talk about Iraq.
If Hillary's vote in 2002 is a huge issue for you, why isn't a 2005 vote after Senators had 3 years to better understand Bush's deceit?
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 7, 2008 5:55:04 PM
Clinton voted for this same bill on June 28, 2005.
Is the withdrawl of her support because of the citing of LNG facilities?
Posted by: Glen HD28 | Apr 7, 2008 5:56:35 PM
So now it seems clear that for every bill that impacts our state (certainly every bill that Dubya and Deadeye Dick put a pen to), alert Oregonians will need to contact every member of Congress to express our wishes.
Actually, that's pretty good advice.
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 7, 2008 6:04:00 PM
I put this on the scale with Clinton's Iraq vote and the aftermath and something broke!
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 7, 2008 6:07:56 PM
"Puhleeze"--
Paddy brought up the war vote in his post and certainly seemed to frame it as old news. But Hillary's comments this weekend are anything but.
I'm the one stirring up controversy? Give me a break, anonymous. Hillary went on the attack with a version of the Iraqi War vote made up out of whole cloth. All I did was post a simple fact check. For Clinton supporters, an open invitation: If anyone can point to facts supporting her dubious Iraq War claim, I will gladly post a retraction.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Apr 7, 2008 6:14:31 PM
Paddy-
You conveniently forgot to mention that Obama voted for an amendment to the bill that would have given states the authority to site the terminals.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Apr 7, 2008 6:41:02 PM
As other have already noted, Obama voted in support (i.e. not table the amendment) an amendment that would have given the states authority to site the LNG terminals. Obama voted for the overall bill because it would encourage ethanol, clean-coal technology and other energy alternatives that would reduce demand for foreign oil.
But color me shocked that a former Clinton Administration appointee is here pushing the very same line of false attack that Clinton herself was pushing yesterday when she knows full well that Obama specifically was supporting the position of giving states full control over whether to site LNG facilities even though Oregon still has the ability to weigh in on LNG projects through the Coastal Zone Management Act, even though the amendment both Obama and Clinton supported ultimately failed.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 7, 2008 6:44:46 PM
Critics of Hillary Clinton repeatedly point to her 2002 vote to authorize going to war with Iraq (if Saddam Hussein continued to stymie U.N. weapons inspectors, a resolution supported by U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix)...
What resolution are you talking about that you claim Hans Blix supported? A U.N. resolution for inspections in Iraq or the Bush/Cheney/Congress resolution to go to war?
I'm not enthused about an LNG terminal being placed in Oregon, but it could exist here for decades without a major problem as has been the case in other locations. That is much different from the Iraqi war which has been a real problem for thousands of people from the day the first troops left the U.S. for the war zone.
If this post was to encourage Obama supporters to have second thoughts it will have failed in many cases, because some of us are voting for him with reservations but still see him as much less of a problem than Hillary.
Posted by: Charlie, puhleeze | Apr 7, 2008 6:46:04 PM
But back to the LNG issue, Charlie. Do you or do you not think that voting to strip Oregon's authority and Oregonians of their voice in the process is a legitimate issue?
Nick, I checked. Obama supported an amendment that would have preserved what was then the current law giving states the authority. He was against LNG before he was for it?
Bottom line - the only vote that counted was the vote for final passage. Every Democratic member of our delegation --thank god -- voted with Hillary and against the Cheney-Bush energy bill. Every Republican in Oregon's delegation joined with Obama in supporting the Cheney-Bush Big Energy bill.
Posted by: anonymous | Apr 7, 2008 6:46:25 PM
A lot of good, detailed info on the LNG issue here:
• What is up for discussion?Proposals for liquefied natural gas terminals along the Columbia River and the Oregon Coast currently are in process.
In addition, new gas pipelines are being discussed. Pipelines would be 36 inches in diameter and buried at least 3 feet below ground. They carry gas long distances under pressure.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 7:10:28 PM
Paddy, it's intellectually dishonest of you to compare the vote for Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq with the 2005 Energy Bill. The energy bill was a complicated piece of legislation full of compromises, including LNG provisions which Obama backed to try to balance the bill.
Do we really have to hear the Hans Blix nonsense again? I know many Democrats cringed when we heard Clinton obfuscate on her Iraq vote behind Blix, and say that the October 2002 vote was "not really about war" during her stop here in Eugene Saturday. Who are you (and she) fooling?
But that's not even the point. The authorization for the use of force in Iraq may have been a political courage test for liberals, but not necessarily. The test of courage for Democrats who authorized the war has been to admit they were wrong, and Clinton has consistently failed to do this.
So, stop comparing LNG terminals to 4,000 dead Americans and a multi-million person humanitarian crisis.
PS Thanks for linking to the official roll call at the end. No thanks, however, for the arbitrary lumping of the candidates with our congressional delegation. Why not just put Tom Coburn and Rick Santorum up there with the yea voters to really slander Obama by association? Or put liberal icons like Dick Durbin and Maria Cantwell alongside Hillary- oops- they voted for the bill.
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 7, 2008 7:20:05 PM
What was the Jr. senator from Illinois to do? Durbin voted for it and his state produces the corn which is the feed stock for 40% of the nations ethanol.
Posted by: Charlie, puhleeze | Apr 7, 2008 7:34:36 PM
Taylor M - So is it your position that the Bush-Cheney energy bill was good for America, good for the environment, and good for consumers? If so, why not quit making excuses and come out and say it was a great bill and Obama did the right thing.
Or can you only talk about the Iraq vote?
God, you people sure cling to your comfort zone.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 7, 2008 7:45:02 PM
So Hillary voted against ethanol, clean-coal technology and other energy alternatives that would reduce demand for foreign oil? I may not want to brag about that if I were a Hillary supporter.
Posted by: It's complex folks | Apr 7, 2008 7:45:47 PM
Some thoughts:
The 2005 energy bill was in total, a lousy bill for the environment as it was loaded with nasty incentives and legal insulation for coal, oil and nuke industries. Oh and it by-and-large removed the states' ability to veto a FERC siting decision. The states are now limited to Clean Water Act permits as their only leverage points.
When introduced, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 also had language to fast-track oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlfe refuge and to hold gasoline suppliers harmless for the pernicious and deadly fuel additive MTBE, but the environmental community worked its butt off to kill those titles.
In the end, the Bushies threw some renewables in to help sway enough Ds to get to cloture. Oh, and like the FISA amendments, the Rs did it right before the August recess.
Staunch liberals like Boxer (D-CA) voted for the original and then against the final conference report. Other good progressive Ds like Cantwell, Harkin, Stabenow and the most staunch of anti-war senators-Byrd, voted for final passage. Kudos should also go to Wyden for being one of the few to vote against it in committee and on the floor.
See votes 158 and 213 at this link:http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213
There are bound to be votes that advocates for one candidate or another can choose to highlight as blasphemous, and I believe that Paddy's post here is a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to shave off some of Obama's pro-environment supporters.
As someone who cut his activist "teeth" during the old growth wars and the fight to hold Exxon accountable for the damage to Prince William Sound, I ain't buying it.
So think it through before you bail out one way or the other. Personally, while I feel Obama's vote was a mistake, I'm certain it's not one he would have chosen to make, and the bill did contain some minimal incentives for renewables and green building that made it slightly less godawful. I am not aware of any such attempts at mitigation in the vote to authorize GWB to take us to hell (but not back again) in Iraq.
Posted by: Nick Wirth | Apr 7, 2008 7:58:39 PM
Nick, I checked. Obama supported an amendment that would have preserved what was then the current law giving states the authority. He was against LNG before he was for it?
Har har har. However, the difference between the AUMF and the energy bill was that the latter dealt with a number of different topics beyond the LNG siting. As lestatdelc noted, Obama voted for it because it funded alternative energies to oil, most notably ethanol, which of course would be of great benefit to Illinois. He tried to maintain the state's ability to site the terminals, but unfortunately the amendment failed. Similarly, let's not be so naive as to think that Clinton opposed the bill simply because of the LNG issue.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 8:03:08 PM
As Charlie calls you, "Puhleeze"-
Did you read the word compromise in my comment? I'm no fan of the bill, and ethanol's a farce, but Obama voted in a responsible way, given his situation. James r was on the money when he mentioned Obama's difficult situation in balancing the interests of his Ill. constituents, along with Obama's ability to push for more progressive provisions.
No, the 2005 energy bill was not a wonderful beautiful manatee-saving panacea. But here's something else, because since you are a troll I can't vouchsafe your legislative knowledge: US Senators are rarely faced with morally unambiguous votes. Paddy dubiously and I think dishonestly tried to equate Clinton's 2002 Iraq war yea vote to Obama's 2005 energy bill yea vote. The vote to give Bush the right to attack and occupy Iraq was as morally unambiguous as a vote will ever come. It was not good for America, good for the environment, or good for consumers. A reasonable and maybe even convincing case exists that Obama's energy vote (including ethanol subsidies and cleaner energy provisions) was good for consumers, the environment, etc.
Paddy brought up the war vote ( and entered into my comfort zone, so to speak) as compared to the 2005 energy bill, and I was only responding to his post.
Posted by: Mjordan | Apr 7, 2008 8:06:35 PM
Obama is NOT who he says he is fellow Oregonians. He is cozy with the nuke industry in Illinois. Google it and you can see a number of articles about this. If he was so anti-war, then what did the actually DO once in the Senate. Nothing. Please, Oregon, do not fall for his pomp and fluff. You might dispute a vote or two with Hillary, but she is the real deal when it comes to our issues. Vote substance!
M Jordan, Welches
Posted by: N. Bekker | Apr 7, 2008 8:16:07 PM
I agree with the last poster in this regard. I admit I have been somwhat "taken" with the Obama phenomena. However, lately I am reconsidering. This is such a huge election. I am fearful that Obama's "getting everybody together" will translate into watered down centrist compromises and even appeasement. We actually need a fighter. Edwards was the man, but the second-best fighter for our side is Hillary. When I stop and think about it, I don't WANT to hold hands with Republican righties in the name of a new kind of politics (that's Obama). I want to press, and press hard, for a new majority of progressives that will NOT compromise. That Energy bill vote above gives me pause with Obama. It's kind of this message and M.O. -- he wimped out. I am seriously reconsidering, and I hope all progressive Oregon voters will at least vote with their eyes wide open. Please be sure about your vote. Thanks.
Posted by: Charlie, puhleeze | Apr 7, 2008 8:17:45 PM
The vote to give Bush the right to attack and occupy Iraq was as morally unambiguous as a vote will ever come. It was not good for America, good for the environment, or good for consumers. -- Taylor M
Really Taylor M? So John Kerry and John Edwards were immoral? Most Oregonians don't share that view, and certainly most Democrats know better. They are good, decent men, and Hillary is a good, decent woman.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 8:26:56 PM
M Jordan, if Obama "did nothing" once he got to the Senate (are you serious?!) then what did Clinton do? Less than nothing? Her whole anti-war claim to fame is that "anti-war Jack Murtha" (her words) endorsed her and that she has voted "90% the same" as Obama. Notice too how in her Eugene speech she explicitly distinguished her anti-war supporters as different from her.
N Bekker, if you think Obama is about appeasement, why are conservatives already touting Obama's 2007 NJ most "liberal" voting record in the Senate? Why would he take on the morgate crisis as a Senator almost a year before it was politically popular? I think you're confusing the method with the message. Obama has a convincing argument for progressive change, and because it's convincing, on a lot of grounds he will unite people, regardless of ideological positioning. On the other hand, if anyone's looking for watered-down centrist appeasement, revisit the Clintons and the late 1990s.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 8:31:39 PM
Puhleeze troll:
Rather than respond, I'll just mention, clearly and explicitly, that and Kerry and Edwards have both expressed regret and contrition for their war support, and that Clinton hasn't, and was a war supporter until it was no longer electorally viable. With that I'll quote my previous post.
--------------------------------------------
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 7:10:28 PM
The authorization for the use of force in Iraq may have been a political courage test for liberals, but not necessarily. The test of courage for Democrats who authorized the war has been to admit they were wrong, and Clinton has consistently failed to do this.
Posted by: Steve | Apr 7, 2008 8:46:59 PM
Great, has anyone thought of an alterantive to energy independence when we drive every LNG terminal and distillery out of the country? WHen gas hits $5 a gallon and corn is $100/bushel thanks to the unusal foresight of all the liberal types, I can hardly wait to see who gets blamed.
Posted by: M Jordan | Apr 7, 2008 8:47:43 PM
I really don't want to get in a back and forth here. However, by doing nothing I mean just that. We were desperate to find a leader in Congress who would stand up and vote for cutting off funding, and our Dem leaders let us down in the name of not having the votes, etc. etc. Obama had a chance to step up and did not do it. He voted to fun the war. That's a fact. I'm not commparing Hillary, like you, I'm just sticking to Obama. He's more smoke and mirrors than the kind of candidate he (and you) make him out to be. Yes Bill Clinton was centrist on some issues (welfare reform) but Bill is not running for President. Hillary is. She has been a consistent and leading liberal/progressive for many years and there is no denying that.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 7, 2008 8:51:14 PM
"anti-war Jack Murtha" VOTED FOR THE WAR when he took a break from scooping up pork for his district.
Posted by: M Jordan | Apr 7, 2008 8:51:52 PM
Sorry for the typos -- I meant fund the war, not fun the war, and comparing, not commparing.
Posted by: N Bekker | Apr 7, 2008 9:02:49 PM
Taylor M, with all due respect, you are somewhat naive if you really believe people will unite for progressive advancement "regardless of ideological positioning." I don't want to laugh but . . . . That's precisely what scares me about Obama, the thought that that could happen in the real world. It can't and it is actually foolish to think it. I wish John Edwards was still a candidate -- you have to fight for what is right and that takes courage and hard work to build progressive majorities. It just doesn't work Obama's way, and could actually in the end by counterproductive to our great progressive causes.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 7, 2008 9:11:37 PM
Here is a summary of the bill from the Washington Post :
The Bush administration said this bill's $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives would spur oil and gas companies to find innovative ways to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution. Supporters also said the bill would lead to the creation of more oil refineries, new oil drilling projects and new nuclear power plants -- arguing that all were necessary to meet the nation's energy needs and reduce importation of foreign oil.Opponents said the measure amounted to a give-away to large energy companies already flush with cash due to rising oil and gas prices and that it would do little to solve the nation's energy-related problems. Opponents further argued that the bill could lead to drilling in coastal and other sensitive areas and damage the environment.
The bill called for increase use of alternative fuels such as ethanol and offered incentives for development of alternative energy sources (such as wind and solar), tax breaks for hybrid cars, construction of more energy efficient buildings. The bill did not include the controversial proposal to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil drilling, but the proposal was added to a later bill, which was defeated.
The final version of the energy bill passed both the House and Senate in late July 2005 and was signed into law by the president on August 8, 2005.
The official Democratic Party position on this bill was "Yes", vote in favor.
Posted by: Missy | Apr 7, 2008 9:12:38 PM
Once again you people cling to your positions without ever acknowledging the obvious. The Clinton Iraq vote was simply wrong. The Obama energy bill vote was simply wrong.
And come on Obama people, if Clinton had voted for the Bush energy bill and Obama had voted against it, you would be making the exact same arguments Paddy made.
They were both wrong, and I will vote for either for President.
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 7, 2008 9:32:23 PM
How can there be this amazing disconnect about Iraq. Could there be anything more distructive to the environment and our collective future on this planet?
The future of energy is higher prices, doing more with less and doing without.
Don't put blood in my gasoline.
Posted by: M Jordan | Apr 7, 2008 9:33:53 PM
Here is just one of many facts about Obama that just cannot be ignored, dear Oregon progressives: He is more than cozy with the nuke energy industry. go to the link below and see --it is just one of many like it... in Illinois he even flat out stated he rejected both liberal and conservative views on energy, which is what N Bekker is posting about.
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/05/senator-obama-climate-change-air.html
Posted by: r kretz | Apr 7, 2008 9:42:49 PM
OK, when he's back in Oregon let's make him explain it. Let's hold him accountable. I'm not changing my vote to Hillary but I do have questions about all of this. I admit it gives me pause -- Oregon has always been a leader in the anti-nuclear movement and I wouldn't like it one bit if it was true that Obama was somehow connected to that industry. If he is he needs to own up to it. I do want to know all the facts.
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Apr 7, 2008 9:49:17 PM
in case a few people didn't notice, Obama represents a state that is not Oregon. that means that his considerations on behalf of his constituents (he's a representative of those constituents, if you recall your Civics class from high school) will differ from those of Wyden. here in Oregon (and up in Washington) we benefit from damming the hell out of the Columbia River. lucky us. we have plenty of electricity, enough to ship to California. last time i looked, Illinois was rather bereft of major rivers to dam for its power. for Illinois, nuclear power represents an option that is much cleaner, and possibly cheaper, than coal.
all 3 of these power sources suck. our dams are killing salmon, coal is causing acid rain, and nukes make people glow in the dark. but at this point in our sad history, we "need" power. lots of it. so here in Oregon, we keep our dams, build those big-ass wind turbines (god knows what ecological damange they're doing) and mock Illinois for supporting "bad" energy.
and i'm realy having a problem seeing what's so evil in the link given by M.Jordan:
But keeping nuclear power on the table — and indeed planning for the construction of new plants — is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.
this is bad? saying that nukes are viable only if we improve how we plan for them? that what we're doing now is not good enough? i guess if he isn't saying "close 'em all down!" he's "cozy". funky logic, that. but then since he's fool enough not to represent the ecologically pure people of Oregon, he's obviously going to get this all wrong. darn him for being so conscientious of Illinois' citizens and not Oregon's.
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 7, 2008 9:52:41 PM
There is no seperation between any of the candidates on nuclear power. They all favor it, so we will have to deal with that.
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 9:54:41 PM
N Bekker, this might bely my naivety, but if you look at the last four months of elections, Obama's crossover appeal is already working! Have you followed this Democratic primary's effect on independents and conservatives, and the outrageous numbers of them Obama has convinced to vote for him and for his platform? Clinton didn't win the self-identified Republican vote in a primary until her husband went on the Rush Limbaugh Show to push GOP voters to keep the fighting going. Obama will attract thousands of independents and GOP voters to vote into the Oregon primary for him.
Look, Democrats are never going to win the Fox News viewership vote, they're never going to win the rock solid 28% who love Bush. But if Obama can't attract conservatives to vote for a liberal, why are high profile conservatives like Doug Kmiec (Reagan's constitution advisor) and Andrew Sullivan endorsing him, and why are conservatives like Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell leaving the door open to endorsing him? It's been eight years of war, lies, economic stagnation, torture, wiretapping, and amazing incompetence. About half of Republicans believe all of this, and Obama speaks to them. Some people are so afraid of Republicans they never notice a real opportunity to win them over.
And as for Edwards, I've never understood why people think he's some great Democratic champion. I greatly admire his focus on poverty and New Orleans- I spent the last years there- but when he was a Senator he made Hillary Clinton look like Wayne Morse. Elizabeth Edwards, on the other hand, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 7, 2008 9:55:41 PM
TA, I guess the same case could be made saying Hillary Clinton represents the state of NY, so she saw first hand what happened after 9/11 and was reacting to her consituents - who were being told by the Bush administration that Iraq was at fault when she voted on the war resolution?
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 7, 2008 9:59:29 PM
Sockpuppets for Clinton. Awesome!
"N Becker", "r kretz" and "M Jordan" .... all the same people. Same people, same IP address. And the same lovable tactics we've come to know.
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 7, 2008 10:04:41 PM
Wake me when this country is over 9/11! If what Clinton voted for and suported was the cure...oh my!
Posted by: Jeremy | Apr 7, 2008 10:21:28 PM
Paddy,
I know you personally and I know you are much much better than this.
Come on man - in the Portland Tribune article you linked to it says the following:
"In 2005, an amendment to the Energy Policy Act requiring that Governors get the final say-so in LNG terminal siting was voted down 52-45.
Wyden, Clinton, Lieberman and Dodd all supported the amendment. Clinton's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama also supported the amendment, as did Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, a Republican."
That Energy Bill sucked and I wish Obama hadnt voted for it but the VERY thing you are criticising him about here he voted to try to prevent!
Come on man....
Posted by: Taylor M | Apr 7, 2008 10:25:03 PM
N Bekker, r kretz, et. all/ whoever you are, apologies for responding to your posts. Thanks for the sockpuppet heads up Charlie.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 7, 2008 10:26:57 PM
Charlie, I am sure that our friend M Jordan is unaware that if you click on that little rainbow box down there, you can get to a map showing the users on now. If different names keep posting, but no new dots are showing up - it's kind of a dead give away that we have some sock puppet action happening.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 7, 2008 10:36:23 PM
"Hillary, Paddy and the divisive, win-at-all-costs, sour-grapes, scorched earth policy that threatens to destroy the Democratic Party" - let's have that be the next post.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 7, 2008 11:00:11 PM
Katy, you are the first person here who seems to understand that Senator Clinton voted the way her constituency expected her to vote. She represented the interest of the people of New York who were directly effected by a terrorist attack.
It's very easy to sit in front of your tv in Oregon and see the devastation, it's something entirely different to be in the middle of it. If I remember correctly Senator Clinton got quite a few things moved through that directly benefited the families of the victims like health care for the workers of Ground Zero, financial compensation to the families left without a bread winner as well as financial help to rebuild small businesses.
I remember everyone in this country calling for blood in 2002 and I don't fault her for voting for the Authorizatin of Military Force, which passed 77-23. I also don't fault her for not apologizing for it, at least she has'nt said "Oops, I meant to vote no" like her opponent has on several occasions concerning key votes.
The most recent ware related vote that (Lieberman/Kyl bill) Hillary proves she "flip-flops" or whatever Obama's people said she did...he did not show up to vote on that one nor did he choose to speak at the debate held later on the subject. He did however release a statement the next day voicing his opinions....funny how the only 2 Senators not voting that day were Senator McCain and Senator Obama. With his immense disagreement of the war wouldn't you think Senator Obama would want to participate in expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Iran?
Posted by: Peter Bray | Apr 7, 2008 11:24:43 PM
BCM says:
And if states have no say in the siting of LNG terminals, why then did Delaware just win a Supreme Court fight with New Jersey over the latter state's proposal to put a facility on the Delaware River?
The Oregonian says the court case is not relevant to LNG siting in Oregon:
"Our assistant attorney general tells me that this case is really more about a boundary dispute. We don't have a comparable dispute between Washington and Oregon," said Kristin Alexander, a spokeswoman for McKenna"s office.
Post a comment
Posted by: Chris Corbell | Apr 7, 2008 5:19:36 PM
Thank you for the facts.
There are so many of these kinds of comparisons to be made. We owe it to ourselves to really look at our candidate's policies and stop being sidetracked by character assassination and media favorites.
I am not going to vote for the candidate that MSNBC or Huff Post tells me to vote for. I am going to vote for the candidate with the record and the strength to get things done.
Go Hillary!