Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.
That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy.
Essentially, what Rockefeller is proposing would tell the EPA – at least for two years, although we know that justice delayed is often justice denied! - that it has to be asleep at the switch, that it must not hold polluters accountable, that it must look the other way whole Big Oil and Big Coal trash the environment. Is that the lesson the Senate learned from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? Really?
The climate bill blame game has begun. When I first started writing this post about the so-called death of the climate bill, I literally pointed the finger at just about everyone, including myself. The anger poured out, and I was frank in my assessment as well as unforgiving in the motives behind this latest setback.
After I was done with my self-loathing tantrum, the kids ran in the door from camp and I was swept up in the lovely reality of my family's banter. It is summer, so the pace in our home is a bit more relaxed in the evening. We aren't quite as quick to rush through dinner, toss the kids in a bath, and then march them off to bed. Ice cream and extra cuddles are relished, and I am reminded each year at this time why I do this job.
Later, after progeny were tucked in, I went back to my draft blog post to spruce it up. I reread my rage, disappointment, and irrational ramblings and was embarrassed. And I asked myself "What good is all this blame going to do?"
At the end of the day, it is my kids - and your kids - who lose when we implode. If you think kids have a lot to say about their parents now on Dr. Phil, can you imagine what our children will say in 50 years should we fail to get our act together?
The country should be ready for this. The facts are on our side. As we witness the worst industry-caused environmental catastrophe in our history, the worst coal mining disaster in 40 years, and sweat through the hottest first 6 months of any year on record, it is clear that there's never been a more urgent time to move forward with a smart clean energy and climate plan.
Unfortunately, the politicians just aren't there. At every juncture during this debate, a minority, led by the Republican leadership and supported by a few impressionable (I might say pathetic) Democrats, has obstructed the opportunity to solve America's energy problems, preferring to leave the worst polluters and the big petro-dictators in control of our energy policy, while tax-payers are forced to pay for their messes.
Oopsy... there goes that blame again. Let's focus on what we can do next.
Hope is not lost. Of course, the closer we get to the midterm elections, the more challenging passing a bill becomes. Still, it's not impossible. In fact, the Senate has passed almost every single bedrock environmental law in the fall of an election year or in the "lame duck" session following an election. Here are just a few examples:
o Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - 1996 Amendments: 8/6/96
o Food Quality Protection Act: 8/3/96
o Energy Policy Act of 1992: 10/24/92
o Clean Air Act of 1990: 11/15/90
o SDWA - 1986 Amendments: 6/19/86
o CERCLA (Superfund): House 9/23/80, Senate 11/24/80, POTUS 12/11/80
o Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA): 10/21/76
o Toxic Substances & Control Act (TSCA): 10/11/76
o SDWA: 12/16/74
o Clean Water Act: 10/18/72
o Establishment of the EPA: first proposed 7/9/70, established 12/2/70
o National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 1/1/70
o The Wilderness Act: 9/3/64
As this list demonstrates, the Senate and the environmental movement are no strangers to passing major legislation right before - or just after - an election.
I don't want to overpromise success. This is an uphill battle. But if you and I show up to every town hall, rally, spaghetti dinner, and other rituals of election year and fight for our kids... fight for our country... fight for our America... we can turn the tide. Without that kind of passion, we will all lose. That's an outcome we must try hard to avoid, on behalf of people, communities, large and small businesses - oh, and our kids, sleeping peacefully or playing happily around the country.
In the meantime, we must also protect what we already have, like a plethora of state laws and the federal Clean Air Act. I recommend reading David Doniger's blog on Switchboard today that really outlines how we can make progress with the tools we have right now.
In coming weeks and months, we must continue to push forward for a strong, clean energy and climate bill, just like we have done countless times in the past. I am done with blame. History is on our side. Are you?
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
Yesterday, President Obama met with Senators at the White House and pushed them to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Still, the skeptics are spinning a monotonous web of negativity regarding what is achievable on this front. And, not surprisingly, the "mainstream media" once again has been asleep at the wheel in setting the record straight. Fortunately, we know that when this President rolls up his sleeves, he gets stuff done and delivers on his promises. One thing’s for sure; President Obama is anything but an underachiever!
Along these lines, President Obama held a press conference following the G-20 summit in Toronto. In response to a reporter’s question regarding how he would achieve his deficit reduction goals, the president responded:
For some reason people keep being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do. So, I say I’m going to reform our [health care system], and people say well gosh that’s not smart politics maybe we should hold off. Or I say we’re going to move forward on [Don’t Ask Don’t Tell] and somehow people say well why are you doing that, I’m not sure that’s good politics. I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it, and I think it’s the right thing to do. And people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficit and debt step up cause I’m calling their bluff.
To that list of accomplishments, we could also add:
Creating or saving 2.2-2.8 million jobs, well on the way to Obama’s February 2009 pledge that he would "create or save 3-and-a-half million jobs over the next two years."
Reforming Wall Street (likely to pass Congress any day now)
Overhauling the student loan market
Reaching a nuclear arms treaty with Russia
We could go on and on, but you get the point: anyone who continues, at this point, to be "surprised" when President Obama gets things done when he puts his mind to it is deep in denial. Or, as a previous president might have put it, they are wildly "misunderestimating" our 44th president.
Clearly, as we’ve seen over the past two years, underachieving is not a problem Barack Obama suffers from. Of course, even a superachiever like Barack Obama has an awful lot on his plate to deal with. And right now, one of the most important things on Obama’s plate is figuring out how to push comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation through the U.S. Senate. Along those lines, yesterday, Obama met with a group of Senators on this issue, reportedly holding firm in his call for putting a price on carbon emissions.
The question at this point is, will President Obama roll up his sleeves and deliver on another of his major campaign promise (as well as a major challenge facing our nation)? Given the long list of accomplishments mentioned above, it certainly wouldn’t be smart to bet against him. The fact is, Barack Obama usually succeeds in whatever he puts his mind to.
Given the nation’s increased focus on energy and climate issues – and the increased support by the American people for taking strong action as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster – now is clearly the time for boldness and for bluff calling by our nation’s leaders. Today, President Obama has the opportunity to demonstrate once more that, when he rolls up his sleeves, he accomplishes what he says he’s going to do. In sum, today is clearly the moment for President Obama to prove the doubters and naysayers wrong – to call their bluff - yet again!
It is yet another big week for clean energy. The President is having a group of bipartisan senators over to discuss how to get a clean energy bill moving that addresses the source of the gulf spill. One guy who won't be attending is Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) after he apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the "tragic" mistreatment his company has suffered. Here are Barton's now infamous words:
That's right, forcing BP to pay for the damages it has caused is not justice, it's a "shakedown." Incredible.
In response, numerous lawmakers from both parties expressed strong disgust at his comments. Unfortunately, that irritation didn't extend to everyone as a few seemed to share Barton's perverse perspective, in which BP is the victim and the rest of us are the perpetrators. Or something.
For instance, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called the $20 billion escrow account a "redistribution of wealth fund." That's right, according to Bachmann, forcing BP to pay for the damages it caused is some sort of socialist scheme. As for the tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents who depend on fisheries and tourism for their livelihoods? In Bachmann's world, apparently, they deserve nothing. "Let them eat cake," perhaps?
Meanwhile, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and his Big Oil buddies continued to block legislation aimed at eliminating the $75 million liability cap on BP for economic damages stemming from the oil disaster that it caused. Apparently, protecting the mega-profits of a giant oil company is priority #1 for Inhofe et al, even as tends of thousands of Gulf Coast residents see their lives and livelihoods crumbling around them. Priorities, priorities, I guess.
Look, I am all for open markets and free enterprise. But, in addition to the chance to make enormous profits, doesn't doing business in a responsible manner also entail owning up to your obligations, not to mention your egregious mistakes? I mean, if I run up a bill on my credit card, I have to pay it. If I walk into a store and start smashing up the merchandise, the "Pottery Barn rule" is highly likely to kick in - "you break it, you buy it." In fact, I would go so far as to call this a basic principle of doing business. In Senator Barton's world, in contrast, the "Pottery Barn rule" only applies to the "small people," not to multibillion-dollar corporations like BP.
In the face of this heart-breaking and rage-inducing catastrophe, we don't need business-as-usual from Big Oil Barton and Company. Instead, we need something bold and transformational. We need comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that will break our addiction to oil, transform our economy, enhance our national security, and guarantee that oil disasters like this one never happen again.
Fortunately, even as a few lawmakers are busy apologizing to BP, others are hard at work trying to put America on a safer, cleaner path. Last week, Democratic senators held a caucus meeting on clean energy and climate legislation, and tomorrow they will hold another one. President Obama's get-together is Thursday. These gatherings are important, as they will help determine the Senate's path forward.
I am hoping that the meetings don't yield anymore ridiculous quotes a la Barton or Bachmann. My fingers will be crossed that after all the lawmakers have had a chance to be heard, they will move beyond rhetoric and lay out their plans for passing comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this summer. Because action is what we need now from our elected representatives. If they fail to take that action, they will owe us all an apology.
This is a pivotal week in the clean energy debate. The Senate will vote on Murkowski's short-sighted resolution to take away the EPA's authority to regulate pollution. As we head into this critical time, it's not the Inhofe-cloned climate deniers who trouble me - it's the knowing bystanders who are keeping me up at night.
Before I start this rant, let me just state for the record that I still think deniers are about as accurate as my three year old is when she is trying to describe quantum physics at her make-believe tea parties (although they are wholly less adorable). The vast majority of these deniers resist climate legislation because they really don't believe global warming is a problem - yes their heads are in the sand. But for the purposes of the Murkowski resolution, their vote is already lost.
Lately I am even more frustrated with Senators who recognize that climate change is an urgent challenge, but who sit idly by on the sidelines doing nothing. For me, they raise the fundamental question - Who is worse - those that deny the existence of climate change or those that believe in the upcoming catastrophe and continue to lack focus or alarm?
Take Senator Schumer for example. He has stated that he thinks the Senate should confront the impacts of climate change. Yet just this week, when leaders should be pushing hard for climate action, Schumer's support has been tepid at best. On Morning Joe, he showered Senator Bingaman's energy-only bill with praise, then said, "What do you do about climate change? Kerry has a proposal that has pretty broad support...He is going to get a chance to offer that opinion, and we will see if it has the votes."
We are looking for more from our Leaders than a passive wait and see attitude. Senator Schumer is the third ranking Democrat, and that means he needs to do more than wait around to cast a vote. It's time for real leadership, which means rolling up his sleeves and making sure a bill passes. We need him in the trenches. In fairness, the Senator walked himself back a bit after people threw a fit over his Morning Joe ambivalence. He has pledged to meet with Senator Kerry on a path forward but until he demands action and puts him ample political muscle behind that call, I am skeptical.
Exhibit #2 is Senator Rockefeller. As a Senator from West Virginia, he wants the federal government to do a better job of regulating mine safety, especially after the horrifying disaster at the Massey coalmine. I applaud him for that stance, but here is where I get confused. When it comes to global warming--something Rockefeller says, "America must address"--he suddenly gets allergic to federal regulation. He wants the Senate to block the EPA from reducing global warming pollution until Congress gets it's act together. The federal government can and should be involved - today. Just as federal regulation needs to be strengthened to deal with mine safety, we need to let the regulators use the tools on the books begin addressing greenhouse gases.
And finally, the fence sitters continue to be the best example of willful negligence. The Senate is going to consider a resolution this week from Senator Murkowski to put the breaks on EPA's efforts to address greenhouse gases. There is a small group of Senators - like Collins, Snowe, Pryor, Webb, and Scott Brown - who say they want to reduce global warming pollution but may vote for Murkowski's resolution to overturn the EPA's authority to do so. If you think carbon emissions are dangerous, wouldn't you want to use every weapon at your disposal to fight it?
When I see Senators backpedalling, downplaying and side stepping climate action, I want to ask them: what are you waiting for? When is there going to be a better time to transition to clean energy? America is watching the cost of failed energy policies literally washing up on our shores. Our nation is desperately in need of the jobs and economic growth that a clean energy economy can provide. Congress has the most pro-clean energy members we are likely to get for several years.
I think I just answered my own question - which is worse, a climate-denier or a knowledgeable staller.... I vote that someone who fails to act when they know the stakes is much worse.
One of my first real memories of tragedy was when the space shuttle Challenger exploded. My entire school was cheering on teacher Christa McAuliffe, and when the shuttle blew up in midair, I remember standing with my sobbing classmates, trying to make sense of what we had witnessed.
As an adult, I felt a similar connection the day after September 11. In the midst of a national crisis, Congressmen from both parties and both chambers stood on the Capitol stairs and sang "God Bless America." I will never forget that moment and the sense of common cause it inspired in all who heard it.
This country and the planet cannot afford to delay climate and clean energy legislation. It is that simple. Every day Washington politics puts our clean energy future on hold our economy gets weaker, our enemies get stronger, and the planet gets more polluted. It has been almost a year since the House approved comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation to create jobs, cut our oil imports in half and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens us all, and we are still waiting for the Senate to act. The time is now for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that jump-starts our economy, strengthens national security, and leads to a healthier planet.
40 days from today - on May 18 - we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate. Even though these races aren't in Indiana, they impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.
In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.
These two races are tremendously important to defining who and what the Democratic Party is and what we will be fighting for.
If you can volunteer for these candidates (or encourage friends and family in Pennsylvania and Arkansas to do so), that would be amazing.
Of course, if you can help with a contribution to either or both via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as soon as possible, it will make a big impact.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
Woo-hoo. The healthcare bill is done. People will see many of the provisions go into place immediately and then they can decide how they feel about these reforms based on reality instead of frenzied, uninformed rhetoric. Let's just take a moment to recognize this historic occasion.
Absolutely brutal - and spot on - email from the state party:
On behalf of Hoosiers everywhere, we'd like to welcome back Dan Coats to the State of Indiana.
After more than a decade working, living, and voting in Washington, D.C., it seems that Mr. Coats has decided to come back for a visit. The announcement that he is considering a run for the U.S. Senate has come as a surprise for those of us who haven't seen or heard from the Republican in a good many years.
No worries. Our welcome basket will soon be in the mail.
As soon as Mr. Coats lands, however, maybe he can find some spare time to talk to real Hoosiers about the issues that have been affecting this state while he was away. A lot has changed since Coats abandoned the Hoosier State for the posh life of a Washington insider.
While he's at it, perhaps Dan Coats can tell us about what he has been up to since he left town. He seems to have done well -- being a registered lobbyist for major financial institutions is a great job inside the Beltway from what we hear.
And with those banks receiving billions in TARP bailout money under his watch, it's hard to imagine Mr. Coats hasn't been reaping the benefits of that taxpayer money.
Between all of that lobbying, heading up the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, and championing Sarah Palin during the 2008 campaign, it's no wonder that Dan Coats was too busy to stop in and spend time in our state over the last decade.
Regardless, we wanted to extend our welcome -- if Mr. Coats would just let us know whether he wants the welcome basket to go to his Virginia address or his extended stay suite here in Indiana, that would be a great help.
If Coats is the hero the RNC is looking for, they must be really terrified of a Bayh vs. Hostettler race. And I'm not sure how Coats fits into the RNC's strategy against Bayh (as laid out by Greg Sargent):
NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh tells me the GOP response will be this: Target Bayh's wife, and the "Bayh family partnership."
GOP operatives point out that Evan and Susan Bayh have been criticized over her service on the boards of major insurers such as WellPoint, which reportedly earned her millions.
It's also interesting to note, as Chuck Todd did, that Coats' language on this has been very conditional: "allowing supporters to put his name on the ballot" and "as I test the waters for a potential challenge." Typical political posturing, or is there actually some hesitancy there?
As we all drink our morning coffee and digest what this latest change-up means for the Senate, let me be the first to say - I continue to be hopeful that the Senate will take action on climate change.
The signs of momentum for a clean energy and climate bill outweigh any signs that come from the Massachusetts special election.
Bloomington, IN Nov. 15,2009- Tamyra d'Ipollito has announced that she will independently mount a campaign against Senator Evan Bayh in the 2010 election. A tireless community organizer, and small business entrepreneur of Bloominton, Indiana, she has announced her candidacy through social networking on facebook, twitter, and Indiana's political blogs. The candidates website acts as an information portal for her biographical information and political platform. Registered voters can become active supporters by printing and signing the document of petition linked to the website. Her current challenge will be acquiring 4500 signatures before Jan 4. 2010 to qualify for May primaries. She is self-funded, and her campaign acts as proof that state reform can subsist through personal labor, determined citizen advocacy, and community networking.
For d'Ippolito the campaign is about bringing power back to the people."I am running for Senate as a citizen not as a politician. To make change one has to become change," Tamyra pronounces, encouraging citizens to be the active role toward progressive Indiana. "My mission is to bring awareness to the fact that it is the people who participate that have a voice."
Her plans for Indiana, include raising awareness of the states increasing poverty levels and the web of issues that created it such as healthcare and government lobbying. "Poverty in Indiana is prevalent, and I want it eradicated," states Tamyra.
About Tamyra D'Ippolito
Tamyra d'Ipollito was born and raised in Indiana by a single working mother. The United States government financed her education with a B.E.O.G, which she is forever grateful. D'Ipollito is proud to say that as a world traveler she has obtained three college degrees. Through her studies abroad she was represented as a U.S. ambassador for peace and became an originator of the Peace Corps. D'Ipollito currently owns and operates Ragazzi Arté Café in Bloomington, Indiana, where she supports local artists in displaying their works at the café. As a small business owner and cancer survivor d'Ippolito understands first hand the struggles of living without healthcare. At the present time she is on the board of the Advisory Committee at Volunteers in Medicine, located in Bloomington.
Judge Hamilton, a Bloomington native, has served on the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana since 1994. Hamilton also served as counsel to then-Governor Bayh from 1989-1991. He was President Obama's first nominee to the federal bench in March, but his nomination has been held up by Republican Senators since the Judiciary Committee endorsed him in June.
Judge Hamilton is the nephew of former Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, and the brother-in-law of Obama's stalled nominee to head the Office of Legal Counsel, IU Professor Dawn Johnsen.
A third Republican has filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission to challenge Evan Bayh for Senate in the 2010 election.
The man who helped launch the protest-oriented "tea party" in Indiana is running as a Republican against Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh.
Richard Behney, a 45-year-old Carmel businessman, has filed his candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. Two other Republicans also are in the race: state Sen. Marlin Stutzman, Howe, and Don Bates, a banker from Richmond. Others looking at a run against Bayh include former state Rep. Dan Dumezich, Lake County.
Behney already has a campaign jingle, to the tune of "Hey, Look Me Over," in which a chorus sings that it's time to say "bye Bayh."
Listening to parts of the konfirmation hearings of Sonya Sotomayor made me think of Kabuki theater from Japan. You should search the internet right now for a little sample of Kabuki if you've forgotten the details about Kabuki (or the Senate hearings for that matter). Here's why I am making this konnection:
Even in Indiana, I'm sure you've heard plenty about what's going on with the still-unsettled Senate race in Minnesota.
While Republican Norm Coleman prolongs his endless and pointless appeals, cementing his admission into the Sore Losers Hall of Fame, progressive organizations Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee have introduced a new effort: NormDollar.com, "A Dollar a Day to Make Norm Go Away." Very simply put, commit to contributing just one dollar per day for every day that sore loser Norm Coleman refuses to concede.
This is exactly the correct approach to take in order to provide Republican leadership in Washington with adequate disincentive from continuing to fund Coleman's endless appeals. The GOP bigwigs funding Coleman's appeals see value in putting their money toward keeping progressive Senator-elect Al Franken from being seated. This grassroots-powered effort will make them think twice by generating many thousands of dollars for progressive candidates for every single day that they fund the Coleman circus.
If you feel so inclined, you can certainly chip in a bit of change directly to the Franken Recount Fund, as well.
(Bumped from the user diaries. I'm not particularly convinced that this guy can get 30,000 signatures in the next month or so, but I suppose it is always fun to speculate. - promoted by Thomas)
Republican State Sen. John Waterman of Shelburn is exploring whether to enter the Indiana gubernatorial race as an independent candidate. "There's a lot of disgruntled people," said Waterman in an exclusive Howey Politics Indiana interview Friday morning. Waterman, who was elected to the Senate in 1994 after two terms as Sullivan County Sheriff, added, "I know in this area, people are living paycheck to paycheck. There's no communication with the governor's office. He's got this open door policy that doesn't work. Nobody will call you back. There's a lack of interest in education. The schools are in bad shape and nobody wants to talk about it. Economic development in Southwestern Indiana is zilch." Waterman said that "right now, things are exploratory."
I don't know much about this guy but it sounds like he knows a key constituency, local officials, who could form a formidable coalition. Never underestimate the power of the local politicians who can stand in your living room to influence elections in a big way. Again, my lack of knowledge of this guy makes me wonder how much of a threat this guy is to Mitch "Govfather" Daniels and Jill Long Thompson? It's definitely the first big monkeywrench thrown by either party in this race, I would stock up on a lot of popcorn, folks, this is gonna be fun to watch!
The Obama campaign gives Sen. Obama credit for every bill he introduced or signed on as a co-sponsor, whether or not they became law.
In her time in the Senate, Hillary has sponsored 21 bills that have become law including:
- a bill that extended the availability of unemployment assistance.
- a bill which established a program to assist family caregivers.
- a bill that provided benefits to public safety officers who were killed or injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
But Hillary's accomplishments in the Senate are not limited to bill sponsorships. Among her many other legislative accomplishments:
- Hillary worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserve.
- Hillary passed an amendment that created a national program for teacher and principal training and recruitment.
- Hillary used Senate rules to force the Bush administration to make emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, available
The reality is, since Sen. Obama joined the Senate (applying the same standard the Obama campaign applies to Hillary) he has sponsored two bills that have become law:
- a bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
- a bill that named a post office.
~~~~~~
Sen. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq:
In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. [ABC News, 5/17/07]
As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Sen. Obama said he would have 'unequivocally' voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq:
"Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." [Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03; Video]
But until he ran for president, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq. [2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06, HR5631, 9/7/06]
Obama campaign advisor Susan Rice falsely claimed that Sen. Obama and Hillary have voted differently on Iraq since joining the Senate. Rice claimed these vote differences reflected Sen. Obama's "different position" on the war:
JANSING: Bill Clinton made the point that in the senate Barack Obama voted exactly the same way that senator Hillary Clinton has on Iraq, and is there a vote where they took different positions?
RICE: Yes, they have taken different positions from the beginning...Since coming to the senate, he has been very clear in pushing every year 2005, 2006, and 2007 for a withdrawal of our forces. Senator Clinton took the view for a good part of that period that it would be premature and unwise to signal that the U.S. was prepared to withdraw, to set a timeline or a deadline.
Actually, with the exception of Sen. Obama's vote to promote Gen. Casey, one of the chief architects of the war, his voting record is exactly the same as Hillary. Hillary and Sen. Obama have never voted differently on troop withdrawals, timelines or deadlines.
Full list of votes available here.
~~~~~~
Sen. Obama blasted the energy policy developed in secret by Vice President Cheney:
Washington's failure is the failure of a president who spent most of his time in office denying the very existence of global warming - of a Vice President who developed America's energy policy with a secret task force that opened the door to oil lobbyists and then shut it to every other point of view.
Sen. Obama failed to mention that he voted for Dick Cheney's energy policy, the 2005 Energy Bill.
~~~~~~
Sen. Obama claimed he voted against the amendment on the 2005 Bankruptcy bill because he thought that a ceiling of 30 percent interest for loans on credit cards was too high:
Absolutely. It is a fact because I thought 30% potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had no hearings on that bill, it had not gone through the banking committee.
The Chicago Tribune reported that Sen. Obama was planning on voting for the measure until a colleague noted, 'thirty percent is sort of a random number':
To some liberals, the proposal was a no-brainer: a ceiling of 30 percent on interest rates for credit cards and other consumer debt. And as he left his office to vote on it, Obama planned to support the measure, which was being considered as an amendment to a major overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws. But when the amendment came up for a vote, Obama was standing next to Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), the senior Democrat on the banking committee and the leader of those opposing the landmark bill, which would make it harder for Americans to get rid of debt. 'You know, this is probably not a smart amendment for us to vote for,' Obama recalled Sarbanes telling him. 'Thirty percent is sort of a random number.' Obama joined Sarbanes in voting against the amendment, but they lost the larger battle when the new bankruptcy law passed by a lopsided 74-25. There remains no federal ceiling on credit card interest rates. Obama's deferral to Sarbanes was just one example of the freshman senator learning to navigate a chamber famous for its egos. [Chicago Tribune, 6/12/07]
Sen. Obama did end up voting against a ceiling of 30 percent interest for loans or credit cards:
Obama voted against and Hillary voted for a Dayton, D-Minn., amendment that would set a 30 percent ceiling on interest rates for loans or credit cards. [Vote 20, S.Amdt. 31 to S. 256, Rejected 24-74: R 0-55; D 23-19 (ND 22-16, SD 1-3); I 1-0. CQ, 3/3/05]
~~~~~~
In 2003, Sen. Obama said that he would support a repeal of the U.S. PATRIOT Act:
Q4. Would you vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act?" A. "Yes, I would vote to repeal the U.S. Patriot Act, although I would consider replacing that shoddy and dangerous law with a new, carefully crafted proposal... [Illinois NOW questionnaire, 9/10/03]
In 2006, Sen. Obama to extend the PATRIOT Act:
The Washington Post said of the reauthorization, "[T]he Patriot Act fight started with promises of major changes and ended largely with the status quo." Obama himself said the bill only "modestly" improved the PATRIOT Act and failed to do enough to protect civil liberties. [HR 3199, Vote #29, 3/2/06; Washington Post, 3/7/06; Obama Floor Statement, 2/16/06]
~~~~~~
Sen. Obama suggested he made his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman clear 'at the time of the vote.' From the debate:
Blitzer : This was an important vote you missed the, you weren't present in the senate when that vote occurred.
Obama: This is true and it was a mistake - one of the hazards of running for president. What I have consistently said and what I said at the time of the vote was that we should not take steps that would increase two presences inside Iraq with an eye towards blunting the impact of Iran. I always think that's a mistake.
Sen. Obama missed the vote and said nothing at the time the vote occurred. His campaign didn't release a statement until 9 hours after the vote. The vote occurred at 12:44PM. Sen. Obama didn't issue a statement until after 10PM.
The issue also came up at a presidential debate that night, and Sen. Obama didn't mention it.
Sen. Obama voted present 129 times on a wide array of issues, including choice, privacy for victims of sexual assault, and school violence. In fact, the Obama campaign claimed that Sen. Obama's present votes were part of a legislative strategy but failed to mention that Sen. Obama was the lone present vote on a number of key issues.
~~~~~~
THE ABUNDANCE OF NON-VOTES:
Sen. Obama's Present Votes By The Numbers
Sen. Obama voted 'present' 129 times while in the State Senate. [New York Times, 12/20/07]
In 1999, Sen. Obama voted 'present' more often than he voted 'no': According to state records, Obama voted 'present' 43 times in 1999, while voting 'no' just 29 times. [ilga.gov]
At least 36 times, Sen. Obama was either the only State Senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. [New York Times, 12/20/07]
Other Present Votes of Interest:
Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims, and the only state senator to not support the bill. [HB854, Passed 58-0-1, 05/11/99]
Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness, and the only State Senator to not support the bill. [HB1298, Passed 57-0-1, 5/6/1999]
Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. [SB759, Passed 52-1-5, 3/25/1999]
Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill to prohibit the presence of adult sex shops near schools, places of worship, and day care facilities; bill allows local governments to regulate the presence of adult sex shops. [SB609, Required 3/5 majority, Failed 33-15-5, 3/29/2001]
(I bumped the earlier diary on this topic, so I thought I would throw this to the front page for those who were interested. Thanks to BrianK for the update. - promoted by Thomas)
In a previous post, I wrote about SB 218, which would have created a commission to study single-payer healthcare in Indiana. Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan (HCHP) was encouraging members to contact Senator Patricia Miller, chair of the Health and Provider Services Committee, and encourage her to schedule a hearing on this bill.
In my email to Senator Miller, I argued that the fiscal threat to Hoosiers from healthcare was similar to the property tax "crisis" she has emphasized.
Her response was disappointing, to say the least. She argued that since Indiana has already passed the "Healthy Indiana Plan", there's no need to even schedule this bill for a hearing.
All logos and trademarks in this site
are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, and
all other site content may be used for any purpose
without explicit permission
unless otherwise specified.
