I somehow missed that Obama voted for the "leave no nuclear plant developer behind" bill.

[redqueen]

(That's the Energy Polcy Act of 2005.)

When Hillary mentioned that last night I was surprised to say the least.

:wtf:

[IndianaJones]

1. he is a Cheney surrogate. or vice versa. nt.

[redqueen]

2. Stop that, you.

:P


Seriously... was I the only one who didn't know?

I thought that might be a big deal... :shrug:

[rodeodance]

5. I admit--I did not know till you just mentioned it.

[IndianaJones]

7. I didn't know. I expect few responses from his supporters on this one. nt.

[Andy823]

8. I didn't know either

I wonder what else we don't know? :shrug:

[Bitwit1234]

18. How can you know, when the MSM doesn't tell you.

[midnight]

3. Obama also has a campaign staff member who is Carlyle

employee.

[redqueen]

4. Eh... employee or exec?

I'm not sure that's much to get worked up about.

But that energy bill... I thought it was nearly universally despised here. Maybe I'm remembering wrong and some thought it wasn't so bad.

:shrug:

[Tellurian]

19. Obama seems to have a huge Cheney connection

Didn't Cheney's wife, Lynn, announce Obama is in Cheney's family genealogy tree?

I'm not liking this at all! We'll just see how much support Obama gives Hillary for reigning in Bush after his term expires because Bush it seems wants to maintain some type of unprecedented permanency between the US and the Iraqi government.

It's looking more and more like Obama is being groomed to be the replacement for Cheney's puppet, Bush, after he retires from his term. It all fits quite nicely into the statements made by Obama last night. And why Obama has no vision or plans of his own on how he wants the country to recover from the 7 years of plunder and rape of the American People. Apparently Obama's rhetoric is emptier than I once thought. Cheney is there standing in the wings ready to fill in the blanks.

This is a disaster in the making!

[Scriptor Ignotus]

47. no he doesn't

but I like how you post no links, and give no names. way to inform.

the guy you're thinking of worked for the Clinton Administration too, btw.

[ArkySue]

102. Obama has an advisor that was a member

of The Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust.
Dennis Ross, (advisor to Barack Obama) was a friend of Scooter's for 25 yrs and was also served with a select coterie on the Advisory Committee of the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund, raising the multiple millions needed to assure Scooter would not be convicted.

Ross served under Bush I, Reagan, and Clinton (ah!Proof!! He's 'bipartisan'!) and is a Distinguished Fellow at WINEP with Wolfowitz, Pipes and Perle.
-----
Steve Clemons on Ross:

But Ross can't be considered as just a Libby personal pal in this.

He works and operates at the nexus of America's relations in the Middle East -- and those relations in Israel, Iran, with the Palestinians are fragile on all fronts and at all levels now.

His involvement with Libby's funding needs won't come off to anyone as just personal.

He's there for big time institutional reasons - representing Libby's interests to another nation, and representing that nation's interests to those in Libby's circles -- particularly Dick Cheney.
__________________________

From MEDIA MATTERS

The New york Times later noted that Libby's legal defense fund "has a board that would be the envy of any conservative institution, including five former cabinet members, five former members of Congress and seven former ambassadors." The paper did not report, however, that Ross, Matalin, and Fukuyama are all members of the fund's advisory committee and, as such, are apparently helping raise money to "defray" Libby's legal costs.

"I don't often use the word 'incomprehensible,' but this is incomprehensible to me," said Dennis Ross, the veteran Middle East troubleshooter who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Ross said, "He's a lawyer who's as professional and competent as anyone I know. He's a friend, and when he says he's innocent, I believe him. I just can't account for this case."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200701180001

edit: typo

[hedgehog]

6. This is a hazard of running for President from the Senate.

Sooner or later, something that may have looked good at the time (or at least the best of a set of bad choices) comes around to bite you in the ass. Who knows what happened? It's possible that the bill was a sure thing to pass and Obama traded his vote for an amendment buried somewhere in the bill. That's just speculation, but it's typical of how legislation gets done.

[redqueen]

10. That's possible yeah...

I'm just shocked because like I said... I remember that bill being a big deal, and I remember calling to get the bill defeated. I thought if this was the case, it would be hung around his neck by people here in much the same way that is done to Edwards with his votes from however many years ago.

[totodeinhere]

27. You are exactly right

To cherry pick one vote out of thousands that Obama has cast is just wrong. Believe me, it would be just as possible to cherry pick any number of votes from Hillary that would also make her look bad.

It's the sum total of all votes that is important, not just one vote possibly taken out of context.

[jackson_dem]

122. Which is what Edwardians have been trying to tell Obamites for a year

[paulk]

130. the energy bill wasn't a cherry

it's a huge black mark on Obama's cred as a "progressive".

Your trite little argument doesn't begin to explain it away.

[jackson_dem]

120. You are right but Obamites had no concerns about that when they Romneyed Edwards' record

[MNDemNY]

9. Of course, Ill. has more nuke plants than any other state.

Watching BHO slither his way around and behind the Yucca Mtn. question was quite telling.

[redqueen]

11. I thought his adopting Edwards' position live on TV was quite amusing.

[MNDemNY]

12. Obviously a unpleasant subject for him.

[flpoljunkie]

17. This is and has been Obama's position--no nukes, if not safe and can deal safely with waste.

Nice try.

[redqueen]

22. Sorry... it's just that that's now how he said it the first time...

so he seemed to be changing his positions after Edwards spoke... so that's how it came off.

[flpoljunkie]

26. Care to provide any evidence for this charge?

[redqueen]

28. Charge?

Ah geez... Here we go...


Yeah, when the transcript is up I'll post the quotes. I already looked once but it doesn't seem to be up yet.

[MNDemNY]

53. Are you blaspheming again? Stop that.

[redqueen]

65. Here it is:

Former Sen. Edwards: "Well, I'm opposed to Yucca Mountain. I will end it for all the reasons that have already been discussed, because of the science that's been discovered, because apparently some forgery of documents that's also been discovered -- all of which has happened in recent years.

But I want to go to one other subject on which the three of us differ. And that is the issue of nuclear power.

I've heard Senator Obama say he's open to the possibility of additional nuclear power plants. Senator Clinton said at a debate earlier, standing beside me, that she was agnostic on the subject.

I am not for it or agnostic. I am against building more nuclear power plants, because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste. I think they're dangerous, they're great terrorist targets and they're extraordinarily expensive.

They are not, in my judgment, the way to green this -- to get us off our dependence on oil. "



And the part of Obama's response that I was referring to:

"Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn't build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let's see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us."



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22682821/

[flpoljunkie]

80. See my post#17. This transcript changes nothing.

[redqueen]

81. You asked for proof that he gave that impression.

Did you forget already?

[flpoljunkie]

83. This is conjecture on your part. This is not a new position for Obama.

"Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn't build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let's see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us."

[redqueen]

84. But like I said... he voted to fund & build more plants...

and that technology isn't here yet.

So... he's losing me. I think I've said on here he's my second choice... I'm officially up in the air after Edwards now.

[redqueen]

82. And no, actually it kind of does... because he voted to build more plants

and the technology's not here yet.

Maybe he hopes the technology will be developed before they're built...

[MNDemNY]

25. Then why did he vote for that horrible bill?

Nice try? Nice VOTE. Maybe he should have just voted "present"The position you state doesn't jive with that bill.

[flpoljunkie]

33. Obama said it provided needed funding of alternative, renewable energy. Even in the '07 Energy Bill

Democrats, led by Harry Reid, were not able to take our the bloated subsidies for the oil and gas industries. However, there were increased monies for alternative and renewable energy sources. That's why so many Republicans voted against it.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00226

[MNDemNY]

39. Bull, it was the Nuke and coal lobbies in Ill.

[redqueen]

40. It provided chump change for alternative energy... huge subsidies to

*ahem* other industries.

[progressoid]

15. And all of that coal waiting to be exploited

Illinois has a 250-year supply of coal. Illinois has the largest reported bituminous coal resource of any state in the United States.

Coal has socioeconomic importance to Illinois. The Illinois coal industry is a nearly $1 billion industry. Coal is mined in 12 Illinois counties.

http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Coal/

[MNDemNY]

16. In reality, he should have just said, that he was representing his constituency.

After all, that is the job of a Senator.

[hedgehog]

21. I live in a county with three nuke plants and I know a lot of people who work

in the industry. I worry about the problem of waste disposal and I'm convinced that if the true cost of nuclear energy was known, no one would invest in it. I also think security at these sites is a joke. (On the other hand, security at any industrial site is a joke, and you'd be amazed at how much stuff that could be turned into a weapon is sitting around. Look how many died at Bhopal, and that was an accident.)

Still, I think some questions have to be answered:

1. Is there really no way to properly eliminate or dispose of nuclear waste?

2. If we could eliminate or dispose of nuclear wastes, what are the costs?

3. Over the next 10, 20 ,50 years, is carbon dioxide a greater threat than nuclear waste?

4. Would we get better, faster results by pouring research dollars into bio-fuels, solar and wind power?

This is a dialog that's been going on in the background for at least 30 years. My daughter, a junior in high school, is studying the same information and same proposals I saw in college. The same people are still spreading the same information. I won't call it propaganda because I don't know how balanced the information is.

[Radical Activist]

96. Obama built them all with his own hands

no matter what year they were constructed.

[redqueen]

110. You're just being silly. (nt)

[Radical Activist]

112. haha Yes, but the implication was silly

that somehow Obama should be held responsible for Illinois' nuclear power industry considering he was only a state senator and most of the plants were built over a decade ago. People are trying too hard.

[redqueen]

113. I didn't read that implication in their post.

I read that post as their explanation for why he'd vote for that stinker of a bill.

[sunonmars]

13. funny complete silence from the Obamabots on this

also check out the weirdest newspaper endorsement of obama.

If I was him i wouldnt want it.

http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=5430

Seriously its an endorsement that will make others vote for anyone else when they read it.

[MNDemNY]

14. This issue is moot in the obamanation.

You know, real issues and all.

[redqueen]

20. The first part of the first sentence in that endorsement

turned me off completely.

[Barack_America]

31. See below, please...n/t

[Mass]

34. Could it be because they already knew and have decided that what they found flawed on Obama's record

was less important than what they found good?

The endorsement is bad, but it is bad for the endorsers, and, as far as I know, Obama did not write it.

[Tellurian]

64. Funny, I'm not the only one making similar observations concerning Obama

From your link:

These two paragraphs fit in quite succinctly with the observations I made up thread.. Obama is in the throes of a crash course in running for the presidency. Why doesn't he have specific plans and represents "ZERO" principles on improving life for the Middle Class and the American dream? Simple, He will be Cheney's de facto puppet after the election. Obama doesn't have to think about anything and why he's pushing..."we'll get all different views of fixing a broken system.. bringing people together." That is the biggest line/lie of "Horse sh*t" in his stump speeches.

For my money, this is why BIG media is all PRO-Obama (naysayers silenced at once) because the outcome has been ordered by the Bush owned media. Looks like we've got to brace ourselves for another "STOLEN ELECTION" folks, unless you plan on rolling over and finding out we were right after the fact..

I can tell you right now, I'm not going that route!

"The cost of his soaring rhetoric is a disappointing lack of specific plans. It can be hard at times to tell exactly what Obama stands for, exactly how he plans to carry out his ambitious goals. His stump speeches are riddled with words like change and exhortations to a new approach to politics, but he doesn't talk much, for example, about how to address the gap between the rich and the poor, or how to tackle urban crime and poverty, or whether Israel should stop building settlements in the occupied territories."

"In fact, our biggest problem with Obama is that he talks as if all the nation needs to do is come together in some sort of grand coalition of Democrats and Republicans, of "blue states and red states." But some of us have no interest in making common cause with the religious right or Dick Cheney or Halliburton or Don Fisher. There are forces and interests in the United States that need to be opposed, defeated, consigned to the dustbin of history, and for all of Obama's talk of unity, we worry that he lacks the interest in or ability to take on a tough, bloody fight against an entrenched political foe."

[sunonmars]

78. What makes me laugh is

If thats SFBG's endorsement, christ knows what a scathing critique is.

I wouldnt want that endorsement written like that if you paid me. It really was a "your crap, we dont trust you but you didnt vote for the war" endorsement.

[Tellurian]

86. It would seem..

The SFBG was either bought or forced into the endorsement..

Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense. All in all whatever it takes to get the word out; works for me!

[sunonmars]

88. Seriously though, if I read that as a democrat wavering

It sure as shit would not put me anywhere near voting Obama.

Does he really want to put that out as an endorsement to him.

[zulchzulu]

23. Calling it "Cheney's energy bill" is dishonest and disingenuous

No, it wasn't a perfect bill. But it was a start toward getting more green solutions enacted. This is not going to be easy getting the very powerful oil, automotive and other energy-related companies to do the right thing.

How does legislation get passed? By working on getting as much as you can on your side and giving some on their side. This is not a dictatorship where one side rules and the others don't have a voice.

Obama mentioned that the bill was not perfect, and as the Union Of Concerned Scientists outlines, there were some positive things to say about the bill:

Consumer Tax Credits for Fuel Efficient Vehicles. After many years of UCS-led coalition work, consumer tax credits for hybrids and other advanced technology vehicles (from passenger cars up to heavy-duty trucks and buses) were finally enacted. Although the tax credits are not as strong as we had hoped, establishing credits for advanced vehicle technologies based on both fuel economy and emissions performance is a significant achievement. To see what credit each current hybrid vehicle on the market will receive, please visit our HybridCenter.org incentives listing.

Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit. Tax credits for wind and biomass were extended for two years and additional tax credits made available for other renewables including solar, geothermal, and ocean energy. In addition, we were successful in defeating an amendment offered by Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) that would have prevented the development of new wind facilities by imposing impossible siting requirements.

Clean School Bus EPA Grant Program. After four years of leading a unique coalition of industry and NGO’s, we were successful in enacting an EPA grant program to allow school districts to replace their oldest, dirtiest school buses with cleaner alternatives and retrofit newer diesel buses with emissions control equipment. UCS’s School Bus Report Card was the catalyst for this action.

Diesel Retrofit EPA Grant Program. In addition to the school bus program, UCS worked with coalition members and Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) to authorize a $1 billion program to help fund emission control equipment for different types of diesel vehicles across the country—from construction equipment to delivery trucks.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/energy-bill-2005.html

Was the Energy Bill perfect? No. Did it make some progress and not just become partisan bickering and political theater that gets NOTHING done? Yes.

[MNDemNY]

29. Right, it was Cheney's Oil rich buddies bill.

Your going to defend that abomination? Only in the obamination. HOPE FOR CHANGE!!

[Cha]

32. like you defend everything shillary

does. the hypocricy of hillary's representatives knows no bounds.

[MNDemNY]

35. Sorry obamaite, I don't much like HRC either.

Keep playing that sad song, I hope for a brokered convention where we can nominate a real Democrat. Fuck BHO, fuck HRC. Same crap different colors.And genitalia.

[Cha]

51. Yeah, I like Obama and Edwards

Sorry, I called you a hillary's representative.

[MNDemNY]

56. OK, no prob. I just hope we can have a true progressive.

Of the three, my fav is JRE, but I would prefer someone else.

[Cha]

60. I agree..it would great

for our country and the world. I won't bore you with anything else cause I don't know what's going to happen..my sights are rather low compared to yours..I just don't want a certain senator of mine anywhere near that white house again.

[redqueen]

37. It was long ago and search isn't working for me...

but I swear to you I remember this bill being denounced by just about everyone on this board... due to it's having been written by Cheney's lobbyist pals.

I guess now that Obama's running, we have to now treat the bill as if it were good, pragmatic compromise that we're no longer allowed to denounce in strong terms.

[zulchzulu]

46. I respect what the Union of Concerned Scientists say and they saw some good in the bill

If you read the link, yes, it wasn't perfect. No major huge bill like the Energy Bill is.

We could be crybabies and scream at the top of our lungs at each other for political theater and get jackshit done...or we can work toward getting some things accomplished and come back to get more changes done.

That's was they call legislation. It's that boring crap they do in DC. It's not a video game.

[redqueen]

49. Love the language you're choosing to use...

I know very well it's not a video game, thank you.

Have a great day.

[MNDemNY]

58. I don't think the scientists looked at the massive tax-payer give aways to the Energy industries.

[chimpymustgo]

59. But why couldn't Obama bring his BAM! to the Senate to get a good bill passed?

Mr. Coalition builder to bring CHANGE.

[JackORoses]

24. Did you miss Hillary's vote for Cheney's War?

[redqueen]

42. How could I? It's harped on every hour, on the hour...

[Barack_America]

30. And yet he has the HIGHEST environmental rating amongst the candidates.

with the League of Conservation Voters.

Why? Because he has the strictest plan for the elimination of carbon emissions AND has been dedicated to funding the development of alternative fuels such as ethanol-based fuels. Funding for ethanol-based fuels was a big part of the so-called "Cheney Plan".

Who has historically been in opposition of funding for alternative fuels? Hillary Clinton.

http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/

[Windy]

41. so there for obama supporters not responding substantively.. easy when the facts are on your side nt

[Bread and Circus]

119. please type that in English next time

[Windy]

44. so there for obama supporters not responding substantively.. easy when the facts are on your side nt

[redqueen]

45. Thanks. Ethanol sucks, though. Bigtime.

[Barack_America]

55. People paying for heating oil instead of groceries sucks big time...

And that's what people in my neighborhood are currently struggling with.

That's why I support the development of nuclear power and ethanol-based fuels, even though neither are perfect (or even nearly perfect)

[redqueen]

57. I don't think need to wait for a perfect solution before we act. No one does.

But we sure ought not to be handing gobs of cash to certain industries and tossing insulting amounts at more responsible ones.

[Barack_America]

62. That bill provided the largest funding for alternative fuel development to date...

I highly doubt that the industry found that "insulting"

[redqueen]

63. Yes, for a government that has all but ignored alternative fuel development

making "the largest investment ever" doesn't mean much at all.

As for whether "the industry" found it insulting... I don't know, I haven't talked to them.

[Barack_America]

67. Hillary's "Nay" vote was likely more insulting to them...

This funding finally gives those industries enough capital to do the work they need to do to prove that this is a viable fuel source. Once it becomes more proven, it is easier to fund. You've got to start somewhere.

[redqueen]

68. *sigh*

Right. Okay.

[MNDemNY]

76. Be sure you add the cost of the BILLIONS given to oil companies.

IMO not a good trade off.

[wintersoulja]

114. nice fat scam for the pols and their friends

local bigwig "ex"-politician's son cashed out of their ethanol plant before it was even built for $30 million.
Its embarassing what huge bunko schemes get pulled in broad daylight these days.
A collective insult on top of the environmental, water resource and food supply injury.

Lets hear it for "CLEAN ENERGY!"

[redqueen]

128. Amen!

Welcome to DU, wintersoulja. :)

[polichick]

36. Now that's a bit of bad judgment I didn't know about...

What was he thinking??

[Mass]

38. Probably that there was money for IL also. Durbin, who is one of the most pro-environmental senator,

vote for it also. Something tells me that, as much as I disagree with this vote, there is more to the story than Hillary's supporters would like it to be.

[wintersoulja]

43. probably looking forward to being included

in last nights "debate"
very forward thinking fellow!

[Mass]

48. When you look at the vote, it becomes clear. The bill was full of money for ethanol and all MidWest

senators voted for it.

That does not make the vote good, but it explains the vote in a more rational manner than the hysterical "no nuclear" claims.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

[redqueen]

50. Oh I see... just pork for bad policy... nothing to be alarmed by.

"hysterical "no nuclear" claims"... *sigh*

[Mass]

52. No worse than those who voted for the bankruptcy bill in 2001 or other nice things.

I disagree with the bill and said it at least twice in this thread. If you never disagreed with anything your candidate voted for, you are just blind and immature (even if it was Kucinich).

[redqueen]

54. Didn't say it was worse.... but the bankruptcy stuff is discussed to death...

as are Edwards' votes, and Clinton's... however this seems to have been missed as something to be considered when evaluating the candidate's records.

I don't get why some people are getting so defensive. I guess I shouldn't have dared to break the silence about this vote.

[Barack_America]

61. Really? I haven't seen it on here lately.

And she voted for a bill that she:
1). Didn't like
2). Was glad it didn't become law

What is that?

[Stop Cornyn]

66. That was a big part of why the Drum Major Institute gave Obama a "C" on protecting the middle class

It's also why any Obama supporter who ever thought there was even a 1% chance Obama would get a primary endorsement from Gore was DREAMING!

[redqueen]

69. Do you think Gore will endorse someone?

I was kinda gettin the impression he was just gonna sit this one out.

Man, the fireworks around here sure would be spectacular.

[MNDemNY]

71. Himself...When nominated from the floor of our deadlocked convention!!

:toast: :toast: :party: :party: :party: :kick: :loveya: :headbang: :headbang: :woohoo: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[redqueen]

72. Oh man...

you need to stop gettin me all excited.

[MNDemNY]

73. Make it happen! Keep the two weasels at each other's throats!

[Stop Cornyn]

87. I think Gore will enthusiastically endorse the nominee when the nominee is all but certain.

[MNDemNY]

70. I'm sorry, but I'm picturing an "Institute" full of guys in tall furry hats.

:shrug: :rofl:

[Barack_America]

74. Riiiiight, there's no reason Gore would endorse the candidate with...

the highest rating from the League of Conservation Voters. It's not like he's into the environment or anything... :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

75. Well it kinda of sucks......

but I can live with it.

This was not the original 2002 bill, or the 2003 bill.

It had a lot of alternative energy items in it.

But I'd prefer if he had voted against it.

However, he appears to have a higher conservation rating than the others running
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html

so I'll call this a flaw in my candidate. :shrug:

[MNDemNY]

77. That "flaw" list must be getting long.

[FrenchieCat]

79. No, actually......

Obama is easy to defend.

Why, are you having trouble with your pick? :shrug:

[Stop Cornyn]

90. No, the Obamanation doesn't count Donnie McClurkin, or voting to build a Mexican border wall, or his

rejection of universal health care, or his anti-consumer "tort reform" vote, or his votes to perpetuate unconditional funding for the war without end ...

Nothing ever adds up on their flaw list.

[redqueen]

91. "voting to build a Mexican border wall"

:banghead:

:wtf:

[Stop Cornyn]

94. Here's a link to Obama's vote:

Obama's vote to build a 700 mile Mexican-border wall.

[Barack_America]

99. Clinton YEA, Obama YEA...your point? n/t

[Stop Cornyn]

104. Is that all you have? Hillary also sucks? If this is the change that Obama offers you can keep it!

[Barack_America]

118. My point is that Clinton, Obama and Edwards ALL support it.

So, even though it borders on ridiculous, we're stuck with the fence.

There's no distinction to be made among the top candidates regarding the fence.

[Stop Cornyn]

121. Edwards and Kucinich both didn't.

[Barack_America]

124. I have heard that Edwards supports a limited version of the border fence...

...If that is incorrect, let me know.

[Stop Cornyn]

127. That's incorrect.

[redqueen]

101. Thank you.

[AlertLurker]

85. I'm not too surprised.

His voting record is slightly less than stellar, AFAIAC...quite a few NO VOTES...

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

[CyberPieHole]

89. It is disgusting that the Obamabots don't call him on this...

it would be horrible to think that Cheney's wet dream of a country dotted with nuclear plants would come into fruition thanks to Obama's stupidity. Obama is much too naive to understand how he was used by Cheney. I want to see how the Obamanations will spin this juicy bit of information.

[Barack_America]

92. Um, no offense...

But you really need to inform yourself on this issue.

That bill also included the largest amount of money ever appropriated for the development of alternative fuels.
And, as far as nuclear power goes, it is far cleaner and more environmentally friendly than fossil fuel-based energy.

Obama also has the highest rating amont the League of Conservation Voters.

Just so you know.

[redqueen]

93. How about that Mexican Border Wall?

That sit ok with you?

[Barack_America]

97. Umm, did you look at Hillary's vote there?

Here's a hint. Same as Obama's. So, what exactly did you want to discuss about that?

[redqueen]

98. Just curious about whether or not it bothered you.

FYI I don't support Hillary...

[Barack_America]

103. Sorry, I thought you did.

Personally, I find the building of such a wall to be ludicrous. I think that the only positive thing about it would be the temporary jobs it would create. But, then again, the contractors down there would probably just hire illegal Mexican day laborers, soo...

Immigration is probably the no. 1 thing where I'm not sure I'm with Obama. I'm not crazy about this whole driver's licenses for illegal aliens. I get where he's coming from there, but it's not a good idea in the absence of some sort of plan for documentation to prove citizenship.

You?

[redqueen]

105. He's for giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens?

I'm not so sure about that. Geez...

Yeah, I think that's not such a great idea. Hah, I wonder if Edwards is for that. I don't even know!

I was so invested in Kucinich until last week I hadn't even considered any other candidate. OOoh don't I feel stupid now. :P

[Barack_America]

115. It's my impression that...

Obama is the furthest left on immigration.

So, he's proposing driver's licenses for illegal alients (who are already driving, btw), mainly so that they can in turn get their cars registered and buy insurance. That way, if they get into an accident, they're insured and the person they hit isn't screwed. That makes sense. It's just the fact that we use our driver's licenses as our primary proof of citizenship that makes it screwy. I'm sure the license's of the illegal aliens would be marked to reflect their status, but still...

Here's a helpful "guide to the candidates" from the NYT:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html#/context=index/issue=immigration

I've highlighted the immigration section, but unfortunately, this guide has them all pretty much the same. They all (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) voted for (or would've voted for) the freaking fence.

[redqueen]

116. Honestly I'm not sure if he would...

"there might be some places where existing fences could be could be improved."

That's not quite the same thing as building a new one, is it?

[Barack_America]

125. Depends on how you define "improve"...lengthening, perhaps?...n/t

[redqueen]

129. If you wanted to twist words, sure.

C'mon.

[CyberPieHole]

123. So the building of Nuclear Plants is part of Obama's "hope" and "dream" for America?

I hope more people learn what his "dreams" for America could bring.

[Radical Activist]

95. I'm sure there was absolutely nothing good in the bill

worth voting for. Yep.

[redqueen]

100. Worth shelling out billions in taxpayer dollars to profitable industries?

Nope.

[Radical Activist]

106. It happens every year

in every budget for the last several decades. One vote isn't going to change that. Is this bill any different than what was done in past years? Huge subsidies to the polluting industries are nothing new so I could understand taking the bad with some new good. I wouldn't mind some details about the bill.

[redqueen]

107. Well considering that Cheney's one of the most vile specimens

of a human being alive today... and he had his lobbyist buddies WRITE the damn thing... uh, yeah. I think it's just a bit different.

But hey... maybe you see it differently. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

108. OK

any details about how evil the bill was will be appreciated. I know what Obama has worked for over the years so I can't get too worked up about one vote.

[redqueen]

109. You really don't remember all the crap that was posted here

when it was being debated?

Here's a hint: Billions in taxpayer dollars handed over to the industries whose lobbyists wrote the bill.

[Stop Cornyn]

111. Bush's 2005 energy bill was bad on issues way beyond nuclear plant subsidies. Here's an analysis:

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains a multitude of different energy provisions, from extending daylight savings time to providing tax credits for conservation measures like installing insulation at home or driving a hybrid vehicle. The bill would provide subsidies to encourage the development of alternative fuels, including wind energy, biomass and geothermal power, and more than $28 billion in tax breaks would go to the coal, nuclear, oil, gas and electricity industries. The bill also weakens environmental and public safety protections like the Clean Water Act and the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which protected consumers from fraud and abuse by utility companies. Finally, the bill preempts states? authority over the location of natural gas, transmission lines and coastal oil and gas exploration within their borders.


The middle-class position:
The Middle Class Opposes: The most startling thing about this legislation is what it does not do. In the first place, the 1,700-page, multi-billion dollar bill fails to help middle-class consumers squeezed by high gas and fuel costs. The rollback in public safety protections also puts middle-class families at risk, for example, by exempting oil and gas companies from the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act when these companies inject carcinogenic chemicals into the ground. At the same time, the deregulation of public utilities exposes the middle class to a different kind of risk stemming from increased consolidation of utilities that could raise electric rates and manipulate energy markets. What the bill does do is provide massive taxpayer subsidies?to the tune of $85.1 billion dollars?for some of the world?s most profitable corporations, so that, among other things, they can drill on public land while paying the public less, ultimately leaving middle-class families to pick up a bigger share of the cost of public services. Finally, although the legislation comes at a time of overwhelming scientific evidence about the dangers of global warming and increased concern about the nation?s dependence on foreign oil, it does very little to address either problem, neglecting to even increase fuel efficiency standards for cars.



from the experts:
“With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayers's funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.”

—President George W. Bush (April 20, 2005)



“Congress chose to largely follow the path of a 19th century fossil-fueled past instead of crafting an energy bill for the 21st century that would lead us to a clean energy future. The Union of Concerned Scientists opposed the bill because it fails to reduce our dependence on oil, fails to address global warming, fails to reduce home heating and gasoline prices, fails to significantly increase the deployment of renewable energy and actually increases the threat of nuclear terrorism.”

—Union of Concerned Scientists (November 17, 2005)



“After the energy measure passed, energy lobbyists from all over Washington celebrated over filet mignon and wine at their favorite D.C. steakhouses. Alas, this bill gives hard-working American taxpayers nothing to celebrate: It won't lower prices at the pump won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil … Instead of crafting an innovative energy blueprint for the next generation, lawmakers chose to reward their campaign contributors with huge government handouts at the taxpayer's expense … The nation deserves an energy policy that is not powered by pork. We can do better than this package of government giveaways to mega-rich energy companies.”

—Jill Lancelot, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense (August 24, 2005)

http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/outerenvelope_senate.htm

[redqueen]

117. Thank you!

“Congress chose to largely follow the path of a 19th century fossil-fueled past instead of crafting an energy bill for the 21st century that would lead us to a clean energy future. The Union of Concerned Scientists opposed the bill because it fails to reduce our dependence on oil, fails to address global warming, fails to reduce home heating and gasoline prices, fails to significantly increase the deployment of renewable energy and actually increases the threat of nuclear terrorism.”

—Union of Concerned Scientists (November 17, 2005)

[Barack_America]

126. You should also read this thread...

...which refers to that issue, specifically Obama's vote on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4088874