LCV Endorses Senator Obama
I caught this out the corner of my eye as I was scrolling through Google News, and at first I thought this is what the headline read: “League of Conservative Voters endorses Senator Obama.” Enthusiastically I clicked on the link and cleared the space around my computer to do a victory jig however on closer examination at the website it stated “League of Conservation Voters.” I am a little disappointed but now that i think about it, Senator Obama has not gone that far to the right… It is still good news none the less because on examination of the LCV, they are a large organization which could help bring in some votes in the general election. From the LCV press release:
“Senator Obama’s proven record and his commitment to a clean, renewable energy future make him the best choice for President,” LCV President Gene Karpinski said. “At a time when this country must reinvent itself for a new energy future, we can imagine no better steward than Barack Obama. Under his leadership, America will finally achieve the economic growth, environmental protection, and national security that are possible with a new, clean energy economy.”
Some people might assume that the LCV is just another liberal organization endorsing a liberal a.k.a Senator Obama however they have a simple reason for not even considering Senator McCain… He missed every single environmental vote in 2007. The League of Conservation Voters compiled a report in 2007 analyzing all the environmentally related votes and gave Senator McCain a score of 0. Senator Obama on the other hand achieved a score of 67 which is not great, but at least it’s not a 0.
In all fairness Senator McCain does have a good environmental action plan which you can find on his website but his votes in 2007 beg the question where was he when these votes were going on? I don’t know the answer but I find it awfully hypocritical when he runs these environmental ads:
July 21 2008 07:32 pm | American Politics
July 21st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Well, the simple answer is, he was out campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. In situations like that, senators who are going to be absent from a vote pair off with someone who would vote the other way, and who also needs to be elsewhere.
They will usually fly back for key votes, though.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
what’s wrong with his being hypocritical, Crian?
July 21st, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Most peculiar, the transitive verb ‘conserve’; when we consider the opposite positions of conservationists and conservatives.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Being a conservative and an conservationist aren’t opposite positions. I don’t know any conservatives who gleefully urge the despoilation of the planet.
In fact, the term “environmentalist” came about because the more extreme members of groups such as Greenpeace and Sierra Club wanted to differentiate themselves from “conservationists.” Environmentalists often consider conservationists to be the biggest obstacle to their aims, because conservationists tend to support reasonable solutions.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Hey Gordon, thanks for mentioning that, I had totally forgot about the timeline, it did not even cross my mind but like you mentioned… some of those environmental votes would have mattered to alot of folk even in McCain’s state and maybe termed “key” votes. He may have been busy but not appearing for any environmentally related votes seems a bit one-sided.
Nothing is wrong with Senator McCain being hypocritical, Griper, I just felt the need to point out his incosistency like many good republican bloggers would do for Senator Obama. I also find the whole commercial for the enviroment a bit funny when I think about the votes.
I actually had to Google transitive but those two word forms are very similar,BB, Gordon makes a good point regarding conservatives and their views on conservation however I believe conservatives maybe put practical solutions to today’s problems before caring for the environment.
I am the last person who should be talking about the environment given my penchant for planes and not the fuel effecient kind.
I never realized the difference between conservationists and environmentalists, good things to know, thanks Gordon.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 am
Crian,
“Nothing is wrong with Senator McCain being hypocritical, Griper, I just felt the need to point out his incosistency like many good republican bloggers would do for Senator Obama.”
aahhh, there is one difference between a liberal today and a conservative. a conservative does think it is wrong. and apparently does a liberal, except when it is a liberal who is being hypocritical. i say this because if they did not see it as being wrong they wouldn’t feel the animosity towards the present president as they do. they’d be behind him inspite of it just like they stand behind a liberal inspite of his hypocrisy. how is that being fair, Crian?
and one more thing, Crian, not voting on certain bills does not make one a hypocrite. only voting on bills can lead to hypocrisy.
not voting says nothing of a man’s position on an issue, voting does. in truth, not voting only declares that his vote was not needed to pass a bill if he was for it or it says his vote would not have made a difference if he was against it. and you can assume that if a vote was critical he would have been called back to Washington to cast that vote.
so, you can’t declare inconsistency either unless there is evidence to show that his vote would have been inconsistent with the stance he has.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Griper, if conservatives see hypocrisy as wrong why don’t they call him out for it in Fox News, or any republican print media outlet. I don’t believe the majority of liberals feel animosity for President Bush because of his hypocrisy but rather the decisions he has made with regards to the War in Iraq, national security and the economy.
His decisions were not hypocritical but one-sided in terms of the political divide hence I believe the current liberal fervor over President Bush is quite fair.
Voting on bills can lead to hypocrisy, I don’t disagree with the statement but what is hypocritical is creating environmental ads stating the candidates posistion on issues like renewable energy when bills relating to the issue came up and Senator McCain was not there.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Crian,
“…why don’t they call him out for it in Fox News, or any republican print media outlet”
ok i did not clarify my statement as i should have. i should have made it clear that when liberals saw it as hypocrisy.
hypocrisy can be defined a “do as i say not as i do” attitude not a “do as i say not as i don’t do” attitude.
when a person does not vote, any conclusion from it can only be conjectured but when he votes its a fact. thus you can compare what he did with what he says by facts not by assumption on your part. a person can deny an assumption and get away with it because no one can prove different but denying a fact is fool’s play.
also, to accuse someone of hypocrisy based on an assumption is a fallacy of argument. that is called an ad hominem.
“His decisions were not hypocritical but one-sided in terms of the political divide…”
they have called him a liar, misleading them in the facts. he has been accused of leading us into an immoral and illegal war and many other things. these are perceived acts of hypocrisy by the opposition not acts of political bias. and that was a prejudicial and biased statement anyways.
you have already stated that you were for Obama because he would promote the liberal agenda. how much one-sided is that? is it that you believe it is alright to promote liberalism but conservatives must compromise?
any compromise a conservative gives aids in the cause of liberalism. it does not aid in the cause of conservatism.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Griper, thanks for the clarification, I won’t continue that line of argument since you were quite right that my argument was based on conjecture.
My support for Senator Obama is a bit one-sided and I won’t deny that. I believe both sides should compromise.
I am a big believer in equilibrium griper, in that I mean that absolutes always have bad consequences however a compromise between these absolutes usually leads to better things. I am a liberal on pretty much everything in political discussion except when it comes to defense spending, military R&D etc… Most of my liberal buddies in Mass. don’t understand this but I believe this is sort of a compromise on my part.
I would also like to say that I believe Senator Obama would advance the liberal cause in many arenas but he would also advance some conservative causes like faith based initiatives which many liberals don’t like but I understand since Senator Obama is a man of faith.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Crian,
“he would also advance some conservative causes like faith based initiatives”
this by itself is not a conservative stance. it only becomes a conservative stance when it is intended to replace government programs. and the liberal stance would not stand for this. so, that was a poor example and eqiliberium is not achieved but adds further to the liberal agenda which would be greater government control.
and of course you are for compromise. every liberal should be. that is, because compromise, in the political arena, is always a win for liberals. they can’t lose. conservatives are always the loser. the only thing a compromise does is slow down the progress of the gains liberals make. and that progression is towards socialism not towards freedom of private enterprise. that is a fact of life.
July 26th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
You are right Griper, and you are the first person I know who has ever mentioned this. That compromise on the part of liberals just slows down the liberal agenda.
Conservatives do lose out in this day and age however have you thought perhaps that conservatism is a generational thing, for example that liberalism is inevitable in everything and it is the task of each generations elders to balance out the liberal values of the youth? (Just occured to me today…)
I don’t believe that liberalism is doomed to head into the open arms of socialism but that is most likely a lack of knowledge on my part. I truly believe private enterprise and liberal values can co-exist equitably.
My example of the faith based initiatives was misplaced but at 1247am I am unable to think of any other conservative initiative that balances out the liberal agenda.
To me, it seems like the politics in America is sort of like a very close tug of war match, each side holding the majority at one point or another but no one coming close to winning. Another random thought.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:07 am
you forget one thing. if conservatism is a generational thing then so is liberalism. liberalism is even more dynamic in changes so guess in which direction liberalism is headed? and guess who will still be the winner and loser?
there is only one way to prevent socialism. that is to stop promoting socialistic ideas. and only liberals can do that. if nothing else, think of your children. you may not live under socialism but in time they will. do you wish for them to suffer the consequences that you are not willing to?
July 27th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
As liberalism moves forward in values, would not the old values form part of the conservative ideology of each successive generation thereby preventing the inevitable fall into socialism as you state?
I definitely do not want my children to live under socialism but I will tell you personally that I feel that I would be betraying a certain part of me by not fighting for universal healthcare, progressive taxation etc… I guess such a change will need to take place over time.
But to stop advocating liberalism when the conservative ideology has done little to close the gap between the rich and the poor, deregulated the banking and finance sector to the peril of the American people. It seems…. I guess if I knew that a conservative ideology would eventually solve the majority of problems for many Americans, I would stop advocating liberal/socialist principles.
I would imagine suck knowledge only occurs over time and experience so I will have to wait and continue reading and talking to other people to figure out this debate.
July 30th, 2008 at 7:44 am
i couldn’t have heard a better arguement from a socialist, himself. what you argued is the whole premise of socialism, to close that gap until all are equal.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Hey Griper, I never realized that this argument is the premise of socialism however I do want to close that gap. Equality is built into since I was born in South Africa,the apartheid days when the color of my skin made me unequal. That changed when I moved to America at a young age of course but I remember what it is like to me unequal in society and I would not wish unequality on anyone hence I will continue to fight to close the gap since every human deserves to be equal.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
if equality could be it would be already but it isn’t and never will be. equality can only exist in a state of perfection and we do not live in that state.
remember, the concept of equality is promoted on a class level not on an individual level. and with all the different methods of measuring it one person could be a dominant or a minority at the same time.
another thing, before you have the right to seek equality of another group you need to practice it yourself within your own group. or else you just have another one of those situations of do as i say not as i do.
remember, our nation began like that by eliminating the two prominant classes of the time. those classes being the class of royalty and the class of commoners and making us one class, the class of the people.
and back in my youth they had a saying to exemplify this. it was that kids were taught “anyone can grow up to be the president.”
now, if you study that saying you’ll see that it is self contradictory for it declares all are equal but can achieve the highest position of dominance allowed, as the leader of this country.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Perfection is inherently unattainable, that should have occured to me. So equality can never exist, that makes sense but I guess that is why people fight for it otherwise people take advantages of certain segments of society.
That’s a very interesting saying, and I see why it is contradictory because as you said we not all equal because that would be perfection. I like that phrase though, it is inspirational, dare I say hopeful
August 6th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
he smiles. a good place to end this thread with that agreement.