A Compendium Of Reasons To Vote For John Kerry [View All]

[WilliamPitt]

Folks seem to spend an awful lot of time here kicking other candidates in the teeth. This, of course, leads to reciprocal attacks which breed further attacks, ad nauseam. This is an equal-opportunity situation - advocates for any candidate (not all, by any measure, but more than enough) are guilty, and if anyone posts on this thread that X candidate's people attack Y candidate's people more often, they will immediately win tonight's Full Of Poo Award.

So I'm gonna be a madman and provide a positive series of reasons to vote for a particular candidate. Yeah, I know, mind-blowing. Take the ride with me as I make the case for John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts.

====

Kerry on the Environment (a small sample):

Invest in advancing secure forms of energy instead of oil

"Today we have an energy policy of big oil, by big oil, and for big oil. With common-sense investments in advancing and speeding breakthroughs, we can harness the natural world around us to light and power the world we live in with secure forms of energy at reasonable costs for a modern economy. I recently unveiled a plan to increase America's security and improve the environment, by ending our dependence on foreign oil within 10 years." - Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003

Safeguard the environment and grow the economy

"For 30 years in public life I have committed to environmental protection. My commitment is driven by the belief that we can safeguard the environment and grow our economy. I have fought hard to reduce the threat of global warming by supporting renewable energy and increased funding for climate change research. I have also called on Bush to stop blocking progress and to engage in international efforts to mitigate the threat of climate change." - Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003

Led effort to try to raise fuel efficiency standards

KERRY : I led an effort in 2002 to raise fuel efficiency standards in the country. And just yesterday, they reported they are at a 22 year low. You're the one member of Congress here who doesn't support raising fuel efficiency standards. How do we get to energy independence when 50% or more of our fuel is in oil for transportation? How are we going to break out without raising fuel efficiency?

GEPHARDT: I agree that we need to do it. However, we need to put together an energy program that includes an increase in the CAFE standards, but also includes setting a 10-year goal of not only mileage requirements and pollution requirements, but also moves us to hybrid cars in the interim and hydrogen fuel cells in the long-term. I would put the auto companies, the oil companies and the environmental groups at a table and I would work out a 10-year plan. I'd call it an Apollo 2 program, and I believe we could pass it, have everybody committed to it and get this done for the country. - Source: Democratic Debate in Columbia SC May 3, 2003

Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010

Dorgan Amdt. No. 865; To require that the hydrogen commercialization plan of the Department of Energy include a description of activities to support certain hydrogen technology deployment goals. Part of S 14 Energy Omnibus bill; this vote would pass an amendment that would call for the Department of Energy to set targets and timelines to maintain the production of 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles annually by 2020. It also would call for the department to set targets for the sale of hydrogen at fueling stations. The bill would require the Energy secretary to submit a yearly progress report to Congress. - Bill S.14 ; vote number 2003-212 on Jun 10, 2003

Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill

Boxer Amdt. No. 272.; To prevent consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a fast-track budget reconciliation bill. S Con Res 23 Budget resolution FY2004: Vote to pass an amendment that would strike (remove) language in the resolution that would permit oil drilling and exploration in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. . - Bill SConRes 23 ; vote number 2003-59 on Mar 19, 2003

Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds

Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amendment No. 31323; To create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the economic self determination of the Inupiat Eskimos and to promote national security. Would allow gas and oil development in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if the president certifies to Congress that production in the area is in the nation's security and economic interests (qwhich Prsident Bush would). If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. A yea vote for this bill was one in favor of drilling in the reserve. Three-fifths of the total Senate (60) is required to invoke cloture. - Bill S.517 ; vote number 2002-71 on Apr 18, 2002

Voted NO on replacing CAFE standards within 15 months

Levin Amendment No. 2997; To provide alternative provisions to better encourage increased use of alternative fueled and hybrid vehicles. Vote to pass an amendment that would remove the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard (CAFE) and instead establish a new automobile efficiency standard in 15 months. Congress could veto any CAFE increase and would be allowed to increase the standard if no changes are made with 15 months. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policies by restructuring the electricity system and providing for $16 billion in energy-related tax incentives. - Bill S.517 ; vote number 2002-47 on Mar 13, 2002

Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior

Vote to confirm the nomination of Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. - Bill Confirmation vote ; vote number 2001-6 on Jan 30, 2001

Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling

Vote to preserve language in the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Framework that assumes $1.2 billion in revenue from oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. - Bill S Con Res 101 ; vote number 2000-58 on Apr 6, 2000

Voted YES on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards

Senators Feinstein (D-CA) and Bryan (D-NV) introduced a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate towards ending CAFE Standards. Senator Gorton motioned to table this amendment. . - Status: Amdt Rejected Y)40; N)55; NV)4
Reference: Gorton Amdt # 1677; Bill H.R. 2084 ; vote number 1999-275 on Sep 15, 1999

Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat

The Bryan Amdt (D-NV) offered an amendment to raise funding levels for Forest Service road maintenance and wildlife and fisheries habitat management programs. Senator Craig (R-ID) motioned to table this amendment. .
Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)54; N)43; NV)3 - Reference: Motion to table Bryan Amdt. #1588; Bill H.R. 2466 ; vote number 1999-272 on Sep 14, 1999

Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy

In June of 1999, Senator Jeffords (R-VT) was prepared to offer an amendment which would have added $62 million to the Energy Department solar and renewable energy programs. This action was blocked by Senator Reid (D-NV). - Status: Motion Agreed to Y)60; N)39; NV)1
Reference: Motion to table the recommital; Bill S. 1186 ; vote number 1999-171 on Jun 16, 1999

Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests

Vote on an amendment to cut the $47.4 million provided for Forest Service road construction by $10 million, and to eliminate the purchaser credit program . - Bill HR.2107 ; vote number 1997-242 on Sep 17, 1997

Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository

Approval of the interim nuclear waste repository. Status: Bill Passed Y)65; N)34; NV)1 - Reference: Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997; Bill S. 104 ; vote number 1997-42 on Apr 15, 1997

Voted YES on terminating desert protection in California

Invoking cloture on the California desert protection bill. . Status: Cloture Agreed to Y)68; N)23; NV)9 - Reference: California Desert Protection Act of 1993; Bill S. 21 ; vote number 1994-326 on Oct 8, 1994

Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline

Permitting new regulations which would require the use of ethanol in gasoline. Status: Table Motion Agreed to Y)50; N)50 - Reference: Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995; Bill H.R. 4624 ; vote number 1994-255 on Aug 3, 1994

Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments

Require risk assessments of new EPA regulations. Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)90; N)8; NV)2 - Reference: Safe Drinking Water Act Amdt.s of '94; Bill S. 2019 ; vote number 1994-117 on May 18, 1994

(source for all above: http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/John_Kerry_Environment.htm)

====

Now, a lot of people vote to Kerry's votes on the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, for good reasons. But I would argue the following:

1) On the Patriot Act, only one Senator passed this particular test. enators are not immune from fear and confusion and rage. Recall, as well, that there was anthrax blowing down the halls, a terrified populace who wanted something done, and a GOP majority delivering this bill in the dead of night and applying considerable pressure. Recall, also, that this Act can be fixed and done away with.

2) On the war, hindsight says demonstrably that Kerry should not have voted for it. At the time, there was ample evidence that the Bush administration's weapons claims were overblown at best. At the time, however, the administration was also plying Congress with data about Iraqi nukes. Now, a lot of people told Kerry what we now know. But the Director of the CIA said otherwise, and Kerry had to make a choice. The person to blame here is not the man who got lied to, who believed the highest ranking intelligence officer in America. The person to blame here is that lying intelligence officer, and the administration that compelled him to lie. We are attacking the wrong person here.

Bear in mind, as well, this correction to the popular DU fiction, i.e. "Kerry gave Bush a free pass for his bloodthirsty war." Not true. Kerry, among others, made sure that three words were removed from the war resolution: "In the region." That means the administration wanted the legal right to make war on all of the Mideast, and that Kerry and crew took that away from them. Granted, he helped give them the Iraq war, but did so based upon a body of serious lies that, again, deserve to have blame for aforementioned directed at the liars, and not the lied-to.

====

One last thought.

I worry about the mentality of the nation. No candidate can control the influence of the mainstream media, and the mainstream media is pitching wars and warriors these days. They have also painted Bush as a warrior, laughable as that is. Kerry slots into this nicely. His record from Vietnam (certain paranoid unsubstantiated but sure to be repeated below fantasies notwithstanding), along with his work against the Iran/Contra scoundrels, describes a guy who has done his time in this particular trench.

====

So there it is. Is Kerry a complicated candidate? Demonstrably. I think, however, that his environmental record stands alone in its excellence among this field. Those were brave votes. And if you think they were not important votes, understand: If we do not deal with the environment in the next ten to twenty years, the environment is going to deal with us.

As for the rest of it, that is yours to judge. The man is no saint. He's a politician, and part of the Machine to be sure. Saints are in short supply, and we need winners. Check out the record from Kerry v. Weld (1996) to see what a fighter and a winner looks like.