Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Cap & Trade Bill not final: Deadline to switch votes July 2nd - 8 Republicans voted Yes

Recs

17

June 28, 2009 – Comments (9)

If we're going to defeat Cap and Trade, our best strategy is to go after the 8 Republicans that just voted yes on one of the largest tax bills ever passed in a session of Congress.

The final vote was 219-214. If we can change just a few votes....... we have to at least try!

http://www.teapartypatrio...

1) Go to the website above and the 8 are listed

2) Click on their link for each name.

3) Select the 'Contact' tab.

Contact their local office as they are not in DC. They are HOME ON VACATION!

Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Kirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)

Any good work they have done has been for naught. Unless they change their votes by the deadline, Wed, July 2nd, they will for ever be a member of the Cap and Tr8tors.

HR 2454 RECORDED VOTE 26-Jun-2009 7:17 PM
BILL TITLE: American Clean Energy and Security Act

Good luck everyone!

David in Qatar

And now a reading from a Boehner (filibustering by reading the first 300 pages of the bill that no one read)

 

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM, streetflame (30.31) wrote:

Don't be silly, that's not your best strategy.  The best strategy is to defeat it in the Senate.

Report this comment
#2) On June 28, 2009 at 4:44 PM, prose976 (< 20) wrote:

There all a bunch of stuffed suits.  Noone has called Obama what he is....a smooth talker and a charlatan.  He is poison and should be called out by every one of our so-called conservatives, democrats with conscience and independents with conviction.  No one has the gumption to say it like it is.  They just rail against bills and policies, and it's business as usual in Washington.

Report this comment
#3) On June 28, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Varchild2008 (84.15) wrote:

Only problem is that the Libbies will also be out there trying to shift the 44 democrat Nay votes to Yes...

Much easier to switch from a much larger number than to try and switch 50% of 8.

But..Good luck!  I'd help out but none of the 8 are in my state much less district and thus my e-mail / phone call would be ignored.

Report this comment
#4) On June 29, 2009 at 6:46 AM, whereaminow (20.04) wrote:

It's worth a shot isn't it?  I think we have a much better chance taking our complaints to the House than to the Senate.  Representatives are usually closer to the ears of their district and shouting at them gets you somewhere.  Senators could give two you-know-whtas.

MHO

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#5) On June 30, 2009 at 3:42 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@whereaminow,
Your true face is showing up.

"go after the 8 Republicans"
Didn't you say that you were independient and above the two-party system? Nah, you're just a conservative who thinks that the Republican Party isn't conservative enough.

"http://www.teapartypatriots.org/"
Oh, those tea parties. Real people fighting for their rights (1, 2, 3, 4)

"Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Kirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)"

Mmmm, trying to change the vote of moderate Republicans coming from highly liberal states. Sounds like .... impossible, unless they want to be defeated in the next mid-term elections.

"now a reading from a Boehner"
Ah, good old John Boehner. The man who doesn't let facts change his conservative worldview and affect his financial supporters (5) This is the man who thinks that creationism has a place in science classes (6), the man endorsed (7) by the Discovery Institute (8, 9), the man who still believes that Saddam Hussein was tied to the 9/11 terrorist attack and had weapons of mass destruction (10), the man who distorts the science of global warming (11) claiming that someone said that CO2 is a carcinogen (it's a greenhouse gas, not a carcinogen), that CO2 coming from cow farts is important (methane is the problematic GHG on cow farts, not CO2), that the recent warming has no relationship with human activities, the man who claims that reductions in GHG emissions will be catastrophic to the American economy (12, 13)
Is there any Boehner's opinion backed up by facts? Nah, he's part of the Republican war on science. Going against regulations proposed to curb GHG emissions has become part of the conservative ideology. Ideology, special interests and scientific illiteracy are the reasons of the GOP's opposition to the acceptance of AGW and regulations of GHG.
"skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican.
How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand.
But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs.
The truth is more complicated -- and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement.
Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade
(and well-funded) scientists (and spin doctors pretending to be scientists) who reject the overwhelming professional consensus." (14)



1-  http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Tea_Party_protests_sees_as_corporate_0301.html
2-  http://mediamatters.org/reports/200904080025
3-  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks
4-  http://www.campusprogress.org/know5things/3909/astroturf-tea-parties
5-  http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=N00003675&newMem=N&cycle=2010
6-  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1131
7-  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/02/friend_of_balanced_science_edu.html
8-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
9-  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Discovery_Institute
10- http://crooksandliars.com/2006/09/27/john-boehner-still-believes-saddam-was-tied-to-911-and-had-wmd
11- http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=7373578&page=4
12- http://www.gop.gov/talking-points/09/03/23/7-questions-on-the-budget
13- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/30/house-republicans/GOP-full-of-hot-air-about-Obamas-light-switch-tax/
14- http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/25/opinion/op-chait25

Report this comment
#6) On July 01, 2009 at 8:40 AM, whereaminow (20.04) wrote:

Hey look! My troll is back! Yay! 

Report this comment
#7) On July 01, 2009 at 1:10 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

Hey look! My troll is back! Yay!
As always, you enlighten us with witty, well reasoned arguments backed up by facts and pointing to reliable and trustworthy sources. I'm glad to know someone who is capable of recognizing that reality is dominated by nuances and uncertainties and not by clear-cut divisions like good or evil, knowing everything or knowing nothing, black or white, governments or markets, etc.
Please, keep working hard to improve the quality of the debate. We need more freedom fighters like you.

Report this comment
#8) On July 01, 2009 at 1:31 PM, whereaminow (20.04) wrote:

You are now getting my standard Troll reply.

The point of this discussion is persuasion. If I haven't made it clear, the process by which you will persuade me that I am wrong is by disputing the material presented, not the source.  If you can not, or will not do that, then we have nothing to discuss.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#9) On July 01, 2009 at 4:45 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

You are now getting my standard Troll reply.
A reply that's very polite and indicative of a well-educated and wise person. Thank you.

The point of this discussion is persuasion. If I haven't made it clear, the process by which you will persuade me that I am wrong is by disputing the material presented, not the source.  If you can not, or will not do that, then we have nothing to discuss
Do you accept that global warming is an observed scientific fact? Do you accept that the main cause of GW is the enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, destruction of carbon sinks and other man-made activities? Do you understand that this externality of GHG emissions generates a mis-pricing in goods and services that are carbon-intensive? Do you understand the consequences of unabated warming? Do you understand that policies are drawn on the best evidence? Do you understand that policymaking involves the generation of a consensus among opposite interests? Do you know that being energy efficient generates savings and new jobs? Do you know that coal is the dirtiest fuel in every step of its life (mining, burning, waste management)? Do you understand the risks of doing nothing (tipping points, fat-tail events, etc)? Do you know the laws of thermodynamics and ecology? Do you understand the geopolitical costs of energy dependence?
Did you read the scholarly literature on the cost of GHG regulations?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement