Thursday, February 23, 2006

 

On the Environment Kelly Gets a Failing Grade

It's one thing for a Congresswoman to come home to her district and circulate environmentally friendly press releases and photo-op pictures, and quite another to actually have an environmentally friendly voting record in Washington, DC. These contradictory actions constitute business-as-usual for Sue Kelly.

You see, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House, has given Representative Sue Kelly an abysmal 17% ranking in its 2005 scorecard.

While Kelly's colleagues to the South and West, Congresswoman Nita Lowey and Congressman Maurice Hinchey, each received high marks (94% and 89% respectively), the LCV scorecard shows Sue Kelly at the very bottom of the list when it comes to the New York Congressional delegation and their support for the environment. Kelly has a long record of being on the wrong side of environmental issues. In 1995, after campaigning as a staunch environmentalist, Kelly voted for the so-called Clean Water Act, which made huge revisions to the original Clean Water Act of 1972. Pushed by the right-wing Congressional leadership, the bill eased dozens of pollution controls for industries and cities and repealed federal protections for most of the nation’s wetlands. In 2005, Kelly did not vote on an alternative energy plan that would bring immediate relief to consumers at the pump, increase the nation’s investment into renewable fuels and energy efficiency and crack down on price gouging. The measure called on the President to suspend deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and put the oil on the marketplace, which in 2000 brought down gasoline prices by 14 cents per gallon and crude oil prices by $6 per barrel.

Comments:
This is very lame. The last 3 report cards I see they gave Kelly fairly high marks and their endorsement. Now, that they reduced her rating you're gonna spin it as a career of being against the envireonment? Well, it seems that on balance your friends at LCV seem to disagree with you.

Now, it wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the fact that the DNC has targeted Kelly this year, and that the LCV is acting in a political fashion to help the democratic party win this seat, allowing people like you to lie about the record.
 
17% is better than Peter Kings 11%. Not by much though.
To get a score that low do they have to clear-cut trees and pour chemicals into estuaries?
How can they get such a low mark?

www.kingwatch.blogspot.com
 
As to how Sue Kelly received a 17% grade:

She voted 8 times against environmental protection bills.

She didn't bother to show up 7 times to vote for or against environmental protection bills -- each no show counts as a negative.

She voted only 3 times for environmental protection bills.

Its simple math. And she's right in there with all those red state folks.
 
Let's be real, the only reason Kelly has ever received an endorsement from the LCV is because she didn't face stiff competition and they were afraid of her (Selendy was much more progressive on environmental issues- there is no question about that). Now that the pressure is actually on and its clear she may go back to clear cutting baby's breath, people are less afriad of coming out against her.
 
Sue is no environmentalist. She voted against the spent nuclear fuel repository at Yucca Mountain in 2000. For that matter, she is not too great on security either. Why would she vote to leave several tons of high-level nuclear waste in the middle of the Hudson Valley? Hey! What do you know, Sue agreed with Bill Clinton on that one. Both the Senate and House passed the bill and President Clinton vetoed it. Maybe she isn't so bad after all.
April 20 2005 must have been a busy day in the House. Mrs. Kelly did not vote on H.R. 6 Roll call # 29 and 32 either. That was when she was absent for personal leave. Of course on the Energy Omnibus Bill HR 4503 Kelly voted NO "to ENHANCING ENERGY CONSERVATION and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people." sounds very environmentally conscious, doesn't she? Oops. But wait there's more... Kelly voted again on HR 6 roll call 445 - ah! she had a chance to redeem her environmentally conscious record! Oops again, she voted NO "to ensure jobs for our future with secure affordable and reliable energy." This was simply a vote "to adopt a conference report that DEVELOPS an energy policy!" You mean we still don't have one? oh wait, "that addresses tax incentives, CONSERVATION strategies, REGULATORY standards, research and development programs, ENERGY EFFICIENCY, and ALTERNATIVE ENERGY programs. Phew! I'm sure glad she is so Green. NOT GREEN AT ALL! The environment is not only about the PORK she tries to bring home at election time.
Representative Kelly should join with her President as the IMPOSTOR she truly is!
 
These purely partisan attacks will get you guys no where. And I'm amazed that you would ADMIT that LCV gives it ratings in a partisan political way. You claim she got high ratings when there were no serious opponents and then it was ok for them to endorse her.

And now, she gets a low rating, and we should believe that NOW they are really telling the truth and this has nothing to do with the fact that the DNC badly wants to win her seat to take back control of the house? Hypocrisy reigns supreme with you guys, it seems.

On top of that LCV pushed a very radical agenda, pushing the most extreme positions on almost every issue, including those based on junk science like global warming. And yet, with their wingnut agenda, they still supported her and gave her high marks. Were they that afraid of her for some reason, or are they just a bunch of opportunists posing as activists?
 
Let's talk about lame for a minute. Here's what Kelly's folks was telling reporters yesterday: that the reason the score was so low was that she was at her mother-in-laws funeral and wake. Talk about manipulation!

Here's the real story: Of the 18 votes tracked by LCV, 6 of those votes did in fact occur on April 20-21 when Kelly missed voting for personal reasons. But of the 12 votes tracked by LCV that Kelly did vote on, she voted against the LCV 9 times and for them only 3 times. That's not exactly a stellar record.

Furthermore, five of those votes passed by very slim margins, with 3 passing by only 2 vote margins. Wanna guess which side Kelly was on? Not the LCV's!

Kelly's folks can keep spinning. We'll keep writing about the facts.
 
"Junk Science" - you pathetic little right-wing nut! Right, and the universe revolves around the earth, man was creating by divine intervention, and Columbus fell off the end of the earth. My God there are some small minded people in this country.
 
How is my post partisan? I state facts to back up my opinion.

You slur me with the label; partisan.

Case closed.
 
Ummm, christchild, I think dafeetkelly was referring to paladin's post...
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?