Kerry on Renewable Energy: NIMBY?

[gottaB]

The Hill is reporting on how John Kerry is ducking the issue of wind farms on Nantucket and environs. The proposed wind farms have the local millionaires up in arms, mostly because they're spoiled hypocritical nimbyists.

The story is being used by rightwingers like Rush Limbaugh to paint Kerry as a waffler and hypocrite. The story is also cropping up in alt.politics newsgroups. And, as many of us are aware, some Dean supporters here at DU have picked up on it as well.

I tend to lean towards Kerry, and one of the reasons for that is his steadfastness on environmental issues and energy policy. But this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder. Well, Kerry supporters, when push comes to shove, where does Kerry stand on renewable energy?

Some people will surely argue that we should just wait for the environmental impact statement before jumping to conclusions. Some of the problems with just waiting are mentioned in the article. And meanwhile other efforts to scuttle the project are in the works, such as Sen. Kennedy's proposed legislation, which I believe was part of the previous Energy Bill, but may come back in conference or be tacked on to another piece of legislation.

Therefore it's only fair to ask why Kerry has been reluctant to show leadership in his own backyard. At the very least we should know whether he will specify the kinds of things he's looking for in the environmental impact statement. It isn't as if the DOE only recently decided to study the environmental impact of wind turbines (info here, and more on wind power here). Primary voters deserve to know exactly where Kerry stands on renewable energy.

From supporters of other candidates, let's hear about your candidate's position on renewable energy. Is it better than Kerry's? For what reasons? And what have they actually done to combat nimbyism?



Disclosure: I lived for a brief time in New Bedford, which is like a redheaded stepchild to the Cape and Islands (perhaps because the people in New Bedford are loyal workingclass Democrats?). My solution to the wind farm issue would be to offer Nantucketers the option of wind power, or being slowly buried in their own waste, and if needed dumping some extra barrels of spent nuclear fuel on the island. That way when the water level rises due to global warming, Nantucketers might still find a place to moor their yachts.

[blm]

1. This is the worst they have on Kerry and the environment?

After 30+ years of working PRO environment causes and legislation, helping craft Kyoto, and this is the worst they can dredge up. Oh brother.

btw...Kerry has not weighed in on this matter. However, it's hardly Sierra Blanca or Yucca Mt.

[gottaB]

3. taking a swipe at Dean, I gather

okay, but the drawback to making me do my own homework is that I might come to a conclusion that doesn't favor Kerry.

Kerry's statements on dumping waste at Yucca Mountain is commendable, no question. Better than Edwards and Graham, but Lieberman eventually came around iirc, and in the House there was Kucinich taking the lead and even Gephardt talking sense.

I searched thomas for info on Sierra Blanca, and my conclusion is that I want Paul Wellstone for POTUS. So Dean is not Wellstone, okay, but if you want to talk about dumping nuclear waste, where exactly is Kerry? Yucca Mountain is one recent vote, but what about the vote to table Wellstone's ammendments (5035, 5036, 5037) to the Nuclear Policy Waste Act? What was the reasoning there? And what's up with Kerry's position on the Small Business Liability Protection Act (S.1064 and related)? Am I mistaken to conclude that he favors letting people off the hook for dumping small amounts of waste? Enlighten me.

The "not as bad as Dean" argument isn't persuading me, when Kucinich and Gephardt too are looking pretty good on the issue you raise, and everybody is *talking* about alternative energy. I'm asking When push comes to shove, what makes Kerry the best candidate?

[sandnsea]

9. Kerry as the best candidate, that's easy

His environmental record is spotless. His record on gays is better than any other candidate. His record on labor is outstanding. His health plan is far and away the best. He has been honest and consistent on the Iraq War. Concerned enough about Saddam, like Dean was, to allow Bush the muscle he said he needed to disarm; but also concerned enough to express warnings about preemption as national policy. Dean is attacking the Iraq War when he ought to be attacking the Bush Doctrine.

We've had inexperienced people in office almost consistently since Gerald Ford. Maybe it's time to get somebody with some brains and experience in foreign affairs into the office of Presidency.

[MercutioATC]

21. Sierra Blanca! TWO dollars for Dean!

explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=9385&mesg_id=9385


I've explained this issue ad nauseum, but Vermont and Maine simply contracted with Texas to store their low-lwvel nuclear waste. TEXAS (under Gov. Bush) appointed a commission to determine a site. TEXAS, not Vermont or Maine, chose the site (in this case, Sierra Blanca, which was later rejected for environmental and political reasons).

To blame either Vermont (Dean) or Maine for "dumping nuclear waste on the poor, underpriveliged citizens of Sierra Blanca" is ridiculous. Site selection was solely Texas' responsibility.

When you have your oil changed in your car, you contract with the service garage to remove the used oil and add new oil. You trust that they will dispose of the used oil responsibly because THAT is their responsibility, not yours. If they then dump the oil in a river, are you responsible? How, then, are Maine and Vermont responsible for the decisions that Texas made about where to store nuclear waste?

[sam sarrha]

2. hemp oil could make us oil independent, and burns clean, could power the

the trucks and cut down on asthma and other lung problems...it is renewable but the oil and Cotton and worst of all the Paper lobbies demonize it. and the politicians milk them as a steady source of income.

[gottaB]

6. I've heard Kucinich supporters make the connection

but not Kucinich himself.

His congressional record on environmental and energy issues is outstanding.

I wouldn't expect him to cross the auto manufacturers in a big way, but in fact he has been outspoken on issues such as fuel economy standards.

USPIRG's scorecard gives Kucinich 100% for 2002, 95% lifetime.

For comparison:

Edwards 60, 72
Kerry 95, 93
Gephardt 85, 74
Graham 65, 81
Lieberman 85, 86

Of course those numbers don't tell you about actions like proposing legislation, fillibustering, leading a caucus, etc. Regardless, they reaffirm the general impressions that Kucinich and Kerry are strongest on environmental issues. And a President Lieberman and Gephardt wouldn't exactly spell ecological catastrophe.

Biomass is on its way. Congress will support it. Hemp? Stuff like the DEA crackdown on Lakota hemp growers really gets my goat. The hysteria will be with us for some time I'm afraid. I'm not one to say that Kucinich isn't electable, but I won't get my hopes up until he gets some traction towards the nomination.

[JohnKleeb]

14. Kucinich has talked about

making renewable energy more important. By the way kudos to John Kerry and Dennis Kucinich, imo they are the best on the environment and to my knowledge with the exception of Sharpton and Mosley Braun, the only one opposed to the death penalty.

[JohnKleeb]

15. Kucinich has talked about

making renewable energy more important. By the way kudos to John Kerry and Dennis Kucinich, imo they are the best on the environment and to my knowledge with the exception of Sharpton and Mosley Braun, the only one opposed to the death penalty.

[George_Bonanza]

4. I agree with blm

Kerry has enough credentials to his name on pro-environment causes that I am certain he will take his pro-stance sooner or later.

[gottaB]

5. fair enough sooner, not so fair later

As I argued, there is a danger of this wind farm project going down the tubes. If that happens, it could could come back to bite Kerry in several ways.

Firstly, it gets added to a list of issues that paint Kerry and the Democratic Party as hypocritical, elitist liberals who ask others to make sacrifices for the greater good, but when called upon to do as they preach, suddenly raise hew and cry about the tyranny of big government. It won't matter if you think that some of the issues on the list are trifling or crude misrepentations. Any item that contains a shred of versimiltude lends credence to the list as a whole.

Already White House press releases have signalled their intention to portray Kerry as waffling, so far only on the issue of Iraq. In conjunction with wingnut smears, Kerry will have to battle against public doubts about his consistency on the things that matter most to him. Not good. Also, to wear a tinfoil hat for a moment, the forces of Rove could be trying to influence the Democratic primary by dissuading environmentalists from voting for a strong candidate.

Finally, this issue could bite Kerry if, after winning the Democratic nomination, he debates Bush on environmental issues. He will not be able to safely criticize Bush's position that we need more science before taking action on global climate change. Thus it would significantly undermine a major platform of Kerry's campaign. In terms of political ROE, I don't see the wisdom in this at all.

Kerry could easily go on the offensive and nip this one in the bud. If you're so confident that he will take the right stance, can you explain why he hasn't spelled it out yet? Will he say that the "aesthetic" impact means little to him? Will he say that potential noise polution is of minimal concern compared to the benefits of renewable energy? Maybe he's made some statements on this topic that I should be aware of. I don't know, I'm asking. At the moment I'm inclined to believe that his mumness is motivated by political cowardice. While the impact is minimal in the short term, and more or less easily excusable, the longer he remains silent, the more damaging his silence becomes. If his concerns about the environmental impact of the turbines are genuine, then he should be able to specify which potential environmental impacts are troubling him.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. You're Really Stretching This Wind Farm For All It's Got

USPIRG, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Friends of the Environment, and the League of Conservation Voters all give Kerry amazingly high scores year after year - for VOTES. Finding one isolated example and magnifying into a monumental event is conservative par excellence.

And I'm not sure what you mean by this:

"He will not be able to safely criticize Bush's position that we need more science before taking action on global climate change."

Even the scientists Bush specifically hired to denounce global warming changed their minds. I find it very interesting that you use the term "climate change." That is specifically a recent example of conservative doublespeak used to play down the EPA report. Very interesting, indeed.

[gottaB]

16. attack the messenger, the message still resounds

Take a gander at all the groups in support of this wind farm. Greenpeace, MassPIRG, Conservation Law Foundation, etc. Or look at the groups who supported the statement on the environmental review process. At the very least, Kerry's name belongs on *that* list. The political wheels are turning to squelch this project. Kerry's silence is deafening.

On the logic of isolated examples: Synechdoche, metonymy or pars pro toto are not exclusive to any political party, so give me a break. It would be trivial, perhaps, were in not one of Kerry's signature issues being played out in Kerry's own backyard. You don't need no magnifying glass to see that here is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. Elsewhere I addressed how this will be used against him. It won't be to debate the vital issues, but to dismiss the debate and the debater. You figure it out.

On the language of "climate change." Get out of here. That phrase is used by the Greens, the United States in its National Assessments of Climate Change, which started under Clinton (that's a big D Democrat by the way) and the United Nations. It doesn't matter that CATO Institute and Marshall Institute and some Bush lackeys use the same term, because it's demonstrably politically neutral.

One point of using that term, from the perspective of proponents of limiting the emissions of greenhouse gasses, is that it encompasses the kinds of local climatic fluctuations that could have devasting impacts. When, on the other hand, you start off talking about global warming, you're talking about such observable phenomena as receding glaciers, melting polar ice caps, and increases in mean ocean temperature. You know, stuff that's far away or doesn't seem particularly devestating. That doesn't exactly drive home the point that these changes have real consequences for local ecosystems, natural habitats, and industries that make use of natural resources. "Climate change" does not put environmentalists at a disadvantage, not by a long shot.

Doublespeak? Now it's my turn to say "very interesting, indeed." I would be happy to hear Kerry support this in his best pig latin. From Kerry supporters, I would be happy to hear that Kerry has formulated some nuanced issue statement that I should pore over before passing judgement. Doublespeak? Yeah, I'm starting to think that myself.

On the debating point against Bush, see my reply to blm's post below.

[blm]

10. Haha..you think Bush will DARE to call Kerry out on the environment?

He may as well call him out for his service in Vietnam. No way will Rove want to go up against Kerry on the environment OR service to country.

Damaging? Hardly. Political cowardice? That baloney has been used on him since the Nixon years when Kerry was first targeted by the GOP thugs.

[gottaB]

13. Of course Bush won't call him out on the environment

But Jim Lehrer will. Do you remember when Lehrer put Gore on the spot, asking him about the difference between his rhetoric in Earth in the Balance and his more modest environmental agenda? I sure do. Any way you slice it, that was not a shining moment for Al Gore's campaign. Kerry can make a better case for himself, but if the nimbyists win on Nantucket, he's exposed to the same kind of criticism: His words don't match his deeds.

And the damage is not just to Kerry personally, it's to the cause of environmentalism. Look, this issue's been brewing for years, and because of it you have columnists like Collin Levey writing newspaper stories that ridicule environmentalists and Democrats, making the charges of hypocrisy, elitism, and divisiveness. (BTW, I hadn't been familiar with Levey, who writes for the WSJ, but it's the kind of thing you run across when you do a google on this topic of Nantucket wind farms.) It's this last charge, divisiveness, that gives Bush cover. The argument goes something like if the environmentalists can't agree on a simple little wind farm, why should Bush trust them to lead the nation on the issue of global warming? And, if Kerry can wait on an EIS, why can't Bush?

So you see, it becomes almost a nonissue. If that's how it shapes up, it puts Kerry in a weaker position to call Bush out on the environment. Nonfeasance on this issue takes an arrow out of Kerry's quiver. I don't see how one could argue otherwise.

Political Cowardice. Hey, I call them like I see them. Nobody bats a thousand. The count on Kerry is 0 and 2 in this inning. Can he afford not to take a swing at it? If I were coaching him, you know what I'd say.

[blm]

19. Yeah....Kerry was debate champ at Yale and a prosecutor

and a war hero and helped end the war in Vietnam sooner, and investigated and exposed the BCCI and IranContra scandals and CIA drugrunning, advocated for gays to be allowed to serve openly in the military, helped craft Kyoto Accord, worked on environmental issues for over THIRTY YEARS, but YOU think he'll be struck dumb and won't be able to answer a question about windmills. Sheesh.

[gottaB]

20. Sheesh back at you

Gore is intelligent, articulate, has a long history of advocating and working for environmental causes, and yet, he was in a weak position when confronted with the discrepancy between his strong personal views on the real danger of global warming and his rather more tepid policy positions.

Once again, the issue becomes transformed into one of political honesty, of having the courage of one's convictions. Because, debating opponents argue, it's all well and good to say you support a cause so long as it doesn't cost you anyting. The real question is, How will you decide when your views are put to the test? And you do know that was an issue among both Greens on Gore's left and swing voters toward his right.

I also believe you implied the same sort of argument with your swipe at Dean. A few windmills, a few barrels of nuclear waste. Hmmm. You don't think there might be a connection there, do you? I do. I most definitely do. And one consequence of that kind of argument is that both candidates come out looking besmirched. Both make compromises, understable given their constituencies, perhaps, but certainly neither of them is ideal. And I am less convinced that a President Kerry would be better than a President Dean on the environment and energy policy. How much less convinced? Enough to give him a thorough listening, enough to want to know how *he* answers such criticisms.

The evidence of this issue working towards that style of negative portrayal is already out there, in the wild so to speak, where your forensic champ can't do much to stop it, other than take political action. Even here at good old DU. In a debate between Funk and CWebster, Funk rebutted a long list of points on which CWebster contended that Kerry had shown political cowardice. It was an admirable rebuttal, as far those things go, but on this one point Funk was at a loss. Uh oh. Suddenly those counter arguments don't seem so sure.

Therefore I reassert that this an important issue, that it's a key issue for Kerry, that resolving it would strengthen his position to go on the offensive against the Bush record, that resolving it would blunt a certain kind of personal attack, an attack that will surface in the debates not in explicit form, but as a subtext that will frame certain questions and, within the campaign as a whole, color public perceptions, and that such coloring is already occuring.

Now, on to my meta point. It's quite simple. Given the political risks of remaining mum here, wouldn't the wise course of action be to risk saying something? Not much. Just a little something.

And, well, right now Kerry is rather struck dumb, isn't he? I'm not sure what to conclude, but if that's the last word from Kerry color me underwhelmed.

[blm]

23. No comparison...

Gore was never a debate champ. Gore was never a prosecutor who knew how to make a case. They are both policy wonks, however, with extensive knowledge.

Exposing an anthill and exaggerating it as a mountain is absurd.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. What the article says is Kerry is waiting for the EIS to make his decision

What the article says is Kerry is waiting for the EIS to make his decision. I can understand how to Republicans this may sound disingenuous, since they don't really care what the Environmental Impact Statments say. In fact if it was up to the Repubs we wouldn't even have EIS's.

Does being in favor of renewable energy mean you just say 'YES' to any renewable energy proposal without examining the details and consequences? This reminds me of when they attack a judge for remaining impartial until he's seen the evidence. It's just another example of Kerry being a thoughtful, complex leader who looks at all the facts of an issue, and being attacked for not being the knee-jerk liberal his opponents want him to be.

[gottaB]

11. nice spin move

but it still ducks the issue. The article suggests some of the problems with Kerry delaying support for the project. Environmental groups, not Republicans, are the people seeking Kerry's support. And they have been disappointed. I might add that many people in the area support the initiative because they believe that renewable energy will bring us closer to energy independence, and they recognize that the problem of global climate change demands immediate action. That is, their position is essientially the same as Kerry's, but when the forces of nimbyism stepped up and flexed their political muscle, Kerry fell silent.

I'm telling you that there are people on the Cape and Islands who are ready to take a stand, and indeed even to make a small sacrifice if it means achieving some measure of energy independence. They understand that their area is well-positioned to take advantage of this technology. They recognize that the concern over wildfowl for the carnard (ahem) that is, because they have looked into the science, and because they know nimbyism when they see it. They are willing to be at the vanguard on this issue, but now that they are under fire, they need some support from their respectable and knowledgable Senator Kerry, whom they elected in no small part because of his stand on renewable energy.

None of this is inside dope. You can follow the links I put and find out for yourself. This is a battle between environmentalists and a small group of wealthy home owners whose main concern is the view from their summer homes, a small group who are using their political connections to quash this project. Their talk about environmental impact has been wildly exaggerated and has drawn from junk science to make hysterical diatribes against this wind farm, and wind power generally. People know this.

Is Kerry concerned about dwindling fish stocks? That's all he needs to say. Something to the effect of "My chief concern is the potential damage to fisheries. I'm waiting to read the Corps of Engineers EIS before I decide. If they conclude that the impact on marine wildlife would be minimal, I will fully endorse the proposed wind farm." That would be a tremendous boost to the cause. And, it gives him a talking point on the campaign trail: "In my home state...."

So pardon me for being skeptical, but the only political advantage of his silence is local, excrutiatingly local, and even then it's an primarily an issue of class allegiance and favoritism. It sucks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. you're just spinning your own tune

You're just spinning your own tune. "The article suggests some of the problems with Kerry delaying support for the project." Again this presupposes that the project is environmentally good, well thought out, etc.. it presupposes that anyone who supports alternative energy should just support any project involving alternative energy without any review. And you can spin all you want about what waiting till the EIS is out means, but the EIS process has done so much good for this country environmentally that I find it pretty ridiculous for any environmentalist to cry obstructionism because of the requirement to complete an EIS.

[gottaB]

17. you're being spinsane

Hey, I provided links to some science. This is not "any" project without any review. You need some more? Look at the groups supporting this project, and while you're there checking out what these environmentalists are saying, be sure not to miss the statement on the environmental review process prepared by the Conservation Law Foundation and supported by Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth and others. What you appear to be misunderstanding is that this process is under attack. A small clique of "warm weather" environmentalists who don't give a hoot about the issues of climate change and habitat protection are flexing some political muscle to kill this project because they don't want some ugly old windmills cluttering their precious view. That's the fact, jack.

Read about it here. There's a reason why the Toxics Action Center added the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound to its dirty dozen list. and it ain't because they're kneejerk liberals. The my ocean view is sacred, it's so special it ought to be a national monument crowd have tried to make alliances with wildlife supporters, and they have been somewhat successful in getting the silence of some like Mass. Sierra Club, but their true interests are transparent to anybody who takes a moment to look at the facts. They have raised hew and cry about the dangers to avifauna, when the DOE has already put that canard (ahem) to rest. They exaggerate and get hysterical and would say anything to discredit wind power, but the science just isn't in their corner, most environmentalists are not backing them up, and, as they delay and stall and hem and haw in public, behind the scenes they are doing everything in their power to kill this project, and if it has deleterious consequences for other projects, for the cause of environmental protection or moving this country towards developing clean and renewable energy sources, they don't care.

Does John Kerry care? Isn't this supposed to be what he represents? He knows what the right course of action is, but he's ducking it. So he supports environmental impact statements. So what? That's not enough here, for all the reasons I've argued, reasons which are elaborated upon in the links I provided.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. bottom line, do you support the Environmental Impact Statement process?

Your link to a list of 'groups supporting this project' is a link to the developers website, and here's part of it (emphasis added):

"Below is a partial list of organizations and individuals that have issued statements of qualified support of the Cape Wind project pending a thorough and fair permitting review."

* Greenpeace USA
* Buzzards Bay Action Committee
* Northeast Sustainable Energy Association
* Clean Water Action
* Conservation Law Foundation
* Union of Concerned Scientists
* Massachusetts Climate Action Network
* MASSPIRG (PDF)
* Religious Witness For the Earth
* Thompson Island Outward Bound Education Center
* Toxics Action Center
* Full Circle Energy Project, Inc., Falmouth
* Cape & Islands Self Reliance (PDF)


In addition, the following groups support the ongoing environmental impact review through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)

* American Rivers
* Friends of the Earth
* Cape & Islands Renewable Energy Collaborative (PDF)
* Natural Resources Defense Council
* World Wildlife Fund
* People's Power and Light

So that puts John Kerry in the same group as Friends of the Earth and American Rivers. Even the support of the first group is pretty qualified wouldn't you say?

Bottom line, do you support the Environmental Impact Statement process? It is a process that without exception is labelled obstructionist by the developers whose projects come under its review. They all have the same story about how their project doesn't need such close examination. But anyone who has seen the EIS process hold developers accountable to environmental law should be leery of short circuiting the process. If there is no problem with the development, what is wrong with waiting for the review? Why not complete an EIS? Or is it that this is just about attacking Kerry, even making it sound like he is opposing something that he is not in fact opposing?

[gottaB]

22. Good job making my case, Feanorcurufinwe

Sort of.

My first impulse was to say "Which EIS process" because that's the point raised in the Conservation Law Foundation's press release, which was in response to Mass. Attorney General Reilly's intervention aimed at scuttling the wind farm. The process is being undermined. Basic definitions are being challenged. That does not mean that wind energy advocates are against a process of reviewing environmental impacts. I'll quote:

Our organizations and many others in Massachusetts agree that there should be a rigorous environmental review process for Cape Wind Associates' wind farm proposal and that Congress should create a comprehensive statutory framework for offshore wind energy development. We believe that the reviews the proposal is undergoing are sufficient both to provide adequate public input and to develop the assessments needed to draw informed conclusions about the acceptability of Cape Wind Associates' proposal. Furthermore, it is imperative that there be timely review of the proposal, and development of wind energy, in light of dramatic current and future damage caused by power plant emissions and the importance of wind energy as a means of mitigating that damage.

The emphasis was in the original. That issue of timeliness was also highlighted in the first article I cited. For review:

• the senator is “waiting to hear about the results from the environmental impact statement.”
  
• Vocal opponents are not waiting for such results.
  
• A number of roadblocks have been thrown up to try to delay the project or ban it outright.
  
• Several environmental impact studies have been commissioned, including one by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Emphasis added.

But here's the cincher from the Hill story. Kerry's spokesperson, Kelly Benander, "declined to say whether Kerry would endorse the plan if the environmental impact studies turn out favorably for the massive project, known as Cape Wind."

So what's the point of waiting for an eis again?

You argue that every developer labels environmental reviews as obstructionist. A small dose of cynicism is healthy, I'll give you that, but you are covering up some larger truths. There have already been environmental studies. They suggest that this would be a great location for a wind farm. I ask you, How many development projects are supported by any honest environmental group at all? This project would have positive effects on the environment that must be weighed in any estimation of impact. Additionally, the obstructions here go beyond any fair and objective EIS process, as I've already pointed out. What do you suppose the true environmental impact of Kennedy's legislation would be. I believe that's spelled N-I-M-B-Y.

Now, the point you made so well, albeit in a backhanded way: Why can't Kerry offer a qualified support? I've already indicated that a qualified support would answer my concerns, so please, don't be interrogating my bottom line when I've already stated it, it's not very interesting in itself, and it totally ducks the issue.

Finally, your insinuations about the intentions behind my post are a discredit to your argument, to put it mildly. I've been extremely forthcoming about my biases, and I've laid out my view of the issues that I believe are of concern to others. I've taken the time to address your objections. I would even say that I foresaw your substantive objection in my original post, and did my level best to move on to the point we're at now, namely the politics of "qualified support," or perhaps more accurately, "qualified nonsupport." At present this point disadvantages Kerry imo, but, as I've argued, it oughtn't.

I did of course raise attacking Kerry as an issue. It's there in the news story I found, it's part of the reason I ungoogled it in the first place, and it's extremely relevant in a forum devoted to poltical campaigns. I've dealt with that in other posts. If you can't discriminate between a personal attack and a debate in which the existence of personal attacks becomes part of an argument--well, I'll leave it at that.

You want a truly worthwhile bottom line here? How about: A stitch in time saves nine.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. This is your clincher?

This is your clincher?


But here's the cincher from the Hill story. Kerry's spokesperson, Kelly Benander, "declined to say whether Kerry would endorse the plan if the environmental impact studies turn out favorably for the massive project, known as Cape Wind."

So they decline (again) to take a position in advance of reading the report. And you take this to be some type of hypocrisy. You are welcome to your interpertation. I trust the judgement of the rest of those looking at this issue to decide for themselves whether Kerry is a true defender of the environment.

And since this is about politics, which of the candidates do you believe is a more sincere environmentalist than Kerry? Since you've made it clear that you are against Kerry, who are you for, and why?

On edit: no one said you are making a PERSONAL attack. I said you are making an attack. (A lame one, but it's still an attack.) If you want to deny you are attacking Kerry, here is your chance: tell us who you support, and why they are such a good environmentalist. All of us have already heard your charges that Kerry will potential take a nimby position on this issue after the EIS is completed. I doubt there is anymore you can add to your case that you haven't already repeated a couple times. So now let's hear about the great environmental record of whoever you are supporting.

[gottaB]

26. Yes, that's my clincher

Yet I would admit to a distinction between full support and a qualified statement of support, as you have previously, and I would be satisfied with qualified support from Kerry. I've made no secret of the fact that I do believe there is a right position, and merely waiting for an EIS is, given the political circumstances, inadequate. I too leave that to others.

On lameness, lameness is like asking me questions that have already been answered, interrogating my personal position when it's not relevant, or interesting, and putting words in my mouth. However, in light of the fact that you are disadvantaged by not having ponied up to DU, I'll reiterate where I stand. For your sake. Personally.

I am on record DU supporting Carol Moseley Braun. Her positions on environmental issues are admitedly not the best, but I believe I understand where she's coming from and I agree with her fundamental priorities and her message. To be honest, I'm not sure what the choices will look like by the time my State (Washington) has its primaries, so I am keeping an open mind.

I had tended to believe that Howard Dean was a weak candidate, and that on environmental issues in particular he was not very credible. In light of this issue of wind farms, and the way it's been argued by Kerry supporters, I am inclined to give Dean some benefit of the doubt. I am reavulating Dean, and so far he looks okay. On environmental issues I like what he's saying. On balance, the weaknesses in his record are matched by areas where he's particularily strong.

John Edwards appeals to me for a number of reasons. His record on environmental issues is not one of them.

Dick Gephardt is far from perfect on environmental issues. To his credit, he acknowledges some of points of disagreement with environmentalists. That in itself wouldn't certify his honesty, but it doesn't hurt. With Gephardt I know what I am getting. All things considered it's not too shabby.

Bob Graham. There are only so many hours in a day.

I am not against Kerry. I rather favor him to most others, as I stated, although I am questioning that position. Were you to take me at my word, this would not be a question for you.

On this topic I have posted comments favorable to Dennis Kucinich. He has a great congressional record on environmental issues. He is raising issues of concern to me, and to the extent that his positions on key issues appear credible to me, I could be persuaded to overlook my disagreements with him on a handful of topics and cast a vote for him.

Joe Lieberman irritates me to no end. My opinion of his candidacy has vacillated between forgiveness and stick a fork in him, and is currently resting somewhere around please go away.

Al Sharpton says things I want to hear, but I believe he has behaved irresponsibly in the past, and I am not convinced that in the future he will exercize poltical power judiciously. So far I have been pleasantly surprised by the way he's conducting his campaign. However, he remains among my least favorite candidates.

Were I to defect from the Dems, I would vote Green, but I don't see that as likely. I am enthusiastic about this crop of Dems, and cold to Nader, who is in good position to take the Green nomination.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. You should really find someone you can support more enthusiastically

You should really find someone you can support more enthusiastically. Your response is so tepid. You've spent a lot of energy researching this six week old news article about Kerry not yet coming to a decision on a local issue. Perhaps your energy would be better spent promoting Ms. Mosely-Braun or finding another candidate you be enthusiastic about. If you really want to spend your time finding negative things to say about politicians or candidates, I'd suggest you look on the Republican side. Plenty of real villians there - you won't even have to attack folks for potential decisions they may make in the future - you can attack them for actual crimes, lies, total moral bankruptcy, utter disregard for the environment or our children's future....

[gottaB]

30. You know what, Feanorcurufinwe?

You have a point. Moseley Braun is getting no traction at DU. It's a drag. It makes me want to bolt.

And it's a bad climate for criticizing Dems who would be my second choice. Really bad. Like, you were like on the verge of persuading me to accept your representation of Kerry's position and let it lie, ahem, but you couldn't refrain from personally attacking me. That sucks.

The villification of opponents wears thin. Your guy is *not* all sweetness and light, but I am beginning to see that Kerry supporters here will not tolerate any criticism. None whatsoever. Their response, as typified by your posts, is to attack the messenger, to attack other dems, and to attack Republicans. It doesn't persuade me. On the contrary, I do believe that Dems have been guilty of crimes, lies, ethical bankruptcy, and disregard for the environment, and the louder you protest, the more doubts are raised in my mind. And that's the unstated aim of the poltics of villification, isn't it? To dampen enthusiasm?

So chalk one up for your side. I'm completely turned off right now. I'm going to chill for a while, check out some other poltical forums and blogs, and pursue some of my other interests.

See ya.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. lol

lol

[styersc]

24. Kerry wants to read the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before he

makes a decision. He wants to study the data and make an informed decision. The rat bastard!!!! He's fooled us with three decades of environmentalism!!!! That's it I'm voting Bush. He'd never make an informed decision- you can bank on that!!!!!

[gottaB]

27. Bush wants to study climate change

before he makes a decision. He wants to study the data and make an informed decision. The rat bastard!!!! He's fooled us with three decades of Petroleumism!!!! That's it I'm voting Kerry. He'd never make an informed decision, uh, indecision--aw heck what's the difference? I might as well stay home. :-(

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. If you are serious about comparing the credibility of Bush and Kerry

If you are serious about comparing the credibility of Bush and Kerry I think you may be in the wrong forum.


There are so many long, long, boring posts in this thread, I feel obligated to sum up.

THE CHARGES: Kerry is not supporting a wind-farm development near Cape Cod, nor is he opposing it. He is refusing to take a position on the issue until an EIS is completed. He is not willing to say that when it is completed, he will then support it.

THE ANSWER: The charges are totally true.