Shining a green light on the Sestak-Toomey Senate race

[MH1]

http://mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/05/29/main_line_times/opinion/doc4bfd5bc5471d9711731996.txt

Toomey’s Web site crows that he is “the clear choice.” So while last week’s election is fresh in our minds, and before we all head off to our traditional summer siesta before remembering the election sometime around Labor Day, let’s shed some green light on their respective environmental records, to see if there may be just that, a clear choice.

A visit to the Web sites of the two candidates is intriguing. While Sestak (joesestak.com) offers a wonky encyclopedic discourse of almost 1,200 words in his “energy and environment” section, Toomey (pattoomey.com) serves up a sparse 267 words, less than one-third the length of this essay.

As you begin parsing the words, one notes the platforms are built on very different foundations. Just for starters, the word “environment” is not mentioned on Toomey’s issues list at all; rather, the category is labeled “Energy/Resources.” That’s a huge distinction in environmental philosophy right there: the environment is to be protected, resources to be used.

That same philosophy is noted early in their statements. “We are blessed to live in a nation bursting with natural energy resources,” says Toomey, not incorrectly, of course, while Sestak’s second sentence brings up “our often careless disregard for precious natural resources.” Again, they start at different places, one “bursting,” the other “precious.”

much more at the link...