Mark Kirk-Environmentalist?
Congressman Mark Kirk styles himself as a member of the Congress sympathetic to environmental causes. On his web site, he claims that the League of Conservation Voters gives him an 80% rating as of December, 2003.
But is he really pro-environment? Or does he support environmental legislation when it is easy to do so (i.e., when the vote is clearly determined without his vote). And has his environmental record continued to be strong?
Well, the answer to the last question is "Kirk has been less than steadfast in his support of environmental issues." His current rating by the LCV has fallen to 50%.
What about hot environmental issues, such as drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge? Perhaps his voting record there could be summed up in words remeniscent of John Kerry's "flip-flop" description of his vote on funding the Iraq war: "Kirk voted against it before he voted for it." Kirk voted for the budget resolution, which allows oil exploitation in the ANWR.
We have been told that the drilling does not cause environmental damage. Who is foolish enough to believe that? We were told that single-hulled tankers were not necessary, and then the Exxon Valdez disaster occurred.
To say that drilling doesn't have a negative impact on the environment is at best a misleading kind of lie (as distinguished from an outright, baldfaced lie). To support drilling, there need to be roads, pipelines, and all the other supporting facilities for oilfield workers that oil exploitation entails. And Mark Kirk has voted to support this despoilation of a wilderness area! It's like Humpty Dumpty: Once it is spoiled, folks, there's no putting it back to its original state.
Let's elect a congressman in 2006 who is genuinely sincere about preserving the environment.
But is he really pro-environment? Or does he support environmental legislation when it is easy to do so (i.e., when the vote is clearly determined without his vote). And has his environmental record continued to be strong?
Well, the answer to the last question is "Kirk has been less than steadfast in his support of environmental issues." His current rating by the LCV has fallen to 50%.
What about hot environmental issues, such as drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge? Perhaps his voting record there could be summed up in words remeniscent of John Kerry's "flip-flop" description of his vote on funding the Iraq war: "Kirk voted against it before he voted for it." Kirk voted for the budget resolution, which allows oil exploitation in the ANWR.
We have been told that the drilling does not cause environmental damage. Who is foolish enough to believe that? We were told that single-hulled tankers were not necessary, and then the Exxon Valdez disaster occurred.
To say that drilling doesn't have a negative impact on the environment is at best a misleading kind of lie (as distinguished from an outright, baldfaced lie). To support drilling, there need to be roads, pipelines, and all the other supporting facilities for oilfield workers that oil exploitation entails. And Mark Kirk has voted to support this despoilation of a wilderness area! It's like Humpty Dumpty: Once it is spoiled, folks, there's no putting it back to its original state.
Let's elect a congressman in 2006 who is genuinely sincere about preserving the environment.
posted by kent at 7:23 PM
2 Comments:
Kent - this is off topic so sorry! Thank you for setting this up. I look forward to blogging on the evanston dfa blog.
Not off topic at all! as slow as our blog is going, any topic is on topic! So by all means, blog away!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home