WSJ quoted McCain touting his "pro-environment positions," but didn't note his poor LCV score
SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal uncritically reported that Sen. John McCain "said his pro-environment positions," among others, would "make him competitive" in California. In fact, McCain has a lifetime rating of 24 percent from the League of Conservation Voters. By contrast, Sen. Hillary Clinton has a lifetime rating of 87 percent and Sen. Barack Obama, 86 percent.
In a March 5 article, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sen. John McCain "said his pro-environment positions," among others, would "make him competitive" in California. In fact, McCain has a lifetime rating of 24 percent from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). By contrast, Sen. Hillary Clinton has a lifetime rating of 87 percent and Sen. Barack Obama, 86 percent.
In a February 21 post on the environmental blog Gristmill, Grist magazine staff writer David Roberts wrote that while the "LCV scorecard has its critics," it's "nonetheless become something of a gold standard when measuring how 'green' a lawmaker is."
Additionally, McCain received a score of 40 percent in the Defenders of Wildlife's "Conservation Report Card" for the 109th Congress, while Obama and Clinton both received a score of 82 percent. For the 108th Congress, McCain received a 38 percent score on the organization's report card, while Clinton scored 100 percent. According to Defenders of Wildlife, McCain, Clinton, and Obama did not vote enough to receive an official score for the 110th Congress; however McCain has a lifetime rating of 39 percent, while Clinton's lifetime rating is 92 percent and Obama, 85 percent.
The Wall Street Journal article, by reporter Laura Meckler, also stated that "[i]t would be a risky gambit" for McCain to compete in California, adding that "television ads are very expensive, and it isn't clear if Sen. McCain will have the money needed to compete in such a large state along with a raft of traditional swing states such as Ohio, Missouri, Florida and Pennsylvania." But the article did not note that according to the most recent state poll, McCain trails both Clinton and Obama by more than 20 points in California. A SurveyUSA poll, conducted February 15-17 with a +/- 4.4 percent margin of error, found Clinton leading McCain in California 58 percent to 35 percent, and Obama leading McCain 61 percent to 34 percent. Further, significantly more Californians voted in the 2008 Democratic primary than in the Republican one -- 4.4 million compared with 2.5 million.
From the March 5 Wall Street Journal article:
The campaign is beginning to strategize in which states it will mount challenges, looking to compete in reliably Democratic states including New Jersey, Connecticut and the biggest prize, California. Sen. McCain said his pro-environment positions, his history of attracting Hispanic voters and his appeal to independents will make him competitive there.
"I think we ought to go to as many states as possible, as many areas as possible," Sen. McCain said.
It would be a risky gambit -- television ads are very expensive, and it isn't clear if Sen. McCain will have the money needed to compete in such a large state along with a raft of traditional swing states such as Ohio, Missouri, Florida and Pennsylvania.
At the same time, Sen. McCain will need to shore up the Republican base, including evangelical conservatives in the South and elsewhere who have been slow to warm to his candidacy.
And from "our friends" at the Sierra Club...
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2008-02-21.asp
"McCain Scores a ZERO on the Environment
Arizona Senator Skipped Every Crucial Vote in 2007
"Washington, D.C.--In the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard released today by the League of Conservation Voters, John McCain receives a score of ZERO. McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every single crucial environmental vote scored by the organization, posting a score lower than Members of Congress who were out for much of the year due to serious illnesses--and even lower than some who died during the term. By contrast, the average Member of Congress scored a 53 in 2007. McCain posts a lifetime score of only 24."
Gee, Sierra points out that the Senator missed EVERY crucial vote...and they even list the votes they consider "crucial". Beats the heck out of that other organization and their "Most Liberal" label! :)
Screw the idiocy of "ratings", they express no specific opinion, and answer no particular question.
On the matter of the "Environment" (which are all those things that surround us, and enter into or touch our bodies, such as the air and the water, and ultimately the soil itself, as the original substance of all our food), and on the matter of those industrial substances that enter into the "Environment", and have taint and toxicity enough, to make us sick and even cause our deaths:
Ask Mr. McCain, and all the other candidates for President, where they stand on the State of California's (and 17 other State's) attempt to raise automobile EMISSIONS STANDARDS in their States, and of how Bush's EPA (ENVIRONTMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY) is opposing them in their efforts, to the point of forcing action in the Courts...
Where does Mr. McCain stand in this fight?
Where do the other presidential candidates stand on this issue?
It's important, because the next President either continues to fight California and the 17 other States (who constitute a majority of the American People, and a super-majority of the automobiles in America), continues to fight them on EMISSIONS STANDARDS, or otherwise assents to the raising of those standards, with a single Executive Order.
Stop wasting our time with nonsense about "ratings", and start asking specific questions of the presidential candidates, like the one I just posed.
Good post, Dem. Ratings from biased sources are stupid, especially since MMFA likes to denounce ratings that give Obama a very liberal score.
And I agree with you on the emissions standard thing. States should be able to hold higher standards if they wish.
And the more you point out McCain's "less jobs, more wars" platform, the more likely the conservative base is to let "more important" issues, like gay marriage and lapel pins, steer their vote.
I think what CD is saying is that we shouldn't point out when Republican candidates are stoopid and irresponsible, because it just makes CD more excited about voting for them.
And I think he's stating this with some sort of pride. Good for CD.