I was curious to see whether these folks had anything to say on their official web sites in justification of their support for this economic wrecking-ball. Here’s a sampler.
Mary Bono Mack (California)
Washington, Jun 18 - Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) today issued the following statement on climate change legislation, urging the Majority to allow more time for bipartisan negotiations on the bill before it heads to the House floor for a vote:
“Any bill of this magnitude deserves bipartisan consideration and input,” said Bono Mack. “It is clear that Members on both sides of the aisle have deep concerns about multiple issues within this legislation, and I appreciate the Speaker’s willingness to meet with Republicans today to identify these issues as we move forward.
“As I noted in Committee, this climate change bill is far from perfect but sets us on an important path toward a greener, more sustainable energy future. By allowing this legislation to be fully evaluated and incorporating bipartisan input, we can improve this bill for the benefit of Americans across the country.
“I am concerned that bringing the bill to the floor next week is too premature to properly evaluate Members’ concerns and implement needed improvements.”
Apparently, although “too premature to properly evaluate Members’ concerns”, the bill wasn’t too premature to vote on. There is no rationale provided for her vote in favor of the legislation. Ok, she’s Sonny Bono’s widow and she’s from California, so I’m willing to cut her some slack when it comes to my expectations of minimum intellectual firepower; but she’s married to Rep. Connie Mack, a Florida Republican who voted against this bill. Yo, Connie, how about working a little policy discussion into the pillow talk?
Mike Castle (Delaware)
Mike is obviously a guy who is easily bamboozled. Here is a key quote from a press release issued after the vote:
The recent vote in the U.S. House on the American Clean Energy and Security Act was on whether to pursue these new strategies, or hold on to the status quo. I supported the legislation because it is my belief that we cannot turn away from the opportunity to create new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. With offshore wind, fuel cells, and solar energy initiatives, Delaware is poised to lead such innovation and create new jobs in these important areas while protecting the tourism industry and our very own coastline.
Translation? I think I can siphon off enough gravy for spending on fruit-loop alternative energy projects to make up for the bill’s initial toxic job shock, so maybe the whole thing will be a wash.
Here’s another comment from this subterranean intellect.
Nations around the world are surging ahead with emission reductions and developing new energy technologies. The United States should be on equal footing, if not leading this effort to remain competitive.
Sure, by all means, the U.S. should strive to be the fastest lemming in that race to the cliff.
David Reichert (Washington)
Energy independence and our national security are critical issues for America. These issues transcend politics. The future of this country is on the line and we can spare no effort when it comes to leading on these issues at a global level.
David Reichert? David Freakin’ Reichert?!? The ex-cop? The guy who spent the better part of his career looking (unsuccessfully) for the Green River Killer? Now the Democrats want to knock off the economy and he’s on their side?
That’s only three, and I’ll be checking out the rest later on, but you see the pattern. These idiots have either fallen for, or are using as a smokescreen, the bogus argument that this bill is about remaining competitive, achieving energy independence (I didn’t see any discussion about expanding drilling for oil, incidentally), and - God help us! – creating new jobs.
Sorry, Republican Party, but if the only difference between the GOP and Democratic Party is the logo, I’ll just hang on to my money and invest it in gold and canned goods.
(Cross-posted at Not One Red Cent)