As the presidential candidates begin to turn up the heat on their campaigns post Labor Day, the League of Conservation Voters has released its 2008 Democratic Presidential Profiles, the environmental community's premier questionnaire for the '08 candidates.
Most Americans agree that global warming is one of the greatest challenges we face. So one of the key issue questions of the '08 cycle is: Who will be our first green president? LCV's Presidential Profiles offer an in-depth view into the candidate's environmental views, as well as the information voters need to decide who will be America's first green president.
This past spring, LCV sent a questionnaire addressing the most important current environmental topics to all of the presidential candidates. The Profiles contain their answers, in their own words. Both the questionnaire and the answers can be found here.
Aside from the in-depth policy answers, two things stand out about the profiles: the priority the candidates place on addressing the twin challenges of global warming and energy in their administration. Voters are determined, to a greater extent than ever before, to make global warming and energy top tier issues in 2008. As Thomas Friedman has said, "Green is the new red, white and blue." We hope the candidates continue to talk about addressing these twin challenges with voters on the campaign trail.
The candidate's answers to this important questionnaire play a role in LCV's primary and general election endorsement process. LCV plans to release additional presidential profiles soon - as well as updates to the existing profiles. Enjoy and stay tuned.
Go Obama!
The first candidate that offers facilitation, just and fair laws and rules to the thousands of businessmen that are BILLIONS on Green and environmentally sound practices and new technologies.
I was thinking the other day,,,
We should all bend over and kiss George Bush’s arse for showing the whole world how wrong BIG OIL, business as usual, and the Militant Neo-Cons have been.
Live Earth, pointed to 2 billion people that take these things seriously, distrust the status quo, and are NONE to supportive of wars to fill our gas tanks.
Wall Street now has identified a HUGE market base, of people that are more than willing to pay 3 times the price, for products and Green technologies and environmentally friendly solutions.
We may not follow the money in considering the causes of wars, but they do!
Sooooo!
We will have a Green President when they,,,,, SAY SO!
Heck, even BP and Exxon are now running GREEN ADDS!
Shouldn’t be long now!
All the best
Knute
Hahahaha! Yes!
I agree, the ads are hilarious, actors trying to stutter frequently and pretend they are not reading from a script. It is not only BP and Exxon doing this in the States, Chevron in on the GREEN fakery ads too.
Where I find hope is in Wall Street. They are clamoring to throw money as start-ups, IPOS and anything that has a prospect of changing things.
I guess the money managers breathe too, and would like something of a planet left for their children.
Oh, do keep in mind the Evangelical Mega-Corporate Churches, they are locking in on GREEN too. Guess the modern day crusades are not going well.
Seems some of their parishioners are about fed up with tornados, hurricanes, tsunamis, ice storms, giant fires, wars, famine, drought and 15 state floods.
“Be yee GOOD STEWARDS.”
Or words to that effect.
Nice to see, but I think it is Wall Street that will turn our corner for us and back the first candidate that presses a Business Plan for a Green Economy and favorable tax incentives.
All the best
Knute
Kermit the Frog
Imagine, two Roosevelt presidents which will go down in history as two of the best.
Two Bush presidents which will go down in history as two of the worst. In "Dubya's" case, it's rock bottom bad. Only Dubya could make his father look great by comparison.
Both Obama and Hillary did pretty poorly mostly due to their loyalty to the coal industry and by default their disregard to Global Warming.
Their quantification of the candidates' environmental voting record tells a very different story, with Obama scoring a 96, Hillary a 90, and Kucinich a 92, and Edwards a 59.
We need a President that can restore the USA to a respected position among the other nations of the world and back to the leadership position on human rights and peaceful interaction.
Green is not what a President need to worry about but the US leadership role in forgien affairs and the safety of the American People here and abroad.
That is enough one his plate!
No matter who the Democrats nominate, our candidate will be "greener".
While we are not favored to win, of course, the Democratic Party is far from the only game in town and far from being the most green choice the voters will have next year.
If you really want a green president, than vote for the real thing. Vote Green.
We really need to reorganize our government along Parliamentary lines. It's the only way to have a government that can be replaced over any given issue and at any given time. Isn't it obvious to all of us by now that once the president has already caused repeated disasters he should be replaced immediately? A parliament also has the virtue of allowing representation of more than two parties. In such a system, coalitions would not only make sense, they would pay off for everyone.
I wish that some perspicacious person would suggest step one for such a transformation. I'm thinking we need a Constitutional Congress whose delegates are forbidden on pain of standing trial for treason to touch the bill of rights.
Vote your conscience '08!
Now let's set the record straight. A Democratic Congress took the active lead in all of these initiatives, and, in doing so, was reflecting the newly awakening environmental consciousness of the folks who were actively forming what was called the counterculture. That Nixon signed these things was due to the fact that he saw this as an effort to stay on the good side of both Congress and the electorate so that he would be allowed to continue fighting "his war". It is almost a dead certainty that we would not have the same history in the environmental arena but for what was happening in Viet Nam.
And then we pulled the troops out of Nam (We, The People get 100% of the credit for that one) and thought we had won everything. People kicked back in the late seventies like never before, the right wing snuck up on us with Reagan/Bush, and, man, we've been screwed ever since.
So one lesson could be that if someone in Congress would kick up a big enough ruckus over Iraq, it wouldn't make any difference militarily, but Bush might just back off of some other stuff so that we don't take his toys away.
Another alternative is that we could get incensed enough to call The Second American Constitutional Convention, and just figure out how to run the whole shootin match intelligently.