Wow, leave town for a couple months and look what happens! You know, just because someone has a "D" after their name doesn't mean they automatically take the opposite side of every position that you do! And it doesn't entitle you to simply make up ridiculous quotes and attribute it to that person. Here's a fairly complete listing of how Barrow has actually voted on bills relating to energy and oil. This is hardly the record of someone who is knee-jerk anti-Big Oil!
Voted YES on opening Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling: May 12, 2011
Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases: Apr 7, 2011
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution: Jun 26, 2009
Voted YES on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets: Sep 26, 2008
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation: May 21, 2008
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy: Feb 12, 2008
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel: Aug 4, 2007
Voted YES on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC: May 22, 2007
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Jan 18, 2007
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore: Jun 29, 2006
Voted NO on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries: Jun 7, 2006
Voted NO on authorizing construction of new oil refineries: Oct 7, 2005
I only quoted what he said at the GSU Energy Forum two years ago. I take the man at his word. How did he vote on the Keystone Pipeline? What work has he done with fellow Democrats in Congress to put forth a bill to get our country enery independent?
Interesting. You got a reference for that quote?
Re: Keystone: "Congressman John Barrow’s (GA-12) Motion to Instruct the House managers in the conference on H.R. 4348, the Transportation and Infrastructure Reauthorization Bill, to insist upon approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, passed today with a bipartisan vote of 261 - 152.
'The Keystone XL Pipeline will lower our dependence on oil from the Middle East and create American jobs,' said Barrow. 'I’m glad to see my Motion to Instruct pass, because including this in the Transportation Reauthorization bill is the fastest and surest way to get the Keystone XL Pipeline approved. I understand that some members of my party oppose the Keystone Pipeline, but this is too important to the folks I represent to let partisanship get in the way of good policy.'
Barrow's Motion instructs the House Conferees to insist upon Title II of H.R. 4348, the 'North American Energy Access Act,' in the final version of the Transportation Bill. Title II directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to issue a permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline within 30 days, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Statement that was approved last year."
He voted for health care reform? Good, he's not a total sellout. You do realize that what you derisively call "Obamacare" was actually a right-wing darling until, heaven forbid, a Democratic president decided to run with it, right?
My reference is, I was there when he made that public statement to the more than one hundred in attendence. As for the right-wing darling you refer to, that was back years ago when it was being purposed at the State level where it is Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. What this President and the Democrat members of Congress passed is the largest tax increase in the history of our country and put it on the backs of the American people. He sent his lawyers to the Supreme Court to argue that Obamacare was a tax on the American People. The Court agreed with the President that it is a TAX. The average family will pay $2,500 more in healthcare tax. When that won't pay for the exploding expense of healthcare, they will increase the tax to $3,500 than $4,500 and on and on until it bankrupts our country. It is a huge job killer too. I called it Obamacare because, to call it by the name Nancy Pelosi gave it "The Affordable Health Care Bill" would be to deceive our readers as to what it really is. A big fat tax!
Ah, you heard him say this. Sorry, but conservatives are notorious for hearing what they want to hear, particularly when it's being uttered by one of those evil liberals (or in the case of the conservative Barrow, those evil Democrats). Just like Passinthru hears Obama say that fixing the energy problems in this country will necessarily lead to higher prices but then says that Obama's intention is to raise prices!
You might want to check out SB1743 and SB1770, sponsored in 1993 by Sen. Don Nickles and John Chafee (R; plus a couple dozen Republican co-sponsors each) and then get back to me about whether Republicans ever thought mandating health insurance at the Federal level was a good idea.
I can't help but think that people who argue about the differences between taxes, fees, assessments, and so on are being a bit ridiculous, but regardless it's not even close to the largest tax increase in the history of the country. Since World War 2, and looking at tax as a function of GDP, the taxes raised by the health care act barely make it into the top 10.
What I find completely ironic is that the main problem with the current version of the law, which may well cause the cost of your insurance to increase significantly, is that the pre-existing condition clause will be put into full force in 2014, but the corresponding individual mandate will be phased in gradually, weakly, and meekly, no doubt to appease folks like yourself! The other big problem, again somewhat ironically for the "death camp" conspiracists, is that the whole community rating compromise ends up causing young workers to subsidize the massive medical expenses of older beneficiaries.
But again, none of this has to do with Barrow and energy.
I have spoken with Barrow in person about various Gun Issues and have always found him to be intelligent and insightful. Of course it helps that he agreed with my positions on various Gun legislation. Still overall as a Moderate Republican I am quite pleased with him and plan to vote for him again.
I find John not as asseretive on certain issues as I would like. Overall, I think he has been an effective representative of our district and conservative without being "holier than thou" radical on social issues.
I shudder when I read of the Republican challengers and their promises to take their "fundamental Christian values" to Washington. I consider myself a Christian and the last person in the world I would trust - or vote for - is the one who extols his or her Christianity. And are they saying Barrow is not a Christian? or he's not fundamental enough?
I intend to vote for Barrow in the fall. He's moderately conservative. He's represented our district very well. And, his seniority gives him more clout for us than any newcomer - regardless of Party affiliation.
Scindapsus states: “Just like Passinthru hears Obama say that fixing the energy problems in this country will necessarily lead to higher prices but then says that Obama's intention is to raise prices!”
Scindapsus, I don’t believe that I have ever stated that I heard Obama say anything; to be honest I have avoided hearing him whenever possible, having developed a strong aversion to his Elmer Gantry stylisms during his incredibly abundant “speech events”.
However, I have watched some of these events, though muted, in order to see more of the backdrop action. This way you notice other things, such as he always has the same human stage props behind him - and he appears to costume these props with the “todays target audience theme is....” you know, such as fence climbing boots when addressing Hispanics or the well-known white gowns when addressing doctors. Granted he has had to be a little more innovative with some newer groups, such as people earning less than $250,000, (food stamp tee shirts) women, (teachers union tee shirts) stay at home housewives (babies on tee shirts) and his most recent affectation, teenage homosexuals, (droopy rainbow colored undershorts).
Just proves that having earned a reputation as a failed single termer the poor dear is trying hard for a chance to fail yet again.
Where was I...? Oh yes, excuse the above diversion but will you please provide a source reference for the comments that you attributed to me, - or are you just practicing the Liberal art of misquotation, having exhausted your own tired repertoire? Thanks.
Sure, here ya go!
"Because coal is what fires most electrical power plants this will make Obamas declared intention of causing the cost of electricity to “necessarily skyrocket” "
I like Barrow also and I see no reason to vote for anyone else yet. I could still be persuaded otherwise but at this point I plan to vote for him.
Take a look at Wright McLeod. He is an Annapolis Academy graduate and combat vet. He is a strong conservative that believes in small government, balanced budgets, getting government off the backs of the American people and business so more jobs can be created by the private sector, and repeal of ObamaCare.
He also has some very questionable campaign donations which reek of kickbacks and violation of FEC laws.
Yes - an administrative assistan working for someone close to McLeod donated $2,500 on the same day her boss did. This assistant has only voted in one election, does not make a lot of money and has a husband who is a corporal in the military. How she could afford a $ 2,500 donation to a politician whose view, by her own admission, she is unfamiliar with is a mystery.
Savannah Morning News, Saturday, 7/14.
I went and read Larry Peterson's story you reference. He reports what a rival candidate is trying to claim is a campaign violation. Just because his rival questions why she is contributing to Wright and never did so before. So what! Many Americans are getting involved in politics for the first time because our country is in deep trouble. Our county's debate was held last Thursay and Wright McLeod won 73% of the straw poll taken after the debate.
So, what are Wright's specific proposals to reduce the Federal deficit? And, I'm not talking a balanced budget amendment which will do absolutely nothing near term to address our fiscal diliemma.
His web site www.WrightMcleod can answer most of your questions.
Ironside, you kind of sidestepped around Bryant's specific concerns about the political contribution. He wasn't doubting that someone could get involved in politics for the first time. If I'm not mistaken, he was wondering why a likely low paid employee of a close friend of McLeod's would contribute the same large sum of money on the same day as her boss to a candidate that she knew little about. Doesn't this seem the slightest bit unlikely or excessively coincidental?
You assume too much. She may have money she inherited, saved ect. It is no one business what she chooses to do with it. Allegations by an opponent are just that, allegations. I am sure the election officials will look at it and let us voters know the truth. Until then I stick by Wright McLeod.
Scindapsus has a point that contribution by the secretary does sound suspicious. Perhaps it should be investigated by the proper authorities or else Mr. Barrow may be branded a felon.
Ironside, I'm not assuming anything to note that the circumstances are dubious. If anything, I'd say that the statement "I am sure the election officials will look at it and let us voters know the truth" assumes way too much!
Judging by the effectiveness of state ethics officials in investigating previous allesgations, I would agree with Scindapsus on the assumption aspect.