Who should I vote for in the 2008 Wyoming Senate Race (Class I Seat)?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Considering that since John Barrasso has been in office he has voted against SCHIP insurance for children, against Medicare coverage for seniors and soldiers (three times), against a wind energy tax credit, against ending speculation in the oil markets that artificially inflate gas prices, against firefighters and basically against anything and everything that is actually good for people instead of the corporations who have bought and paid for him - I'd pretty much vote for a trained monkey instead of John Barrasso. We couldn't possibly do worse. Looking at Nick Carter he seems like an honest sort who has plans to rein in the big energy interests while creating sustainable jobs for Wyoming. He advocates for a nationwide high-speed rail system (something I've always thought we should have) and seems like he might actually have some interest in going to Washington beyond lining his pockets with special interest money. So I'm definitely voting for Nick Carter. Side:
 Nick Carter (D) issuesCarter released a press release last month regarding Barrasso's stance on wind-power legislation. Carter says that the decision to ax tax breaks and federal tax credits for alternate energy are due to Barrasso's staunch partisan politics. Barrasso, argues Carter, should have worked with his colleagues and done everything in his power to prevents such measures that directly effect not only the environment, but the pocketbooks Wyoming natives. Not only does the gridlock in Washington effect gas gouging and economic stress due to petroleum costs, but it also effects the production and expansion of Wyoming's wind fields, one of their most abundant resources for alternative energy. Carter: “Senator Barrasso has paid lip service to the idea, but when push came to shove, he voted along party lines, saying that he had ‘issues’ with certain parts of the bill. Now whose fault is that? If you go to Washington, vote in lock-step with party ideologues and the special interests, what sort of input do you have in developing meaningful legislation? What Wyoming citizens need is representation from people who know how to legislate … that means working with those on both sides of the aisle, not simply showing up to a party caucus for your daily marching orders.” When the future of one's state economy lies in the balance of a decision that relies on bipartisanship, it shows untrustworthy politics to vote based on who your friends are and not who's paying you. Regardless of what one's party says (and everyone knows that partisanship is a necessary evil in Washington) shouldn't Barrasso have considered the effects of his statesman before making such a heavy decision? Side: Bad partisanship
Nick Carter (D) has released a "Pork ad" attacking Barrasso's (R) consistency on his claim to fight wasteful spending in Washington. The ad goes on to detail Barrasso's vote in favor of a "Pork-laden Farm Bill" that David Nicklaus of the St. Louis Post Dispatch claimed "will reward the rich richly." It continues to criticize his vote against major legislation supporting wind-power and energy initiatives, which would bring substantial funding and development to the state of Wyoming in addition to stimulating the job market. The Pork Ad
Side: The Pork Ad
Republican Senator John Barrasso, a member of the Senate Committee of Indian Affairs, does not support a resolution to issue an apology to all Native Peoples. A Joint Resolution, first introduced by Senator Sam Brownback in March of 2007, has been caught up in committee since then. When Barrasso joined the committee he failed to cosponsor or support the resolution. S.J.RES.4 specifically calls for an acknowledgment of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the U.S. Government in addition to a formal apology, not unlike the recent apology issued by the Canadian Prime Minister to the First Nations People. Wyoming has a strong Native American population and identity, any Senator from Wyoming should serve on the Committee for Indian Affairs, but Barrasso continues to tow the party line on legislation which may impact his election chances. Side: Barrasso Against Native Apology
When John Barrasso first ran for Wyoming's State Senate, he was touted as a socially liberal, moderate conservative. Since being appointed to the Federal Senate seat after the death of Craig L. Thomas, he has moved to the right and joined with other Republicans in legislation to sponsor a pro-life agenda. He has voted to define an unborn child as eligible for SCHIP, to prevent minors from crossing state lines for an abortion, and to prevent Health and Human Services from giving grants to organizations that perform abortions. The duality of his previous “freedom of choice” position and that of his Senate record have come into question by his challengers. Side: Barrasso--Pro-Choice Now Pro-Life
Last week, Democratic Senate candidate Nick Carter went door-to-door in the town of Evanston to meet with potential voters face-to-face and answer any questions they might have regarding the issues that concern them the most. After meeting with the people, Carter concluded that energy was the most important issue currently facing our country (although, I'm sure he's changed his tune on that one this week.) In his own words: "The number one issue right now is to focus on how the United States conducts itself in the future so it is not dependent on foreign governments and foreign energy sources that put us in debt to other countries, like China and entangle us into Gulf issues like Iraq and the Middle East. America needs to become energy independent." He then proceeded to offer up a quick sketch of his energy plan: "The first thing we need to do is start with a goal of being energy independent within 10-15 years. Once we have said that is our goal, then we need to consider all the energy technologies that are available and put them on the table. We can then pick and choose what is most feasible both in the immediate future and in the long run." He also laid out similar proposals on a high-speed nationwide rail system, which he argued "can do mass transportation in an efficient way that fits into our energy issues"; improving health care by introducing "a catastrophe insurance that you pay for through your employment"; a trade policy that is focused on "taking out the special interest money and try to do what is best for the workers, as opposed to what is best for a particular industry"; and education system that guarantees that "a particular district and a particular classroom from year to year moves forward as a whole". He closed his remarks by offering a little self-endorsement: "“I feel that people are sick of big money dominating the scene in Washington and sick of getting the party line as a solution to the issues. I am a complete independent thinker, I have never run for office before, and I have never desired to hold office before, but in looking at the status of our country, we need to elect folks that will go up there and work to solve our problems and not just build their party. I think that I am the best man because I am an independent thinker in that regard." Side: Issue Sketches
|
Senator Barrasso supports a very recent piece of energy legislation, which, in short, will do everything in it's power to get American interests away from foreign oil. The bill (S.3268) is gaining momentum with right-wing voters as both zealous and forceful because of it's no holds barred view on energy. The bill supports experimental nuclear energy, offshore drilling, ANWR drilling, telework, more funding in public transportation and advanced car batteries to name a few of the proposed elements for American energy independence. Because so many small business farmers in Wyoming are suffering from oil price gauging due to speculation and foreign resources, Barrasso is willing to try everything to make sure that the American businessman is kept afloat. Side: Energy
John Barrasso (R) and Jon Tester (D) introduced a proposal in April that would "compensate livestock owners whose animals are killed by wolves" in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, according to the Missoulian online news (www.missoulian.com). The Senator's proposal came on the heals of a decision made on March 28th of this year that removed the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and a report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that concluded the gray wolf population in those states had sufficiently recovered in number. The Missoulian reports, "In Wyoming, the National Agricultural Statistics Service estimates that wolves killed 100 adult cattle and 600 calves in 2007. Sheep losses reached 100 ewes and 400 lambs last year." The legislation, which addresses an important economic concern to Wyoming farmers and ranchers, was scheduled for debate in the Senate on September 16th and was put on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 989 (as last reported by www.govtrack.us.) Side: Livestock Loss Mitigation
The Wyoming Senate election this year may come down to mere voter recognition of the candidates. As Nick Carter has just recently defeated the Democratic rival, Keith Goodenough, he has a significant amount of catching up to do, both in advertising and fund raising, to compete against the unchallenged incumbent, John Barrasso (R). Barrasso, a former doctor and state legislator, succeeded the seat left by Sen. Craig Thomas. Wyoming has traditionally voted Republican, which also gives Barrasso an upper hand over Carter as we move into the fall. The only way Carter can help to improve his odds is to successfully speak to a voting block calling for change in Washington and paint Barrasso as an impediment to a 'new' politic based on his voting records. Side: Carter and a Slim Chance
Barrasso is a firm advocate behind the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, which has potential to be compromised as Congress begins major legislation on energy reform and pushes to expand our domestic oil production. There is an estimated 5 million barrels worth of recoverable oil in the Wyoming Range, a portion of the Rocky Mountains that stretches through the west-central region of the state, according to the National Geological Survey. However, regardless of the area's energy potential, Barrasso is adamant about protecting the land's ecosystems, wildlife, and national forests from future development. According to Gregory Keely, Barrasso's press secretary, "As Senator Barrasso has often stated, Wyoming contributes to the energy needs of the United States every day. We are first in coal production, first in uranium production, second in onshore natural gas and seventh in oil production. In the Wyoming Range, we have proven you can have both conservation and production." Side: Wyoming Range Legacy Act
“Washington owes Wyoming more than $580 million of accumulated AML funds – it is our money. It should come without strings attached. It is wrong that the people of our state have been denied access to our money.” Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, there is a certain sort of approval that wells up when you hear that your Senator is bringing money back into your home state. Barrasso's recent announcement that the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality had brought in $226,440 for the state of Wyoming during the month of August, a fraction of the more than half billion dollar amount of total AML funding owed to the state, which will be offered to the University of Wyoming School of Energy Research. The funds and their allocation both count beneficially to the Republican's standings and, with more to come, count on Barrasso to hold this success high in his campaign against Nick Carter (D). “The spigot is open and the funds have finally started to flow. I remain committed to finding a solution so Wyoming can access these funds without becoming bogged down in Washington’s bureaucratic red tape.” Side: Bringing in the Funds
Senator John Barrasso has missed 0 votes in the most recent congressional session and has voted alongside his Republican colleagues 86.4% of the time. He voted against an expansion of the SCHIP program (which, of course, is to be expected of a Republican Senator). He voted "No" to the amendment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which sought to implement the suggestions and recommendations made by the 911 Commission to improve and tighten regulations for airport inspections and increase funding to states, urban areas, and regions to provide better, more equipped response efforts against terrorist activity. However, he did endorse a recent amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 that expanded federal spy and intelligence agencies permission to investigate and look into foreign suspects without a court order. Side: Voting Stats and Records
Senator Barrasso has just voted against the revised Wall Street bailout bill. During this pivotal time, Republicans can highlight to voters the fact that most of the "No" votes on this issue came from them and that real conservatism means to reject wasteful spending, of which this is an ideal example, that comes at the expense of average Americans. Side:
 John Barrasso (R) Barrasso Votes Against Bailout Barrasso explained that the current bill failed to adequately address accountability, oversight, and taxpayer protection. In particular, he considers the bill too risky for taxpayers. After the vote he stated, “As I have said from the beginning of this debate, providing a $700 billion rescue package to our financial institutions is a significant risk to taxpayers. Any government assistance must protect taxpayers – not reward failure." It is unclear how much more oversight and protection Barrasso demands or what alternatives he supports. Side: Bailout
|
