This is exactly why I love Tom Perriello and wish there were more like him in the U.S. Congress.Perriello, who knocked off Rep. Virgil Goode in Virginia’s heavily rural 5th District, is unapologetic about his vote and portrays it as a vote to wean America off foreign oil.On that last point, by the way, I'm glad to hear Perriello clear up any misinformation out there regarding his stance on the Waxman/Markey climate change and clean energy bill. For instance, this is simply untrue. The fact is, Tom Perriello always intended to vote for this bill because he thought it was important, historic, crucial, etc. He also tried to convince a lot of his freshmen classmates for the same reason. The bottom line here is that Tom Perriello stands on conviction and does NOT switch his vote or misrepresent his voting intentions for political reasons.
“If I have to choose between national security and reelection, for me that’s easy. It’s national security,” he told POLITICO. “I can deal with losing reelection. I can’t deal with being a coward.”
He added: “I was not one of the fence-sitters.”
Posts
Periello is nothing but a pawn in the huge ponzi scheme of cap and trade, which is NOT about clean energy or climate change, but truly a representation of a perfectly crafted bill to emotionalize so-called "climate change" or "global warming" into a revenue garnishing device. Cap and tax is a more appropriate label for this bill. You can't guilt people into saving the earth, but you can force them into slavery by taxing them for every proverbial breath they take. I don't think this guy is clued in enough to even be a coward, and I'm glad he can deal with losing reelection, because he will.
ReplyDeleteAnd I take real issue with this (your statement): "...Tom Periello always intended to vote for this bill because he thought it was important, historic, crucial, etc." All of these words are a result of the invocation of emotion, none offering any fact or logic. When we are talking about something so far reaching, and so serious as this bill, we better have something more than feelings getting us there! Typical democrat, being guided totally by emotion, and lacking all reason.
Washington needs a total clean sweep, democrat and republican alike.
So, Dana, would you favor a revenue-neutral carbon tax, a pure "cap" on carbon, or do you simply not care about greenhouse gas emissions at all? Because one way or the other, unless we internalize the economic externalities, correct the market failure and place a price on carbon, we're guaranteed to see major climatic changes that will cause severe disruption, ecological imbalance, species loss and human hardship. If you don't like either a carbon tax or "cap and trade," what's your solution, since you're apparently guided by "reason" not "emotion" (I completely reject this false dichotomy, by the way)?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification! Great post.
ReplyDelete