Sometimes you've just got to re-state the obvious. Entergy doesn't understand the meaning of the word "no" and the NRC seems to be suffering from short-term memory loss.
In light of the Fukushima crisis, our "DC-3" (Leahy, Sanders and Welch) have issued the following joint statement:
"It is hard to understand how the NRC could move forward with a license extension for Vermont Yankee at exactly the same time as a nuclear reactor of similar design is in partial meltdown in Japan. We believe that Entergy should respect and abide by Vermont's laws and the MOU signed with the state in 2002, which require approval by the Vermont Legislature, and then the Vermont Public Service Board, for the plant to continue to operate beyond 2012."
If, over your morning coffee, you turned to page 6 of the Free Press today and spluttered "What the f...??" you're in good company.
A full page ad from Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) and the Vermont Society of Certified Public Accountants (VSCPA was the first I heard of an Alice-in-Wonderland twist to U.S. patent laws that has apparently allowed hundreds of patents to be filed, not on tax-prep software, but on actual tax filing strategies covering retirement plans, workplace compensation, financial investments, charitable giving, estate planning, etc. That's right, should you be so bold as to prepare your own taxes using tax law and your own native intelligence to arrive at some of the same strategies in filing your own taxes, you could be sued by the patent holders.
Relatively few of our readers are likely to be significantly impacted by patents in those areas, but the future implications for the rest of us are clear. According to the ad:
Many of these tax strategy patents cover a wide range of important but common forms of compliance that you may be already using without permission from the patent holder...Based on current patent applications filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, we are extremely concerned that, if nothing is done, these sorts of outrageous patents will entend to other tax-related issues affecting Vermonters' lives, such as planning for a college education, health care savings programs, and life insurance.
With an emboldened plutocracy flexing its muscles all over the country, it's good to have another reminder that our DC delegation continues to look out for the poor "step-children" who have been generally cut-adrift in the current round of economic blackmail. In this case, those "step-children" are the twin causes of environmental and human safety, both of which Entergy apologists would willingly sacrifice on the altar of "cheap" energy, just to keep VY burbling away well past its sell-by date.
Our own "DC 3" have all signed onto a letter drafted by Bernie Sanders, who sits on the panel charged with oversight of the NRC, urging that regulatory body to ensure that clean-up of Vermont Yankee is undertaken immediately following closure of the plant.
The lawmakers called it "unacceptable" that Entergy, which owns the Vermont plant, could engage in "decades of delay" before cleaning up the site along the Connecticut River at Vernon, Vt. "Immediate decommissioning will assure Vermonters that the plant is being disassembled safely," the delegation wrote. An immediate cleanup and shutdown of the site also would allow the plant operator to take advantage of the skills of many long-term Yankee employees who otherwise would lose their jobs.
In the letter to Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko, the delegation requests a meeting with the full commission; and that the meeting should include Governor Shumlin,
because of the "enormous consequences" for Vermont and the state's "vital interest" in the plant's safe shutdown.
Tying swift decommissioning to job retention is a brilliant and entirely legitimate strategy, which should steal some thunder from one of VY's dwindling arguments against closure.
As we know all too well,
Entergy has indicated it favors a so-called "SAFSTOR" decommissioning method, a process that the delegation letter said "would let Entergy off the hook" for cleanup and waste disposal for years or even decades. "While Entergy may prefer leaving the plant to sit like an abandoned factory because it has not saved the necessary funds to fully decommission the plant, this is not the safest option for Vermonters," Leahy, Sanders and Welch wrote.
...And in the spirit of crediting our elected officials when they get it right, I just want to briefly mention how proud we should be that our "DC three" (Leahy, Sanders and Welch) is the only state delegation that has received a perfect score from the League of Conservation Voters for their voting record on environmental issues in 2010!
In these days of economic anxiety and hair-trigger paranoia, it takes courage to stand-up for that singularly important but non-voting constituent: the natural environment. It may sometimes seem like a thankless job, gentlemen; but we and our fellow life-forms salute you! May your vision always be greater than the sum of your days on Capitol Hill.
Amid the turmoil and suspense surrounding an inconclusive primary outcome, we can turn to our Vermont delegation for a reminder of how good it feels to all be on the same progressive page. In a joint-press release, Senators Leahy and Sanders, and Rep. Welch announced yesterday that Vermont would be the beneficiary of an injection of federal funding to help some low-income Vermonters achieve energy savings through the use of "smart" metering and installation of thermal and solar hot water systems in their homes. Sen.Leahy is quoted as saying:
Vermont is a national leader in using the Weatherization Program’s stimulus funds for cost and energy savings for low-income households...With our older housing stock and longer winters, these investments are likely to save Vermont families far more than the national average of $400 a year in reduced energy costs.”
To which Sen. Sanders adds:
This federal support will be a major step forward in moving our state toward a greener economy.”
The Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, a non-profit better known to Vermonters as "Efficiency Vermont," will have charge of administering the $700,000. federal investment, which represents reinforcement for an earlier $69. million stimulus from the feds. It should be noted here that the Douglas/Dubie administration has consistently opposed funding of Efficiency Vermont. The projection is that, with the new funding, assistance can be provided to approximately 750 low income households to help them reduce and better utilize their energy consumption so that they can realize cost savings, while Vermont's greater economy and environment benefit at the same time. According to Peter Welch:
This additional $5.7 million award recognizes Vermont’s past successes, while paving the way for future savings.”
Well done, Gentlemen. I dare anyone to characterize this green investment in a cash-strapped population as "pork."
TheSargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law has isued a scorecard for every member of Congress showing how they voted in 2009 on fifteen key bills in the fight against poverty.
It's not surprising that our Congressional delegation got straight A's, or in the case of Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, A +.
At a time when there is much to criticize, it's important to recognize the good that our representatives in Congress do.
Vermont's scorecard:
= vote to fight poverty = vote against fighting poverty
I'm sure that most readers of this site will find this utterly unacceptable. President Obama ran on a platfom of delivering health care reform, and the fraudulent package he is apparently willing to accept is a betrayal of all of us who worked so hard to put him in office.
If you agree that health care "reform" without even the watered-down public option is no reform at all, please contact your congressional delegation and ask them to oppose any health care package that does not include the public option.
Like many of you, I'm still steaming over the Dem rollover on FISA. Now, none of our delegation is supporting it (nor, might I add, doing anything bold to throw a wrench in the works), but there's something in Sen. Leahy's statement that's really infuriating (emphasis mine):
“With respect to the surveillance authorities, I believe the bill represents an improvement over the flawed legislation passed the Senate earlier this year. I applaud Representative Hoyer and Senator Rockefeller for their diligent work in negotiating this package. They added protections to the surveillance authorities that bring it closer to the bill the Senate Judiciary Committee reported last year. If the bill passes, I will work with the next administration to make additional improvements.
“I will continue to work to protect all Americans from the Bush-Cheney administration’s roll back of civil liberties of Americans and disregard for the rule of law. As the Supreme Court noted last week, ‘security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles.’ We can protect our security while honoring American values and respecting our freedoms.”
Two things: the only "diligent work" Hoyer and Rockefeller have done is to"diligently work" to do the bidding of the telcoms, especially Rockefeller. Second, if Leahy is serious about "protecting our civil liberties", why isn't he doing more anything to stop this?
This bill simply did not need to happen. FISA is fine without the telcom immunity, and they owe this president,who is less liked than a thawing dog turd on a warm Vermont March morning - nothing. Nada. And for those still inexplicably afraid of being labeled "soft on terror"... grow a spine. The public doesn't want telcom immunity, and you have nothing to lose opposing it, except, perhaps that yummy telcom money.
Very disappointing, Senator. Would it be that hard to go the extra mile and take a bold stance? What ever happened to "terrifying" Bush?
During a phone call with the press twenty minutes ago, US Senator Patrick Leahy announced he is endorsing Barack Obama for the Democratic Presidential nomination. This is the latest in a string of high-profile endorsements for Obama in recent days, and is particularly significant given Leahy's high national profile, and his position of leadership as Chair of Senate Judiciary.
It also seems to be part of an Obama strategy of rolling high-profile endorsements that have a cumulative impact. It's true that any one endorsement is only worth so much, but a steady flow of them would seem to be greater than the sum of the parts. Brilliant.
Clinton still holds the lead in superdelegates, but Leahy just did his part to close the gap.
UPDATE: Welch follows suit. From his office:
"I have great admiration for all the Democratic candidates in the race. But it is Barack Obama who has brought new energy into the political process, inspiring all Americans to believe that it is possible to restore America's promise at home and in the world. Senator Obama's campaign and his remarkable personal journey are helping us reach across a partisan divide and renewing a sense of hope and possibility in our country that we can shape our future by working together and by emphasizing what unites us, not what divides us. Barack Obama embodies the type of leadership America needs to overcome our many challenges."
I found an interesting tidbit in the Las Vegas Sun this morning. You may remember hearing a few weeks ago how Pat Leahy was going to possibly hold up the Attorney General confimation hearings for Michael Mukaskey until White House Counsel Fred Fielding accommodates his concerns about the president's controversial eavesdropping program and interrogation methods with captured terrorist suspects. Well, it looks like that game plan has changed:
But his[Leahy's] letter to Mukasey conveyed a lost hope for getting those answers from Fielding, and implied a willingness to move ahead with hearings. Democratic and Republican officials widely expect Leahy to schedule the proceedings as soon as Oct. 17, after an additional private session with Mukasey...
"Regrettably, the White House has chosen not to clear the decks of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership," Leahy, D-Vt., wrote to Mukasey in a letter first obtained by the Associated Press. "Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure."
Anyone getting tired of the tough talk then subsequent backdown? Mukasey will answer some questions, dodge some others, will clear the Judiciary Committee, and will be the next AG. What's really irksome is that since the Dems have taken the majority, aside from a few gestures from Reid, there hasn't really been the "dramatic showdown" on, well, anything. It blows my mind that the GOP, even in the minority, is really controlling much of the agenda. Even if there is another GOP bloodbath in '08, part of me wonders if, through sheer force of will, they'll still be controling things to a certain extent. Of course, the complicit media doesn't help things (just look at the way the MoveOn was covered vs. Rush's latest outburst of public flatulence), but it sure would be nice to see a fight for a change, a real fight, not one of tough talk and zero follow-through.
It may surprise some to read this here - but it shouldn't: Congress has no business telling Rush Limbaugh to shut up.
Last week, Senator Leahy and Representative Welch broke with Senator Sanders and brought several flavors of shame to the liberal community under one, all-encompassing umbrella - the vote to rebuke MoveOn. While first and foremost, I find the vote both bizarre and cowardly (for its myopic waste of time on the one hand, and the pointless "Sister Souljah"-style sacrifice of an ally deemed - apparently - disposable on the other), the fact is that it was also an affront to the tradition of free speech in this country. It's true (and important) that the naked attempt by the GOP to frame the anti-war public as crazy and uncivilized (an attempt that was successful only thanks to the assistance of Dems like Leahy and Welch) did not take any action to specifically disallow speech, but such action has a chilling effect nonetheless. As much as I took State Representative Dave Zuckerman to task for sending a chilling message, as an elected lawmaker, by accusing Stewart Ledbetter of "irresponsible journalism" for asking a question he didn't like, the MoveOn rebuke was far worse.
Still a matter of hours after we couldn't get a vote on habeus restoration and Jim Webb's amendment to help American combat troops, we do seem to allow something truly monumental to come to a vote and pass overwhelmingly - that is, saving the nation from a newspaper ad from two weeks ago. Chris Dodd said it best about today's vote:
"It is a sad day in the Senate when we spend hours debating an ad while our young people are dying in Iraq.
And it's a sad day in Vermont when our senior Senator votes to prop up the GOP on this meaningless, propgandistic bullshit stunt. Honestly, I feel ashamed. As MoveOn says on their website, Leahy and the Senate "just told you to sit down and be quiet."
Goodness gracious. oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint. Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors. The biggest beasts in the barnyard are all aflutter over something they read in the New York Times. It's that ad from MoveOn.org — the one that calls General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, general betray us. All across the radio spectrum, right-wing shock jocks are themselves shocked. How could anybody say such a thing? It's horrifying. It's outrageous. It's disgraceful. It's just beyond the pale ... It's ... oh, my heavens ... say, is it a bit stuffy in here? ... I think I'm going to ... Could I have a glass of ... oh, dear [thud].
As Kinsley continues "The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material... The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics."
Yeah. Almost as tiresome as when an otherwise brilliant Senator buys into the whole nonsense and boosts its effectiveness and credibility with the not-tuned-in public. Yuck. Even Senator Clinton voted the right way on this (although Obama missed it, and pissed off people like Stoller - he's suggesting in response that skipping out on the vote was a virtuous act).
UPDATE: The vote to restore habeus was blocked. No doubt you won't hear the word "filibuster" from the traditional media, though, as that seems to be a derisive word reserved for Democratic actions...
Senator Leahy has been the leading (sometimes the only) Washington voice calling for the restoration of habeus corpus rights to those deemed "enemy combatants" by the Bush administration (which, depending on how the vaguely worded legislation is interpreted, could mean anybody - US citizens included).
Connecticut Senator and Presidential candidate Chris Dodd has also been pushing the matter. Emails have been coming out of Leahy's "Green Mountain PAC", and most recently his "Leahy for Vermont" campaign fund promoting the "Habeus Corpus Restoration Act." Here's an example:
As of right now, we're just a handful of votes away from the 60 votes we need to overcome the Republican filibuster.
That's where you come in. We've developed an online tool to help you call your Senators, urge them to support the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act, and then report back on where they stand so we can track our progress towards 60 votes.
First of all - let's make no mistake, this is very cool, and unbelieveably important. Where the tool is designed to direct voters to their Senators (by their count, they are 9 short of the 60 needed for a cloture vote) - and obviously Vermonters have their Senators covered - it's still an opportunity to be a "citizen co-sponsor," so it's worth clicking on, and being redirected to Restore-Habeus.org.
But behind the message is an interesting subtext. Restore-Habeus.org is, as the disclaimer says, "Paid for by Chris Dodd for President, Inc."
Now, good on Dodd for putting this at the center of his campaign, but its interesting that this campaign website not only features Leahy so prominently, but that Leahy is using his own campaign resources to direct supporters to it. It looks for all the world like a tacit endorsement of his fellow liberal New England Democratic Senator's presidential run. On the other hand, Senator Leahy was also recently at the big Obama fundraiser, helping the Junior Senator from Illinois raise some campaign cash. What gives?
There's no telling whether or not Leahy plans to make an endorsement in the Presidential Primary, but these two actions suggest he won't - that instead, he'll simply lend support to colleagues when asked.
Still, one wonders then, if we don't see similar gestures from Leahy on the behalf of Senators Biden and Clinton, if that doesn't make some sort of statement by omission.
The following comes courtesy of the Welch press office...
Leahy said, “It seems clear that the President has no idea how to end this war and has every intention of laying it on the doorstep of the next President. He would leave as many troops stuck on this treadmill next summer as we had there a year ago. The surge that was supposed to usher in a political solution among Iraq’s warring factions has failed, with a settlement no closer today than it was one, two or three years ago. Meanwhile we have become an excuse for Iraq to avoid reaching a settlement. We have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. It’s time to begin bringing our brave troops home from the middle of Iraq’s civil war.”
Sanders said, “President Bush misled us into this war 4 1/2 years ago, and he is still misleading us. Bush’s ‘troop withdrawal’ program will leave us with as many troops in Iraq as we had before the ‘surge’ troop buildup -- about 130,000. Even more importantly, this president has no idea as to how to end this war. Bush’s advisors concede that this war, already longer than World War II, could go on for another five to 10 years. This is unacceptable. We need to bring our troops home and develop a new and more effective strategy for fighting the very serious problem of international terrorism.”
Welch said, “The President made clear tonight that there is no end in sight to the war in Iraq. He continues to blindly pursue a failed military strategy for a civil war that demands a political and economic solution. The American military has achieved every objective this President has given them. They are now stretched beyond their capacity, leaving America exposed to threats elsewhere around the world. Continuing to referee a civil war with no end in sight is unacceptable to our military, unacceptable to the American taxpayer, and unacceptable for America’s national security. President Bush has no strategy in Iraq other than running out the clock on his presidency, knowing that this war will soon be another President’s burden. It is imperative that Congress finally use the power of the purse to end this war and bring our troops home.”
Well the press may not be taking this seriously (click here for the pictures, - they are pretty shocking - or just scroll down) but at least somebody is:
August 23, 2007
The Honorable Dale Klein Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Chairman Klein:
We are writing in response to the alarming events that occurred at Vermont Yankee power plant on August 21, 2007. It is our understanding that a non-safety related portion of one cooling tower cell at the plant collapsed. We further understand from your staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that there was no threat to the public's health with this accident and that the plant began to power down to 40% immediately following the accident.
We are concerned about the cause of this structural failure, especially about the implications for the cooling tower cell(s) that are related to the safe operation of the plant. We understand from your staff that the licensee, Entergy Vermont Yankee, is currently examining this accident to determine the cause of the collapsed tower and whether there was any evidence of structural deficiencies prior to the collapse. However, the NRC, has not yet committed to undertaking a thorough investigation of the safety related cooling towers cell(s) that are located on the same site and could potentially have similar structural issues. We find this extremely troubling.
We therefore request you undertake an immediate and thorough investigation to determine if there are similar structural deficiencies in any and all portions of the safety related cooling towers cell(s) at the facility. Furthermore, we ask you to examine the structural integrity of the remaining towers and institute any additional precautions to prevent other collapses that would jeopardize the safety of the cooling towers and that could present a risk to the public's health or safe operation of the facility. Finally we request an evaluation of any preventive actions that the licensee and/or NRC took in the past related to the safe and efficient operation of all of the cooling towers at the facility.
Please continue to keep us thoroughly informed as more information becomes available. We are committed to assisting Vermont and the NRC to ensure the safety at Vermont Yankee. We appreciate your timely attention to this issue.
[The White House has] stalled or ignored Leahy's requests as his committee looks into the wiretapping program and the travails of Gonzales. They have calculated -- accurately so far -- that the Dynamic Duo of Leahy and Schumer would deliver harsh words but no punishment of consequence.
"The time is up. The time is up," Leahy announced yesterday. "We've waited long enough."
But what would Leahy do about it? The first questioner riddled Batman with this.
"The full Judiciary Committee will have to sit down and determine whether to seek contempt from the full Senate," said the noncommittal action hero.
Does that mean he would seek a contempt-of-Congress citation? "What I want to do is get the response to these things," Leahy demurred.
Rebecca Carr of Cox News tried again to pin him down, but Leahy continued to escape. "What we have to find out is what happened here," he answered.
How about withholding money from the administration? "Let's take it step by step," he proposed.
Obama to call for the lifting of sanctions on Cuba. It does seem like Obama has been finding some nerve lately. This bodes well for his campaign, and for the whole field of debate.
Following up on Jack's diary about the refusal of the Anti-Defamation League to recognize the Armenian Genocide so as not to enflame political relations between Turkey and Israel - it seems the New England Director of the ADL (rightfully) broke with the National office on the matter - and was promptly fired for doing so. The ADL's defense of itself has been poorly considered, and prominent members of its New England board have already resigned in the face of anger and sadness from many in the Massachusetts Jewish community. Still no national press on this, though - only the Boston Globe seems to be following the story.
Are the Netroots getting impatient with Senator Leahy? This front page diary at dKos is very ho-hum about our senior Senator's most recent deadline for subpoenas information and its apparent two week grace period. Speaking of Leahy, I've put up a poll as to whether or not readers think he deserves credit for Rove's abandoning the ship, as Watercloset suggests. UPDATE: Kagro X registers his frustration as well at dKos.
Is Brian Dubie sucking up to Bill O'Reilly? That's what O'Reilly claims, and the Democrats are all over it. Can't appease a bully that way, Dubes - it only makes 'em get worse.
Belated congratulations to Dem consultant and political usual suspect Matt Levin on his wedding last week. (With his family in town, if you were in the Montpelier area last week and thought you saw Rep. Sander Levin or Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, you may not have been imagining things).
As you've likely heard by now, Senator Leahy has subpoenad documents from the President and Vice President's offices. As you probably have also heard, the decider and the fourth branch of government have, predictably, pretty much repeated Cheney's oft quoted admonition to our senior Senator delivered in the Senate Halls some time back. Leahy has since responded:
This White House cannot have it both ways. They cannot stonewall congressional investigations by refusing to provide documents and witnesses, while claiming nothing improper occurred.
"Increasingly, the President and Vice President feel they are above the law --- in America no one is above law."
From a moral standpoint, perhaps. From a legal or procedural standpoint, perhaps not.
First off, they can say whatever they want. We're well past the point where it's realistic to believe that anyone in the White House thinks that anyone in the public puts any credence in what the say anymore. I doubt even the 20-some percent of lingering die-hard supporters in the polls actually believe him, they just support his "whatever-it-takes" approach to their shared agenda.
As far as being above the law, well, that just depends, doesn't it? Are we talking academically or practically? The fact is that these are legislative subpoenas that may or may not be endorsed by a judge. When it comes to subpoenaing the Executive Branch, a supposedly co-equal branch of Government, the court's involvement is likely to look different. It's easy to imagine if the matter goes before this Supreme Court (with its unrestrained Bushite judicial activism), the court is likely to say "forget it." They'll likely tell the Legislature that they won't support a non-Judicial subpoena over a claim of executive privilege, and if the Legislature wants to force action, they have their two Constitutional options: the pursestrings, and of course, impeachment.
(With impeachment "off the table," that frees up the Executive quite a bit, eh?)
All this reminds us that, when the rubber hits the road, much of the functioning of our government depends on an honor system. With Bush and Cheney willfully scrapping both the "system" and "honor," it creates more than a little quandary for the Legislative Branch, now struggling for some semblance of relevence.
Okay. So this diary has nothing to do with anything. You'd be advised to move on quickly. Go on. Out. Get going. Move it.
So last night I had this odd dream. I was in my kitchen which was, as usual, totally trashed. I was late for work, but I had to wait for something to be dropped off from Senator Leahy's office. My 7-year old was wandering around, and I was in the sweats and T-shirt I'd slept in, when I spot the Senator himself walking to my door (which opens into the kitchen).
I think "crap, I don't want him to see the kitchen," so I step out to meet him. He hands me the expected envelope, but asks if he can come in for a moment. I'm still thinking "crap," but I was raised a good southern boy, and he's a freakin' Senator, so I let him in and he has a seat at the kitchen table.
He seems to have nothing really to say, and I strain to keep up the small talk, but I start failing, which leads to awkward silences. Still, Leahy just seems content to sit there smiling at me. But I'm stressing. Why is he still here? I'm late. The kitchen's a mess. I need to shower. Why isn't my kid at school?... and then I woke up.
Speaker Symington, finally showing the wisdom to get out of the way of the people that the Governor found at his town meeting, has relented and will permit a floor vote on a House impeachment resolution tomorrow, though she intends to vote against it.
Wonderful. And I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but of course, there was no "gift" here. This was the result of hard work. So I'd like to make a few more points before we let the chips fall where they may.
In her statement on the subject, Symington explained her position on the Legislature's earlier vote calling for an immediate withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq:
Despite my general reluctance to debate national issues in the Legislature, I supported this debate and the outcome. I am proud that Vermont was the first state to take such a strong stance against the war.
And it was a strong stance against the war occupation. Very strong. So strong, in fact, that it represents a position considerably more aggressive than that taken by the United States Congress itself. Still, it seemed, at the time, necessary and appropriate for the Vermont Legislature to advise them as to the best means of redressing the harm and injustice this administration has brought to our nation and the havoc it has caused beyond our borders. Didn't it?
Those are exactly my words, though. Those are Speaker Symington's words. But not about the troop withdrawal legislation. Save for one word, "advise," those are the words Symington used in her most recent statement to oppose the impeachment resolution. Except in that statement, it was "second guessing," not "advising." I guess it's all in how you look at it.
250-1
75-1
= vote to fight poverty 
= vote against fighting poverty 
