- Jackson man to cast electoral vote for Trump; others trying to dissuade him (11/29/16)50
- Man killed by vehicle had been charged with domestic assault (11/30/16)
- Hotel chain president: City should regulate short-term lodging (11/27/16)16
- Former Cape council member dies, remembered as 'wonderful public servant' (11/29/16)1
- Woman accused in three robberies disguised herself as man (11/29/16)5
- Thankful people: Marble Hill woman been through much and remains thankful (11/24/16)
- Officers: Delta man dies during domestic dispute (11/28/16)1
- Business notebook: New store shows faith in Scott City district (11/28/16)
- Missouri chamber to honor Cape's John Mehner (11/30/16)4
- Light Christmas: Thousands gather to view Parade of Lights (11/28/16)5
Voting records on the environment
To the editor:
Thank you for acknowledging the importance of the environment and climate change in this year's presidential election by printing the piece, "Where the presidential candidates stand on the environment" by Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post.
A clarification, however, is in order. The League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan organization that evaluates the records of candidates on critical environmental issues and endorses those with strong records -- whether Republican or Democrat -- analyzed the Senate records of the presidential candidates.
The LCV reports that John McCain has a lifetime record of 24 percent, while Barack Obama has a lifetime score of 86 percent. As you report accurately, McCain's record is damaged by the fact that he did not show up to vote during 2007 on any critical environmental issues. And, indeed, his absence was disastrous since several times the loss was by just one vote, which could have been McCain's. His campaigning cost our environment dearly. Obama, meanwhile, appeared most of the time and still scored 67 percent.
As a result of their analysis, the League of Conservation voters endorsed Barack Obama for president.
KATHY CONWAY, Cape Girardeau