The Lib Hit Squad is in full force on McCain now that the Clinton Coronation has beens scuttled.

A Moderate Republican has Dems quaking in their boots.   Keep hurling your...um..."mud" at JC...it won't stick!

How exactly is reporting the FACT that he was amazingly absent for EVERY piece of environmental legislation (and in one case the ONLY person absent!) "mudslinging?"

I could understand the accusation if people were criticizing HOW he voted or WHY he voted for something, but these people are just stating that he DIDN'T vote and therefore can't receive a score one way or the other.

I admit to having an elected official (who's sole job requirement is to represent the people) that doesn't vote is worrisome to me, but I can't see how the "Lib Hit Squad" is being vicious by pointing out what is public record. Pretty hard to make that stuff up, ya know.

First, it must be realized that the League of Conservation Voters is a very conservative environmental group.  Additionally, really good environmental legislation has not been voted on in Congress in decades, and this scorecard only measures votes while totally ignoring everything else about a candidate's environmental behavior (what legislation did the candidate promote, did the candidate take a leading role in "good" environmental legislation, etc.).  Therefore, only a high score shows that a candidate has good environmental credentials.

Any score below 90 raises serious concerns, and a candidate with a score below 80 is one who should not be supported.  This card shows who's bad, not who's good, which is hardly anyone in Congress.  Use the scorecard as a starting point, not to make a decision.  The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama deserve the support of the environmental community (for 2007, Clinton 73 and Obama 67).

As to John McCain, he's always been a hardcore anti-environmentalist and a war monger.  John Bailo's calling him a moderate defines Bailo as a fascist.  No real environmentalist would even think of voting for McCain, even if (s)he wanted to vote "pragmatically," which is problematic but is another issue.

In the presidential election this year. I want have either of the present front candidates of either party on my conscience.

The fact that the 3 front running clowns could actually be presidential candidates shows how far we have fallen ...... Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

The American people should refuse to participate in the farce presented to them by not voting.

No govt can claim a mandate if less than 50% of the people vote and even lower percentages would expose the failure that the two party system has become.

Apart from such a maneuver, only the actions of 1776 will undo the present America of 1984.

Missed votes due to campaign demands are in no way an indicator of Senator McCain's environmental positions or record. To imply that they are is deceitful.

On many of the issues rated by the LCV scorecard, Senator McCain has made his position clear. In fact, LCV rated a vote on an amendment reforming the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. This amendment echoes McCain's own Corps reform legislation, yet he was penalized for missing the vote as much as Senator Barack Obama was penalized for voting against the amendment. Is that fair?

Sierra Club's disgraceful attacks ignore that Senator McCain has exhibited more leadership on addressing climate change than either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. McCain's leadership and persistence has moved Congress closer to adopting firm limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Since 2003, McCain has been introducing and securing votes on his strong cap-and-trade bill, the Climate Stewardship Act. He also educated his colleagues--from both sides of the aisle--about the need for a strong climate bill. He has taken fellow members of Congress to the far ends of the earth to build support for addressing climate change.

Sierra Club's statement about the LCV score accused Senator McCain of having a "lifetime record of voting with polluters and special interests." Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sierra Club's vicious partisan attacks against a GOP nominee for president who posseses the conservation and stewardship ethic of Theodore Roosevelt is shameful.

The statement validates the suspicion that the Club's partisan loyalties trump its mission of non-partisan environmental advocacy.