Reply #12: I expect a Senator to be able to balance their concern for the state [View All]

and the overwhelming national good. Senators set NATIONAL policy, so they have to be concerned about national impact.

Here a good example was Sherrod Brown, who had the same coal state and manufacturing concerns, but from the time of Kerry/Boxer worked on what would be needed to help his state and others like it where the biggest negative impacts would be. Had he been blind to the real economic needs of his state, he wouldn't be doing his job. But, I contend, that if he ignored this real national (international really) problem, looking at only how in the short term it would effect his state's economy, he would also not be doing his job.

Here, I admire the tenacity of Senator Kerry to keep looking for something that will start us on the path to real carbon reduction. I am impressed that he has reached out to every stakeholder and every Senator to find what their concerns are and to encourage any supporter to stand and be counted. I am not surprised, because if you believe what Kerry has said for decades on the environment, it was the only right thing to do. Stopping at Kerry/Boxer (or even a purist version of Kerry/Boxer), would let him point to "good" legislation that was better than anything that might later pass, but it would not reduce carbon by one iota - because it would not have passed.

I also greatly admire the courage of Graham to join with Kerry. I disagree with him on almost everything, but he went into this knowing the hell he would get. (He actually is a counter to your statement - this is not popular in SC)