The Austin Post-Bulletin has provided essentially a scorecard on where each candidate stands on pertinent issues.
Here are some of the issues:
Note the statements from Walz on Big Oil, and the long-term plan for oil. First, had Bill Clinton not vetoed a bill in the mid-1990's sponsored by a Republican Congress to open ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, we wouldn't be in this mess now. The oil WOULD be available. Second, the reference to "Big Oil" is merely a lame attempt by a liberal to tap into pubic resentment. Big Oil is no greater an evil than "Big Wind" or "Big Solar." In fact, Big Oil HARDLY makes money hand-over-fist. I've read numerous reports that for every $1.00 invested by "Big Oil," they recoup $.08 of profit. EIGHT LOUSY CENTS... but because you hear about their BILLIONS of dollars in profit, Democrats propagate a lie. Those billions are being shared by millions of people, not just a few oil tycoons.
Even though the moratorium has been lifted on off-shore drilling, both candidates battled over its merits.
Davis said he strongly supported a "drill here, drill now" philosophy, reciting a mantra that has become identified with his campaign. He noted that a decade ago the price of oil was $10 a barrel but rose to as high as $147 per barrel this past summer. He said Walz has done nothing to bring down gas prices, voting 12 times against off-shore drilling during his two years in Congress.
But Walz said such a proposal would have done nothing to alleviate gas prices.
"I'll tell you what, I did vote 12 times against that, because I'm not going to give Big Oil a free ride again," Walz said.
He said the key was not simply to focus on oil drilling, but to begin a process for transitioning to the next generation of renewable fuels, such as biofuels, and wind and solar power. He said bipartisan legislation he supported would have accomplished that, taking the royalties from off-shore leases and funding an "alternative and sustainable future" based on renewal energy.
In the process, it would have created jobs, powered the economy and enhanced the country's security, he said.
"That's a real solution. That's not a slogan," Walz said.
You see, you can't have it both ways, Tim. You can't purport to defend the rights of working class Americans by supporting an open border policy. Illegal immigrants thus extorting said policy are taking jobs from Americans. Furthermore, these people BROKE the law. Democrats have no problems enforcing crying foul when someone insults their "Dear Leader," Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama, or howling when someone proffers their opinions on the evils of Islam.
What should we do about the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States?
Davis: "If you want to have a debate about legal immigration and a guest worker program, that is a legitimate debate. But illegal immigration has to stop by almost any means necessary, 'cause we're losing our country. Unlike Congressman Walz, I do support building a border fence."
Walz: "Let's have an open and honest discussion among our workers and businesses about what we need for labor in this country. Let's have them go through a legal system that gives them a biometric card. We'll have the workers necessary, and our resources will go to stopping at the border those things that we want to stop."
Is global warming man-made, and should efforts be made to control it?No Tim, the vast majority of us do NOT see the threat of global warming. If they have, it's because the corrupt mainstream media, in conjunction with leftist diplomats worldwide, have invented this notion, contrary to evidence that we're on the cusp on a significant cooling period instead. Did you know, for example, that global temperates are cooler by .07 degree C since 1998? I bet you didn't...the MSM won't allow it. Also, did you know there were periods, prior to the existence of humans, that carbon dioxide levels were three to four times greater than they were now? Probably not too much cars then, I would imagine.
Davis: "I contest (the idea) that the majority of global warming can be proven (to be caused) by fossil fuel combustion. Some of it, yes. All of it, no. I would also contest strongly that by burning fewer fossil fuels, we're going to control the climate."
Walz: "The vast majority of Americans who do see (the threat of global warming) see the concern to move toward (energy) alternatives, not only for economic reasons, not only for security reasons, but for the (purpose) of handing our planet to children in a livable, sustainable manner."
Moreover, scientists by the truckload have denounced global warming, or at least implored governments to deliberate more on potential legislation.