(Okay, I don't know squat about this race. But I do know that the Ted Kennedy's seat was won by a Republican because the state Dems seem to have been asleep for God knows how long, and Green voice to shake things up is a damn sight better than a GOP voice. There mere fact that she's running on single payer is worth a look see, and all they're really asking for now is $$$ to get her across the public financing fininsh line, so why not take a closer look? - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Dr. Jill Stein is running an insurgent Green campaign for Governor of Massachusetts against 3 business-as-usual political insiders. Her platform reads like a progressive Christmas list.
Now she has the chance to break this race open and show that clean, green, people-powered politics can succeed. If Jill Stein’s campaign can raise $125,000 in amounts of $250 or less by Friday 9/24 at 5 PM, it will qualify for 1-1 public matching funds.
The thermometer on Jill Stein’s website is rising rapidly. At 10:40 EST on Friday it shows $110,918, meaning Stein needs just over $14,000 to make it over the top. Supporters of her campaign have created a "Clean Money Tidal Wave for Jill Stein" facebook event, which is doing brisk business with over 10,000 people invited so far.
Here’s why this is so important: progressives often talk about supporting independent progressive candidates, if a viable one comes along. Jill Stein is that viable independent progressive. She hasn’t taken a dime of corporate or lobbyist money. She was a leading activist for the MA Clean Elections public campaign financing law that the state’s Democratic establishment threw out after the people voted for it 2-1.
Jill Stein is the only candidate talking about replacing Romneycare with a vastly more efficient single-payer health care system. She is the only candidate calling for local green job creation, instead of the big corporate tax breaks and casino schemes that her opponents all agree on. On issue after issue, Jill Stein is unwaveringly progressive while her opponents pledge allegiance to the failed corporatist policies of the status quo.
If Jill Stein qualifies for matching funds, she’ll have a guaranteed place in the debates and a real war chest to spread her message of a secure, healthy green future. It will show that clean money campaigns can work – and that independent progressives are ready to support candidates who support them.
Dan Hamburg, LeAlan Jones, and Jill Stein are running three races that are very important to the Green Party this year. In California, Hamburg is a former Democratic Congressman hoping to be elected as a Green to Mendocino County Supervisor. In Illinois, Jones is the only African American in the Senate race and has polled as high as 14%, in a state where the Green candidate for governor got over 10% in 2006. In Massachusetts, Stein is less than $1,000 away from qualifying for the rest of the debates, and about $38,000 away from qualifying for matching funds.
I'll make this as simple as possible. Here's what each one needs from you:
Weekly Mulch: Fighting the Joe Millers of the World
by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger
Joe Miller, Sarah Palin's choice candidate for one of Alaska's Senate seats, does not believe in climate change. That didn't bother Alaska voters: this week, Miller bested Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the state's Republican primary. If that weren't worrisome enough, it also emerged that the fossil fuel industry spent eight times more than environmental groups on lobbying in 2009, the year the House passed the climate change bill. It's been a bad year already for environmental causes, and as the November election edges closer, progressives might want to start working overtime to regain momentum on climate and energy issues.
It's been a fairly long time since Attorney General Martha Coakley famously lost Massachusetts to State Senator Scott Brown. A look back at the race gives an insightful view into the Republican machine, and how Republicans are often quite effective when campaigning.
Mr. Brown ran a classic Republican campaign. He effectively painted Ms. Coakley as lazy and unwilling to campaign, a politician who didn't care about Massachusetts, who simply assumed that Massachusetts would vote Democratic because it always did. Every minor mistake Coakley made - a stupid statement here, a word spelled wrongly there - was turned into further support for this theme.
I have to work fast over the next two days to get you this story, but it is a good one.
We are all aware of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), championed by former Congressman Bob "I'm A Libertarian If It Doesn't Involve Your Penis Or Vagina" Barr; we now have two rulings, released on the same day by the same Federal judge, that will render the Act moot, if they're either upheld throughout the appeals process...or if the Obama Administration decides to end that appeals process right now.
There's a lot of ground to cover, and time is short.
The big news this past week out of MA-09 is that progressive challenger Mac D'Alessandro will make the Democratic primary ballot against anti-choice, anti-health care reform ConservaDem incumbent Stephen Lynch. He submitted 5,000 signatures to city and town clerks offices by the May 4 deadline. As long as at least 2,000 are certified valid (should be no problem with 5,000 submitted), Mac submits the 2,000+ certified valid signatures to the Secretary of State by June 1 and he'll give voters a choice against ConservaDem Lynch.
Mac took to YouTube to thank his grassroots supporters for their help making the signature drive a big success:
Progressive Democrats across the country have reason to be active in this race. There were 34 House Democrats who ultimately opposed health care reform; and Lynch's vote was among the most perplexing:
Then there are the real head scratchers. Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) and Stephen Lynch (D-MA) famously abandoned the reform push late in the game, after having voted for the House bill. Lynch, in particular, went on a very public crusade of opposition to the bill from the left, and cast his vote despite pleas from President Obama and AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka that he vote with the party.
Of the 34 anti-health care reform Dems, some are running for other office (Senate or Gov), some are retiring, but most are running for re-election. Best I can tell though, few if any have serious primary challengers. MA-09 will provide progressive Democrats nationally with an opportunity to send a message to a ConservaDem who abandoned one of the Democratic Party's central pillars - expanding access to health care and moving toward truly making quality health care a right instead of a privilege.
That appears to be why Mac's campaign has found itself on MoveOn.org's radar screen as a viable primary challenger worthy of progressive support:
In the wake of Rep. Stephen Lynch's vote against health care reform, many progressives have expressed frustration with him-and now he's facing a serious primary challenge.
Mac D'Alessandro is the New England Political Director for the progressive Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and he's pledging to "be on the side of consumers and workers, and not on the side of health insurance companies and big banks."
So get in the game! Now that Mac has demonstrated grassroots strength through the impressively successful signature drive, he has to raise money - and ConservaDem Stephen Lynch starts off with a $1.3 million campaign war chest. So, please, please, please head over to Mac's ActBlue page and contribute as generously as you can!
Mac D'Alessandro of Milton, Massachusetts, has spent his career fighting on behalf of working families. For the past nine years, Mac has worked for the Service Employees International Union, most recently as New England Political Director. Prior to working for the SEIU, Mac worked for Greater Boston Legal Services, directing legislative efforts to help families combat poverty. Mac earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Human Ecology and Environmental Policy from Rutgers University and his Juris Doctor from Boston College Law School. Mac, 40, is married to Jennie Mulqueen, an early childhood arts educator, and is the proud father of five-year-old Sophie and three-year-old Atticus.
Two disasters flared up this week, one environmental, the other political. Off the coast of Louisiana, oil from a sunken rig is leaking as much as five times faster than scientists originally judged, and the spill reportedly reached land last night. And in Washington, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) jumped from his partnership with Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) just before the scheduled release of the draft of a new Senate climate bill.
The trio had worked for months on bipartisan legislation on climate change. After Graham's defection, his partners promised to press on, but the bill's chances of survival are dimmer.
The next Exxon Valdez?
As Grist puts it, the spill off the Louisiana coast is "worse than expected, and getting worser." The oil rig sank on April 20, and since then, oil has been pouring out of the well and into the Gulf of Mexico.
British Petroleum (BP), which operates the rig, along with the Coast Guard and now the Department of Defense, has pushed to contain and clean up the spill. The problem is deep under water and difficult to measure, but by mid-week, experts estimated that it was gushing 5,000 barrels a day from three different leaks.
Interior department officials said the spill could continue for 90 days. Mother Jones' Kevin Drum looks at a couple of estimates for how much oil could end up in the Gulf and concludes, "An Exxon Valdez size spill might only be a few days away."
The federal government has rallied to respond. Administration officials have traveled to Louisiana, and both the executive branch and the legislative branch have announced investigations into the spill. But, as Care2 writes, the White House is saying that the explosion should not derail plans for future drilling.
"In all honesty I doubt this is the first accident that has happened and I doubt it will be the last," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, according to Care2.
New drilling, no regulations
Just a few weeks ago, President Barack Obama announced that the government would open up areas off the East Coast for offshore oil and gas drilling. The proposal already had some opponents, and the spill makes the politics of new drilling that much trickier. Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reports that White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner acknowledged the issue, along with energy experts around Washington.
"This reopens the issue: Is the risk worth the reward?" Lincoln Pratson, a professor of energy and environment at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment, told Sheppard.
And even though BP is relying on the Coast Guard and the Department of Defense for help managing this spill, the company is pushing back on efforts to minimize those risks, Lindsay Beyerstein reports for Working In These Times.
The company "continues to oppose a proposed rule by the Minerals Management Service (the agency that oversees oil leases on federal lands) that would require lessees and operators to develop and audit their own Safety and Emergency Management Plans (SEMP)," Beyerstein writes. "BP and other oil companies insist that voluntary compliance will suffice to keep workers and the environment safe."
Climate bill catastrophe
The country might also have to rely on companies' "voluntary compliance" with measures to combat global warming: Congress doesn't seem likely to pass a bill regulating carbon any time soon. Sen. Kerry and friends were supposed to release their version of climate legislation Monday, but over the weekend, Sen. Graham backed out. His reason? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had floated the idea of prioritizing immigration reform, which Graham argued would undermine work on energy legislation.
"It seems like the senator...has a bit of an attitude problem," wrote The American Prospect's Gabriel Arana. "He storms out of climate talks because Democrats have dared consider working on two things at once? The degree to which movement in the Senate hinges on this single, mercurial senator, seemingly the only one whose agenda includes something more than stymieing Democrats, is remarkable."
Call the clean up crew
After Graham's announcement (Arana called it a "hissy fit"), congressional democrats scrambled to prove that the climate bill was not knocked entirely off course. On Monday, Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lieberman met with their wayward colleague; by Wednesday, Sen. Reid had promised that he would "move forward on energy first;" and by Thursday, Kerry and Lieberman had asked the EPA to start evaluating the bill's environmental and economic impacts.
Although a draft of the bill was supposed to come out on Monday, no one has seen it. At Mother Jones, Kate Sheppard reports that even the EPA, which is supposed to analyze the bill, hasn't received the full draft.
"According to the EPA, the senators submitted a "description of their draft bill" for economic modeling," she writes. "The agency confirmed in a statement to Mother Jones the senators "have not sent EPA any actual legislative text." The agency is determining whether it has enough information about the bill to produce an analysis of its economic and environmental impacts."
Despite assurances from the Senate leadership, it's not clear if climate legislation will come to the floor this year or, if it does, that it will pass.
Not a disaster
There was one bright spot of news for environmentalists this week: the United States will build its first off-shore wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod. The project, called Cape Wind, has a host of opponents, but Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar decided to approve it. The scale will be smaller than originally planned-130 rather than 170 turbines, the Washington Independent reports-which could mollify critics who worried about its visual impact.
Cape Wind is a prime example of how clean energy projects can still cause harm or anger the people who live in their shadow. The Texas Observer recaps opposition to clean energy projects: A working-class neighborhood fought against efforts to build a biomass plant in their town, and won.
"Despite some activists touting these projects as solutions to global warming, and politicians promoting them as the key to economic prosperity, renewable energy projects tend to have their own sets of problems for local residents," reports Rusty Middleton.
Biomass is one thing: burning materials like waste wood might produce fewer greenhouse gasses, but a biomass plant still dirties the air around it. But if the choice is between an off-shore wind farm that could mar a pleasant vista or an off-shore drilling operation that could spill gallons of oil onto your coast, it seems clear which is the better option.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
SEIU's New England regional political director Mac D'Alessandro has taken the primary plunge against incumbent Stephen Lynch. (Lynch, for you Progressive Punch score followers, gets a lousy 2 rating, coming from Massachusetts, and has a lifetime progressive score on "Crucial Votes" of 81.87, which drops to 71.95 when focusing on 2009-2010.)
Greetings, Blue Mass Group! My name is Mac D'Alessandro. I'm the New England Political Director for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and, as of this week, I am a candidate for United States Congress from Massachusetts' 9th district. I am a progressive Democrat, and I'm running for Congress because I believe that the working families in our communities deserve a Congressman who will fight for them and who will actually be a leader on key issues that matter to them - from reforming our health care system (and building on the recently-passed reforms) to holding Wall Street accountable to investing in job creation for our communities to protecting our civil rights and ensuring equal protection under the law.
I have spent my career fighting for working families. I've been with the SEIU for nine years. Prior to that, I worked for Greater Boston Legal Services, directing legislative efforts to help families combat poverty. I live in Milton with my wife Jennie, our children Sophie and Atticus, and our cat Nile. Like most families throughout the district and across Massachusetts, my wife and I sit at our kitchen table on a regular basis, going over our bills and the family budget, paying for today while trying to save for tomorrow. We see too often that the well-being of Fortune 500 companies are put in front of the good fortune of working families like ours. That is why I'm running. The 9th district deserves more than just another representative; the district deserves someone who will champion our Democratic ideals in the U.S. House of Representatives as we fight to balance the playing field for working families like ours.
There were 34 House Democrats who opposed health care reform. Lynch was the only one from Massachusetts. And, of those from the 34 who are running for re-election, I still don't see a lot of primary challenges. Supporting Mac D'Alessandro's campaign can send a message nationally to Democrats wavering on other issues (like Wall Street reform). Mac very much represents what it means to be a "Better Democrat." Please spread the word, join the Facebook group, and contribute any amount you can.
If you are someone who regularly makes your views known by participating in petition campaigns, and are also someone who tweets, chances are you have heard of Act.ly. It is a brilliant use of twitter to allow people to not only tweet to sign petitions, but also to allow the person they are petitioning to respond.
Case in point: The new Senator from Massachusetts, @ScottBrownMA
43 tweets tweeted Scott P. Brown : Stand with Mass. and pass the climate bill #Brown2Green
In addition to a letter campaign, the NRDC Action Fund has launched the act.ly petition urging Scott Brown to stand up for clean energy legislation currently pending in the Senate.
Fact is, when he was in the Massachusetts legislature, Brown was a part of Republicans for Environmental Protection, and he voted for Massachusetts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a pact among Northeastern states requiring power plants to reduce emissions or to buy credits from cleaner industries.
"Reducing carbon dioxide emissions in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine. Passing this legislation is an important step...towards improving our environment."
However - his recent comments are cause for some concern:
"It's interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling, It's a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I've heard about potential tampering with some of the information."
"I just want to make sure if in fact ... the Earth is heating up, that we have accurate information, and it's unbiased by scientists with no agenda. . . Once that's done, then I think we can really move forward with a good plan."
So is Brown green? At the time of writing, scores of his constituents and several large national environmental advocacy organzations await his response on Act.ly. If you haven't yet, join in posting on the Senator's facebook wall, and pile onto the Act.ly petition.
Several Green candidates have launched campaigns in their states’ races for governor in 2010.
The Green Party of California will have a contested primary election for the gubernatorial race, with Laura Wells and Deacon Alexander competing for the nomination, to be decided on June 8.
In recent years, gubernatorial races in some states have given Green Parties high enough percentages to achieve or maintain ballot status and determine the outcome of the election.
In 2006, Rich Whitney and his fellow Greens overcame an attempt by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to keep the Green Party off the Illinois ballot. Gov. Blagojevich spent about $800,000 to block the Green Party. Mr. Whitney drew over 10% of the vote on Election Day 2006 and will be on the ballot in 2010.
Some Green gubernatorial candidates to watch:
RICH WHITNEY, a civil rights attorney based in Carbondale, is running again for Governor of Illinois. At a time when Illinois is experiencing devastating cuts to education and social services, Mr. Whitney is the only candidate in the race who refuses to accept such cuts as inevitable. He has set forth a comprehensive plan for restoring health to the public sector and fighting for “a full employment economy,” at “a living wage, or better.”
“It may surprise some people to hear a candidate talk about expanding public employment at a time when the media keep pounding into people’s minds the notion that government is ‘too big’ and ‘we can’t afford it.’ We have to recognize that the corporate-dominated media have an agenda and that there is a reason why we have been hearing this propaganda steadily for over 30 years. We also have to realize that when the opinion leaders in the corporate media keep telling us that ‘we’ can’t afford it, what they are really trying to tell us is that ‘they’ – the wealthy owners of corporate America – don’t want to afford it,” said Mr. Whitney.
“They don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes needed to maintain the most basic functions of government. And thus the illusion is created that in the richest, most productive nation in the world, we as a society somehow can’t afford quality public education, quality health care for all, quality employment opportunities for all and decent retirement security for all.”
Rich Whitney proposes creative measures for dealing with the state’s fiscal and economic crises, including creation of a state bank, and imposing what he calls the real “sin” taxes — a financial transactions tax on speculative trading and a fee and dividend system to combat global warming and promote sustainable energy, transportation, and energy efficiency.
JILL STEIN has launched an exciting grassroots campaign that is posing an unprecedented challenge to business as usual in Massachusetts. She is building on the 350,000 votes she received statewide in her race for Secretary of the Commonwealth in 2006. Given the emerging lineup that has her facing three CEO-insider politicians with nearly identical positions on the key issues, the race may actually be won with as little as 26% of the vote. With her 18% in her last statewide election, and the anti-insider fever that’s gripped the state, this could put a win in actual striking distance.
As Dr. Stein explained at a recent gathering, “A government run to benefit lobbyists and insiders has given us double digit unemployment, skyrocketing health care costs, predatory home foreclosures, crumbling schools, unaffordable higher education, counterproductive crime and drug laws, regressive taxes, unending and costly wars, and a climate crisis that threatens our economy. We can do better. It’s time to put solutions on the table that give us a secure green future in which there is both prosperity and justice.”
Since her February 8 kick-off, Dr. Stein has given numerous radio and television interviews and put together a strong campaign team. “Doors are opening as never before for a Green candidate,” Dr. Stein says. “This could be our breakthrough year.”
S. DEACON ALEXANDER is one of two candidates competing for the California Green nomination for governor. A sixty-four year old retired union carpenter, many of Deacon’s ideas for a better society are from his father, bricklayer’s assistant and political activist. As a long-time social advocate and former Black Panther, Deacon Alexander worked to acquit all charges against Angela Davis in 1972 and joined Latino immigrants to fight for Los Angeles’ South Central Farm.
“I run for Governor because Californians must do better. We must educate, not incarcerate. Growing affordable housing and local business are in my plan to invest in basic infrastructure. Abolish the death penalty, the prison industrial complex, racism against immigrants and all people of color. I support jobs which empower our youth, rebuild inner cities, and reduce global warning,” said Mr. Alexander.
“My gubernatorial campaign is simple. We will go Poor-to-Poor, up and down the State of California . My first act as candidate was on Skid Row in LA with the homeless, the disenfranchised, the down and out. These people have been excluded, denied and rejected for far too long. I pledge to bring them into my campaign for Governor, register them as Greens, and fight for their rights.”
“Both my gubernatorial primary opponent, Green Party candidate Laura Wells, and I fully support Ten Key Values and platform of California Green Party. Our differences lie not in substance, but in our priorities. A party and candidate which put the rights of the least of us first, is one which can proudly represent all Californians.”
LAURA WELLS is also running for the Green Party’s nomination for Governor of California. Ms. Wells ran for State Controller in 2002 and 2006. In 2002, she received over 400,000 votes, the highest vote total of any Green Party partisan statewide race in California.
“I ran as a candidate for State Controller with the motto ‘follow the money’ to understand what’s happened in California. Now it’s time to fix the money,” said Ms. Wells. “Prop 13 was passed in 1978 to keep people, especially seniors, in their homes, but like a bad pharmaceutical, the side effects of the tax policies have been disastrous especially to our younger generations. The Titanic Parties will not touch Prop 13 because likely voters love it, but I am touching it. I sent a valentine saying, ‘Prop 13, I love you, but honey, you’ve got to change!’”
“There are solutions: we can institute a State Bank for California and invest in California not Wall Street. We can have great schools, healthcare, a wonderful environment, and golden job opportunities.”
The Laura Wells campaign has printed 10,000 copies of a newsletter leaflet listing the “13 Ways Prop 13 has been Unlucky for California” on one side and “FAQs: State Bank for California” on the other. The campaign is distributing them at rallies and meetings all over the state. Leafletting began with the March 4 Day of Action, when thousands of students from universities, community colleges, and high schools walked out of class to demand a re-ordering of priorities in the state’s finances.
For more about Prop 13, the State Bank, and other information about Laura Wells and her campaign, visit her web site: http://www.LauraWells.org
DAVID CURTIS is running for Governor of Nevada.
“Fellow Greens have been asking me to run for office for more than five years. I do not enter into this lightly,” said Mr. Curtis. “Extreme economic events of the last two years in Nevada convinced me that I needed to take a more direct role in the leadership of my native state. I am running to help rebuild the Nevada economy. I want to make the state a viable place to live for my family and the citizens of Nevada.”
DENNIS S. SPISAK is the Green Party of Ohio candidate for governor in 2010. Mr. Spisak is running with the goal of bringing renewable energy jobs, single-payer health care for all, and clean fair elections to Ohio.
“I am running for governor because I believe we must send a representative to Columbus who will address the issues facing regular citizens, not lobbyists or corporate PACs. My campaign will focus on the issues that Ohioans care about: affordable health care, economic fairness, quality public education, and bringing renewable energy manufacturing jobs to the state. I am not afraid to call for health care for all Ohioans, economic justice, and nothing less than a renewal of Ohio’s sense of community and promise of equal opportunity for all Ohioans,” said Mr. Spisak.
“The people of Ohio are tired of politics and government controlled by the Democrats and Republicans. They want straight talk and straight answers to the problems facing them and their children. The Green Party has the answers to their problems.”
I think we all remember the 2008 Democratic primaries, that exciting and epic battle. In many ways the campaign caused more excitement than the general election, whose result was never really in doubt (especially after the financial crisis).
Both candidates drew upon distinctly different coalitions. In an influential article, Ronald Brownstein analyzes the difference this way:
Since the 1960s, Democratic nominating contests regularly have come down to a struggle between a candidate who draws support primarily from upscale, economically comfortable voters liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and a rival who relies mostly on downscale, financially strained voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative views on cultural and national security issues.
President Barack Obama assembled a coalition from the former, these "wine-track" Democrats. When most Americans think of liberals, they think of wine-track Democrats. Mr. Obama, then, was the liberal candidate; Mrs. Clinton the "beer-track," working-class representative.
So candidate won the most liberal place in America?
The answer below (or, alternatively, in the title).
Dr. Jill Stein’s formal announcement on Monday of her campaign for governor of Massachusetts as the Green-Rainbow Party candidate drew coverage from media outlets including the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, MySouthEnd.com, and Open Media Boston.
“If you’ve had enough business as usual, if you’ve had enough of the culture of influence, if you’ve had enough payoffs and layoffs and rip-offs and bailouts, this is the campaign for you,” Stein told about three dozen cheering supporters who waved her green campaign signs.
“It’s true I’ve never been a CEO and I’ve never been a Beacon Hill insider,” Stein said. “I’ve never huddled with health insurance executives who have denied people their health care. I’ve never met in the backrooms with predatory lenders or casino ambling executives or real-estate schemers. And I just don’t owe any favors to machine bosses or big-money donors who are looking to buy influence. Sorry. I’m a mother and a medical doctor and an advocate for healthy people, healthy economies and a healthy democracy.”
Jill Stein ran for governor once before in 2002, when she earned 3.5% of the vote and was widely recognized for her excellent performance in the one debate she was allowed in. She received over 20% of the vote in a 2004 state rep. race and garnered over 350,000 votes for secretary of state in 2006. She currently serves as a member of Town Meeting in Lexington.
If you read my take on the returns from the Massachusetts special election for the US Senate race then you know that Mass had some issues with reaching out to young voters. There was some confusion about who was going to do it.. or if it was going to happen... Someone even suggested the youth outreach was "well the President came..."
In the great state of Oregon we have a fantastic organization who has worked for years to get young voters to the polls, but also be engaged during years in between. The Oregon Bus Project worked the hell out of this special election and the results were noticeable.
In Massachusetts they had a turnout of 15% of 18-29 year olds for the special election. In the Oregon's special election about 24% turnout of youth voters (preliminary estimates from CIRCLE)
Caitlin Baggott from the Bus says that this is due to a few particularly important factors:
A year-round and multi-year strategy,
Populist messaging and policy development,
Budget (actually spending money on youth outreach
And finally, which I'll expand on, a focus on field and youth turnout
When it comes to a meaningful field outreach campaign Caitlin points to two major elements
A strong field campaign matched with a strong media campaign. Oregon Student Association, the Bus Project, and the coordinated campaign registered 30,000 voters--primarily on campuses and youth-dense parts of Portland and Eugene. The campaign led a huge GOTV field program to knock on 300,000 doors. We all phonebanked the hell out of our lists. (The Bus got a "thank you" message today from a voter who decided to vote after getting 15 phone calls from us.)
We expected it to be better than VA and MA. We're hoping that the lesson for all of us in 2010 is that young people will vote if we (1) Re-Register them, and (2) invest in youth-oriented GOTV. OSA and the Bus executed a huge youth-focused voter registration program in Oregon, and the Bus did youth-focused mail, earned and paid media, and phonebanks. (Trick or Vote for the fall!)
So here's the thing. Do the outreach. Do it because it builds the party long term, but do it because, I don't care what state you're in... it will make a difference and it could make the difference enough to win your election.
On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) pulled out a rarely-used Congressional tool in an attempt to keep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon and other greenhouse gasses. Sen. Murkowski offered a "resolution of disapproval" of the EPA's impending action, which would limit companies' carbon emissions.
The resolution would overturn the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide is harmful to the public health. Three Democrats-Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)-joined Sen. Murkowski and 35 Republicans in sponsoring the resolution.
"Ms. Murkowski's Mischief'"
"This command and control approach is our worst option for reducing the gasses associated with climate change," said Sen. Murkowski on the floor of the Senate yesterday. She called the EPA's actions "backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress" and said they would damage the country's flailing economy.
The EPA first announced in April 2009 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses posed a threat to the public health. The agency formalized that finding last month, giving itself the power to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. In March 2010, for instance, the agency is expected to announce carbon emissions rules for the auto industry that would match California's higher standards. Sen. Murkowski's resolution would derail that process.
Sen. Murkowski argued that she wants to give Congress room to come up with a legislative solution to climate change, but her critics see a more dangerous tilt to her resolution. "It's a radical attempt by the legislative branch to interfere with executive branch scientists," writes David Roberts at Grist.
Responding to "Ms. Murskowski's mischief" on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the resolution an "unprecedented effort to overturn scientific decision" and "a direct assault on the health of the American people."
Resolution of disapproval
What is a "resolution of disapproval?" Grist's Roberts called it "the nuclear option."
"It would rescind the EPA's endangerment finding entirely and thereby eliminate its authority over both mobile and stationary sources," Roberts explains. "Furthermore, the administration would be prohibited from passing a regulation "substantially the same" as the one overruled, so the constraint on the EPA would effectively be permanent."
This type of resolution was created by the Clinton-era Congressional Reform Act. The resolution has one big advantage: It cannot be filibustered. Passage requires only a majority in both houses of Congress. Members have tried using it in the past to delay the Dubai Ports World deal, derail FCC regulations on new media, and stop the flow of bailout funds.
Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones has been following Sen. Murkowski's actions closely. She reports that "Senate supporters of climate action say Murkowski could obtain the votes of moderate Democrats from coal, oil, and manufacturing states. However, a resolution would still need to be approved by the House and signed by the president-both long shots, to put it mildly. 'I think we're a little worried about [Murkowski's resolution] winning. I'm not sure we're worried about it becoming law,' a Senate Democratic staffer says."
But Grist's Roberts argues that passage in the Senate alone would be a problem. "Even if blocked by the House or vetoed by the president, such a public, bipartisan slap at the administration would be highly embarrassing and demoralizing," Roberts writes. "It would mean at least ten conservative Democrats washing their hands of the administration's initiative."
Climate change and Congress
Sen. Murkowski insists that she's still ready to work with her colleagues on climate change and that it's better to approach the problem of climate change via legislation, not regulation.
But no one in Washington believes that climate change legislation is going to pass-even come to the Senate floor-any time soon. The issue was already in line behind health care, and the election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to Sen. Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts seat this week means that none of the bills that the Senate is working on are likely to come to a vote this year.
"There was hope that the [climate] bill would come to the floor in the spring," writes Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. "Regrettably, a narrow majority of Massachusetts voters have made it significantly more likely that Congress won't address the problem at all. Proponents focused on solutions have vowed to "persist," but Massachusetts has made a difficult situation considerably worse."
The role of special interests
Sen. Murkowski has come under criticism for allowing Bush-era EPA administrators, now lobbyists representing clients on climate change issues, to help her craft an earlier amendment cracking down on the EPA. Yesterday, she said that those criticisms are "categorically false."
But as JP Leous reports at Care2, Sen. Murkowski does receive substantial backing from energy industries that oppose climate change legislation and regulation.
"According to OpenSecrets.org Sen. Murkowski has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from polluting companies, and some of her biggest campaign contributors in recent years include firms with fossil-fueled motives like Exxon Mobil Corp," Leous writes "Add those dots into the mix and a different picture emerges - and it starts to look like a person who is poised to introduce legislation next week attacking the Clean Air Act."
On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Boxer charged, "Why would the Senate get in the business of repealing science? Because that's what the special interests want to have happen now. Because they're desperate."
The Democratic Senators who co-sponsored the resolution also come from energy producing states where companies object to the new EPA regulations.
If at first you don't succeed...
If Sen. Murkowski's resolution does pass the Senate, there's little chance it will pass the House as well. But this isn't the only option that regulation opponents are looking at to fight the EPA. The Chamber of Commerce and other groups are planning to challenge the regulatory action in court, as Mother Jones' Sheppard reports.
Last week, these opponents met to discuss their strategy. What's interesting, Sheppard says, is that "the group was apparently divided on the best course of action. The Hill observes that "two camps have emerged." One wants to challenge whatever rules the EPA issues, while another wants to question the science of global warming itself."
We're back to that old saw? With legislation off the table, the fight over climate change, for now, is in the regulatory arena.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
STATE BLOGS
