I learned last week that Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is floating the idea of stopping EPA's work to reduce carbon dioxide pollution for at least one year.
To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. I have known and admired Senator Sherrod Brown for years, and I respect his track record on defending the environment.
Sherrod's consideration of undermining the EPA's ability to keep our air free from pollution doesn't jibe with his past positions or with what's good for Ohio's economy and for its residents' health.
And it certainly doesn't match up with what I know of Sherrod Brown's leadership.
I first met Senator Brown when he was in the House and I worked for another member of the Ohio delegation. Both members served on the Energy and Commerce Committee. During the long committee hearings, members often left to attend other events, but Hill staffers had to stick around to listen. Staffers aren't allowed to speak at committee meetings-only members can-so when we would hear witnesses making inaccurate statements or exaggerating the facts, we felt powerless to correct the record.
That was until we realized we could turn to Sherrod Brown. He was one of the few members who would sit through the bulk of hearings, and we could always trust him to correct the record when the speaker was off the mark, we could count on him to challenge falsehoods-especially when it came to environmental issues.
More recently, Senator Brown has been a supporter of clean energy-something that has been very good for Ohio. In fact, Ohio is the best in the Midwest when it comes to green job growth. Toledo and Cleveland have led the way by transforming struggling auto-parts factories into manufacturing centers of solar panels, wind turbines, and advanced batteries.
These opportunities led Senator Brown to play an active roll drafting comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that would have cut global warming pollution and brought as much as $5.6 billion in investment revenue and 67,000 new jobs to Ohio.
Unfortunately, that legislation never made it to the floor. So why would Brown want to put put on hold the only chance we have right now for cutting carbon dioxide pollution? The only thing likely to be different a year from now is that one more year of pollutants will be in our air and businesses will have suffered through another year of renewed uncertainty about the standards they will have to meet.
And EPA has not put in place some Draconian plan. All that's being required is that new plants, or plants undergoing major changes install the latest, affordable equipment. Why would we want new plants to be dirtier than they have to be?
We shouldn't stop work already underway to clean up our air and tackle climate change while we wait for Congress to get its act together. And Congressional "delays" tend to be extended year after year. Before we know it, America will be four or five years further behind in confronting the worst environmental, economic, and national security challenge of our time.
That isn't something the Brown I know would want. And it's not something the people of Ohio should want. Ohio has one of the best clean energy stories to tell in the nation. Confronting climate change and shifting to more sustainable energy will bring more jobs to your state and make the hard-working families of Ohio healthier.
When your children are sick, you don't stop giving them the medicine they need because a better product might be available someday. Heck, you don't even wait for your kids to GET SICK if you can take pre-emptive action to avoid it.
Sherrod Brown can stand up for the health and welfare of Ohio's families by working WITH the EPA to make sure implementation of the Clean Air Act is successful in bringing standards up-to-date to protect public health and drive innovation. That is the leadership we need.
This blog was originally posted on the NRDC Action Fund blog, The Markup.
I'll never forget what it felt like to wake up on November 3, 2004.
The sadness and disappointment of Senator Kerry losing the presidential election was quickly replaced by feelings of frustration and helplessness. I could not believe the injustice of what happened to voters in Ohio.
Waiting in line for 10 hours to vote? Being turned away because ballots ran out? Not enough voting machines? These were not things that happened in one of the world's oldest democracies.
These were stories from a corrupt country, far away, where elections were regularly fixed and voting was just a technicality.
Earlier this year, the League of Women Voters and Project Vote teamed up to find that, despite intervention from the Justice Department in 2008, the state Department of Economic Security (DES) was still not doing everything it should to follow the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). In response to our findings, we gathered a coalition of support in hopes of urging the state to continue taking the necessary steps to increase their levels of compliance with a law that has helped many underrepresented, low-income Arizonan communities cast their vote of Election Day.
It's hard to think how a recent article in the Akron Beacon Journal could have left out any more relevant information. The Journal is a reputable paper, and so we were surprised by the article's flaws.
The article says that there were about 400 energy advocates, and that "Most arrived in four buses that delivered them from the Canton area. One arrived from Mount Vernon." What the article failed to mention, is that at least some of these buses were paid for by oil companies (or their front groups) and were filled with oil company staff. ThinkProgress has a great video clip about it here.
The article mentions that "Karen Wright, president and chief executive of Ariel Corp., a manufacturer of natural gas compressors" spoke, but failed to mention that Karen Wright ridiculed climate change as "questionable science" and referred to pollutants as "so-called carbon dioxide emissions." Wright went on to rail against "so-called green jobs" that were "dubious" and "phony." Given that climate change is an established fact and the U.S. Conference of Mayors indicates there are thousands of currently existing 'green' jobs in Ohio, the article should have commented on the ignorance of a keynote speaker, instead of repeating her talking points. It also bears noting that clean energy reforms would bring between 35 thousand and 61 thousand jobs to Ohio.
This is the third article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Ohio's 1st Congressional District, which encompasses Cincinnati and parts of nearby suburbs. Cincinnati is home to the Reds, but in the House it's represented by the self-described "raging moderate," Democrat Steve Driehaus. A longtime member of the Ohio legislature, in 2008, Driehaus won election to the House seat his father unsuccessfully sought 40 years ago. This November he is being challenged by former Republican Congressman Steve Chabot, whom Driehaus unseated in 2008 despite being outspent by nearly $1 million.
When a district is home to the company that makes products like "Mr. Clean," one would hope that its Congressional representative would champion clean energy. Rep. Driehaus has been a reliable environmental champion. In his first year in Congress, he received a perfect score from the League of Conservation Voters, meaning that he cast a pro-environmental vote at every opportunity. Most notably, Driehaus voted for the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first global warming bill to ever pass a chamber of Congress. After the vote, Driehaus said, "Ohio has the resources and workforce to be at the cutting edge as we move our nation toward a clean energy economy, and [ACES] will promote investments that will bring the potential of clean energy development into our community...This bill will help us end our addiction to imported oil, which threatens our security and sends too much American money overseas. I'm proud to stand with my colleagues today to do the right thing for the future of America's economy and security."
In sharp contrast, in 2008 -- Chabot's last year in Congress -- the League of Conservation Voters gave him a bottom-of-the-barrel 8% rating on environmental issues. Chabot earned his low rating by voting against renewable energy, against removing oil and gas exploration subsidies, against keeping a moratorium on offshore oil drilling, against raising fuel economy standards for vehicles, against prohibiting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and against implementing the Kyoto Protocol. In short, Steve Chabot voted against the environment at pretty much every opportunity.
Chabot's position hasn't changed since leaving Congress. On the campaign trail, he's said that he "strongly oppose[s] cap and trade," citing fuzzy math claiming that it will "cost the average American family an additional $1,770 a year in higher energy costs." The truth, according to the experts in the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is that the net economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program would be about $175 per household" -- or one-tenth of what Steve Chabot is claiming.
Furthermore, the CBO's estimate doesn't include the benefits of reducing global warming, such as mitigating the record-setting heat and drought conditions we're already seeing around the world.
And just as important, Chabot is ignoring the positive job impact of passing ACES, which would create an estimated 1.9 million jobs, according to a study by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California." In Ohio, this would mean 61,000 new good-paying jobs created over the next ten years.
Chabot doesn't just oppose legislation to move to clean energy, he mocks the unassailable science demonstrating global warming. On his blog, Chabot claims that the absence of hurricanes hitting the United States in 2009 represented an "inconvenient truth" to "environmental alarmists" on global warming. And he promotes conspiracy theories, such as "climategate" -- a non-scandal pushed by climate change deniers and fossil fuel interests, now completely debunked.
Chabot's fiercely anti-environmental views are not so surprising when you consider the sources of his campaign cash - Rep. Joe Barton's Texas Freedom PAC ($6,000) and oil and coal services giant Koch Industries ($5,000), for instance. Rep. Barton is one of big oil's best friends in Congress. You may remember his recent apology to BP when it set aside money to pay small businesses that have lost money because of the Gulf disaster. And Koch Industries is notorious for having "quietly funneled [$50 million] to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter."
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
A few maps of Ohio's presidential elections are posted below, for your enjoyment. Each map comes with some brief analysis.
(Note: Because the Times stopped updating before all absentee/provisional ballots were counted, this map does not fully reflect the actual results. I have corrected the discrepancy.)
Senator Barack Obama wins Ohio by 4.6%, a solid but unimpressive victory. Mr. Obama performs poorly in traditional Democratic areas - the northeast and even Cleveland - but offsets this with unique strength in Columbus and Cincinnati. Senator McCain runs strongly in the Republican base.
On April 5th Ohio Governor Ted Strickland signed a reform bill that will help reduce wrongful convictions and improve the fairness and accuracy of our criminal justice system. Among the measures included are safeguards to improve the eyewitness identification process by requiring police to use a more accurate protocol for administering live and photo lineups. The new protocol reflects the growing awareness that eyewitness evidence is fragile, and much like trace physical evidence must be collected very carefully, or it may become tainted.
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 am less concerned with party politics than I am with candidates, but rarely do I see entries in support of candidates where one political party was not promoted to the exclusion of all others. And other than the League of Women voters, I don't find many sites where information is given about all candidates running in a given race. Unfortunately, in all too many instances, the candidates I see named are people from the business sector, and their interests are all too often not those of the public. Even independent candidates tend to come from private business interests rather than public interests. It was heartening, therefore, to read at USelections.com that there is an independent candidate from the left who is running for governor and who isn't culled from the pools of Big Business. His name is Dennis Spisak, and he is running for governor this year. You can check out his web site by clicking this LINK.
Other candidates for governor are incumbent and Democrat Ted Strickland, Republican and businessboy John Kasich, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. president in 2000, and building contractor Ken Matesz on the Libertarian Party ticket.
This is the last part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Ohio. The previous parts can be found here.
Republican Ohio
What parts of Ohio vote Republican?
All of it, of course, except for the parts that vote Democratic.
That is a pretty facetious answer to a fairly serious question, but there is something to it. Blue Ohio has a set of defined, separate characteristics. Red Ohio does too, but not to the same degree. It is far easier to describe Democratic Ohio than Republican Ohio.
The following map is a good beginning in exploring Republican Ohio.
These are the places which most heavily supported John McCain (for those who are curious, the most Democratic counties were Cleveland, Toledo, Ohio University, and Youngstown). An analysis of these below.
This is the third part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Ohio. The last part can be found here.
Like most states, Ohio contains several swing areas. Some lean Democratic; others lean Republican. A good politician will usually pick up most of these regions on his or her way to victory.
This is the second part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Ohio. Part three can be found here.
Unlike Florida and Pennsylvania, Ohio cannot be easily divided into geographically distinct regions (although they do exist). Instead, I will be examining it through the lens of both partys' strongholds in the state.
History
During the late eighteenth century Ohio was a consistently Republican state, the equivalent today of North Dakota or Arizona. Democrats often came close behind - four or five points - but never quite won the state until 1912. Their stronghold lay in a ring of rural counties populated by German immigrants (a pattern that has completely disappeared today). But this was never enough to overcome Republican strength everywhere else.
It was Franklin Roosevelt who changed this pattern forever.
This is the first part of a series of posts analyzing the swing state Ohio. Part two can be found here.
Ohio
Is Ohio a liberal place? Or is it a conservative place?
I suspect far more people would say the latter rather than the former.
In many respects, Ohio is politically similar to Florida. Both are well-known swing states that hold a bountiful electoral prize. Both lean Republican. Both have large cites that function as pools of Democratic votes. Both also have considerable rural, Republican regions.
But in other ways they could not be more different. Sunny Florida is diverse, growing, and service-oriented. While Florida often votes Republican, it is not exactly conservative. Cold, northern Ohio is a rust-belt giant. It is not very diverse. It is definitely not growing. Florida is new. Ohio is old and conservative.
For the moment Ohio is a bit more conservative than the country at large. For the past eight out of nine presidential elections, it has been a bit redder than the nation. Not much redder, but enough to be noticeable.
Resolving a three-year old lawsuit filed against the state of Ohio that charged widespread violations of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), parties in the case have submitted a settlement agreement to the court that should ensure voter registration opportunities for hundreds of thousands of Ohio public assistance clients. Evidence presented in the case had shown that many of Ohio's county public assistance offices were ignoring their responsibilities to provide voter registration to their low-income clients, as required by the NVRA.
Not too long ago, the means of accessing and staying on the voter registration rolls was a highly controversial issue that often got lost in a partisan shuffle. However, after more than two million voters were unable to vote due to problems with their voter registration last year, policymakers and advocates on both sides are finally listening. Whether it is extravagant efforts to automate voter registration on the national level or revamping state voting systems to utilize citizens' access to the Internet, improving voter registration is a glimmering goal in 2009 that brings promise for restoring the democratic process in the years to come.
STATE BLOGS
