It's no secret that over the past several months, John McCain's Straight Talk Express has become the Zig Zag Local. After a career as a maverick, McCain suddenly decided to embrace the conservative establishment in hopes of building something like the money and grass-roots machine that powered President Bush to victory.
The weird thing about this newly obedient McCain, however, is that he's drawing close to the Bush establishment at the very moment when it and its policies are widely blamed for America's deepening malaise. At a time when the rest of the country is experiencing a Bush hangover, McCain is just popping the champagne. He's gone from being a maverick who defies the establishment to a kind of gonzo maverick who defies the people -- and that's a very dangerous thing for a presidential candidate.
UPDATE: Featured on NPR's Bryant Park Project. Check out www.theproblemwithpalmoil.org for more information.
By Glenn Hurowitz
While showering a few weeks ago, I realized I had run out of conditioner. So I reached up and grabbed my wife's bottle -- Clairol Herbal Essences Rainforest Flowers, "with essences of nourishing palm."
The label caught me slightly by surprise. As an environmental journalist, I've been writing about the ecologically destructive effect of palm oil for some time now.
Whether it's used as an additive in soap, cosmetics or food, or processed into a biofuel, palm oil is one of the worst culprits in the climate crisis. Most of it comes from the disappearing, ultra-carbon-rich rain forests of Indonesia and Malaysia, of which a whopping 25,000 square miles have been cleared and burned to make way for palm oil plantations.
That burning releases enough carbon dioxide into the air to rank Indonesia as the No. 3 such polluter in the world. It also destroys the last remaining habitat for orangutans, Sumatran rhinos, tigers and other endangered wildlife. So what was this deadly oil doing in our otherwise ecologically friendly apartment?
I started to inspect other items on our shelves. Despite our efforts to keep our family green, we'd admitted into our home several products containing palm oil: Burt's Bees soap, chocolate truffles from Trader Joe's, Kashi breakfast bars, Whole Foods water crackers and many others.
Victory! Scott Kleeb Win Makes Democratic Courage Three for Three
U.S. Senate candidate Scott Kleeb, the first of Democratic Courage's Daring Dozen candidates, won his primary last night with 69 percent of the vote. Democratic Courage president Glenn Hurowitz wrote the following message to Democratic Courage members:
Dear Supporter,
I have some great news to report: Nebraska U.S. Senate candidate Scott Kleeb, the first of Democratic Courage's Daring Dozen candidates, won his primary last night with 69 percent of the vote! Thanks to everyone who contributed to help make this victory possible.
This is a great win for progressives. Scott is a champion in fighting the climate crisis, expanding health care, and bringing the war in Iraq to a responsible end. His victory in a conservative state (while being outspent) shows that his brand of courage can work anywhere (it also makes Democratic Courage three for three in congressional primaries!).
Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and author Glenn Hurowitz (Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party) have updated their widely covered studies of the popular vote and the popular will in the 2008 Democratic primary nominating contest and the Michigan and Florida vote.
Among the conclusions of the update:
* Because of dramatically lower turnout in caucus states, caucus state residents are underrepresented in national popular vote tallies by a factor of 6.
* Even if primaries had been held everywhere, caucus states would still favor Obama, albeit by a smaller margin, based on demographic characteristics. Giving all states equal representation in the popular vote by holding primaries everywhere (and accounting for demographic differences between caucus and primary voters) would boost Obama's current popular vote margin by approximately 600,000 votes.
* If Michigan and Florida's current vote totals are included, Clinton would need to win only about 53 percent of upcoming primary votes to claim a popular vote lead. However, if vastly lower turnout in caucus states is factored in, Obama's lead returns to 689,000, an almost insurmountable advantage.
* 1/3 of Floridians and 60 % of Michiganders stayed home during their primaries because they didn't think their votes would count. Based on demographic projections from the results in other states, regular primaries there would have produced a Clinton win in Florida and an Obama win in Michigan.
The study is available for download at http://www.dcourage.com/Popular%20Vote%20Study.pdf.
Glenn Hurowitz is available at 202-552-1828. Professor Nini is available at 215-898-7770 or 202-285-0652.
Democratic Courage today announced the first two members of its "Daring Dozen" congressional candidates - chosen for their progressive values and their backbone. Democratic Courage will be asking its members to contribute to their campaigns and take part in grassroots efforts on their behalf.
Scott Kleeb, Nebraska Senate, primary.
Scott Kleeb is taking on Tony Raimondo in the May 13 primary.
"Although he's running in one of the most Republican states in the country, Scott Kleeb has the courage to say what he believes and say it proudly," said Democratic Courage president Glenn Hurowitz. "He's fighting for progressive solutions to the climate crisis, for America's economic anxiety, and the lack of affordable health care, and Nebraskans are responding."
Raimondo was a lifelong Republican until five months ago.
Bob Lord, Arizona-03
Bob Lord is running to represent Arizona's Third District against Republican John Shadegg.
"It takes someone with real backbone to take on John Shadegg and the Republican machine, but Bob Lord's got it," Hurowitz said. "Bob is standing up against Shadegg's legacy of corruption, oil industry influence peddling, and bankrupt ideas, and that message is resonating in this conservative district."
Read More
Originally Published April 20, 2008
By Glenn Hurowitz
The concrete wall rising along the Mexican border is supposed to help keep illegal immigrants out of America. But it's precisely because it will do nothing of the sort that its politician defenders are willing to throw billions of dollars and hordes of political capital into constructing it.
Those politicians know something they hope their constituents won't figure out: Walls don't work.
A 10-foot wall does nothing to stop someone with an 11-foot ladder. The Border Patrol has admitted that there are dozens of tunnels under the wall. People fly over in small airplanes. More than 40 percent of illegal immigrants to this country come here legally and then overstay their visas.
There are ways to reduce the flow of illegal immigrants: more border security guards, deployment of a high-tech "virtual fence" (though technical glitches are slowing this down), vehicle barriers and (above all) enforcing America's immigration laws, including penalties against employers who hire undocumented workers. Indeed, according to border mayors and law enforcement officers I interviewed, the wall will perversely weaken our border security.
"We're fortunate that right now Mexicans have positive feelings about America and have provided invaluable assistance to the United States in several criminal investigations," McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez told me while I was investigating the wall for Grist Magazine. "But if you really want a security problem, have Mexicans hate the United States, and I'll show you a security problem."
The evil empire is invading. The victims are blamed and called terrorists. The world politely wrings its hands, takes some symbolic action and goes about its business.
It's Tibet in 2008, but it was also Afghanistan in 1979, when the Soviet Union sent its legions of tanks across the Oxus River to crush Afghan independence. And the U.S.-Afghan experience can teach us a lot about how the United States should deal with China.
Initially, the United States did little to help Afghanistan during the years immediately following the Soviet invasion besides offering some paltry aid and a boycott of the 1980 Olympics. Meanwhile, the Soviets sent in their troops and their helicopters and slaughtered whole villages of Afghans.
But Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-Texas) changed that. As chronicled in George Crile's extraordinary book "Charlie Wilson's War" (and the eponymous movie starring Tom Hanks), Wilson saw what few others did: that the mighty Soviet empire could be beaten with a little serious American help.
And so Wilson obtained billions in funding for arms and training for the Afghans, and soon enough the Afghan freedom fighters were downing Soviet helicopters, ultimately forcing the Soviets to withdraw. Suddenly, the myth of Soviet invincibility had been destroyed -- and the USSR was no longer able to contain its citizenry's longing for liberty.
A new study by Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party author Glenn Hurowitz casts serious doubt on the use of the popular vote to provide legitimacy in the current Democratic nominating contest.
The study projects that 4.1 million additional people would likely have voted in caucus states had primaries been held in those states instead - because of the vastly higher participation rates in primaries.
"Using popular vote numbers to claim victory in this process means dismissing the popular will of the voters in 13 states that had caucuses," Hurowitz said. "Given the bizarro hodgepodge of systems in use, the popular vote doesn't represent the popular will."
The study also estimates that, in a true popular vote system where all states held primaries, Obama's popular vote lead would have increased from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent, because voters in caucus states would have slightly favored Obama based on demographic projections.
A pdf of the study is available for download here.
Nini and Hurowitz previously published a study discussing problems with the Michigan and Florida votes and collaborated on Hurowitz's new book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party. Hurowitz is also the president of the Democratic Courage political action committee.
CONTACT: Glenn Hurowitz, 202-552-1828, / Gregory P. Nini, 215-898-7770,
Democratic Courage president Glenn Hurowitz sat down recently with Henry Tenenbaum on NBC in San Francisco to discuss Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the unlikely scenarios that could arise in this zany primary season. Click below to watch.
Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini (the statistical whiz behind many of the calculations in Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party) and I just authored this new paper showing that more than two million additional people would have voted in those primaries had they thought the results would be counted.
Among the proposed alternatives for seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan is to use the results of the primaries that already happened, based on the argument that doing so would avoid disenfranchising the 1.7 million Floridians and 600,000 Michiganders who already voted. However, doing so would disenfranchise many people from FL and MI who did not vote in the earlier primaries because they did not expect their delegates would be seated at the convention. Based on a statistical comparison with turnout in other states' primaries, it appears that roughly two million more people would have voted in FL and MI had they expected their delegates would be seated.
Progressive hero Dennis Kucinich faced down an opponent backed by some of America's biggest corporations to hold onto his Congressional seat. Congress will be a better place as a result, with Kucinich fighting hard to shape the agenda in a progressive direction - no matter what the polls say. We're also proud to report that Kucinich's victory means Democratic Courage is two for two in our endorsed candidates winning (Donna Edwards's victory ousting an entrenched incumbent In Maryland was the first). Thanks to all Democratic Courage members and volunteers who supported Kucinich's campaign. Thought I'd share a photo from one of the Democratic Courage phonebanks on Kucinich's behalf:
Democratic Courage volunteers Brad Johnson, Sam Goldman, and Moira Chapin phonebanking for Dennis Kucinich.
Originally published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
By GLENN HUROWITZ
Special to the Star-Telegram
With John McCain all but assured of the Republican nomination, things are looking up for the planet.
Since 2000, McCain has been a consistent advocate of America's taking action to solve the climate crisis. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama favor even bolder action.
But the Republican results make one thing clear: The debate in this country about global warming will no longer be about whether it exists or whether America should do anything about it, but rather how much we should do, and how quickly.
Even Mike Huckabee, despite the contempt in which he apparently holds most science, favors cutting greenhouse gas emissions and raising fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.
"We can't justify destroying a planet that doesn't belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it," he told Grist magazine.
The Republicans who tried to out-conservative their opponents by presenting themselves as the most anti-green candidate have fallen by the wayside. Fred Thompson started his campaign by mocking scientific evidence of global warming and then said he would consider allowing oil drilling in the Everglades. That earned an attack from Mitt Romney, who said, "There are certain places in America that are national treasures, and the Everglades is one of those."
Today, Democratic Courage endorsed Barack Obama for President. You can support our efforts to elect him (and highlight John McCain's record of failure) with our extraordinarily successful, hard-hitting media here. Below is an article Democratic Courage president Glenn Hurowitz[wrote for The Huffington Post about the decision.
Life has taught me that you can't get anything worth getting in politics without a bit of a fight. If you want transformative change, you're going to run into entrenched interests responsible for creating the very problems you're working to solve. And that's why Democratic Courage, the PAC I run, fought so hard for John Edwards - he recognized that, when dealing with the Republicans and the corporate lobbyists, "you can't nice these people to death."
And it's also why - up until now - I've been reluctant to embrace Barack Obama's candidacy. For all his inspirational force, his talk of change, and his ability to inspire a movement, his record shows a reluctance to confront that in a conventional candidate would translate into crippling weakness.
But what I've learned is that Barack Obama is not a conventional candidate - and that many of the rules that we apply to normal politics don't apply to him. Obama has taught me that hope - the pure, 99.44 kind he offers - can be such a powerful emotion that it can prevail even against a real progressive fighter like Hillary Clinton; how much more so can it prevail against a man like John McCain, who's is committed to perpetuating his past failures: the Iraq War, failed campaign finance reform that brought more big money into politics, and disastrous immigration policy.
Democratic Courage Endorses Dennis Kucinich for Congress
Although Democratic Courage supported John Edwards during the presidential primaries, we're proud to support Dennis Kucinich in his tough congressional primary against well-financed opponents who have launched incredibly nasty smears against him. Contribute here to support Kucinich.
Feb . 27, 2008 - Democratic Courage today endorsed Dennis Kucinich for Congress, declaring him a "courageous hero." The statement of Democratic Courage president Glenn Hurowitz follows.
Dennis Kucinich truly exemplifies the rare quality of political courage. From his earliest days in public life, Dennis has shown that he doesn't flinch when his constituents or his country are on the line. Even in the darkest days of the Bush administration, while his colleagues were crumbling to pressure to give into the Bush agenda, Dennis always stood strong.
Those brave stands - and his ability to give them a national platform - have been of the utmost importance to the country and his constituents. Dennis's consistent advocacy of a not-for-profit health care system has changed the national debate so that Democrats are competing to show which of them has the health care plan that covers the most people. Because of Dennis's work, more affordable universal health care is on the way. By bravely standing against all the oil industry's money, Dennis has helped bring Ohio and the country to the cusp of a clean energy revolution that will save the planet and create millions of much-needed jobs. It's hard to imagine any of that happening without Dennis.
We need Dennis to continue serving in Congress to bring the prosperous, peaceful future that the country needs and that only Dennis's brand of courage can deliver.
Connecticut Post: Fear and Courage "A Call to Arms"
Yale grad's book call to arms for Dems
By Joe Meyers
Perfectly timed for reading and pondering during the heated run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Glenn Hurowitz's new book "Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party" (Maisonneuve Press) shows how fearful poll followers like Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle moved their party away from the progressive politics of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson.
The Democratic organizer, and strategist -- and 2000 Yale graduate -- will be returning to Connecticut for book events in Stamford and New Haven next month.
Hurowitz's book is a call to arms for disenchanted Democrats, who lost heart after the compromises of the Clinton presidency and the weak presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.
Although Hurowitz deftly critiques the Clintons, Gore and Daschle, he also shows how Democrats who stuck to "unpopular" positions, such as Paul Wellstone and Nancy Pelosi, managed to build rather than lose support, despite relentless attacks by the Republican opposition.
The book documents how stands on individual issues do not make or break any candidate because, Hurowitz writes, "voters tend not to have strong opinions about even the most contentious issues of the day. This is the dirty little secret of every poll and focus group.
"If you ask people their opinion on an issue, most people will give it, or make one up. Many people will even offer opinions about issues that don't exist," Hurowitz adds.
The writer points out that in one University of Cincinnati study, "more than 30 percent of people could consistently be persuaded to give an opinion on fabricated bills such as the 'Agricultural Trade Act of 1983.' " The book goes on to point out that "it's common for 50 percent of voters or more to be unable to correctly identify candidates' issue positions even on big issues like war, abortion, health care."
"The senator agrees with you, but he's not sure about the politics," the senior Democratic Senate aide told me. "But if the politics changes, the senator would definitely like to vote your way -- so good luck; we're behind you." The aide was explaining to me why his boss, a Democrat who represents a rural, Republican-leaning state, hadn't supported higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks in a recent vote. The aide told me that though the senator agreed with the environmental group I was working for that increased auto mileage made sense, he was afraid that his constituents might not support his stance, especially after being bombarded with auto industry ads on the airwaves.
It was a response I would hear over and over again from Democrats as I went from leading local and state level environmental campaigns to helping direct those campaigns on the national level. When Democrats voted against us, it was rare to hear them say they didn't agree with us on the merits. Instead, they'd tell us they were afraid: afraid that their constituents wouldn't support a pro-environment position; afraid of defying President Bush and the Republican noise machine; or they'd even admit they were afraid of angering this or that corporate lobby and losing campaign contributions to the Republicans.
To be sure, on a basic level, I found their explanations infuriating: shouldn't leaders do the right thing, even when doing so might entail some political risk? But even when I put myself in their shoes and tried to see their positions from the perspective of a purely self-interested politician, these rationalizations still didn't add up: polls consistently show strong support in all parts of America for stronger environmental protections -- it's one issue that unites grassroots Republicans and Democrats. What's more, in my experience, politicians who were willing to confront powerful interests in tough battles came out of those battles more, not less, popular.
Victory! Donna Edwards's Win Puts Progressive Hero in Congress
This is a huge night for Maryland, for the Democratic Party, and for Democratic Courage. Donna Edwards has won her tight-fought campaign. We're proud to have contributed to this victory for our first endorsed candidate. I went out on the Democratic Courage canvass for Donna on Sunday with other volunteers from Democratic Courage and other progressive organizations - and you could feel change in the air. Thought I'd share the below piece about the victory I wrote for The Huffington Post. - Glenn Hurowitz
Maryland Gives Country Big Wet Progressive Kiss
Last night's presidential results were clear: one progressive bested another. But perhaps even more important for the future of the Democratic Party were the results in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District where progressive champion Donna Edwards went up against entrenched (Democratic) defender of the Republican culture of corruption Al Wynn.
The progressive won.
It's really an extraordinary result. Wynn has been office since 1992 and has cozied up to just about every special interest out there, taking hundreds of thousands from polluters, banks, and drug companies and repaying them with his votes for Bush's ultra-polluting 2005 energy bill, Bush's 2005 bankruptcy bill (that made it harder for working people to get out of debt), Bush's Iraq War, and Bush's efforts to keep big money in politics.
Read More
The Capital Times: "Don't despair. We have Glenn Hurowitz's 'Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party' to see us through."
Check out the excerpts from this amazing review by The Capital Times's John Nichols: Cautious Dems Pay a Price
By John Nichols, The Capital Times (Madison, WI)
January 24, 2008
Election years invariably produce stacks of books about the political parties that -- for better or worse, mostly worse -- form the framework of the American electoral system.
The vast majority of them will fail to last the year, and rightly so.
That's because they are written not by people who care passionately about the values that are supposed to define a Democrat or a Republican but by pundits and out-of-work pols who reduce heart-and-soul concerns to drab debates about strategy.
The Democratic stack is distinguished only by its painful predictability....It is enough to turn even the most serious political reader toward fiction.
But, don't despair. We have Glenn Hurowitz's "Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party" to see us through the 2008 campaign season.
This is a smart book by a smart man who cares deeply about the Democratic Party and recognizes that its dismal track record in recent years -- both out of power and in -- is less about specific stands on issues than it is about a deep and unrelenting ignorance of what matters, and what works, in politics.
It's been a whirlwind week - and a great one, with a bunch of rave reviews!
During a nationally-broadcast interview on Air America, the passionate and hilarious Lee Rayburn of the Lee Rayburn show gushed about the book: "The story of Paul Wellstone is well worth reading alone. Pick up the book! What I wouldn't give to roll back the clock four years and give a copy of Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party to John Kerry. You've got to pick it up if you want to understand what's going on behind the scenes."
This past weekend, I participated in a book salon at the popular, ground-breaking blog FireDogLake (I followed Nobel Prize Winner Mohammed Yunus). The host, whip-smart Chrissy Bonnano penned a review to launch the salon, writing, "Hurowitz has eloquently articulated what most of us liberals have felt for a long time-courage works. This isn't another book about all the ways the Democratic Party has failed liberals. It's not about starting a conversation; it is a blueprint for changing the conversation. Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party makes a compelling case for a progressive agenda based on principles, not polling data."
The salon participants were even more enthusiastic, with a bunch echoing what "Ian Welsh" wrote: "This is fascinating and you've convinced me I should buy your book." Yay! A lot of this echoed what Paul Hogarth wrote in his review of the book as "compelling and persuasive" at Beyon Chron.
Today, I return to a Yale whose politics has changed enormously in the short seven and a half years since I graduated (I'm here for a Saybrook Master's Tea to discuss my new book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party).
When I left campus in 2000, there was of course a great deal of political activity. Unlike now, however, a relatively small amount of it was directed towards electoral politics. The hottest causes that spring were World Bank and IMF reform, opposition to sweatshops, and getting Yale to take action against the climate crisis. What wasn't high on the agenda for most students was the upcoming presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush.
Relatively few students went off to knock on doors in a swing state, get involved in a campaign on-campus, or even take jobs in electoral politics. For even the most politically-minded of us, it seemed like there were more important battles to fight than those at the ballot box.
The progressives who, then as now, contributed the lion's share of campus political activity, were particularly disenchanted with the electoral game. While it's hard to imagine right now, the average progressive of the 2000 era really didn't see huge differences between Clinton-Gore and the Republicans.
Mainly, that was because we just as often saw Clinton as an opponent as a friend. Clinton was a main target of our effort to reform the World Bank and the IMF - he was their biggest backer. Clinton's record on labor issues was similarly weak: he had championed loosening international labor and environmental standards through his advocacy of, for instance, unfettered trade with China. We also saw union membership decline during his administration at a rate second only to that of Ronald Reagan among post-World War II presidents. Finally, we saw Clinton doing little to actually implement solutions to the emerging climate crisis.
Today, I return to a Yale whose politics has changed enormously in the short seven and a half years since I graduated (I'm here for a Saybrook Master's Tea to discuss my new book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party).
When I left campus in 2000, there was of course a great deal of political activity. Unlike now, however, a relatively small amount of it was directed towards electoral politics. The hottest causes that spring were World Bank and IMF reform, opposition to sweatshops, and getting Yale to take action against the climate crisis. What wasn't high on the agenda for most students was the upcoming presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush.
Relatively few students went off to knock on doors in a swing state, get involved in a campaign on-campus, or even take jobs in electoral politics. For even the most politically-minded of us, it seemed like there were more important battles to fight than those at the ballot box.
The progressives who, then as now, contributed the lion's share of campus political activity, were particularly disenchanted with the electoral game. While it's hard to imagine right now, the average progressive of the 2000 era really didn't see huge differences between Clinton-Gore and the Republicans.
By Brent Blackwelder and Glenn Hurowitz
Originally Published in Grist and Huffington Post
New Hampshire has for decades struggled to keep its air clean. But during 2005 and 2006, Hillary Clinton's ambitions collided with New Hampshire's air quality, putting thousands of Granite Staters, and particularly children, directly in the line of a deadly cloud of toxic pollution.
At the time, of course, Clinton was hotly engaged in a campaign to increase her margin of victory in her bid for reelection in her New York Senate race. Her triumph was never in question: she faced only token Republican opposition in a heavily Democratic state. But she was desperate to prove that she could win with a big margin in more conservative areas of upstate New York so she could prove to Democrats that she would be viable in similar conservative areas around the country during her presidential bid.
That understandable political aspiration came head to head with New Hampshire children's health in 2005, when the International Paper logging company unveiled a proposal to burn tires at its Ticonderoga paper mill in upstate New York on the border with Vermont. Burning tires to power its operations would save IP money on its electricity bills, but it came with a heavy price.
Burning tires produces massive quantities of mercury, benzene, and other cancer-causing poisons, and prevailing winds would carry those poisons into Vermont, New Hampshire, and the rest of New England. At the time, doctors and public health officials warned that even a very limited tire burn could cause permanent damage to New Englanders' health, especially that of children, whose developing bodies are especially vulnerable to exposure to toxic chemicals. According to the American Lung Association, exposure to burning tires can cut years off someone's life.
The dangers were so bad that Vermont's Republican governor, Jim Douglas, took up the cause and launched lawsuits and an extended public campaign to persuade New York not to expose the residents of his state to these deadly risks.
Normally, it's likely that Vermont's efforts along with those of New York environmentalists would succeed in stopping such an outrageous plan. But IP had an ace up its sleeve in Hillary Clinton. The logging company's strategists knew that Clinton would do almost anything to win votes in upstate New York and so they resorted to an old polluter trick: they threatened to close down the plant and fire the workers if they weren't allowed to burn the tires.
Washington Post, Denver Post, Newsday: Despite Cold, Gloves About to Come Off
This Washington Post story about Democratic Courage's latest ad has been picked up in newspapers across the country, including The Denver Post and Newsday. Here's the part about Democratic Courage:
Another group, a political action committee called Democratic Courage, run by a supporter of former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), has reported that it will spend about $20,000 on a television ad opposing Clinton. Earlier this year, the group announced plans to run "hard-hitting, creative ads in key primary states highlighting why Sen. Clinton should not be the first choice of voters who want to end the war in Iraq, fight global warming, win universal health care -- or beat the Republicans."
ad_icon
The group, which has specialized in producing low-cost ads designed to attract media attention, has also placed a video critical of Obama on its Web site. In that ad, "Santa Barack Obama" is shown delivering lumps of coal to Iowa voters in the form of votes he cast that were opposed by the PAC.
Thousands of people saw or heard part of a recent advertisement that criticized Hillary Clinton for not standing up to Republican attacks. The total ad buy: $2,500.
The ad was so juicy -- an attack from the left using a cardboard cutout of Clinton toppling in the wind -- that newspapers and broadcasters couldn't resist writing or talking about it. National Public Radio played a snippet and the Newark Star-Ledger, the San Jose Mercury News and the Boston Globe mentioned it. Several media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, put the video on their Web sites.
"We just sent out a press release and lots of people called us," said Glenn Hurowitz, the president of Democratic Courage, which ran the spot. "It was pretty easy." By the time Hurowitz and his group decided to put it on cable channels, they didn't need to spend much.
The Nation magazine just published an excerpt from my new book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party in their online version. The book is available now from Amazon.
Fear on the Campaign Trail
By Glenn Hurowitz
The preview for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth declared it "by far the most terrifying film you will ever see. It will shake you to your core." The movie never shied from summoning the prospect of global doom--and summoning it again and again. Yet the movie didn't leave its audiences quivering in their seats, paralyzed by the thought of looming catastrophe driven by powerful forces far greater than any individual. Along with increasingly harrowing communiqués from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and now huge fires across the West, the film spurred a planet to action. Individuals and governments alike are doing things that just two years ago seemed politically unattainable eco-fantasies.
But just as fear is starting to pay dividends for the planet, many liberals are turning their backs on this most powerful of political emotions. An idea that seems to keep bubbling up in Democratic and progressive circles is that everyone from environmentalists to health care advocates to Democratic candidates should keep their messages upbeat and hopeful.
It's an appealing conceit for the confrontation-averse: if fear doesn't work, we can just go on doing the less emotionally taxing and less controversial work of delivering happy little sermons. For that reason, just three years after running a cheerful and largely fear-free 2004 convention that was blown away by the Republicans' rhetorical mushroom clouds, lots of liberals are latching onto some recent psychological studies that suggest anxiety has an expiration date.
They say that President Bush's use of fear is generating diminishing returns: each time Bush tries to evoke fear, it works less as more people clue into his deceptions.
"Barring another assault on American soil, the moment of September 11--and the reminder of mortality that it brought--may well have passed," wrote John Judis in a recent article in The New Republic. "And with it, too, the ascendancy of politicians who exploited the fear of death that lies within us all."
New Ad Criticizes Hillary for Lacking Spine to Stand Up to Republicans
WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 - Democratic Courage, a political action committee dedicated to electing a "progressive, courageous, and winning" Democratic presidential candidate, today released its first television ad, entitled "Blowin' in the Wind." The ad is scheduled to begin airing soon in Iowa.
The spot shows Hillary Clinton surrendering in response to attacks from Rudy Giuliani about her "Baby Bonds" proposal to give every American born in the United States $5000. As Clinton backs down, the screen shows a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton begin to shake, until the wind blows the cutout away as Rudy Giuliani takes credit for pressuring her to drop it.
"Whenever Republicans challenge Hillary Clinton, she gets blown away," said Democratic Courage president Glenn Hurowitz. "Instead of showing strong leadership, Senator Clinton backs down in the face of attacks from Fox News or shifting polls. Whether it's beating the Republicans in 2008 or achieving the transformative change America needs, we need someone who can keep fighting even in the face of a hurricane."
Hurowitz added that the same kind of strong leadership that helps win elections is also the quality that voters are looking for in a president.
Arianna Huffington: Obama Needs to Learn from Democratic Courage
Arianna Huffington's latest post in The Huffington Post on how Barack Obama should learn from Democratic Courage:
So while Team Hillary may be moving in for the kill, the race is far from over.
Last week a new group called "Democratic Courage," headed by Glenn Hurowitz, was formed. According to its website, "Democratic Courage is made up of leaders and activists in the progressive movement. We believe that political courage is the key to political victory. Americans want a leader who will stand strong for his or her beliefs -- and not back down in the face of lobbyist pressure or Republican attacks."
And they have no problem drawing distinctions with Clinton:
"Like many Democrats, we believe that Hillary Clinton has repeatedly given in too easily to pressure -- and too often decides her policies not on the basis of what's right, but on the basis of what polls and focus groups tell her. As history shows, that's a dangerous road for Democrats and for the country. We believe there are other candidates who would be stronger leaders and have a much better chance of winning in 2008."
It's the kind of thing Obama needs to start saying -- loudly and often, coupled with real leadership on Iraq and Iran -- if he wants to keep the run-up to the nomination from becoming a Clinton victory parade.
Democratic Courage President Glenn Hurowitz on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson
"Americans know that if Hillary Clinton can't stand up to Rudy Giuliani and Rush Limbaugh, there's no way she's going to be able to stand up to America's enemies."
A newly formed political action committee is aiming to stop Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary by calling into question her progressive credentials.
"We think there are other Democratic presidential candidates who are both more progressive and have a better chance of beating the Republicans than she does," said the president of Democratic Courage, Glenn Hurowitz.
He declined to tip his hand on the group's case against Clinton, but said the PAC plans a paid media campaign in the early primary states to make its position clear.
"We'll definitely have sufficient resources to make a significant media buy," he said, adding that their campaign against Clinton would be "edgy" enough to get attention. "We don't need to raise immense amount of money to make a big difference."
Mastering "It's Not About Me" Politics
Originally Published in The Politico, October 25, 2007
By Glenn Hurowitz
Today marks five years since Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane crashed in a boggy forest, ending the career of a man who defied all conventional Democratic wisdom by finding electoral and legislative success despite a quirky personality, an occasionally hysterical style and, most of all, an ideology considerably to the left of his constituents.
Since then, Democrats in particular have paid frequent verbal homage to a man who remains a hero to the growing progressive wing of the party. But despite their praise, most Democrats still haven't absorbed the political strategy that delivered him that success.
Unlike most politicians, Wellstone believed that election victories -- and even good governance -- flow not primarily from the people in office, but rather from the competing strength of the great movements that put them there.
He saw that most politicians, and especially his fellow Democrats, looked at almost every vote through the lens of reelection. They were constantly calculating the strength of different political forces in their mind: Would supporting a corporate tax loophole yield an uptick in donations from grateful executives, or would the backlash from environmentally minded voters outweigh the extra dough?
Prairie Chicken: Why Environmental Groups Have Been Slow to Fight the Border Wall
Originally Published in Grist Magazine
By Glenn Hurowitz
The Border Wall in Arizona. Photo: Defenders of Wildlife
The bobcat turned, looked at me, and jumped into the mesquite brush. It was the first day of a three-day visit to South Texas, and I was exploring the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge along the Rio Grande River. Seeing the bobcat was a treat for me -- but the kind of treat that could become increasingly rare if the Bush administration and Congress go ahead with plans to build between 370 and 700 miles of double-layered concrete wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The efficacy of this plan to keep out "unwanted" foreigners is dubious at best, and highly controversial. But one thing is sure: it is likely to be the last nail in the coffin of some of the most extraordinary, and extraordinarily vulnerable, wildlife of the American Southwest.
"You're weak on terror," screamed the Republicans.
"You're spineless," yelled progressives.
"You make decisions on purely political grounds," sniped the mainstream media.
No love. True, Democrats did cave to President Bush in a particularly craven manner when they signed off on his drastic expansion in warrantless spying on American citizens. And they've yet to summon the backbone to meaningfully confront him on the Iraq War.
But, though you wouldn't know it from listening to most progressives or the mainstream media over the last month, Democrats actually made major steps forward on other parts of the progressive agenda in the final months of the summer session.
Watch video of Glenn Hurowitz's appearance on Air America's radio show "Ring of Fire," hosted by interviewer Mike Papantonio, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and David Bender. You can also hear the interview on Air America on Saturday afternoon August 18, 2007 on your local Air America station. Best quote from the interview: "People are running their I-phones now on orangutans."
In his latest American Prospect article, Glenn Hurowitz exposes how, despite some symbolic early victories on energy, Democrats are increasingly abandoning veteran Congressman (and polluter acolyte) John Dingell in their quest to pass meaningful legislation to tackle the global climate crisis.
Part of the reason for Dingell's decreasing power is that he's become rather unpopular within a Democratic caucus that's willing to tolerate internal policy differences, but increasingly unwilling to accept his barely veiled attacks on Pelosi and his open war with the environmental movement, which is providing more and more ground troops to Democratic field operations on Election Day. In a recent interview with The New Republic, he lashed out at what he called "damned environmentalists." In another interview, he implied that Nancy Pelosi was just one in a long line of Democratic leaders who would try and fail to diminish his power.
Indeed, talking with Democratic members of Congress about Dingell is like pulling teeth. Few are willing to go on the record about him. Even those who do can't bring themselves to utter the gushing encomiums that congressmen, regardless of their real feelings, usually use to describe powerful chairmen. "There's no problem with Chairman Dingell," said Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel, in one of the nicer on-the-record comments made in an informal survey of House Democrats involved in energy policy.
Progressives and environmentalists are far more scathing (and much more willing to go on the record with their criticisms). MoveOn.org labeled Dingell "The Dingellsaurus" in radio ads, while Greenpeace recently called for his removal as chairman.
Glenn Hurowitz and William Powers On "Macho Liberal Radio"
Mark Walsh, the host of XM Satellite Radio's popular "Left Jab" show, had authors Glenn Hurowitz and William Powers on his July 28th show to discuss their most recent New York Times op-ed, "Home on the Rainforest," which proposed the innovative idea of carbon ranching - giving polluters a financial incentive to protect the world's rapidly disappearing rainforest.
Powers, who spent the last five years in the Bolivian Amazon working to protect it, memorably explained the need for carbon ranching by telling Walsh, "if it pays, it stays": if corporations and peasants are given a financial incentive to keep rainforests intact, these forests will continue to act as the lungs of the planet - absorbing the carbon dioxide fueling global warming and breathing out oxygen. Hurowitz discussed how carbon ranching could be the one area of agreement between President Bush and the Democratic Congress in addressing the climate crisis.
The American Prospect is featuring Glenn Hurowitz's latest article, Environmentalism for Billionaires. It's about how giant polluters are now spinning some extremely dangerous projects as pro-environment in order to cash in on the surge of interest in stopping global warming: things like burning down the rainforest to produce electricity, turning coal into gasoline, or getting global warming credit for cutting down forests and turning them into furniture and post-it notes. Here's an excerpt:
Lately, I've been inundated with phone calls from venture capitalists, private equity guys, and hedge fundistas. They're coming to me because I'm their environmentalist friend and they all want to know one thing: how they can make a buck off the surge in interest in combating global warming.
In a way, that's a sign that the environmental movement has finally arrived. After decades of struggling to convince the titans of finance that protecting the planet and making money weren't mutually exclusive, the tycoons are now coming to us.
But many of these capitalist converts need watching. While Wall Street's eco-splurge has generated a flood of financing for legitimately clean ventures like wind and solar power, it's also spawned extremely dangerous projects that are painted green by their unscrupulous backers, but that at their core are as black as, well, coal.
UPDATE - Grist's blogger extraordinaire David Roberts said this about "Flirting With Liquid Coal":
"Glenn Hurowitz has a fantastic article bashing liquid coal. It's even better than mine, for which I hate and envy him." Thanks, David (though your article was pretty darn good too).
Here's the sensational article, exposing how the coal industry deceived Congress about its ability to make coal clean - and how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are nevertheless trying to funnel them billions in subsidies for one of the dirtiest energy sources known to man.
Last week, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton showed that despite efforts to build support with progressives suspicious of their close ties to corporate America, when it comes to real decisions and real votes, big business will often come first. This was reaffirmed when the two senators voted for an amendment to the energy bill offered by Montana Democrat Jon Tester that would have provided $200 million in grants and $10 billion in taxpayer loans for projects to turn regular old solid, black coal into new, shiny liquid coal to power cars and trucks. The coal companies love the idea, because replacing even 10 percent of gasoline with liquid coal would spur a 43 percent increase in coal mining, according to environmental groups. And proponents have tried to put coal liquefaction in the politically appealing framework of "energy independence" -- helping reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Democratic Courage Media Moment: New York Times Op-ed Calls on Congress to Save Tropical Forests, Stop Global Warming
Originally Published in The New York Times, June 16, 2007
Home on the Rainforest
By WILLIAM POWERS and GLENN HUROWITZ
DEEP within Madagascar, more than 1,300 square miles of rainforest continue to breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen every day, helping to keep the planet cool. That may not seem like a big achievement for a bunch of trees, but elsewhere around the world tropical forests like this one are being felled to make way for timber and mining operations, cattle ranches and, increasingly, sugar and palm oil plantations to fuel the world's growing thirst for ethanol.
So how did this particular rainforest -- a tropical paradise whose canopy teems with rare lemurs and serpent eagles -- avoid destruction? Its survival is the fruit of one of the first experiments in carbon ranching: allowing polluters to make up for their greenhouse gas emissions by paying third world countries like Madagascar to preserve their tropical forests. Madagascar uses the money it gets from multinational corporations to safeguard the forest and pay for poverty reduction programs.
Originally Published at TomPaine.com, May 31, 2007
You can almost hear the triumphant cackling at the White House. Despite almost six months at the helm in Congress, Democrats have almost completely failed to affect President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq or his ability to deliver legislative goodies to his corporate backers. Indeed, the Democratic leadership's agreement to pass an Iraq funding bill without a timeline for withdrawal is only the latest in a string of White House wins.
The surrenders started mid-month when top Democrats signed off on one of President Bush's top priority agenda items: free trade agreements for Panama and Peru. Then, Senate Democrats okayed a White House proposal for a "Grand Bargain" on immigration.
Meanwhile, many of the top items on the Democratic agenda languish unpassed in the face of vehement Republican opposition and the threat of President Bush's veto pen. But while the president and his still-loyal congressional backers are holding up everything Democrats ran on, does it really make sense for Democrats to start giving President Bush and the GOP victories on Republican priorities?
The Politico: Hillary Clinton's Burning Tire Problem
Burning Tires and Liquid Coal: The Clinton-Obama Energy Plan
By Glenn Hurowitz
Originally Published in The Politico, May 24, 2007
In their bids for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) have touted their environmental credentials. Yet despite compiling generally pro-environment voting records, at key moments each one has succumbed to pressure from powerful home-state polluters -- casting doubt on how much they will fight for the planet when special interests stand in the way.
Clinton's moment of truth came in 2005, when executives at the International Paper mill in upstate Ticonderoga, N.Y., were pressing to cut costs by burning old tires to provide power for their operations. Tires are one of the most toxic fuels known to man, and people downwind from the plant (including Republican Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas) were organizing a campaign to stop IP from poisoning their air with mercury, benzene and other deadly chemicals.
To counter this effort, IP launched an aggressive effort to woo New York politicians, including Clinton, in part by resorting to an old polluter trick: threatening to shut down the plant if it wasn't allowed to burn the tires.
Baltimore Sun Op-ed: Immigration Deal a Threat to the Environment
By Glenn Hurowitz
Originally Published in The Baltimore Sun, May 22, 2007
The biggest - and least talked about - loser in the immigration "grand bargain" announced last week is the planet.
The deal amounts to an environmental double-whammy: If enacted, it would cause damage through those provisions meant to increase the number of immigrants in this country and through those designed to keep immigrants out.
The legislation requires the construction of 370 miles of border fencing before any liberalizing of immigration is allowed to go forward. But this is no white picket fence between friendly neighbors. Instead, it's a double-layered concrete barrier more than 10 feet high - a little taste of Cold War Berlin on the Rio Grande. Read more
By Glenn Hurowitz
Originally Published by TomPaine.com, May 18, 2007
In their rush to prove that they could pass significant legislation and conclude a deal with President Bush on trade, it seems that Democrats forgot to consider the crippling political consequences of their last bipartisan pursuit of a trade deal: the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement.
From the get-go, the pursuit of NAFTA was damaging to Democrats in general and President Clinton in particular. With pro-labor and pro-environment congressional Democrats lined up against business oriented New Democrats in their own caucus and the White House, the treaty precipitated poisonous intra-party strife that got in the way of other parts of President Clinton's agenda. From a tactical perspective, it was even worse: labor unions were telling the White House that while they would prefer to spend their war chest to build support for universal health care, they were prepared to spend it instead on beating NAFTA.
Clinton ultimately eked out a narrow victory on NAFTA, and many pundits initially deemed it smart politics: Clinton got a short-term boost in his approval ratings and showed that he was strong enough and skilled enough to defy the Democratic leadership in Congress. "He stood up against his two prime constituents, labor and the environment, to drive it home over their dead bodies," American Express chairman James Robinson was quoted saying in a 2000 book by journalist James MacArthur.
Democratic Courage Media Moment: New Op-ed Says Democrats Risk Defeat by Moving to Center
Democratic Courage President Glenn Hurowitz has just published a new op-ed in The Baltimore Sun entitled "Move to Middle Hurts Democrats."
The op-ed was featured on Real Clear Politics' top ten op-eds for Sunday, and featured as Common Dreams's #2 op-ed in the country. The op-ed is based on Hurowitz's forthcoming book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party and argues that taking progressive positions and fighting hard for them makes political sense for Democrats; in contrast, attempting to win votes by changing stances on issues will turn off indpendents who don't vote on issues but are looking for "strong leaders" who stick to their guns, as well as progressives who actually follow the issues and want Democrats to take aggressive progressive positions.
Democratic Courage Media Moment: The Democrats' Unfrozen Cavemen Committee Chairmen
My latest op-ed printed in Fort Lauderdale/Broward County's South Florida Sun-Sentinel talks about how the Democrats' fear of taking on some of their caucus's more anachronistic and corrupt members means that despite their promises, they're not likely to be able to make real progress on issues like global warming. The article focuses in particular on the political impact of allowing special interest lackies like House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell to stay in power, even when they allow loyalty to special interests to trump not only the public interest, but also the Democrats' collective political interests. Read a slightly expanded version of the published op-ed below.
Congress Votes for Offshore Drilling-- with Democratic Leadership Support!
On August 2, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid joined 17 other Democrats in support of a bill that would let big oil companies like Exxon-Mobil drill for oil in more areas off the coast.
Tell your senators what you think about their vote by clicking here.
Reid's action blurs the distinction between Democrats and Republicans on the environment--making it hard to see the difference between the two parties. Up until now, Democrats have enjoyed a bigger advantage over Republicans on the environment than any issue. Now's not the time for Reid to make it seem like his party is just as sold out to big oil as George Bush.
The good news is that the Senate and House still need to reconcile their differences on this legislation before it comes up for a final vote; the changes imposed by anti-environment extremmists in the House may make it too polluting even for wimpy Democrats like Reid to swallow. Let your senators know how you feel about offshore drilling by clicking here to participate in an action being coordinated by the environmental group U.S. PIRG.
In a new article in The Forward by writer Jenn Siegel, I go toe-to-toe with Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid's spokesman Jim Manley in debating what should be done about evidence of massive voter fraud in the 2004 election in Ohio chronicled in Robert Kennedy's recent Rolling Stone article.
Glenn Hurowitz, former deputy field director for the left-leaning Public Interest Research Group, told the Forward that many of his friends and colleagues have discussed Kennedy's article in recent days, and he believes that Democratic leaders should be more public and vocal about the issue.
"I think it would be incredibly useful for the Democrats to talk about these allegations over and over and over again, and by doing so, undermine the legitimacy of Bush's presidency even more," said Hurowitz, who is working on a book about the history of fear and courage in the Democratic Party. "I'm definitely disappointed" in the Democratic leadership.
Several Democratic leaders did not return calls from the Forward.
Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, said that revisiting 2004 for the sake of questioning the outcome of the election was not a party priority.
"I haven't even read the article, for God's sake," Manley told the Forward. We have "five or six months to go before the November elections; we've got an important debate about Iraq coming up." He added, "We're looking forward, not looking back."
Um, Jim - have you noticed that focusing on the scandals of "the past" has done a pretty good job of lowering Bush's approval rating? Dem leadership needs to learn not to fall for Republican messaging saying that American people don't want ot hera about Republican corruption. They may not WANT to hear about it, but they sure do respond when they do.
Op-ed in Miami Herald: Cut deficit and pollution, too
Miami Herald, February 12, 2002
Cut Deficit and Pollution Too
By Glenn Hurowitz
The Bush-Cheney administration has called for a return to deficit spending on a massive scale, using the war against terrorism as its justification. But before we return to the red, Congress needs to take out a big green scissors and slash the huge subsidies to the energy industry recommended by Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.
Prodded by energy industry executives from Enron and other campaign contributors, Cheney's task force recommended adding a whopping $28 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to the existing $33 billion over 10 years that the government is already handing over to big energy companies from taxpayers. These hefty price tags don't even include the $10.5 billion a year we pay for the defense of our Persian Gulf oil supply.
Aside from purely fiscal concerns, Congress needs to scrutinize to what purpose this money is going. For example, the bill proposes to give the coal industry $5.3 billion in taxpayer money for allegedly "clean" coal programs. Unfortunately, even Big Coal's rosiest scenarios acknowledge that no matter how much you scrub it, coal will remain the dirtiest energy source in use.
The "clean" coal programs will do nothing to address the carbon dioxide pollution generated by the burning of coal and will do nothing to address the ecological impact of coal mining. In southern West Virginia alone, coal mining operations have leveled 15 percent to 20 percent of mountain tops, burying 1,000 miles of streams in waste and destroying 30,000 acres of hardwood forest.
Even in the unlikely event that these programs achieve their goals, coal will still produce more sulfur dioxide, more mercury and more carbon dioxide than any other fossil fuel. Compare that to the zero pollution from wind and solar power, and coal subsidies start to seem only like a polluter payday.
But it's not only Big Coal that will take home a big-polluter paycheck. The oil and gas industry will also get $21 billion in new subsidies and tax breaks on top of the $26 billion in giveaways they already receive from public funds. While the whole $47 billion is rife with boondoggles, one project in particular -- $4 billion for ultra-deep-sea oil drilling -- illustrates the absurdity of subsidizing an established, polluting industry when cleaner, cheaper alternatives abound. First off, many of the deep-sea oil reserves that these subsidies are targeted at extracting lie in the Gulf of Mexico, including off Florida's coast. Floridians know the destructive potential of offshore oil drilling and have successfully stopped efforts to drill off our fragile shores. But if taxpayers spent $4 billion on the program, big oil and its allies in government will have yet another lever of influence in their efforts to subvert the will of Floridians and argue that without allowing rigs into offshore areas, the $4 billion will have been wasted.
Instead of pouring resources into the deep blue sea -- or into costly, dangerous nuclear energy -- Congress needs to invest instead in a clean energy future. While research support and tax incentives can go a long way toward launching a clean energy boom, what is really needed are pollution controls and an increase in automobile fuel efficiency standards to reduce our reliance on the fuels that pollute our environment.
Right now, Congress is considering two measures that would move us toward this future and Florida's senators may hold the key votes on both these issues.
The first is a proposal introduced by Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont to tightly regulate pollution generated by power plants. According to a report by Environmental Protection Agency consultants ABT associates, particulate pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants cuts short the lives of 30,000 Americans every year -- including 1,740 in Florida alone.
The bill will also regulate the carbon dioxide emissions that are causing the global warming-induced sea level rise that is eroding Florida's coastline and threatening low-lying areas like the Everglades.
The other measure Congress is considering will raise fuel efficiency requirements for cars to 40 miles per gallon. This step alone would save more oil than we get from the Persian Gulf and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined -- without costing taxpayers a cent. Indeed, taking this step will likely reduce our need to spend money defending the Persian Gulf oil supply.
It will also save consumers money -- according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, these improvements will save consumers between $3,500 and $6,500 per car in fuel costs.
That's the kind of payoff this country really needs.
Glenn Hurowitz is South Florida field coordinator for the Florida Public Interest Research Group.
Financial Times: Cheney Kicks Me Out of National Press Club
The Financial Times, June 14, 2001
Addressing the Energy Efficiency Forum yesterday at the National Press Club, Vice President Dick Cheney and FERC Chairman Curt Hebert both pledged to stay the course when it comes to energy policy. But while Cheney and Hebert faced a friendly audience in Washington, their remarks seemed aimed more at winning over a skeptical audience in California.
Not surprisingly, both emphasized the importance of market remedies -- and reaffirmed their opposition to price controls. Hebert, for one, was adamant that recent FERC measures would suffice to create a better functioning market out West.
"California does not mean an end to competition," he said.
Cheney repeated the main selling points of the administration's recently introduced national energy policy. And while he warned of the possible economic impact of the current supply situation, the vice president said the nation's energy problems can be fixed with a dose of "resolve, ingenuity and clarity of purpose."
Among the remedies that Cheney listed included the construction of a new gas pipeline that would run from Alaska's North Slope, a proposal that Cheney called "relatively non-controversial."
He also gave a strong endorsement to combined heating and power technology. CHP systems, said Cheney, "are the way to go."
The vice president also ticked off a list of efficiency measures that the administration is promoting, including reduced consumption by government agencies. The federal government, he said, can "lead by example."
Not every audience member was convinced. One Greenpeace supporter, Glenn Hurowitz, shouted out a question about President Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Hurowitz was hustled out of the press gallery by conference security guards; Cheney, however, took up his question, responding that, while the administration believes the Kyoto Protocol is flawed, "we're really concerned about global warming."
Taking the podium before the vice president, Hebert touted his agency's recent efforts to introduce price mitigation for western power markets. "California's getting there, but there's more work to be done," said Hebert.
The chairman also pointed to FERC's rapid turnaround of new pipeline certificates. Even without a full complement of commissioners, Hebert noted, the commission had been able to respond to requests to expand California-bound pipeline capacity with "absolutely unheard of" speed.
On the retail competition front, however, Hebert said that state regulators would have to take the lead. "We can provide leadership," Hebert said, but retail competition "is the state's job."
Hebert also got in a dig at Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., who has summoned FERC members to appear next week before the Senate Committee on Government Oversight to testify about the commission's oversight of California energy markets. While commissioners are ready to appear on Capitol Hill, Hebert said, frequent testimony "does take us away from our duties" at FERC.
The FERC chairman also sought to deflect blame away from his agency, saying he and his fellow commissioners had "taken a lot of heat" in the media.
His remarks also threw Senate testimony by influential economists in sharp relief. Alfred Kahn, the architect of airline deregulation, testified yesterday before the Senate that California urgently needs temporary caps on wholesale prices.
Paid for by Democratic Courage PAC (www.democraticcourage.com), and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Copyright 2007 Democratic Courage. All rights reserved.
2531 Q St., NW, Suite #205 * Washington, DC 20007 USA * TEL (202) 546-7765 * FAX (301) 576-4526
Email: glenn > at < dcourage dot com
from Amazon.
