CA-36 Election Results

Click on the chart to enlarge

Looks like that half million dollars Republican Craig Huey spent out of his own pocket may have earned him a spot in the July run-off against front-runner Janice Hahn who was supported by the L.A. political machine. He appears to have edged progressive champion Debra Bowen by around 200 votes. In 4th place is the other progressive in the race, Marcy Winograd. Many people will say that Marcy played the spoiler and ruined Bowen's chances to make the runoff and beat Hahn. But Marcy has a unique message and had every right to run and she probably wouldn't have run had Bowen not played into Joe Trippi's hands-- Hahn's consultant-- with a bogus Israel pledge meant to lure Marcy into the race and do... exactly what was done. Bowen should never have signed the pledge, just said she supports a two-state solution and the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in Israel. The pledge was created to enrage Marcy and lure her into the race to split the progressive vote and hamper Bowen. It worked.

However... there are still 9,800 absentee votes to be counted, more than enough to make up for the 200 vote lead Huey has over Debra. We may not know what the result is for another week or even two.






UPDATE FROM DOUG KAHN:

It’ll Be Debra Bowen vs. Janice Hahn in CA-36

I’m saying Debra Bowen will make the run-off in CA-36, that a final count will erase the 206 votes margin that separate her from a 2nd place finish. It depends on how good she was at the nuts and bolts of getting people to supporter her, and then getting them to vote. We really don’t know that yet. I think she was very good, but we’ll see.

I supported her, but made what I considered to be a token campaign contribution, because I didn’t think she’d make the run-off. Having two very good progressive candidates (and Marcy Winograd is a very, very good progressive) in a race is a double-whammy; they’ll not only split the vote, but you can expect many progressives to have a bad feeling about the contest, and just not vote.

It’s a Democratic district, for sure; and Blue Dog Jane Harman regularly rolled up 2 to 1 margins over her Republican opponents. But these were, by all accounts, weak candidates, and Harman appeals to older, conservative, and Republican voters; these are all high-propensity voting groups. Democrats outnumber Republicans 5 to 3, but 25% of voters are neither. This is a perfect situation for a tea-bagger; no mainstream Republican politician who has a shot at a seat in Congress thinks about running in the 36th. So an out-of-district wingnut like Huey can pretty much roll.

Harman resigned when she did because she wanted a low turnout election, setting up the contest for another conservative/hack Democrat, Janice Hahn. I don’t know if it was part of that strategy, but it also makes it easier for a teabagger to get a lot of attention and a lot of votes. That can’t be bad in a runoff with any Democrat.

I Thought Bowen was a Long Shot

So you had 3 well-funded, well-known Democrats fighting over 45% of the electorate, and one well-funded idiot drooling over the 27% of voters who are Republicans added to the usual slack-jawed ranters who vote because they think the Republican party has sold out to Socialism. Welcome to the new California election system.

Under these circumstances, my analysis (which is probably a too-generous self-appraisal of what goes on in my head) was that it was going to be Janice Hahn and an actual Republican, with real Democrats bringing up the rear.

Now I think I was wrong. I hope it’s because progressives are enthusiastic about elections these days. I know I am. Recent polling and results in special elections show a sharp reversal from last November’s results.

On Tuesday, the New Hampshire House of Representatives got a new member. In the 4th District, Republican Robert Mead had resigned to become chief of staff to House Speaker Bill O’Brien, another wingnut teabagger. He’s being replaced by Democrat Jennifer Daler, who beat a Republican in a heavily Republican district, and it was a landslide, 58%-42%. More important was how it happened. In a special election that was expected to have a dismal turnout and a highly conservative lean, 20% of voters came to the polls, and the extra voters were Democrats. Howie has a longer explanation going up tomorrow afternoon.

This District is Different

So yes, Debra is 206 votes behind, in third place. She didn’t beat Republican/Wingnut Craig ‘Baby’ Huey at the polls. But she did have a 798 vote edge over him in the vote-by-mail.

None of the media seems to understand that the 36th District has a unique history when it comes to absentee (vote-by-mail) voting. Jane Harman always had a massive vote-by-mail campaign running in general elections, so Democrats in the 36th District are accustomed to voting that way. The usual Republican edge in stay-at-home voters never held true there.

My memory is a bit hazy about the '90s, but I think at least once Harman was behind on election day before pulling it out when mail-in votes were tallied. I remember her spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on sophisticated vote-by-mail operations. We used to collect her mail pieces and crib off them to design our own in Pasadena-area local elections.

My first thought when I saw the LA Times coverage, the 206 votes Debra needed, was that she'd make it through once all the vote-by-mail ballots were counted. I’ve done some math, and I still think so. Here are the numbers on Bowen’s victory over Huey in the vote-by-mail count and defeat at the 261 polling places.

The Numbers

L.A. County reported 53,659 ‘ballots cast/turnout’ (vote-by-mail received plus day of election). 25,949 of those, slightly less than half, were vote-by-mail.

Bowen’s voters:

11,442 total

-5,448 vote-by-mail

=5,994 precinct vote

Huey’s voters:

11,648 total

-4,650 vote-by-mail

=6,998 precinct vote

There are 9,811 untallied votes, and 8,416 of those are vote-by-mail that hadn’t been received by election day. If those 8,416 go the way the mail-in count went, then Bowen would get 1,784 more votes, Huey would get 1,522 more, and Bowen picks up 262 more votes, enough to get her into the runoff.

In California, anyone can apply to vote by mail, and your ballot counts if it arrives by election day or if you drop it off in person. Debra’s chances depend upon how good her campaign was at identifying supporters, getting them to request mail-in ballots, and checking to make sure they mailed it on time.

Crucially, throughout the day on election day they had to examine the precinct lists at the polls to see how many of ‘her’ voters still hadn’t voted or turned in their mail-in ballots. Then, they had to somehow get these people to the polling place either with our without a mail-in ballot. If you’ve requested and received a ballot and haven’t mailed it in, you can still drop it off at any polling place; or you can turn it in unused at your own precinct and use the voting booth.

And then there are the 1,269 ‘provisional’ ballots; an unknown number of those were people who got mail-in ballots, didn’t send them in, and went to their polling place without the ballot. In those cases, the voter casts a ballot, and the vote will count if the Registrar of Voters confirms there was no mail-in.

This is a real test of campaign competency. Bowen is Secretary of State, responsible for California elections. You’d have to really wonder about her viability in a runoff if she didn’t have an efficient vote-by-mail/GOTV operation.

---------------

Late this afternoon Marcy sent an e-mail to her supporters thanking them for their help. She included this paragraph:

"Huey would like to buy his way into Congress, so that the super rich can privatize America and abolish all regulations, including environmental protections. Though few media pundits took him seriously, we must now mobilize to defeat him-- should he make it to the run-off. Given Bowen's strong base of support in the heavily-populated South Bay and Torrance, however, I expect she will make it to the run-off."

This is the time to renew our efforts for Debra Bowen. It's a chance for CA-36 to make a clean sweep of the bad old Jane Harman days and elect a real progressive leader, an independent thinker with a fresh outlook. She's on the Blue America page

A Chance To Make Congress Better? Tomorrow In Los Angeles, Yes; Next Tuesday In Buffalo... Probably Not

Debra Bowen, Kathy Hochul

Tomorrow voters in CA-36 go to the polls to pick a replacement for Blue Dog Jane Harman. Her own choice is sleazy City Hall political hack Janice Hahn, the worst of example of meaningless careerism in the California Democratic Party, Hahn stands for nothing... except personal ambition. And all the rot inside the party has come out to back her. The endorsement list on her website reads like a lesson in political untrustworthiness. There are two outstanding progressives running as well, Debra Bowen and Marcy Winograd, either of whom would make an extraordinary and much-needed upgrade in southern California's congressional caucus. Blue America weighed the race carefully and concluded that Bowen has the far better chance to beat Hahn-- which is why Hahn and her slick consultants lured Winograd into the race. A vote for anyone tomorrow other than for Bowen is, alas, a vote for Hahn.

And then a week from tomorrow the two tribes-- plus right-wing rogue Jack Davis-- battle it out in a primary in a New York State's reddest district in the Buffalo suburbs. Team Red has put up a multimillionaire robot named Jane Corwin who has been campaigning on her backing for the Ryan budget that other Republicans are running away from.

Newt Gingrich slammed the House GOP budget on Meet The Press this morning, telling interviewer David Gregory that replacing Medicare with a voucher system was too "radical" an approach. His words were by far the harshest of any major presidential candidate towards Paul Ryan's proposal on entitlements.

"I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said, calling the plan "too big a jump" for the country. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

But Corwin has dug herself into a hole and isn't budging. In fact, she just keeps digging

A late April Siena poll of likely voters in the 26th suggested a majority in the district, 59 percent, do not favor that proposal. Hochul has been hammering Corwin for saying she would have voted for the Republican spending plan. Donald Trump, the TV personality and real estate mogul, opined Wednesday in the national press that Corwin’s campaign is struggling because of the Ryan Medicare issue.

Corwin did not back away from the Ryan bill in the debate.

“If we keep Medicare the same plan that it is now, we’re going to be out of money by 2029, which means nobody will receive benefits,” she said. “This (plan) does not eliminate Medicare, it protects Medicare” for future generations.

Not so, Hochul countered.

Corwin’s insolvency claim is “a scare tactic, to tell our seniors that there’ll be nothing for them in 2029; it’s not the truth,” she said.

The Ryan bill would take the country back to the early 1960s, before seniors had guaranteed health care coverage and many went without, Hochul said.

“There’s a way to fix (Medicare). ... We have to continue what’s been a very successful program,” Hochul insisted.

But as we pointed out last week, the Team Blue contestant, Hochul, is another conservative shill who we'll find cowering behind Boehner on bill after bill should she wind up, because of Davis' spoiler routine, winning the seat, a seat she probably wouldn't be able to hold without voting a pure GOP line.

Hochul gobbled up the big endorsements yesterday (the Buffalo News and the Democrat and Chronicle). She's winning in the endorsements area because she's "independent" enough to back a conservative Republican agenda, despite the blue t-shirt.

Hochul has a long history of being an independent thinker. As Erie County clerk, she defied former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a fellow Democrat, on his plans to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. And she went toe-to-toe with former Gov. David Paterson, also a Democrat, until he relented on plans to increase new license plate fees.

Her election will have national implications inasmuch as it will cause a stampede of already spooked Republican congressmembers away from Ryan's toxic "cause"-- and that's a good thing-- but in terms of making Congress better... no way. Expect all the worst from a Congresswoman Kathy Hochul. Any Democrat who builds a political career by throwing a weak component of the Democratic coalition under the bus, as Hochul has, is going to be bad news. The most that can be said about her is, "but she isn't as bad as Corwin." It's true, but a Congresswoman Corwin wouldn't be inside the already conflicted Democratic caucus pulling it always further and further rightward, blurring the differences between the two parties and making it irrelevant to working families.

This is costing Jane Corwin & the GOP an easy win

Is America Willing To Pay For A Cleaner, Safer Energy Future?

In the midst of all the conservative kabuki over the shutdown threat yesterday-- it worked, conservatives got the immense, devastating cuts they wanted-- we also looked at this week's right-wing assault in the EPA. So did the League of Conservation Voters, which points to the EPA's first-ever proposal of national standards for mercury and other toxic air pollution for power plants, as a reason for renewed right-wing fervour.

Every year, tons of pollutants like mercury and arsenic are pumped into the air we breathe, harming our environment and endangering our health.

Unfortunately, it only takes a small amount of toxic air pollution to cause serious, lifelong health complications. Toxic air pollutants-- like mercury from power plants-- cause neurological damage in children exposed in the womb and during early development.

But by implementing these new proposed safeguards, the EPA will be taking significant steps toward protecting our health. These proposed rules will protect us from many airborne toxins including mercury, arsenic, lead, dioxins, acid gas and six dozen other harmful pollutants.

The EPA estimates that these new guidelines-- which are 20 years in the making-- will save as many as 17,000 American lives annually and will prevent up to 120,000 cases of childhood asthma and up to 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis in children.

Additionally, the EPA’s proposed rules are expected to generate anywhere between $60 and $140 billion worth of health cost savings-- that represents a return on investment of between $5 and $14 back for every dollar we spend implementing the new guidelines.

And they point out that Big Oil, Dirty Coal and other dirty energy interests are aggressively working to block the EPA from implementing vital the new clean air standards. This California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who Blue America has endorsed to replace Jane Harman in Congress, came out swinging about conservatives-- and remember, some of these conservatives are ostensibly Democrats, including Jim Costa right here in California-- attempting to turn the clock back on a clean environment and sidetracking a green future.

[I]f congressional Republicans who take their cues from special interests and dirty energy companies have their way, they’ll cut the legs out from under the EPA plan before it can put us on a path toward a clean energy future.

Just yesterday, the U.S. Senate defeated a Republican effort to try to block the implementation of the EPA’s new clean air rules-- which is unlikely to be their last attempt. And now we’re getting word that House Republicans are trying to make blocking these rules a condition of any budget deal. We simply can't let that happen.

Throughout my career, I’ve made it a top priority to protect the environment and the public’s health, which is one reason why I have been endorsed by the California League of Conservation Voters. As a member of the State Senate, I co-authored AB 1493 to place significant restrictions on tailpipe emissions, as well as AB 32, California’s landmark global warming emissions bill.

Restricting greenhouse emissions and penalizing polluters will protect our health and our environment-- and it will also create incentives for more green jobs, too.

As a member of Congress, I will continue to stand up to the special interests that threaten the quality of our air, water and coastline, and fight for a stronger national energy policy focused on conservation, alternative energy development, and green jobs.

Now is the time to build the green energy infrastructure of tomorrow. And to do that, we’ve got to hold these polluters accountable. Pulling the rug out from under the EPA-- threatening our health and safety-- is the sort of shortsighted, backwards thinking that I will fight to change in Washington.

And then there's nuclear, probably even worse than "dirty." Here in California we have two disasters-in-waiting: San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. This week CALPRIG called on Governor Brown to shut them down, pointing out that there are 8 million residents living within 50 miles of the 2 plants. At least Japan's latest nuclear disaster happened in a relatively remote area.

The news out of Japan continues to be sobering. The reactor core has melted through its containment chamber. There are high levels of radiation in ocean water and in the soil outside the evacuation zone, and no sign of relief in sight.

CALPIRG is calling for a rigorous top-to-bottom safety analysis of our own two plants on the California coast, including much better seismic studies to understand our own earthquake risks. But while seismic studies and safety analyses will help us prepare for an emergency, we still do not have a plan for the safe storage of long-lasting, dangerous nuclear waste.

Gov. Brown must look out for the 8 million of his constituents that live within 50 miles of Diablo Canyon and San Onofre and move California away from nuclear power.

Nothing stands between California and safe, renewable energy except money and political willpower. For the last month my home solar panels have been generating more electricity than I use. Every single home in California should be doing exactly the same thing. That would go a long way towards freeing us from nuclear energy and from the tyranny of the Saudis and the Kochs, equally existential threats to our democracy and our way of life.

Not surprisingly, this week Anzalone Liszt Research found big changes in American support for nuclear energy

The crisis in Japan has caused a significant drop in support for new nuclear plants, with two recent polls finding opposition to new nuclear plants exceeding support for them. After finding the public split on the issue in October (45% favor / 44% oppose), a March Pew poll found the public now opposing new plant construction by a 13-point margin (39% favor / 52% oppose). A recent CBS poll showed a similar trend, with Americans now opposing new plants by a 7-point margin (43% favor / 50% oppose), a sharp departure from their strong support for them back in July, 2008 (57% favor / 43% oppose)

[T]he crisis in Japan is one of the three major news events in the last 40 years that has moved public opinion away from building new nuclear plants. The first of the three, at Three Mile Island in 1979, dropped support for building more nuclear plants from 69% down to 46% in CBS polling, despite no loss of life. The second, the much more catastrophic Chernobyl meltdown in the Ukraine that affected thousands, dropped American support for more nuclear power to 34%, with 59% opposed. Opinion had moved back towards nuclear power in the 25 years between Chernobyl and the tsunami in Japan: according to CBS, support for new nuclear power before the tsunami ranged peaked at 57% in July, 2008.

No telling how this is going to play out over the long term. History tells us that short attention spans and voters increasingly worried about supporting their families' needs will slip back into complacency unless we wind up with forthright and strong leaders instead of the pathetic and conflicted corporate shills our campaign financing system dictates. On the other hand, This week Bloomberg News was reporting that solar power is already rivaling coal and that because of costs of coal-generated energy solar panel installations may surge in the next two years.

Large photovoltaic projects will cost $1.45 a watt to build by 2020, half the current price, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated today. The London-based research company says solar is viable against fossil fuels on the electric grid in the most sunny regions such as the Middle East.

“We are already in this phase change and are very close to grid parity,” Shawn Qu, chief executive officer of Canadian Solar Inc. (CSIQ), said in an interview. “In many markets, solar is already competitive with peak electricity prices, such as in California and Japan.”

Chinese companies such as JA Solar Holdings Ltd., Canadian Solar and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. are making panels cheaper, fueled by better cell technology and more streamlined manufacturing processes. That’s making solar economical in more places and will put it in competition with coal, without subsidies, in the coming years, New Energy Finance said.

“The most powerful driver in our industry is the relentless reduction of cost,” Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of New Energy Finance, said at the company’s annual conference in New York yesterday. “In a decade the cost of solar projects is going to halve again.”

Installation of solar PV systems will almost double to 32.6 gigawatts by 2013 from 18.6 gigawatts last year, New Energy Finance estimates. Manufacturing capacity worldwide has almost quadrupled since 2008 to 27.5 gigawatts, and 12 gigawatts of production will be added this year. Canadian Solar has about 1.3 gigawatts of capacity and expects to reach 2 gigawatts next year, Qu said.

“You have to get better at it as well,” said Bill Gallo, CEO of Areva SA (CEI)’s solar unit. The French company could shave another 20 percent from the cost of making its concentrating solar thermal technology, and the same proportion from building and deploying plants, he said.

Electricity from coal costs about 7 cents a kilowatt hour compared with 6 cents for natural gas and 22.3 cents for solar photovoltaic energy in the final quarter of last year, according to New Energy Finance estimates.

Comparisons often overstate the costs of solar because they may take into account the prices paid by consumers and small businesses who install roof-top power systems, instead of the rates utilities charge each other, said Qu of Canadian Solar.

“Solar isn’t expensive,” he said “In many areas of the solar industry you’re competing with retail power, not wholesale power.”

Rooftop solar installations also will become cheaper, the executives said.

“System costs have declined 5 percent to 8 percent (a year), and we will continue to see that,” SolarCity Inc. CEO Lyndon Rive said in an interview.

Oh, and by the way, did you contribute anything to the DSCC last year? Their biggest single expense was electing the most Republican-oriented Democrat in the Senate, Joe Manchin (WV), a die-hard foe of a clean-energy future. If you gave a dollar to the DSCC, part of that money went to this:



UPDATE: Americans May Not Be Willing To Pay For A Cleaner Safer Energy Future, But Corporations Are Willing To Pay For Filthy, Dangerous And Brutish One-- And Share The Profits With Their Political Shills

Yesterday Dan Froomkin looked into how the oil lobby greases Washington's wheels and it goes a long way towards explaining what passes for American energy-- and environmental-- policy.

Clout in Washington isn't about winning legislative battles-- it's about making sure that they never happen at all. The oil and gas industry has that kind of clout.

Despite astronomical profits during what have been lean years for most everyone else, the oil and gas industry continues to benefit from massive, multi-billion dollar taxpayer subsidies. Opinion polling shows the American public overwhelmingly wants those subsidies eliminated.

...[T]he oil and gas industry's stranglehold on Congres is so firm that even when the Democrats controlled both houses, repeal of the subsidies didn't stand a chance. Obama proposed cutting them in his previous two budgets as well, but the Senate-- where Republicans and consistently pro-oil Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu had more than enough votes to block any legislation-- never even took a stab at it.

The dozen worst Oil & Gas whores still in Congress (in order of whorishness):

John McCain (R-AZ)- $2,713,824
Kay Bailey Hitchison (R-TX)- $2,141,025
John Cornyn (R-TX)- $1,715,050
Joe Barton (R-TX)- $1,507,280
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)- $1,253,323
Steve Pearce (R-NM)- $1,153,439
Don Young (R-AK)- $1,000,813
David Diapers Vitter (R-LA)- $892,185
Miss McConnell (R-KY)- $879,111
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)- $784,344
Roy Blunt (R-MO)- $693,998
Pete Sessions (R-TX)- $674,414

"The true costs of nuclear power are never reflected even in the very high price of plant construction" (Anne Applebuam)

A photo from earlier today of explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, presumably already out of date. WaPo bulletin at 6:13:27pm EDT: "Japanese officials say fire has broken out again at the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The blaze erupted early Wednesday local time in the outer housing of the reactor’s containment vessel, utility officials said. Firefighters are trying to put out the flames."


"Increasingly, nuclear power is also promoted because it is safe. Which it is -- except, of course, when it is not. Chances of a major disaster are tiny, one in a hundred million. But in the event of a statistically improbable major disaster, the damage could include, say, the destruction of a city or the poisoning of a country. . . . [A]s we are about to learn in Japan, the true costs of nuclear power are never reflected even in the very high price of plant construction."

-- Anne Applebaum, in her WaPo column today,
"If the Japanese can’t build a safe reactor, who can?"

by Ken

I had a feeling I couldn't be the only who's been thinking, as the Japanese nuclear disaster has unfolded on top of the natural disaster, something along the lines of the head on Anne Applebaum's WaPo column today.

If the Japanese can’t build a safe reactor, who can?

These are the Japanese, after all. They don't cut corners when it comes to serious stuff like earthquake preparedness, unlike Americans, who in recent decades have decided that anything our lazy, shiftless, thieving, murdering corporate masters do in the name of extracting more loot from the American economy is just dandy, thank you. When there are consequences, well, it's just a cost of doing business. Like the fatiguingly regular incidence of mine explosions caused by mine owners' unflinching insistence that they don't have to follow no stinkin' laws. Government regulation is Devil-worshipping socialism. (That government regulation is responsible for a substantial portion of what we count as positive quality of life in this country doesn't matter because none of the Americans who've enlisted in the Zero IQ movement know enough about history or any other aspect of reality to have any awareness of what has gone on or goes on in the real world around them.)

Thanks to its built-in social strengths, Anne argues,

Japan will eventually recover. But at least one Japanese nuclear power complex will not. As I write, three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station appear to have lost their cooling capacity. Engineers are flooding the plant with seawater -- effectively destroying it -- and then letting off radioactive steam. There have been two explosions. The situation may worsen in the coming hours.

Yet Japan’s nuclear power stations were designed with the same care and precision as everything else in the country. More to the point, as the only country in the world to have experienced true nuclear catastrophe, Japan had an incentive to build well, as well as the capability, laws and regulations to do so. Which leads to an unavoidable question: If the competent and technologically brilliant Japanese can’t build a completely safe reactor, who can?

I think about the extraordinary combination of circumstances that created Japan's current nuclear peril and wonder how people can be so complacent where the possibility for such catastrophe is in the hands of people infinitely more thoughtless and corrupt. Have you noticed all the corporatist and corporatist-symp voices heard insisting that the current crisis should have no bearing on American plans for increased investment in nuclear power generating capacity?

Of course they're by and large the same voices that for decades have prevented the country from doing anything to reduce the known peril of our potentially catastrophic overreliance on fossile fuels. Remember "Big Dick" Cheney sneering at talk of conservation? I suppose it was natural enough, considering how totally a creature of the oil-and-gas industry he is. While we're in a deepening energy crisis, remember, they're making out like bandits, scoring profit levels beyond the imagining of even the greediest energy mogul.

Unfortunately those moguls have adapted principally by upwardly rescaling the greed threshold of their previously pretty greed-besotted imaginations. And why not? Every energy-related disaster for the rest of us is a bonanza for them. The situation in Libya puts the lives of all those suffering Libyans at risk and causes a worldwide jolt in the price of oil? Ka-ching! While we dig ever deeper in our already-bare pockets, they try to find space to stockpile their latest windfall.

Years ago I had a conversation, which I've been careful never to repeat, with a European friend who had limitless contempt for weak-kneed Americans foolishly failing to embrace the panacea of nuclear power. How do you explain that the risks of well-designed nuclear plants may be small, but given these stakes, we haven't discovered a level of risk that's small enough.

As Anne points out, there are in fact people working on making nuclear plants safer. But every added measure of safety will come at an increasingly steep price, and we have no reason to believe that even the highest price will protect us against all risk.

In an attempt to counter the latest worst-possible scenarios, a Franco-German company began constructing a super-safe, “next-generation” nuclear reactor in Finland several years ago. The plant was designed to withstand the impact of an airplane -- a post-Sept. 11 concern -- and includes a chamber allegedly able to contain a core meltdown. But it was also meant to cost $4 billion and to be completed in 2009. Instead, after numerous setbacks, it is still unfinished -- and may now cost $6 billion or more.

Ironically, the Finnish plant was meant to launch the renaissance of the nuclear power industry in Europe -- an industry that has, of late, enjoyed a renaissance around the world, thanks almost entirely to fears of climate change. Nuclear plants emit no carbon. As a result, nuclear plants, after a long, post-Chernobyl lull, have became fashionable again. Some 62 nuclear reactors are under construction at the moment, according to the World Nuclear Association; a further 158 are being planned and 324 others have been proposed.

When it comes to the potential of nuclear catastrophe, is there any level of risk that can be written off, like the deaths of all those miners, as unfortunate but just a cost of doing business?

Increasingly, nuclear power is also promoted because it is safe. Which it is -- except, of course, when it is not. Chances of a major disaster are tiny, one in a hundred million. But in the event of a statistically improbable major disaster, the damage could include, say, the destruction of a city or the poisoning of a country. The cost of such a potential catastrophe is partly reflected in the price of plant construction, and it partly explains the cost overruns in Finland: Nobody can risk the tiniest flaw in the concrete or the most minimal reduction in the quality of the steel.

But as we are about to learn in Japan, the true costs of nuclear power are never reflected even in the very high price of plant construction. Inevitably, the enormous costs of nuclear waste disposal fall to taxpayers, not the nuclear industry. The costs of cleanup, even in the wake of a relatively small accident, are eventually borne by government, too. Health-care costs will also be paid by society at large, one way or another. If there is true nuclear catastrophe in Japan, the entire world will pay the price.

Right now Americans are especially inapt at seeing the true cost of irresponsible behavior, rather as if we've become a nation of seven-year-olds. Or, rather, a nation of seven-year-olds slaving for corporate masters who accept none of the risk or responsibility for their blundering and criminality, but cheerfully pocket 99-plus percent of the rewards.

#

UPDATE: Debra Bowen Responds To Ken

Blue America endorsed congressional candidate, currently California's wildly popular Secretary of State, Debra Bowen responded to Ken on my Facebook page. I'm sure she won't mind if we share her thoughts:

We have never included the full cost of insurance, because the potential damages if there is an accident are astronomical and would make nuclear power uncompetitive.

My two cents on accidents: humans design and build all complex systems, and our imperfections sometimes result in imperfect design and/or execution. (Think about software.)

And we miss some risks because they are unimaginable at the beginning, even if they seem obvious later. Technology changes; or we learn more about geology.

It seems no one thought about what could happen if backup power supply failed.

So the question is not simply what are the risks - but what are the potential consequences of error? (I'll leave sabotage out because the consequences of error alone are so awful.)

Food for thought, I hope.

Why Debra Bowen?

The race for the Democratic nomination to replace Blue Dog warmonger Jane Harman in CA-36 is a very tough one for Blue America. Instead of voters having to pick the lesser of two evils, as in most elections, we're facing two impeccable progressives, California Secretary of State and former state legislator from the district, Debra Bowen, and Marcy Winograd, who valiantly battled Harman in two difficult primaries since our PAC got going. Digby, John Amato-- who lives in the district and considered running for the seat himself-- and I thought long and hard about a race that is further complicated by an untested new open primary system, boundaries almost certain to be redrawn, perhaps drastically, in time for reelection, and a Democratic Party machine hack, Janice Hahn, also making one of her perennial bids to advance her career ambitions. The latest hack from the Hahn Dynasty, this one has rounded up a predictable basket of the least admirable Democratic machine politicians in the city to back her. The contemptible Harman started the ball rolling by giving her a heads up and a head start, presumably meant to derail Marcy. And Harman's fellow Blue Dog/corporate shill, Loretta Sanchez, was one of the first to jump on the Hahn bandwagon. Also worrying is that she's also touting the endorsement of slimy corporate lobbyist Dick Gephardt.

Obviously she was never really in contention for Blue America. The last thing this country needs is another mediocre machine pol who goes along with conventional wisdom, has nothing worthwhile to offer, and is, at best, a dependable vote for one faction or another. The L.A. delegation is filled with that kind of waste and with spectacular candidates like Marcy and Debra vying for the seat, there was no reason to give Hahn a second glance. But that left us with a terrible choice between two deserving friends and more than worthy candidates.

Either of these remarkable women could be reasonably expected to become focal points of progressive leadership-- Marcy in the galvanizing way that Paul Wellstone and Alan Grayson became moral forces for change and Debra in the steadfast and effective style of a Jeff Merkley, Barbara Boxer and Donna Edwards. If either of these women is elected to Congress, it should be a moment of great rejoicing for progressives nationwide and an opportunity for one of their distinctive styles to help make America a better place to live. So... the question of electability comes into play-- because, despite organized labor's grubby happiness with Hahn, she has no more to offer America than any of the careerist backbenchers eager to welcome another mediocrity like themselves into federal government service.

Since Harman attempted to pass her flickering torch on to Hahn, I've spoken with both Marcy and Debra. Today Blue America will be announcing an endorsement for Debra Bowen in this race in a live blogging session at Crooks and Liars with the candidate we think has the best chance of beating the Hahn Dynasty and going on to being the most effective advocate for working families in CA-36, in our city, our state and our country. Not everyone is going to come to the same conclusion that support should go to Debra. Many of our hearts have been with Marcy for a very long time. In fact, if you come to the conclusion she's the candidate you want to support, you can do so here at her website. Blue America has added Debra Bowen to ours and I hope you'll read Digby's post about why and join her, Amato and I at 11 for a live chat with her.

When Debra announced she would run, Hahn was already the corrupt L.A. Machine's anointed candidate. Yesterday Roll Call detailed down devious Blue Dog Jane Harman tried to hand the seat over to Hahn, something that has been shamefully supported by the whole stinking L.A. Democratic machine. Before being elected, and then re-elected Secretary of State, she had represented most of CA-36 in the state legislature since 1992, first as a Member of the Assembly and then in the state Senate, from a district including all or parts of Carson, El Segundo, Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Venice, and Wilmington, about 90% of the congressional district. She garnered national attention in 2008 when she, along with Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, another Blue America all-star, won the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, cited for her imposition of strict new controls on electronic voting despite the political fallout.

Debra, like Marcy, is aggressively committed to equality for racial, religious and ethnic minorities, women, the LGBT community, and people with physical handicaps and to make sure-- regardless of which political party hods the White House-- that the American policy towards "preventive war" is stopped dead in its tracks. Her substantive accomplishments to date have been around nitty gritty issues fundamental to democracy-- empowering voters by working effectively to increase voter registration and voter turnout across California emphasizing outreach to students and young voters and to Californians stationed overseas in the military or living abroad; using technology to dramatically open up government; ensuring that voting systems are secure, accurate and accessible, the lack of which in several states resulted in the presidency of George W. Bush; cracking down on fraud; protecting personal privacy; and advancing higher ethical standards in government.

If you can, please join us with Debra at Crooks and Liars today at 11 am (PT). Also take a look at the ringing endorsement from her campaign by Democracy For America and, if you can, please contribute to a game-changing campaign at the Blue America ActBlue page.

Another Blue Dog Bites The Dust-- Jane Harman Leaving Congress

Don't worry about millionaires; they have hundreds of Members of Congress to continue pushing their interests in a post-Harman world

Conservative multimillionaire, AIPAC lackey and pro-war fanatic Jane Harman has had a rough time winning Democratic primaries in her progressive Los Angeles district lately. It's probably been no fun for her having to defend her regal self against scrappy anti-war progressive Marcy Winograd. So it wasn't that big of a shock early yesterday morning when the Internets started buzzing about her retirement from Congress, something that was quickly confirmed by her regal self:

Dear [fill in the name of a dupe who supports Harman],

Earlier today, I filed paperwork notifying the House of Representatives that I am in discussions to succeed former Rep. Lee Hamilton as President and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I send this note because a decision is imminent and I wanted you to hear the news from me first.

This is an excruciating decision because the distinction of representing the smartest constituents on earth will never be surpassed-- nor will my relationships with my exceptional staff and colleagues in Congress. But shaping and leading the Wilson Center is a thrilling new challenge.

I have always believed that the best solutions to tough problems require a bipartisan approach, and bipartisanship is the Center’s “brand.” Serving at its helm provides unique opportunities to involve the House and Senate, top experts, and world leaders in “great debates” about the most pressing foreign and domestic policy matters.

Should this opportunity come to pass, I would be required to resign my seat. But please know that I would remain in Congress for some weeks and do everything possible to ensure an orderly transition to whomever is elected to succeed me. Sidney and I will always retain our residence in Venice, be home frequently, and stay engaged at USC and active in the community.

You have elected me to nine terms in Congress-- an honor without equal. I hope you understand how truly grateful I am for your friendship and support.

JANE

Harman, a Blue Dog in a progressive state, who has alienated Nancy Pelosi and been exposed for underhanded anti-U.S. dealings on behalf of the Bush Regime, had no future in Congress. She has lost influence committee-wise and is considered the least trustworthy member of the Democratic caucus. "Her word doesn't mean a thing," the chief of staff of one influential Democrat told me last night. "The voters in her district will be better off without her in Congress."

The Wilson Center hasn't made a final determination on whether or not to offer Harman the job and they are meeting today to decide. There is some chatter in their circles that Hosni Mubarak may be looking for a new gig and that he would be just as suitable as Harman. And he's even richer than she is-- having pillaged an entire country for decades.

Even before I knew Harman was planning to resign, I had a call from a friend of L.A. City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, asking me if Blue America would back Hahn, extolling what he called her "strongly progressive record." I called Marcy Winograd, who Blue America has backed in all her runs against Harman and she told me Hahn had reached out to her as well, assuring her that, like Marcy, she strongly opposes current U.S. doctrine of preemptive wars. Later, Marcy posted this message to her supporters:

Dear Friends,

Thank you for your calls and emails, wanting to know my thoughts on Harman's resignation. I appreciate your interest and outreach, and am excited about the possibilities for substantive change
.
Please read my blog post below and let me know what you think. Warm regards, Marcy

Winograd on Harman's Resignation & a Possible Run

When I heard the news that Jane Harman was resigning, I thought, ‘Now we finally have an opportunity to send a progressive to Congress, someone who will work to create jobs in the new economy, to free the 36th District from its perpetual war footing.'

I was at school, in between TEACHING classes, checking my cell phone messages from news editors, bloggers, and former campaign supporters, all asking the same question…

‘Will you run again?’

‘I am exploring the possibility,’ I told them, adding that I live in Santa Monica now, less than a mile outside of the district that hugs the coast from Venice to San Pedro. In 2010, just months ago, the Winograd for Congress campaign mobilized 41% of the vote in a primary challenge to Harman. It was exhilarating, daunting, inspiring, and eye-opening as I precinct walked from one end of the district to the other.

Most of the support came from the northern end of the district, from Venice and Mar Vista, but we enjoyed significant inroads in the working class union strongholds of Wilmington and San Pedro.

I barely had time to digest the political possibilities before running back to class, to my South LA high school students, some of them dressed in military fatigues, where we would read Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic’s essay, Breaking the Silence of the Night, a passionate account of Kovic’s transformation from blind follower to critical thinker and anti-war leader.

My high school students knew nothing of the buzz in the blogosphere, only that their teacher seemed a little preoccupied.

I had just hung up with LA City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who told me she was running, making a courtesy call-- perhaps hoping to clear the field-– and asking for an endorsement. I told her I had two concerns-– that we needed a voice that would challenge pre-emptive wars, regardless of whether the wars were waged by Republicans or Democrats, and that we needed a Congressperson who would advocate for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, someone who would not be afraid to criticize Israel, to fight for equal rights for both Palestinians and Jews. It was time for the United States to be an honest broker at the negotiating table. World stability depends on it.

After reminding me she had supported anti-war efforts on the Los Angeles City Council, Hahn added, “I want to make it clear. I am a friend to Israel.”

I am a friend to equality and dignity for all.

I asked Hahn if she would be willing to meet with a group of Jews and Palestinians offering an alternative viewpoint to current US foreign policy.

Yes, she would.

A few hours later news broke that Secretary of State Debra Bowen was also running. Not surprising, since Bowen will term out of office soon. I know Debra and admire her courage in taking on the electronic voting industry, in banning touch-screen voting machines. Would she also be ready to take on the military budget? To demand that Washington stop holding our young engineers hostage to bomb-building-- and award contracts, instead, to corporations intent on developing mass transit, high speed rail, and solar cities?

I haven’t had a chance to speak with Debra Bowen-– but when I do I will ask her the tough questions, starting with …

“Will you vote against further military appropriations for expanded wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen?”

“Will you go to the wall to defend Social Security and Medicare, our greatest safety nets?”

“Will you visit Bradley Manning in solitary confinement?”

“Will you walk the streets of Wilmington with me, breathe the oil fumes, and work to crack down on polluters?”

“Will you support the right of states to pursue single-payer health care?”

I am waiting to ask the tough questions-– and to hear courageous answers.

Then I will decide.

## ##
Californians recently passed an Open Primary law, meaning that if no candidate wins 50% plus one vote in the Special Election, the top two vote getters go head-to-head in the next round. Had the Open Primary law been in effect when Winograd challenged Harman in 2010, the two would have faced off against each other in the General Election, as well. Given the small turn-out in special elections, 35,000 of the 300,000 registered voters may decide who replaces Jane Harman. In June, 2010, Winograd received 18,000 votes.

Others considering the run include Crooks and Liars publisher John Amato of Mar Vista and, as Marcy said above, Marina Del Rey resident and California Secretary of State Debra Bowen. And with the conservative DLC closing up operations-- another Harman base-- let's all pray fervently that Harold Ford's next move in search of something with which to repay Wall Street for their generosity (to him and his career aspirations) isn't to Venice or, more likely, Palos Verdes Estates.