Did Señor Trumpanzee's Climate Speech Signal The End Of The American Century?

Most Americans-- by far-- disagree with corporate-financed Republican Climate Change denialism. In fact, there's not one state-- not even the most backward, prescription drug-addled Trumpist hellhole-- where there's not a majority of Americans who disagree with Trump on Climate Change.

In a nationally representative survey conducted after the election, we found that seven in ten registered voters (69%) say the U.S. should participate in the COP21 agreement, compared with only 13% who say the U.S. should not. Majorities of Democrats (86%) and Independents (61%), and half of Republicans (51%) say the U.S. should participate (including 73% of moderate/liberal Republicans). Only conservative Republicans are split, with marginally more saying the U.S. should participate (40%) than saying we should not participate (34%).

But fascist corporate hacks Scott Pruitt and Steve Bannon tricked the feebleminded and senile Trump into ignoring the sane advice he was getting from other in his Regime and from business leaders. Politico: "Steve Bannon and Scott Pruitt have sought to outsmart the administration’s pro-Paris group of advisers, including Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who were hoping the president could be swayed by a global swell of support for the deal from major corporations, U.S. allies, Al Gore and even the pope."

An L.A. Times editorial minutes after Trump's dishonest and blatantly manipulative speech emphasized a statement by President Obama asserting that "The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got."

Trump lashed out at foreign leaders in his statement, saying they supported the agreement because it was a “massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”

The climate deal was “less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States,” he said, adding that “we don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us anymore, and they won't be.”

Trump said the accord would allow China, India and other major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases while imposing unfair burdens on the U.S., and would cost the U.S. millions of jobs.

Supporters of the agreement, which include many Republican business leaders as well as environmental activists, say just the opposite-- that steps to combat global warming would help the U.S. economy by building up new industries, especially solar and wind power.

The agreement, which almost every country in the world has joined, is designed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in order to keep temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels. That’s the point at which climate scientists warn the impact of climate change worldwide would be severe.

Instead of analyzing the litany of Trump's moronic lies layered throughout his speech the fools at PolitiFact basically just had this anodyne comment: "The bottom line is that, even though it isn't immediate, he has set in motion the United States' exit from the Paris agreement, and he also pledged to stop funding U.N. global warming efforts, fulfilling both parts of his campaign promise. We rate it a Promise Kept." Jonathan Chait had a far savvier approach:

The question is, what purpose does this serve? What economic or philosophical policy goal is advanced? The answer is that it satisfies the same elemental partisan tribalism that has allowed Trump to hold together his party.

It is worth recalling the principal argument that Republicans made against the Paris agreement from the outset was that it would have no effect on developing countries like India and China. “And you know what passing those laws would have-- what impact it would have on the environment?” insisted Marco Rubio in 2016. “Zero, because China is still going to be polluting and India is still going to be polluting at historic levels … these other countries like India and China are more than making up in carbon emissions for whatever we could possibly cut.”

Why was the right so certain that India and China would continue to ramp up their carbon emissions regardless of what they said in Paris? Because, they insisted, dirty energy was and would remain the best path for them to raise their standard of living, which was and is well below American levels. National Review editor Rich Lowry, writing in December 2015, dismissed plans to steer the developing world onto a cleaner energy path as “a naive belief in the power of global shame over the sheer economic interest of developing countries in getting rich (and lifting countless millions out of poverty) through exploiting cheap energy-- you know, the way Western countries have done for a couple of centuries.”

But this analysis has proven incontrovertibly false. Rather than lagging behind their promised targets, India and China are actually surpassing them. According to Climate Action Tracker, India, which had promised to reduce the emissions intensity of its economy by 33–35 percent by 2030, is now on track to reduce it by 42–45 percent by that date. China promised its total emissions would peak by 2030-- an ambitious goal for a rapidly industrializing economy. It is running at least a decade ahead of that goal.

Why are these countries blowing past their targets? Because the cost of zero-emissions energy sources is plunging. In India, solar energy not only costs less than energy from new coal plants, it costs less than energy from existing coal plants.

The virtuous cycle of political will and innovation is proving more potent than expected. As more governments bind themselves to emissions reductions, business creates the technology to meet those goals, which brings down the cost of reducing emissions, which in turn emboldens governments to raise their ambitions further still. The factual predicate upon which the American right based its opposition to Paris has melted away beneath its feet.

Likewise, the scientific basis for the right’s skepticism of the theory of anthropogenic global warming has collapsed. Conservatives used to dismiss the scientific consensus on heat-trapping gases on account of the fact that 1998 saw an anomalously big spike in global temperatures in the midst of an overall warming trend. For years, conservatives would triumphantly point out that there had been no warming since 1998, as if the data from this one year nullified decades’ worth of rising temperatures. In the meantime, 2014, and every year since then, has since exceeded the 1998 record, rendering the old, misleading talking point outright false. But no rethinking has followed on the right. As justifications for inaction are falsified, new ones take their place, while the conclusion remains the same.

Liberals used to accuse conservative climate science skeptics of merely shilling for the fossil-fuel industry. Certainly the owners of dirty energy reserves have invested in conservative politics with the aim of protecting their assets, and those investments have borne some fruit. (Trump’s EPA director has in the past literally outsourced his job to oil firms.) But there is far more at work in conservative opposition to decarbonization than the hidden hand of oil and coal; indeed, many fossil-fuel companies prefer the predictability of the Paris agreement to policy that jerks back and forth every time the presidency changes hands between the parties.

The dominant spirit of conservative thought-- or, more precisely, verbal gestures that seek to resemble thought-- is not even skepticism but a trolling impulse. The aim is not so much to reason toward a policy conservatives would favor as to pierce the liberal claim to the moral high ground.

...Conservatives on the whole devoted less attention to pondering the risks Trump might pose to their own country and party than enjoying the liberal tears.

“Everybody who hates Trump wants him to stay in Paris,” argues conservative activist Grover Norquist. “Everybody who respects him, trusts him, voted for him, wishes for him to succeed, wants him to pull out.” Here is an argument that approaches, even if it does not fully reach, complete self-awareness: The Paris climate agreement is bad because it is supported by people who oppose Trump. Therefore, the opposing position is the correct one.

If the liberal global elites have established a policy architecture to minimize the threat of climate change, weakening that policy architecture is its own reward. There is not much more to it than that.

Will those liberal tears the Republicans are enjoying turn to action at the ballot box? First test will be in 18 days when voters in the suburbs north of Atlanta (GA-06) chose between Climate Change denier and Trumpist loon Karen Handel and Democrat Jon Ossoff. Handel was in hiding from the media yesterday but Ossoff said he "agree[s] with our military, our intelligence community, and peer-reviewed science that climate change is a major threat to our prosperity and our security, and if we walk away from this historic agreement now, history will condemn us."

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) told his supporters after the speech that "Trump has put ideology and political expediency ahead of making the right decision for our country and the world. And once again, he's making choices that not only undermine American values-- but break the promises that he made in the campaign... a stunning retreat that will have enormous consequences."

• It undermines our national security. As the planet heats up, we'll see more refugees fleeing drought and hurricanes. China will step into a leading role on clean energy. And the world will watch America walk away from the world stage, harming our ability to lead in other areas.

• It hurts our economic security. We need to face reality and build a clean energy economy now. We need to invest in renewable energy, battery technology, electric vehicles, and so much more. Fighting climate disruption will create high-wage jobs and secure our future.

• It will deeply damage our beautiful blue-green planet. Climate disruption is driving raging wildfires, ocean acidification, and massive loss of species. This is the only planet we have, and we are putting it at grave risk.

Climate disruption-- driven by pollution caused by humans-- is a critical threat to humanity. But Donald Trump's action today demonstrates that he'd rather hide under his desk than tackle tough problems directly.

More than ever, it's clear that we need new leadership in Washington DC. If the president won't lead on the climate crisis, we need a Congress that will.

Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) is on the same page: "By unilaterally pulling the United States out of the Paris climate accord, President Trump is setting our planet on a catastrophic course. This decision, based on falsehoods and the denial of climate change, would be a complete disaster for our cities, Washington state, our country and the entire world. It’s not a hoax-- the science is clear on climate change. It is our moral responsibility to transition our economy from fossil fuels to clean energy while ensuring that we sustain and create retraining programs, apprenticeships and good paying jobs for workers. We must also aim to collaborate with other nations in drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In conjunction with experts and activists in the 7th District who are sounding the alarm, I will continue to resist an agenda that threatens vulnerable communities and the futures of our children."

Ruben Kihuen (D-NV) is likely to be the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate seat held by Trumpist stooge Dean Heller. Kihuen didn't hold back yesterday: "Trump’s reckless decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement will be viewed in the future as one of the most reprehensible actions by this Administration. Instead of listening to a handful of right-wing ideologues, President Trump should be listening to business leaders, scientists, and the majority of Americans who support this historic agreement. Now is not the time for America to be stepping away from our leadership role on the world stage, especially when it comes to the future of the planet."

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club released the following statement:

Generations from now, Americans will look back at Donald Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement as one of the most ignorant and dangerous actions ever taken by any President. Trump’s decision to ignore the vast majority of the American public and the scientific community will harm our country, costing us lives, jobs and our role as a world leader. Trump has isolated our country on the world stage, ceding our leadership position and our economic advantage on clean energy to India and China, and justifying it all by chanting a slogan from a baseball hat.

It's hard to overstate the negative consequences at home and abroad of this foolish, self-destructive move that will only help boost profits for few of the worst polluters while risking the health of our families and communities. Future scholars will search in vain to find a President with this level of disdain for reality and the future of humanity.

Effective leaders are driving state and local action in the United States, moving strongly forward as coal plants across the country continue to retire, dirty fossil fuel infrastructure investments falter, and innovative policies drive clean energy jobs like solar and wind to profound new heights. With our allies, Sierra Club members and supporters have helped retire more than 250 polluting coal plants in recent years, and also ensured that more than 25 American cities, from Atlanta, Georgia to San Diego, California, have committed to getting 100 percent of their energy from clean, renewable sources by 2030.

American climate advocates have a message for the world: we aren’t waiting around for Donald Trump to pull his head out of the sand, and neither should you. The Paris Agreement is the collective achievement of leaders around the world, and it cannot and will not be derailed by the ignorance of one man whose term of office is highly uncertain.

Sierra Club Wades Into The Muck In South Jersey

The video above is of Alex Law. He's not the corrupt conservative, Donald Norcross, who was just endorsed by the crackpot who runs New Jersey's Sierra Club and who Alex and progressives across New Jersey and across America are hoping to defeat in the June 7th primary.

I checked around among progressives in New Jersey I know and-- with one exception, an official who told me Jeff Tittel is "crazy"-- everyone described Tittel, Sierra Club's director in the state, in far worse terms than "crazy." One top staffer in the legislature told me Tittel is "one of the state's most destructive characters... on a par with the Christie people." Another told me that Tittel is "an embarrassment for the Sierra Club nationally." Not a single progressive had a single good thing to say about him. The reason I was asking was because he had just handed George Norcross' kid brother a Sierra Club endorsement. Nearly every person I spoke with mentioned that on one level or another Tittle is "on the take," although I couldn't get anyone to agree to go on the record, so maybe "crazy" is more accurate than corrupt. The Sierra Club should look into that themselves.

The Norcross Machine wouldn't normally care about getting endorsements from environmental groups. After all, Donald Norcross' very first vote in Congress was to cross the aisle and join the Republicans in a bid to force President Obama's hand on the Keystone XL Pipeline. Obama ignored Norcross and his Republican allies and vetoed the project the Norcross Machine hoped to use to make money for themselves. Before he got to Congress, Norcross was a state legislator known as being the most hostile Democrat in Trenton to anything related to the environment or towards ameliorating the impact of Global Warming and climate change. New Jersey's Clean Water Action, for example, rated him a 25% for the period covering 2010-2013. That's a deep, deep "F." For those same legislative sessions, the New Jersey League of Conservative Voters rated Norcross a 63% and a 55%. In 2014 Environment America gave him a score of 33%. Every other congressional Democrat from New Jersey was given a 100% or a 93%. Norcross' 33% was identical to the grade they assigned his Republican buddy Frank LoBiondo.

And then along comes Tittel, just as Norcross started seeing Alex Law making serious inroads against him, calling Norcross "a true environmental leader in Congress," something that is patently absurd, as Tittel and Sierra Club members are well aware. "Whether it’s working to protect our water, our air, or public lands, he is there fighting for us. He is a leader on wind and solar and energy efficiency and working to reduce climate impacts. Rep. Norcross has stood up against the Tea Party and the Republican right and their assault on clean energy, climate change, and rolling back clean water protections. He is working to protect and expand public lands and he is himself an avid hiker and outdoorsman.  He has stood up for the EPA to prevent rollbacks on carbon emissions and drinking water." All of that was untrue and all of it was written for Tittel by Norcross' campaign staff. "Donald Norcross," he lied with a straight face, "has one of the best records on the environment in Congress."

The press release also mentioned that Norcross "has been endorsed for re-election by the campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders." That is also false. A hack politician from Perth Amboy, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, who wants Norcross Machine support for his 2017 gubernatorial run and who has managed to worm his way into Bernie's New Jersey campaign, endorsed Norcoss on his own. Bernie has not. Progressive Punch rates Norcross-- whose deep blue district Obama won with 66% against Romney-- a solid "F" and gave him the lowest score of any New Jersey Democrat in Congress, 68.75. (Bonnie Watson Coleman, for example can boast a score of 96.23, Donald Payne's is 93.81 and Frank Pallone's is 86.84.) Norcross has worn out the carpet between his seat and the Republican side of the aisle in the House.

We contacted Alex Law, the progressive in the NJ-01 congressional race and the candidate who has, unlike Norcross, has endorsed Bernie and is running on his platform, about this inexplicable Sierra Club endorsement. He said he didn't want to comment on that but mentioned that "As a proud progressive, I support a robust increase in environmental clean up programs. Further, I believe the United States must lead the world in sustainable energy. We have a tremendous environmental and economic opportunity to position our country as the supplier of cutting edge solar and wind technology that nations around the world need. If we seriously shift our national investments away from fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy, the world will move with us as our American creativity will bring the price of sustainable energy further and further down. My opponent Donald Norcross has taken thousands of dollars from big oil and big coal and has voted for the Keystone Pipeline, which has shown that he is committed to the kinds of backwards policies currently pushed by Republicans. For those who care about the environment, this race is crucial to making sure Democrats have a real progressive voice representing New Jersey in Washington."

You can contribute to Alex Law's grassroots campaign by tapping the thermometer below:

Will 2016 Mark The End Of Fred Upton's Destruction Of Planet Earth-- That's Up To Michigan Voters

When Earth Day rolls around and you're running against an incumbent who's been named "Earth's No. 1 enemy in Congressman," you remind your district's voters why. Environmental champion Paul Clements is up against hereditary multimillionaire and forever Congressman Fred Upton (the enemy of the planet, year after year after year, not just because of his votes but because of what he prevents, as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, from being dealt with by Congress-- like Climate Change.

But Paul reminded Southwest Michigan voters that "it's not just enough to beat Congressman Upton, we must have a vision for what to do next." In a twitter storm and in a letter to voters, he laid out a set of priorities he hopes to accomplish when he replaces Upton in Congress. The district leans Republican but Obama beat McCain there in 2008 by a convincing 53-45%. Hometown hero Mitt Romney edged Obama by a few votes 4 years later (50-49%). Last cycle, a relatively unknown first-time candidate, Paul held Upton down to a 55.89% win. (He had no help from the DCCC and so far isn't getting any help from them this cycle either.) His priorities for dealing with environmental issues:

• Work to end loopholes dirty energy companies have written into clean air and clean water laws
• Work to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to make it harder for dangerous chemicals to get to our water
• Stand with the President's goal of making buildings 20% more efficient by 2020
• Treat every day as though it is Earth Day

"Addressing the threat of climate change is a moral imperative, he wrote. "And the choice we make for our representatives in Congress matters." Upton wrote too. He told Michigan voters that  "I don't think we have to regulate carbon." His allies agree. The Koch Brothers, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and executives from oil and gas companies from the entire industry have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Upton's political career, especially since he's gotten control of the House's energy agenda. The Oil and Gas sector has bribed Upton to the tune of $890,900. So far this cycle, they've made their love and appreciation clear:

This was the statement from the Sierra Club last cycle on why they endorsed Paul Clements over Upton:

“The Sierra Club supports Paul Clements because he is a climate champion, and that’s the kind of leader we need representing Michigan’s 6th District,” said Mike Berkowitz, Political and Legislative Director for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. “From extreme flooding to extreme droughts, dealing with the effects of climate disruption costs our nation billions of dollars every year. Paul Clements is ready to take climate action now, while Fred Uptons sits on his hands, gives big breaks to polluters and takes big campaign handouts from oil and gas companies.”

Southwest Michigan has benefitted from clean energy growth and expansion in the state. But the southwest corridor of the state has also endured one of the worst and most costly oil spills in U.S. history at the hands of Enbridge Energy, which gushed more than one million gallons of heavy crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, putting local drinking water at risk. Federal and state agencies are still cleaning up the Kalamazoo River from the Enbridge spill four years later.

“Paul Clements understands that clean water and clean air are great resources that shouldn’t be sacrificed for polluter profits,” said Richard Barron, Political Chair of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. “We are still cleaning up from Enbridge’s crude oil spill but meanwhile in DC, Fred Upton has been fast tracking legislation to approve the dangerous Keystone XL crude oil pipeline, putting even more people at risk of water contamination from catastrophes.”

Paul Clements has been an outspoken activist on the need to mitigate climate disruption, chairing Western Michigan University’s faculty workgroup on Climate Change and authoring a chapter on “The Ethics and Politics of Climate Change” in his book Rawlsian Political Analysis: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Social Science.

“Climate disruption will affect every aspect of our economy and our lives,” said Charlie Stefanac, a Sierra Club activist from Kalamazoo in the 6th Congressional District. “Paul Clements understands the importance and urgency of taking climate action now by supporting vital carbon standards on coal-burning power plants and expanding clean energy in Michigan and across the United States.”

Please consider contributing to Paul Clements' grassroots campaign here so he can compete against the flood of Big Oil and Gas money behind Upton. And, remember, the DCCC has again refused to give him any assistance and seems to be perfectly content to allow Upton to keep the swing district seat forever. Please click the thermometer to get the the Blue America ActBlue page where you can contribute to Paul's campaign.

Sierra Club Endorses Paul Clements (MI-06)

One of the glory days of the progressive movement, led in this instance by the environmental activists in our midst, was when we took down crooked pollution icon Dirty Dick Pombo and elected Democrat Jerry McNerney to replace him. We first had to beat some jackoff Rahm Emanuel and the DCCC were trying to deliver the nomination to under the trope that only corporate whores can beat Republican incumbents. After Rahm the DCCC almost reformed by Chris Van Hollen-- almost-- and then wound up in the hands of a more venal and less intelligent version of Rahm, Steve Israel. Taking down the enemies of the environment is not one of Israel's priorities. Building his own power base with corrupt conservatives is.

Even though the biggest threat to the environment-- and the future of the U.S.-- is Michigan Congressman Fred Upton and even though Upton is far more electorally vulnerable than the majority of incumbents Israel is wasting money pursuing-- Israel has adamantly refused to get behind the grassroots progressive challenging Upton this cycle, Paul Clements.

For the sake of comparison, let's take a quick look at Upton's district and the 3 Michigan districts where Israel is going into battle on behalf of conservative-leaning corporate candidates.

• MI-06- Fred Upton, PVI- R+1, Obama 2008- 53%
• MI-01- Dan Benishek, PVI- R+5, Obama 2008- 50%
• MI-07- Tim Walberg, PVI- R+3, Obama 2008- 51%
• MI-11- Kerry Bentivolio, PVI- R+4, Obama 2008- 50%

Upton would be the top target of anyone rational. Instead, Israel is undermining the race against him while wasting money on a pointless attempt to, for example, elect the former commandante of the Guantánamo gulag, Jerry Cannon, who is eager to get to Congress so he can vote to end Choice and repeal the Affordable Care Act. Blue America, on the other hand, has endorsed Paul Clements against Upton. We are raising contributions for him here… ands we can sure use some help.

Yesterday, both the Michigan state Sierra Club and the national organization, the country's largest grassroots conservation organization, ignored Israel and the DCCC's ass-backwards strategy and endorsed Clements' campaign.

“The Sierra Club supports Paul Clements because he is a climate champion, and that’s the kind of leader we need representing Michigan’s 6th District,” said Mike Berkowitz, Political and Legislative Director for the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. “From extreme flooding to extreme droughts, dealing with the effects of climate disruption costs our nation billions of dollars every year. Paul Clements is ready to take climate action now, while Fred Uptons sits on his hands, gives big breaks to polluters and takes big campaign handouts from oil and gas companies.”

Southwest Michigan has benefitted from clean energy growth and expansion in the state. But the southwest corridor of the state has also endured one of the worst and most costly oil spills in U.S. history at the hands of Enbridge Energy, which gushed more than one million gallons of heavy crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, putting local drinking water at risk. Federal and state agencies are still cleaning up the Kalamazoo River from the Enbridge spill four years later.

“Paul Clements understands that clean water and clean air are great resources that shouldn’t be sacrificed for polluter profits,” said Richard Barron, Political Chair of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. “We are still cleaning up from Enbridge’s crude oil spill but meanwhile in DC, Fred Upton has been fast tracking legislation to approve the dangerous Keystone XL crude oil pipeline, putting even more people at risk of water contamination from catastrophes.”

Paul Clements has been an outspoken activist on the need to mitigate climate disruption, chairing Western Michigan University’s faculty workgroup on Climate Change and authoring a chapter on “The Ethics and Politics of Climate Change” in his book Rawlsian Political Analysis: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Social Science.

“Climate disruption will affect every aspect of our economy and our lives,” said Charlie Stefanac, a Sierra Club activist from Kalamazoo in the 6th Congressional District. “Paul Clements understands the importance and urgency of taking climate action now by supporting vital carbon standards on coal-burning power plants and expanding clean energy in Michigan and across the United States.”

Is Justin Coussoule's Thermometer About To Bust Through The Top?

I wish getting to the top of that thermometer meant Justin Coussoule triumphs over the evil that is John Boehner. But that isn't what it means. It means we have enough money for another week of cable TV ads-- like this one or this one-- ads that Blue America and Americans For America volunteers made to help focus some attention on who John Boehner actually is. We know our efforts are minuscule compared to the $4,504,493 Boehner's campaign has collected so far this year. And we've begged the DCCC and the DNC for help. We could have been begging the NRCC and the RNC. They flatly refused every time. Even apart from the serious problem sleazy sugar industry shill and DCCC power-behind-the-throne Debbie Wasserman Schultz has with veterans and with progressives, the DCCC is determined to spend all the money they suck out of concerned Democrats on the actual Blue Dogs who have voted most frequently against the Democratic agenda and crossed the aisle to vote with Boehner, reprehensible anti-Choice, antigay, anti-reform, anti-healthcare conservatives like Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Bobby Bright (Blue Dog-AL), Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS), Mark Critz (Blue Dog-PA), Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ), and Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA). And they even have some challengers who promise to be just as reactionary and just as loyal to Boehner who they're wasting Democrats' donations on, like Lori Edwards (Blue Dog-FL), Chad Causey (Blue Dog-AR), Stephene Moore (Blue Dog-KS), Roy Herron (Blue Dog-TN) and Mike Oliverio (WV). Financial help for Alan Grayson? Not. One. Dime. Financial help for Justin Coussoule? Well, they don't even invite him to Democratic events down the road from his own home.

Thank God for independent-minded Members of Congress like Alan Grayson, Barney Frank, Raul Grijalva, Henry Waxman, Bob Filner, Earl Blumenauer, Mary Jo Kilroy and Betty Sutton and for organizations like the AFL-CIO, DFA, Vet-PAC and People For the American Way, who have endorsed Justin and have been trying to help him get his message across. Today I realized there are two more organizations out there swinging away for Justin. I did know that President Clinton posed for a photo with Justin and his wife Amanda when they both graduated from West Point and that he's seeing them again this week. What I didn't know is that the HRC Legacy PAC had endorsed and is working on behalf of Justin's campaign. On the same day they endorsed Ted Strickland for governor, they also backed Justin:

The second candidate we are endorsing is the one who we as an organization are most firmly committed to electing: Justin Coussoule. Admittedly, up until two months ago I did not know who Coussoule was, nor did I know that he was actively campaigning against GOP Congressman John Boehner, champion of corporate interest. People who are politically tuned in have said that there is no way that a Democrat could win against Boehner, in a district where in the past 153 years there have been only six democrats elected to office. Despite their doubts, my principles compelled me to learn as much as I could about Coussoule–and the more that I learned about him the more I came to believe that he has a real chance against Boehner.

It is not going to be an easy campaign, but I know that the HRC Legacy PAC team will commit every resource to electing Coussoule to office. In her 2008 campaign suspension speech, Hillary Clinton said, “Now the journey ahead will not be easy. Some will say we can’t do it. That it’s too hard. That we’re just not up to the task. But for as long as America has existed, it has been the American way to reject “can’t do” claims, and to choose instead to stretch the boundaries of the possible through hard work, determination, and a pioneering spirit.”

I believe that we must go forward with that determination and pioneering spirit that Secretary Clinton referenced, and if we do, we will be able to get Coussoule’s message of substantial change out to the voters in Ohio’s 8th District. We strive to make sure that even if the Democrats do lose seats in November, we will bring to light which man truly represents the American values of his district.

It is with that flexibility of mind, and commitment to the future that HRC Legacy PAC travels to Ohio in two months in order to support this historic campaign and guide both Strickland and Coussoule to victory.

See you in Ohio!

That came as a pleasant surprise. And so did this powerful ad from the Sierra Club:




UPDATE: NY Times Opens Its Eyes And Finds... Boehner Land

My favorite Boehner video ever (see below) is the one where Boehner, caught illegally handing out bribes on the House floor from Tobacco lobbyists has no choice but to admit it-- and then immediately launches into an attack of these kinds of practices, practically sniveling that THEY MUST BE STOPPED! This is typical behavior one would expect from an untreated alcoholic like Boehner... but maybe not the kind of behavior you'd want from a potential Speaker of the House.

House Democrats were preparing late last year for the first floor vote on the financial regulatory overhaul when Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio and other Republican leaders summoned more than 100 industry lobbyists to Capitol Hill for a private strategy session.

The bill’s passage in the House already seemed inevitable. But Mr. Boehner and his deputies told the Wall Street lobbyists and trade association leaders that by teaming up, they could still perhaps block its final passage or at least water it down.

“We need you to get out there and speak up against this,” Mr. Boehner said that December afternoon, according to three people familiar with his remarks, while also warning against cutting side deals with Democrats.

That sort of alliance-- they won a few skirmishes, though they lost the war on the regulatory bill-- is business as usual for Mr. Boehner, the House minority leader and would-be speaker if Republicans win the House in November. He maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS.

They have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns over the years, provided him rides on their corporate jets, socialized with him at luxury golf resorts and waterfront bashes and are now leading fund-raising efforts for his Boehner for Speaker campaign, which is soliciting checks of up to $37,800 each, the maximum allowed.

Some of the lobbyists readily acknowledge routinely seeking his office’s help-- calling the congressman and his aides as often as several times a week-- to advance their agenda in Washington. And in many cases, Mr. Boehner has helped them out.

...His business-friendly reputation was enhanced through the weekly powwows he organized on Capitol Hill nicknamed the Thursday Group, a gathering of conservative leaders and business lobbyists whom he relied on to help push the party’s legislative agenda. The Thursday gathering was disbanded after a Republican power struggle that cost him his leadership position.

But he continued to routinely meet with business leaders, particularly in his role as chairman of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and returned to power as House G.O.P. leader in 2006. Several of the onetime Thursday regulars, along with some newcomers, are among the close-knit group that routinely call on Mr. Boehner’s office for client matters, write checks to his campaign and socialize with him.

That tight circle includes Mr. Isakowitz; Bruce Gates, a lobbyist for the cigarette maker Altria; Nicholas E. Calio, a Citigroup lobbyist; and two former aides, Marc Lampkin and Sam Geduldig, both now financial services lobbyists.

The tobacco industry is particularly well represented, with both Mr. Gates and John Fish, a lobbyist for R. J. Reynolds, maker of Camel cigarettes, in the group. People affiliated with those companies have contributed at least $340,000 to Mr. Boehner’s political campaigns, with Mr. Gates being the top individual donor among the thousands during Mr. Boehner’s political career, according to a tally by the Center for Public Integrity.

While many lawmakers in each party have networks of donors, lobbyists and former aides who now represent corporate interests, Mr. Boehner’s ties seem especially deep. His clique even has a nickname on Capitol Hill, Boehner Land. The members of this inner circle said their association with Mr. Boehner translates into open access to him and his staff.

“He likes to bring similarly minded people together to try to advance legislation or oppose it,” said Drew Maloney, a lobbyist at Ogilvy Government Relations. “That is how you get things done.”

One lobbyist in the club-- after lauding each staff member in Mr. Boehner’s office that he routinely calls to ask for help-- ticked off the list of recent issues for which he had won the lawmaker’s backing: combating fee increases for the oil industry, fighting a proposed cap on debit card fees, protecting tax breaks for hedge fund executives and opposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

...In June, with the prospects for a Republican takeover of the House rising, Mr. Boehner moved to accelerate his fund-raising effort, starting what he called the Boehner for Speaker campaign. The idea was to use his high profile to draw large donations that would be mostly allocated to help elect other House Republicans.

He turned again to the same group of lobbyists, former aides and friends during a July meeting at the headquarters of the Republican National Committee.

“The wave is there, there is a rebellion in the country, and we have good candidates,” Mr. Boehner told his supporters, one of the lobbyists present at the meeting recalled. “But I don’t want to miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity because we have not raised enough money. They might be able to stop us with a wall of money.”

Mr. Calio of Citigroup was among the first to write a large check. So far, a party spokesman said, the campaign has raised nearly $2 million. Mr. Boehner has helped raise millions more in the last six weeks for Republican House candidates across the country and the party, appearing at more than 40 fund-raisers.

The Boehner for Speaker campaign offers donors who give the maximum amount special perks, like “meetings with Leader Boehner and much much more.”

If you'd like to help Justin Coussoule put a stop to this, please click on the little picture above. The DCCC isn't going to do it for us, believe me. Then kick back and watch the Orange Man who would be Speaker.

Screw Greenpeace, can't we still pretend that the upcoming energy "reform" bill does more good than harm?

Under the Bush regime, the EPA's environmental mission was turned from protection to ravagement. Now the idea seems to be to make sure it can't ever be part of the solution.

“Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary.”

-- Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford, in a statement announcing that the group will oppose the energy "reform" bill soon to be taken up by Congress

by Ken

Politico's Jeanne Cummings reports, in "Greenpeace says no to energy bill":

Among Greenpeace’s chief objections are the measure’s “inadequate emission” reduction goals, a provision that strips authority from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the billions set aside for the coal and nuclear industries for research and expansion.

“We call on the president to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse emissions,” he added.

I have a feeling I'm not much different from a lot of folks on the left when it comes to environmental issues. As hard as I try, which in truth isn't all that hard, I don't have more than the most general grasp, and even though I know it isn't going to happen, deep down I keep hoping those issues will just go away.

This is, note, very different from the way folks on the right deal with these issues, which they understand a lot less well than I do -- a terrible thing to say, I know, but I have no doubt that it's true. Over on the Right they learned their catechism of reality from the ultimate saint, Ronnie of Raygun, who taught them that the only test of reality you ever have to apply is whether it makes you feel good. By that test, of course, all inconvenient environmental issues are fake, part of the liberal-socialist conspiracy.

In a feeble attempt to bridge my knowledge gap, I try to keep an eye on the people I've come to trust on the subjects of energy and the environment. Of course those folks do often disagree, but their disagreements are usual particular. For example, with the oh-so-harmoniously named American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the only question was whether the thing had been so compromised by agents of the polluting industries that it was worse than doing nothing.

Once again that seems to be the standard. There seems no hope of bringing a bill to the floor of either house of Congress which might actually attempt to deal with all that stuff we have less and less time to try to deal with. The only question in play: Will what's being offered do more harm than good?

Greenpeace’s pre-emptive move surprised some in the environmental community for its timing but not its final judgment. Greenpeace was among a handful of major environmental groups that didn’t participate in the discussions that have gone on as the bill was being drafted.

Contacted on Friday, leaders of other green groups said they would wait to make their assessment of the legislation until after it is unveiled.

“We are not going to make any decisions on our views of the bill and our support until we see the details of it. There are a lot of moving pieces still and those pieces are really important to us,” said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club.

That’s not to say, however, that other environmentalists don’t share Radford’s concerns and could wind up opposing the legislation.

Here's the complete Greenpeace statement:

WASHINGTON - April 23 - Greenpeace has highlighted crucial elements of the draft climate bill necessary to address the catastrophic effects of global warming pollution. Senator Kerry, in a teleconference Thursday, organized by the We Can Lead coalition, outlined specific details from the draft Climate Bill expected to be released Monday that had not previously been publicly available. In response Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford issued the following statement:

"Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary.

"We cannot support this bill unless the following elements change:

"Inadequate Emissions Targets: The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, the United States and other developed nations must achieve emissions cuts of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95 percent by 2050. But this legislation only sets the goal of reducing emissions by some 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Rapid reductions in the short-term are critical to avoiding catastrophic impacts from global warming. With this weak start, it is clear that achieving the needed reductions would be impossible

"Eviscerating the Clean Air Act: The bill is expected to strip the authority that the Environmental Protection Agency has to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act and the states' authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government.

"Money for Dirty technology: The bill is expected to include financial incentives for, among other things, nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal fired energy. This includes billions for "clean coal" technology development, as well as free permits for heavy emitters like manufacturers, oil refiners, and merchant coal generators.

"We call on the President to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill, that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforms our economy with clean, renewable energy technology, generates new green jobs and shows real leadership internationally. None of this is accomplished by giving billions of dollars to the coal and petroleum industries.”

Uh-oh!

#

SIERRA CLUB MAKES THEIR FIRST SENATE ENDORSEMENT OF 2008: ANDREW RICE

After the League of Conservation Voters released its rankings a few days ago-- with Inhofe scoring a perfect zero-- Oklahoma State Senator Andrew Rice, who is challenging his re-election bid, released this statement to the press:

"Senator Inhofe's position on global warming may play well to his extremist friends, but it's not helping Oklahoma. It is disappointing that many of the common-sense measures opposed by Oklahoma's senior senator to address man-made global warming would actually benefit the state he was entrusted to represent. For instance, he has opposed efforts to transfer tax breaks from big oil companies to alternative fuels when Oklahoma is in an ideal position, due to abundant natural resources and private investment, to lead America's transition to alternative fuels and energy independence. Fortunately, Sen. Inhofe and his allies are increasingly isolated on this issue. The apparent Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, along with an increasing number of Congressional Republicans and hunters and fisherman, among others, have joined the environmental community to call for immediate action on global warming."

Today the Sierra Club made it's first endorsement for Senate: Andrew Rice. Andrew has also been endorsed by Blue America and... the contribution page is open and eager for $5 and $10 donations for one of the most important races of 2008.