OUR Wedge Issues: Energy Indepedence (w/poll)

Let's Go On Offense.

There is no single issue with political and human ramifications as broad as energy independence, nor is there any one issue which puts as much at stake for American voters and interests.  Our current energy policy endangers America's national security, environmental safety and public health, while also leaving consumers out to dry.  

From FrontierPAC.org:

There's a reason why consumers see gas and utility prices go up year after year, while energy companies post record profits. It's the same reason why we let Saudi oil kingpins influence our foreign policy, while at the same time looking for ways to drill in our own wildlife preserves. The same reason we see market-rigging like the Enron scandal followed up by additional deregulation...

We all know that the reason mentioned above is our failure to craft a cogent national energy policy.  Voters all over the US--and especially in Western states--are beginning to learn this as well.  Let's make sure they do so on OUR terms...

[More below the fold]

 [This begins a series of Frontier PAC diaries intended to help develop our aggressive Democratic branding narrative for 2006.]  

1.  We Have the Technology NOW.
So, to put it simply, the problem is politics.

When thinking about American energy policy in terms of a "national greatness" project, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that we need to develop new technologies or cultivate new markets for renewable energy to be viable.  In Western states--and nationally, in aggregate--this is entirely untrue.  According to a seminal study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Oregon, Montana, and Nevada--to name just a few--could each produce more than 400% of the energy they currently consume with cheaply available, commecrcally viable windfarm technology.  

2.  The Oil Companies Own Congress.
Since 1990, multinational oil companies have given $100 million to Republican lawmakers.  And it's not surprising that the Congress they've bought has failed to deliver Americans a sound energy policy.

In fact, our current energy policy, with increased oil and coal subsidies paired with attacks on already scant federal budget allotments for renewable energy, is drastically subverting the will of the market: it is not cheaper or easier for us to rely on fossil fuels, and rigging our energy policy is becoming ever more important for those who that dismays.

3.  A Smarter Energy Policy Will Put Big $ Into Rural America.
Simply enacting a 20% renewable energy standard would save American consumers over $27 billion dollars--and that's just on utility bills (see the study linked above).  Building and maintaining renewable energy facilities will create hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs and pour tax revenues into rural counties and municipalities.  The best part is that the West will lead: Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona--these are states which currently rank among the poorest in the nation, but their abundance of renewable energy resources means that they'll be the center of the innovation and economic growth created by a bold and intelligent energy policy.

The Contrast:
Energy policy sheds significant light on the underlying values driving each party and serves to bring exceptional clarity to the choice facing voters.  It's obvious: Republicans serve the interests of oil companies, while Democrats fight for families, small businesses, jobs and conservation.

But we can't make this argument without the right candidates.  It comes down to choosing populism over big corporations.  This fight isn't for Democrats who covet campaign dollars from big oil, nor is it for Democrats who are afraid to take a swipe at the GOP's corporate jugular.  But for Democrats with the courage to spare voters any added bullshit, it's a fight with a major prize.

Join us at http://frontierpac.org

Poll
Will Energy Independence Be a Winning Issue for Democrats in 2006?
Yes.
No.

Votes: 59
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Tip Jar (3.00 / 1)

Tips/feedback/etc.
by Frontier PAC on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 11:37:17 AM EST

Re: Tip Jar (none / 0)

Cross-posted at Booman Tribune and Daily Kos.
by Frontier PAC on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 12:43:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Economy And Jobs Are The Most Important Issues (none / 0)

A lot of you guys seem to be independently wealthy. So for you, other issues are as important or more important.. But for those of us who don't have that security, the last twenty or so years have seen a continuous slide in wages and a breaking of the implicit social contract that says that all Americans can attain the dream.. if they are willing to work for it.

The GOP's hidden agenda is one that gives up on that implicit promise for most Americans.. Its a profoundly selfish and pessimistic one. But money doesn't grow on trees, in order for America to become a great country again, we need to reign in the out of control corporations and make them take the long-term rather than the short term view.

They will benefit as well, we would ALL benefit from the government doing what governments must do and take a leadership role in setting policy for growth and economic development, rather that the GOPs rape and pillage, sell it off to the highest bidder approach..

We could start by ending corporate personhood, and instead, requiring corporations to be accountable to not just their shareholders (and not very well at that) but also to their employees and their communities. We need to incentivize them to invest in America and disincentivize them from exporting jobs overseas.

Perhaps we need to end the concept of the multinational so that corporations do not see themselves as above and beyond countries - like they do now..

No action of a corporation should be immune to democratic review.. All international trade treaties that remove the ability to set environmental or wage standards should be invalidated...

Ending corporate personhood would be a good start..

by ultraworld on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:27:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Frontier Pac is smoking! (3.00 / 1)

That's the ticket! National Greatness and investing in our future. Now the Dems have to start attacking GOPers as the party of old ideas. Nukes are old news that litter our countryside with radioactive turds that threaten our water supply and our health.

Drilling in ANWR is an old idea that doesn't add enough oil to our national supply or world supply to lower energy prices two cents.

This program will provide jobs and future careers for Western high school students who are looking outside the state for a way to provide for their prospective family. There are so many ways to frame this issue it's a no brainer.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 02:27:16 PM EST

Re: Frontier Pac is smoking! (none / 0)

The GOP as the Party of Old Ideas?

Igor, fetch me...Gary Hart!

by craverguy on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 03:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frontier Pac is smoking! (none / 0)

Gary Hart kicks ass. New ideas are better than the same old any day, even if they're unproven.
by PantslessYoda1 on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:14:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's all about control...Centralized control.. (3.00 / 1)

The real reason the GOP only wants 'big' energy projects is that they can be controlled in times of war and civil unrest. They also funnel money to big GOP backers like the energy and nuclear industries.

A push by the US to move to smaller, more decentralized power generation would not only reduce the control which Washington could exert over areas in situations of civil unrest (this is something they obsess about, if you look at the real reasons for things like Patriot 2, the Real ID act, etc.) by cutting off their power (which would also cut off water, because pumping stations wouldn't function)

Most large US cities are dependent on water that is brought in from distant mountains, rivers, etc. so this is, as they would put it, a chokehold.

I'm not promoting any kind of unrest, just mentioniong that this is a driver of domestic as well foreign, energy policy, I'd suspect.

Of course, there are some very big flaws in this logic. Bluntly, I think that we need to be worrying much more about the effects of nuclear terrorism if it happens. Large nuclear power plants, with their spent fuel storage facilities, present an attractive target for terrorists.
It has been stated by terrorism experts that aboveground nuclear power plants, nomatter how strongly built, could be hit by a large airliner and breached, sending the nuclear material into a Chernobyl-like situation. A cogent argument could be made for immediately beginning a national project to dismantle aboveground nuclear power plants or to devote SUBSTANTIAL resources to hardening them. However, when one figures this cost into the original cost and the cost to run them, nuclear power stops looking so economical..

I think that this provides another STRONG argument in favor of localized solar, hydro and wind power generation..

The sun illuminates every square yard of the Earth's surface with around 200 watts of energy at  midday. This is a lot of energy, when you think about it.

Making developing new energy sources a priority would pay off in so many ways, that to me it is a no-brainer.

Europe, Japan, Korea and even China are ahead of us on this now..from what I gather..

When you also consider that they are investing far more than we are on robotics research and business automation (one of the benefits of keeping salaries high is that that cost drives innovation in technology - witness the Romans and imperial China, which let cheap labor prevent them from utilizing inventions that could have changed the outcomes for both when 'their business models' collapsed) one has to come to the conclusion that America is throwing its entire future away just so a few fat and already rich guys can get still richer now..

Lets not let the Bush administration and the GOP's 'conservative' (which seems to me to actually mean 'paleocorporate') orientation keep the US in the 20th century in yet another area...while the rest of the world moves into the 21st..

An resentful, insular, economically marginalized, and chronically unemployed America, with nuclear weapons, is NOT a future I want to see us 'enjoy'..

by ultraworld on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:19:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all about control...Centralized control.. (none / 0)

"one has to come to the conclusion that America is throwing its entire future away just so a few fat and already rich guys can get still richer now..."

Couldn't have said it better...  But it makes me very sad to know that it's true.

But what i can't understand, and maybe someone will help me... Is... Dont these fat rich men have families?  Dont they have children?  

I understand the desire to be wealthy, sure, but what for?  I want money so i can enjoy my free time, so i can enjoy the world.  They dont seem to care that thier greed is ruining the world, not just for everyone else, but for themselves too...

Why dont they see that all their money and power has little benefit...  I mean, what good is flying your privet jet to tahiti if tahiti is a polluted, overpopulated, disease infested rock in the ocean... ??  (you get what i am saying..?)

I guess i just dont  understand that level of power hunger and greed...

by phemfrog on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all about control...Centralized control.. (none / 0)

Aside from pure greed, which is one of the most powerful human instincts, there are the dominionists, who believe that the earth is ending in our lifetime anyway, so we might as well use up the resources while we can.

Alan Watt, Reagans Sec. of Interior was one and there are several in the Bush administration now.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:38:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's all about control...Centralized control.. (none / 0)

Oh. well i hadnt thought of it that way.  i tend to forget about "theological" explanations.  
by phemfrog on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

AmericanEnergyIndependence.com (3.00 / 1)

http://americanenergyindependence.com/

great site, use it for research and networking.

DAGGER
by goplies on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:40:50 AM EST

Whole hearted agreement (3.00 / 1)

This is my number one issue as a progressive and as an American citizen. If we get on the right side of this and pull the mainstream along with us it will trump any sort of social issues. Southerners don't like abortions but they hate high gas proces and funding terrorism.
by spacemuseum on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:50:22 PM EST

Great! (3.00 / 2)

I don't it's exactly about "dragging along the mainstream," at least in the West.  The ranchers, farmers, and rural workers  in big Western ought to be LEADING this effort, and in many ways they are.  The key is to join THEIR coalitions and advance THEIR interests, not the other way around.  

It might sound trivial, but when it comes down to it, in a new energy economy he with the wind/sun/space will make the rules.

by Frontier PAC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I voted no; won't happen (none / 0)

2.  The Oil Companies Own Congress.

While my hat is off to anybody that advocates breaking this cycle, I'm somewhat sceptical that the Democratic party can be the driving engine behind this change due to the fact that "oil companies" have wielded a great deal of influence in Congress with solid support from Democrats as well as Repugs.

Secondly, both Democratic and Repug representatives from coal producing states have also aligned with those from oil states to form a de facto block against cleaner, more efficient and sustainable changes in our nation's energy policy.

Thirdly, progressive Democrats have never been willing to make congressional representatives walk the plank over energy policy issues, Mary Landreau from LA being a primary example. I haven't witnessed any Democrats outside of California lending bipartisan support to the Terminator's "Million Roof" residential solar project, the most aggressive of its kind in the nation.  

Energy policy sheds significant light on the underlying values driving each party and serves to bring exceptional clarity to the choice facing voters.  It's obvious: Republicans serve the interests of oil companies, while Democrats fight for families, small businesses, jobs and conservation.

This simply is not true. I can't recall a single prominent Democrat from an oil producing/refining state ever not catering to the  priorities of oil companies while sacraficing the true energy interests of families, small business as well as even jobs in their districts. Furthermore, I've never heard of one of these people advocating significant conservation measures or practices that would enable individual Americans to develop greater independence from Texas tea.

Just as important, even key Demcorats outside of states with oil interestes, most noteably Carl Levin (D-MI), have repeatedly fought meaningful increases in federally mandated MPG and cleaner emission standards for automobiles over the last three decades.

Lastly, people who place a high priority on voting for "clean and renewable" energy when they enter the voting booth unfortunately represent a rather small percentage of voters. Many of these people, such as myself, will continue to go Green in the future because, unlike the Democratic party, there's no ambiguity in the Green party's support   for more efficient and cleaner energy alternatives.

     

by Seldom Seen Smith on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:43:30 PM EST

Two Issues: (none / 0)

  1.  To say that MI is a state with no "oil interests" is a little bit of a stretch.  Cars are a big deal.
  2.  You're right about certain Democratic elected officials being a big part of the problem--but this is far less so in Western states where alternative energy has proven a political winner.

To the extent that the bit about Democrats standing up to big corporations isn't true, Democrats would be smart to make it so.  I don't think that Frontier PAC's framework would be good for electing a DLC-type pro-corporate Democrat--but they can continue to lose elections without our help.  

We can never presume to speak for all Democrats (if only!), but we can damn well make sure that Frontier PAC never gets behind candidates who sell out their constituents to multinationals (and I assure you we've already been approached by one). You've got a good point, but I don't like that you do, and Democrats will win in 2006 if we can prove you wrong.

That being said, Congressional Democrats were instrumental in passing the McCain-Leiberman Climate Stewardship Act as well as the Carper Oil Savings bill.  What has the Green Party done to toughen emissions standards in America?  Democrats filibustered Bush's energy bill in two consecutive Congresses--preventing billions in taxpayer giveaways to polluters.  What has the Green Party done to help stop dangerous energy policy?

Having the purest rhetoric is hardly the same as having the strongest track record.  There are plenty of Democrats who I want to kick on occaison, but I'd rather work to try to find a carrot-approach to smart energy policy then righteously harrumph away any chance of setting this country on the right track.

by Frontier PAC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When was the last oil strike in Michigan? (none / 0)

I agree cars are a big deal. Our entire economy is built on the automobile, all the more reason Detroit should be pushing for more sustainable alternatives than currently exist.

That being said, Congressional Democrats were instrumental in passing the McCain-Leiberman Climate Stewardship Act as well as the Carper Oil Savings bill.  

"McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewartship Act," "Carper Oil Savings bill"? My assumption is that you're not being facetious and are actually suggesting that these bills represent significant progress towards a more responsible energy policy.  

Having the purest rhetoric is hardly the same as having the strongest track record.

What exactly is the track record outside of duplicity to the oil companies?

I'd rather work to try to find a carrot-approach to smart energy policy then righteously harrumph away any chance of setting this country on the right track.

Exactly the reason I've cut off financial support for Democrats and joined the Green party.  

by Seldom Seen Smith on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:27:18 PM EST

That's Great (none / 0)

I'd say we need a big tent, but I doubt you'd care.  If you think that legislation which has reduced by tens of millions the number of barrels of oil consumed in this country each year is meaningless, I'm doubting your expertise on energy policy.  Of course McCain-Leiberman and Carper aren't going to solve all of our energy problems, but I don't see evidence that the American  Green Party has pushed any successful legislation on that front.  

The bottom line is that those laws represent orders of magnitude more progress than anyone else has made on the issue in this country.  Now--for the first time since the Carter administration--we've got Congresspeople on record voting against clean energy policy.  That creates a political context to push this thing forward.  You could use that opportunity to galvanize support for smart policies, but instead you choose to smear Democrats.

There's never going to be a perfect party.  There are always going to be officeholders whose constituencies care more about the short-term economic picture than anything long-term.  There are always going to be sellouts, whores, and corporate shills.  But to pretend away the fact that one party reliably fillibusters--en masse--bad energy policy while the other votes for it in lock step extends beyond the cynical and into the willfully ignorrant.  

by Frontier PAC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's Great (none / 0)

I'd say we need a big tent, but I doubt you'd care.

I hung in there with Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale when things looked bleak and I helped save Bill Clinton's bacon twice down here in Kentucky when he could have easily lost this commonwealth. I firmly believe that everybody that takes the time to participate in this forum cares pretty deeply.  

If you think that legislation which has reduced by tens of millions the number of barrels of oil consumed in this country each year is meaningless, I'm doubting your expertise on energy policy.

I currently disagree that any legislation you've thus far cited has produced the result you claim. While I'm open to being educated; I'm admittedly more focused on alternative energy sources.

There's never going to be a perfect party.

I fully agree; however, I'll no longer contribute to a party chasing a pot of gold at the end of the corporate rainbow. Actually, it wasn't so long ago when that was a Democratic idea.

Without drastic internal change within the Democratic party itself, energy policy will never be a potential wedge issue for Democrats.

by Seldom Seen Smith on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 10:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's Great (none / 0)

And I'll never let the corporate shills take away my party.  The DLC wing of the party had their chance, failed, and are now being replaced.  They failed precisely because they did NOT represent the party's real values.

They will not be replaced by people who have chosen to leave the party, but by those who are clearly presenting a better way to do politics and policy.  A  great number of progressives have arrived at the conclusion that it would be better to fight to present that better way than to give up on building a Democratic majority.    

by Frontier PAC on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's Great (none / 0)

A  great number of progressives have arrived at the conclusion that it would be better to fight to present that better way than to give up on building a Democratic majority.

I disagree. While I agree that old-style liberals are more inclined to seek the shelter of the Democratic party shell, I believe more adventurous-minded progressives such as myself are seeking alternatives outside of the Democratic party; furthermore, I think we will eventually have a rather significant impact upon our governmental processes.

Getting late down here in the South. Thank you for sharing your diary, take care and good evening.  

     

by Seldom Seen Smith on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The DLC has failed. Are they being replaced? (none / 0)

I made a two year committment to work through DFA to attempt to make the Democratic party more representative of Democratic voters. The more I watch this session of Congress, the more I question whether the Democratic party is capable of reform.

I used to think it was possible. I'm starting to wonder if the Al From/DLC apparatchiks can ever be relieved of their stranglehold on the reins of power in the party.

Here's the problem. The DLC is not part of the Democratic party. The DLC is outside of and completely independent of the party apparatus. Do they ever hold meetings? What do we know about their budget? Is there any accountability or transparency to the decisions of the DLC? Does anybody even know what the decisions of the DLC are?

How can you reform the Democratic party when the power brokers in the party are immune from reform?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 12:12:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Simple (yet hard). (none / 0)

Take the power away from them.  
by Frontier PAC on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 12:28:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Simple (yet hard). (none / 0)

Yet hard for sure. The problem as I see it is that as an organization completely outside of the Democratic party structure, there is no way to remove them from power. The DLC should not have any power in the Democratic party. There is no similar structure in the Republican party.

An analogy would be if the Club for Growth exercised more power inside the Republcan party than the RNC did. The Club for  Growth and the DLC both have independent financial bases. Their executive decision making processes and their decisions are both immune from reform. They both serve corporate masters. Neither group is concerned about the welfare of the party as a whole. Both groups have narrow interests and narrow agendas that cannot be influenced.

Yet hard for sure. Maybe impossible.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 12:54:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what about the economic competiveness argument? (none / 0)

I've been a fan of using the this issue. The oil companies give to the GOP 80-20, so it shouldnt be that hard to get the dems to buck oil companies. IF big oil owned both sides of the aisle it would be impossible.

Second, what about the fact that the rest of the world is going to develop the tech with or without us? When fossil fuels get to expensive which ever countries' companies has the known-how is going to get giant contract after giant contract for building this stuff. These are going to be high-skill, blue collar jobs. Like building back in Detroit's hey-day or building airplane and military equipment now. These will be high paying jobs open to all Americans. This type of argument appeals to yet another constituency that may not be swayed by the other reasons.

by srolle on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:51:56 AM EST

Spotted Owls Vs. Good Jobs (none / 0)

This is why energy independence is such a great issue, and old-style environmentalism has not been effective.

We need to keep our economy competitive, defend our homeland from oil barons, and create good jobs at home - not save the spotted owl, or the silverbacked minnow. I'm all for wildlife, but they shouldn't headline the framing over environemental issues, it should be people and jobs.

That's how we win.

March That Donkey West

by IsaacGol on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 10:10:20 AM EST

Re: Spotted Owls AND. Good Jobs (none / 0)

You can't expect anyone to take seriously this statement:

I'm all for wildlife,

when you go on to say:

but they shouldn't headline the framing over environemental issues, it should be people and jobs.

I heard a politician make a similar argument recently. It was Republican Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. Here is Mitch talking to environmental management employees shortly after he took office (quoted from Indianapolis Star article that now is archived):

Daniels addressed agency employees Tuesday afternoon, making it clear that his -- and their -- top priority should be to help businesses create new jobs in Indiana.

"Nowhere can a bigger difference be made more swiftly than by the people in this room," said Daniels, who has criticized the agency as being too slow and inconsistent in issuing permits to industries that pollute.

He said environmental protection and public health are important, but "a poor Indiana will not be a green Indiana."

Democrats don't need to be Republicans on the environment to win. Not allowing the framing to be the Spotted Owl versus jobs is good advice, but not worrying about species such as the Spotted Owl is wrong.

by Curt Matlock on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spotted Owls AND. Good Jobs (none / 0)

I don't think he's saying that the policy priorities should be reworkd at all, just that it is easy to sell people on the economic benefits.  Clean energy is perfect for this line of argument because there is no trade-off: the new technology straight-up creates jobs and pours money into communities.

Clearly, if the specific conflict of logging vs. owls were framed only in terms of jobs, it would lead to environmentally harmful decisions.  But with something like wind power, it benefits us.  What would you rather be offered, "clean air" or "$5,000."  I'd choose the $5000, but that doesn't make clean air unimportant, and it doesn't mean that you have to give up on trying to do something just because it is no longer your rhetorical centerpiece.    

Also, rural areas (including much of the West) are not experiencing the environmental and public health impacts of our current energy policy as acutely as suburban and urban areas.  Not as much smog/asthma.  They are, however, usually more in need of economic development.  They are also places where the old framework of environmentalism and economic development being at odds with another is well-estabished and where people have already chosen sides in that split.  That's why letting people know about the economic beneifts of a smarter energy policy is so important.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the basic principles which drive environmental protection should be watered-down.  It's just that we have to recognize that there are different payoffs to good environmental stewardship for different groups of people.  

And who says we should be like Republicans?  How is opening up another front of contrast going to make the two parties more alike?  I don't get that at all.

by Frontier PAC on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:45:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spotted Owls AND. Good Jobs (none / 0)

The person I replied to, IsaacGol, said:

We need to keep our economy competitive, defend our homeland from oil barons, and create good jobs at home - not save the spotted owl, or the silverbacked minnow.

That statement reminded me of the same argument put forth by Republican Mitch Daniels so I looked it up and yes they were similar. That led to my attempt in my comment to draw a parallel to Mitch Daniels and the above statement by IsaacGol. In my opinion, it used a Republican frame and was overly dismissive of the value of saving owls and minnows. Typically, that kind of thinking comes from Republicans. Statements of the form of "I'm all for wildlife but ..." also typically come from Republicans. Not that I think IsaacGol is a Republican, I am criticizing his approach.

I agreed with IsaacGol that the problem needed to be reframed but did not approve of the way his argument dismissed environmental concerns. In that context here's my closing again:

Democrats don't need to be Republicans on the environment to win. Not allowing the framing to be the Spotted Owl versus jobs is good advice, but not worrying about species such as the Spotted Owl is wrong.

If I parsed IsaacGol's meaning wrong then of course I'd be glad to hear what he meant to convey.

by Curt Matlock on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 03:19:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spotted Owls AND. Good Jobs (3.00 / 0)

Curt, I wanted to respond to clear something up. I meant the comment "I'm all for wildlife..." as a jest with a barb. Jest in the sense that I think the line, "I'm all for wildlife but" sounds ridiculous, and barb in the sense that I see value in making sustainable good jobs more available for the long-term. Of course, I exaggerate in order to play with discursive frames.

I'm for spotted owls' protection, minnow's protection, and good jobs. Our priorities should be oriented towards voters, and a good, healthy mix of these priorities is the best way to frame these issues.

My guess is that Curt and I share similar viewpoints on protecting endangered animals and our wild places from corporate overdevelopment, but we disagree, I think slightly, in the way to frame this issue.

by IsaacGol on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spotted Owls Vs. Good Jobs (none / 0)

Your link to "March that Donkey West" is broken. What's up?
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 02:31:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spotted Owls Vs. Good Jobs (none / 0)

Try  this
by Frontier PAC on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 02:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Spotted Owls Vs. Good Jobs (none / 0)

Thanks. New link for me.
by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 06:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Packaging (none / 0)

I just was thinking about the problem with Open Source and Energy Issues together.  It would seem the main thing to me would be Packaging.

Building "Labels" - "logos" - "Target Groups" - "Market Niches" and then selling the hell out of it.

I gave a client a choice between a a Free Open Source Business Package or the Overpriced Microsoft version, he chose the latter, why?  He hadn't heard of the Open Source program.

It did everything the Microsoft vesion did and then some, in the same formats, but he wasn't willing to take that leap of faith.

Now if he had heard on the radio about this new Open Source Software, with a great name,  sweeping the nation and rival Microsoft for market share, perhaps then he would have experimented.

People are comfortable with what they know, so it is up to us to educate them.  Energy is the same way, if you heat with passive solar and you mention your heating bill to someone this summer, I bet you'll get some interest.  But if there was a powerful advertising force behind solar energy, that you neighbor saw every week this winter, then you went over and mentioned your heating bill, I think you'd get a much better response.

I know there is a simpler way to say all this, I just can't seem to find it.

DAGGER
by goplies on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 04:17:18 PM EST

Re: Packaging (none / 0)

How about advertising and repetition work? That's it in a nutshell. The wingnuts repeat the same stupid shit over and over and over and eventually some of it sinks in.

For example, the myth that Reagan brought down the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union with his speech and defense build up. Most Americans would agree, but I rank the factors this way:

1.) Thirty years of a bi-partisan policy of containment.
2.) Solidarity and internal dissent in Eastern Europe.
3.) The Pope.
4.) Gorbachev's initiatives on Glasnost and Peristroika.
5.) Reagan's defense build up.

Regan was a minor factor. Everybody gives him credit for being a mythical figure with nearly super-natural powers. Why? Because the wingnuts and the MSM repeat it ad nauseum.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 06:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Packaging (none / 0)

I couldn't agree with you more on Reagan and you are the first person I have heard say that other than myself.

Yes, repetition and staying on message, we need our energy folks to focus on energy, policy folks to focus on policy, web folks to focus on connectivity, PR folks to interface with Media, etc.  It looks like there are some good reps from each group right here so I say let's get it together.

I can work on images and web stuff.  

DAGGER
by goplies on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CAFE standards and light truck exemptions (3.00 / 1)

Until I see the Dems make any sort of move to raise CAFE standards - which is about the only thing in government more out of touch with reality than the minimum wage, and reduce and then elimiate the light truck exemption and SUV deductions, then we're never going to get anywhere with reducing our dependence on foreign oil bought with American blood.

Clinton and Gore promised (twice) and failed, and midwestern dems like Levin have stopped meaningful legislation since the Reagan years, (the last time CAFE standards were raised more than an MPG).

Yes, kudos for stopping Bush's dreadful energy policy on some forms, but I don't trust dems to make the hard choices to make this happen.

Vote for a true progressive in November: Cynthia McKinney (GRN) for President!
by brooklyngreenie on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 11:57:23 PM EST

Re: CAFE standards and light truck exemptions (none / 0)

The SUV deduction has me baffled. It is mind boggling that a $100k deduction for buying a monstrous gas hog has still not been challenged. My conclusion is that the DLC has been bought off by Detroit, so there's no way to turn it back.
by Gary Boatwright on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:14:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CAFE standards and light truck exemptions (none / 0)

I'm glad that you are weighing in.  My philosophies are further left than most and some people, even on here, have tried to send me off to the Green Party.  I respect both parties but feel that there was a paradigm switch half way through the campaign.

I actually think John Kerry understood that paradigm switch.  When the Kerry Vets aligned with the Kerry Hawks and wrestled power away from the DLC.  Kerry let it happen and listened to his trusted vets.

I even think he realized it could cost him, but he acknowledged the war in Iraq as a sham.  When he did that it showed he was willing to reverse the DLC pattern of ruling from top down.  It was never Kerry's style to begin with.

Then we saw how the Grassroots people worked their asses off to get Howard Dean in charge of the DNC. This is enough reason for me to believe in the Democratic Party again and not to stray.  I hope that soon you'll reconsider your party alignment but until that time I'd be very interested to hear more of your opinions, especially on the election.
 

DAGGER
by goplies on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 01:03:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry et. al. (none / 0)

Kerry was clearly the wrong choice for Dems this time around - he was damaged goods once he voted for the war, and never recovered from his equivocating on the issues.  As far as Greens are concerned - we sat this one out at a lose-lose situation - effectively cutting Nader off at the knees (I was there at the convention, and voted for Cobb), while Cobb ran a campaign focused on election reform, supporting local candidates and driving people to register Green.

Now the focus will be on electing local Green candidates - personally I'm working on the Gloria Mattera campaign for Brooklyn Boro President, who is running against the incumbent Marty Markowitz, a blowhard who never met a development deal (or a developer's money) he didn't like, and is emblematic of what is wrong with the Dem party Machine in NYC.  Until the dems in NYC can clean up their act (and clean house ont he obviosu corruption) and start acting like democrats should, there is no way I'm going to vote for a Dem anytime soon.  The Working Families party does show some promise, but the only Dem I really respect is Public Advocate candidate and former NYCLU chief Norman Siegel.

I think in 2008, as well, you won't see the same kind of Green 'non-campaign' you did in 2004, especially if the candidate is a faux-liberal centrist like Hilary.

Vote for a true progressive in November: Cynthia McKinney (GRN) for President!
by brooklyngreenie on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:32:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kerry et. al. (none / 0)

I'm doing my best to shake up Albany and am doing my best raising awareness about issues from all across New York. I believe an informed voter is a good voter.  

In Albany there is an unwritten race issue.  Republican business owners that are part of the machine have been using racism for years as their motivating factor for organizing.  It's time to break that BS up.

I appreciate your thoughts and am glad to see that you are so active in the Green Party.  I was not impressed with the Dems in NYC during the last election cycle.  Thye served as Campaign Headquarters for Kerry and refused to return phone calls or emails.  

DAGGER
by goplies on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 09:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CAFE standards and light truck exemptions (none / 0)

An amendment to the House version of the energy billed to increase MPG standards failed yesterday 254-177. I haven't had time to review the vote this morning but those numbers would appear to indicate fairly significant Democratic opposition in the House.  
by Seldom Seen Smith on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 07:18:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.