I would like to see environmental safety true believers like Paul Clements (D-MI) and Marianne Willimson (I-CA) take on Fred Upton and the rest of the self-satisfied elites in Washington who haven't gotten the urgency of Climate Change into their skulls yet-- and probably never will.I got very nervous this week after seeing 4 fundraising requests from an outfit I had never heard of, Environmental Majority. They appeared to be trying to raise money to defeat House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Fred Upton, a vulnerable Michigan Republican totally under the protection of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel. Blue America has endorsed progressive environmental activist Paul Clements, the Democrat opposing Upton and the DCCC and their Beltway media lackeys completely ignore the very winnable race. (You can help depose Upton, who the L.A. Times accurately dubbed him the biggest enemy of the earth, by contributing to Clements' campaign here). This was the first of the e-mails, I got from them and is clearly meant to appeal to folks concerned with Climate Change and environmental safety:
The Koch brothers have a very clear and ruthless agenda: build the Keystone XL Pipeline, stop meaningful climate change legislation, and make it easier for large oil companies to drill in our nation's wilderness. To implement this agenda, they have a man in Congress. His name is Representative Fred Upton. Upton has been on the receiving end of millions from big oil companies and anti-science far-right groups. He is powerful, but we have a chance to beat him this year-- we need your help to do so. This year marks a critical juncture in the fight for the environment. To beat Fred Upton this year, we need your help before our critical February deadline. Will you click here and chip in so we can hit our goal of another $6,891 before Friday? The Koch brothers and Fred Upton have been teaming up for years to stop any progress on climate change legislation. Unseating Upton from his powerful chairmanship this year could allow us to finally breakthrough the anti-science firewall that the he has erected, and make progress on this critical issue. We can stand up to the far-right's big money donors, because we have you. Click here to contribute before our February deadline-- we only have three days left. Our grassroots team, thousands deep, is fighting every day to defend the environment from the Koch brothers and Upton. Thanks for standing up today for an environmental majority. Please contribute what you can today!
A few days later, this one was in my in-box:
We have a real chance to beat the Koch brothers' main man in Congress this year, Republican Fred Upton. The Koch bros love Upton's ability to push through their anti-environment legislation as the chair of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. That is why we need your help before tomorrow's vital deadline. We need to stop them. If we are going to unseat Upton, we need your help now. Our crucial February end-of-month deadline is tomorrow, and we still need to raise $3,987 to meet our goal. Can you click here to contribute now? If we can beat Upton, we can finally start to make progress on climate change legislation and really diminish the Koch brothers' influence in Congress. Click here to help us take on the Koch brothers and their man in Congress, Fred Upton. We must hit our goal by tomorrow if we are going to have the necessary resources to do this. Thanks for standing with us
I knew they weren't raising any money for Clements so I wondered if they were planning to run an independent expenditure campaign against Upton. I got in touch with the executive director, Mark Longabaugh, who I remembered from the successful battle to depose Dirty Dick Pombo nearly a decade ago. One environmental activist warned me that the group was connected to the DCCC, which is, at best, neutral on the environment, but frequently recruits anti-environmental candidates like Ohio coal and fracking shill Jennifer Garrison. I was having queasy visions of a DCCC operation to suck contributions from grassroots environmental activists by promising to go after Upton-- a worthy goal the DCCC adamantly refuses too get behind-- while funneling the money into Garrison's vehemently anti-environment campaign. My fears appear to be unfounded and the operation is legit and not connected to the DCCC or other Inside-the-Beltway corporate shills that cater to Big Oil and Big Coal.How tragic is it that one has to worry that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee could play this disreputable a role? But the certainly that they could sparks this kind of reaction from grassroots and progressive Democrats outside the Beltway, like these tweets from, former Seattle area congressional candidate Darcy Burner yesterday:And meanwhile, what are our Democratic leaders doing about stopping planetary extinction? Right now, doing what they do best-- fighting a turf war over who will replace Henry Waxman as the ranking Democrat (or Chairman) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The two contenders are New Jersey progressive Frank Pallone (who has the seniority) and California garden variety Democrat and Pelosi ally Anna Eshoo. Pallone has a much better environmental record, though Eshoo's isn't terrible. The internal battle, of course, has ZERO to do with which one is a better fighter for the environment.
The internal drama over who will take the top Democratic slot on the Energy and Commerce Committee next year has spilled into public view, with some lawmakers unhappy with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for taking sides so early-- or at all.Pelosi stunned colleagues on Thursday with a letter outlining support for her fellow Californian and close friend Anna G. Eshoo against Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, and now some Democrats find themselves in a difficult position. House Democrats put significant stock in years of service when doling out plum committee assignments, and the simple choice of picking the Energy and Commerce Committee’s current No. 3-- Pallone-- now has been complicated by Pelosi’s endorsement of Eshoo, who is No. 5 in seniority.Many lawmakers and aides told CQ Roll Call they don’t see stark enough differences between the members to justify waiving the seniority precedent and allowing Eshoo to leapfrog over Pallone. Both lawmakers, they have argued, are equally able to do the job, and there is little reason for Pelosi to choose sides so publicly in a move surely aimed at influencing undecideds.One House Democrat said Pallone has paid his dues.As leadership’s point person for coordinating the party’s messaging on the House floor, Pallone has been “a loyal lieutenant,” said the lawmaker, who asked to remain anonymous and still hasn’t decided whom to back. “It’s a thankless task, it’s drudgery, and he does it every day. And Pelosi threw him out like yesterday’s trash.”Eshoo boosters see it differently.“I think Frank Pallone has done a really good job heading our messaging team, but I think Anna Eshoo is a woman who’s dynamic, who is from the high-tech community out in California, and can bring some real energy to Energy and Commerce,” said New York’s Nita M. Lowey, who became ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee without being the next in line.But seniority is an especially sensitive issue for the Congressional Black and Hispanic caucuses, whose members believe that giving deference to tenure is the only way to protect minority members from slights, accidental or intentional, in getting promoted on Capitol Hill.The CBC in particular is poised to benefit from respect for the seniority system: Its members currently hold ranking member slots on five of the 22 House committees, and that number could increase to seven in the 114th Congress. CBC members are inching ahead on a number of other panels, too, painting a viable picture of a day when they could wield unprecedented influence on just under half of all House committees.Many of them did not take kindly to Pelosi’s public disregard for precedent.“She officially buried the concept of seniority today,” Charles B. Rangel of New York said Thursday.“I respect those who respect that system,” Eshoo stressed to reporters in early February. “It’s been around a long time. But I don’t believe it’s sacrosanct.”Arizona Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, who launched an unsuccessful bid last year against more-senior Oregon Rep. Peter A. DeFazio for ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, believes a transformed caucus has shifted the norms.“Pallone’s saying, ‘It’s my turn, it’s my seniority,’ and I don’t have a problem with him doing that … but with almost 50 percent of our caucus members being members of the Democratic Caucus with six years or less under their belts, then maybe for the seniority question, attitudes are changing.”…[I]n 2008, emboldened by colleagues clamoring for a more progressive legislative agenda on climate issues, Waxman ousted longtime Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich.
An organizing event for Team Eshoo at Sona Creamery and Wine Bar on Capitol Hill was hosted by business-friendly, conservative-leaning Democrats, Jared Polis (New Dem-CO), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA), Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA), Ami Bera (New Dem-CA), Juan Vargas (New Dem-CA), Lois Capps (New Dem-CA), Elizabeth Esty (New Dem-CT) Joe Courtney (New Dem-CT), Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL), Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH) and Adam Smith (New Dem-WA).Although, like Grijalva, I like the idea of breaking through the constraints of the seniority system, Pallone is a better choice than Eshoo. But, honestly, there something even more important than which one of these two politicians becomes the committee's ranking member. And that's who replaces Waxman in his progressive, highly educated Santa Monica-Beverly Hills district, CA-33. As we've mentioned before, there's an independent progressive running outside of the realm of the two corrupt Beltway parties, Marianne Williamson. She wasn't endorsed by Dennis Kucinich at a rally yesterday because he admires the way she does yoga. Williamson is a far more essential champion of a forward-thinking environmental agenda than Eshoo, Pallone or any of the sleazy New Dems playing their Beltway games. Her website page on Climate Change begins with a quote from Sir Robert Swan, the world's foremost champion of preserving Antarctica: "The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it." Williamson's vision bespeaks a lifetime of work belying the notion of leaving the important stuff to someone else. A highly successful, admired and esteemed teacher and activist, she's running for Congress to get something done and make a real difference-- on the Big Things. This morning she told me that "the sad truth is that there's a limit to what we can do to save the planet, as long as companies who make trillions of dollars in profit from burning fossil fuels-- and billions in government subsidies for doing so-- continue to dominate our environmental policies. The American people have been reduced to the position of begging the aristocracy to make room for a few little people at the bottom; the problem of course there is that in America, there's not supposed to be an aristocracy and there aren't supposed to be any 'little people.' So asking which Democrat will be Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee is like saying, 'So those deck chairs on the Titanic-- do you think we should cover them in rough cotton or in silk?' What we need to do, of course, is to turn the Titanic around. Until our government starts putting the interests of the people of the United States before the interests of their corporate benefactors, such differences as Chairmanship are incremental at best and mere window dressing at worst."Her public statement on Climate Change isn't focus-group tested or anything that Beltway consultants would ever allow their candidates to say in public. It's the kind of statement that gives DCCC and EMILY's List operatives colitis. If Marianne is elected, this is what CA-33 will be contributing to America:
Too much of America’s energy-- 81%, in fact-- continues to come from fossil fuels that pollute our air and water, causing global warming and weather disruption more intense with each passing year.This is not just unfortunate, or even critical; it is a clear and present danger to the future not only of our country but to life on earth.Our reliance on oil makes us dependent on energy supplies from other countries, particularly in the Middle East, drawing us more easily into military actions to defend access to oil. The federal government supports the use of fossil fuels by handing out massive tax breaks and subsidies to energy companies that are among the most profitable corporations in the world. The top five oil companies made $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011, yet they receive $10-52 billion in tax breaks and subsidies every year.Legalized corruption makes it almost impossible to truly take on the power of Exxon-Mobil and other oil giants that receive massive tax breaks from the government. Once again, until we deal with the issue of money’s undue influence on our political system, none of this will truly change.Technological innovation has developed increasingly affordable energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, water, biofuels, and geothermal power. The U.S. government should be investing-- and investing massively-- in clean, green energy, that can lower costs for all of our homes and businesses, as well as improve public health.Transitioning to clean, green energy is one of the great moral challenges of our time. In fact, we can save half the oil we use through improved efficiency and get the other half from renewable energy sources. Making this fundamental change in how we as a nation use energy is not something that any one set of legislative actions can manage; rather, this shift will take a change in how all of us-- not only government, but also individuals-- treat the earth on which we live.I see no need whatsoever for the domestic use of nuclear energy. Since the Fukushima disaster, we have seen the tragic consequences of thinking that just because something was made by the likes of General Electric-- the same company that makes our own nuclear generators-- that we need not worry about catastrophes due to human error or natural disasters like tidal waves and earthquakes. If anyone should stand for that realization, it’s Californians! And most importantly, we do not need nuclear energy to fulfill our energy needs. Given that it provides 9% of our energy, that need can be met with the kind of investment in green technology called for above. As an American and as a mother, I strongly reject the notion that the domestic use of nuclear energy is “worth the risk.”
