Letters to the Editor
-
Schwarzenegger got my vote
...and it was entirely because of his caps on emissions. He is the only republican I voted for on the entire ballot.
Most importantly, our politicians need to make large moves on the environment irregardless of whether it is an election issue or not. The public doesn't need to decide what gets on the front burner. That is why we elect people. To govern.
Arnold did what he needed to do irregardless of party, hot button issues, or electability, and irregardless of whether the public was demanding it. California was not demanding that Arnold sign into law (in conjunction with the Democrats in state legislature who drew this up) the most significant environmental law of the last 2 decades. Arnold did this anyway. He governed. And good for all of us that he did. And good for any politician that understands that energy independence, green energy, clean environment, conservation are the most important issues of this nation. No one is going to care about their position on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc...when their city is underwater or experiencing a 140 degree heat wave.
-
The Irony is...
that there are a lot of windmills generating electricity on Pombo family land in the Altamont Pass area outside of Tracy, California.
Or, at least there were 22 years ago when I spent the summers collecting wind speed data for a wind energy company in the area.
Wind companies lease land from the ranchers and put up the windmills that stretch for miles along the eastern foothills of the Diablo Range.
I would not be surprised if Pombo kicked the windmills off his land to prove his anti-environmentalist bona fides.
-
But...
But the 'Green Party' resulted in the ouster of and resulting win of a few very environmentally unfriendly jackals in Michigan.
I'm not at all convinced that having more than 2 parties is anything other than a bad idea. One person lost by less than the number of votes that the 'green party' candidate acquired.
Protest voting is juvenile and hurtful to the country. I just wonder if the republicans ran the green party candidates for just that reason, siphon votes from the democrats...
-
"Finally"? Was Amanda Born in the 80s?
This is an example of the "everything moves forward towards improvement" kind of historical analysis that I hate. The early nineties were rife with environmentalism; it was cool from 1990-1992 to vote green. History swings back and forth, the dynamic tensions of of response and counter-response creating swings in the pendulum we call "movements"
-
Environmental Policy as Wedge Issue
I think that the key here is not so much that 'greener' democrats got elected--although I think Little is right to highlight this phenomenon--but rather that the Democratic Party is beginning to finally wake up to fact that voters care about the environment and are beginning to relate it to energy and security issues in a meaningful way.
In some ways, Schwarzennegger exploited this first. But now that they are in control, Democrats have the perfect opportunity to make a sane energy policy their signature issue.
They have few alternatives that are as good politicallly. It will be hard for them to alter Iraq policy meaningfully, given how much a mess it is: even the Republicans are looking for phased withdrawal. Impeachment proceedings, however historically necessary and justified, are not a political winner for them. Fights over supreme court justices are only going to be draws, at best. Reversing tax cuts is always hard, even when these cuts have benefited millionaires primarily.
I could go on. The point is, the American public is not going to rally around these other issues, but it is getting hip to the idea that 1) it has always claimed to love the environment (true) 2) the Republican 'energy plan' has primarily been 'more drilling please!', and this is both dirty and short-sighted 3) a progressive energy policy, while it has some costs, is an investment in a more technologically-savvy, cleaner, more independent America.
The Republicans will, I believe, have increasing trouble fighting that argument and it will continue to peal off their moderates--which for them, as this election showed, is fatal. You can have a 30% rock solid base of SUV driving bible thumpers, but that and a dime won't get you a cup of coffee anywhere in the NE, the NW, California, and much of the midwest--and, increasingly, the SW.
-
Wrong
Gonzoid-
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. What the U.S. really needs is about 6 political parties so that each group of Americans can finally vote FOR something instead of just against something. I am really sick and tired of holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two or three evils. If the Dems send up another DLC centrist scumbag in 2008, I'm maybe off to the Greens although there is much to dislike about them as well. Hillary Clinton, for example, is no friend of the environment - in fact, she's unfriendly to most progressive ideas - so why shouldn't I try to find a candidate who reflects what I believe?
-
a modest proposal
here's an idea for green activists who want to help others "connect the dots" - how about distributing an adhesive sticker that you can slap on gas pumps right above the credit card swiper that says PAY OSAMA NOW.
edwardo
-
regarding the Green Party electoral results in Illinois
For myself, it was a protest vote, if nothing else. Blagojevich and Topinka are simply opposite ends of the same counterfeit coin: they both believe that if Illinois opens up enough casinos, then the state can achieve fiscal solvency from the profits of state sanctioned gambling. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats were willing to discuss either a tax hike nor a drastic cut in current and future services, in order to really the budget and pay down various state debts. The Green Party was the only viable option.
-
The Environment Finally Wins One
I think the environment was an important issue in the Dems win. They have always been more supportive of environmental issues which rethugs support not at all.
Bush, Cheney and halliburton behaved in so many ways that are/were and will continue to be anti-environment.
Also the Bushies constant denial of global warming issues despite the statements of almost all scientists in the entire world was another falsehood that americans just could not choke down and swallow.
Bush's advisor and that 24yr. old college droupout who altered the report on global warming as well as Bush's attempt to stifle the NASA scientist, a US gov't scientist all finally contributed to the ever increasing suspiciousness and outright disbelief by the american voter of Bush denials re global warming.
And finally few of the religious right has finally come to accept the concept that we do not own this planet but are merely stewards and wil be judged on how well we perform this task, which has always been my religious belief, and the NRA and other sportsmen oriented (except for shotgun Cheney, but then oil is more important to him than America or the planet since he has no moral compass only a money compass)folks who have almost always supported the environment all led to the ever growing awareness of 'green' issues.
Corporatocracy, always short term thinkers and obsessed with greed, will even come around someday when they discover that they can make money(which is their god) on 'green' enterprises.
As someone said, 'green' will be very big business someday. I don't remember who so I am unable to give proper attribution, but it might have been Tom Friedman.
Hopefully someday our narrow minded and short sighted corporate community will discover thatconsuming all our natural resources is good for them in the short term but BAD for America and themselves in the long term.
Three cheers for the environment and thank God for the increasing wisdom of ever greater numbers of American voters.