By Kate Sheppard

More from Politico on Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) challenging John Dingell for the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Apparently, some on the Hill are accusing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of “plotting to overthrow” Dingell:

But there’s a history of bad blood between Dingell and Pelosi — she stripped him of authority over global warming issues last year — and some of Dingell’s allies suspect that Pelosi and her closest confidant in the House, Rep. George Miller of California, are behind Waxman’s insurgency.

One former Democratic lawmaker suggested this might be “Murtha redux” — a reference to suspicions that Pelosi engineered Rep. John P. Murtha’s unsuccessful run against Rep. Steny H. Hoyer for majority leader in 2006.

If Pelosi stays out of the fight, Waxman will face an uphill battle. If she weighs in heavily on his behalf, the odds might move in Waxman’s favor. “Nancy gets what Nancy wants,” one Democratic lawmaker said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “If she wants Waxman, she will get Waxman.”

Pelosi has told other Democrats that she was not aware that Waxman was going to challenge Dingell until after Waxman called Dingell on Wednesday morning to tell him. “She did not know this was coming,” insisted a senior House Democratic aide. “She had no idea and only found out when everyone else did.”

This power play reveals the rift within the Democratic Party on energy and environmental issues, most notably, climate change. Waxman, who currently chairs the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and is the second-ranking Democrat on Energy and Commerce, has advocated for much tougher climate change policies than Dingell. The “Safe Climate Act” he proposed in 2006 included emissions cuts of 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century, and he also cosponsored a bill to ban new coal-fired power plants earlier this year. He also joined with Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) to author a statement of principles for climate legislation, which 152 representatives have signed.

Dingell’s name is nearly always followed by the phrase “the powerful chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee,” reflecting the broad range of issues his committee covers - energy, environment, health care, and consumer protections, to name a few. He is the longest-serving current member of the House, and as of Feb. 1, 2009, he’ll be the longest-serving representative in history.

Dingell played a key role in the passage of the Clean Air and the Endangered Species acts. Over the years he has approached energy issues in an industry-friendly manner. Representing Michigan has made him a particularly strong ally of the auto industry, and he has resisted fuel economy increases and boosted nuclear. Last month he issued a draft of a climate bill that, though tougher than enviros were expecting from his committee, looked likely to be more lenient than other proposals floating around the Hill.

Last year, when Pelosi took over as Speaker, she sought to create a special committee to deal with climate change and energy independence — and made it clear that she didn’t think Dingell was the appropriate person to lead it. Dingell chaffed at that suggestion and hasn’t had many nice things to say about the committee that was created to work on those issues since then. It’s not surprising, then, that the issue has resurfaced again this year — though many on the Hill were surprised by Waxman’s power grab less than 24 hours after the election.

“Tearing a leadership apart is something the Republicans should be doing after their big loss. It shouldn’t be the first order of business for the Democrats after a historic election,” said Dingell’s spokeswoman, Jodi Seth.

Waxman issued a statement late Wednesday, but did not explicitly mention Dingell: “We will need the very best leadership in Congress and our committees to succeed. That is why after long thought I have decided to seek the chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Enacting comprehensive energy, climate, and health care reform will not be easy. But my record shows that I have the skill and ability to build consensus and deliver legislation that improves the lives of all Americans.”

Continue reading " Does the bell toll for Dingell? "

By Glenn Hurowitz

For a generation, Walter Mondale’s 1984 presidential campaign was cited as an example of how not to run for the White House as a Democrat: Not only did Mondale run on a liberal platform, but he also went so far as to promise to raise Americans’ taxes — a promise that was widely blamed for his defeat.

But Barack Obama’s victory shows that after eight years of Republican failure, the rules have changed.

For all of Obama’s rhetorical efforts to portray himself as a tax-cutting, business-friendly moderate whose highest aspiration was to “bring people together,” he ran on a very progressive agenda, was characterized as a closet socialist “Redistributionist-in-Chief” by McCain and Palin, and above all represented a radically different approach from the conservative ideology that has mostly defined the national agenda since 1981.

For instance, despite Obama’s promises not to raise taxes on those making under $250,000 a year, his platform includes an increase in the capital gains and estate taxes. And, as McCain, Palin, and much of the Republican attack machine pointed out in the last days of the election, Obama himself said his global warming plan would cause electricity rates to “skyrocket.”

But voters didn’t care. Even though 70 percent of voters in the MSNBC exit poll said they thought their taxes will go up under Barack Obama, they still went for him. And in an October poll by the Pew Research Center, voters said they preferred Obama’s approach on the environment and energy by 57-27 and 53-34 margins, respectively. Voters apparently want to free America from reliance on fossil fuels, even if it’s going to cost them.

Obama’s embrace of progressive values went into the social arena as well. Even though he was trying to win swing states that are traditionally regarded as socially conservative, Obama upended conventional Democratic wisdom by running a very explicit pro-choice campaign, featuring unvarnished pro-choice messages in many ads.

The polls provide some evidence why Obama’s decision to run as a mostly unabashed progressive worked. For all of Democrats’ fears about taking liberal stances on social issues, defending choice is still really popular: Recent polls show that about 6 in 10 voters want it to be mostly or always legal.

But the polls don’t tell the whole story. On most issues, voters have favored Democratic policies for decades. The difference is that in the past, Democrats were wary of defending their own most deeply-held values. When Republicans attacked, they hedged or even abandoned their support for the environment, for a fair tax system, or for progressive social values.

When that happened, they left their supporters feeling betrayed and unmotivated and their enemies emboldened. And they alienated swing voters for whom policy positions matter less than personal characteristics like strong leadership and integrity. Because Democratic candidates weren’t willing to stand up for themselves, voters lost faith that they would stand up for them either.

Obama wasn’t perfect on these counts. For instance, he jettisoned his opposition to offshore drilling in the face of Republican attacks this summer. But by in large, he was willing to stick to his guns even when his positions were somewhat unpopular, like when he pledged to take down the Bush administration’s U.S.-Mexico border wall because it is an environmental and human travesty.

To be sure, the failing economy provided Democrats the context they needed. But a candidate with a little backbone gave them the ability to take advantage of that context and convince voters to take a chance on change.

—–

Glenn Hurowitz is the author of Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party.

Continue reading " Mondale’s revenge "

By Kate Sheppard

Oil industry leaders are predicting “dark days” for fossil fuels under President-elect Barack Obama, while environmentalists are celebrating the election as a win for clean energy.

But much will depend on the makeup of Congress. Though a number of enviro-backed congressional candidates got the nod last night, there weren’t quite as many pick-ups as greens were hoping for — and a number of the new congressional Democrats come from traditionally fossil-fuel-friendly states.

The Senate

Greens are pumped by the election of four Senate candidates who campaigned aggressively on clean energy and climate action: Democrats Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mark Udall of Colorado, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Kay Hagan of North Carolina. All four will assume seats previously occupied by Republican senators who often voted against environmental interests.

Still, Hagan and both of the Udalls called for more domestic oil and gas drilling on the campaign trail this year, as gas prices ticked higher and public support for drilling grew. Another new Democrat ushered into the Senate last night, Virginia’s Mark Warner, called for lifting the federal moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the outer continental shelf, saying he thinks drilling decisions should be in the hands of the states. And Warner is also bullish on coal, which his state produces, telling Grist this summer, “I think we’re going to continue to use coal. I want to keep pushing utilities to not use best-of-the-last-generation technology, but really push much more aggressively about the possibilities of [carbon] sequestration.”

Several notable environmental foes also coasted to reelection — including Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Kentucky Republican and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

[UPDATE: Actually, the Georgia race is still undecided — it was called earlier for Chambliss, but now it looks like they’re headed into a runoff. They’re still counting votes, but if Chambliss doesn’t get at least 50 percent, there will be a runoff on Dec. 2]

The closely watched Senate race in Alaska still hangs in the balance — with 99 percent of Alaska’s precincts reporting, incumbent Republican Ted Stevens was ahead of Democrat Mark Begich, but only by a margin of one point. Stevens, who last week was found guilty of lying on financial disclosure forms, is a long-time environmental foe who’s led the charge to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Begich too calls for drilling in ANWR, which is pretty much a given for an Alaskan politician, but he’s also promoted the state’s capacity for renewable energy and called for action on climate change to protect his frozen home state.

The Senate race in Oregon between Republican incumbent Gordon Smith and Democrat Jeff Merkley is also too close to call. And in Minnesota, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman is just 762 votes ahead of the enviro-backed Democrat Al Franken, which means there’s likely to be a recount.

The House

On the House side, a number of green-backed challengers won their races. Democrat Betsy Markey, who was endorsed by the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, defeated Republican incumbent (and generally anti-environment voter) Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado’s 4th District.

In Michigan’s 7th District, Mark Schauer, a Democrat who advocates clean energy, beat Republican incumbent Tim Walberg, whom LCV had named to its Dirty Dozen list. In Michigan’s 9th District, the LCV- and Sierra Club-endorsed Democratic challenger Gary Peters beat another Dirty Dozener, Republican Joe Knollenberg.

And in New Mexico’s 1st District, Democrat Martin Heinrich, also endorsed by LCV and the Sierra Club, won an open seat that had previously been occupied by not-so-green Republican Heather Wilson.

One of the most notable upsets came in Connecticut’s 4th District, where Republican incumbent and longtime conservationist Christopher Shays, endorsed by LCV and the Sierra Club, lost to Democrat Jim Himes. Himes had also put forward a strong green plan, so enviros will be happy enough to see him in the seat, but the outcome of this race points out how moderate, eco-friendly Republicans are an increasingly endangered species in Congress.

In California’s 11th District, Democratic incumbent Jerry McNerney, who was endorsed by LCV and the Sierra Club, held onto his seat; he earned the admiration of greens across the country two years ago when he ousted enviro bete noire Dick Pombo. In Kentucky’s 3rd District, incumbent John Yarmuth (D) retained his seat as well.

There were also disappointments for enviros among the House races. Don Young, the Republican incumbent in Alaska’s at-large seat, won handily over his Democratic challenger, despite greens’ efforts to defeat him. In Ohio’s 15th District, enviro-backed Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy lost to Republican Steve Stivers.

Overall, Democrats now hold 56 seats in the Senate, while Republicans have 41, and the Democrats control the House by the sizeable margin of 253 to 173. When all the winners take office in January, it will be the first time since 1995 that the Democratic Party has controlled the White House and both branches of Congress. Enviros are looking at this as a referendum, at least in part, on the country’s recent failures on energy and the environment, particularly as they relate to the economy.

“This election pitted the energy policy of last 30 years against that of the next 30 years,” said Anna Aurilio, Washington, D.C., office director of Environment America. “From Sen. Obama on down the ballot, the candidates who won were talking about a clean energy future, and voters understood that this was the key to a stronger economy, a more secure world, and the solution to global warming.”

But there’s lots of hard work to be done to make all those campaign promises into reality.

Continue reading " How green will the new Congress be? "

AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall

In a recent National Public Radio interview, Michael Pollan talks about how he was approached by a Democratic party staffer about his New York Times article, Farmer in Chief. The article is an open letter to the next president concerning U.S. agriculture policy. The staffer wanted Pollan’s consent to summarize the article into a page or two to get it into the hands of Barack Obama. Pollan declined, saying that if he could have said everything that ne…

Continue reading " Obama Cites Michael Pollan’s Sun-Food Agenda "