Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.
That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy.
Essentially, what Rockefeller is proposing would tell the EPA – at least for two years, although we know that justice delayed is often justice denied! - that it has to be asleep at the switch, that it must not hold polluters accountable, that it must look the other way whole Big Oil and Big Coal trash the environment. Is that the lesson the Senate learned from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? Really?
Fortunately, not everyone is so clueless as the U.S. Senate appears to be right now. For instance, in yesterday's Politico, two energy investors – one Democrat, one Republican – explained what's at stake in clear, compelling language.
We are not experts in vote counting or horse trading. But we do know how investors and markets will respond if Congress ultimately fails to put a market-based price on carbon. The response from capital will be brutal: Money will flow to places like China, Europe and India — and U.S. jobs will go with it.
The path to creating more U.S. jobs is simple: Pass legislation that eliminates uncertainty and levels the playing field, and investors will fund projects that create good jobs here at home. Rules bring certainty, certainty spurs investment, and investment creates jobs.
[...]
Take it from investors: Removing the uncertainty, and taking a more thoughtful approach to energy policy by putting a market price on carbon, can bring home new investments and jobs — and ensure that America leads the clean energy economy.
Instead, it now looks like the Senate not only won't be moving us forwards, but instead will be trying to move us significantly – and disastrously - backwards. What's truly stunning about this possibility is that, right now, the science of climate change is clearer and more disturbing than ever. Heat waves are getting worse, the ice caps are shrinking faster than ever, and scientists are telling us that the world is setting new temperature records almost every month, every year, and every decade. In addition, the results of our insatiable thirst for fossil fuels were demonstrated starkly and tragically, both in a West Virginia coal mine as well as in the Gulf of Mexico, on TV screens all across America in recent months. As if all this isn't bad enough, we also could run out of water.
The American people know this situation can't go on. In fact, recent polls show large majorities supporting an energy bill that would "[l]imit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy...by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas." In other words, this is a case where good policy – limiting greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our national security, safeguarding public health, jumpstarting a clean energy revolution – and good politics – strong poll results for doing just that - appear to align. Yet, the U.S. Senate appears ready to ignore both good policy and good politics, and actually move to make matters worse by gutting the EPA and letting polluters like BP off the hook.
Don’t let them do it. Call your Senators right now and tell them "hell no" to the "Let Polluters Pollute with Impunity Act." Also, while you’re at it, call the White House and tell President Obama that, if such a measure reaches his desk, he will veto it – no ifs, ands, or buts.
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
The climate bill blame game has begun. When I first started writing this post about the so-called death of the climate bill, I literally pointed the finger at just about everyone, including myself. The anger poured out, and I was frank in my assessment as well as unforgiving in the motives behind this latest setback.
After I was done with my self-loathing tantrum, the kids ran in the door from camp and I was swept up in the lovely reality of my family's banter. It is summer, so the pace in our home is a bit more relaxed in the evening. We aren't quite as quick to rush through dinner, toss the kids in a bath, and then march them off to bed. Ice cream and extra cuddles are relished, and I am reminded each year at this time why I do this job.
Later, after progeny were tucked in, I went back to my draft blog post to spruce it up. I reread my rage, disappointment, and irrational ramblings and was embarrassed. And I asked myself "What good is all this blame going to do?"
At the end of the day, it is my kids - and your kids - who lose when we implode. If you think kids have a lot to say about their parents now on Dr. Phil, can you imagine what our children will say in 50 years should we fail to get our act together?
The country should be ready for this. The facts are on our side. As we witness the worst industry-caused environmental catastrophe in our history, the worst coal mining disaster in 40 years, and sweat through the hottest first 6 months of any year on record, it is clear that there's never been a more urgent time to move forward with a smart clean energy and climate plan.
Unfortunately, the politicians just aren't there. At every juncture during this debate, a minority, led by the Republican leadership and supported by a few impressionable (I might say pathetic) Democrats, has obstructed the opportunity to solve America's energy problems, preferring to leave the worst polluters and the big petro-dictators in control of our energy policy, while tax-payers are forced to pay for their messes.
Oopsy... there goes that blame again. Let's focus on what we can do next.
Hope is not lost. Of course, the closer we get to the midterm elections, the more challenging passing a bill becomes. Still, it's not impossible. In fact, the Senate has passed almost every single bedrock environmental law in the fall of an election year or in the "lame duck" session following an election. Here are just a few examples:
o Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - 1996 Amendments: 8/6/96
o Food Quality Protection Act: 8/3/96
o Energy Policy Act of 1992: 10/24/92
o Clean Air Act of 1990: 11/15/90
o SDWA - 1986 Amendments: 6/19/86
o CERCLA (Superfund): House 9/23/80, Senate 11/24/80, POTUS 12/11/80
o Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA): 10/21/76
o Toxic Substances & Control Act (TSCA): 10/11/76
o SDWA: 12/16/74
o Clean Water Act: 10/18/72
o Establishment of the EPA: first proposed 7/9/70, established 12/2/70
o National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 1/1/70
o The Wilderness Act: 9/3/64
As this list demonstrates, the Senate and the environmental movement are no strangers to passing major legislation right before - or just after - an election.
I don't want to overpromise success. This is an uphill battle. But if you and I show up to every town hall, rally, spaghetti dinner, and other rituals of election year and fight for our kids... fight for our country... fight for our America... we can turn the tide. Without that kind of passion, we will all lose. That's an outcome we must try hard to avoid, on behalf of people, communities, large and small businesses - oh, and our kids, sleeping peacefully or playing happily around the country.
In the meantime, we must also protect what we already have, like a plethora of state laws and the federal Clean Air Act. I recommend reading David Doniger's blog on Switchboard today that really outlines how we can make progress with the tools we have right now.
In coming weeks and months, we must continue to push forward for a strong, clean energy and climate bill, just like we have done countless times in the past. I am done with blame. History is on our side. Are you?
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
Yesterday, President Obama met with Senators at the White House and pushed them to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Still, the skeptics are spinning a monotonous web of negativity regarding what is achievable on this front. And, not surprisingly, the "mainstream media" once again has been asleep at the wheel in setting the record straight. Fortunately, we know that when this President rolls up his sleeves, he gets stuff done and delivers on his promises. One thing’s for sure; President Obama is anything but an underachiever!
Along these lines, President Obama held a press conference following the G-20 summit in Toronto. In response to a reporter’s question regarding how he would achieve his deficit reduction goals, the president responded:
For some reason people keep being surprised when I do what I said I was going to do. So, I say I’m going to reform our [health care system], and people say well gosh that’s not smart politics maybe we should hold off. Or I say we’re going to move forward on [Don’t Ask Don’t Tell] and somehow people say well why are you doing that, I’m not sure that’s good politics. I’m doing it because I said I was going to do it, and I think it’s the right thing to do. And people should learn that lesson about me, because next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficit and debt step up cause I’m calling their bluff.
To that list of accomplishments, we could also add:
Creating or saving 2.2-2.8 million jobs, well on the way to Obama’s February 2009 pledge that he would "create or save 3-and-a-half million jobs over the next two years."
Reforming Wall Street (likely to pass Congress any day now)
Overhauling the student loan market
Reaching a nuclear arms treaty with Russia
We could go on and on, but you get the point: anyone who continues, at this point, to be "surprised" when President Obama gets things done when he puts his mind to it is deep in denial. Or, as a previous president might have put it, they are wildly "misunderestimating" our 44th president.
Clearly, as we’ve seen over the past two years, underachieving is not a problem Barack Obama suffers from. Of course, even a superachiever like Barack Obama has an awful lot on his plate to deal with. And right now, one of the most important things on Obama’s plate is figuring out how to push comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation through the U.S. Senate. Along those lines, yesterday, Obama met with a group of Senators on this issue, reportedly holding firm in his call for putting a price on carbon emissions.
The question at this point is, will President Obama roll up his sleeves and deliver on another of his major campaign promise (as well as a major challenge facing our nation)? Given the long list of accomplishments mentioned above, it certainly wouldn’t be smart to bet against him. The fact is, Barack Obama usually succeeds in whatever he puts his mind to.
Given the nation’s increased focus on energy and climate issues – and the increased support by the American people for taking strong action as a result of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster – now is clearly the time for boldness and for bluff calling by our nation’s leaders. Today, President Obama has the opportunity to demonstrate once more that, when he rolls up his sleeves, he accomplishes what he says he’s going to do. In sum, today is clearly the moment for President Obama to prove the doubters and naysayers wrong – to call their bluff - yet again!
As is often the case, the "mainstream" media nowadays is pushing a "conventional wisdom" line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the "wisdom" is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics. The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that.
For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either "fundamental changes’ or "to be completely rebuilt," while 97% of Americans are "angry" or "bothered" by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, "conventional wisdom" electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy.
Perhaps that is why, when you actually look at the 17 Democrats up for reelection this year (Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Gillibrand, Inouye, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Schumer, Specter, Wyden) and subtract out those retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan) or defeated in a primary (Specter), you find that the vast majority – all except for Blanche Lincoln - are in favor of climate and energy legislation. Let’s take a look.
Michael Bennet- What could be clearer than this recent quote, "The best way to limit carbon pollution is for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill." Barbara Boxer- A climate champion by any measure Russ Feingold- Issued a statement declaring, "Climate change is real and we need to address it. By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs." Kirsten Gillibrand - Listed as a definite "yes" on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill by E&E News Daniel Inouye- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Patrick Leahy- He recently stated, "Let us not be known as the Congress that continued to punt, pass and kick on some of the crucial issues like these, on which the American people are looking for solutions, not procrastination." Barbara Mikulski - Listed as a definite yes on a comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill by E&ENews Patty Murray- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Harry Reid – Has called for "bring[ing] comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer." Chuck Schumer- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Ron Wyden- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
And let’s not forget these two letters – one on March 19 to Harry Reid and the other on January 26 to President Obama - showing 33 Senators (not even counting John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who didn’t sign either letter but obviously are champions on this issue, plus most likely others as) clearly calling for climate legislation.
So, why is it that we keep seeing the perception in the "mainstream media" that a vote for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is bad politics? Perhaps because of the unfortunate tendency of the "mainstream media" to keep recycling quotes from a few loud Senators -- like Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh -- who just happen to be exiting the scene altogether for potentially "greener" (and not in the environmental sense!) pastures. For the "mainstream media," recycling their preferred narrative may make a good story (or the story they want to tell, for whatever reason). In politics, however, perception is nine tenths of reality, and in this case the reality is that there is far too much at stake for this country to rely on "conventional" wisdom, especially when the facts – those troublesome things - tell a very different story.
In this context, this past Friday, Greg Sargent of The Plum Line asked an important question regarding clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate: "Can A bold new crop of Senators save carbon limits?" Sargent’s intriguing thesis was that[,] "[i]f carbon limits have any prayer of surviving in the Senate's energy reform bill, it may turn on the efforts of one group: The energetic freshman and sophomore Senators that are pushing hard to keep carbon limits alive." Sargent pointed to an interview with one of those freshmen, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, in which he argued that "There's a lot of new energy in those two classes, and they recognize that this is the moment."
In short, what Merkley’s saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop listening so much to the "old guard" of Senators who are retiring. Instead, Merkley makes the case for paying more attention to the Senate freshman (and sophomores), who by definition were elected relatively recently and, therefore – at least theoretically - might have their fingers closer to the pulse of the public than the old timers. In part, the question is whether there could be a "generational" difference going on here. Not "generational" in the chronological sense, in which "younger" Senators are more pro-environment than "older" Senators. But, perhaps, "generational" in the sense of "political age," as in "how long have they been in Washington, DC?"
Given the analysis above, we might want to add "members in cycle" to Merkley’s admonition about listening more to freshmen then to old timers. Because the fact is, the majority of Democrats actually facing the polls this November are in favor of taking action on energy independence, clean energy, and holding corporate polluters accountable. Perhaps this is because they are listening to what the public is clearly demanding, which is fundamental change in U.S. energy policy? And perhaps they are not listening to a "conventional media" narrative which is completely wrong? Regardless of the reason, it appears at the moment – and certainly on this issue - that Democrats would be better served by listening more to the folks facing public opinion, as well as those elected more recently, and less to the ones preparing to depart for "greener" pastures.
No, it's not a typo. As the health care debate quickly becomes a core schism between tweaking the current private insurance scheme and establishing a robust public option to compete against it, not only are the President and Oregon's senior Senator currently holding opposite ground on the matter, both are beginning to harden their rhetoric and dig in their heels. What's even more surprising is that Senator Wyden is slowly emerging as the standard bearer of REPUBLICAN opposition to a public option, gathering supporters for (or allowing them to hide behind) his significant but ultimately nontransformational proposal for reform.
Think I'm making that up? Read what The Hill wrote three weeks ago on the subject, in an article I missed at the time but which retroactively adds a lot of weight to the current analysis:
And while Democratic Sens. Edward Kennedy (Mass.) and Max Baucus (Mont.) may chair the committees charged with shepherding the bill through the Senate, Wyden, a 6-foot-4 former college basketball player, has his own advantage: a standing invitation to play hoops with the president at the White House, which may come in handy when hashing out the final details behind the scenes.
For Wyden, the key to passing lasting healthcare reform is finding a legislative solution that can win at least 70 votes in the Senate — and he’s not shy about letting Democrats know that means dropping thoughts of a government-run public plan for the entire nation.
OK, let's back up a moment and establish the fault lines in the discussion, below the fold... {come on down!}
A few weeks ago I posted a piece on state Sen. Rod Monroe (D)'s Joint Resolution #7, which proposed to place the question of reviving so-called "sobriety checkpoints" before the voters as a revision of the OR Constitution, which was understood to ban the practice after a 1987 OSC ruling against it.
I argued pretty strenuously against passing this bill, on the same seemingly obvious grounds that the court did: it's an intrusive, random, suspicionless search that makes a mockery of the guiding principle of the US 4th Amendment against unlawful search and seizure. Simply put, if the police don't have a specific reason to suspect that you, personally, have committed a crime, they have no right to search you or your effects.
The federal court argued the other way in 1990, citing compelling state interest, but I submitted in my article both that the perceived interest was neither borne out by data nor only achieveable through checkpoints ("saturation patrolling" near known alcohol-serving spots or events, stopping cars only on suspicion, has been shown to work better); and that regardless of state interests, it is one of our uppermost core freedoms to be safe from suspicionless search. The logical extension of such power--a "papers, please" society--makes it clear why such controls are necessary.
Happily, having just checked with the Senate Judiciary office, I can report that after receiving a hearing in early April the bill has died the proverbial committee death. The clerk reported to me that it was not on any schedules for a work session, and that the deadline for any such scheduling has past--in other words, it's done for the session.
I was worried about this bill, because it's a serious feel-gooder. Opposing it makes you sound like you're on the side of drunk drivers, which is exactly how the campaign would have gone had the bill passed and the question reached the ballot. When the Oregon State Police and MADD are behind it, as they are, opposing it also makes you seem anti-OSP and anti-MADD, two of the more popular special interest groups out there.
This doesn't really impact me so much; I barely drive at all, much less drunk. But I'm always on the lookout for bills that quietly encroach on our civil liberties, while trumpeting how much they keep us safe, happy and blinkered. (Another good example? Sit-lie, which got extended AGAIN this week from the increasingly tiresome Commissioner Fritz).
The demise of SJR 7, if only until next session, is good news for people who like those crazy old freedoms we used to have and cherish. Ben Franklin sleeps a little better tonight.
I got the same emailed press release from state Senator Rod Monroe as did Carla at Blue Oregon, and I'll link to her piece so that you can read the meat of the release. The upshot is pretty simple: in order to reverse, get around and/or otherwise weasel past the existing state Constitution, Monroe has proposed Senate Joint Resolution 7, which would put the question of reinstating police DWI roadblocks on next May's ballot. I will reprint that text; it's pretty short (I believe to its detriment; more on that in a minute):
Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon: PARAGRAPH 1. Section 9, Article I of the Constitution of the State of Oregon, is amended to read:
{ + Sec. 9. + } { + (1) + } No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. { - - - } { + (2) This section does not prohibit the use of sobriety checkpoints by law enforcement officials. + }
PARAGRAPH 2. { + The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection at a special election held throughout this state on the same date as the next primary election. + }
Begging the question of whether Oregonians support changing the OC to allow a return to random, suspicionless sobriety checkpoints, is one that's been bothering me since I read about it: why? What's the reason for it? Why now? Since the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling in 1987 in Oregon v Boyanovsky, which rather flatly banned the practice in these terms:
Defendant was seized when his vehicle was stopped. His vehicle is, like other possessions, an "effect" in which he is entitled to be "secure * * * against unreasonable search, or seizure." Or Const, Art I, § 9. His person and documents were searched and the evidence obtained was used to convict him of a crime. These acts occurred in the absence of any belief that he had committed an offense. The officers did not comply with the constitutional standards for searches and seizures. Or Const, Art I, §9. The evidence must be suppressed.
Lots of court rulings have obfuscatory language and are hard to read for their specific intent, but this one is pretty clear: if you're going to search a person or his effects, you'd better have a pre-existing reason for making the stop--otherwise your evidence is useless.
So why make a specific exemption for suspicionless searches, in order to catch some drunk drivers (an admittedly compelling goal?) In the federal case (Michigan v Sitz, 1990), the majority ruled that while there was no getting around the fact that searches were being conducted without probable cause, the goal of reducing drunk driving was a compelling state interest that overrode the presumption of freedom from unreasonable search.
Oregon's Constitution, along with that of 11 other states including Washington and Idaho, is stricter than the federal version as you can see above "no warrant shall issue but on probable cause." So surely, Sen. Monroe must have some indication of the compelling need to reinstate the process...right? Like say, some kind of increase in alcohol-related fatalities in Oregon since the ban was placed?
The bill has passed! Yay! So has the Ensign Amendment, which basically repeals DC's tough gun control laws. Boooo. The Democrats basically sold out DC on that one in order to get them a House Member. One imagines they will try to have it removed in conference when it passes the House, but that's the GOP's one lever left before any court challenges...and with so many Dems on board, it may take the new House Member him/herself to get it fixed in 2011...
The call has gone out for contacting Senators regarding a particularly virulent poison pill by archconservative John Ensign, regarding gun control in DC, always a rallying topic for Republicans. Note that both our Senators are likely to vote down the amendment, but a call couldn't hurt--and if you'd like to try advocating to other Senators, not a bad idea either:
Senator John Ensign (R-NV) has added a gun amendment to the DC House Voting Rights Act (S.160). The amendment is flawed, dangerous and unnecessary. One minute of your time could make the critical difference between a "yes" and "no" vote on the Senate floor!
Call toll-free 1.888.999.6775 TODAY, Thursday, February 26
You will be transferred to your senators' offices. Tell them you are a constituent who wants the senator to vote NO on the gun amendment DC House Voting Rights Act (S. 160).
----
About a year or so ago, the young and energetic folks at DC Vote dropped me an email and asked to meet with me. "Huh?" I thought. First, why is DC Vote coming to Oregon, and secondly why are they calling me? Sure I lived in the shadow of DC for over 20 years and the whole taxation-without-representation thing has been a burr in my saddle of political morality for a long time...but what did LO and Oregon have to do with it?
The answer: Gordon Smith. Along with 40+ of his Republican Senate friends, he had consistently blocked passage of any bill to give DC residents Congressional representation. The current effort plans to give DC one House Member, balanced with one extra seat in Utah--which strongly believed it got jobbed out of an extra electoral vote (and thus House seat) in the 2000 apportionment. Note that this clever balancing act got the powerful Orrin Hatch on board, but it wasn't enough--and even if it had passed, would President Bush have signed it?
So DC Vote was coming to me to highlight yet another issue where Smith was not exactly supporting the efforts of greater democracy and fairness. They were pretty close, just a few votes away--and defeating people like Smith was the best path to victory. I liked their approach, definitely agreed with their thesis--so I did them the solid and wrote it up as one more reason to get rid of Gordon.
Fast forward to the 111th Congress, now newly decorated with additional Democrats--including Jeff Merkley, replacement for the aforementioned obstructionist Smith. And the results for the District? The bill is on the floor this week, working its way through various poison-pill amendments, and appears scheduled for a cloture vote today. It's already passed one such vote with 62 Senators, so prospects look optimistic.
One of those 62 votes, you may correctly guess, was cast by Junior Senator Merkley (one of the others was cast by Wyden, a consistent supporter of the bill). As his office told me:
For far too long, the residents of the District of Columbia have not had full representation in our government. The Senate took a huge step today towards rectifying that situation and I’m honored to have played a small part in bringing equal treatment to DC.
The DC Vote people had their own thanks and kudos:
We really appreciate SenatorMerkley’s support for the DC House Voting Rights Act. He and his colleagues in the new 111th Congress have really stepped up to the plate on this issue. Thanks to their “yes” votes on cloture, we’re a huge step closer towards full democracy for DC residents. Sen. Merkley voiced his support for the issue when DC Vote staffers were out in Oregon last spring and we’re thankful to him for his continued support now that he’s a member of the Senate.
Elections matter. No really, they do. Congratulations to both Oregon Senators for championing representation for ALL American citizens.
A column that hasn't gotten a whole lot of attention in the Oregon blogosphere so far is one by the terrific Glenn Greenwald, now publishing at Salon.com. In it, Greenwald takes Senators Feinstein and our own Ron Wyden to task, for what he called backtracking on standards both had touted strongly over the last year regarding torture. Both had separately championed the Army Field Manual as a strong guide of accepted non-coercive techniques, and urged a unified American standard for all agencies following one guideline--which they said they hoped the AFM would fulfill.
I want to try to leave Feinstein out of it; so far it doesn't seem her office has tried to respond to his allegations in any case. But Wyden's people did make a response, so above the fold are what Greenwald surmises, and how Wyden's office responded. First Glenn:
Wyden's comments were even worse:
Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, another top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.
What makes this so notable is that, for the last year, Feinstein and Wyden were both insistent that the only way to end torture and restore America's standing in the world was to require CIA compliance with the Army Field Manual -- period. But as long as George Bush was President, it was cheap and easy for Feinstein and Wyden to argue that, because they knew there was no chance it would ever happen.
Senator Wyden could not feel more strongly that Congress and the Administration need to establish clear-cut interrogation rules that apply to all agencies and that ensure that the United States never again uses interrogation techniques that are anything but legal, humane and noncoercive. In fact “legal, humane and noncoercive” are the only words directly attributable to him in the New York Times story. As I mentioned in our conversation, I believe that your article unfairly ascribes positions to Senator Wyden that he did not express in his interview with the New York Times or anyone else.
Glenn's rebuttal was that he thinks her later acknowledgement that perhaps the AFM isn't the best repository of the unified standard, is a backtrack from a unified standard or one that would allow the CIA or other intel agencies to use their own rules. With a lot of respect for Glenn, after talking with top Wyden aide Josh Kardon, asking a series of written questions I think he's gotten a little worried about a backtrack where it doesn't necessarily seem one has taken place.
Here's something I didn't notice until today: according to Wally Edge at PolitickerOR (and admittedly no one else that I've found so far), Toby Forsberg is a leading contender to take over Kurt Schrader's state Senate seat in the wake of Schrader's elevation to OR-5 in the Big Boy Congress. In today's winners/losers writeup, both candidates from HD39 manage to make the good side:
In an infamous year of Democratic takeovers, the popular Republican Clackamas County Commissioner narrowly edges out Dem Toby Forsberg in the battle for Oregon City’s state representative seat.
Even when he loses he still wins. After losing to Bill Kennemer for state representative it looks like Forsberg will be appointed to state Senator Kurt Schrader’s vacant seat.
Should Schrader make it to congress the looming question is who will fill his vacant spot in the Oregon Senate? Oregon law mandates someone from the incumbent member's party be chosen, so we know it will be a Democrat. Names currently being thrown around include House Majority Leader Dave Hunt, County Commissioners Lynn Peterson and Martha Schrader (wife of the congressional candidate), and Democratic House candidate Toby Forsberg.
Since Clackamas county commissioners will make the initial decision which is then passed on to the governor's office, the idea of either Peterson or Schrader nominating themselves brings its own conflict of interest issues. Hunt is likely not going anywhere unless a revolt in his Democratic caucus surfaces and he loses his bid for the Speaker's gavel. Finally, Forsberg's name being mentioned suggests his House race against Commissioner Bill Kennemer is more of an uphill challenge than expected.
All of the discussion about sticky interest conflicts appears true--but it still seems odd that a first-time candidate who LOST his race would be rewarded with a Senate seat.
What do you think? Is Forsberg a likely choice? Is he a good choice? Who else in Clackamas should be considered, beyond the names above? I really think Peterson deserves a shot, conflict or not--but surely there are others. What about folks from Johnson City or Milwaukie, perhaps the forgotten side of District 20?
I'm going to step out on a limb and suggest that Senate District 14's Mark Hass probably will not sweat his Election Night until the TV camera lights start to glare upon him after victory is declared. (Our resident expert on such things, skywaker9, agrees.) So truth be told, there may be other races you want to focus on, other candidates to get your scarce contribution dollar.
But you won't find a legislative candidate who tugs at the particular heart strings of Oregonians in his re-election ads as effectively as Hass does in this cycle. I say that a little dramatically, because let's pinch ourselves and remember it is in fact a political ad--but I'm a sucker for discussion about more substantive, groundbreaking and morally courageous times in Oregon, and there were no tougher and greater times than during the period of the late 60s and early 70s when Republican Tom McCall was governor.
Having set the scene, I'll let you watch the ad and talk about it below the fold. Oh, and it's an Adam Klugman ad, one of the premier video producers in town. So here:
Central Point police were called to Atkinson's home in the 500 block of Blue Heron Street at 8:13 p.m. Tuesday to investigate a report of an accidental gunshot wound, police said today.
Officers found Atkinson in his garage with a gunshot wound to his right knee. They learned that Atkinson was working on a friend's bicycle and had to remove a small bag attached to the bike. He dropped the bag and a .38-caliber derringer inside the bag fired. The bullet hit his knee.
I certainly would never, ever want Atkinson to be Oregon's governor, as all indications suggest he will run in 2010. But he's been a dedicated servant to his constituents and has a repuation for personability. Even if that weren't true of course, we'd still be concerned for his health, and so best wishes to Sen. Atkinson and his family. Hopefully the damage will not be permanent or yield unfortunate circumstances.
As an aside, assuming the story Atkinson tells holds up, what a coincidental commentary on issues of "bike rage," a story that's gotten as far as Newsweek recently, and focuses on Portland. Not sure what issues they're having in Central Point, but you may want to think twice if you're going to engage a cyclist in Southern Oregon!
It's Election Day in Oregon, and whether you're a regular reader or a newcomer linking in to follow the state's primary, this is Christmas--real voting! The Presidential race is certainly exciting, but Gordon Smith and the Senate race to replace him have been a primary editorial focus since our founding in 2006, and now here we are ready to pick the person to take him on.
This is definitely the year to do it, so it's been a hugely important decision who that person should be, and in spring of 2007 we formally endorsed Steve Novick for Senate. We haven't diverged from that one bit since, despite the entry of House Speaker Jeff Merkley and subsequent staffing changes. The "Election Pregame" series today is designed to give you a few of the most recent things related to the Senate election--the four most recent polls, the newest videos, turnout statistics and what they imply...so: thanks for coming by! Take a free account if you think you might be round again.
For so long in this race, we had to suffer without decent polling, or use way-too-early general election heats as a stand in for comparing the two major Dem candidates for Senate, Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley. Then when polling finally got going earnestly in January, we discovered why no one was wasting their money all that time before--huge numbers of undecideds, starting at about 70%.. Not only had almost no one heard of the activist with the hook, they didn't know who the Speaker of the House was, either.
Of course, now that we're finally at Election Day there has been more interest and thus more polling--although to a large degree true polling results are STILL hampered by undecided figures approaching 20%.. However, in the last eight days four polls have been done by three different outfits, with two final looks coming yesterday. Let's dive in and see what they tell us, shall we?
{ah, but not before I make you jump below the fold!}
It's Election Day in Oregon, and whether you're a regular reader or a newcomer linking in to follow the state's primary, this is Christmas--real voting! The Presidential race is certainly exciting, but Gordon Smith and the Senate race to replace him have been a primary editorial focus since our founding in 2006, and now here we are ready to pick the person to take him on.
This is definitely the year to do it, so it's been a hugely important decision who that person should be, and in spring of 2007 we formally endorsed Steve Novick for Senate. We haven't diverged from that one bit since, despite the entry of House Speaker Jeff Merkley and subsequent staffing changes. The "Election Pregame" series today is designed to give you a few of the most recent things related to the Senate election--the four most recent polls, the newest videos, turnout statistics and what they imply...so: thanks for coming by! Take a free account if you think you might be round again.
Two pretty great little videos came over yesterday, for different reasons. The best quick take on yesterday's SUSA/KATU poll that showed Novick with a strong surge of +10 in a week is the news report for it done by the station. Forthwith!
Two of the largest newspapers in the state, the Register-Guard (Eugene/Springfield) and the Bend Bulletin have endorsed Jeff Merkley as the Democratic candidate for the US Senate.
(interesting question of dynamics here... - promoted by torridjoe)
According to the Oregonian, Steve Novick, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, has stated in his interview with the Willamette Week that he would prefer independent John Frohnmayer over all other candidates for the U.S. Senate.
When pressed to pick a Democrat, he then stated that he would prefer Candy Neville, a Eugene realtor.
Both of his leading opponents, Jeff Merkley and Candy Neville, said they would choose him as their first choice to win the nomination (aside from themselves).
Interestingly, Steve stated that he believes Frohnmayer would have little chance to win the race as an independent.
I don't have anything original to add to this article, but I thought this would be a good forum to discuss the obvious implications, such as the possibility of the Democrats having difficulty unifying around Merkley were he to become the nominee, and of Frohnmayer playing spoiler in the race to make it easier for Gordon Smith to win.
(very helpful info for the truly curious... - promoted by torridjoe)
Oregon voters have many new tools with which to evaluate candidates for public office in this election cycle, and one of the most important is ORESTAR.
To gain information about where, when, how and from whom a candidate receives cash and in-kind support, all you need is their committee ID number, as registered with the Secretary of State.
To examine the books of the candidates for Senate District 23, for example, you enter either of the candidate committee ID numbers and “search transactions.”
The numbers also indicate how long one candidate has been at it, compared to the other (my opponent has about a six-year advantage in campaigning and working the PACs, but scores a minus-five year disadvantage in actually working in the Oregon State Senate).
12548 Sean Cruz
4090 Jackie Dingfelder
The ORESTAR data doesn’t give you the “why” of the contribution, but if you look, you can learn some amazing things, all in the interest of getting a good look at the wizard(s) behind the curtain(s) (to borrow a metaphor), and broadening public access to the political process.
Some of this will take a little explaining. I’ve extracted data from ORESTAR to illustrate several points: 1. Transaction date: This is the date recorded with ORESTAR. The date the contribution was received by the candidate could have been 30 days prior to the entry, and the deal could have been struck at any time before that.
2. Source of the contribution
3. Type of contribution, cash or in-kind
4. Amount or value of the contribution.
I have learned many amazing facts with just a few hours of scrutiny (which is why this post is titled “4a”).
With three key Portland-area legislative contested primaries looming on the May 20 ballot, opportunities for the candidates to appear in public forums and debates have been strangely absent.
This week alone, both Elders in Action and the Oregon League of Minority Voters will hold candidate forums, and neither will include legislative races.
It is easy to explain the lack of interest regarding the many uncontested legislative races, as those “contests” were decided back at the filing deadline in March.
But House District 42, House District 45 and Senate District 23 feature well-qualified contenders for these three open seats, and how all three races have slipped below the radar is hard to understand.
The several candidates offer competing views on the state’s policies and priorities, and yet no opportunity has emerged for a public discussion.
The Urban League and its partners will be the first to offer a platform featuring the race to succeed Senator Avel Gordly in Senate District 23, on May 2 at Highland Christian Center, an event that will also feature the contest for Oregon Attorney General.
It is the lone scheduled event for this key race that will determine the policy direction for Oregon’s underserved populations for years to come.
Recently, the Oregonian ran an editorial stating that the most important races on the May 20 ballot might be the legislative contests, and they are correct.
Each of these races are worth far more than the superficial look they have received to date, simple measures of money raised, special-interest and insider endorsements gained, lawn signs staked and paper promises printed.
Behind the scenes, political payback, petty jealousies and kneecapping are in full Spring bloom, the role of endorsement nepotism lies unexamined.
Who will take the intitiative and put these vital contests on the front burner where they belong?
I leave the question open, as open as the opportunity to bring real change to the Oregon legislature, but the door is closing fast.
By the attendance and buzz in the audience, this was a debate people were waiting for. They were engaged, they were attentive and they gave a pretty damned loud standing ovation to both men when it was over--a reflection of an artifically stacked house for the two participants, or just genuine applause for an entertaining hour?
It certainly did have plenty of entertainment, at least for me, because the hour went by in a flash. The time passes quickly when you are trying to type out nearly every word that's being said, I suppose--but it was a fast paced debate, kept AMAZINGLY on time by the moderator, a poli sci professor from Reed. He apologized in advance for cutting them off when their time was over, and then was merciless in shutting down overtime blather.
Merkley was seemingly intimidated by the specter of shutdown, stopping immediately whenever bluntly told to halt. Novick tried to finish his sentence a couple of times, but gave up after a while when he saw the utter futility of it. Maybe that's what the crowd was so happy about--no filibusters!
To give you a flair of my conclusions before the jump, let me say that I thought Merkley performed about as well as I've ever seen him. Which was pretty crucial for him, IMO, given both his loss of momentum recently and the presumption that Novick would take him apart as he appeared to do in Eugene. He was animated and forceful, and didn't find himself lost in the weeds of hoary anecdotes and laundry list recitations as had been true in appearances prior.
Novick wasn't off his game by any means, and gave as good as he got, but Merkley's full press for much of the debate on things Novick had said about other people forced his answers to be a little more repetitive. If there was a weakness Novick had, it was an attempt to both discount the seriousness and contextual truth Merkley was trying to assign to the issue, while ALSO not backing down from having made the statements, and the reason for being "undiplomatic" at the time.
{but how did that affect the final analysis? Jump below}
I explain in the first paragraph why this wasn't being updated as it was happening, but I did manage to snag a press seat for the big Novick-Merkley debate, and I clicked away furiously while it was going on.
A little later today I'll clean this up some and offer editorial thoughts on the debate, but for now here is the gist of it, not even proofread for spelling and whatnot, just as I wrote it down...
12:10--Damn wi-fi issues! I really, REALLY don’t want to tie myself to another $40 a month or whatever for mobile wireless service on my laptop, but without it connection is always a complete crapshoot—even if wifi is claimed to be available. Here at the Governor Hotel there is free wifi offered, and I’m actually connected to it right now, but the internet access is futzed. So while I’m actually liveblogging, you probably won’t be reading this until after it’s over. Hrmph.
It’s a packed house in the ballroom today, as might have been expected. All of the tables are filled, and there’s a couple of rows of folks along the back wall as well. The press row is two deep as well, so coverage should be broad around the state.
12:15—and we’re off! Introductions are underway. Dr Peter Steinberger, a poli sci professor at Reed, will moderate the debate, starting with the rules. 3-minute openers, questions suggested in advance from the panel from members and City Club committee members. No public questions. Arbiters will decide whether the question has been adequately answered, and ask for a re-do if necessary. Each candidate will then get 3 questions of the other, and then a 3-minute closer. Strictly enforced time limits. Introduction of candidate bios.
RSS Feed: http://www.loadedorygun.net/rss/rss2.xml
