John Kerry Supports Pro-environment Democratic Candidates for Fall

[demdiva]

This e-mail came out from Friends of John Kerry this morning.

Dear XXX,

It's time for an accountability moment for Clay Shaw and Dave Reichert. They're a couple of Republican congressmen with absurdly bad environmental voting records and connections to big oil that would make Dick Cheney blush, and their Democratic opponents are closing in on them every day. If we give these pro-environment Democrats the immediate help they need, we can win two of the most environmentally critical elections in the country.

Support strong pro-environment Democratic candidates right now.

Clay Shaw (Florida) and Dave Reichert (Washington) are from opposite ends of the country. But, they're as close as they could be when it comes to cozying up to polluters and giant oil companies. In fact, they share identical 28% scores on the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters environmental scorecard. That means they vote against the environment 7 out of every 10 chances they get.

They've voted to open up the Arctic Refuge to drilling, gut funding of environmental protections for clean water and environmental conservation, and sell off our public lands to the big mining companies.

The contrast couldn't be more compelling. Their Democratic opponents are strong environmentalists. Ron Klein, running to unseat Clay Shaw, has been a leader in the Florida State Senate opposing the Bush administration's efforts to open up Florida's coastline to oil drilling. And Darcy Burner, opposing Dave Reichert in Washington, is running because she's fed up with the Bush Republicans paying only lip service to alternative energy and conservation while they give away billions of dollars in tax subsidies to giant oil companies that are already raking in record profits.

Here's how you can help. Make sure the voters in Florida and Washington state reject the 28% voting records of anti-environment Republicans by donating $28 each to the fast-moving campaigns of Ron Klein and Darcy Burner.

Support strong pro-environment Democratic candidates right now.

And, while you're at it, please consider sending another $28 to Francine Busby. She's a committed pro-environment Democrat running in a very tight race in California. Her opponent, Brian Bilbray - a former GOP congressman turned energy company lobbyist - is running on the dubious proposition that what Congress needs right now is more Republican advocates for Big Oil.

Francine Busby is running against Bilbray in the seat vacated by the GOP's Randy "Duke" Cunningham who has admitted to a long string of corrupt acts. Sending someone as clean and green as Francine Busby to replace Cunningham would truly be a breath of fresh air. The special election to fill this seat is only 3 weeks away, so please act today.

Support strong pro-environment Democratic candidates right now.

Every day I become more hopeful that, thanks to you, our hard-driving efforts to deliver unprecedented levels of grassroots support to key Democratic candidates can turn the tide in 2006.

I'm tired of being forced to spend so much of our time just trying to stop bad things from happening in Washington.

If we can take back Congress in November, we can stop anti-environment Republicans from threatening the Arctic Refuge, selling off our national forests, weakening environmental standards, and we can finally do right by our national security by putting America on a path to genuine energy independence.

You and I both know that the best way to protect our environment is to throw ourselves heart and soul into winning these elections.

Think we can't do it? Think again. I believe in this cause with all my heart and gut. I know it's not easy, but I remember when you couldn't even mention environmental issues without a snicker. But then in the 1970's people got tired of seeing the Cuyahoga River catch on fire from all the chemicals. So one day millions of Americans marched. Politicians had no choice but to take notice. Twelve Congressmen were dubbed the Dirty Dozen, and soon after seven were kicked out of office. The floodgates were opened. We got the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We created the EPA. The quality of life improved because concerned citizens made their issues matter in elections.

We need to do this all over again.

If possible, I urge you to send $28 to each of the three pro-environment candidates we're focusing on this week. If you can't afford that, I urge you to pick one or two candidates to support. But, whatever you do, don't let pass this opportunity to build strong momentum in must-win races across the nation that will determine who controls Congress for the next two years.

Thanks so much for all of the hard work you're putting into this campaign.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

P.S. In addition to providing direct candidate assistance, I hope you'll add a special donation to Keeping America's Promise in support of our broader efforts to help shape the outcome of this November's elections.

[blm]

1. Kerry's resurrecting the Dirty Dozen strategy of the 70s enviros that was

so successful.

He brought it up at his speech a couple weeks ago, and now it looks like they will APPLY it this year.

[demdiva]

2. Interesting perspective blm

What was the "Dirty Dozen" strategy????

[blm]

10. Early 70s enviros targeted the 12 worst polluting lawmakers for defeat.

They ended up defeating 7 of them. Pretty damn good considering the power of incumbency.

[demdiva]

11. Definitely ...I'll have to look up more on it

[Jersey Devil]

3. Kerry must sense the disturbance in the force

or shall I say "An Inconvenient Truth". I like Kerry and supported him in 2004 and would support him again if he is the nominee. I also understand how savvy it is of him to come out with this now to try to make it so that Gore does not own the environmental issue entirely.

But I can't help hoping that this is a sign that the hurricane that can be Gore if he only would want it is about to strike.

[Mass]

4. Kerry has been on the environmental issue since the early 70's

Gore is doing great things on global warming, but it does not mean that Kerry has been silent all these years, on the contrary.

[Jersey Devil]

5. I know that. I am not putting Kerry down for it

but I cannot help thinking that the timing of his email message (I received it today) on the environment is related to Gore's movie release. Of course, that would be smart thinking by Kerry, nothing to apologize for. Nevertheless, it has piqued my curiosity and made me begin to anticipate what the primary issues (besides corruption and the war) might be. We should only be lucky enough to have Kerry and Gore to choose from imo.

[TayTay]

6. I heard him talk about the Dirty Dozen

from the 1970's and the defeat of 7 of those 12 Congressmen back in April of last year. (He mentioned this a bunch of times last year. I actually thought Gore was copying him when he came out with stuff this year. LOL1)

He metioned this a couple of weeks ago at Grinnell College in Iowa. It's been a consistent theme since at least April of '04 and it was brought up in the Pres campaign.

[blm]

9. Kerry brought up the Dirty Dozen strategy in his April 23 speech that

marked the anniversary of his Vietnam testimony and also as one of the founders of Earth Day in Massachusetts.

[blm]

7. Huh? Kerry's been a top environmentalist since the early 70s. He also

helped craft Kyoto, working with other world leaders for 10 years to make it happen.

He also put together the Apollo Project to fully dedicate the country and fully fund alternative energy research with the same devotion Kennedy made to reaching the moon.

Just about every serious environmental activist in the country knows Kerry's record over the last 30+ years. None would say what you posted.

[Jersey Devil]

8. Don't take it the wrong way

I support Kerry and would vote for him again. I am just enjoying the beginning of what looks to me like a political joust worth having.

[blm]

12. I really prefer they work TOGETHER cuz it's gonna take a TEAM of brilliant

and dedicated people to tackle all the problems that so many years of BushInc has wrought.

[Jersey Devil]

13. true enough

It will probably take a lifetime to undo Bush's disasters and all the good people we can get to work on them.

[demdiva]

14. Can I get an AMEN?

[karynnj]

16. AMEN!!!!!!!

[karynnj]

15. He's been speaking of the dirty dozen

and the 1970s environmental activism since at least April 2005, as part of explaining the need for grassroots activism. He was first saying that we need to make the issues important to people voting issues. He then explained that even before he spoke against the war, he spoke at Boston event of the first Earth Day (there were events all over the country). Using this as an example for grass roots building preceded any talk of Gore running.

Kerry also spoke of the environment at every single rally (that was not a 1 topic speech) in 2004.

Kerry also has said for about the last year that he is working on writing a book about the environment. This has been a major issue for him throughout his political career and before. Al Gore has been the politician most associated with global warming, but there are many others with their own completely valid credentials in this area.

In fact, Teresa has also funded and been involved in a huge amount of environmental work. Because of her, Pittsburg has the first green convention center. (I think it would be really cool if the book were jointly written by the Kerrys. The environment is important is important to both - but their different positions give them different opportunities.

The environment ae an issue is huge. Kerry and Gore aren't even primarily focused on the same piece - I assume that there is a huge over lap on their views.

[demdiva]

17. Oh yeah ... all the Kerry/Heinz family members

Are inspiring environmentalists ... Andre Heinz is even an environmental consultant

[karynnj]

18. How could I forget him?

I heard a tiny clip of him, probably on CSPAN, he was very well spoken.

[demdiva]

23. Yep! I'm a big fan of his (well all of them really)

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2065
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/09/07/griscom-heinz/

[NNadir]

19. One also hopes John Kerry supports Cape Wind.

Action speaks louder than words.

I like Senator Kerry, but the Cape Wind project in his home state is an environmental litmus test in my eyes.

[sandnsea]

20. He is opposing Kennedy

The EPA studies aren't finished and that matters in the end, but he has already opposed Kennedy on the shipping lane amendment in the Coast Guard bill. He's taking a responsible approach to the first offshore wind farm in the country. Because if it goes in and then whales and birds start dying, the same environmentalists who are bitching now will turn around and call it a no-bid backroom deal that Senators should have known better than to back.

[NNadir]

21. Oh please...

There are wind farms all over the world, including many off shore.

Surely John Kerry knows something about the external cost of energy, which is lowest for wind farms. There is no such thing as risk free energy, and if John Kerry would like to claim that there is, well shit, I'm not supporting him unless he wins the nomination - something I will try to prevent.

It's bullshit to make these claims about whales and birds and frankly, in the face of a clear disaster on a global scale, it is morally wrong to spend inordinate amounts of time dithering over the matter. Global climate change is real and the risk is vast that all of Cape Cod will disappear because of it, and yes, some millionaire estates on Nantucket.

[sandnsea]

22. bullshit to worry about whales and birds, lol

That's hysterical because I've seen threads on DU devoted to the wind farms killing off birds.

And you just did exactly what I predicted, twisted the debate so you could make up an excuse to bash a Democrat. I didn't say John Kerry said there was such a thing as risk free energy. Why did you say I said that?? And I expect an answer.

This is the first offshore wind farm in THIS country and last time I checked OUR court system is the one that is going to rule on any environmental or other problems caused by wind energy in THIS country. Last I checked, the site STILL hasn't been chosen. He's waiting to get the final information before making a final decision. It's what I'd expect any thinking person to do.

[NNadir]

27. It behooves you to establish that whales and birds are affected.

You are claiming that they are affected. There are thousands of offshore wind mills all around the world. Can you cite data validating this claim?

You are asking me to support a candidate based on his environmental record.

I am a serious environmentalist and my NUMBER ONE ISSUE is global climate change.

Maybe you think global climate change will have no effect on whales and birds? On what basis do you support this argument?

Did you ever learn what many species of whales eat, with your vast ecological wisdom? Krill. Ever hear of them? Where do they live? What temperature waters do they live in? Tropical waters diya think? Why don't you google it?

Are Penguins birds? What will happen to penguins when Antartica's ice is gone? Don't care because they're not Nantucket birds?

The whale/bird issue at Cape Wind is a distraction for distracted millionaires who don't want to look at an energy production facility of any type. They would rather have these facilities built in poorer neighborhoods, out of sight, out of mind.

The reality is global climate change. It is serious; it is real and Democratic candidates need to differentiate themselves from the anti-science Repukes on this important issue. The ironic thing about all of this is that as global climate change proceeds there won't be a Nantucket. No tourists, no mansions, no views, probably no whales, and maybe no birds.

As for Kerry, I wish him well. But I'm not falling over myself to offer him a second shot. Kerry lost to the worst President in the history of our nation. I have every right to question whether my party should nominate him again. If he is vacillitating on Cape Wind, I want to take a shot with someone else because this issue is clear. I did my bit for John in 2004, once he won the nomination, but he isn't the nominee now, and I am free to hope for someone else.

I live in New Jersey. I support wind farms off my coast. Do I think they're harmless? No. Are they safer than destroying the atmosphere? You figure it out.

If John Kerry wants to be national candidate again, he needs to be right out in front on the environment. He has to show the guts to make difficult but rational choices.

I voted for John Kerry. I worked for his election. But unless he comes out for Cape Wind, I'm less inclined to support him. That by the way is my right.

[sandnsea]

32. It would behoove you to anwer my question

Why did you do this?
“And you just did exactly what I predicted, twisted the debate so you could make up an excuse to bash a Democrat. I didn't say John Kerry said there was such a thing as risk free energy. Why did you say I said that?? And I expect an answer.”

You do what every purist liberal idealist does, assume YOUR view is the ONLY possible correct view. It’s exactly the same thing the animal idealists do who bash every politician on the planet too. *I* didn’t claim the whales and birds were harmed, so you said I said things I didn’t say – AGAIN. I said there are DUers who attack wind energy projects over birds and whales and that if whales and birds die because of Cape Wind, environmentalists will line up to attack that too. They are just as smug about their views as you are about yours. But you want data, here, dig away.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wind+farm+migratory+study&btnG=Google+Search

It would further behoove you to live in reality, where the government and energy companies can be held financially responsible for damage they cause. So of course they have to have the studies completed in order to make the ‘difficult but rational choices”.

You know, the ones YOU don’t have to make OR suffer the consequences for if they’re wrong. OH YES, wind energy could be wrong. Unless you're God and know all.

[NNadir]

37. So you are defining "reality?"

It would behoove you to recognize that it is hardly "reality" that government and energy companies can be financially responsible for the damage they cause.

You seem not to be aware of air pollution and a whole host of other energy functions where neither the energy companies nor the user (that would be you) accept the external costs.

I have been arguing for just such a system most of my adult life - wherein I have focused on energy technology as my most important private interest. But to characterize it as a reality is to demonstrate you miss the point entirely.

I have also been a Democrat my entire adult life, and I have felt absolutely free to point out that some of my fellow Democrats have been wrong on some issues. Some have been disastrously wrong. Lyndon Johnson for instance placed me in a position where I was invited to kill other human beings for an abstraction. That was wrong. Zell Miller was wrong on just about everything. My current Democratic hero, Al Gore, was wrong to hope to place a man like Joe Lieberman in the VP slot. I love Jimmy Carter, but sometimes Jimmy Carter was wrong. If we had gone with his coal based "syn-fuels" Fischer-Tropsch program, Manhattan and Nantucket would probably already been under water.

If I wanted to join a party where I had to pay absolute obeisance to the members of my party, and wished to pretend that they were all above criticism, I would be a Repuke, wouldn't I?

Finally, the first evocation of whales and birds, in case you can't read your own posts, is this, #20 in this thread:

Because if it goes in and then whales and birds start dying, the same environmentalists who are bitching now will turn around and call it a no-bid backroom deal that Senators should have known better than to back.

And yes, I do consider myself more knowledgeable than you are about energy issues. I can tell. I have a shorthand, based on years of studying the subject. Tough luck, if you don't like it. I have spent years on Democratic Underground analyzing this website in detail: www.externe.info I have routine, immediate, understanding of external costs of energy, and you don't. You think understanding energy issues involves genuflecting toward John Kerry. It doesn't.

By the way, providing links to google is not the same as providing data, OK? If you want to know what's wrong with our thinking here, it's the confusion between google and data. Google is a useless tool unless it comes with critical thinking.

For us, the Democrats, to win, and more importantly, to govern successfully, we must become a party of action, not a party of endless delaying tactics and tepid kissing up to whatever millionaire objects to whatever particular detail of our proposed solutions. In fact, for humanity to survive, immediate and decisive action is required. The most important issue facing the human community, whether you know it or not in your contempt for whiny "environmentalists" is in fact, the rapid decline of our planetary atmosphere. And yes, if Senator Kerry doesn't understand that, I don't want him as our nominee again. Cape Wind will not be harmless, but it is unconscionable for any Democrat to oppose this project. We have been talking about renewable energy in this party since the days of Jimmy Carter. It is really time to shit or get off the pot.

When you become the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party and dictate to other Democrats about what they can and cannot say about other Democrats, you can force me out of the party. Until then, I'll say what I damn well please. And yes, I will feel absolutely free to call into question whether John Kerry is the greatest environmentalist since John Muir. Simply because he's not George W. Bush, does not mean that he's the world's greatest environmentalist, OK?

[sandnsea]

38. Asbestos?

Exxon Valdez? Criminy. That's not creating my own "reality". The idiocy of having to pay to dispose of tons of chemical weapons is not creating my own "reality". Paying for the storage of tons of radioactive waste is not creating my own "reality".

"IF" the whales and birds start dying. Words matter.

And you still won't take take responsibility for saying that anybody demands "risk free energy".

You have shorthand about people do you? Funny, because you don't have any idea what *I* think about alternative energy, because I NEVER SAID. I made an argument about why Cape Wind is a different project than other wind projects in this country, that's all. And it is. So so much for your shorthand and one web site wisdom.

[blm]

26. Tell that to all those who make their living off the tourism there.

And I dare you to even ATTEMPT matching Kerry's work for environmental issues - Your holier than Kerry attitude about this is absurd.

[Mass]

25. The issue is not what most people make it. It is whether the state

should have a say or not in the project.

Sure, I dont like the odds of the project if Romney has a say, but hopefully, Massachusetts will have soon a governor who understands these issues and it could be good to give the state a say rather than letting big business decide for us, people from MA.

[demdiva]

24. Shameless

:kick:

[mtnsnake]

28. There are few people stronger on the environment than Kerry. nt

[_dynamicdems]

29. Good for Senator Kerry!

This environment isn't really an issue in the media nowadays, but the senator has always worked hard for environmental issues and things are pretty dire right now.

[BlueIris]

30. Senator? Though I have other gifts, I would make out with you any day.

Just sayin'. Apologies to Mrs. Heinz-Kerry, as always.

[demdiva]

34. haaaaaaaaa

:blush:

[blm]

35. I admit, I have had two dreams that were sexually charged - one was Gore

and the other was a Kerry dream.

Serious, policy wonk types give me a sizzle - so sue me.

[globalvillage]

31. Recommended

and donated. It's wonderful that Sen Kerry is supporting pro-environment candidates.
I see several of our leading Dems putting a lot of time, effort and money into '06. Should be all of them.

Thanks, Senator!

[wisteria]

33. Wonderful! Kerry has always had a great record on environmental causes. n/t

[ProSense]

36. This is good!

First, Senator Kerry. Now you can disagree over the significance of his record on the environment during his years of service as an elected official, but John Kerry has one. And the record begins during a period in his life that hasn't gotten much attention -- a period after Vietnam, after he was a prosecutor, but before he was elected to the U.S. Senate. The time was 1982, the place was Massachusetts. The environmental issue of the day was acid rain, and people were still coming to terms with it. Dianne Dumanoski was an environment writer for the Boston Globe at the time.

DUMANOSKI: Acid rain was a really dominant issue. We had lakes – actually we still have lakes -- that were acidified and had lost their fish, there's been widespread damage to the forests in New England

Snip...

DUMANOSKI: He sort of became the point person on acid rain and was the person that was doing all this organizing and collaborating with the other governors and the Eastern Canadian provincial heads of government. And there was actually a treaty that was signed in '83. It was actually the first agreement on acid rain. It really predated the agreements in Europe and this actually later became the blueprint for the provisions in the Clean Air Act that didn't get passed until 1990.

CURWOOD: Dianne Dumanoski credits Kerry with developing a strong grasp of this complex issue, in which pollutants are carried by the wind from the Midwest to the U.S. and Canadian east. Bob Turner also covered the earlier career of John Kerry and is now deputy editorial page editor at the Boston Globe.

more...

http://www.loe.org/shows/shows.htm?programID=04-P13-00030#feature1