Western Democrat

A Stealthy Private Army on the Border

As anyone who has been in the Navy or the Marines knows, San Diego has a lot of military bases. But until recently nobody knew that a stealthy private army was building their own base here, right on the border.

Just two months after local opposition thwarted its effort to build a massive outdoor training facility near San Diego, the private military company Blackwater USA is being accused of secretly trying to build a new one just blocks from the US-Mexico border. Blackwater received approval for the 61,000 square-foot indoor facility in Otay Mesa, California, by filing for permits using the names of two subsidiaries.

Fortunately, Democratic Congressman Bob Filner is on the case.

… they [Blackwater] don’t like to operate under any laws, as we know in Iraq. And, you know, they shoot first and ask questions later. And people—parents of family members have had great trouble getting any truth about what went on there. And that’s what we’re concerned about. Anybody who is training private armies or mercenary soldiers is a real danger to democracy. We know that from history. So this is not a company that we trust… They have operated in this situation with great secrecy, with—under different subsidiaries and shell corporations, and we don’t know exactly what they’re really doing or where other permits may have been pulled under different names.

Leo Brown | May 3, 2008 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) Permalink: A Stealthy Private Army on the Border | TrackBack (0) California, Policy Issues

Issues, anyone?

Just in case anyone has forgotten, America does have a few issues to face after almost eight years of the Bush presidency. Here are three that ought to command our attention in the upcoming election.

Paying for the three trillion dollar war

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can't spend $3 trillion -- yes, $3 trillion -- on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.

Whether we pay in debt, taxes, inflation, lost lives, or lost opportunities, we will all be paying indefinitely unless we wind down the War in Iraq. If America can’t afford decent healthcare and educational opportunities for all without crippling personal debt (see below), then we can’t afford the War in Iraq.

Bomb, bomb, bombing Iran

The danger of a McCain presidency is not only that he would prolong our presence in Iraq but that he would seek to fulfill neoconservative dreams of a war expanded from Iraq into Iran and Syria, leading to a regional conflagration. With his campaign already sowing the arguments for a wider conflict, we will not be able to say we weren't warned.

A man with a Pit Bull chomping on his leg shouldn’t go charging into a kennel of Rottweilers.

The debtor society

Americans are drowning in debt. One in every four families reports worries about how to pay credit-card bills this month. Nearly half of all credit-card holders missed payments in 2006 (the latest year for which data are available), and an additional 2.1 million families missed at least one mortgage payment. In 2006, a then-record 1.3 million families received foreclosure notices, followed by another 2.2 million families who were in foreclosure in 2007.

President Bush’s talk about an “ownership society” contrasts painfully with Warren Buffett’s warning of an impending “Sharecropper's Society.”

Did I hear anyone say, wrong track?

Leo Brown | April 29, 2008 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: Issues, anyone? | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues

Baits and Bullet crowd and Democrats

IdaBlue points to a recent experience with some less than liberal friends, and how Democrats have actually been doing a good job reaching them:

To them, a key issue is access to outdoors. They decried efforts to privatize land and make it off limits to sportsmen and women. Given the Governor's long-standing credentials as a Sage Brush Rebel (for those of who who aren't familiar with it, the point was to sell off federal land to private owners), this issue is an opportunity for Dems. There has been noise lately about abolishing the practice of the state trading land below the high water mark for greenbelt land.

Brian Schweitzer won the governor's mansion in Montana by going to the floor for fishing access rights. It seems like an intensely local issue, but in places like Idaho and Montana where property owners may not want fishermen walking through their back lots, and where Republicans might want to sell the public timberlands that also serve hunters, its a big issue.

The nut for me is to make the broader connection of environmental stewardship, that if we don't protect these fish and wildlife populations, that we won't have the animals to hunt or fish for. Its a bit deeper than simple access, and its where we sometimes loose the more conservative folks.

Emmett O'Connell | May 24, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) Permalink: Baits and Bullet crowd and Democrats | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues

Wyden: Western Democrats take the lead

In Oregon (and much of the West), there's been no bigger federal issue than "county payments". Those are payments that the federal government makes to rural resource-dependent communities in lieu of resource extraction. (Some great background, including the promises by Teddy Roosevelt and Bill Clinton over at BlueOregon.)

Anyway, the county-payments program should have been reauthorized in the 2005 congressional session - but it wasn't. In 2007, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) got it done - in partnership with Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

Senator Wyden spent the Easter recess traveling the rural parts of Oregon, praising the work of Western Democrats in the Senate:

"We got a huge, huge, huge victory on the floor of the Senate. Seventy-five votes in the Senate is an army," said Wyden. "I was hoping to get 55 bipartisan votes. Instead I got 75. Every Western state senator voted for the bill."

Wyden said he just completed a series of town hall meetings in small resource dependent communities in Eastern Oregon. Folks, he said, just kept coming back to the county payments issue.

If Wyden had his druthers, he said he would have had the county payments reauthorized last Congressional session, but Congressional leaders didn't understand the issues.

"In the last Congress, our leadership was from the south. They just didn't understand the county payments issues," said Wyden. "This year the leadership is from the West, and Westerners were more aware of county payments. We went in there this session to get it done. We will get it done as soon as possible."

Here's the rest from the Curry County Reporter.

Kari Chisholm | April 16, 2007 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) Permalink: Wyden: Western Democrats take the lead | TrackBack (0) Oregon, Policy Issues, Senators

Ritter pushes renewable energy

Bill Ritter makes good on his promise to bring greater renewable energy development to Colorado:

Raising the state’s standards for electricity produced by renewable energy will create thousands of new jobs and increase Colorado’s gross domestic product by nearly $2 billion, Gov. Bill Ritter said today.

Ritter cited a study by the Environment Colorado predicting that the state would see 4,100 new jobs, $570 million more in wages and $1.9 billion more in gross domestic product if it doubled the minimum amount of electricity its utilities generate from renewable energy — the goal of a bill now before the Legislature.

The bill, which would require utilities to generate 20 percent of their electric power from renewables by 2020, would also save 18 billion gallons of water that would otherwise be used to cool coal- and gas-fueled turbines, the environmental coalition study said.

“We have only just begun to tap the potential of a new energy economy,” Ritter said.

This type of rhetoric is essential.  By framing a renewable energy increase as positive both for the state and for jobs, Ritter neutralizes one of the principal arguments against renewable energy mandates from the outset.

Those revenue estimates are astounding.  If Western states start getting serious about using the vast renewable resources around us, imagine the immense solid revenue generating capacity we could see some of these states develop.  This could be back into the economy by private companies, to raise general quality of life.  This could be put into infrastructure development for schools, roads, other energy projects, etc.  The possibilities are staggering. 

One simple truth remains - renewable energy is the future out West.

Landon Mascareñaz | February 23, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) Permalink: Ritter pushes renewable energy | TrackBack (0) Colorado, Policy Issues

Moving money from Big Oil to the Big Future

This could be a huge development for America's energy future and a large step in the right direction for renewable energy projects across the West:

House Democrats in the first weeks of the new Congress plan to establish a dedicated fund to promote renewable energy and conservation, using money from oil companies.

That's only one legislative hit the oil industry is expected to take next year as a Congress run by Democrats is likely to show little sympathy to the cash-rich, high-profile business.

Whether the issue is rolling back tax breaks - some approved by Congress only 18 months ago - pushing for more use of ethanol and other biofuels instead of gasoline, or investigations into shortfalls in royalty payments to the government, oil industry lobbyists will spend most of their time playing defense.

Details of a renewable fuels fund have yet to be worked out.

Nonetheless, it's one of the initiatives the House will take up during its first 100 hours in session in January, according to aides to Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. At least some of the money - revenue gained by rolling back some tax breaks - will go to a program to support research into making ethanol from sources other than corn.

This article goes into some other length about improperly written lease agreements with oil and gas companies that will end up (if properly modified) to return almost 10 billion dollars to the Federal Government. That's money that can be spend on the future of our country, not the past.

When I read articles like these I think about all the perceptual changes that will start to come about now that the Democrats control both Houses of Congress. When average hard working Americans see the minimum wage increase, see ethics reforms and see their government investing money in the future than we can start to build on the progressive gains made this year out here in the West or anywhere where hard working Americans want a government that works for them.

Landon Mascareñaz | December 29, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: Moving money from Big Oil to the Big Future | TrackBack (0) Congress, National Leadership, Policy Issues

Environmentalists and the West

One of the specific policy areas that Western Democrats have been able to use well has been environmentalism. Not the sort of beaucratic, top down, East Coast federal agency, "we're coming in here to tell you what to do" sort. That environmentalism is dead and gave rise to the Sagebrush rebellions that left the Democrats in the wilderness for decades here.

Rather, an old style conservation environmentalism that attracts the Bullets and Bait crowd has always had a place in the West:

Is the hook and bullet crowd comprised mostly of NRA members who buy the argument—which frankly I find incredibly paranoid—that the government is about to come and confiscate our shotguns and hunting rifles or is it compromised of a wide cross section of society that believes loss of habitat and loss of exposing kids to the joys of hunting and fishing are the greatest threats to hunting and fishing, not gun control?

Safeguarding prairie potholes etched into the northern Great Plains by retreating glaciers millennia ago makes sense if you recognize the connection between stable waterfowl populations and the presence of breeding habitat for ducks.

It's not rocket science. Yet as moronic as it might seem, some people apparently can't put it together in their minds.

Akin to DU, western elk hunters and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are keenly aware of parallel considerations for wapiti. The same holds for dues-paying devotees of Trout Unlimited. Pick your own species. It has its own organized constituency. I'm willing to suggest here that to imply members of these groups are motivated only by rational self interest of putting meat in the freezer, or to committing acts of blood lust, or to indulging their love of recreation selfishly, is naive.

The reason most people go afield isn't simple; it's wonderfully complex and for the majority, it's forward looking. How can you think about your kid's world and not be?

That was taken by a great essay at New West that brings into focus the idea of Western conservation groups fighting the good fight, especially on the impact of exploding gas leases in the West.

Decades ago Republicans were able to paint Democrats into the corner with both gun control and the absent landlord environmentalism that East Coast liberals tended to enjoy. This left little room for home grown conservationists to roam.

Emmett O'Connell | December 18, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: Environmentalists and the West | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues

The New West Project

This is wonderful:

The New West Project, headquartered in Denver, will conduct research and develop strategies to secure and exploit recent Democratic gains in the Western states, party sources said.

At least four Western governors - Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Brian Schweitzer of Montana and Bill Ritter, Colorado's governor-elect - are expected to lead the group's advisory council, the sources said. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado and other members of Congress will provide "strategic guidance."

Reid confirmed the creation of the new organization, which he said would "build upon the leadership of people such as governors Napolitano, Richardson and Schweitzer" and "work to focus attention on the West."

This is a high level group. Consider the Western Strategy in play, my friends. It is wonderful to see this sort of institutional arrangement that will only benefit our local, state and national candidates long term. It looks like part think tank, part strategy firm, part communications development - all aspects that will be welcome by the plethora of candidates that will be running these next few cycles to take advantage of our our new promise out here in the west.

The best part of the article? The quote from an unnamed "Western Democrat":

As an example of what the new organization may do, the Western Democrat said that political professionals would analyze such questions as "the difference between first- and second-generation Hispanic voters, ... what motivates them and how we communicate with them," as well as "why a recent transplant from California, who has voted Republican all her life, is now voting for Democrats."

Good question, "Western Democrat" - it just leaves me amazed to see our namesake invoked so strikingly in an article. Methinks the author of the article, John Aloysius Farrell , might just be an reader of our humble site. If so, thanks for the article John - we'll be watching for you in the future.

It's great to have a new project designed for this express purpose and examining the multitude of new questions that are arising from the new political climate in the West. Now, if any of those people involved in the project are paying attention it would behoove them greatly to include netroots and blog outreach as an element of the project. You see, since major political focus has been absent from the West for awhile the netroots and blogosphere have been proliferating and recruiting top candidates all over the place. It would be an essential element of any plan that you should put together.

I'm excited.

Here's the The New West Project!

Landon Mascareñaz | December 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: The New West Project | TrackBack (0) Arizona, Colorado, Demographics, Governors, Legislatures, Local Government, Montana, National Leadership, Nevada, New Mexico, Policy Issues, Regionalism, Statewides, The Big Strategy, Urban/Rural Divide, Utah, Wyoming

A flip-flop I can respect

Chalk up a big victory for conservation in New Mexico and the West:

In a stunning turn of events Thursday that has all the earmarks of smart politics, Republican Sen. Pete Domenici of Albuquerque reversed his long-standing opposition to protecting [Valle Vidal] the tract.

Domenici, who had bottled up Valle Vidal protection legislation in his committee this year, suddenly released the enabling legislation Thursday, brought it to the Senate floor with the support of fellow New Mexico Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman - a steadfast supporter of Valle Vidal protection - and saw it pass the Republican- dominated Senate unanimously.

That's not all. Domenici, who is chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Bingaman will take over next year, said he "is confident" that President Bush will sign the bill protecting the 101,784-acre preserve from oil and gas drilling.

This was on the top of the conservationist agenda for many years and should be seen as a great victory in the preservation of our natural resources.

This may have something to do with his certain re-election in 2008:

Domenici told me one day after the election, and again on Friday, that he fully intends to run for a seventh term in 2008. He said despite some injuries and related health problems that have nagged him for years, he'd still rather report to the Senate every morning than sit home watching the action on C-Span.

While Domenici is certainly favored to win re-election by a wide margin, it is hard not to see moves like this as either A: securing his legacy, in preparation for retirement or B: appealing the conservationist lobby. Since Domenici has held the legislation down for so long, it makes you wonder if the senior senator is seriously thinking of retirement.

Check out the great posts by New Mexico FBIHOP about the possible race for Pete's Seat. I'd love to see Udall make the move, but maybe that's my NM-3 bias...

Landon Mascareñaz | November 20, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: A flip-flop I can respect | TrackBack (0) Congress, New Mexico, Policy Issues, Senators

Immigration not an issue out West

If you were to pick one big issue out West that would break towards the Republicans, you would have to choose immigration. It was a major issue in Congress earlier this year, the Republicans made a huge it a huge part of how they presented their domestic agenda.

And, out West at least, they are falling flat on their asses:

An illegal immigration backlash is seeping into state election races hundreds of miles from the Mexican border. But candidates taking a hard line aren't necessarily prevailing. Democratic candidates for governor in two of the hottest flashpoints in the immigration debate -- Arizona and Colorado – led their challengers by double digits in recent polls. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D), who infuriated the Republican Legislature by vetoing eight bills targeting illegal immigrants this year, leads her challenger, Len Munsil, 67 percent to 24 percent, according to a week-old Arizona State University poll. And in Colorado, where immigration exploded as a major issue in the final days of the legislative session, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Ritter leads Republican Bob Beauprez 52 percent to 33 percent according to an Oct. 27 poll by Denver TV news station KUSA. "The conventional wisdom was Democrats would get burned on (immigration), but what's interesting is that's not happening in places like Arizona, which is ground zero" in this debate, said Chris Dorvall, a Democratic pollster who runs the Web site Immigration2006.org that tracks how immigration is playing out this election cycle.

Out West, as opposed to in the South and back East, people talk about immigration in real terms, terms that are hard to be messed around to fit a particular ideology. This is much easier in the in regions of the country where immigrants, Latino immigrants especially are either a very new addition or are so far a distant, but scary, boogy man.

For example, only a Republican candidate as far away as Northeast Philly would attempt to minimize the entire debate to the point of trying to cross the Rio Grande on top of an elephant.

More:
The South drives the immigration debate, not the West
Who would Jesus deport?

Emmett O'Connell | November 3, 2006 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) Permalink: Immigration not an issue out West | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues, The Big Strategy

A Western Democrat on the Patriot Act

Over at Gather.com, Jay Stevens has great coverage of the Patriot Act in the Tester/Burns race.

The West contains a strong libertarian streak: Westerners value self-reliance and resent unwanted intrusion of government in their lives. They value common sense, hard work, and practical solutions. ...

In the Senate debate in Butte, Senator Burns accused the Big Sandy farmer of wanting to revise the Patriot Act. "I don't want to revise the Patriot Act," responded Tester, "I want to repeal it." Later in the same debate, Tester answered sharply to a question on gun control with a statement that was considered quintessential Western Democrat: "With things like the Patriot Act, we'd damn well better keep our guns."

While Bush and allies like Conrad Burns continue to tout the administration's unconstitutional extension of executive power, Westerners are increasingly resentful of a government that's reaching into their personal lives and threatening their basic liberties. ...

In the larger sense, the Republicans are becoming the party of big government, wayward spending, and indiscriminate intrusion, while the Democrats are lining up to define themselves as the protectors of Americans' basic freedoms, including the right to bear arms. Tester is definitely capitalizing on Burns' clumsy and stubborn insistence to defend the President's intrusive and extra-legal terrorist programs in a state where a jealous regard for individualism is a virtue.

Here's to Jon Tester -- not afraid of the righties, even on the Patriot Act. Here's the lesson: Don't be afraid of speaking powerfully to your position; even if it runs against the Beltway conventional wisdom. (Maybe even, because it runs against CW!)

Kari Chisholm | October 29, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: A Western Democrat on the Patriot Act | TrackBack (0) Montana, Policy Issues, Senators

Cutting Taxes for the Right New Mexicans

Joaquin over at The Plaza (Bill Richardson's campaign blog) showcases some new economic incentives the Governor is proposing. The main focus is tax cuts for working families, veterans and people that invest in New Mexico. Some highlights (I used ellipsis to designate snipping, check the post to read the whole package):

WORKING FAMILIES Working Families Tax Credit - the centerpiece of the Governor's tax-cut package, which is modeled after the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. This tax credit will reward work, and help working families--who earn between $11,000 and $36,000. As many as 139,000 taxpayers will benefit by an average of $180 per return...

MILITARY AND MILITARY RETIREES...
Tax Cuts for active-duty military - exempting military pay from state income taxes, which means an average of $1,340 in tax benefit to 7,000 New Mexicans...

BUSINESS-ECONOMY...
Gross Receipts Tax Deduction for Hospitals - Most of the hospitals affected operate in small, rural areas and on the front lines when it comes to caring for those most in need. This tax cut will allow more money that can be invested in local jobs, technology and direct patient care.

Gross Receipts Tax Relief for Mutual Funds - an incentive for investment management firms to bring well-paying financial services jobs to New Mexico.

Angel Investment Credit - an incentive for New Mexicans who invest in high-tech, start-up companies.

Now I know that tax cuts aren't the natural red meat for Democrats around the country. But isn't that the point? In Chain Reaction: The impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics (Norton, 1991), the authors argue that

The tax revolt was a major turning point in American politics. It provided new muscle and new logic to the formation of a conservative coalition opposed to the liberal welfare state. The division of the electorate along lines of taxpayes versus tax recipients dovetailed with racial divisions...The tax revolt provided conservatism with a powerful internal coherance, shaping an anti-government ethic, and firmly establishing new grounds for the disaffection of white working- and middle-class voters from their traditional Democratic roots.

It is wonderful to see Democratic politicians such as Richardson using the language of taxation to advance a progressive and electorally successful agenda. Since working families have a higher marginal propensity to consume, the state of New Mexico will even see greater rewards from this system. Too often in national or local politics, conservative Republicans use the language of the tax revolt to mobilize white working or middle class, decades after the true revolt occurred. That is because the language is power (your money, your freedom) and Democrats have often neglected to speak the language effectively.

I look forward to the day where national Democratic politicians challenge the GOP along these lines in a highly publicized way and ask them to come out against tax cuts for working families and veterans while supporting those for millionaires.

Landon Mascareñaz | October 18, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) Permalink: Cutting Taxes for the Right New Mexicans | TrackBack (0) Governors, Local Government, National Leadership, New Mexico, Policy Issues, Statewides

Governor Richardson to the Rescue, Again

Cross-posted at Daily Kos.

Someone check to see if he's a Governor by day and a superhero by night...

Whether a failed test or not, now that North Korea has appeared to have detonated a nuclear bomb, let's see how long it takes the Bush Administration to "cut and run" (to use the current Republican vernacular) from its "stay the course" (see previous parenthetical comment) policy of outsourcing American foreign policy responsibilities to China.

Once again, Governor Richardson is prepared to be the adult in the room and has offered his diplomatic services to his country. And unlike George W. Bush who skipped out on his National Guard service, Bill Richardson has answered the call every time his country has needed him.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson says, as a former U.N. ambassador, he's willing to talk with North Korea on its nuclear program.

[...]

"I would do it, but only if the (Bush) administration asks," Richardson, a Democrat, told the newspaper in a telephone interview. "What makes more sense right now is someone directly connected to the administration going. That would be more useful."

In an ironic twist of fate, embattled Rep. Heather Wilson agreed thatGovernor Richardson should be a part of any delegation to have discussions withNorth Korea.After all, Wilson can't argue with Richardson's record ofsuccess in foreign relations. And as I've pointed out before, there are onlytwo men (both Democrats) who have successfully negotiated with the North Koreangovernment: former President Jimmy Carter and Governor Bill Richardson.

Memo to George W. Bush: Bill Richardson is the best hope to help clean up the mess you've created in your negligence to engage with North Korea.

kencamp | October 11, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: Governor Richardson to the Rescue, Again | TrackBack (0) Governors, New Mexico, Policy Issues

Fighting against toll roads

Could the fight against toll roads be a new issue that brings rural voters to the progressive side?

For many years, rural folks believed that it was the Republican Party that was the voice of "leave us alone" politics -- giving people the freedom to ranch and farm. Many rural folks thought Democrats were using environmentalism as a weapon against their culture.

But now, there are Republicans around the country (from Indiana to Texas to Oregon) who are creating toll roads. And not in the classic New Jersey model, but using eminent domain to seize land and turn over existing roads to foreign corporations. Those companies provide a big lump sum payment at the front end (great for a one-time tax cut) and then charge drivers for years.

Here's the thing: Many rural voters see these toll roads - especially the seizure of rural land - as a assault on rural communities. The documentary Truth Be Tolled, about the Texas toll road plan, is the most graphic depiction. From the film's synopsis:

From mayors of small cities, political candidates and grass roots groups to working-class Texans, all unite to state their loud opposition. The strongest voices rise from small rural communities whose farms, homes, schools, businesses and churches face the largest forcible eminent domain acquisition in U.S. history.

The Trans-Texas Corridor, a giant scar through the center of the state, will not only rip the heart out of Texas-- it will kill a way of life that has been in the state forever.

Here's the trailer for the documentary. Pretty gripping stuff. Hit Play:

Kari Chisholm | October 10, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) Permalink: Fighting against toll roads | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues, Regionalism, Urban/Rural Divide

Still Independent

Judges in the West are still independent according to a recent article in the Washington Post.

Using language that suggests they are fed up with the Bush administration, federal judges across the West have issued a flurry of rulings in recent weeks, chastising the government for repeated and sometimes willful failure to enforce laws protecting fish, forests, wildlife and clean air.
In decisions in Oregon, California, Montana and Wyoming, judges have criticized the judgment, expertise and, in some cases, integrity of the federal agencies that manage natural resources on public lands.
The rulings come at a time when an emerging bipartisan coalition of western politicians, hunters, anglers and homeowners has joined conservation groups in objecting to the rapid pace and environmental consequences of President Bush's policies for energy extraction on federal land.
Specialists in environmental law cite a noticeable increase in the number of recent court rulings in which federal judges in the West have ruled against the administration, using blunt language that shows impatience and annoyance.

This is an issue that unites red state voters who hunt and fish and blue state voters who want to protect the environment and everyone who wants clean air, clean water, and the rule of law.

Leo Brown | October 8, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: Still Independent | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues

The West is not the South: Burns and the PATRIOT Act edition

In some parts of the country, you could get away with demonizing a Democrat by saying he'd want to repeal the PATRIOT Act, but in Montana things are different. When Sen. Conrad Burns claimed recently that Jon Tester wanted to "weaken" the Patriot Act, Tester kept on going:

Burns said he also supported programs monitoring international telephone calls against those suspected of terrorism.

"He wants to weaken the Patriot Act," he said of Tester.

Tester sought to clarify:

"I don't want to weaken the Patriot Act, I want to repeal it. What it does, it takes away your freedom ... and when you take away our freedoms, the terrorists have won," Tester said.

You see, the West in not the South. In the South they care more about things like secruity over freedom, but in the West, the libertarian tradition is strong. One could say that there is a war within the Republican Party over this West vs. South thingie:

As the Republican Party tilts on its South-West axis, increasingly favoring southern values (religion, morality, tradition) over western ones (freedom, independence, privacy), the Democrats have been presented with a tremendous opportunity. If the Republican Party doesn't want to lose its hold over all of the West, as it lost hold of once-reliable California more than a decade ago, its leaders are going to have to rethink their embrace of big-government, big-religion conservatism.

What does it tell you about the South winning the soul of the Republican Party when it is a Democrat in Montana saying that freedom is the most important issue?

Here are a few more good links on this, including Testers' ad on the issue (here) and a post from Left in the West that got me going on this (here ).

Emmett O'Connell | September 30, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) Permalink: The West is not the South: Burns and the PATRIOT Act edition | TrackBack (0) Montana, Policy Issues, Regionalism, Senators

One Step at a Time

"The truth is, I'm starting to think that Utah's famous support of the war might be exaggerated."

So said Utahn Marshall Thompson, an anti-iwar Iraq War veteran walking the length of Utah, as quoted in The Utah Statesman.

"Utahans are, by nature, very loyal people. Loyalty is an excellent quality when it's directed toward a good cause. Unfortunately, it seems misdirected in the current situation. Maybe, deep down, Utahans as well as all Americans are feeling that the war in Iraq isn't working, but would never say it out loud for fear of seeming disloyal to the president, the government and the troops."

"I will always stand up to defend this country. I will do what my country tells me to do, but if I have to go back, I fear for my soul. That's why I have to do what I can to stop this unjust war."

From a recent interview on Democracy Now!

Army reservist Sergeant Marshall Thompson spent a year in Iraq working as a military journalist. He reported from across Iraq, interviewing thousands of US soldiers. Now back home in his native Utah, he is planning a 500-mile walk across the state to protest the war and call for a withdrawal of US troops. His goal is to walk from the Utah/Idaho border to the Utah/Arizona border in 26 days, that’s one day for every 100 soldiers who have died in Iraq. He’ll have to average about 20 miles a day.

“..they have it on the hard drives of their computers, of hundreds of pictures, small videos, of terrible things that have happened, of just terrible atrocities. And it's really sad. And I think if people knew that this was what’s happening to their young men and women over there...I think they'd be horrified. And rightly so.”

You can go to Marshall’s web site for more information on his march and how to join it.

Leo Brown | September 30, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: One Step at a Time | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues, Utah

CO-7 and Social Security

The Denver Post has an article on Democratic fundraising in Colorado.

In the article they note some of the funding is going to ads calling attention to Rick O’Donnell’s past flirtation with the anti-Social Security crowd, something O’Donnell new regrets.

Writing for a Newt Gingrich publication in 1995, O'Donnell called for the end of Social Security, saying it was time to "slay the largest government 'entitlement' program of all."

The Washington Post reports on Ed Perlmutter’s turn in the Democrat’s weekly radio address on Social Security.

"We can and must stop them - right now, before it's too late," Ed Perlmutter said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "Just last year, Democrats stood up to President Bush and the Republicans in Congress, and fought back against this dangerous proposal and defeated it." ...the Republican plan would "threaten senior citizens who worked hard, played by the rules and simply seek to live their golden years with some financial stability and security." Instead of looking out for taxpayers' interests, Republicans "are sending billions of dollars to special interests in giveaways that taxpayers are paying for," he said. "There has never been a more critical moment to ensure that we take our nation in a new direction.”

The last time President Bush decided to spend his political capital, he went after Social Security, one of the significant turning points in the 2005 collapse of his popularity. It seemed the longer President Bush pushed his program, the less popular it became. The AARP and America’s seniors did not take the GOP plan lying down. Ed Perlmutter, in contrast, has won the AARP’s Outstanding Legislative Service Award. This is an issue where America trusts the party that invented Social Security.

Leo Brown | September 25, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: CO-7 and Social Security | TrackBack (0) Colorado, Congress, Policy Issues

Another reason why many Native Americans don't trust the federal government.

Tonight, I headed to downtown Gallup to watch a series of presenters discuss the topic of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation.

For those who aren't familar:

Hydro Resources, Inc., has proposed to mine in four areas near the communities of Crownpoint and Churchrock. The uranium would not be removed by the previous traditional open-pit mining or shaft mining. The uranium would be removed by a process called In-situ Leach (ISL) mining. this type of mining includes the process of drilling holes in the ground, to the aquifer and injecting the water with chemicals that would "leach", or strip the uranium from the host rock (sandstone lined aquifer). The ISL mining method deliberately contaminates the ground water in the mining zone. At the present time Crownpoint has a pristine aquifer which provides pristine water to 15,000 people. These people come from all over the Eastern Navajo Agency to get water for everyday uses, such as cooking, drinking, cleaning, bathing and feeding livestock.

The main resistance front (ENDAUM) was organized in

the summer of 2001, when Rep. Heather Wilson proposed a plan that gave $10 million dollars of taxpayer's money to domestic uranium producing companies, to do explorations into safe mining for 3 years. During this time, Rep. Wilson had neglected to research what she was doing and neglected to inform the people outside of her district of what she was about to do against them. She also denied many invitations by people of the Crownpoint and Churchrock communities to visit their communities and voice their concerns.

Both the Church Rock and Crownpoint chapters as well as the Navajo Nation government have all passed resolutions legislation against this horrible (I'll call a spade a spade) environmental classism and racism. Tom Udall, the actual representative for our district (another reason to not like Heather Wilson) is opposed to the project, as well are numerous other individuals.

Here's what happened the last time they did this:

Church Rock, New Mexico, would seem an improbable spot for a nuclear disaster...In the early morning hours of July 16, 1979--fourteen weeks after the accident at Three Mile Island--all of that changed. The dam at Church Rock burst sending eleven hundred tons of radioactive mill wastes and ninety million gallons of contaminated liquid pouring toward Arizona. The wall of water backed up sewers and lifted manhole covers in Gallup, twenty miles downstream, and caught people all along the river unawares. "There were no clouds, but all of a sudden the water came," remembered Herbert Morgan of Manuelito, New Mexico. "I was wondering where it came from. Not for a few days were we told."

No one was killed in the actual flood. But along the way it left residues of radioactive uranium, thorium, radium, and polonium, as well as traces of metals such as cadmium, aluminum, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, sodium, vanadium, zinc, iron, lead and high concentrations of sulfates. The spill degraded the western Rio Puerco as a water source. It carried toxic metals already detectable at least seventy miles downstream. And it raised the specter that uranium mining in the Colorado River Basin may be endangering Arizona's Lake Mead, and with it the drinking water of Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and much of Arizona.

Except for the bomb tests, Church Rock was probably the biggest single release of radioactive poisons on American soil. Ironically it occurred thirty-four years to the day after the first atomic test explosion at Trinity, New Mexico, not far away.

I can't imagine why everyone here is against it happening again.

We need people out West to stand up against this going forward. Not just politicians but regular people and public opinion-setters. The fact that the people who this will effect are in direct opposition but companies and the federal government keep moving forward proves so much of what native peoples say are true about our society. I would like to believe we live in a different time now, where positive and enlightened figures from all sides of the political spectrum could unite in opposition to this terrible effort.

I condemn anyone that supports this and welcome any figure who opposes it.

Landon Mascareñaz | September 25, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) Permalink: Another reason why many Native Americans don't trust the federal government. | TrackBack (0) New Mexico, Policy Issues, Regionalism, Urban/Rural Divide

Oregon Democrats take a page from Brian Schweitzer

The Democratic Party of Oregon has approved a Gun Owners Caucus. Alt-weekly paper Willamette Week has the story:

Oregon Democrats are borrowing a page this election from party colleagues in gun-friendly states like Montana, where Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer—a bolo-tie-wearing former mint farmer—has said his idea of gun control is, "You control your gun, and I'll control mine." At a recent Democratic Party of Oregon meeting, state leaders voted to approve the formation of the party's Gun Owners Caucus , which joins the party's Faith Caucus and Motorcycle Caucus, among others.

Over at BlueOregon, Zak Johnson - one of the Gun Owners Caucus co-founders - explains:

As Democrats, we OWN the civil rights issue. The Bush administration daily violates the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments (unless you consider confessions under torture not to be self-incrimination). Tom Delay's cronies continue to violate the 13th amendment in the U.S. Mariannas. It has never been clearer that the Democratic Party is the nation's primary defender of the Constitution. This is an unequivocal, easy-to-understand position that resonates with voters. It's a uniting position as well, one that should attract patriots to the Democratic banner.

But to promote that message requires consistency on the whole Constitution. Frankly, the Party's reputation on the 2nd Amendment is, as Montana Democratic Chairman Bob Ream has said, that people think we want to take their guns away. ...

The perception that Democrats are anti-gun also hurts the party badly among our natural constituencies like hunters, most of whom consider themselves environmentalists, and rural residents in general.

Kari Chisholm | September 23, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) Permalink: Oregon Democrats take a page from Brian Schweitzer | TrackBack (0) Montana, Oregon, Policy Issues, Urban/Rural Divide

A really scary poll

No I don’t mean the latest from Survey USA.

The West is a lot like the rest of the country when it comes to the war in Iraq: divided and troubled. The red core of the interior West, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, still gives President Bush positive numbers, his highest in the country, doubtless correlating with attitudes on the war in Iraq. California, in contrast, continues to give President Bush very low poll numbers. The rest of the Western states are scattered in between. Long-standing patterns haven’t changed much. Arizona and Alaska are more conservative that Oregon and Washington. Strong Democratic leaders in Nevada and New Mexico and elsewhere have a local effect. Hawaii, with its relatively high military component, is more supportive of Bush that might otherwise be expected from that traditionally blue state.

Polls show the Democrats are poised to gain seats in the upcoming elections, but how many and if it will be enough to change control of either the House or the Senate is unclear at this point.

However, there is a very disturbing new poll. It comes from the Pentagon and its internal workings are secret, but the totals and the trend lines have been reported. Bottom line: approximately 75% of the Sunni Moslems in Iraq support the insurgency, up from 14% in 2003. Read that again and think about it.

Juan Cole does the math and comes up with 1.3 million adult male Sunni supporters of the guerrilla movement and perhaps two million Shiite men who support guerrilla action to get the multinational forces out of their country. We have 147,000 troops in Iraq, but with typical tooth to tail ratios, the number of frontline troops is much smaller. Think about the typical ratios needed to win a guerilla war.

This means that no matter who controls Congress in January, the problem in Iraq will be huge, continuing, and much more difficult and dangerous than many Americans realize, particularly if they believe that the press has been underreporting the good news and exaggerating the bad news. Reality is going to come crashing in, if not before November, then eventually. The red states will face some serious cognitive dissonance when that happens. How that will play out remains unclear.

Leo Brown | September 23, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: A really scary poll | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues, Presidential Politics

Gas Prices and the West

A few months back I reflected on the low gas prices in Idaho, Wyoming and Utah and the comparably high approval ratings for Bush in those same states. I doubt their was a connection, that people like the President because their gas prices were still low, but it made for a couple of cool maps.

It seems like the opposite is happening now, and there seems to be a political connection. Gas prices are going down in the rest of the country, but not in the broader West. Now, Idaho, Wyoming and Utah along with the rest of the West has higher than average gas prices, and it looks like the people in power now may have to pay the price.

Now look at the map:

Instead of the West being a pocket of low gas prices, it is where people pay much more for gas on average.

At least one Western Democrat, governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, is poking around the issue:

Wyoming drivers are angry and puzzled why gas prices are not plummeting here like they are in other states.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal said Wednesday he found out part of the reason but is asking regional refineries to provide more information.

He said an angry constituent called his office earlier this week to report that regular gasoline in Branson, Mo., cost $1.85 per gallon, while the price was $2.09 in Corpus Christi, Texas, and $2.13 in Omaha.

Meanwhile, the caller said, the price was $2.64 in Cheyenne, even with the state's lower tax rates.

...

During his weekly news conference, Freudenthal said that in conversations with his office, refinery representatives explained that the gas price drop in other parts of the country is due to gasoline put in storage in anticipation of the hurricane season. The season hasn't been as bad as prior years, leaving excess gas in storage.

Could the issue of regionally high gas prices, along with the oil and gas industries already checked history with the interior West in terms of drilling, tilt the region in 2006?

Emmett O'Connell | September 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) Permalink: Gas Prices and the West | TrackBack (0) Policy Issues, The Big Strategy, Wyoming

Are the netroots liberal? Or just partisan?

Over at the National Journal, John Mercurio shares a comment he got from Western Democrat's own Jonathan Singer. Here's the comment, since archives are subscriber-only:

You write, "Liberal bloggers, who, much like the Club for Growth, encourage ideological purity over party loyalty, cheered Chafee's victory."

I really don't believe that the top issue for the progressive netroots is "ideological purity." In some ways, I think you may have it backwards. The concerted netroots effort to go after Lieberman started when he went on FOX News to bash Democrats over the war, not because of his stance on the war (which was longstanding).

The netroots have supported a number of non-doctrinaire Dems who are willing to stand up for the party, most recently with Jim Webb. Brian Schweitzer, a favorite of many, certainly isn't in line with the left of the party on the issues of coal or guns, but he remains extremely popular. Other Western Dems -- Trauner in WY, Grant in ID, and Fawcett in CO -- show up on the Daily Kos/MyDD/Swing State Project ActBlue page even though they are not hard-core liberals.

Taking a look at unscientific approval ratings from Daily Kos readers, more moderate/conservative Democrat Harry Reid has a significantly higher approval rating (70 percent) than more progressive/liberal Nancy Pelosi (36 percent).

There are certainly issues upon which the netroots look for politicians to fall in line. Social Security, Iraq and Net Neutrality come to mind. But the netroots does not take the same tack as groups like Club for Growth on these issues. There was no challenge -- not even talk of challenging Ben Nelson, for instance. He may not agree with us on all of the issues, but he doesn't go on national television to denigrate his party, either.

Good stuff, JS.

Kari Chisholm | September 21, 2006 | Comment on This Post (11 so far) Permalink: Are the netroots liberal? Or just partisan? | TrackBack (0) Colorado, Congress, DNC, Idaho, Media Coverage, Montana, Nevada, Policy Issues, Wyoming

Salazar blasts Bush policies

I love saying blast. Here's the skinny:

Sen. Ken Salazar said today President George W. Bush's efforts to legalize trying terror suspects before military tribunals would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The international law was ratified in 1949 to protect prisoners of war from abuse and torture.

"It's been the world standard for more than 50 years and for the president to undermine that standard is taking a step back," said Salazar, D-Colorado, at a Denver press conference.

Glad to see Salazar standing up for international treaties and norms. I just can't believe we have senators in this country which take a different view. Salazar is well positioned to be a national leader for decades because of his background and moderate stances on hot button issues. But some things don't fit into the left-moderate-right paradigm and one of those things should be support for the Geneva Conventions.

Take it home Ken:

"What happens when any of our soldiers become a prisoner of war?" Salazar asked. "The moral high ground is we don't accept torture."

"The Geneva Conventions abhors torture and we need to send a strong warning to the administration that it needs to change course," Salazar said.

It says a lot about this president that his main issue of concern right now is how to torture people and that he errs on the side of more torture.

Landon Mascareñaz | September 16, 2006 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) Permalink: Salazar blasts Bush policies | TrackBack (0) Colorado, National Leadership, Policy Issues

Schweitzer Challenges NY Millionaire to Debate (video!)

Updated below: We've now got video! See below...

Montana, like many other states, is facing a "TABOR" measure that would decimate public services. The TABOR measures are funded largely by a reclusive New York millionaire named Howie Rich.

So, our man Governor Brian Schweitzer (D-MT) has challenged Howie Rich to a debate in Montana. From his statement:

“Out of state millionaires have no businesses imposing their will on the hard working people of Montana,” said Governor Schweitzer. “Howard Rich and his wealthy buddies won’t even reveal who is funding their campaign. I invite them to come to Montana, tell us who they are and what their shady initiative is all about.”

Governor Schweitzer continued, “Mr. Rich has clearly seen Manhattan, New York – maybe he should meet me in Manhattan, Montana. As a rich world traveler he has probably seen the Kremlin, maybe it is time for him to meet the folks of Kremlin, Montana. It is appalling that big money fat cats would use our state as a testing ground for their ridiculous agenda. They need to stop hiding behind their money and be straight with the people of Montana.”

Nice work, Brian. Keep us posted.

There's more coverage from the Billings Gazette.

Update - the video

Video from Howie Rich Exposed. Hat tip to Loaded Orygun.

Kari Chisholm | September 13, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) Permalink: Schweitzer Challenges NY Millionaire to Debate (video!) | TrackBack (0) Governors, Montana, Policy Issues

Asking Congress to get something done

From the Albuquerque Tribune:

AUSTIN - Accusing Congress of abdicating its responsibility to control immigration and secure the U.S.-Mexico border, Gov. Bill Richardson and three other border-state governors have signed a letter urging federal lawmakers to pass comprehensive immigration reform before the end of the year.

Richardson, fellow Democrat Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and Republicans Rick Perry of Texas and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California signed the letter Friday at the close of the two-day Border Governors Conference.

They joined the governors of six Mexican states in signing a joint declaration on issues ranging from tourism and trade to education and border security. They pledged to share information about human, drug and arms trafficking, and to work together to prevent agricultural terrorism and ensure high food safety standards.

In their letter to House and Senate leaders, the governors said: "We urge you to get back to work and pass legislation that puts the interest of taxpayers first and solves this crisis once and for all."

It is interesting how you can get all the border state governors to agree on the framework, along with governors from another country and you can't get elected representatives in Congress to do anything except grandstand and play to special interests.

The chances of anything getting done regarding this issue are next to none before the 2006 election. The GOP will play up the open border as an issue but their credibility on this issue is severely hampered by the fact that even though they controlled both houses and the presidency, they achieved next to nothing for the American people.

Western Governors and politicians may find themselves frustrated by the lack of true concern from D.C. regarding this issue but their recourse is limited. Most national Republicans cater to the elements of nativism or fear and comprehensive solutions are a direct assuault on the ideology of the far right.

I suggest a very simple solution:

VOTE DEM IN 06.

Landon Mascareñaz | August 28, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) Permalink: Asking Congress to get something done | TrackBack (0) Arizona, California, Congress, Governors, National Leadership, New Mexico, Policy Issues, Regionalism

Building Energy Consensus in Colorado

Reading this article made me go back to the idea of the vital center, which has been brought up a couple times on Western Democrat lately:

"I'm a true believer," Republican gubernatorial candidate Beauprez said of renewable energy.

Beauprez's campaign stop at the Sterling ethanol plant this month underscored just how big an issue energy has become.

With gasoline prices hovering around $3 a gallon and electric utilities struggling with brownouts, energy has become a local concern.

Both Beauprez and his Democratic opponent, Bill Ritter, are pushing plans aimed at putting the state in a position to be a leader in cutting-edge energy technology and re-energize rural Colorado, although neither sets specific implementation plans.

When we live in era where the GOP and Dems alike are on similar pages with renewable energy in the west, maybe we can move past the partisan bickering. If we had two parties both understanding the potential economic, social and resource benefits from renewable energy investment we, as a nation and region, could stand as a testament to progressive and pragmatic progress.

But, as always, the GOP rhetoric may not match up with their actions:

Ritter has criticized Beauprez's congressional vote that cut more than $20 million from the Golden-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Beauprez blamed the cuts on U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's move to earmark $34 million in energy funds for his home state of Nevada.

The NREL funds were eventually restored by the Bush administration.

"It's another classic both- ways-Bob moment ... to talk about renewable energy in light of his support of the NREL cuts. He has no credibility," said Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer.

Beauprez responded, "I'd say that's (expletive), if I can be that blunt."

Well, I guess that struck one of Bob's nerves. There are a thousand reasons to not support Beauprez and he probably isn't seriously credible on the issue of energy, but to remain competitive Beauprez has got to talk the talk on renewable energy.

For instance, lets compare the candidates plans:

Beuprez:

During his northeastern Colorado campaign swing, Beauprez unveiled a renewable-energy policy focusing on agricultural land, biomass, ethanol and wind energy.

At an Akron town meeting, Beauprez told ranchers and farmers: "I believe we need to continue to encourage more ethanol and biodiesel usage and production right here in our state."

Beauprez's plan would triple the number of pumps dispensing the ethanol-gasoline blend E85 to about 30. The plan also calls for building more transmission lines to increase access to wind power and invest in commercialization of biomass fuels.

Beauprez is also proposing creation of a "state utility database" to identify areas to reduce energy usage and use private money to promote residential energy efficiency.

The plan also would use tax credits to encourage companies to find market uses for the research done by the state's colleges, universities and NREL.

Ritter:

Ritter's plan includes increasing ethanol production and wind and biodiesel energy and creating "new markets specifically for farmers by selling their crops so that they can then be used for biofuels," Dreyer said...

The plan would "establish statewide standards to create and expand markets for renewable-energy products."

State buildings would have to meet "stringent energy- efficient standards," according to Ritter's energy position paper.

Now, in debate, sometimes a opposition team would propose a counterplan to the original plan proposed by the affirmative. The test of competition was often mutual exclusivity. That's pretty much a fancy phrase for saying "Can both be done at the same time?"

The straight-forward answer: YES. If we've come to a point where both candidates in a race have detailed, multi-page reports on their websites (Check it: Ritter and Beuprez) regarding renewable energy in their state and their ideas are not in direct confrontation then we have made great strides in our collective progress as a people.

As a proud Western Democrat, I'm excited for Bill Ritter to be the next Governor of Colorado. But since his Republican opposition campaigned strongly on a renewable energy platform similar to his, I know that'll make it that much easier for progress to occur in the Colorado General Assembly and Senate or with the voters.

Building general consensus is what we do out here and when we work together for a cleaner, opportunity-based energy economy then we'll all be better off out west. Then we'll wait for the rest of the nation to keep up.

Landon Mascareñaz | August 25, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) Permalink: Building Energy Consensus in Colorado | TrackBack (0) Colorado, Governors, Policy Issues

"A New Realism"

From the AP:

SANTA FE, N.M. - America needs a "new realism" in its foreign policy and a concerted push for energy independence to safeguard national security, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former U.N. ambassador, said Saturday.

Richardson pointed to fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants, escalating violence in Iraq , the stalemate with North Korea over its missile and nuclear programs and rising oil prices as evidence that "the world around us in on the verge of spiraling out of control."

As a student of international relations I appreciate the effort by the Governor to articulate a new strategy to world affairs.  For too long have I felt the left was totally incoherant in foreign policy while the right has been totally wrong. Ken Camp posted on this recently, but I thought it would be important to delve farther into the new rhetorical construction offered by Governor Richardson.

For too long the right's mantra has been: "Well, let's just try to beat them to death, torture them (and let the pictures out on Arab media) and botch the reconstruction while fighting proxy wars with regional powers.  Did I mention we have to cut taxes and tell homosexuals that they can't adopt children?"

This is an outdated and ineffective way to construct a global security policy.   Democrats have routinely called for "strenghthening our alliances" and fail to match the rhetoric of freedom and democracy.  What Richardson is talking about with a New Realism is engaging those problems which prevent a peaceful global order from establishing while understanding the need to promote progressive change.

Bill Richardson, himself a student of international relations, understands that the effects of these issues rely on fixing some serious problems with our domestic and regional policy:

He called for direct U.S. talks with North Korea and Iran , objecting that the Bush approach has been to "outsource our diplomacy."...

On the domestic front, Richardson said, "We need a man-on-the-moon effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil — go from 65 percent to 20 percent by 2015."

He urged Congress to approve immigration legislation that included "a path to legalization for the 11 million immigrants already here."

While this has been the de facto Democratic playbook for awhile now (Kerry kept saying "Energy Independence" but I'm still not sure what he meant) Richardson is articulating a direct contrast with the failed Bush policy. 

Also, as a Western Democrat, Bill Richardson provides credibility on two Western issues that have global importance.

Energy Indepedence is a neccessary component take make America a stronger international actor.  Richardson, a former Secretary of Energy who has taken the lead in solar production in New Mexico understands this issue and sets a very realistic and credible goal - cutting our foreign oil consumption by two-thirds.

Richardson also points out that regional balance is important by saying we need a path for legalizing immigrants already here.  These immigrants come from across the western hemisphere looking for a better life and the fact that we have little policy in place to deal with it causes consternation with our natural allies south of the border.  Western governors understand this and know this is another area where our domestic policy intersects directly with foreign policy.

While I've never been a IR realist myself (in the strict IR sense I feel it overassumes the static nature of the state and it's actors) I understand the realist structure of the system.  American power is a good thing, and we as Democrats should not shy away from saying that.  American power used in a good and meaningful fashion can bring more good in this world than any other power up until now.  Richardson has played the diplomatic game before and clearly understands that power is necessary (hence, his preference for realism) but he also understands the dynamic and multi-faceted nature of world affairs (therefore, new realism).

What is next for Richardson is to articulate how his "New Realism" applies to his former base of operations - the United Nations. 

As a Western Democrat, Richardson knows the value of working with others to achieve plausible and positive goals.  As a former Ambassador to the United Nations, he knows how American power works in the necessary yet flawed world body.  I'd like to see Richardson articulate some Western common-sense reforms that don't denigrate the United Nations (ahem...Bolton)but rather respect it's value and prospects for the future.

I hope to see a greater fleshing out of the "New Realism."  The Nevada caucuses would make an excellent start...

Landon Mascareñaz | August 11, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) Permalink: "A New Realism" | TrackBack (0) Governors, National Leadership, New Mexico, Policy Issues, Presidential Politics

Amarillo in Aspen

Global warming is a big threat, arguably the biggest threat, to the interior West.

The Aspen Times asks:

What's Aspen got in common with Amarillo, Texas? Quite a bit, if global warming remains unchecked over the next century, according to a study commissioned by the city government.

If current trends continue

Aspen's average annual temperature will increase by as much as 14 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the study said. That would produce a climate similar to Amarillo's today.

"These things are really going to change our valley," said John Katzenberger, director of the Aspen Global Change Institute and coordinator of the city's report.

Skiing, fishing and rafting - three linchpins of Aspen's recreation industry - will be increasingly threatened by rising temperatures and drier conditions as the century progresses. Simply supplying enough water for a growing population could be a challenge…

But the biggest change could shake Aspen's soul as a ski town. The study boldly forecasts that if nothing is done about global warming, skiing will become to Aspen what silver mining is - a thing of the past. "Continued growth in global greenhouse emissions is projected to end skiing in Aspen by 2100 and possibly well before then"

The Telluride Daily Planet warns

If this keeps up there may be no more glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2030. If this keeps up, Joshua Tree National Park may have no more Joshua Trees. Rocky Mountain National Park may lose is soft mattress of high alpine tundra, the largest expanse in the country south of Alaska.

And if this, the current climate change and warming of the western United States, persists, the southwest’s Bandelier National Monument and Mesa Verde National Park may become ghost parks, as intolerable heat pushes visitors away and increased fire dangers eat at the cultural sites.

The National Geographic weighs in:

A study by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports that the much-loved landscapes of Yellowstone, Yosemite, and ten other national parks are at grave risk due to climate change. The parks at risk include Montana's Glacier National Park, Grand Teton in Wyoming, Glen Canyon in Utah and Arizona, California's Death Valley and Golden Gate, Washington State's Mount Rainier and North Cascades, Colorado's Mesa Verde and Rocky Mountains parks, and Bandelier in New Mexico. Warmer temperatures and less precipitation are threats to many park plants and animals, the report says. Warming may also spur more frequent and severe droughts and wildfires that could close parks or reduce them to mere shells of their former grandeur.

Leo Brown | August 3, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) Permalink: Amarillo in Aspen | TrackBack (1) Policy Issues

"His first veto will be a veto that will dash the hopes of tens of millions of Americans"

It is already common knowledge among most parts by this time of the day, that Bush cast his first veto in 5 1/2 years as president today against stem cell legislation.

While this debate has national implications, it is worthwhile noting that the true leader in this debate has been U.S. Representative Diana DeGette (CO-1) - a real Western Democrat.

"This is not just some wedge issue like flag burning. This is medical research that could save millions of lives," she (DeGette) said. (Rocky Mountain News)

Sometimes I feel that we rarely highlight women who exemplify the Western Democrat mindset.

Plainly said, women are not represented in the "talk straight, wear cowboy boots" club nearly as often as they should. But there is a different kind of Western Democrat, still as powerful as the straight-laced, straight-talking Governor or Attorney General: a Western Democrat who gets things done by bringing people together.

A Western Democrat is someone who bridges party-lines and brings sides together to provide common good solution for his/her constituents, state residents or the nation as a whole.

Representative Diana DeGette is a true Western Democrat in this sense. Her stem cell legislation was a work of passion and dedication. In a recent article in the Rocky Mountain News, Diana was highlighted in direct contrast with Marylin Musgrave, that hate-monger from northern Colorado:

Both Colorado congresswomen are watching their issues land on the national agenda right in the middle of a hotly contested, mid-term election season.

DeGette, who has formed a political action committee to push for candidates who share her belief in embryonic stem-cell research, believes there is wide, public support for expanding research into deadly conditions like diabetes, spinal cord injuries and others.

She predicts the issue could sway some congressional districts around the country. In Colorado's 7th District, Democratic hopeful Ed Perlmutter already is running television ads (featuring his epileptic daughter) and touting his support for expanded research.

But the stem cell issue also riles opponents of abortion who equate experimentation on embryos as the destruction of human life. That means it also could motivate those voters to turn out in greater numbers.

Musgrave's proposed marriage amendment could have a similar effect, and it's certain to be used in drives to draw religious conservatives to the polls, as it was used to great effect in 2004.

The contrast could not be clearer. DeGette is championing an issue that has wide bipartisan support and could help save the lives of millions of Americans (Bush vetoes it). Musgrave is pushing forward with a hateful agenda that does nothing to help the lives of Americans, but restricts the rights of minorities and pleases his base (Bush supports it).

DeGette had some strong words for Bush and also shed some light on her internal motivation:

"I guess what the president is saying is he thinks it would be better to throw these embryos away as medical waste."

She has been inspired in her drive for the legislation by her 12-year-old daughter, Francesca, who has Type 1 diabetes.

The Western Democrat goes beyond the boots or the jeans and works towards a greater politics of inclusion and competance. We need more Western Democrats like DeGette in Congress who have passion for their work and the natural ability to bring people together.

P.S. - Just for kicks, check out DeGette on Colbert. Don't let the creative cutting and splicing fool you, she is a smart lady with a legislative talent to match.

Landon Mascareñaz | July 19, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) Permalink: "His first veto will be a veto that will dash the hopes of tens of millions of Americans" | TrackBack (0) Colorado, National Leadership,