Regionalism
The ultimate Western Democrat ticket
Awhile ago, this was mentioned here. (I'm extending off the good idea..thanks Leo!) Summary?
That presidential tickets are often either one of two combinations - balance or reinforcement. Kerry picked Edwards to balance him out, both regionally and personally. Clinton chose Gore to reinforce him, both regionally and issue-wise.
There is only one serious Western Democrat in the race for president and that is Bill Richardson. Now, I'm going to admit I'm a big fan of his but that isn't my point. It is that in 2008 we could have potential to deliver a knock-out blow to the entire Western GOP and paint the way truly for progressive western dominance allied with the traditional Democratic bloc (coasts and upper midwest).
The key is reinforcement. Instead of picking a easterner to balance him (if he was the nominee for that matter, IF) Bill Richardson should take Leo's advice and pick Janet Napolitano, the governor of Arizona.
You may say never! But look at this great poll that Kos pointed out today:
A new statewide survey shows that if the Senate election were held today, the Republican incumbent would be defeated by Gov. Janet Napolitano – that is, if Napolitano would choose to run for the seat. The Democrat governor cannot seek a third term.
Not surprisingly, the poll by the Behavior Research Center shows Napolitano the favorite of 78 percent of Democrats, versus 11 percent for McCain. But the governor also would pick up 20 percent of Republicans and 47 percent of independents who make up nearly 28 percent of Arizona’s registered voters.
If they went head to head, Napolitano would get 47 percent of the vote, compared to 36 percent for McCain, according to the poll.
Now, that head to head match up result is pretty damn astounding.
Think about it again. A Richardson/Napolitano ticket (even against McCain possibly) would take both New Mexico AND Arizona. That's not where it ends, either.
Napolitano is considered to be a very successful Governor, in fact she enjoy sky high approval ratings. So does Richardson here in New Mexico. That combination of two extremely popular red state (!) Democratic governors could have crossover appeal like nothing else.
Also - the Hispanic/Woman factor would provide an immense amount of change additive to the ticket itself. Contrast that against the possible GOP combinations shows a pretty clear sense of America.
Western electorate - that's putting all the Western swing states on the map (including possibly Montana and Wyoming) and maybe making Texas competitive.
If we really try and imagine a new electoral future for the Democratic Party we could do it with one swift blow.
Now, there is the ultimate Western Democratic ticket.
Landon Mascareñaz | August 22, 2007 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
California spreading the Blue into the West
This is an interesting video from Peter Leyden of the New Politics Institute. While I cringed every time he said "becoming more like California," at least in migration numbers he has a point.
This hasn't been something we've talked about, but the more migration into urban areas of the West, the better chances Democrats have there, to put it frankly. Between 2000 and 2004, a period when Democrats won more than a few elections in the West, California lost nearly half a million people, most of those going to other places in th West.
Emmett O'Connell | March 15, 2007 | Comment on This Post (6 so far) |
Barack Obama and the West
Barack Obama made his official announcement for the presidency today in Abraham Lincoln’s Springfield, Illinois. (Text here). Many in the crowd must have thought of Lincoln, but also of Martin Luther King and the youthful John F. Kennedy. I remember seeing JFK in a motorcade in Illinois in the campaign of 1960. That was a year before Barack was born.
Another Chicagoan’s words come to mind when thinking about the meteoric rise of Barack Obama, the words of Daniel Burnham, the famous architect:
Make no small plans. They have no magic to stir humanity’s blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical plan once recorded will never die, but long after we are gone will be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. Remember that our sons and daughters are going to do things that will stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon, beauty. Think big.
Barack is not making small plans, and he has the magic.
And how will Barack play out in the West? Barack Obama does not fit the stereotype of an Easterner, an elitist, or a member of the establishment; whatever you may conceive those things to be. He doesn’t fit any stereotypes at all. But if I had to describe his style, the words that come to mind are from the poet Genevieve Taggard: natural, American, sweet and easy.
Above all, Barack is a candidate who can transcend boundaries. He can transcend race and party and region. He is not running as a man of color, or as a liberal Democrat, or as a blue-state Senator from the Midwest. He is running as a candidate for Americans of all races, parties, and regions. And that will appeal to a lot of Western Democrats.
Leo Brown | February 10, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Even The U.K. Knows The West Is Where It's At
From The Guardian's blog, comment is free:
And, as I've argued in many of my earlier articles, since the South is now such hostile territory for national Democratic candidates, the interior west, the huge swathe of land between the Rockies and the Pacific states, has become extremely important in Electoral College calculations.Even in the United Kingdom, where they can't vote for President of the United States or legally donate money to our campaigns, they understand that the West is where the presidential prospects of Democrats lie. If the British can see it, certainly the American people can.
[...]
In the west, going Democratic in 2008 will require some fancy footwork on hot-button issues that coastal progressives have long-held positions on. In particular, national Democratic candidates need to neutralize opposition from the gun lobby in the region. This is a landscape of hunters. It is a place where people sometimes live in hamlets and on farms 100 miles or more from the nearest police station and believe strongly in carrying weapons for self protection.
[...]
And that's why Richardson's candidacy just might gain some momentum. He has, over the years, gained the trust of the western gun-lobby, and that's allowed him to win high office and introduce an array of other progressive policies in his state. Moreover, he's an extremely smart, charismatic politician, who brings to the campaign not only the experience gained from two terms as state governor but credentials on the national and international stage - he was Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton, served as the United States' ambassador to the United Nations, and shuttled back and forth to Pyongyang as special envoy to North Korea.
kencamp | February 5, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Denver DNC, its all about the geography
Al Eisele writes in the Huffington Post:
With Republicans trying to gain a foothold in the Democratic stronghold of Minnesota, Democrats are crazy if they don't try to break out of their East Coast-Midwest-Southern mindset by making inroads in the West. After all, Colorado just elected a Democratic governor, and there are eight other Democratic governors from Kansas to Oregon, including a likely presidential candidate, New Mexico's Bill Richardson. And the new Speaker of the House is from California and the new Senate majority leader is from Nevada.Sure, Democrats held their 1984 convention in San Francisco and their 2000 convention in Los Angeles, but look where it got them -- Fritz Mondale, who lost every state but his own, and Al Gore, who couldn't even carry his own home state. In fact, Democrats haven't won with a candidate who was nominated in a city west of the Mississippi since they picked John F. Kennedy in Los Angeles in 1960.
As the brothers Salazar of Colorado, Sen. Ken and Rep. John, argue, energy sources are key to many of America's most pressing problems, including freeing us from the stranglehold of Middle Eastern oil imports. Colorado, with its vast oil shale deposits, and the West with its limitless coal deposits and other alternative energy sources, is a good place to position the party for the future.
So let's hear it for Denver. It may be a cow town, but if Democrats want to make the west a battleground in 2008, they better be ready to ride in the rodeo.
This is the nut of the issue, geography matters. Are we the party from New York or the party from the West? That's what people who are fighting for a Denver convention are saying, that we've been too long a party of the Northeast.
Emmett O'Connell | January 9, 2007 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Montana to move primary election?
According to the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Utah, Montana is expected to consider moving their primary election from June 3 to February 5 - joining Western states Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah (plus Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Missouri, and North Carolina). Prior to February 5, elections will be held in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
From the CPPA newsletter:
It is very likely that Montana’s legislature will introduce a Western States Primary Election bill when its session begins on January 3. Legislation could move Montana’s presidential primary election from June to February for the 2008 election – and in line with primaries in Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona. Although a 2005 bill died in the Montana Senate, legislation this year appears to have stronger bipartisan support, including that of Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer and Republican Secretary of State Brad Johnson.
A full Democratic primary calendar is available at Wikipedia.
Kari Chisholm | December 26, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Arizona, Nevada and the West are the fastest growing
Arizona grew by 3.6 percent last year and Nevada grew by 3.5 percent. And the West outstripped every other region in growth, including the South which had half of the top ten largest gainers, but also the largest loser, Louisiana.
The Baltimore Sun also notes the topsy-turvy nature of Arizona politics that is beginning to favor Democrats:
Long a Republican stronghold, Arizona now has a moderate Democrat as its governor. Democrats picked up two congressional seats in last month's midterm election, and voters rejected a ballot initiative banning gay marriage.Arizonans are used to a certain amount of political turmoil caused by the constant influx of new residents, said Marshall Vest, an economist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
"Whenever you have a vote on any particular issue, you never know what it's going to be," because a large chunk of the electorate has just arrived, he said.
Emmett O'Connell | December 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Bursting the "Clinton needed the South" bubble
More on why the South is not where we need to go. Rather, lets keep on heading West.
Corey Crowley-Hall points out in fine fashion why we need to continue forgetting about the South when we talk about how we stop being an opposition party, and focus on the West. Even more so, turns out that the last Southern governor we elected President didn't really even need the South for his wins:
...he would have won the election whether he won in the South or not. Arkansas, Louisianna, Kentucky, and Tennessee (and Georgia in 1992 but not in 1996) were bonus States for Clinton, they had no effect on the election. Clinton won 370 and 379 electoral votes, in 1992 Clinton won 47 electoral votes from the South. Subtract 47 from 370 and Clinton still would have won 323 and won the White House with a solid margin. Same holds true for 1996 when Clinton won 34 electoral votes from the South in a 379 EV win, subtract the south and Clinton would have won with 345 electoral votes. The South made no difference to Clinton. He won not because he could win in the South but because he had appeal elsewhere. In both elections Clinton won a couple of southern States on the back of Ross Perot swiping votes away from Bush and Dole respectively. So its clear that a) Clinton wasn't as effective in the South as his reputation and b) that Clinton didnt need the South in order to win.Its a great run down of all the reasons why the West is better, so read it all here.
Emmett O'Connell | December 18, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
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) |
Meaningless Historical Nonsense
How is about this for a useless argument for why New York has an advantage over Denver for the convention:
New York, they say, has advantages in fund-raising, experience in running national conventions and a track record of success for the Democrats. The last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992, both strode onto the big stage in New York. Denver last held a convention in 1908, and the nominee, William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat, was trounced by William Howard Taft.
Yeah, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won the White House because of the convention's location in New York. I can just imagine a voter now: "Well, I like that Gerald Ford fellow, but that was a damn fine New York Convention..." Or perhaps in 1908: "I like everything about WJB, I've voted for him the last two times he ran but now with that Denver convention I'm not too sure..."
But this is where the article gets good:
But party members across the country say that there is no doubt that Denver has hit on a potent combination of economic development goals and political ambition. A convention with 30,000 eating, drinking, hotel-room-using Democratic partiers and journalists would inject perhaps $160 million into the local economy, organizers say, and at the same time crown the city as an unquestioned capital of the interior West — and the two goals are in sync.“A convention can provide a stage to introduce the nominee in a way that gets the country’s attention and tells a story,” said Debbie Willhite, a longtime Democratic strategist who came here earlier this year to run Denver’s bid as executive director. “And the networks can’t come in here without showing the broad plains and Rocky Mountains — that’s a very big stage.”
Sing it true, Debbie. I'm just even excited for the possibility. Denver is a city on the rise and is already the capital of the interior west and the front-line on the blue trending occurring all around our region.
Howard Dean, since you're making the call I have faith and I believe you understand the stakes: Either you take us back to where we've been before and the old stereotypes about Democrats or we forge a bright, western and mile-high path to our future as a party.
Landon Mascareñaz | December 2, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Losing Bill Frist is not made up by getting Trent Lott
It would be so nice to have a great, Southern ideologue as the Republican front runner in 2008. If it isn't going to be Bill Frist, the closest we can get is Mike Huckabee.
Huckabbee's no Chip Pickering, if you know what I mean.
Even without a big Southerner leading the way, who ever ends up being the nominee for the Republicans, is going to need to win in the South anyway. No one is going to be nominated out of the Republican Party without winning Southern primaries.
Emmett O'Connell | November 30, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
In 2008, Nevada is the new Iowa.
A couple of days ago, Tom Vilsack threw his hat into the ring for the 2008 presidential contest:
"Americans sent a clear message on Tuesday. They want leaders who will take this country in a new direction," Vilsack, Iowa's two-term governor, said in a statement. "They want leaders who share their values, understand their needs, and respect their intelligence. That's what I've done as governor of Iowa, and that's what I intend to do as president."
Well Tom, you also clearly intend to invalidate your home state caucuses. Like Tom Harkin ran in 1992, when an Iowan runs for president, your caucuses matter little to everyone else. Iowans aren't going to punish a favorite son and no other big name Democratic candidate is truly going to ask them to.
Which means the next caucus up is Nevada. Tom Vilsack, by running for president has made Nevada the Iowa of 2008 - great news for Western Democrats. Not just because the issues being discussed in a western state matter to us out here, it means our chances of nominating a westerner in 2008 are much improved. Nevada will be a natural spot for someone like Richardson to campaign (given his sky high re-election rate and majority support among all sub-groups - important in a diverse western state like Nevada).
Can you really see Hillary winning Nevada? Or Tom Vilsack for that matter?
Western Democrats have just indirectly made incredible progress because of the aspirtation of one Iowan. Thanks Tom, much appreciated.
Landon Mascareñaz | November 11, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Yesterday's regional realignment
I wanted to write something later about how yesterday was a big day not only for Western Democrats, but also for southern Republicans. Yesterday, with so much lost in the Northeast, Midwest and West, the South is where the Republicans are from now.
But, Mr. "Whistling Past Dixie," himself, Thomas Schaller sums it up over at the Political Wire:
...what appears to be happening this year is a regional-ideological partisan correction in which Rockefeller-Ford Republicans are purged from the NE/NW Rust Belt, and prairie progressives pick off selected seats in the Far West. The regional realignment over the past 40 years, which slowly converted Dixiecrats into Republicans, has now entered its final stage, as voters north of the Mason-Dixon line and west of the Mississippi provide a countervailing response to the southern-led Republican majority.This transformation is occurring at the Senate, House and gubernatorial levels. Indeed, because Rust Belt Republicans will be replaced by progressive Democrats, regardless of the final totals tonight, the 110th Congress, in both chambers, will become more progressive as the Democratic shares grow and less conservative as the Republican shares shrink. As just one indication of this trend, consider this stunning fact: If Pelosi gets her majority, for the first time in 52 years, the party with a minority of House seats in the South will the majority party chamberwide.
The key to future Democratic majorities is leaving the South to the Republicans. They can have the South, we want the West. The West is not the South, baby.
I'm rooting for Roy Blunt for Minority Leader in the House and Trent Lott for Minority Leader in the Senate.
Emmett O'Connell | November 8, 2006 | Comment on This Post (7 so far) |
A National Party No More
I stumbled across this article earlier today and I thought it had a ton of pertinent information for Western Democrats. The thesis of the article is that this election will herald the first non-southern majority in quite some time (if the Democrats win, that is). The author argues that 2006 will see final alignment towards the Democrats that the Northeast and uppermidwest has been waiting for:
Five states within this rectangle have three or more Republicans in jeopardy: Connecticut, Indiana, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Democratic candidates in Iowa, Illinois, New Hampshire and Wisconsin are also competitive.
The author also notes that in the West another re-alignment is occurring:
Meanwhile, Republicans are even struggling to hold seats in some distinctly red portions of the country, including eastern Washington, western Idaho, central New Mexico, southeastern Arizona and Wyoming...
Turning westward, Colorado's Bill Ritter is pulling away from Republican Rep. Bob Beauprez, and Dina Titus has been handed a late-campaign windfall in Nevada courtesy of two brewing scandals involving Republican nominee Jim Gibbons. If Mr. Ritter and Ms. Titus both win, the number of Democratic governors in the eight interior West states will jump from four to six. In 2001, there were none.
The final part of the article gives the credit where credit is due:
Ms. Pelosi was raised in Baltimore, but the district she represents is in Berkeley, Calif. Mr. Reid hails from Nevada, and Mr. Richardson is governor of New Mexico. These three Westerners are hoping that January 2007 will be a month filled with moving boxes and moving speeches hallmarking the end of the Republicans' 12-year congressional and gubernatorial reign.
I remember a couple of years ago, Zell Miller published his book "A National Party No More" and concluded that the Democratic Party was not competitive around (and was not representative) of the nation. How about these apples, Zell?
Where he (and other happy pundits) were so quick to surmise the demise of the Democratic Party around the country, the 2006 election will most likely showcase the suprising lack of strength of the GOP outside of the former Confederacy. The GOP should be asking itself these questions right now - Can we remain a viable party just catering to the intensity of our southern bloc? Does the possible success the Democratic Party will show on November 7th highlight the effectiveness of combining progressive issues and good governance in all regions of our country?
These are serious questions that will haunt the GOP for the next two years. As I've argued before (and have seen many others argue) that only if the Democratic Party uses this unique opportunity we've been given in 2006 can we forge a new majority in this country that will sustain positive progress among our people and our nation. I also happen to smile a little bit at the traditional media's awakening that perhaps the GOP isn't as national and broad as it makes itself out to be. Hopefully, a greater understanding of the latter, combined with good fortune of the former will be in the stars for our party.
It's funny how in two years, the picture can look so different.
Landon Mascareñaz | October 27, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
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) |
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) |
The Western Primary is bigger than Nevada
A lot of focus has been put on one western state, Nevada, getting a prime spot between Iowa and New Hampshire, but the idea of most interior western states getting together one one day to vote (The Western Primary) is making its way back. Utah and New Mexico have already chosen February 5, 2008 at the date of their primary.
And, now the Western Policy Research Network is discussing today the possibility of a broader primary:
...100,000 Iowa partisans and 200,000 wool-hatted New Hampshire voters make or break the candidacies of many presidential hopefuls, whether the other 125 million American voters like it or not.In the process, candidates ignore the interests of entire sections of the country, including ours.
Is that fair? Effective? Democratic?
No, no and no.
In recent years momentum has been building to break those two states' strangleholds on the American electoral process — and, we might add, on enormous campaign expenditures by a host of candidates over a long period of time.
Today in Salt Lake City, Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson joins more than 150 other officials and academics from across the intermountain West to examine the possibility of advancing that cause.
The idea, spearheaded by Republican Gov. John Hunstman of Utah, is to establish an eight-state "superprimary" in a region of common interests from Montana to New Mexico.
The one-day Western States Presidential Primary Symposium will feature presidential campaign consultants, think-tank luminaries and two governors, Huntsman and Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico.
Among the presenters is Dan Kemmis, a senior fellow at the Center for the Rocky Mountain West in Missoula.
Establishing such a primary, probably in February of presidential election years, is not without difficulties, including the potential expense.
But we agree with Johnson, who said before leaving for the Utah symposium: "Montanans deserve a greater voice in choosing presidents."
"These days, the major parties have often chosen their candidates before the first Montanan casts a vote in the primary election," he said in a release. "By working together with my Democrat and Republican colleagues in other Western states, I want to enact policies to make sure all voices are heard."
Emmett O'Connell | September 29, 2006 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
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) |
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) |
Republicans for Ritter
From the Rocky Mountain News:
Last week, dozens of Republican business executives met with Ritter at a breakfast in Denver to discuss economic development. Republican businessman Blair Richardson, former finance chairman for Mark Holtzman's campaign for governor, hosted the breakfast."There were 100 people there, and 75 percent of them were Republicans," Richardson said. "Ritter was very strong. He said he'd create an economic czar and put that person in the governor's office. He gave Bill Richardson of New Mexico as an example of a governor who is always marketing that state."
Richardson said Ritter "won a lot of converts" at the meeting. He has endorsed Ritter himself and now plans to host a series of breakfast meetings to introduce him to other Republicans.
Unlike some Democrats, I'm not turned off by the other side finding our candidate attractive. I think it would worry me if Ritter was bending over backwards to compromise principles in the method of corporate appeasment - but most of this transition has to do with Measure C:
"There's growing discontent in the business community about the position of many Republicans on Referendum C and finding the resources necessary to fund state services," Scott said.That discontent has been a boon to Democrat Bill Ritter in his race for governor against U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez. Ritter endorsed Ref C, while Beauprez opposed it. Ref C was approved by voters last fall and allowed the state to keep billions in tax revenue that otherwise would have been returned to taxpayers.
Colorado business organizations played a key role in the passage of Ref C, fearing that huge cuts in higher education and transportation funding would harm the state's economy. Scott says many executives share Ritter's fear that Colorado is falling behind other states in funding its universities and roads.
If that is what makes Ritter appealing to Republicans, then sign me up. He currently holds a 10 point lead over Both Ways Bob. With this kind of momentum, Ritter will be the next governor of Colorado.
Regional/Ideological Ramifications
Something I yammer on here quite a bit is the ability for Western Democrats to bring both sides to the table. I'm glad to see Ritter bridging the gap in ever-blue trending Colorado. The inability of the state Republican party to build consensus on issues of education and infrastructure development has driven many former Republicans from the party:
"I said, 'That's it, I'm done,'" Kaufman said. "The people who run the Republican Party today don't care about business. What this party is about now is God, guns, gays and abortion. They don't care about education, health care or transportation. They think cutting taxes solves all problems."
In many ways, the futhering of this process in Colorado also stands as a bellweather for the rest of the Rocky Mountain West. With Democrats across the mountain west inheriting or inhabiting the governor's mansions (AZ, NM, CO, WY, MT and more around the corner) the Western Democrat is clearly in the ascendency.
Arthur Schlesinger described the period of post-WWII consensus in our country as "The Vital Center" - is it possible we are seeing a return to the Vital Center out in the West? If we are to establish a new era in policy, with Western Dems leading the way, then it could be possible to have a fundemental re-orientation of issues and politics.
Landon Mascareñaz | August 21, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Nevada leaps ahead of New Hampshire!
In a huge victory for Western Democrats, the DNC rules and bylaws committee has decided to allow Nevada to schedule a presidential caucus before the New Hampshire primary. NH would retain its "first in the nation primary" status, but Nevada would slip in after Iowa. Also, South Carolina will hold a primary shortly after New Hampshire, during the time previously reserved as a quiet period.
As one on-site observer told me, "Nevada and South Carolina won in a landslide in the Rules and Bylaws committeee meeting."
At this point, the full DNC will need to approve the recommendation in mid-August to formalize the decision. Expect a full court press and lobbying from all players.
Coverage from the National Journal is here.
Kari Chisholm | July 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (10 so far) |
Liveblogging the DNC primary calendar meeting
Over at the Hotline blog, Reid Wilson is liveblogging the DNC rules & bylaws committee meeting - during which it's expected that either Arizona or Nevada (or maybe Colorado) will add a presidential caucus after Iowa, but before New Hampshire.
Kari Chisholm | July 22, 2006 | Comment on This Post (0 so far) |
Bring on the Western Caucus
Tomorrow, the DNC is expected to make a change to the presidential primary calendar - adding a Western caucus before New Hampshire's primary. It's believed that the main contenders are Arizona and Nevada (and Colorado could slip in there.)
For the Democratic Party, though, there are big advantages to the new schedule. It is meant to expand the pool of voters who have an early, and often definitive, say in who the candidate will be. Iowa and New Hampshire are small, northern and largely white; the new states to be added are intended to broaden the field and bring Hispanics and blacks into the process. Once reliably Republican, the Southwest is increasingly becoming a bloc of swing states, crucial to Democratic hopes for the White House. Officially, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada are all in the running for the Sun Belt spot, but the last two are most favored.
In addition to changing up the demographics of the early-voting electorate, it would also adjust the issue mix. As the Arizona Republic editorialized:
Such as immigration reform. No state in the Union would provide a more riveting platform than Arizona for a presidential-candidate debate over immigration reform. The same holds true regarding the increasingly high-tech-driven national economy, which is a fast-growing part of Arizona's economy.
Whether it's Arizona or Nevada (or Colorado) doesn't matter much here to us at Western Democrat. But, obviously, we're big supporters of any kind of change that puts the West into the mix.
Not only will it add some ethnic diversity and new issues to the presidential race, it's also going to force the candidates to fundamentally understand the Western attitude and political culture. If candidates spend the early months learning the straight-talkin', truth-tellin' attitude that works in the West - it's going to help the nominee when he or she hits the hustings during the general election.
One thing to watch out for: a "compromise" that would add a Washington DC caucus - rather than a Western state. As New Hampshire's Union-Leader reported:
As the Democratic National Committee’s rules committee readies for a key meeting in Washington this weekend, D.C. proponents say it’s a way to end the battle between New Hampshire and the DNC. They say a caucus in D.C. instead of a state would not violate New Hampshire’s law requiring its primary to be held at least seven days before any other state’s primary. Key word: state.
DNC members should stick to their guns -- let's add Arizona or Nevada (or Colorado) to the early voting mix. This isn't about making it interesting, and it's not about attracting campaign pork, and it's certainly not about tradition. It's about winning the presidency.
Let us look west.
Update: I just posted a stronger advocacy piece over at DailyKos.com. Check it out.
Update: New Hampshire Public Radio did a one-hour show on the topic this morning, including a brief interview with some guy from WesternDemocrat.com. :) Listen here.
Kari Chisholm | July 21, 2006 | Comment on This Post (3 so far) |
Hispanics, Health Care and Winning the West
Can we have a serious debate about Health Care in our country? If you had followed the 2004 election - you'd probably think not. But things are changing...
As health care becomes a larger and larger issue for most Americans, we are likely to see the dimensions of the health care debate take on a greater electoral value. According to the Albuquerque Tribune:
The survey of 800 registered Latino voters in states, including California, with the highest density of Latinos showed a striking level of concern over access to quality, affordable health care...Access to health services is seen by 91 percent of Latino voters as a basic human right; 87 percent believe that the government should guarantee that right...
Significantly, with control of Congress at stake this fall, a substantial majority of Latino voters - 62 percent - say they would be more likely to support a candidate for Congress who supported universal health care coverage even if it meant having to raise taxes to pay for it.
This has major implications for the Western United States. Arizona, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada all have large hispanic populations and are some of the fastest growing states in the country.
Western Democrats should champion health care and win, win, win.
There is some sort of bizarre notion universal health care is some rich, white liberal obsession that comes out only in the Democratic presidential primaries and then should vanish as a true issue around when the general election comes around. Consultants be damned - Democrats, especially Western Democrats need to lead on this issue. What a study like this shows is that this issue has an ability to unite various groups into the Democratic column during election season and beyond.
Mitt Romney has won praises from the pundit class from his health care victory-of-sorts in Massachussetts. There are various aspects to be critical of his plan, but he did it, plain and simple. The last thing we would want in the entire world would be to get pre-empted in the health care debate instead of walking into the next election with a full-throated support for universal health care (maybe state based?) and supporting it a basic right.
George Lakoff argues in Moral Politics that some issues are cascade issues because they accomplish a policy task with a simple aim and then proceed to affect other outcomes (hence the cascade). Health care is a simple cascade issue. With an American universal health care system, we can cover everyone and create a society of greater health. Furthermore, it has positive implications down the ballot line for other candidates that offer full support toward coverage among a fast growing democraphic group. Also, it increases the electoral possibilities for victories in crucial swing states based on that fast growing demographic. It also could possibly thwart the efforts of conservatives to successfully woo Hispanics into their fold.
I'll be watching and waiting for a Western governor to take on the health care issue full-on and play the presidential foil to Romney's own ambition. C'mon Sweitzer, Richardson, Kitzhaber, Napolitano...the West, the Democratic Party and dare I say the Nation are waiting.
Landon Mascareñaz | July 14, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
Mayor Hickenlooper asks Western governors to raise money for Denver DNC Convention
The Denver Post reports today that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper has started raising money so that the city can host the 2008 Democratic Convention without using taxpayer dollars.
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper is asking governors of four other Western states to raise millions of dollars to bring the Democratic National Convention to Denver. .."What I said to John (Hickenlooper) is, 'Giddy-up, I'm in,"' Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said. "It's high time that Democrats across America see the kind of Democrats that we have in the West." ...
He told City Council members Tuesday that he has spoken to the governors of Arizona, Montana, New Mexico and Wyoming and hopes to bring them to Denver next month.
"This is not just about Denver," Hickenlooper told council members. "It's really about Colorado, and it's actually about the Rocky Mountain West." ...
"It isn't just about fundraising for the convention. It's about a vision of a convention that represents not just Colorado but the entire Rocky Mountain West," [Hickenlooper spokeswoman Lindy Eichenbaum] Lent said. "It's a platform to build more collaborative dialogues and efforts among the Western states."
Here's the rest. Hat tip to Coyote Gulch.
Kari Chisholm | July 12, 2006 | Comment on This Post (1 so far) |
"The Largest Solar Farm in the World"
Out in the West, Governors and state legislatures are taking the lead in the creation of renewable energy technology:
New Mexico is stepping up to the climate change challenge by lassoing its most abundant resource: the sun. In April, state officials signed a lease allowing construction of a massive, $1.6 billion solar facility on state lands near the town of New Deming, in the southern part of the state. The 300-megawatt solar farm, which will generate enough juice to power 240,000 homes, will be the largest solar operation in the world.
With a goal to become the "Saudi Arabia of renewable energy", Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former Secretary of Energy, is doing exactly what a Western Democrat does to move his/her state forward where the Federal government fails to act.
For dozens of years, the Federal government has been absent from the duty of seriously developing alternative energies and resources. Here we are, at almost $75 dollars a barrel (going higher) and the Federal government's idea of producing energy legislation is a corrupt and dysfunctional energy bill.
Instead of creating more loopholes for automakers, tax incentives for large oil companies and fudging the language of progress, Bill Richardson stepped into a vaccuum and produced change for the citizens of New Mexico.
It is also worth noting that Richardson is one of the leaders of the Western Governors Association's Clean Energy Initiative. By working in concert, Western governors, either Democrats or Republicans are understanding the dire need for diversified energy solutions.
Landon Mascareñaz | July 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Western Governor Poll Watch and Commentary
Wyoming 4/27/06
Dave Freudenthal (D) 52%
Ray Hunkins (R) 29%
Arizona 5/24/06
Janet Napolitano (D) 55%
Don Goldwater (R) 34%
New Mexico 6/27/06
Bill Richardson (D) 56%
John Dendahl (R) 32
Colorado 5/25/06
Bill Ritter (D) 43%
Bob Beauprez (R) 38%
And we lost all these states in 2004? Now that is some food for thought.
I have three main points:
First, that this certainly says a ton about our chances for picking up these states in 2008. While support for a local governor doesn't always translate into support for a presidential nominee - I don't see how a 2008 Dem would not be starting from a positive position in the West.
Second, what is it that makes each of these politicians so successful in red (purple, really) states, either with hostile legislatures or overcoming vast party registration barriers? Some would argue populist tons, gut-believing, policy positions, luck, etc. While all of those are important, I would note that all of these politicians have co-opted issues from both sides to deliver results for their state. Call it Clintonism, triangulation or just good politics, these governors have an ability to get things done for their states.
Third, in Colorado where no sitting governor exists, Bill Ritter has opened up a good (if not strong) lead in the race. This pro-life Democrat is surprising everyone, I think, with the intensity of his campaign. He has picked up endorsements from Republicans, speaks upfront about "the legitimate role of government" in protecting the environment and investing in education, and wants to look at raising fuel efficienct standards. By adding Ritter to the mix, Democratic governors will be dominating in almost all Western states (save Utah and Idaho).
This, I think, shows how well the Western Democrat philosophy maintains out here.
Landon Mascareñaz | July 5, 2006 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
Could John Edwards win in the West?
This week, I spent a couple of days with Senator John Edwards - the once and future presidential candidate.
I had a chance to ask him about the Western Democrat strategy: changing the map by contesting the inland mountain west. His answer surprised and impressed me. I asked a geographic question, and he gave me a cultural answer.
To paraphrase, he argued that the lesson of the West is that authenticity and plain-speaking is critical. Since I wasn't taking notes (it was a private party), I can't quote him - but he expanded on this thought the next day in Seattle:
"My own view is the next president of the United States, or certainly the one after, is likely to be the single candidate who doesn't sound like a politician," he said. "I want to tell you on a personal level, I'm trying every way I know how not to do it." ... "We've been trained to do the wrong thing," he concluded. "That's the problem." ..."I'm trying to retrain and recondition myself when I get asked a question to actually answer it -- to not say what I've been trained to say, to not say what's careful and cautious..."
Of course, this is exactly what we've been saying here at Western Democrat since the beginning. He may not be a Westerner, but he's clearly learned the lessons of Brian Schweitzer, John Hickenlooper, Ken Salazar, Rocky Anderson (and others).
Not only is he getting authentic, John Edwards seems to have recommitted himself to the populist message of his presidential primary campaign. He made a pitch for a big boost in the minimum wage, fighting poverty, and universal health coverage (truly universal, "not those politician weasel words like 'affordable' or 'access'")
Could a Southerner win in the West? With a populist message and some straight talk, he just might.
Kari Chisholm | July 1, 2006 | Comment on This Post (4 so far) |
The West is not "nowhere"
In the Monterey County Herald, John Yewell takes note of the coastal love affair with Montana politicians - and then slaps around the East-Coast and West-Coast Democrats who keep talking about "the middle of nowhere".
Kos is a big fan of Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a dark horse favorite of many Democrats to run for president in 2008. He's got that Reaganesque, tall-in-the-saddle swagger that lefties have long envied, mixed with a compelling, can-do populism. Winning in blood-red states like Montana takes a candidate with a hat and cattle who knows how to solve problems by using government, not demonizing it. Many liberals, hungry for a win, have become enamored of this new breed of outdoorsy Dem.But when it comes to grasping the fingernail-dirt nature of rural politics, they stumble.
Recently, after Schweitzer protégé Jon Tester won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate race against incumbent Republican Conrad Burns, Berkeley-based Kos rhapsodized over Tester, a rancher from Big Sandy, happily noting that Tester came from "the middle of nowhere."
A few days later Newsweek's Howard Fineman, in a Web commentary titled "Outside the Beltway," picked up on Kos's riff, arguing that the Democratic Party may need to find leadership outside its traditional power centers of Washington, New York and California if it wants to win the White House in 2008.
Like Kos, Fineman couldn't resist the idea of this new kind of Democrat. "So that's the place to start from in this new political era," he wrote, "not Washington, but the middle of nowhere."
Kos and Fineman have a funny way of paying a compliment -- which brings me to the Democrat's long-standing Achilles' heel.
The Democrats' Eastern liberal establishment as well as its West Coast websurgents have taken note of Schweitzer, and that Democrats are winning in conservative states. But they haven't shed their elitist attitudes about interior America. As long as the party remains largely bicoastal and fails to recognize that there is no "nowhere," it won't grasp how Democrats win in places like the Rocky Mountain West, where political success is as much about style and custom as it is about policy.
If they don't get that clue soon, don't learn to speak the language of millions of Americans, Democrats won't take control of either the House or Senate in 2006, or the White House in 2008. And that could spell the end of the party, along the lines of the Whig collapse of the 1850s.
Read the rest. Discuss.
Kari Chisholm | June 21, 2006 | Comment on This Post (10 so far) |
Early Primary Calendar: Why not Oregon?
Editor's note: The following is a guest column by Scott Bellows of Eugene, Oregon. Scott describes himself as a "lawyer, mediator, writer, parent, and politics geek."
From Sunday's Washington Post:
The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee yesterday dealt a blow to New Hampshire Democrats hoping to keep their coveted place in the presidential nominating schedule, agreeing by voice vote to a plan that would place one or two caucuses between the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 14, 2008, and the New Hampshire primary eight days later.The proposal, which grew from recommendations by a commission studying how to make the nominating process more diverse both racially and geographically, would also add one or two primaries after the New Hampshire contest but before Feb. 5 -- the date after which any state is free to schedule a vote.
The next step in the process is for states hoping to win an early place in 2008 to submit their proposals to the Rules and Bylaws Committee by April 14. Representatives from states hoping to move up can also make a personal pitch to the committee during the Democratic National Committee's spring meeting April 20-22 in New Orleans.
Most observers believe the additional states will come from the South and the West -- two rapidly growing areas that offer a diverse electorate. South Carolina, Arkansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Alabama and Mississippi are among the states under consideration.
Which for me raises two questions:
1. What states are most likely to result in an early victory by a dark horse other than the presumptive frontrunner? THOSE are the states we want to add, because power-broker-engineered juggernauts (more here) both are bad for democracy and, contrary to conventional wisdom, tend to result in candidates who lose in the general election.
2. Why are the only Western states being considered located in the Southwest? Marketing experts commonly test new advertising campaigns in Oregon because it's representative of the nation's overall demographics (it has everything from hippies to farmers to cowboys to millworkers), and because advertising costs are relatively low; those same factors, plus the fact that the state demographically mirrors parts of the more influential states California and Washington and would draw strong media coverage from those larger markets, make Oregon a great choice for an early primary.
Kari Chisholm | March 13, 2006 | Comment on This Post (13 so far) |
Norton resigns (as ethically challenged), where in the West will Bush go?
Norton's tenure was also marked by repeated ethical controversies. Norton cleared her top deputy, former lobbyist J. Steven Griles, after her inspector general said his conduct showed that the department's ethics system was "a train wreck waiting to happen." Griles is now under investigation for allegations that he did the bidding of convicted Indian casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Norton is still supporting him.Abramoff also funneled more than $500,000 to one of Norton's former political aides, Italia Federici, to gain access to her department, which makes key decisions about which tribes can open casinos. Norton said she had no qualms about Federici's activities.
Federici, president of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, quickly released a statement praising Norton.
“The environmental benefits of her actions on behalf of Cooperative Conservation will be reaped for years to come,” Federici said in the statement.
Norton's BLM director Kathleen Clarke remained after apparently violating her recusals from a Utah land-swap that investigators said would have shortchanged the federal government. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said the deal involved a "jaw-dropping ... apparent cover-up" within Norton's department.
She also suffered bad publicity when the head of the National Park Service police was fired after talking to a reporter and congressional staff about budget shortfalls.
Norton was also the first Bush cabinet official to be held in contempt, though the ruling regarding Indian trust issues was later overruled by an appeals court.
The Indian trust case metastasized from an obscure bookkeeping mess to a drain on Norton's entire department. She once said the issue occupied her top staff more than any other issue.
In the National Journal Political Insider's Poll last year, she was voted the second-most underrated Bush cabinet secretary by Republican operatives who credited her with pursuing Bush's pro-development agenda with a minimum of bad publicity.
With Gale Norton resigning this morning, there is an opening in the most Western of cabinet positions. Among Democrats, this is the position once held by such Coyote Dems as Bruce Babbitt and Cecil Andrus. The Interior Department is the third most senior domestic cabinet secretary and because of the amount of federal land in the West, the most influential out here.
With plans to sell of more federal land, expand oil and gas and recent aborted congressional plans to make mining easier -- all efforts to inhibit local control and expand corporate control of Western lands -- who do you think Bush will nominate?
Who is your perfect Interior Secretary?
Emmett O'Connell | March 10, 2006 | Comment on This Post (12 so far) |
Cry for the roadless rule
When the Bush administration announced their plan for handling the Clinton era Roadless Rule, I chimed in saying that we shouldn't be afraid (as Western Democrats) of Bush's idea. The opening of allowing Western governors a chance to influence the final product was a place for Western Democrats to show how they could wisely balance local concerns and by coming up with a better plan that the federal government.
Now, they're just ignoring what our Western governors are saying and going their own way. Washington state recently joined a lawsuit with California, Oregon and New Mexico to force the federal government to listen to the locals.
Now we can complain, but ironically because the Republican federal government is ignoring the concerns of states, that according to the Western Republican credo have a better understanding of what is going on in their own communities. "Screw local communities though, we want to make some money," is pretty much what the rest of the GOP is saying.
So, chock with one up with Rep. Jim Gibbons plan to sell federal land to big companies back east and the federal government allowing gas and oil to run over ranchers. Oh, and I might as well mention the administration's plan to pay for tax cuts by increasing the utility bills of Northwesterners and by selling public land to companies back east.
Emmett O'Connell | February 11, 2006 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |