Repudiating the Bush Era

Just a quickie. This clearly has been a bad, bad week for U.S. Sen. John McCain, but I think he hit rock bottom with his tortured -- and just plain wrong -- description of the surge in Iraq at a press conference in the cheese aisle -- the cheese aisle -- of a supermarket. McCain, a true military hero, was supposed to be the candidate strong on national defense.

It was supposed to be a wedge issue, an extra sharp distinction between him and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama. Instead, he's left standing in front of plastic packages of neon colored cheese slices. McCain looked even more overripe than usual under the bright fluorescent lights. He looked whey bad. The grating episode got started when McCain -- blinking even more than ususal -- did an interview with Katie Couric and shredded the surge timeline. Strangely, CBS sliced the gaffe right out. But in the world of blogging and YouTube, it quickly ripened, finding its way to the political surface in no time; CBS quickly aired it in its entirety.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann highlighted the fromage case presser with a handy-dandy timeline. You can watch it here:

McCain's wheel down the cheese aisle may seem funny, but this is no laughing matter. This is only the latest in a series of frightening mistakes that curdles my blood. The bottom rind: this man is not fit to be president.

An article in today's Washington Post is enough to make even the most experienced Washington hands sweat. A new EPA report has concluded that climate change does, in fact, pose grave pubic health risks including, but not limited to, death, destruction, and making summers in Washington D.C. even less bearable. Of course, as Melissa Merz noted last week, the White House has also decided that the EPA will not regulate the very emissions that cause these grave public health risks. Go figure.

From the article by David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin:

Climate change will pose "substantial" threats to human health in the coming decades, the Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday -- issuing its warnings about heat waves, hurricanes and pathogens just days after the agency declined to regulate the pollutants blamed for warming.

In a new report, the EPA said "it is very likely" that more people will die during extremely hot periods in future years -- and that the elderly, the poor and those in inner cities will be most at risk.

Other possible dangers include more powerful hurricanes, shrinking supplies of fresh water in the West, and the increased spread of diseases contracted through food and water, the agency said.

The strong warnings highlighted the contorted position that the EPA has staked out on climate change. Last week, the agency decided not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, at least not until after President Bush's term ends.

A former EPA official told a House panel this week that senior administration officials and several Cabinet members supported regulating the emissions before the White House changed course and barred the EPA from concluding that they endanger public welfare.

The most surprising part of this report is that the White House actually let it get released – unlike other climate reports earlier in the administration. So, just as the government informs itself (and, surprisingly, the public) that it should be doing something about this tremendous risk to the future of humanity, we learn that President Bush will not, so as to maintain his legacy.

[Former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett] also told the panel that senior EPA officials met with representatives from Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, who argued that Bush should not undermine his legacy by regulating greenhouse gases.

This is quite the legacy that President Bush is preserving while the climate changes, ignoring reports of the EPA and a Supreme Court ruling (not to mention common sense and broad scientific consensus). Last time I checked, the vast majority of Americans were not huge fans of the President’s legacy. Perhaps he should use the last few months of his failed presidency to try something (anything) new.

I remember someone who won a lot of votes 8 years ago as having some decent ideas.

Las Vegas, NV - Throughout the Primary elections, several political pundits and news media reported on what they considered was a problem for US Senator Barack Obama. The common perception was that since US Senator Hillary Clinton was outperforming Senator Obama among Hispanic voters by more than 2:1, then this must be a problem for Senator Obama. In addition, they generated much commentary around the assumption that there must be racial tensions among Hispanic and African American voters because Senator Obama was not performing as well as Senator Clinton among this crucial voting group.

That was the Primary though, and now we have moved on to the General election. Every major poll that been released shows Senator Obama leading US Senator John McCain by at least a 2:1 ratio including the most recent NY Times/CBS poll that shows Senator Obama leading Senator McCain, 62% to 23%. The question is, when we will see the headline, "Senator McCain has a Latino Problem." In addition, when will we see the news media begin reporting the on the willingness of Hispanic voters to support and African American candidate.  If the standard for making the case in the Primary was a 2:1 lead, then shouldn't that same standard be considered now.  It is also a real problem for me to know that news media was willing to sensationalize an alleged conflict between Hispanic and African American voters, but lack the appetite to report on the harmony that is now apparent. In fact most reporting on race relations now centers on a potential divide between African American and White voters.  The discussion on race relations seems to ignore Hispanics.

I don't know when the news media will begin to accept this reality, but I know that at least Senator McCain understands the gravity of the situation. Senator McCain has been engaging in a full court press to woo Latino voters. He has hired one of the best Hispanic advertising gurus in the business, Lionel Sosa, who guided President Bush to record levels of support among Hispanic voters for a Republican presidential candidate, he is making the rounds at every major conference of the leading national Hispanic organizations, he has launched an aggressive media campaign targeted at Hispanic voters, and is pretty much willing to do whatever it takes to reach out to Hispanic voters. For a Senator who was supposed to have an easy task at courting Hispanic voters, these actions look more like signs of desperation than confidence. At this point, Senator McCain is polling anywhere from 17%-21% lower than President Bush's 2004 levels depending on which polls you reference.

During the 2008 NCLR Annual Conference these past four days, several operatives of Senator McCain's campaign have acknowledged that they are aware of Senator McCain's Latino problem. They state that Senator McCain is suffering from a damaged Republican brand among Hispanic voters due to the GOP's anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic rhetoric over the last couple of years. I think that they are correct that this is a major reason why Senator McCain has a Latino problem, but one of the other important reasons Senator McCain is struggling among Hispanic voters is "trust." Senator McCain tried to address this issue during the NCLR conference by stating that he hopes his past actions have earned the "trust" of Hispanic voters. However, the Senator McCain that we know today is not the same as the Senator McCain we knew of before, and Senator McCain we just don't know if we can trust you anymore. The NY Times/CBS Poll states that 59% of Hispanics think Senator McCain does not believe his own rhetoric.   This above all else is why Senator McCain has a Latino problem.

UPDATE***

Shortly after posting this, I recieved polling information from Gallup on the issue of race relations between Hispanics and African Americans.  I think that the information is very important so, I am posting there findings here.

The generally positive review of black-Hispanic relations in Gallup polling among members of the two leading U.S. minority groups contrasts with considerable media speculation about the impact of Hispanic animosity toward blacks in this year's primary elections.

Some of that commentary has speculated that the trend is getting worse as the Hispanic population grows and starts to outnumber blacks in some neighborhoods and entire cities. Others posit that older Hispanics are more likely than the younger generation to harbor biases and resentments against blacks.

In a January 2008 New York Times article titled, "In Obama's Pursuit of Latinos, Race Plays Role," the authors write, "Mr. Obama confronts a history of often uneasy and competitive relations between blacks and Hispanics, particularly as they have jockeyed for influence in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. 'Many Latinos are not ready for a person of color,' Natasha Carrillo, 20, of East Los Angeles, said. 'I don't think many Latinos will vote for Obama. There's always been tension in the black and Latino communities. There's still that strong ethnic division. I helped organize citizenship drives, and those who I've talked to support Clinton.'"

While black-Hispanic animosity may exist and could even have been a factor in some state caucuses or primaries, the Gallup data indicates it is not overwhelmingly obvious to members of either group. Whites are much more likely to believe the two are in conflict.

Waking up to this morning's papers, I can't decide if it's worse to be someone who has to breathe or worse to be a spokesperson. I suppose I do both.

I usually don't blog about the environment. I leave that up to our Green Team and the incredibly whip-smart head of our Green Project, Michael Moynihan. You can read his much more technical and interesting blog posts here.

But, hey, I take my own bags to the grocery and recycle roughly the equivalent of a K2-sized mountain of Diet Coke cans (OK, and a few wine bottles) each week. So I have the street creds to write this blog.

So, down to the business at hand. Let me get this straight, because it's not easy. According to an article by the Washington Post's super sharp Juliet Eilperin (who has the somewhat crazy job of covering the weird, parallel universe beats of the envrionment and U.S. Sen. John McCain's presidential bid), the U.S. EPA was ordered sometime last year by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS, if you want to be really hip) to determine whether greenhouse gases were bad. Duh. EPA at first issued a report from its scientists and staff, saying, yeah, they're pretty bad. They hurt humans who breathe the air (like, all of us) and contribute to global warming, also bad. But wait. President Bush, the consumate oil man, got other federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (who knew USDA was such a bully?) to gang up on EPA and say that Western civilization as we know it would end if EPA did anything to help us breathe easier under the Clean Air Act. Best to punt to Congress, which recently failed itself to do anything. And in another bizarre twist, the EPA decided that although it announced its own findings were DOA the day they were announced, they would open up the proposal for public comment. WHAT? WHY BOTHER? That's like getting people to sign a guest book at a wedding then tossing it before the end of the reception.

So, is it worse to be human and have to breathe or worse to be a press secretary when you have to lie through your teeth? Which is exactly what White House flak Dana Perino did yesterday when she said acting on greenhouse gases and global warming would cause gas prices and home heating costs to go up. You go, girl. Play on those fears of the average family when you get paid a zillion dollars a year to spin away. Oh, but wait. She said we should we should invest in alternative fuels. I suppose she means drilling in ANWR, which would provide enough oil to keep us going for about a nanosecond.

But there is hope. NDN and the Green Project ACTUALLY do believe in exploring different ways to reduce pollution and increase output from alternative energy sources. That's why we are hosting a lunch next week with the head of our Globalization Initiative, Dr. Rob Shapiro, who has co-authored a thought provoking paper on a carbon tax that would reduce the payroll tax. That's why Michael is hard at work on what promises to be a compelling paper on why extending the solar tax credit is a legisative no-brainer and that's why we were thrilled earlier this week when U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, spoke to the NDN Community. You can read his very insightful comments here.

And to conclude (while I can still draw enough breath to type), a separate front-page article in the Washington Post had more bad news for those of us who can't hold our breath until we die. A federal appeals courth has thrown out a Bush Administration effort to reduce unhealthy levels of soot and smog (read: black junk in the air that coats your lungs) because the court said EPA had overstepped its bounds. Call me zany, but if EPA itsn't supposed to reduce black crud in the air, what is it supposed to do?

So, in sum, we have the White House reject policy in favor of politics. The losers: humans who breathe. We have a White House press secretary who added considerable amounts of her own hot air into the atmosphere (bad). The losers: humans who breathe. And to top off this stellar day, we have a federal appeals court who thinks the EPA shouldn't do anything more than give awards to 5th graders who win the local science fair. The losers: humans who breathe.

As a human being and press secretary, I am ashamed. I have to go now. I'm feeling a little short of breath.

In a Newsweek Op-Ed yesterday, Fareed Zakaria rails against current American climate and energy policy (or lack thereof) in the context of this week’s G-8 in Hokkaido, Japan.

Whether it's Barack Obama or John McCain who enters the White House in January, the new president could well find his approval ratings sliding fast. The increasingly grim economic news is likely to overshadow all else. Britain's prime minister, Gordon Brown, is already experiencing this reality. While most of the British media would argue (vigorously) that Brown's low poll ratings relate to his charisma, or lack thereof, he is also clearly suffering the political effects of economic malaise.

Like the United States, Britain is going through a credit crunch, a financial crisis and a housing collapse all at the same time. Brown, however, argues that the central problem is skyrocketing food and fuel prices—"that's what hurts the average family most," he said in a conversation last Tuesday. Brown said he hoped that the Group of Eight countries would take them on at its summit in Hokkaido, Japan, this week. "The great challenge for the G-8 is, can we coordinate policies to prevent crises. In the 1980s, we had currency coordination. But with finance globalized, that's not the challenge of the present," he said. "The new problem, worldwide, is energy. We need to coordinate our energy policies."

Brown argues that even in the short- and medium-term, the G-8 countries could do something. "The market assumes that demand will always increase, and in a circumstance of constrained supply, that means prices rise. But we can send a signal that demand is going to moderate, that we are serious about efficiency and alternative energy sources. But it would have to be a clear signal sent by all the major consuming countries."

Last month, Britain laid out plans to generate 35 percent of its electricity needs from renewables by 2020—up from 5 percent now. The country is already the world's largest generator of wind power (with mostly off-shore turbines) and plans to generate 60 times current levels in 12 years. It has also cleared regulations to increase nuclear energy. "You cannot get to a new energy mix without a substantial rise in nuclear power," Brown said.

The contrast with Washington is blinding. George Bush still has not made a serious speech, announced a serious plan or presented Congress with a serious set of laws to move the country toward new energy sources. With oil prices at their highest levels since the discovery of oil (even in inflation-adjusted dollars), and with their rise threatening to push the country and the world toward 1970s-style stagflation—he hasn't brought himself do it. And while we stand pat, the rest of the world is moving. In a recent ranking of countries for environmental performance, jointly produced by Yale and Columbia universities, the United States came in 39th, well behind every other advanced industrial country. (Germany ranked 13, Britain 14 and Japan 21.)

Washington's inaction also stands in contrast to intense activity in the private sector, fascinatingly described in Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn's new book, "Earth: The Sequel." Krupp heads the Environmental Defense Fund, but this is not a gloomy global warming tirade. It's an optimistic account of the progress being made by American industry in renewable energy. The authors explore every new technology, from solar to wind to geothermal, and introduce the men and women who are inventing the future.

But they would be the first to point out that, even though American research labs are rising to the challenge, government action remains vital. The idea that government should "stay out" is meaningless. It is in knee-deep already; energy is a highly regulated industry. In fact, it's notable that we have low productivity and runaway inflation in two crucial areas these days—food and fuel. Both have been nationalized, protected or subsidized by governments around the world for decades. A host of regulatory and legal barriers make renewable and small-scale energy production less attractive, profitable and manageable than it could be. But Krupp and Horn focus on the central policy change that the United States needs to make—enacting a cap on carbon. America is the only developed country that does not put a price on carbon.

Imagine if President Bush were to announce at the G-8 summit that the United States would institute a cap on emissions. We would instantly have the world's largest carbon market and it would, instantly, change the price of clean energy. It would unleash a tsunami of economic activity in renewables that could, over time, give American productivity the next big boost it needs. It would, of course, also quickly send a signal to the market about future demand for oil, which would in turn affect the price.

But somehow I don't think that's what Bush is going to say in Hokkaido this week.

Zakaria is right to suggest that America do what much of the rest of the world seems to know we must: restore American leadership globally by comprehensively tackling climate change and reforming energy policy. He also knows that by doing so, we will address demand for fossil fuels, and fundamentally alter the current energy and economic paradigms. Solutions to the energy and climate dilemmas are not, as some argue, mutually exclusive. Rather, creating a prosperous 21st century depends on understanding that they can be one in the same. The private sector has figured this out, and is making a lot of money while doing so. Let’s see if the government can’t get the picture too.

Peter Beinart, from a nifty op-ed in the Washington Post:

In "The Best and the Brightest," David Halberstam chronicles Lyndon Johnson's absolute terror of appearing soft on Communism. Having seen fellow Democrats destroyed in the early 1950s because they tolerated a Communist victory in China, Johnson swore that he would not let the story replay itself in Vietnam, and thus pushed America into war. The awful irony, Halberstam argues, is that Johnson's fears were unfounded. The mid-1960s were not the early 1950s. The Red Scare was over. But because it lived on in Johnson's mind, he could not grasp the realities of a new day.

In this way, 2008 is a lot like 1964. On foreign policy, many Democrats live in terror of being called soft, of provoking the kind of conservative assault that has damaged so many of their presidential nominees since Vietnam. But that fear reflects memories of the past, not the realities of today. When Democrats worry about the backlash that awaits Barack Obama if he defends civil liberties, or endorses withdrawal from Iraq, or proposes unconditional negotiations with Iran, they are seeing ghosts. Fundamentally, the politics of foreign policy have changed.

Gary Hart has an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today, which echoes many of the themes we offered in our Mother Jones piece last summer, the 50-Year Strategy.

Last week, I was fortunate to join a dicussion about the swing states and various other issues that might come up during the 2008 general election that was coordinated by Salon.  Today, they uploaded the podcast of that discussion as well as the transcript.   The panel was moderated by Tom Schaller and included Paul Maslin and Ross Douthat.  It was a great opportunity for NDN to talk about the changing demographics and how they might impact the election, and the growing impact the the western states will play in determining the next President. Click below to listen.

As reported by Reuters, the European Union agreed yesterday to end sanctions against Cuba, although it will insist the Communist island improves its human rights record. EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner told reporters, "Cuban sanctions will be lifted," after foreign ministers of the 27-nation bloc clinched agreement at a summit dinner in Brussles. Ferrero-Waldner added, "Of course there is clear language on human rights, on the detention of prisoners and there will have to be a review also."

According to EU sources, the decision - taken despite U.S. calls for the world to "remain tough" on Havana - will be reviewed after one year.  Spain reportedly led the push for a softening in policy towards Cuba, meeting some resistance from the bloc's ex-communist members and the Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt. The sanctions had already been suspended in 2005, and unlike the U.S. embargo, the sanctions did not prevent trade and investment.  Regardless, this is a major policy change, and lifting the sanctions is at odds with the current U.S policy towards Cuba.

Despite the current hard-line approach to Cuba in the U.S., could the EU's decision foreshadow what might become U.S. policy under a new president? Reuters reported that a draft it obtained of the EU agreement calls on Cuban authorities to: improve human rights, including unconditional release of political prisoners, ratification U.N. rights conventions, and giving humanitarian organizations access to Cuban jails. This sounds very similar to what Sen. Barack Obama said just a few weeks ago as he delivered a major speech on Latin American Foreign Policy before the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF): "My policy toward Cuba will begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair."

Like Sen. John McCain, Sen. Obama would maintain an embargo on Cuba, but only as "leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations."  Sen. Obama sees "principled diplomacy" as the way to bring about real change in Cuba. In his speech, Sen. Obama criticized what he called the eight years of "the Bush record in Latin America," i.e., having been, "negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the [American] region...The United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged....The situation has changed in the Americas, but we've failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people of the region, we've acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally....the future security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the future of the Americas.  If we don't turn away from the policies of the past, then we won't be able to shape the future."

Sen. Obama's idea of a "new alliance of the Americas," at the center of that major speech, has been greeted with favor by Cuban-Americans from all political camps. It seems they agree with Sen. Obama's position that American politicians go "to Miami every four years, they talk tough, they go back to Washington, and nothing changes in Cuba....the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after year, decade after decade."

Barack Obama's proposal for change with Latin America favors discussion with "friend and foe alike," in order to be a "leader and not a bystander." Under his proposal, Sen. Obama would:

1) Reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in the White House.

2) Expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas; expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to "deepen the trust and the ties among our people."

3) With respect to Cuba, he would allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island.

4) He would maintain the embargo, but also work with the Cuban regime to examine normalizing relations if it takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners.

5) Increase international aid, investment promotion, and economic development in Latin America.

6) Develop democracy through negotiations, "Put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas."

It's important to note that Sen. Obama delivered this ground-breaking speech and revolutionary proposals in front of the CANF - the group previously known for being one of the most hard-line on Cuba policy, rejecting anything other than the overthrow of Castro as acceptable policy.  But the CANF applauded. Soon after that speech, the founder of Women in White, Miriam Leiva, and her recently freed dissident husband, Oscar Chepe, also wrote an open letter to Barack Obama; they applauded his offer to allow Cuban Americans to freely visit relatives here.

They also wrote that a more creative policy could help the transition towards democracy.  It seems that times are-a-changing, and everyone recognizes that the status quo has not been effective for anyone.  Sen.Obama and these groups are picking up on what NDN advocated before it was popular, before this change in public perception had occurred. NDN has been a pioneer on the issue of policy with Cuba; in 2006 NDN conducted an important poll with Bendixen and Associates. The poll showed that 72% of Cuban-Americans in South Florida were actually open to consideration of creative means of engaging the people of Cuba and its government to accelerate democratization. The poll also showed that support for the trade embargo, restrictions on travel and restrictions on remittances all dropped ten percentage points over one year.