CA-Gov: Will “Big Oil” Matter?

Oil is a big issue these days.  For some reason, people seem to think that it is overpriced.  But if you ask me, it’s still cheaper than Evian ($1.85 for a half gallon at Safeway!).  I’m sorry, but until gas is more expensive than bottled water, I can’t be all that concerned.  To me the problem isn’t so much the gas prices as the way our economy is built to rely on cheap gas.  Personally, after having seen An Inconvenient Truth I think we need to dramatically reorganize our economy to interalize the costs of oil. 

But that’s not how either candidate for governor sees it, so we go with what we got.  The populist feeling is that gas is too expensive, and that the oil companies are responsible for that.  According to a Field Poll from last August,

The recent big increases in gasoline prices are viewed by 71% of Californians as a serious matter, particularly by those with lower levels of income. The run-up in fuel prices has forced a sizeable segment (40%) to cut back on other areas of spending, and to some extent, change their driving habits in ways that reduce gasoline consumption.

A majority of Californians (58%) places a lot of the blame for the current surge in gasoline prices on the oil companies. More than four in ten also ascribe a lot of the blame to the Bush administration (47%) and to foreign oil-producing countries (41%). (Field Poll)

Both candidates have responded to these sentiments.  Schwarzenegger ordered an investigation to see if oil companies were price-gouging. Angelides has countered by supporting Proposition 87, which would charge oil companies for every barrel of oil extracted in California and then spend the money on alternative energy.  Now, California itself has little power to truly affect the gas price situation, but when TV cameras are rolling, why would a lack of authority stop a gubenatorial candidate from pontificating?

At an Earth Day beach cleanup in April, Schwarzenegger said he was prepared to go after oil companies if he found they engaged in price gouging. He noted that “some people have to make a choice between having money for food or putting more money into gas.”

Schwarzenegger in April directed state agencies to work toward having California produce 20 percent of its own biofuels by 2010 and 40 percent by 2020. In 2004, he called for a “Hydrogen Highway” that would place hydrogen stations every 20 miles in California on major roadways.

State Treasurer Angelides said Californians “are ready to find ways to cut their gasoline use, save the family budget and help the environment.” He has pledged to reduce fossil fuel use by 25 percent over the next decade in California and wants all vehicles sold in-state to be capable of running on ethanol or other alternative fuels.
***
Angelides said the November initiative would give Californians much-desired alternatives to oil while cutting into record energy profits. Schwarzenegger campaign spokeswoman Katie Levinson said the governor opposes it because it imposes a new tax, though she carefully described his position in a statement. (SacBee 7/3/06)

Angelides has been taking the position that Republicans in general, especially Bush, are to blame for the gas crisis.  And connecting Shwarzenegger to Bush isn’t really that hard (I’m talking to you Steve Schmidt).  The presence of Prop 87 means that there will at least be plenty of discussion about oil prices as we head into the election.  If gas prices continue to rise, it might become even bigger.  The issue can get wrapped up with the environmental and coastal protection issues that have been getting plenty of attention as well.  But if we see $4.00, get ready for lots of talk on the subject.

Pink Campaigns – A new one-issue information blog

(I’ve written before about my qualms with the HRC and over at DownWithTyranny, they have as well. An HRC endorsement alone should not be enough to warrant support, a little research can go a long way. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

those of you who already know me might also know about my blog Turn Tahoe Blue which aims of doing just that and covers news and campaigns in the Lake Tahoe area.

Today, I started a new one-issue information blog called Pink Campaigns. This blog intends to inform you on what Democratic candidates for Congress and Governor state on their campaign websites on GLBT issues. If you would like to know more on the “What? Why? Who? How?” please read on below the fold.

What? Why? Who? How?

I’ve become very disenheartened with candidates running for office who will gladly accept the pink buck but who will not campaign on pink issues.

Or, if you’re not that enthused about the color reference: Why is it so hard for many candidates to publish their positions on GLBT issues on their campaign website? Because many don’t. Even those candidates by whom you’d expect it.

So, you can probably understand why I was positively surprised, even a little stunned, when I saw a clear statement by a Democratic candidate for Congress:

I believe that my marriage to my one-and-only wife of 18 years, Polly, will not lose its sanctity if we treat all Americans equally.

That candidate also clearly states his views on GLBT issues. Now, you might assume that I’m writing about a candidate from California or New York, someone running in a large city with a large GLBT community.

Well, you’d be wrong. The candidate’s name is David Gill and he’s running in one of the reddest districts in rural Illinois. Maybe now you can understand why I was stunned that such a candidate would even talk, positively talk, about GLBT issues.

Now, some of you may remember the outcry on some blogs on the Human Rights Campaign’s decision to endorse Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island over his Democratic challenger. Because I’m a curious guy I figured I’d just take a look at the HRC’s list of endorsed candidates and was quite surprised by what I saw. Some candidates were obviously chosen because they are vulnerable incumbents, some because they’re strong advocates of GLBT issues and others because they might oust a Republican incumbent who is a foe of GLBT issues. That’s all mighty fine and it’s the HRC’s decision who they decide to endorse but something really got me wondering.

Of the 13 endorsed candidates only two find GLBT issues important enough to put them on their issues page of their campaign website and actually campaign on them. It seems quite clear to me that accepting the pink buck is not equivalent to campaigning on pink issues.

So, I’ve decided to look at the campaign websites of all Democratic candidates, whether they’re incumbents or not, running for Congress or Governor and find out whether or not they will clearly state their views on at least one GLBT issue.

I will portray the candidates who do so on this blog. I will quote what they have to say, will link to their campaign website and their contributions page and will give you some information on the district and the results of the last election.

Any candidate can make it on this list. There are a few conditions, though. The candidate has to have a campaign website (quite a few incumbents don’t have one (yet?)) and the candidate clearly has to state what s/he is for, specifically. Just saying you’re against the Federal Marriage Amendment won’t do the trick, neither will some statement that you support “equality for all”. At least the words GLBT, homosexual, or sexual orientation (even if I don’t like that term) have to appear. If a candidate is campaigning on his past achievements and clearly states on the campaign websites what s/he has done for GLBT issues in the past that will make her/him also eligable for this page.

This will be a work in progress. I will publish these candidate profiles regularly. If there is a primary somewhere and there are several candidates running for the same office I will publish the profiles before the primary. I am aware that many candidates, especially incumbents, haven’t started campaigning in earnest, yet. So, I will take a look at their campaign websites on a regular basis. If you will find that a candidate has changed the wording on her/his website after I publish her/his profile, please let me know.

And, finally, a disclaimer. The profiles are not an endorsement of any candidate. If a candidate you like will not be featured in the end, it’s because s/he hasn’t met the criteria I mentioned above. A lot of your favourite candidates may not make this site, and a few candidates you dislike might get profiled. That’s the way it goes and one thing you can be certain of: I feel the same way as you do. While researching for this blog I was very disappointed to see that many of my favourite candidates do not include GLBT issues on their website. So, if your favourite candidate is such a case you might just wanna write to her or him and complain to them and not to me.

I’ve entered 7 profiles today including one from California. Click here to enter Pink Campaigns.

California Blog Roundup, 7/3/06

Today’s California Blog Roundup is on the flip. Teasers: Phil Angelides, Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA-50, CA-04, CA-11, Richard Pombo, John Doolittle, Brian Bilbray, corruption, environment, budget, initiatives, salmon, other environment, clean money.

More Initatives. Oy.

Governor’s Race

Bilbray / CA-50

Paid-For Pombo / CA-11

15% Doolittle / CA-04

  • Abramoff pays Julie Doolittle. 15% Doolittle, devout anti-gambling religious Mormon helps out Abramoff’s Indian gaming clients. Move along. No corruption here. 15% Doolittle can’t be bought. He’s an upright man, a family man, a religious man.
  • Dump Doolittle points us to an Auburn Journal piece on the bases of support for the two CA-04 candidates.
  • So here’s how our federal government “works” after 12 years of Republican majority rule: citizens pay our taxes, federal representatives ignore us and our local governments until our local governments use our taxes pay lobbyists, lobbyists give the federal reps campaign donations, fancy dinners, junkets, and jobs, and then our taxes sometimes come back to some of us (less a percentage off the top) on that basis. The Republicans: standing for the right to get rich in government since at least 1994.

Other Republican Paragons

Environment

Reform

Legislature

Miscellany