I have little doubt that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Nominee had it not been for her caving to right wing talking points and voting for the Iraq War. Being on the wrong side the the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation is what advanced her career from inevitable nominee to junior senator. At the time, many of us in the netroots were flabbergasted, we knew it was a disastrous course of action and came to the conclusion that those who sided with George Bush and the neocons either had no grasp of the situation or were doing it for as a purely political calculation (and a poor one at that as Clinton discovered).
Iraq was the single biggest foreign policy decision, but when it comes to the global climate crisis, I’m getting a sense of déjà vu from the positioning and language used by San Francisco Mayor and 2010 California Gubernatorial hopeful Gavin Newsom as to why he’s siding with PG&E against the Sierra Club on clean, renewable energy.
As was reported this morning on Clean Energy Act getting seven of eleven votes on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and thus qualifying for the 2008 fall ballot:
San Francisco supervisors Tuesday approved the submission of a November ballot measure calling on the city to produce more than half of its energy through renewable sources within a decade, and also explore a move toward city control of its power.
The San Francisco Clean Energy Act calls for the city to fulfill 51 percent of its energy needs through renewable energy by 2017, rising to 75 percent by 2030, and 100 percent “or the greatest amount technologically feasible or practicable” by 2040.
The Charter Amendment says San Francisco wants clean, renewable energy and we need to set our sights on it and figure out how to make it happen. Sounds like something a Democrat facing a Democratic Primary would want to support, especially in light of Al Gore’s bold call to action to act even more aggressively.
Right Wing Talking Points Emerge
Democrats step up to fight against global climate change and you’ll be shocked to know that the polluters fought back using right-wing talking points:
A host of big-name politicos, including several supervisors, Assemblyman Mark Leno and former Public Utilities Commission manager Susan Leal, gathered on the steps of City Hall Tuesday to support the act.
“This is our time,” Supervisor Tom Ammiano said. “We’re going to win, and we’ll keep the lights on for you.”
Opponents, including Pacific Gas and Electric Co., say voters would see their utility rates spike if the city turns to public power. In mailers sent to voters last week, PG&E also says city government can’t even fill potholes and shouldn’t be granted another responsibility.
Look at the language in the mail. It didn’t defend PG&E, it attacked the very concept that government can deliver services. To defend PG&E’s monopoly profits, they are going after the very fundamentals of government. So did Mayor Gavin Newsom defend his city’s government, of buy into the right-wing talking points:
“Let’s call it what it is, it’s a public power initiative to take over PG&E … who are by any objective standards doing more than any other utility in the United States of America [to reduce greenhouse emissions],” Newsom said.
A campaign to defeat the initiative has already been formed through Newsom advisor Eric Jaye’s political consultant group.
There is so much, so wrong with that that I think it needs a list:
- It is not a takeover of PG&E, it is a push for 100% clean, renewable energy.
- If he’s right that PG&E is the best vehicle to move beyond fossil fuels, they will be the vehicle. However, when on the same day PG&E announces a $850-million carbon-based plant a few miles from San Francisco it might look ridiculous
- The right-wing talking points in the misleading mail cited above against San Francisco government being able to get anything done is being sent by the Mayor’s own chief consultant?
Why is Gavin Newsom trying to make Al Gore cry?
