I've heard from sources that Sen. Webb is "leaning against" supporting the Climate Security Act. Hard as it is for me to believe, I'm told there's a real chance Sen. Webb could vote against Democratic leadership and with Sen. James "Global Warming is a Hoax" Inhofe on this bill. (That is, if the Roadblock Republicans ever let it come up for a vote in the first place.)
If you haven't already, please take a few minutes to call Sen. Webb right now at (202) 224-4024 to ask him to strengthen and pass the Climate Security Act.
No one person will be perfect for each individual all the time.
Working class voters in Appalachia have decided for decades to vote against their own economic self interests in favor of GGG (God, guns and gays) and quite frankly, Jim Webb is not the prophet that will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes and change this for an Obama candidacy.
Webb is a Senator because George Allen uttered one word - Macaca - plain and simple.
All other considerations relating to Jim Webb's acceptability by various single issue purists are irrelevant.
Obama already has a lock on the "hope" vote. Webb brings in white voters who would like to embrace "hope", but hesitate because of the "fear" aspects of a young, liberal, exotic, black president with zero foreign policy and military credentials.
Obama has one huge, overriding foreign policy credential: his dead on accurate opposition to invading Iraq.
And the worldliness manifest in his very being -- what the fearful might see as exotic -- plus his high intelligence, serene calmness and his gift at community organizing are all personal attributes that are effectively credentials toward reforming the horrendous state of U.S. foreign policy.
Webb brings in white voters who would like to embrace "hope", but hesitate because of the "fear" aspects of a young, liberal, exotic, black president with zero foreign policy and military credentials.
Webb lost these voters you describe during his Senate race. So how exactly does he "deliver" a group of voters he lost himself?
Webb lost these voters you describe during his Senate race. So how exactly does he "deliver" a group of voters he lost himself?
If you believe that all white centrists across the U.S. -- and I use centrist in a relative sense -- are an unchanging, homogenous, monolithic group than you believe something that facts would contradict.
The dynamics of the Virginia specific race in 2006 are inherently different than those of the 2008 national race from this point forward.
Gaming winner take all electoral contests pivots on winning 50.01% of the vote in individual states. Anything above that is icing. Adding Webb to the ticket equalizes McCain's appeal to white centrists -- moderate Republicans, independents and conservative Democrats -- in, once again, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Though Webb's approval rating in Virginia is in the high 40's, state jingoism in having a Virginian on the ticket plus the southwestern VA counties where he has family ties plus his growing popularity (and their growing exhaustion with the war in Iraq) among the military and military retiree voters in southeastern Virginia would put an Obama/Webb ticket over the electoral 50.01% threshold in Virginia. In Virginia specifically, do you see Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Sebelius or Biden doing that for Obama? Maybe General Clark, maybe. Warner and Kaine, yes, but they don't bring what Webb brings to the race in the other four swing states.
Again, the winning ticket must take 3 of the 5 swing states.
My arguement against Webb being on the ticket has to do with comments made in support of Webb because he would bring in working class voters in Appalachia. And these comments have discussed Webb's views about the Scotch-Irish in Appalachia and what a dynamic coaltion it would be, the Scoth-Irish and African American voters - and it would be, but it will never happen. White working class voters in Appalachia are never going to vote for Obama - with or without Webb on the ticket. And my biggest problem with Webb is that there is no evidence that Webb can carry these voters, since he lost them in his Senate race. And lets be clear - most white, workng clss voters in Appalachia are not centrists. They are right of center and are social and cultural conservatives.
Webb's approval rating have been sruck in the high 40's since he was elected. Most incumbents who run for re-election are thought to be in danger of losing their seat if their approval rates drop below 50%. He has problems with female voters and liberals - but what is most disturbing is his high negative ratings with Hispanic voters in Virginia - 75 per cent disaproval ratings. Obama performed poorly with these voters and the last thing we need is Jum Webb's votes on immigration making Obama's life more difficlut in place like Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado. These are the real swing states - Obama can lose Ohio and Florida, win these three states and can still win the presidency.
Obama is in control of his own destiny in terms of winning Virginia. His hope of winning the state rests with a very successful voter registration drive that registers tens of thousands of new voters across the state. Registering new residents as they flood into NOVA is a huge priority.
Registering younger voters across the whole state is another priority.
But registering unregistered black Virginina's is critical as well across the southeast and soutch central part of the state. What can really change the state is reaching thoe potential black voters throughout the 4th and 5th CD's who live in rural counties. By registering these voters, we could alter the state as a whole, and flip these two CD's so that they elect a Democratic congressman for years to come. Our congressional candidate Tom Perillo, working in conjunction with the Obama campaign, would be wise spending the summer conducting voter registration drives in many of these rural counties throughout the 5th CD. And all you need is the list of counties Obama won in February to understand where these registration drives should be conducted.
I think Obama need to pick someone who reinforces the whole these of change. Who should that be - I do not know. But the Obama campaign is going to vet all the candidates, there will be tons of polling performed to see who does well where. Focus groups will be formed in vaious states to see who performs best and who causes the least harm. And once the Obama campaign completes this process and reveals their choice, they will have the person on the ticket who they believe offers the best chance of winning in November.
Are there some gotchas in that bill that he's concerned about?
However, if we are to meet the projected 30% growth in electricity demand by 2025-2030, reduce our C02 by reducing or elimination coal & gas generation outputs by the stated 2% per year, I think many industry persons, regulators and elected politicans , are having a terrible time understanding how this is possible, without impeding a growing population and economy so dependant on electricity.
There are hurdles with every type of resource, renewable especially - physical, technological, regulatory, and pracitical engineering ones. For this reason, why narrow the solutions and limit what and how gov't, industry and consumers can do to meet all the above?
Therefore, perhaps a guy like Webb, like myself and SNolan for example, cannot understand why others behind this bill, must exclude nuclear and allow many to assume nuclear is a villian, especially if nuclear power by thorium will be market ready by 2010.
Or if you lived within 100 miles of Yucca Mountain in Nevada....
To view nuclear based on what you know of uranium, is short-sighted. Combined the increased demand for new power, a variety of hurdles facing getting new resources, especially renewables, connected to the grid, all while reducing C02, w/o safe nuclear in the equation, spells defeat. Open the bill to wider array of solutions, and let the market tweak it in favor of what technology will succeed most effectively.
I don't trust nuclear energy, and probably never will. That said, your information regarding thorium sounds interesting...
When oil crisis after oil crisis has hit our country, we failed to get started on alternative energy sources.
It may be too late now to provide enough additional power that we will need very soon, using energy sources we should be using now, but have only recently begun to research seriously (solar, wind, decentralized energy production). We may have no choice but to institute nuclear as a stop-gap while researching more efficient solar and wind solutions.
I have friends in Harrisburg, PA who grew up in the shadow of TMI and they are split on this issue about 60/40. Roughly 6 in 10 now say we have no choice but to deploy more nuclear energy plants... there are safer technologies in use already than those that were used at TMI. It is still expensive to build, overly centralized, and waste disposal is a huge issue - but if we continue to burn oil and coal to generate electricity we are screwing the planet.
We should be doing more solar and wind, and even micro-hydro; but that stuff has long lead times - yes we should start NOW, but we cannot expect a serious portion of our electrical energy to come from clean sources for many years. We should push it as hard as we can... but the demand is going up faster than we can supply.
I wish we could convert excess noise (sound waves) into energy... it is elegant even if inefficient... I know Japan is experimenting with turning ocean waves into energy; so the physical concept is there. Their experiments are not efficient; but they are elegant in that the same device that turns wave action into electricity also prevents shoreline erosion. It'd be nice to cut down the noise in some of our cities.
People whine about the impact of wind turbines on birds... sorry but, if we destroy their habitat through global warming there will be no birds at all, is it not better to kill a few through turbine strikes? Try to take some steps to warn the birds away; but call a small loss better than a big one?
Sorry - this has rambled on too long... huge respect for you Doug, and I wish we did not have to consider nuclear at all (because of the waste issue), but I am afraid we do. Nuclear waste seems less nightmarish to me than huge amounts more CO2.
Now... about the methane from those cows...
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 already put nuclear power generation on the board of solutions which to solve our energy "demand" problems. Our nation will have another dozen or two reactors in the building stage over the next 20 years. This has already started an some 3 permits so far have been issued and more applications are pending. But this is nuclear power by uranium. My point is to switch from uranium to thorium.
* thorium was discovered for nuclear usage at the same time as uranium, so its not a new concept.
* thorium was only shelved because uranium's dual purpose, weaponize material and power generation.
* thorium produces 1/3 the radioactive waste as uranium.
* thorium cannot be weaponized.
* thorium combined with plutonium can be made to create electricity and breakdown plutonium radioactive waste by up to 80%
* thorium can be used to reduce old plutonium weapons stockpile in both the U.S. and the former USSR.
Considering the times we are in, non-nuclear proliferation, if we as a nation are going to build new nuclear plants across this country as it is now proposed, why not replace nuclear by uranium with thorium for its dual purpose?
Moreover, the technogology to do all this exists with a small company right here in the state of Virginia! The technology has bi-partisan support from a few senators out in the area where Yucca Mtn is located. A nuclear power test has already taken place in Russia, and a market ready reactor is now being constructed there, and will be on-line in 2010. (Why Russia, decreased regulatory = decrease costs.)
With twelve nations wanting to join the nuclear club, including the gulf emirates, why not promote the technology so we can have a better hand in encouraging other nations, if they go nuclear, to do so same, thus reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation?
The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
IEA press release and fact sheet .
I think we can do better than this bill. Carbon tax, then per-capita refunds.
MSP
He must NOT pick a misogynist anti-female male such as Jim Webb, or others who are anti-choice.
C'mon Jim. Even freaking John Warner is for the bill.
Fix or ditch the global warming bill.
Even after heroic efforts by Sen. Boxer and leading environmental groups to produce a serious global warming bill, it is time to recognize that the current legislation, sponsored by independent Sen. Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican Sen. Warner of Virginia, does not meet any serious test.Not only that, unless dramatically improved, the legislation provides massive giveaways to the worst polluters while guaranteeing that greenhouse gases will be reduced less than the scientific consensus requires.
Not surprisingly, insider politics have taken over the global warming debate in the Senate. Progress is now being defined as how many votes the legislation can muster, rather than the cost of the deals made to get each vote. Real progress on global warming is no longer the goal. Now the goal is simply votes without progress. For example, Sen. Lieberman is trying to entice John McCain to support the legislation with even more billions for nuclear power. And senators from states that rely heavily on coal burning industries want special bonuses so that they won't be penalized for polluting choices of the past.
The dollar cost of compromise is simply too high - literally hundreds of billions of dollars.
The American people need to know which senators want real action on global warming. We hope that the Senate will vote on an amendment to Lieberman - Warner that adopts the scientific standard of 80 percent reduction without massive handouts to polluters.
If such an amendment fails, it is time to ditch Lieberman-Warner. We can do better.
For more on our position on the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act, read our blog.
Please sign the petition to your senators by clicking on the orange button at right. And then be sure to tell your friends who are concerned about how we're going to address the climate crisis.
The reality is that we need to put a price on carbon emissions, as soon as possible. We are already too far behind. Just as importantly, even if this bill fails, we need to get the debate out into the public and get people used to the hard reality of this situation.
Environmentalism in recent years has been too much about Madison Avenue happy talk that if we just change a light bulb or buy a different brand of toothpaste, we will magically save the world. As a result, we need to start almost from scratch in letting the public know that fighting climate change will involve real costs and lead to dramatic changes, yet is necessary and much better than the alternative.
I personally think that the argument that the bill should be rejected because it doesn't aim for 80% reductions is a ludicrous. Public policy never operates with such surgical precision. Once we put a high price on carbon, companies will start innovating like crazy in order to save money. If the example of the first cap-and-trade program, on sulfur dioxide emisssions, holds true, actual reductions will be larger than anticipated. Quibbling about percentage of reductions at this point, therefore, IMHO is meaningless.
One last point -- I find it very interesting that the biggest proponents for a carbon tax are the very same conservatives who have spent their ENTIRE careers talking about taxation as if it were a form of leprosy. Something a little fishy there...
Though the details are familiar to all here, they are particularly well articulated.
The writer claims Senator Webb is interested in serving with Senator Obama. (Note the observation that his Senate staff may not be up to the challenge -- that mirrors opinions expressed on RK.) She also suggests that adding Webb to the Obama ticket would generate pizzazz unmatched by any of the other possible candidates.
That Jim Webb would bring pizzazz to the ticket of the dazzling Senator Obama is quite a turn of events. Though once thought an indifferent public speaker, as senator, he's become almost incendiary. I think it has something to do with plain speaking about grave subjects burning bright with truth - his now famous counter to the SOTU being a prime example. That and his willingness to lock horns in confrontational debates.
... Webb follows form in saying he is reluctant to talk about such a thing. But he appears to be not without interest. The timing and subject matter of his latest book do not seem to be happenstance. And to a number of people the idea of an Obama-Webb ticket makes a lot of sense: an African-American (actually of mixed race) and a man of Scots-Irish working-class descent; a war hero who can stand up to anyone on military expertise and patriotism. ...Webb's roots lie in exactly the area in which Obama has shown his greatest weakness so far-in the Appalachian region. Though both are freshman senators, Webb combines substantial government service with close knowledge of the military and the world. One drawback is Webb's inexperienced staff, which may not be up to the challenges he faces. (Politicians are in part judged by the press and others on the quality of their staffs; word gets around, and the effects usually show.)
Like Obama, Webb offers a fresh approach to politics and stirs an excitement that would provide the ticket with more pizzazz than would some of the more conventional figures whose names are in play. (The thinking of some of Obama's advisers and members of the press reflects the old politics of selecting a running mate by geography, or to appease a particular group-which is not the politics Obama has represented in his campaign.) Anyway, picking a male "surrogate" of Clinton, as some suggest, won't appease the women who are insisting that she be on the ticket. For all the recent talk about selecting Clinton herself, this wouldn't be consistent with Obama's concept of change, and could present all sorts of complications, especially when it comes to governing. Obama hasn't tipped his hand, but it's quite possible that even if Jim Webb isn't chosen for the Democratic ticket this time around, the country will be hearing more of him in the future.