The Mark UP

Tag Archives: GOP

Luntz is Right: Limbaugh Hurting GOP, America

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle -

Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz was caught on a hidden camera recently, talking smack about one of the most influential and least constructive people in America: Rush Limbaugh. Luntz asked that recording devices be turned off before he began to talk honestly about the destructive political polarization being caused by conservative media and divisive talk radio hosts. Luntz was right, if understated, in saying that Limbaugh’s m.o. is “problematic” for America and not helpful to the cause of helping Republicans get elected.

I want to use this space to agree with Luntz and propose at least one solution.

First, the problem. Luntz is certainly correct that bombastic talk show hosts are more interested in boosting advertising revenue than they are in solving our country’s problems. Limbaugh’s denial of climate change is but one of many examples where outrageous ignorance is standing in the way of progress. Luntz is right when he says that politicians understand the harm being inflicted by these media personalities, yet they remain unwilling to cross them, fearing the consequences of their ire.

Second, the solution. Politicians must begin responding to the wide swaths of their constituents – including Republicans – who want action of a range of issues, rather than kowtowing to Limbaugh and company. Across the suite of controversial and divisive issues, a clear majority emerges for action. On immigration, two thirds of Republicans support the recent bipartisan proposal for reform. Likewise, a clear majority supports action on environmental issues like clean energy and climate change. Seventy percent of Republicans believe, despite what Limbaugh says, that the world is warming and about 90% of Americans want to generate more wind and solar energy. This includes huge majorities of Republicans. For example 84% of Republicans said they think it is important to generate more solar energy. 

In the wake of 2012 election losses, the Republican Party has begun soul-searching. Moving beyond a narrow base and rebuilding a durable majority will require being on the same side with a majority of Americans. Those people want clean energy jobs. They believe in climate change. They want action. And unlike Luntz, I’m willing to put that on the record.

Tags: , , ,  

Tea Partiers Are Destroying the Legacy of the Republican Party 

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle -

A new book out this week presents an astounding fact that could help shape the upcoming elections: the Republican-led House voted nearly 200 times to undermine public health and environmental safeguards in 2011.

This constitutes the largest attack on environmental protections in our nation’s history. But the American people didn’t ask for such a radical departure. Eight out of ten voters want the standards that keep our water clean and our air safe to breathe either strengthened or left alone.

Reckless: The Political Assault on the American Environment chronicles the Tea-Party-inspired attempt to strip away trusted safeguards. Written by Bob Deans, a veteran journalist who now works for the NRDC Action Fund, the book describes the damage these measures would do and the polluting companies they would benefit.

But the book also provides something else: a valuable insert to a 2012 campaign playbook.

Anyone running in a primary or race against a Tea-Partier or those who have voted with them should shine a spotlight on their radical environmental assault. They can remind voters that when the economy was in flames and Americans were losing their homes, these lawmakers spent their time trying to dismantle environmental laws that have stood strong for 40 years.

Instead of addressing the global financial crisis an unregulated mortgage debt, leaders like House Majority Leader Eric Cantor claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency and its public health safeguards were the “job destroying” villains.

Challengers can also remind voters that the Republication war against environmental protection is bad for our health.

Reckless describes how Tea Party House members tried time and again to gut the Clean Air Act. This isn’t some obscure, bureaucratic regulation. It is the law that has prevented more than 4,300,000 premature deaths since 1990. It’s the law that slashed the number of unhealthy air days in Los Angeles from more than 200 days in 1970 down 28 days in 2003. It’s the law that brought the percentage of American children with dangerous levels of lead in their blood down from 90 percent in the 1970s to 2 percent in 2000. And it’s the law that has had decades of bipartisan support.

But the Leadership of the House Republicans wanted to halt this progress and return us to darker, dirtier days. Challengers can offer voters a clear contrast: clean skies and healthier families or more smog and asthma attacks? I can’t think of one parent who wants their kids breathing more pollution.

Challengers—especially those going after moderate voters—should remind Americans of something else as well: the Republican Party didn’t always put polluters first. Reckless charts the GOP’s proud tradition of conservation from President Teddy Roosevelt to President George H.W. Bush—the man who called the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 one of his greatest legislative accomplishments. Most Republican voters continue to hold these values even if their lawmakers have set them aside: 58 percent of Republican voters said they oppose House efforts to block the EPA from reducing air pollution from power plants, according to a 2011 poll by GS Strategy Group and Hart Research.

Why have so many House lawmakers forgotten that conservation is part of conservative values? I see two reasons. First, the Tea Party scared the daylights out of moderate Republicans and even out of sensible conservatives.

And second, polluters spend a lot of cash in Washington. Reckless reports that people and organizations associated with the oil and gas industry spent $31.8 million on campaign contributions during the 2010 congres­sional elections, with 77 percent of the money going to Republicans.

Polluters may have piles of money, but candidates who stand for ordinary Americans and offer a vision of a cleaner, healthier future can mobilize voters better than any corporate-funded rally can. NRDC Action Fund’s research shows that promoting a clean energy vision can help candidates win elections. In this election cycle, candidates should remind voters how hard Tea Party Republicans worked to take away that cleaner future.

Americans of both parties want their kids to breathe safe air and drink clean water. To make sure we deliver on that promise, we must all do our part to end the House Republicans’ historic assault on environmental protections.

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,  

A Conservative Defense of Public Lands

Posted by: Peter Lehner -

Conservation wasn’t always a partisan issue. Many of the great conservationists of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were Republicans — and, many of these, NRDC supporters.

Today we hear so many anti-conservationist comments from the Republican Party that we forget how different things used to be. The contrast between the GOP of today and the GOP of the recent past is perhaps most pronounced in area of public lands.

Last week Timothy Egan reported in the New York Times about Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum’s wacky ideas about public lands.

In one corner, Mitt Romney is saying that “[he doesn’t] understand the purpose” of our conservationist legacy. In his words, “Unless there’s a valid, legitimate and compelling public purpose, I don’t know why the government owns so much of this land.” In the other corner, Rick Santorum is promising to privatize these public lands. His reasoning is as follows:

The federal government doesn’t care about this land. They don’t live here, they don’t care about it. We don’t care about it in Washington. It’s flyover country for most of the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Santorum’s understanding of public lands is completely backwards. Our public lands system — which includes 190 million acres of national forest, 52 million acres of national parks and more than 500 million acres of other open space — was created precisely for the PUBLIC, and NOT for Washington bureaucrats like Mr. Santorum to give away for short-term political gains.

These comments are out of touch with public opinion. Egan cited a recent poll by Colorado College which found that 93 percent of Colorado’s voters agree that national parks, forests and wildlife areas “are an essential part of Colorado’s economy.”

Furthermore, in the broader historical context, the assault on public lands is a radical departure from the proud conservationist tradition of Republican leaders Nelson Rockefeller, Barry Goldwater, Teddy Roosevelt, and even Ronald Reagan. Though we had plenty of tough battles throughout the early years (with Democrats and Republicans alike), both sides, at the very least, seemed to understand some basic, fundamental principles of conservation. President Ronald Reagan described these shared values in remarks to a federal agency in 1984:

If we’ve learned any lessons during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is not a partisan challenge; it’s common sense. Our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources.

Though we disagreed often, and on many issues, President Reagan ultimately understood the value of public lands and wild places and embraced the principle of conservation. During his presidency, Reagan signed into law some 43 wilderness bills, creating over 10 million acres of protected wilderness areas.

President Reagan believed that America’s public lands were a cornerstone of liberty, and a celebration of our heritage. He articulated these views in a message to Congress in 1988:

The preservation of parks, wilderness, and wildlife has…aided liberty by keeping alive the 19th century sense of adventure and awe with which our forefathers greeted the American West. Many laws protecting environmental quality have promoted liberty by securing property against the destructive trespass of pollution. In our own time, the nearly universal appreciation of these preserved landscapes, restored waters, and cleaner air through outdoor recreation is a modern expression of our freedom and leisure to enjoy the wonderful life that generations past have built for us.

We can be certain that Teddy Roosevelt would have strongly opposed Mr. Santorum’s plans to privatize our public lands. In his 8th annual message to Congress President Roosevelt declared:

Nothing should be permitted to stand in the way of the preservation of the forests, and it is criminal to permit individuals to purchase a little gain for themselves through the destruction of forests when this destruction is fatal to the well-being of the whole country in the future.

The father of modern conservation was not afraid to invoke morals. Teddy Roosevelt believed in the principle of intergenerational responsibility:

Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of insuring the safety and continuance of the nation.

What Governor Romney and Senator Santorum fail to understand, in the end, is that public lands are a critical asset for ordinary people, and for all of us: these are the beautiful places that families and children flock to in the summers to experience America at its best. Above all, there is nothing “conservative” about sacrificing our national heritage for short-term political and economic gain. As President Reagan said:

What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live…And we want to protect and conserve the land on which we live — our countryside, our rivers and mountains, our plains and meadows and forests. This is our patrimony. This is what we leave to our children.

If public lands are liquidated, and handed over to the highest bidder, where are families going to take their vacations? Where are they going to hunt, hike, and fish? What would Reagan say now?

Tags: , , ,  

Is Ron Paul a Friend of the Environment?

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle -

In the aftermath of last night’s Iowa caucus, the media is likely to focus on the near tie for first place between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. However, it’s important that we not forget Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who came in a close third and who has maintained a sizable block of fervent supporters throughout the campaign.

Last month, Paul appeared for a lengthy interview on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Paul has been celebrated by libertarians for his consistent stances on reducing the federal budget and the size and scope of government. While Paul often speaks about what his perspective means for issues like civil liberties and national defense, Leno took the opportunity to ask Paul about the role of government in addressing environmental issues.

You can watch the clip here around the 5 minute mark.

This quote might be particularly striking to environmentalists:

This is one thing where many conservatives and libertarians slip up on and that is on the environmental issue. If you are a real strict property rights person, environments are protected because it is property and you can’t ever damage or pollute your neighbor’s property.

Hearing these words, one might hope that Paul would be all in favor of safeguards to protect not just “property” like the land and water but our most important possession of all: our health. For example, new rules will prevent giant coal-fired power plants from putting their toxic mercury and smog into our air, our lungs and our brains. You can’t be much more intrusive than literally invading another person’s body with your pollution.

Sadly, if past is prologue, Paul is unlikely to be a friend to the environment. Paul’s recent scores from the League of Conservation Voters range from a meager 37 percent to an embarrassing zero percent. He has taken votes that would delay reductions in ozone pollution and prevent citizens from even finding out about toxic pollution like mercury and lead being released into their neighborhoods.

Paul’s votes just don’t add up to environmental protection or a respect for your right to be pollution free.

Oops: Rick Perry Forgets to Eliminate DOE

Posted by: NRDC Action Fund -

“Oops.” That’s how Rick Perry concluded his cringe-inducing remarks about eliminating three government agencies at last night’s GOP presidential debate in Michigan. The problem? Well, first, there’s the embarrassing fact that he could only remember two of the three departments (Commerce and Education) he wanted to abolish.

What’s gotten less attention is the fact that Perry eventually did remember that he also wants to eliminate the Department of Energy. I guess it is easy to forget your policy positions when they are nothing more than talking points fed to you by the polluters bankrolling your campaign. It’s much harder to forget carefully considered, common-sense solutions like those being implemented at DOE.

Certainly, DOE is not a perfect agency, but it is home to important programs that support energy efficiency and promote new clean energy technologies. Eliminating DOE would slow progress of renewable energy technologies like wind, solar and geothermal, on fuel-efficient vehicles, and on energy-saving appliances and buildings. Of course, that’s exactly the goal of Governor Perry and his Big Oil supporters who want to keep us dependent on the fuels of the past.

Perry’s biggest mistake? Thinking that the American people would be fooled by his dirty message. Oops.

« Older Posts