Boy, do they have it wrong.

[wisteria]

I don't know quite what to make of this article from the co-editor of Counter-Punch.Lies, lies and misleading information. I know they are wrong to suggest what they do about Senator Kerry's environmental record and suggesting that he actually was for drilling for oil anywhere but ANWAR. The article even states that Teresa was close friends with Ken lay.

http://www.bloomingtonalternative.com/subscribers/news.php?topicid=1197



"Soon after John Kerry had sewed up the delegates needed to seize the Democratic nomination for president in the spring of 2004, he huddled for two hours with James Hoffa, Jr., the noxious boss of the Teamsters union. The topic was oil. The Teamsters wanted more of it at cheaper prices. They had suspicions about Kerry. After all, the senator had already won the backing of the Sierra Club, who touted him as the most environmentally enlightened member of the US senate"


"Kerry says, look, I am against drilling in ANWAR, but I am going to put that pipeline in, and we're going to drill like never before," Hoffa reported. "They are going to drill all over, according to him. And he says, we're going to be drilling all over the United States."


Kerry didn't stop to comment. He slipped out the door and into a waiting SUV. Don't worry, Kerry later assured worried greens, it's not his gas-guzzling, hydro-carbon belching behemoth. It belongs to his...family. (Apparently, this means he can't take out a loan on the vehicle for his campaign.) Still, the senator's not a total hypocrite on this count. After all, Kerry voted against ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming.




***
But Jimmy Hoffa was on to something. Despite what you hear from the Sierra Club, Kerry and his Democratic cohorts have never aligned themselves in opposition to the interests of the oil cartels. Far from it. In Clintontime, oil industry lobbyists flowed through the White House as easily as crude through the Alaskan pipeline, leaving behind campaign loot and wishlists. Several oil execs even enjoyed sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom. Hazel O'Leary, Clinton's first Energy Secretary, traveled the world with oil execs in tow, brokering deals from India to China. Meanwhile, Ms. O'Leary, a former utility executive from Minnesota, compiled an enemies list of environmentalists and reporters who raised unsettling questions about her cozy ties to big oil.


***
"When it comes to oil policy Bush relied on Griles, while the Democrat often to turn to Ralph Cavanagh, the top energy guru at the Natural Resources Defense Council, the neo-liberal environmental group headed by John Adams. In Clintontime, Adams and his group made a notorious splash when they publicly betrayed their fellow environmentalists by endorsing NAFTA, the trade pact with Mexico hotly opposed by a tender coalition labor and greens. NRDC's endorsement shattered the coalition and secured passage of the bill through congress, a prize that had been denied the first Bush administration. Adams felt no regrets. He later gloated about "breaking the back of the environmental opposition to NAFTA."

Ralph Cavanagh is exceptionally close to John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz. In fact, Heinz's foundation bestowed on Cavanagh its annual eco-genius award and a $250,000 check for his pioneering work in energy policy. But just what did this work entail?

Well, while his boss John Adams pushed free trade, Ralph Cavanagh hawked the deregulation of the energy business in the name of environmental efficiency, an old canard discredited in the progressive era. Cavanagh plays the role of Betty Crocker in bestowing green seals of approval for enviro-conscience and selfless devotion to the public weal by corporations like, well, Enron.


Through all of this, John Kerry remained curiously mute. Perhaps because his wife, and chief financial underwriter, Teresa Heinz is not only pals with Cavanagh, but Ken Lay as well.

Teresa Heinz's interest in environmental issues has been mostly expressed through her Heinz Foundation whose board until very recently was adorned by that hero of free-market enviros, Ken Lay of Enron.

The Heinz Foundation put Ken Lay in charge of their global-warming initiative. When Enron went belly up, the Foundation stuck by their man: "Whatever troubles he had at Enron, Ken Lay had a good reputation in the environmental community for being a business man who was environmentally sensitive. When someone does wrong in one past of their life, it doesn't mean they can't do good in another part of their life."

On the eve of the 2004 elections, Kerry raced off to a pow-wow with the American Gas Association, where he reiterated his messaage to Hoffa that he was ready to Drill everywhere, like never before. Shortly afterwards, the trade association issued a smirking press release affirming that Kerry was on board for increased drilling, especially for natural gas. So was his party.















Interesting this comes out now, just when the Kerry's book is to be released. I think this is something we should be aware of and be ready to take on. I just can't figure out why their is still a need to "go after" the kerry's.

The Clinton's don't fair well either, but I don't know much about President Clinton's enviromental record.

[Mass]

1. Forget the direct attacks against Kerry - Behind that, there is a REAL problem:

One of the main Democratic supporters are supposed to be the unions, and the unions are not interested to speak about the environment, clean energy, and global warming, if this means that the industries their workers work for will be impacted.

So,I have no doubt such a conversation with Hoffa could have happened. I have no problem believing that Kerry dropped some of his environmental ideas during the campaign because talking less about them would bring votes. In fact, it was rumored that Byrd adviced him to stop talking about clean coal in order to get West Virginia, for example, and workers from MI were apparently kind of wary that Kerry would try to push CAFE standards.

Of course, saying that NRDC are betraying the environmental movement is idiotic, but, in the middle of this very idiotic article, there are a few very real issues, in particular, how can you run a campaign for president concerning the environment when a large part of the "lobbies" that naturally support Democrats are against any reform. How do you educate Democratic workers who work in the energy and automobile industry to the need to evolve, so that the evolution can be done with keeping the interests of the workers in the equation.

Sometimes, presidential politics mean compromises, and I have no doubt that Kerry, like Gore, had to compromise some of his environmental ideas to get some support. It was very clear in some cases. That is politics. Sometimes politic is dirty.

[wisteria]

2. Good points.

I know that right after the convention Senator Kerry was talking about the environment and alternatives to drilling for oil. I don't recall if that continued or not. However, as you noted, many unions who support Democrats consider the need for cheap fuels their bread and butter, so perhaps there was some compromising going on- at least initially. You are also right that this issue with the unions needs to be addressed and not ignored. If Democrats ignore their concerns and continue to campaign on freeing ourselves from the need for oil and oil based products the Republicans are going to move right in and tell the unions just what they want to hear.

[ProSense]

3. Don't try to analyze Counterpuke, the guy

hates the Denocratic Party:

http://tesa.leb.net/stclair03032007.html

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/006.html

[wisteria]

10. Thanks ProSense. I just read the article with amazement and kept on

thinking to myself, this guy is progressive? He is easier on Repubs then Democrats. Now I know why. Now he is calling Gore a hypocrite.
LOL, this guy hates everyone who has anything to say on the environment.

[karynnj]

8. Very good points

It may be that, even more than on Iraq, the environmental issues benefit from Kerry not running - and being free to say what is right.

I agree with you that the unions were not behind Kerry on many of his environmental stances. I assume that what Hoffa conflated was the fact that Kerry DID say he was not against drilling with drilling in ANWR (which Kerry was against).

On CAFE standards, Kerry argued that the US car industry would benefit from an aggressive program that would retool it for higher mileage. This was part of a cornerstone of his campaign - and his comments on how pushing for alternative energy would help the economy and the environment as well were great. I'm sure he did moderate other views - but he here, he did the opposite - he tried to convince people that doing this would benefit them.

[MBS]

4. Your title says it all

This is so off base it's hard to know where to start.

Frankly, the Clintons are not stellar on the environment, to say the least, and that's in fact one of my main worries about the prospect of Bill-Hill III. If Babbitt hadn't been Secretary of the Interior, and pushed Bill at the end to set aside some land, Bill would have had essentially no environmental achievements in 8 years.

In stark contrast,, John Kerry has been accumulating genuine environmental creds since 1970. There is a good reason that the League of Conservation Voters endorsed him during the primaries, way back in December 2003 (maybe it was even earlier??), when he was nowhere in the polls, and remained a staunch supporter through the general election. The reason: HE EARNED IT.

Thanks, Prosense, for the links.

It amazes me that people are still so eager to punch out Kerry, and, once again, in areas that ARE HIS STRENGTH. Why are they so threatened by him? Just so so so so frustrating.

Off to NYC now!

[karynnj]

5. Even those accomplishments are less than they appear

"If Babbitt hadn't been Secretary of the Interior, and pushed Bill at the end to set aside some land, Bill would have had essentially no environmental achievements in 8 years. "

They were done by executive order very near the end of Clinton's last term. They all could have been done in 1993. As it was, all the implementation problems and any political cost would not have been felt until after the Clintons were out of office.

Had Gore been put in office, he would have been the one who worked out things out, with Clinton getting the credit. With Bush, most were immediately undone and we have no long time period to point to to show that they worked without being an undue burden to the economy.

Kerry had signaled clearly in 2006 that he would fight the Clintons on the environment. His "years the locust ate" did include the years BC was President. In addition, BC had a bad record on the environment in Arkansas. (Edwards has Global warming as one of his 5 issues - but he has a pretty mediocre record on environment.)

[MBS]

6. I totally agree!!

Kerry and Gore are the only "presidential material " (yes, I know, only former candidates, sigh. . ) with a real track record and strong commitment in this area. The current candidates leave a lot to be desired in the environment arena. Ironic that we had two great environmental candidates when no one wanted to listen to that stuff. Now people are listening, and there are no candidates with real environmental heft. . so frustrating. .

[karynnj]

7. Using google, you can see that most of these charges were out there in 2004

and this article brings them together. The authors give no weight to Kerry's 20 plus years of actions and speeches, while taking every negative they can find as truth.

For example, Hoffa did make the oil pipeline comments to Chris Matthews, but the Kerry campaign, the same day, reiterated that he was against drilling in ANWR. So, on one side, you have Kerry's at least 5 year Senate effort successfully leading the fight against ANWR which was listed as an accomplishment on his web site, several speeches where he explains that "we can not drill our way out" and "we only have 3% of the world's oil" and Kerry's official 2004 position in the Democratic platform. On the other side, they have Hoffa, claiming that Kerry will do the opposite. The easiest reconciliation is that Hoffa heard what he wanted to hear, possibly intentionally. Hoffa was not a Kerry spokesman. (He also said Kerry should pick Gephardt.)

The industry comments reject a strawman. Kerry never proposed anything that would stop the drilling for oil and gas in the US. With nothing to take it's place that would be stupid and impractical.

Ken Lay was on the board of the Heinz Foundation, but the foundation's work stands on its own. Until ENRON was found to be a sham, it was very well respected. I would guess Lay may have been on boards of many charitable organizations and possibly was a leader in his church etc. This is pure guilt by association - next they will get to S&B. 2004 links show that Kerry returned a $1000 2001 Lay contribution the month after it was given. None of the Kerry/Lay links accuse Kerry of helping Lay avoid prosecution or any quid pro quo accusation. There is simply nothing here.

The serious question is why now? Other than the fact that this is what Counterpunch likes to do, it seems they want to discredit Kerry's (and other's)solutions. I suspect that the RL Greenies do not want Democrats (such as Kerry) to be seen as leading on this issue. The expansion of the Green party requires people to reject both the Republicans and Democrats. Kerry may threathen them the most because his solutions are based in traditional free market economics, with the government incentivising actions that lead to societal good. It is an immensely optimistic appealing approach that is based in American enterpreneurial spirit.

[wisteria]

9. Wow, great research and observations.

I have never been able to figure out Counter-Punch. They claim progressive yet, they attack many people who offer progressive ideas.

[karynnj]

11. Actually, just a few googles

Thank you for posting the article to begin with. While Counterpunch, especially when it is St Clair or Cockburn, is not a credible source, I suspect that Kerry and other legislators who attempt to create real legislation will be attacked from both the RW, pro-business side AND the Green side.

I have not read enough of the Green proposals to fairly assess any of them, but some of what I have read leads me to think that there will be flack from that side too. (Even Gore will get that and he is not designing legislation.) I can see that this will be a good area to learn more about.

Last week. I was looking through some of the Green sites (to help my teen with a history assignment.) What is really clear is that they are completely cynical about corporations. My own view is that just as the view that what is good for General Motors is good for the country is wrong so is the view that anything corporations or businesses do is bad. Reading their sites, I now understand where some of the lefty freepers are coming from.

I suspect that the far left greenies will dislike Kerry's view that businesses are a very important part of the solution.

[sandnsea]

12. I remember that Hoffa appearance

They shut him up in a hurry after that. IIRC, Kerry supported natural gas drilling, primarily, and a pipeline that would provide a lot of jobs. Natural gas is a fairly clean fuel. But Hoffa was a little over-zealous about the drilling and Matthews was a bit incredulous at the remarks. It was not a good appearance, but like I said, I never saw Hoffa after that.

The thing about Enron is that the plan was to open the market to alternative fuels. It was thought a new system was needed to deliver wind energy from the midwest to cities that have operated on more local power. The idea was to deregulate to allow power to flow more freely so that new sources of energy would have a wider access to the national market. Enron was the company that bought and sold the power. It was a good idea, if it weren't for this country being full of such greedy fucks. I don't know why the Heinz people stood by him, but otoh, we're standing by a business associate that lost his boat and two clients in a fishing accident. I suppose they may have thought he just didn't know what some underneath him were doing.

Counterpunch has written hit pieces on Dennis Kucinich for chrissake. I think they are more in line with the socialist left than even the Greens. I don't know why anybody takes anything they have to say seriously.