DeGette, D Rep

mma 7 26

Although Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is now 84, he continues to have a major influence on Millennial and Generation Z candidates. And one of them — 29-year-old Melat Kiros, backed by Sanders — ousted 15-term U.S. Rep. Diana DeGettein a Democratic congressional primary in Colorado on Tuesday. Kiros isn't the only self-described "democratic socialist" to win in recent weeks, and as MAGA Republican Steve Bannon sees it, the victory of Kiros and others is a major warning sign for the GOP.

During an interview with Politico, Bannon — host of the "War Room" vodcast and former White House chief strategist in the first Trump administration — argued that the lesson from the recent wave of "democratic socialist" victories is that Republicans need to lean more heavily on right-wing MAGA populism, not move away from it.

Bannon told Politico, "We are facing a new politics. We're seeing the dying of the old politics before us. You're seeing it burn to the ground before you."

Too many traditional conservatives, Bannon stressed, are clinging to the Republican Party's "old politics" even though GOP voters have moved on.

After democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York City, Bannon argued that his victory underscored the populist angst many voters are feeling — and that angst, he said, was also evident in Kiros' upset on Tuesday.

"The establishment has finally awakened to, it's not New York City, it's not inner-city Manhattan, it's not just the immigrants or the illegal aliens in the boroughs — this is going to be nationwide," Bannon told Politico. "Yes, clearly, it's Denver. It's one of the more liberal cities, but it's still the American West. It's still Colorado. When I went and talked to donors about what was coming, they laughed in my face. They said, 'You don't understand Democratic politics, you don't understand that (former New York Gov. Andrew) Cuomo has $40 million, that Cuomo has the New York Post and the New York Times endorsements. He's got all the big Jewish organizations, he's got the Catholic Church, he's got the firemen, he's got the cops, he's got every endorsement.' And I said, 'I don't care about that. What Mamdani has is, today, 1000 people canvassing, going door-to-door in the boroughs — in Queens, in the Bronx and in Brooklyn, that's what's going to determine this.' And they just laughed and said, 'We have $40 million, and Fox loves us.' And Cuomo got smoked."

The "consultant class of the Republican Party," Bannon argued, is being "caught off guard" by democratic socialists who are showing that they have a strong ground game.

"To beat Mamdani," Bannon told Politico, "you have to have intense, ongoing and massive voter engagement. You also have to get out your core base even more. The only thing that's going to save the Republicans is a massive turnout of the lower propensity, lower information Trump voters — already Trump voters — at presidential election-type numbers in these congressional districts to save the House, otherwise you're going to get overwhelmed…. You have to come up with solutions. The Republicans don't know how to respond…. We are facing a new politics. We're seeing the dying of the old politics before us. You're seeing it burn to the ground before you."

Bannon continued, "Artificial intelligence, the oligarchs and the threat of these kinds of Marxist jihadists — it's going to redefine politics, and he who is prepared to take it on, you're going to see the rise of these people. If you are playing the old politics of tax cuts and wars everywhere and doing the bidding of Israel, let me be blunt — you're finished. I just keep telling people, it's a flashing red light, and the (Senate Majority Leader) John Thunes of the world and (House Speaker Mike) Johnson better understand that the old politics are gone."

https://www.alternet.org/2021/02/trump-supporters-2650525904/

Former President Donald Trump's base may remember his legacy as one to be honored and praised in the history books but news outlets and historians likely will not agree.

Although Democratic lawmakers have presented a solid case to prove that Trump did, indeed, incite the deadly insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, it does not appear enough Senate Republicans will hold him accountable for his actions which could lead to an upsetting acquittal.

Now, a new report published by The New York Times poses a serious question: "Does this unprecedented moment in American history mark the beginning of the end of a particularly violent era? Or the end of the beginning?"

Despite arguments that could be made by Trump's Republican loyalists, the NY Times argues: "Whether or not Mr. Trump is convicted, the extremism that flourished under his administration has embedded itself in our politics."

Outlining a number of previous violent incidents connected to Trump's legacy, the publication noted House Democrats' remarks about the disturbing unrest that erupted in Charlottesville, Va., back in 2017. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) noted how the Charlottesville incident served as a precursor to the deadly insurrection at the Capitol and how both will forever be associated with Trump's presidency.

"In 2017, it was unfathomable to many of us to think that Charlottesville could happen," DeGette said, adding, remnants of Trump's rhetoric and influence. "Frankly, what unfathomable horrors could await us if we do not stand up and say, 'No, this is not America'?"

Robert Pape, a specialist at the University of Chicago who studies political violence, explained how the Capitol riots shed light on the disturbing side of American politics. In an op-ed published by The Atlantic, Pape explained why and how Capitol rioters are different from other extremists.

"The Capitol riot revealed a new force in American politics — not merely a mix of right-wing organizations, but a broader mass political movement that has violence at its core and draws strength even from places where Trump supporters are in the minority," he wrote in the piece.

The NYTimes argues that the force Pape speaks of shows "little sign of backing down." It also highlighted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's latest terrorism alert which warned that "violent extremists were emboldened by the attack and motivated by 'the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.'"

There is some indication that such violent acts have support among some Americans, particularly within the Republican Party. A survey conducted by the American Enterprise Institute this week found that 55 percent of Republicans back the use of force as a way to "arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life," as compared with 35 percent of independents and 22 percent of Democrats.

If the Senate does not hold Trump accountable for his actions, the type of extremist violence his base has adopted will likely continue for years to come.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/us-utility-commissioners-a-key-factor-in-assessing-regulatory-risk

omg

electric utility trade group with ties to top U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials will dissolve amid a congressional probe into whether the group inappropriately influenced Trump administration air and climate policy.

The Utility Air Regulatory Group — one of the foremost legal challengers to Clean Air Act regulations over the last four decades — said in a May 10 statement that its membership will disband after a "wind down period," citing "substantial changes in the electricity sector."

The announcement comes after the House Energy and Commerce Committee in April launched an investigation focused on whether EPA Office of Air and Radiation Administrator Bill Wehrum and Senior Counsel David Harlow, who formerly represented UARG as attorneys, violated federal ethics rules by working to reverse the EPA's position in ongoing Clean Air Act-related litigation.

Run out of the law firm of HuntonAndrews and Kurth, UARG came under increased scrutiny when the news outlet Politico published documents in February showing that a coalition of coal-heavy utilities agreed to pay Wehrum's old firm $8.2 million in 2017.

That same month, Rep. FrankPallone, D-N.J., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., asked the EPA's inspector general to investigate whether Wehrum or Harlow were improperly involved in drafting a December 2017 EPA guidance memo revising the agency's interpretation of a Clean Air Act permitting program that can trigger the need to install costly pollution controls.

As part of its investigation, the House committee requested copies of all communications between the law firm and current EPA officials, as well as past communications Wehrum and Harlow had with the EPA during their tenure at Hunton. The requests also cited a 2016 report by S&P Global Market Intelligence detailing how power companies have wielded influence anonymously through the group for years.

In addition, the committee asked eight different utilities — Ameren Corp., American Electric Power Co. Inc., First Energy, Southern Co., the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association Inc. and Vistra Energy Corp. — to disclose whether they used ratepayer funds to pay UARG dues. Some of those utilities have acknowledged doing so, while companies that quit the group prior to the Politico report and congressional investigation have stressed the group is no longer needed due to a marketwide shift away from coal-fired generation.

A Hunton spokesman said in a May 10 email the firm "is proud" to have represented UARG members in the federal rulemaking process over the past 40 years. "Hunton will continue to assist its clients in this valuable process," the firm said.

House Democrats said they were glad to see UARG break up, but they warned the committee's oversight will continue. "Our committee's investigation is not over," said Pallone, Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., in a statement. "Important questions remain about whether EPA officials William Wehrum and David Harlow continue to advance their former coal industry clients' agenda at EPA, and we intend to see those questions through."

The EPA did not immediately respond to request for comment May 10.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07122017/scott-pruitt-epa-testimony-congress-hearing-climate-clean-power-plan-red-team-fossil-fuel-lobby

For the first time since taking office, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sat before a Congressional committee on Thursday to field questions about his controversial handling of the agency.

Within the first hour, Pruitt told lawmakers he plans to replace the Clean Power Plan—the Obama administration's core legislation to cut carbon emissions—rather than just repeal it.

Pruitt also said he would conduct a critique of a key finding that underpins climate change law using a "red team, blue team" exercise as soon as January.

"Beginning part of next year at the latest," Pruitt told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment during the hearing. "That would be a process that would be focused on an objective, transparent, public review of questions and answers around the issues around carbon dioxide," he said.

This exercise would take aim at the EPA's 2009 "endangerment finding," which determined that carbon dioxide is a harmful pollutant and provides the scientific basis for federal regulation of greenhouse gases and the Clean Power Plan. Pruitt has long opposed the finding, arguing in court that the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which brings together thousands of scientists from around the world to synthesize the latest science on climate change, is flawed.

The endangerment finding has been in the crosshairs of certain fossil fuel interests, including the conservative think tank Heartland Institute and Bob Murray, CEO of the largest private coal company in the United States, which have pushed Pruitt to review it. Pruitt has mentioned the "red team, blue team" exercise before, but this was the first time he publicly announced a timeframe.

'Signs of an Agency Captured by Industry'

At the top of the hearing, members of the Republican majority thanked Pruitt for what they called his efforts to engage with state regulators and to roll back regulations.

Democrats pointedly questioned Pruitt about growing influence within the EPA of industries the agency regulates, especially a recent directive that ushered industry-backed scientists onto influential scientific advisory panels.

"Rules across the agency are being undone capriciously,"said Rep. Paul Tonko, (D-N.Y.) the subcommittee's ranking member. "I believe the EPA has all the signs of an agency captured by industry."

Over the past several months, critics have pointed out that the peer-review process that underpins the science is already a much more rigorous "red team, blue team" process.

"Scott Pruitt's call for a 'red team, blue team' debate on climate change is a farce and a distraction," Peter Frumhoff, director of science policy for the Union of Concerned Sciences, said in an email. " If he has questions about climate science, he should turn to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not hacks from the Heartland Institute."

'Why All This Secrecy?'

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, blasted Pruitt for attempting to scrap the Clean Power Plan and for urging Trump to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement. He also noted Pruitt's lavish expenditures, including the installation of a $25,000 "secret phone booth."

"Why all this secrecy? One has to wonder," Pallone said, adding, "Even today, after finally agreeing to appear before his authorizing committee after 10 months, Mr. Pruitt is planning to leave after only one hour."

The initial part of the hearing lasted only one hour so Pruitt could meet with President Donald Trump at the White House. It resumed in the afternoon, and Democrats pressed him on his travel and phone booth expenditures.

Rep. Diana Degette (D-Colo.) wanted to know how often he uses the secure phone booth installed this year and for what.

Pruitt's reply: "It's used for secure communication that needs to take place at the office."

Travel Expenses Amid Agency Cuts

Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.) asked Pruitt about his frequent visits to Oklahoma, his home state—43 times in 92 days in March, April and May—as well as nearly $60,000 spent on private air travel since February. The agency's Inspector General is investigating the expenses.

"Every trip that I've taken to Oklahoma with respect to taxpayer expenses has been business related," Pruitt said. "When I travel back to the state for personal reasons, I paid for that, and that will bear out in this process."

Cardenas said the "costs are especially offensive given the severe cuts" the administration has proposed to the agency, including eliminating the office of environmental justice. "Are the American people supposed to believe that we cannot afford $2 million to help our most vulnerable communities, but we can afford tens of thousands of dollars for you to fly on private jets?" he asked.

Pruitt responded that he had recently met with environmental justice employees within the agency. "Environmental justice is an important issue," he said.

Meetings with Energy Companies

In one of the more contentious exchanges, Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) repeatedly asked Pruitt if he would recuse himself from agency proceedings involving his allies in the energy industry. She noted that Pruitt, as Oklahoma attorney general, had sued the agency 14 times, and in eight of those cases, Murray Energy was a co-plaintiff.

"Given your extensive history of suing the agency you now oversee and the vast amounts of money you've raised from the fossil fuel industry, offering to recuse yourself from only active cases or only cases where Oklahoma is a party is grossly inadequate," Castor said. "So will you commit to recusing yourself from cases involving your past co-litigants and donors?"

Pruitt pointed out that his associations and lawsuits were deemed not to violate ethics rules by the agency's ethics reviewer. "I will follow the advice of counsel," he said.

Earlier this week, the EPA's Office of Inspector General said it would investigate a meeting Pruitt held in April with the National Mining Association about the Paris Agreement.

Castor also asked how many times Pruitt had met with representatives from energy companies, including Peabody Energy and the utility Southern Company. Pruitt responded that he didn't know.

When Castor asked again if he would recuse himself from some of the agency's proceedings, Pruitt would not give a definitive yes or no. Castor told him: "If you cannot do that, you will cement your legacy as one who serves the powerful special interests and not the public interest."

Pruitt started to elaborate, but the subcommittee chair, John Shimkus (R-Ill.) cut him off, saying Castor's allotted time had elapsed.