Bill Conner Campaign Handicapped By Weak Green Policies
Bill Conner is the Democratic candidate campaigning to replace Republican incumbent Steve Austria in Ohio’s 7th congressional district. We’re told by the Democratic Party leadership that they’re fighting hard to maintain their majority in Congress, but when it comes to Conner’s campaign, there doesn’t seem to be much effort at all. According to the Federal Election Commission, the Conner for Congress campaign has only taken in $1,846 in contributions so far. Compare that to the $294,002 in individual contributions, and $305,652 in PAC contributions accepted by Congressman Austria in this election cycle.
Why, if Democrats are truly fighting hard against Republican congressional campaigns, has there been such a lack of support for Conner’s campaign? Much of the answer seems to come from Conner himself.
Bill Conner campaigns on some of the liberal principles that motivate part of the Democratic Party’s electoral base, but on many issues, Conner is as likely to disappoint Democratic voters as to encourage them. The environment is just such an issue.
Conner says that he wants to “promote green energy”, but spends at least as much time promoting old fossil fuel technologies. Conner contends that burning coal can be “environmentally safe”, failing to address recent studies that have found coal ash sludge to be an extremely toxic by-product. There still is no real “clean coal” operation that’s commercially viable.
Conner also supports increased drilling for oil, in spite of the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and many on-land oil spills within the United States over the last year. “To produce independence in the short term, we will need to increase domestic oil production,” Conner writes.
Most Democrats are strong and sincere supporters of environmental action. 7th district Democrats may be discontent with Congressman Austria’s opposition to green energy policies, but as they look at Bill Conner’s embrace of energy industry arguments defending old fossil fuel technologies, they aren’t likely to see enough reason to donate their money to support the Conner for Congress campaign.
Actually Conner said…. “We have massive coal reserves. Liquefied and gasified coal pilot plants are currently in operation. The production of these fuels and their use is reported to be environmentally safe and involve no increase in greenhouse gases compared to current oil use. Government support or guarantee of this development will likely be required because it can be economically undercut by oil interests when it threatens the oil market.”
He also said in full context… “To produce independence in the short term, we will need to increase domestic oil production. The BP platform disaster in the gulf has given us a rude awakening to the environmental risks involved in offshore drilling. It must be studied and the study results applied to insure there is no repeat. Environmental risks must be an important consideration in all energy production programs. ”
And finally he said… “For the longer term, we should develop new concepts of transportation. We need to promote the most energy efficient forms of transportation. I envision a system of one or two person (probably electric) vehicles tied into a high speed interurban transport (monorail using interstate medians) system.”
I strongly green energy, protection of the environment, and energy independence. Go to http://connerforus.com/alternative_energy.htm for my position.
Bill, I’ve already looked at your positions. They include promotion of continued burning of coal and oil. How is that “strongly green energy” and “protection of the environment”? “Energy independence” is becoming a code phrase for protecting the status quo for domestic big oil.
You have some vague expressions of support for energy alternatives, but they’re by no means revolutionary, not even for 10 years ago. I wrote that your green policies are weak, and I reiterate that: They’re weak.
Readers, judge for yourselves. Go to my web site and read all of my positions. You’ll support me. Certainly, there is nothing to support the alternative, Steve Austria.
As for the money issue you mention. Ours is a grass roots campaign. We don’t accept money from ANY special interests. It’s signs (http://connerforus.com/New%20Sign.jpg and campaign cards (http://connerforus.com/Campaign%20Card.htm) and boots on the ground. This is the opportunity for citizens to put someone in office who will work for them. Come help us get out those cards and put out those signs. We accept donations from people. Send $50 as a check or through ActBlue.com and it will fund 250 jumbo postcards to voters. We can defeat special interests (including the oil and coal corporations) who currently control Congress. Let’s do it.
I am supporting Steve Austria, but this charge that Bill Conner’s “green” positions are weak are part and particial of thinking that we can find enough energy in Biomass, Wind and Solar to power the country. Nuclear power has proven to be safe, reliable and clean, but instead of embracing it and working for its increase the “greens” prefer that we return to 1880 and all live like the Amish. The Amish reject electricity for spiritual reasons. I guess the “greens” do to. So, if Bill Conner supported a strong Nuclear program, especially small nuclear like M-Power by B&W right here in Ohio, he would be supporting a way to have energy independence and low carbon emissions.
David, that’s what I would expect a supporter of Steve Austria to say. I notice that your comment avoids discussing the harmful dependence upon fossil fuels that both Steve Austria and Bill Conner continue to support.
Living Green doesn’t mean living like the Amish. It means challenging Americans to move beyond the outdated industrial technology of the past.