Why Won’t Inhofe’s Pro-Pollution, Anti-Women Tour Stop in MA for Scott Brown?

Hey, Sen. Jim Inhofe! You forgot to include Scott Brown in your "give me a Republican Senate so I can let Big Oil and Big Coal murder the Environmental Protection Agency" tour!

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is hitting the road to fire up support for GOP Senate candidates opposed to Obama administration rules on coal and other energy sources.

Inhofe's due to stop in Montana, Missouri and Ohio. Surely, it must be some sort of oversight that Sen. Inhofe isn't making a stop in Massachusetts, amirite?

“We’re real close to a presidential election win and close to an election that will elect [Montana Republican Senate candidate] Denny Rehberg and give us a majority," Inhofe said, according to the Billings Gazette. [...]

Montana was Inhofe's first stop on a three-state swing in which he will stump for candidates who want to repeal environmental rules the Oklahoman opposes. The current ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Inhofe is in line to take the chair if Republicans control the Senate.

Elizabeth Warren detailed the Brown-Inhofe connection at the first debate:

Sen. Brown has been going around the country talking to people saying you've gotta contribute to his campaign because it may be for the control of the Senate. And he's right. This race may really be for the control of the Senate. But what that would mean is, if the Republicans take over the Senate, Jim Inhofe would become the person who would be in charge of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency. He's a man who's called global warming a hoax. In fact, that's the title of his book. A man like that should not be in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency overseeing their work. I just don't understand how we could talk about going in that direction.

Read more about why electing Scott Brown would help Sen. Inhofe run wild in a Republican Senate, leading to disaster for our climate, air & water quality and for women's rights, at KeepTheSenateBlue.com.

5 Ways Scott Brown's Climate and Energy Debate Answer Was Wrong

A viewer question focused on climate change in last night's U.S. Senate debate between Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren. Watch it starting at 22:25:
The question: Do you believe climate change is real, and if so what should the federal government be doing about it?

BROWN: Yes, I do. I absolutely believe climate change is real, and I believe there's a combination between manmade and natural. That being said one of the biggest things we can do is get an energy policy and we don't have one. Wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, coal, siting, permitting, conservation, a true all of the above approach as I have. Professor Warren has a none of the above approach. She's in favor of wind and solar. She's against the Keystone pipeline which will help create union, all you union guys listening out there, she's denying union jobs and non-union jobs. Making sure we can get more energy on the world market to stabilize those costs that you're paying at the pump. When's the last time we permitted a nuclear facility to make sure we can have that clean energy? I could go on and on but right now the role is actually a balancing role. To find that balance, Jon, because you can't just have one or this or that. she's in favor of putting wind turbines in the middle of our, uh, greatest treasure, on the Nantucket Sound. I, like, President, uh, Senator Kennedy before me believe that's not right because those ratepayers are going to pay a tremendous amount more in their daily costs, and that's not right.

Sen. Brown's response is completely wrong here in at least five different ways:

• He's wrong about climate science. "The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes," reports the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And if climate action and protecting our clean air and water are so important to Sen. Brown, why are they nowhere to be found on his website?
• He's wrong about our electricity sources. Sen. Brown forgot to mention hydrocarbon gas, which provides more than half of Massachusetts' electricity generation right now. The extremely low cost of "natural" gas is what's putting coal out of business right now, not clean air regulations. And while the nuclear power industry likes to portray itself as the victim of those big, bad anti-radiation activists, we don't build nuclear power plants anymore because they're wicked expensive.
• He's wrong on what will stop climate change. More coal and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline? Our dependence on dirty coal is what's fueled our climate crisis in the first place. And building a new pipeline for tar sands - one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet - could be game over for stopping climate catastrophe.
• He's wrong about energy jobs. The Keystone XL pipeline would create only a fraction of the clean energy jobs that already exist in Massachusetts. TransCanada's original application estimated just 3,500-4,200 short-term construction jobs. Massachusetts' clean tech economy already employs 71,000 people.
• He's wrong about oil prices. Saying the U.S. can control the global oil market is like saying a junkie can control the cost of a hit. We have just 2% of the world's oil reserves but consume 20% of the world's oil supply. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, drilling in all of our wilderness areas desired by Big Oil combined would only mean a 4-5 cent reduction in the price of a gallon of gasoline by 2025. The only way we can reduce what we pay at the pump is by using less of it - exactly what the Obama administration is doing.
• Does even Scott Brown know what Scott Brown believes on clean energy? Says he supports wind energy, bashes Cape Wind - classic Both Ways Brown.

Here's Elizabeth Warren's response:

WARREN: Sen. Brown says that he's about a balanced approach. He's not - he's about a rigged playing field. Our clean energy industry - an industry that works here in Massachusetts - has to fight uphill against the oil subsidies. That's what tilts the playing field, and Sen. Brown has helped tilt it for the oil companies. That works against clean energy. The Keystone pipeline? Look, that's not going to produce nearly as many jobs as if we invested that same money in clean energy - that's where you produce real jobs, and that's where Massachusetts has a real advantage. But you know, I just want to stop on this one for a minute, because I think this one is really important. Sen. Brown has been going around the country talking to people saying you've gotta contribute to his campaign because it may be for the control of the Senate. And he's right. This race may really be for the control of the Senate. But what that would mean is, if the Republicans take over the Senate, Jim Inhofe would become the person who would be in charge of the committee that oversees the Environmental Protection Agency. He's a man who's called global warming a hoax. In fact, that's the title of his book. A man like that should not be in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency overseeing their work. I just don't understand how we could talk about going in that direction.

And she backs up the talk with a real plan. Check out Elizabeth Warren's comprehensive climate & energy plan.

CATTLE RUSTLERS & the Warren-Brown Senate Race

States like Virginia are rightly viewed as a collection of diverse interests. Why isn't Massachusetts?

Having lived inside the Beltway for 10 years, I can tell you the view of Massachusetts from down there looks like this:

This is partly why you see so many stories out of DC about Elizabeth Warren "struggling" in the U.S. Senate race. She's Harvard faculty, isn't that like 25% of the Massachusetts electorate?

But much of the state has managed to escape the clutches of Boston & its sprawl. Even the headlines of the Standard Times of New Bedford (population 100,000) can be dominated by cattle being rustled and rescued. Cows can still wander onto interstate highways and disrupt the morning commute.

From Gloucester to Sheffield, it's not hard to find towns whose economies still depend heavily on fishing and farming. Voters there want to actually listen to what the candidates have to say, not just vote blue because that's their predetermined political destiny. 

(It's also why Scott Brown is desperately trying to be all things to all people in every corner of the state. "He's for us" is the most generic political slogan since Clint Webb's "Hey ... me?")

New LCV Ad: Scott Brown Thinks Washington is Wicked Awesome

This League of Conservation Voters ad is brilliant because I don't think Sen. Scott Brown came to Washington planning to vote against conservation every single time ... but well, it just makes life so much easier to be able to ask the polluting billionaire Koch brothers to write you huge checks, you know? And when you vote against the public health protections, all the lobbyists are so much friendlier! You get taken to lunch at The Palm all the time.

So will Sen. Brown vote to continue multi-billion-dollar handouts to Big Oil? Tell him to take a stand for Massachusetts for once. That way when he loses to Elizabeth Warren, at least he can't say you didn't warn him.