Clinton Endorses Lowenthal, Attacks DeLong on Global Warming

The former president's UCI visit to endorse state Sen. Alan Lowenthal demonstrates national interest in the race for Long Beach-Orange County's new congressional seat.

Former President Bill Clinton endorsed State Senator Alan Lowenthal on Tuesday night for the new 47th Congressional District that straddles Orange County and Long Beach, stoking an already heated race.

Clinton, who appeared at UC Irvine during a rally to endorse five Democratic congressional candidates from across Southern California, urged the audience of nearly 5,000 to support Lowenthal in a bid to help Democrats take control of the House.

Clinton directly attacked Lowenthal’s Republican opponent, Long Beach City Councilman Gary DeLong, on the environment while praising Lowenthal’s accomplishments.

"He is not just the chairman of the Senate Education Committee," Clinton said of Lowenthal. "He helped make the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles among the greenest and cleanest in the entire world and proved it's good economics."

Lowenthal played a significant role in a 65-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the ports, Clinton said.

The former president also knocked Lowenthal's Republican challenger for doubting the scientific evidence behind climate change.

"It's really a very big deal," Clinton said. "There is no other country in the world with a major political party that denies the reality of climate change."

"[Lowenthal] will wave the port of Long Beach and Los Angeles like a flag in Congress until they do something serious about climate change," Clinton said.

Lowenthal, who said Clinton is "probably one of the most respected and revered" people in America, called being endorsed by Clinton in person "exhilarating."

Clinton told the congressional candidate he also believes greening the ports and encouraging economic development are not incompatible goals, Lowenthal said.

"I think that's a wonderful message to bring to the rest of the nation," the state senator said.

The race has been heated in recent weeks. The 47th seat, like several others in California, has become a political ground war by both national parties, who want control of the U.S. House of Representatives. And both parties and their respective financial machines have announced some level of role and support in the race.

DeLong has received his share of national party attention and support from the likes of Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan and the U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner.

After Clinton's endorsement of Lowenthal Tuesday night, DeLong e-mailed a response to a request for comment, quipping, "As the last President to balance the budget, if Bill Clinton were fully aware of Alan Lowenthal's record of over-taxing and deficit spending, he would likely endorse me for Congress.”

Lowenthal has decried outside money injected into the race by U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but DeLong has pointed to it as a sign of his strong candidacy.

Lowenthal and DeLong were the top vote-getters in a eight-candidate primary race June 5. Lowenthal garnered 34 percent of the vote to DeLong’s 29 percent.

The 47th Congressional District was created by the redistricting process and includes the cities of Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor and other West Orange County cities.

Voter registration in the district skews Democratic by about 10 percent.

While the district has more Democratic than Republican registered voters, it also has a sizable share of Independent Party voters, at least 25 percent prior to a last-minute surge of registrations before Monday's Oct. 22 deadline. And from Orange County, there are a decent number of Tea Party members as well. DeLong has been endorsed by Ryan, a Tea Party favorite.

But the Orange County electorate is more dynamic than people think, said Lownethal.

In addressing the crowd, the state senator praised the changing demographics of Orange County.

"We are changing the face of Orange County," Lowenthal said. "Orange County is no longer just white people."

He urged voters to help the Democrats take over the House and re-elect Obama.

met00 October 24, 2012 at 09:35 PM
John, you can thank Saint Reagan for the inability of specific classes of workers having the right to strike. Just who did those damn air controllers think they were (whatever you do, don't talk to one working as an air controller today, they will give you tons of stories about close calls and the crap they have to live with, without the ability to strike). My feeling about a union is really simple. If the anyone in the union management makes more than 1.5 times the median income of the union members, then the union should be shut down and restarted. For union leaders to care about the members, they really can't be overcompensated corporate whores.
met00 October 24, 2012 at 09:35 PM
met00 October 24, 2012 at 09:36 PM
investing in green technology has been a massive benefit at both of the ports, as well as a massive benefit to those that live and work near the ports. Seems like smart business sense to me.
met00 October 24, 2012 at 09:40 PM
Thanks for your detailed scientific analysis. Going to the moon was a boondoggle too. Now, take a moment to look at all the things that came out of that program that you use everyday in your life. Look at all the companies that now exist because of the governments massive waste of money sending man to the moon. But by your logic, we should just continue to use hydrocarbons until we make the planet uninhabitable because we can. Government investment into R&D and technology have always paid off in massive benefits to American companies and American jobs. But thanks to thinkers such as yourself, we will trail the Chinese when it comes to leveraging the next technology jump.
met00 October 24, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Play it again, sport. SSDD.
met00 October 24, 2012 at 09:48 PM
Here is the thing about a scientific theory, it's always being tested. There was once a point where man though the sun revolved around the earth, but it was tested and tested until it was no longer the belief system of most people (long before there was definitive proof). There was the theory that the earth was not flat (again, tested and tested and believed to be true based on that testing and then proven true). As more evidence shows up from testing and scientific evaluation, science changes it's ideas. What was once a light theory becomes accepted as almost factual, until it is dis-proven through rigorous scientific method. Today after much testing and scientific method, most ascribe to the theory that global warming is happening and that man's choices have had a major effect on it. That is the consensus from the majority of the scientific community that explore and investigate it. That a bunch of political hacks that get most of their money from people that don't want that to be true disagree is of little consequence. That they promote that the scientific community is not in close agreement and that there is some question of doubt over the theory is almost criminal.
met00 October 24, 2012 at 09:55 PM
John, will this create jobs? If you put solar panels on your home and use 100% American made solar products the US government will finance 100% of the cost and will put a zero interest lean on your property for 80% of the cost (it should be noted that the 20% difference is what you currently get in credits from the US government for adding solar to your home, so there is no change there). Since there is no actual cost (the lien on the property must be paid before the first mortgage as it is a tax lien) this sounds like a great way to 1) Create jobs in solar manufacturing. 2) Create investment into solar manufacturing R&D. 3) Create construction jobs on solar installations. and do all that while lowering the carbon footprint and creating green energy. A win for the environment, a win for the ratepayers, a win for the green industry, a win for construction, a win for consumers. In fact, I see no loser here. But in order to be motivated to make this a priority one has to accept the postulates of the majority of the scientific community that this is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately, and then address it. Of the two, Lowenthal and DeLong, just which do you think would champion such a program in Congress?
met00 October 24, 2012 at 09:56 PM
Now that would be fun.
Marshall Riverdale October 24, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Right - how genius! I had forgotten that when you vote earlier it carries more weight! Tell us, are you also an unconvinced climatologist?
Mike Ruehle October 24, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Greet argues against the high cost of unions, yet he is unwilling to give up any of the union benefits he retired with from the Police Department. Everyone else needs to give up their benefits but not him.
John B. Greet October 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM
met00: 1: There is no scientific consensus regarding AGCC theory. Unless/until there is, we should not adopt public policies or expend public funds based upon that theory. 2. The government owns no money. The money the government manages is held in trust for the the people, as rightly represented by a majority of voters and constrained by the rule of law. 3. It is not the proper function of the people, through government, to presume to finance, to any degree, a solar panel installation program such as you describe but even if it were, we should not do so because, 4. As mentioned, we are currently burdened with a $16 trillion dollar national debt, each taxpayer's share of which is about $141 thousand dollars. So here's a counter proposal: How about we stop making "investments" of the people's money (that we do not have in the first place) to mitigate a global climate challenge, the cause of which is still largely in dispute. How about we simplify the tax code so that every income earner pays the same percentage and then cut federal spending in a meaningful way and keep it cut. Of the two, Lowenthal or DeLong, which do you think would champion such a program in Congress?
John B. Greet October 24, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Ruehle's comments continue in their typically ignorant fashion. The benefits I retired with are not "union benefits" they are City and State Public Safety Retirement benefits, which I rightly *earned* under the terms of legally negotiated contracts ratified through the State's legal collective bargaining process. How interesting that Ruehle seems so eager to strip me of these legally-contracted retirement benefits. Is he equally anxious to strip the people and businesses of Long Beach of the various benefits of my labor that I provided for almost 30 years? Of course not. He would no doubt feel that would not be fair, particularly since he, personally, benefitted from some of those efforts directly at one time. You see, on Planet Ruehle, it apparently makes perfect sense to accept the various benefits of the work product that others have provided over decades, then, later, once the work has already been provided, seek to change the compensation that elected City officials agreed to pay for that work. That's what passes for justice on Planet Ruehle. Thank goodness the rest of us live elsewhere!
John B. Greet October 25, 2012 at 04:50 AM
"...most ascribe to the theory that global warming is happening and that man's choices have had a major effect on it." Then again, maybe not... http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/ This author draws the clear distinction between "government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations" and "calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data." If only more folks would try to do the same!
Mike Ruehle October 25, 2012 at 06:35 AM
My comments are CENSORED for calling someone a "coward" or describing city corruption. Meanwhile, the Patch allows others such as John Greet to call me any names he wants WITHOUT CENSORSHIP. I'm not as IGNORANT as Greet claims, because its apparent the Patch is biased in their treatment of the favored few.
Gregory Brittain October 25, 2012 at 08:27 AM
Well Met00, what could possibly be wrong with more free stuff from the government? If this makes economic sense, let's expand the program, perhaps to the entire house. The government, i.e. taxpayers, will pay the entire cost of the house, 80% zero interest financing, payable only on sale of the property and tax credits for the other 20%. No out of pocket cost to the buyer. Think of all the jobs that would be created building free houses for everyone. When you sell the free house, you can get another free house from the government. Whoever thought of this program should get the Nobel Prize for economics. It is an economic perpetual motion machine. I am surprised Obama has not thought of this already. Maybe it is Obama's program, and he can get the Nobel Prize for economics to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.
Gregory Brittain October 25, 2012 at 08:35 AM
Obama's and the Dems' idea that showering money from Washington (that we have to print or borrow) creates prosperity is cargo cult economics. http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/13/obama-and-the-triumph-of-cargo-cult-economics Taxpayers provide the zero interest capital. Resources are diverted to into uneconomic uses that would not exist but for government subsidies. The nation is poorer because resources are diverted into unproductive uses. The government can allocate capital to anything regardless of whether it makes economic sense. Nations that rely on economic freedom and free market are more prosperous than nations where government allocates resources and capital in part because the market directs capital and resources to more productive uses.
Gregory Brittain October 25, 2012 at 08:36 AM
Dems will hate the source, but here is a great article regarding the importance of economic freedom. http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/charles-koch-economy-freedom/2012/08/15/id/448700?s=al&promo_code=FC43-1 Some excerpts: “Nations with the greatest degree of economic freedom tend to have citizens who are much better off in every way.” “No centralized government, no matter how big, how smart or how powerful, can effectively and efficiently control much of society in a beneficial way. On the contrary, big governments are inherently inefficient and harmful.” “And yet, the tendency of our own government here in the U.S. has been to grow bigger and bigger, controlling more and more. This is why America keeps dropping in the annual ranking of economic freedom.” “It was President Franklin Roosevelt who said: “Continued dependence on [government support] induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”
met00 October 25, 2012 at 05:22 PM
You are a wizard, Isn't that what the pointed round hat you are wearing in the corner means? There is NOTHING free. The cost is a tax lien on the property which means it gets paid off first. The 20% is already the federal tax credit for going solar (and believe me, that is a heck of a lot cheaper than the Bush administrations push for Solyndra funding). If you were going to put a solar system on your house today it would cost say, $25K. $5K of that would be covered by current government incentives. The balance would be in the form of the homeowners cash or a equity loan on the property. If a loan, the homeowner would immediately begin making payments, which takes money out of the economy when we need money in it and being spent. By doing this instead, the money is not spent paying a bank, and in addition the homeowner saves money from electricity costs that can be further spent in consumerism, boosting the economy. Unlike the tinfoil dunce cap you are wearing, the green eyeshades I have on know that in an economy that runs on consumerism, having consumers spending money creates demand, demand creates manufacturing and JOBS. Which is what the economy needs right now. Additionally, this would lower the costs of manufacturing electricity when PGE is dealing with a dead nuke plant and is paying top dollar for electricity (and passing that expense to consumers). More jobs, lower energy costs, more consumer spending... a cycle of growth.
Mike Ruehle October 25, 2012 at 06:06 PM
My comments are repeatedly CENSORED for calling someone a "coward" or describing city corruption as a personal attack. Meanwhile, the Patch allows others such as John Greet to call me any names he wants WITHOUT CENSORSHIP. I'm not as IGNORANT as Greet claims, because its apparent the Patch is biased in their treatment of the favored few.
Gregory Brittain October 25, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Bush admin turned down Solyndra. Obama admin funded Solyndra, which just coincidentally was backed by an Obama bundler.
met00 October 25, 2012 at 07:59 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/?mobile=nc July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program. December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program. Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment. January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment. March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee. Damn facts.
met00 October 25, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Just to repeat, in case you missed it... January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. Now which Administration PUSHED the deal? In case you missed it again... March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee. Not political appointees, but the SAME people that were working there when the Bush Administration attempted to push it through. Oh yes, as of September 12 2011, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio.
met00 October 25, 2012 at 08:05 PM
you don't like the link, try this one.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/solyndra-scandal-timeline/
Gregory Brittain October 25, 2012 at 09:17 PM
Thank you for confirming Solyndra was approved under the Obama admin.
Gregory Brittain October 25, 2012 at 09:21 PM
There should be no subsidies for any business. Taxpayer financing that the business could not get in the market place is a subsidy. Alternative energy costs much more than other forms of energy. That's why it's alternative. Why pay more for energy just so Libs feel good and Obama bundlers can make money? If I Wanted America to Fail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuvnsAg3eA8
met00 October 25, 2012 at 09:51 PM
John, what would be the cost of food if there was no national highway system? Was that a good investment by the federal government? Where would we be with technology if there had been no investment of tax dollars into the massive R&D effort called NASA? Was that a good investment by the Federal Government? Where would the Internet be if Senator Gore had not fought for the funding for a small research project called arpanet? Was that a good investment by the Federal Government? Sometimes "borrowing" tax dollars for the public good is a great thing to do as it pays dividends that are unknown before the investment starts. The immediate investment described above will pay dividends directly, but also there are other reasons to do it. The key reason is that we are a consumer demand based economy. So, when money is freed up for the working class to spend, they do. This creates employment and more employment means more people with money to spend, and the growth cycle continues. By investing in technology (solar) and not demanding immediate repayment (like a bank) we lower costs for energy creating working class income (money not spent on energy) that can feed the economy through consumerism and demand for products. Th initial investment will get paid back (at about the same interest rate that the banks currently pay), but by not demanding it now we create no drain on cash flow.
met00 October 25, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Part II: This process of priming the pump will create economic growth through consumer spending. Then you add in the new jobs in manufacturing solar and construction, and you have further growth engines. Now think of big screen TV's. When they first came out they cost upwards of $20K for a 45" screen. Today that's under $1K. What drove that was demand, lowering manufacturing costs as well as pushing technology (R&D). Think of that push in solar power generation. More watts from less square inches. Electric cars that charge themselves when parked by solar panels on the roofs, etc. Then there is the advantages of closing electric generation systems that pollute and rebuilding the power transmission and delivery system to be more effective and green. More jobs, more economic growth. My point is that a very small push (direct investment into consumer electric generation) will have enormous ripple effects to create economic growth. And the great part is that each home sells the government gets their initial investment into the economic push back! Yes, there is the loss of interest... but let's get real, we are already giving that away to the banks and getting bubkis for it, so giving it to the consumers directly and getting an economic growth engine is a heck of a lot better than what we are doing with the money now at the same cost.
met00 October 25, 2012 at 10:04 PM
I agree. Let's stop all tax subsidies for all businesses. Can't wait until the oil and gas industry gets wind of your ideas. I wonder if they have a kill list? Hey, tell big-Agra that you want to cut them off the teat of the government. OH wait! Tell Big-Pharma that Medicare is no negotiating prices and that their subsidy ends... PLEASE tell business that the gravy train has left the station!
John B. Greet October 26, 2012 at 12:58 AM
As mentioned, we are currently burdened with a $16 trillion dollar national debt, each taxpayer's share of which is about $141 thousand dollars. We don't *have* a single dollar to "invest" that we don't have to pay about .40 cents on in interest. Sorry, met00, now is not the time for further "investments" or "priming" of that sort. Now is the time for becoming ultra-conservative in our fiscal policies. Now is the time for making the tax code more fair, for cutting spending (not just the rate of increase), and for getting our nation back on solid fiscal footing again. After that, perhaps we can talk.
John B. Greet October 26, 2012 at 01:09 AM
Ruehle, I didn't "call you names." I was very careful to characterize your comments as "ignorant", not you. I called your comments "ignorant" because they "ignore" many facts. If you are not interested in having your comments characterized by others in one way or another, perhaps you should consider avoiding doing the very same thing with the comments of others. Perhaps you should re-consider posting your comments on public websites like this one, if you truly fear the valid judgments of those who might read them. Also, if you are going to heap various aspersions and unfounded allegations upon others, you really shouldn't then complain when the editor chooses to remove your comments. Try cleaning up your act a bit, letting your facts (when you have them) speak for themselves without all of the added rhetorical fraud and falsehood, and perhaps the deletions will cease. Just a friendly suggestion.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »