In 1999 it was revealed that an Albuquerque City Council candidate and nine of his relatives had registered to vote at a mobile home in Southeast Albuquerque. He said at the time that his relatives never voted. Having gone to college at the University of New Mexico, it was not a shock this miscreant would have pulled that brand of stunt. I'll go to my grave having to explain why I helped the guy get elected as our Student Body President.
Even by the low standards of "the Land of Enchantment", a ballot box stuffing stunt seems pretty brazen. Given the optics, it's rather petty and really dumb. Eighteen years later I witnessed a clumsily executed variant courtesy of "Environmental Attorney" Mike Levin's campaign for Darrell Issa's 49th Congressional District seat on California's bucolic coast.
It was a beautiful morning in Northern San Diego County. Early on a Saturday morning at the meeting of a local Democratic club, there was a vote on which delegates the club will send to the area's Democratic pre-endorsement conference.
At that event, several non-residents of the area were able to vote for the representatives of these tightly knit together coastal communities. On the very deadline to pay the membership dues to vote in this election, thirty-eight new members suddenly appeared and enrolled. The majority were "carpetbaggers". They were there to vote for a slate favoring Mike Levin.
Those responsible for these sudden last-minute enrollees saw nothing wrong with a little ballot box stuffing. Their campaign staff (perhaps) forgot this was not just a case of winning an endorsement for their trailing campaign. In the shadow of the 2016 divide in the Presidential Primary campaign, forgetting the right of neighbors to have their voices heard looms disproportionately large.
To those on the receiving end of this internecine struggle, it's another example of the Democratic Party processes seeming not right, and unfair. It's a question that potentially will be scorching the party's earth for years to come. There was an air of ruthlessness in the way the Hillary Clinton campaign conducted its affairs in 2016.
It comes as no shock that Mr. Levin would follow that playbook. A selling point for Mike Levin's candidacy has been that he is "dialed in" to the Clinton family, and spent much of 2016 bundling donations for HRC. It is also been widely broadcast that Levin went to Stanford at the same time Chelsea Clinton did.
His stated credentials as an "environmental attorney" would seem to resonate in a district concerned about rampant coastal development and the issues surrounding the closed San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. As expected in a hotly contested campaign, Mr. Levin's bona fides seem to be in some dispute. Before delving into those matters, a little background information is assistive.
BACKGROUND.
A year after the 2016 presidential election, festering tensions between the Clinton and Sanders wings continue to divide the Democratic Party. 2017 began with the struggle over who should chair the Democratic National Committee. Sanders and his supporters were behind the losing candidate, Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.), while the Clintonian Democrats were seen as supporting the winner, former Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez.
Recently a resolution calling on Senator Sanders to join the Democratic Party was defeated during the Democratic National Committee meetings in Las Vegas October 18-21. It was yet another sign of the tensions between Sanders's acolytes and Clinton people still blaming Sanders for the debacle last November. Hopes that perhaps the depths of calamity we witnessed last November 8th would chasten the troops were dashed. There is ample evidence that peace will not ensue anytime soon.
More than a year after Clinton’s primary win and nearly a year after Donald Trump’s victory on Election Day, all the infighting takes the focus off of the President. Witnessing Donald Trump bringing us to the brink of nuclear war, obstructing justice, and being "on the take" from foreign governments should be a prescription for party unity. Sadly, the race for the 49th Congressional District on the coast between Orange County and San Diego has become a microcosm of that divide.
THE STRUGGLE TO OUST DARRELL ISSA
A retired Marine colonel came within 1621 votes of defeating Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista in 2016. Doug Applegate's appeal to the military veterans residing around Camp Pendleton helped Applegate to actually defeat Issa in Northern San Diego County. After the last census, there were 46,441 civilian veterans in the district. Charges were voiced by Issa in that race about a messy divorce, including false allegations of spousal abuse, yet Issa sued Applegate for alleged libel. In the end, a judgment ordered Issa to pay his opponent more than $45,000.
One demonstration of how motivated the electorate is to purge Issa is that hundreds of voters turnout every Tuesday at 10 am to demonstrate outside of his Vista, CA office.
One demonstration of how motivated the electorate is to purge Issa is that hundreds of voters turnout every Tuesday at 10 am to demonstrate outside of his Vista, CA office.
Issa defeated Applegate in the closest congressional race in the country last year. The 49th District race is being targeted for 2018 by the DCCC. With a proven candidate there seems to be no compelling reason for another entry into this race. In theory, a contested primary would be a good thing, if all the candidates were raising money and ganging up on Issa and his ties to President Trump. Sadly, the race has turned into a saga of three significant candidates in the field. It’s an open question whether Democrats have increased or decreased their chances of knocking off Issa by the hard-edged tactics of one of these new participants.
ENTER MIKE LEVIN
For Democrats, the good news is that capable candidates will be in the primary field, raising money and shining a lantern on Issa, his record, and his ties to President Trump. The bad news, of course, is that the race has begun to resemble a knife fight. Only one will make it through the primary to face the incumbent in the November general election. Certainly, Mr. Levin is entitled to run for the nomination. For many, it is a pervasive sense of entitlement which is the concern.
The Levin campaign has insisted that there are no meaningful policy differences between Colonel Applegate and their candidate. That would seem to beg the question of why Democratic voters need to vote for anybody but Colonel Applegate. To date the Levin campaign's rationale for his candidacy goes like this:
1- Applegate lost last time. We need a winner.
Linked here is an analysis of Issa's electoral history. The 2016 hairbreadth margin of 1621 is a vast contrast to past Democratic performance in the 49th.
2- Mike Levin is a family man, with an adorable family that should be in a Kellogg's commercial. Applegate once had a contentious divorce.
Outside of the rather feline nature of this argument, it is based on the whispering campaign Issa conducted in 2016. Having just received a rather emphatic sanction for his tactics in court, it's hard to conceive that Issa has held anything in reserve as far as opposition research on Doug Applegate. Mike Levin has not really been vetted in terms of surviving the "heaters" Darrell will throw at any nominee's head.
Outside of the rather feline nature of this argument, it is based on the whispering campaign Issa conducted in 2016. Having just received a rather emphatic sanction for his tactics in court, it's hard to conceive that Issa has held anything in reserve as far as opposition research on Doug Applegate. Mike Levin has not really been vetted in terms of surviving the "heaters" Darrell will throw at any nominee's head.
When looking into the policy utterances of Mike Levin, he appears to be a cipher. His Facebook page, until he declared, was a repository of banalities with some Clinton family hagiography tossed in. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein's comment about Oakland, "there's no there, there."
WHERE IS THE BEEF?
For John Q. Citizen, one would expect a page replete with anything that resembles a conviction. For a candidate for Congress, much less one claiming he has spent years in the political vineyards where the Republican grapes of wrath are stored, the absence of the same is jarring. Not only should we ask "where's the beef". we should ask why the refrigerator is utterly empty.
WHERE IS THE BEEF?
For John Q. Citizen, one would expect a page replete with anything that resembles a conviction. For a candidate for Congress, much less one claiming he has spent years in the political vineyards where the Republican grapes of wrath are stored, the absence of the same is jarring. Not only should we ask "where's the beef". we should ask why the refrigerator is utterly empty.
An interesting aspect of Mike Levin's career is the "environmental attorney" claim. Just this week the Levin camp put out invitations to view this link. It was entitled "myths vs. facts". It sought to address the questions being raised about this vital part of his resume. Here's an example:
Myth: Mike is not a “real” environmental attorney because he didn’t litigate many cases, and there is no record of his advocacy prior to 2016.
Fact: Since 2007, Mike’s work in clean energy has focused on accelerating our transition to a sustainable future. He has worked with companies and non-profits as both attorney and advocate. He is not and has never been a registered lobbyist.
A search for any narrative surrounding Mike Levin's career as an "environmental attorney" is as difficult as penetrating the veil of his policy positions. If your expectation of an attorney dealing with the environment is Atticus Finch filing briefs on behalf of adorable creatures, our air, and our water, Mike Levin’s career is going to disappoint. As one observer noted, "LexisNexis has only three pleadings, none of which are environmental."
A search for any narrative surrounding Mike Levin's career as an "environmental attorney" is as difficult as penetrating the veil of his policy positions. If your expectation of an attorney dealing with the environment is Atticus Finch filing briefs on behalf of adorable creatures, our air, and our water, Mike Levin’s career is going to disappoint. As one observer noted, "LexisNexis has only three pleadings, none of which are environmental."
Another question to ask is if a "Director of Government Affairs" can look you in the eye and assert his job is not about lobbying. As seen in the video above: if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. Regardless of whether the duck resides in San Juan Capistrano or on K Street.
Fact- Mike Levin was Director of Government Affairs and later VP of Legal and Regulatory Affairs for FlexEnergy/Ener-Core, a gas turbine/oxidizer manufacturer-distributor.
Fact- Mike Levin was then the Director of Government Affairs for FuelCell Energy, Inc. Levin's Linked-in page states that "FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq: FCEL) is a leading integrated fuel cell company that designs, manufactures, sells, installs, operates and services ultra-clean, highly efficient stationary fuel cell power plants for distributed power generation.
The Yale University Climate Connections site notes the Following "Concern about the natural gas used to make hydrogen in fuel cells reflects what it takes to get that gas – fracking and its impacts, and the methane leakage associated with transporting gas.
Given this rather interesting dichotomy, Mr. Levin's "Myth vs. Facts" page has either made a transposition error or it's written deceptively. It really should read as follows:
Myth- Mike is a proud owner of a Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle, which emits only water vapor from the tailpipe, has a 366-mile range, can refuel in less than 5 minutes, and has roughly the same carbon footprint as other electric vehicles.
Fact- Mike supports Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, which are a non-renewable technology that relies on fracking.
“Any time you’re talking about fossil fuel,” said Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, “no matter how efficient your conversion technology is, you’re starting with something that’s fundamentally unsustainable."
Given this rather interesting dichotomy, Mr. Levin's "Myth vs. Facts" page has either made a transposition error or its written deceptively. It really should read as follows:
Myth: Mike opposes fracking.
Fact: Mike supports fracking.
In May of 2016, ExxonMobil either bought an undisclosed interest in FuelCell and/or the two companies entered into an agreement to collaborate on carbon capture and clean coal development. This year, FuelCell's Vice President was a featured speaker at the National Coal Council's Annual Spring Meeting. As the industry website H2- International notes:
"During the industry conference Energy – Think Outside the Box in Berlin, William M. Colton, vice president corporate strategic planning at ExxonMobil, talked about the big potential of a technology called “carbon capture.” By that, he meant the option to add CO2 to hydrogen to create methane and convert the result into power and heat inside a fuel cell. ExxonMobil’s partner for generating energy from emissions is FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ: FCEL). Days later, U.S. President Donald Trump said in a speech that he intended to “end the war on coal” and that the United States was going to have “clean coal.” A coincidence? One of the members of Trump’s team is former ExxonMobil chair Rex Tillerson, who could have told Trump about the technology."
Given this rather interesting dichotomy, Mr. Levin's "Myth vs. Facts" page has either made a transposition error or it's written deceptively. If there was an investment by Exxon, they own an interest in FuelCell Energy. Even if FuelCell Energy is said to be a strategic partner or a vendor, the following holds true:
Myth- Mike has never worked for Exxon.
Fact- Mike has worked for Exxon
FACTS AND MYTHS
FACTS AND MYTHS
According to Mike Levin's own assertions on this page, He has devoted his career “directing lobbying” for grants, financing, and favorable regulations. He has been integrally involved driving legislation as a "Director of Governmental Affairs" of companies that specialize in the development of fossil fuel-based technologies.
The fact remains that natural gas is integral to the operation of microturbines, hydrogen fuel cells, and carbon capture, for which the number one source is the same ‘clean’ coal a certain "dotard" really likes. Of course, reports state that Trump really believes that "clean coal" means that workers are actually hand-washing the coal.
At the end of the day, both Trump's claims of "clean coal" and Mike Levin's assertion that he is an "environmental attorney" sound like great spin. Until they aren't.
The fact remains that natural gas is integral to the operation of microturbines, hydrogen fuel cells, and carbon capture, for which the number one source is the same ‘clean’ coal a certain "dotard" really likes. Of course, reports state that Trump really believes that "clean coal" means that workers are actually hand-washing the coal.
At the end of the day, both Trump's claims of "clean coal" and Mike Levin's assertion that he is an "environmental attorney" sound like great spin. Until they aren't.
All of this brings us back to where we began. Mike Levin's campaign keeps running away from his actual background rather than taking pride in it. Though it might sound better in a "dial group" than fessing up to swimming in the "swamp" as a Director of Governmental Affairs, it does not seem as if the truth is something that is very harmful.
If we are the "company we keep", perhaps Mike Levin has been unduly influenced by Hill, Bill and Chelsea to parse his own life and career and create an illusory one. It seems one of those tragic situations where one would have better served by the truth than spinning it. The saddest thought that crosses my mind as I write this, is that maybe, just maybe, I would have been helping the Levin campaign heist a small club's delegate selection today. If he had told us the truth.
One may read this as a polemic against a nice young guy. One could be partially correct in that assertion. But until we as a Democratic Party learn how to be true to our traditions, and learn how to communicate with people once again, all we will be left with are campaigns that do not inspire. Real emotions are not derived from a focus group. And real "Environmental Attorneys" actually are practicing "Environmental Attorneys"
MANY BLESSINGS
NOEL
