One person can make a difference

One person really can make a difference.

In just my first nine months in Congress, I’ve already set in place an agenda that’s making a real difference for America. That’s why I want to make sure we have a continuing dialogue about the important issues facing our nation.

With my background in wind and other forms of new energy technology, I recently helped to pass landmark energy legislation that will lead our nation to energy independence, make us more secure, create new, good-paying American jobs, reduce energy costs to consumers, and fight global warming.

I was particularly proud that the legislation we passed included a bill I wrote and introduced to increase research and development funding for cutting edge, 21st century geothermal technology.

Can you invest in America’s energy independence by supporting my re-election campaign and making a contribution in whatever amount you can afford today?

http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/contribute

Two months ago, I was honored to lead a bipartisan, all-freshman Congressional delegation to Iraq. It’s one thing to read the reports about what is going on in Iraq. It’s another thing entirely to witness it firsthand.

I returned from Iraq with a deepened understanding of the challenges we face there, a renewed commitment to our young men and women in uniform, and an even stronger determination to bring our troops home by implementing a withdrawal timeline with firm beginning and end dates.

I feel privileged to have been able to be your eyes and ears in Iraq, and to have been instrumental in writing and passing legislation to protect the environment and advance our energy security. None of that would have been possible without your support in my campaign for Congress. Now I’m asking for your support again.

It’s true – one person can make a difference. You made a difference once before by helping me defeat Richard Pombo. Can you make a difference once again by contributing to my re-election campaign today?

http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/contribute

As Number 3 on Karl Rove’s hit list for 2008, I need every dollar to wage an ambitious re-election campaign against an opponent who has the full financial support of the national Republican Party. In fact, he’s here in Washington, D.C. today (I just ran into him outside the Cannon Building) meeting with the National Republican Congressional Committee.

They will raise enough money to mount a vicious Rove-style attack in 2008. If we are to withstand the big money and attack politics we will need to raise a large amount before our FEC filing deadline of September 30, 2007. I need your help to do it.

Can you contribute $250, $100 or $50 and show the Republicans that we won’t be an easy target?

http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/contribute

Helping make a difference isn’t just about giving money. It’s about sharing ideas, as well. I would appreciate it if you took just a few minutes to tell me what you think and share your concerns for the future of our nation and the world. I read and take to heart your comments so, after contributing, please post your comments on the form provided. Or, if you can not contribute, please post your comments on my blog or e-mail them to me at "info@jerrymcnerney.org".

You can also call our campaign office at (925) 833-0643 to express your opinions.

Thank you for everything you do.

P.S. I value your support and commitment to our shared values and thank you for believing in my ability to make a difference. With the Republican Party rolling out the big guns to raise money, I once again call on you to help make a difference. Please contribute to our campaign before the September 30th FEC deadline.

http://www.jerrymcnerney.org/contribute

Comments

[Eric Rader]

Global energy demand will rise 60 percent over the next 25 years, according to the International Energy Agency, and nuclear power is the cleanest and best bet to fill that gap.

Solar power is a disappointment, still accounting for only about one-fifth of 1 percent of the nation's electricity and costing about five times as much as other sources. Wind is promising, for its costs have fallen 80 percent, but it suffers from one big problem: wind doesn't blow all the time. It's difficult to rely upon a source that comes and goes.

In contrast, nuclear energy already makes up 20 percent of America's power, not to mention 75 percent of France's.

A sensible energy plan must encourage conservation - far more than Mr. Bush's plans do - and promote things like hybrid vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. But for now, nuclear power is the only source that doesn't contribute to global warming and that can quickly become a mainstay of the grid.

Is it safe? No, not entirely. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl demonstrated that, and there are also risks from terrorist attacks.

Then again, the world now has a half-century of experience with nuclear power plants, 440 of them around the world, and they have proved safer so far than the alternatives. America's biggest power source is now coal, which kills about 25,000 people a year through soot in the air.

To put it another way, nuclear energy seems much safer than our dependency on coal, which kills more than 60 people every day.

Moreover, nuclear technology has become far safer over the years. The future may belong to pebble-bed reactors, a new design that promises to be both highly efficient and incapable of a meltdown.

Radioactive wastes are a challenge. But burdening future generations with nuclear wastes in deep shafts is probably more reasonable than burdening them with a warmer world in which Manhattan is submerged under 20 feet of water.

Right now, the only significant source of electricity in the U.S. that does not involve carbon emissions is hydropower. But salmon runs have declined so much that we should be ripping out dams, not adding more.

What killed nuclear power in the past was cold economics. Major studies at M.I.T. and elsewhere show that nuclear power is still a bit more expensive than new coal or natural gas plants, but in the same ballpark if fossil fuel prices rise. And if a $200-per-ton tax was imposed on carbon emissions, nuclear energy would become cheaper than coal from new plants.

So it's time to welcome nuclear energy as green (though not to subsidize it with direct handouts, as the nuclear industry would like). Indeed, some environmentalists are already climbing onboard. For example, the National Commission on Energy Policy, a privately financed effort involving environmentalists, academics and industry representatives, issued a report in December that favors new nuclear plants.

One of the most eloquent advocates of nuclear energy is James Lovelock, the British scientist who created the Gaia hypothesis, which holds that Earth is, in effect, a self-regulating organism.

"I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy," Mr. Lovelock wrote last year, adding: "Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendents. ... Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy."

[Dottie Friedrich]

I can't believe you voted to condemn the MoveOn.org ad re General Petraeus. Joining with the Republicans in their faux outrage and taking precious time to vote against free speech is not what I elected you to do especially when Congress should be spending time getting us out of Iraq. What an embarrassment that all this "do nothing" congress can do is condemn some ad in the NYT. I hosted a get out the vote MoveOn house party and in all the calls made to your district we supported you against Pombo. Thanks a lot Jerry.

[Charlene Woodcock]

Nuclear power has had vastly more tax subsidies than solar, and Bush started pushing for it the moment he took office. We should have solar on all our roofs, serious energy efficiency and conservation requirements, and a diversified array of renewable energy sources. To add to the already large amount of radioactive waste unsafely stored on our planet would be as irresponsible as ignoring the necessity to change our wasteful habits. Built "safely," nuclear plants take years to build and cost huge amounts of money. Let's do the sensible and responsible thing and finally devote significant money to renewable energy and conservation.

[Robert Becker]

You ask, "Can you contribute $250, $100 or $50 and show the Republicans that we won’t be an easy target?"

NO WAY. Not when you show what an easy target you are when moving to condemn Moveon.org. What an empty, pathetic vote. It could be a long time before I contribute -- let alone match the hundreds of dollars I sent before you were elected -- and from my remote district.

One person can make a difference and this person is reconsidering whether someone taken in by a GOP smear will get us out of Iraq in the next five years.

There was nothing in the Moveon.org ad that suggested Petraeus was a traitor or attacked the military. He betrayed our trust, not committed treason, not a small distinction for me. You have been taken in and cornered and that augurs badly for a new Congressman.

I don't always agree with Moveon.org but what other national group is at least keeping the anti-war movement going?

[Michael O'Connell]

As a contributor to Move on and as a volunteer for you I am disapointed in your vote on the ad that questioned the "generals" loyalty to us and his army. If all "name calling" ads need to be apologized for what else will congress do?

[Robert Becker]

letter sent to the SF Chroncle:

Democrats who betray us

What the lopsided House condemnation of Moveon.org tells me is how very far this nation is from resolving Iraq. I fear we're moving backwards, making the five years it took to leave Vietnam look optimistic. When nominal anti-war Democrats like Mike Thompson and Jerry McNerney endorse ploys fabricated by the GOP, faking outrage over a trivial pun to avoid defending Bush's war, they show who still runs the unstoppable White House war machine.

Do Democratic collaborators really think this resolution moves us towards the peace table -- or more bloodshed? Do they really think the ad insulted the "entire military" by impugning one general's partisan testimony? I am outraged the House spent one minute condemning perhaps the lead anti-war group while ignoring countless Bush-Cheney disgraces, among others: lies for war, cheerleading for torture, illegal eavesdropping, outing a CIA agent for revenge, Katrina disaster, or 95% of the poison from the vice-president's mouth.

I predict historians will censure this Democratic Congress for negligence in not opposing serious, sustained Constitutional violations by this White House.

If anti-war Democrats can't keep their clear drumbeat going -- Iraq is a mistaken, failed, lost war now sustained by false testimony -- then why in hell should Bush Republicans vote to stop a war they claim to believe is worth fighting?

Robert Becker
Mendocino CA

[Jim Martin]

I worked hard for Jerry in 2006. I spent months of Sunday afternoons canvassing in Danville, Dublin and Pleasanton; I contributed from my own funds, and I used my own time and money to travel to Stockton to spend the pre-election weekend, take a motel room there, and work day in and day out for Jerry's campaign.

With his twin votes to condemn MoveOn and to table HR799 (Rep. Kucinich's resolution on the impeachment of VP Cheney) I have strong doubts as to whether I will contribute either time or money to Jerry's campaign every again.

It is time to stand behind those who got you elected (including MoveOn members), those whom you represent, and the majority of Americans (including 75% of Democrats) who realize that the only way to stop the pillaging of our country and our Constitution is to support impeachment proceedings against this criminal Administration.

[iwantcleanair]

Dear Congressman McNerney -

One person can make a difference. You already HAVE made a difference.

I write today with great sadness at the prospect that Speaker Pelosi will be throwing all our hard work on renewable energy legislation out the window by caving into the President on the current Energy Bill. The President (and the 20% of Americans that support him) do not want a Renewable Energy Portfolio or Tax Incentives for Solar and Wind which are supported by the rest of the American voters.

Please let us know how you will make a difference in this critical battle between the status quo (fossil and nuclear) and the clean future (wind and solar).

With great love, admiration and support,

Alan Zucker