HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RiverLover » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2011, 12:59 PM
Number of posts: 7,830

About Me

FDR Populist Progressive who believes the environment trumps all. We\'re sinking the only ship we\'ve got, and govt leaders are ignoring it.

Journal Archives

TPP:..."US would be REQUIRED to approve MORE fossil fuel exports"...

Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Fast Track to Disaster

(Snip)...Multinational corporations—including some of the planet’s biggest polluters—could use the TPP to sue governments, in private trade tribunals, over laws and policies that they claimed would reduce their profits. The implications of this are profound: Corporate profits are more important than protections for clean air, clean water, climate stability, workers’ rights and more.

This isn’t a hypothetical threat. Similar rules in other free trade deals have allowed corporations including ExxonMobil, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum to bring approximately 600 cases against nearly 100 governments. Increasingly, corporations are using these perverse rules to challenge energy and climate policies, including a moratorium on fracking in Quebec; a nuclear energy phaseout and coal-fired power plant standards in Germany; and a pollution cleanup in Peru. TransCanada has even intimated that it would use similar rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement to challenge a U.S. decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

Remember how scientists and experts have warned that at least three-quarters of known fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground in order to stabilize our climate? A new study published in the journal Nature even spells out in detail which reserves must stay untapped, including almost all of Canada’s tar sands, all of the oil and gas in the Arctic, nearly half of global natural gas reserves, and 82 percent of global coal reserves. But do trade pacts like the TPP take that into account?

Not a chance. In fact, as a result of the TPP, the U.S. Department of Energy would actually be required to approve more fossil fuel exports. The deal would greenlight fracked gas exports to countries in the pact—including Japan, which is the world’s biggest importer of natural gas. A consequence would be more fracking, more pipelines, more export terminals and more climate pollution.

It has never been more urgent for countries to tackle the climate crisis. Now is the time to ensure that the rules of the global economy support climate action. Now is not the time to be rubber-stamping trade deals that could undermine our prospects for a better future and safer climate....

Please read more~

"Can Sanders fill the Warren void?"

Can Sanders fill the Warren void?

Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders has a problem: He isn't Elizabeth Warren.

...Sanders, who is heading to New Hampshire for his first official campaign appearances on Saturday, wants to be that liberal option. His core positions -- breaking up Wall Street banks, making public college free, investing billions on infrastructure and guaranteeing health care for all -- are the same issues liberal groups have been championing for years. And his early campaign is starting to court organizers in key presidential states.

But as he settles into the Democratic presidential race, the response from some liberal groups and organizers has been markedly more focused on Warren, the middle-class champion and former Harvard professor, not Sanders, the Brooklyn-born, independent lawmaker with a gruff personality and an affinity for the moniker "democratic socialist."

Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, welcomed Sanders into the race and touted his record on Wednesday before noting that the Vermont-based Move On and their allies would "continue to call on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to also bring her tireless advocacy for middle-class and working Americans to the race."

Democracy for America, another liberal group whose views track closely with Sanders, had a similar reaction.

Our "members are excited to have progressive champion Senator Bernie Sanders join the 2016 presidential race," said Charles Chamberlain, the group's executive director, before adding, "We continue to encourage Senator Elizabeth Warren to join the race for president."

..."I like his views, I like him a lot," said Timothy Horrigan, a liberal New Hampshire representative, before listing all the ways Bernie isn't Elizabeth.

"She is more plausible as a president," Horrigan said. "They have similar messages but they have different styles, and her style appeals to a lot of people. She is sort of like Hillary without all the baggage and just a stronger progressive message."

Many in the progressive movement are uncomfortable with questions about why they are supporting Warren over Sanders.


*That last posted sentence, that would be me. I realize my still backing the effort to encourage Warren to change her mind and run for president puts me at odds with most of my fellow FDR Dem DUers.

I will support Bernie once the primaries begin, if Warren hasn't jumped in. But it will be with much less enthusiasm than it would be for Warren if she were running. And it is extremely uncomfortable.

The reason I still want Liz to run is spelled out in the following article. My apologizes to my friends here who will vigorously disagree~

...Yet they still long for Warren to enter the race. “We and our allies continue to call on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to also bring her tireless advocacy for middle-class and working Americans to the race,” Galland said. “Our country will be stronger if she runs.” Why do liberals still yearn for a Warren campaign, with Sanders in the game? Electability. The left doesn’t believe that Sanders can top Clinton, whereas Warren just might. “We need Senator Elizabeth Warren in the race to make sure we have a Democratic nominee who will lead these fights all the way to the White House,” said Ready for Warren’s Erica Sagrans. Sanders, by implication, is not that nominee.

That analysis is correct. Sanders doesn’t have Warren’s charisma or her fundraising base. The “Run Warren Run” Facebook page has ten times more likes than the “Ready for Bernie” page. Her national profile far exceeds his. Among the chattering classes, Warren would be a serious challenger to Clinton. Sanders isn’t.

But even in that best-case scenario, with labor groups supporting him over Clinton, Sanders has approximately no chance of winning. When I asked Ruy Teixeira, a Democratic strategist, whether that hypothetical could put Clinton’s nomination at stake, he responded, “An easy one: No.”

To be fair to Sanders, he’s not entering the race expecting a victory. Citing “confidants,” the Washington Post reported Tuesday that he was mostly entering the race to participate in the debates. Fair enough. Sanders, not one to pull punches, will certainly try to rough Clinton up in any debates. Maybe he can nudge her to the left, particularly on trade. If that happens, his presidential run will be a success.

For the thousands of liberals dreaming of a Warren presidency, simply pushing Clinton to the left isn’t enough. They want to win; Sanders can’t accomplish that. So the futile campaign to convince Warren to enter the race will continue.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3