Tag Archives: democratic

National Review Is Against Trump, But it Probably Doesn’t Matter

by AundreaWedel Posted on January 22, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

National Review has finally released its big anti-Trump issue. A bevy of conservative stars contributed to the issue, and they complained about Trump’s boorishness, his ignorance, his bullying, his libertine personal life, his racism, his narcissism, his love of dictators, his vitriol, and the fact that he’d probably lose to Hillary Clinton. But the most common complaint was simple: Trump is no conservative. Here are a few snippets:

The Editors: Trump’s political opinions have wobbled all over the lot. The real-estate mogul and reality-TV star has supported abortion, gun control, single-payer health care à la Canada, and punitive taxes on the wealthy….Some conservatives have made it their business to make excuses for Trump and duly get pats on the head from him. Count us out. Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.

Glenn Beck: While conservatives fought against the stimulus, Donald Trump said it was “what we need”….While conservatives fought against the auto bailouts, Donald Trump claimed “the government should stand behind the auto companies 100 percent”….While conservatives fought against the bank bailouts, Donald Trump called them “something that has to get done.”

Mona Charen: One thing about which there can be no debate is that Trump is no conservative—he’s simply playing one in the primaries. Call it unreality TV. Put aside for a moment Trump’s countless past departures from conservative principle on defense, racial quotas, abortion, taxes, single-payer health care, and immigration….Is Trump a liberal? Who knows? He played one for decades — donating to liberal causes and politicians (including Al Sharpton) and inviting Hillary Clinton to his (third) wedding. Maybe it was all a game, but voters who care about conservative ideas and principles must ask whether his recent impersonation of a conservative is just another role he’s playing.

David Boaz: Without even getting into his past support for a massive wealth tax and single-payer health care, his know-nothing protectionism, or his passionate defense of eminent domain, I think we can say that this is a Republican campaign that would have appalled Buckley, Goldwater, and Reagan.

Brent Bozell: Until he decided to run for the GOP nomination a few months ago, Trump had done none of these things, perhaps because he was too distracted publicly raising money for liberals such as the Clintons; championing Planned Parenthood, tax increases, and single-payer health coverage; and demonstrating his allegiance to the Democratic party.

Erick Erickson: In October 2011, when many of the other Republican candidates were fighting Barack Obama, Donald Trump told Sean Hannity, “I was Obama’s biggest cheerleader.” Trump donated to both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign, as well to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and other Democrats. In 2011, according to the website OpenSecrets.org, “the largest recipient of Donald Trump’s political spending has been the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee with $116,000.”

Dana Loesch: I love conversion stories. I have my own, from when I became a conservative 15 years ago. But I’m not running for president. Donald Trump is. And his “conversion” raises serious questions. Trump wrote in his book The America We Deserve that he supported a ban on “assault weapons.” Not until last year did he apparently reverse his position. As recently as a couple of years ago, Trump favored the liberal use of eminent-domain laws.

David McIntosh: For decades, Trump has argued for big government. About health care he has said: “Everybody’s got to be covered” and “The government’s gonna pay for it.” He has called for boycotts of American companies he doesn’t like, told bureaucrats to use eminent domain to get him better deals on property he wanted to develop, and proudly proposed the largest tax increase in American history. Trump has also promised to use tariffs to punish companies that incur his disfavor. He offers grand plans for massive new spending but no serious proposals for spending cuts or entitlement reforms.

Whew! But will it do any good? Probably not. The kind of people who read National Review are already convinced that Trump is a menace. Trump’s fans, by contrast, are far more likely to have heard of Rush Limbaugh than William F. Buckley or Edmund Burke. And Rush thinks that Trump is great.

At the moment, everyone is eagerly awaiting “Trump’s reaction” to NR’s destruction derby. I sure hope they’ve never asked him for money in the past. In any case, I’m sure he’ll just write them off as establishment losers who are jealous of his success and afraid they won’t get invited to his inauguration. Still, at least the editors of National Review will always be able to say that their magazine has lasted a lot longer than the Trump magazine.

View this article – 

National Review Is Against Trump, But it Probably Doesn’t Matter

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on National Review Is Against Trump, But it Probably Doesn’t Matter

Ted Cruz’s War on Ethanol Mandates

by RonnyBingham Posted on January 14, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared on the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

For decades, presidential candidates seeking to compete in the Iowa caucuses have dutifully pledged their support for the production and sale of ethanol.

In 2011, Jon Huntsman went so far as to cite his opposition to subsidies for production of the corn-based biofuel as a reason to skip the state, given the strength of the lobbying groups behind it.

This year could be different. While all three Democratic candidates for the White House have voiced their support for the corn-based biofuel and thus, they hope, garnered support from those who produce and profit from it, the Republican front-runner in Iowa is adamantly opposed. And that could permanently change caucus politics.

Ted Cruz is strongly opposed to the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which mandates that all gas sold in the US include a certain percentage of biofuels like ethanol.

While ethanol advocates argue that its production is vital for both the rural economy and national security—as a source of domestically produced energy—opponents deride what they see as a government boondoggle to help agribusiness, which by its very existence raises food prices and harms the environment.

The federal government no longer directly subsidizes ethanol, but the RFS serves as an indirect subsidy. Opponents of ethanol production want to end the RFS. The pro-ethanol lobby wants the RFS unchanged until 2022, when it is due to expire.

In Iowa, this issue is sparking a furious political battle.

Cruz is not the only ethanol skeptic still running—Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is also opposed to the RFS. But, perhaps characteristically, the senator from Texas has gone out of his way to antagonize supporters of renewable fuels.

Eric Branstad, head of America’s Renewable Future (ARF), a bipartisan coalition of Iowa ethanol supporters, said Cruz refused to meet his group or even acknowledge it, forcing it to send a candidate survey by certified mail, just to confirm he had received it. Needless to say, Cruz did not fill out the survey.

ARF, which has built a well-funded operation to encourage ethanol supporters to attend the caucuses in February, has launched a major advertising campaign against Cruz. It is even following Cruz around the state, as he continues a bus tour.

Last week, Cruz wrote in the Des Moines Register that he supported keeping a renewable fuel requirement in place through 2022. ARF duly celebrated. However, Cruz has long favored a five-year RFS phase-out and was thus simply saying that he would start that process the moment he was elected to the White House.

The senator also wrote that he would significantly reduce the mandated use of ethanol each year in that five-year period.

Though the ethanol lobby feels confident it has pushed Cruz on the issue, it has not declared victory yet. In a statement, Branstad, who is the son of Iowa’s six-term governor, Terry Branstad, said: “Until Cruz pledges to uphold the RFS as the law dictates—not his position to phase it down by 2022—we will continue to educate Iowa voters about his bad position.”

ARF attacks on Cruz have included hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of radio, online and direct mail advertising. It is unclear, though, how much such attacks will matter.

Mark Langgin, a veteran Democratic political consultant in the state, told the Guardian: “Iowa farmers, while ethanol is important to them, they are first and foremost…a very socially conservative audience. So I don’t see ethanol being that huge of a wedge issue for Cruz.”

He was echoed by Jeff Kaufmann, the chair of the Republican Party of Iowa, who said: “I am not convinced that issue, in and of itself, will either cause a candidate to win or lose.”

While Kauffmann conceded that “ethanol is a critical issue in Iowa” and said the state certainly had some single-issue voters on the subject, he suggested that support for ethanol was not a make or break position.

“If you’re against the RFS, you’re going to make Iowans mad, you’re going to have some Iowans question you but the beauty of Iowa is you can take your case to the people,” said Kaufmann.

He added: “There is a certain appreciation from Iowans when a candidate comes to them and explains why he or she disagrees.”

Regardless of who wins the Iowa caucuses, however, the ethanol lobby may face new problems away from the political arena. The collapse in global oil prices has reduced the appeal of corn-based fuel.

As Matt Lasov, global head of advisory and analytics at Frontier Strategy Group, told the Guardian: “With oil prices at $40 a barrel and no sign of that changing, ethanol looks less viable.”

Originally posted here:  

Ted Cruz’s War on Ethanol Mandates

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz’s War on Ethanol Mandates

Clinton Campaign Ramps Up Attacks on Sanders’ Health Care Plan

by MargareHutchens Posted on January 13, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hillary Clinton’s attack on Bernie Sanders over health care policy isn’t done yet. On Wednesday afternoon, her campaign convened a press call to slam her Democratic primary opponent for his single-payer, Medicare-for-all health care plan.

Clinton campaign officials alleged that Sanders is not releasing the details of how he’d pay for the plan because he wants to hide tax increases that would hit the middle class. Earlier on Wednesday, Sanders’ campaign had released a comprehensive list of proposals to pay for his various campaign schemes—except for health care. As recently as 2013, Sanders had regularly introduced bills for single-payer health plans that include details on the tax increases that he would include to pay for the system, including an across-the-board 2.2 percent income tax hike. Since launching his presidential campaign, he’s continually promised to introduce a new Medicare-for-all proposal, but has yet to come out with the details.

Speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign, senior policy advisor Jake Sullivan and national press secretary Brian Fallon ripped into Sanders for the delay, claiming that it did a disservice to Democratic voters, with the Iowa caucuses just three weeks away. “It’s not becoming, and it’s not worthy of the caucus-goers in Iowa,” Fallon said.

The pair of Clinton aides weren’t subtle in suggesting that the reason Sanders has yet to unveil a proposal is because he doesn’t want to talk about the tax increases needed to fund it. “One can only draw the conclusion that the Sanders campaign does not want to outline what is going to amount to a massive across-the-board tax hike on working families,” Sullivan said. (The Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Clinton has regularly attacked both Sanders and her other Democratic opponent, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, for being willing to raise taxes on people she terms middle class—a broad definition that reaches nearly to the top tier of incomes.

Although they objected to the lack of detail, the Clinton campaign staffers evidently had enough details to launch a harsh critique of Sanders’ concept of universal health care. “Clinton believes, given the problems of income inequality, the last thing that we should be doing is raising taxes on the middle class,” Sullivan said. “She has said many times that we need to give middle-class families a raise, not a tax increase.”

What about the contention from Sanders that any extra costs from taxes would be offset with boosts in disposable income once people no longer need to pay for insurance? “From our perspective, it is far from clear that everyone would in fact save money from Sen. Sanders’ plan,” Sullivan said. “In fact, we believe that many middle-class and working families would be worse off under this plan.”

The Clinton campaign has dug in deep against Sanders on health care this week. Clinton attacked her opponent’s plan as a “risky deal” during an Iowa event on Monday, and her daughter Chelsea Clinton, acting as a campaign surrogate, said on Tuesday that it’d “strip millions and millions and millions of people off their health insurance.” Although single-payer health care might be a political longshot after the drawn-out fight over the more moderate Obamacare, attacking the merits of single-payer in a Democratic primary is a strange strategic choice for the Clinton campaign. A poll from a progressive group last year found that about 80 percent of Democrats support single-payer.

But Clinton seems intent on doubling down on the sort of arguments you typically hear from Republicans, claiming that her opponent is too focused on taking money away from voters for big government programs. “When Hillary Clinton says that, as president, her number one challenge would be to seek to get incomes rising again,” Fallon said, “a proof point of that is that she does not want to start off on day one by slapping a tax increase that would directly take money out of the pockets of those very same households whose take-home pay we’re seeking to increase. So it’s a very risky proposition, altogether, for Sen. Sanders to be suggesting that he wants to address those stagnant wages as well, but all he can commit to, what he is promising off the bat, is tax increases that would adversely impact the take-home pay for those very same households.”

Read article here:

Clinton Campaign Ramps Up Attacks on Sanders’ Health Care Plan

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton Campaign Ramps Up Attacks on Sanders’ Health Care Plan

What to Expect From President Obama’s Final State of the Union Address

by CarrollBerk627 Posted on January 12, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Tuesday night, President Barack Obama will deliver his final State of the Union address to cap what has been, in many ways, a historic presidency. Obama is the third consecutive two-term president, and his predecessors’ final addresses offer hints as to what we can expect from Obama’s speech. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both spoke of the importance of strengthening the economy and highlighted examples of economic progress. Clinton advocated efforts to close the “gulf between rich and poor,” while Bush warned of the dangers of rising entitlement spending if costs weren’t reined in. Expect Obama to follow suit and call for broad and sweeping improvements to the country. Obama’s specific proposals may differ—look for him to urge gun control legislation, a reform of the immigration system, and continued access to affordable quality health insurance—but the tenor of his speech should be similar: The past seven years have brought great progress, but there are a few steps remaining to cement his presidential legacy.

The speech

Obama is not just at the end of his term, but at the end of his presidency. Unlike his 2012 address, when he made a specific pledge to reform Medicare and issued pleas for bipartisan tax and entitlement reform, his speech on Tuesday will probably be painted with broader strokes, commenting on the general state of the country and progress that has been made since 2008. While you can expect him to mention the Affordable Care Act and call for more sensible gun control legislation, he’s also likely to focus on the future and the fates of ordinary Americans.

In a Sunday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, foreshadowed the tone of the president’s remarks.

“You’ll hear him talk about every American having a shot in this changing economy,” McDonough said. “You’ll hear him talk about using all the elements of our national power to protect and grow the influence of this country. And importantly…you’ll hear the president talk about making sure that every American has a chance to influence this democracy. Not the select few, not the millionaires and the billionaires, but every American.”

Obama no longer has to worry about re-election, and he can’t expect much meaningful legislation to emerge from cooperation with Republican leaders in Congress in his final year, so he may take off the gloves in addressing the GOP. Condemnations of the Republican responses to climate change and mass shootings will be fair game. He may use Republican presidential candidates’ anti-immigrant statements to press for reforms to the immigration system—and to take down the GOP field a notch in the public view.

This election year is of particular importance to Democrats. They are currently outnumbered by Republicans in both the House and Senate, and relinquishing the Oval Office would create a nightmare scenario for those left of the aisle. While the president has promised not to endorse any candidate in the Democratic primary in 2016, he might look forward to November and devote a portion of his speech to a more direct rejection of conservative strategies, especially when it comes to guns, the economy, and health care.

The guests

The State of the Union guest list often tells us something about the themes or ideas the president wishes to express. This year’s invitees are no exception, as they are filled with people who symbolize key points of Obama’s tenure. The president has invited two activists, including Jim Obergefell of landmark Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same sex marriage. (Interestingly, he did not invite any activists from the influential Black Lives Matter movement, although it would be surprising if he didn’t make some mention of racially motivated violence, given its prominence in the past year’s public discourse.) Two Syrian refugees will also be in attendance, including nine-year-old Ahmad Alkhalaf, invited by Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.). Obama’s most noteworthy invitation, however, is for a guaranteed no-show. The president left one seat vacant in the First Lady’s guest box to commemorate the lives of those lost to gun violence—a powerful gesture just a week after his passionate speech on gun safety reform.

The response

Republicans announced last week that Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina would give the party’s official response to the president’s speech. Haley, both the youngest governor in the country and the first female and non-white governor in South Carolina’s history, represents a more welcoming, inclusive future for the party. In a political year whose spotlight has shone on Donald Trump, a white man with some not-so-friendly opinions about immigrants, Haley, a daughter of Indian immigrants, represents a softer sell for conservatism for anyone who isn’t wooed by Trump. Haley made national headlines last summer when she removed the confederate flag from South Carolina’s Capitol grounds.

See the article here – 

What to Expect From President Obama’s Final State of the Union Address

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What to Expect From President Obama’s Final State of the Union Address

Republican Demographic Problems Aren’t Just For the Future Anymore

by TamelaDennys Posted on December 30, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s an interesting poll analysis from Reuters. It shows demographic shifts since the 2012 elections, and it turns out that most groups are pretty stable. There are three exceptions. On the plus side for conservatives, Jews have become slightly more Republican. But on the minus side, Hispanics and young whites have become significantly more Democratic.

Hispanics are no surprise. Republicans have spent the past three years loudly opposing comprehensive immigration reform and playing “can you top this?” when it comes to border security. Then along came Donald Trump, with his murderers and rapists and his big, beautiful wall. The only surprise here is Hispanics haven’t moved further away from the Republican Party.

But it’s certainly odd that Republicans are losing both Hispanics and young whites. Or maybe not. Older whites are generally attracted to traditional conservative values and the vague racial dog whistles that Republicans specialize in. But younger whites are probably turned off by social troglodytism—especially anti-gay animus—and don’t respond to the dog whistles one way or another. So they’re leaving.

I guess it’s time for yet another Republican post mortem that they can then proceed to ignore. Why wait until after the election, after all?

From:  

Republican Demographic Problems Aren’t Just For the Future Anymore

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republican Demographic Problems Aren’t Just For the Future Anymore

6 Signs the NRA Is Losing Its Stranglehold on Gun Policy

by ChristiBriley Posted on December 10, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For gun control advocates, this year’s doom has been compounded by an ample dose of gloom. Even after a series of high-profile mass shootings and a reported death toll from gun violence topping 12,000 last year, Congress remains deadlocked and unlikely to pass any laws aimed at reducing gun deaths.

But beneath the morass of bad news are glimpses of progress. In schools, communities, states, and even in the federal government, people are taking action to curb the gun violence epidemic. Here are six areas in which gun control is actually advancing in America.

1. The Supreme Court opted not to expand Second Amendment protections.

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case that could have cemented an even wider interpretation of the Second Amendment into national law. The decision came less than a week after shooters in San Bernardino, California, used semi-automatic weapons to slaughter 14 people at an office party in what the FBI is now investigating as an act of terrorism.

In the case, the Illinois branch of the National Rifle Association argued that a Chicago suburb’s ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines violated the Second Amendment. Although there was no official ruling, the court’s decision to turn down the case effectively affirmed the lower court’s decision not to expand Second Amendment protections—thereby opening the door to further local regulation.

In its last two gun cases, in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court had significantly expanded the reach of the Second Amendment. In 2008, the court overturned a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia; in 2010, it did the same for a handgun ban in Chicago.

Now, by contrast, the court may be indicating that the much-contested right to bear arms should have its limitations.

2. States are taking action.

The court’s decision looks even more significant in light of the fact that state governments are already taking many of the steps that Congress won’t.

In the year following the tragic 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, eight states passed major gun reform laws. The momentum has continued into 2015: Voters in Washington state last month resoundingly approved universal background checks for gun purchases, and several states have moved to restrict domestic abusers’ access to firearms.

Next November, Nevada residents will also vote on a background-check initiative, which made it onto the state ballot with the support of Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. In California, which already has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country, a gubernatorial candidate is working to put even tighter legislation on the ballot.

Want to see how your own state ranks on gun control? The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has created this handy scorecard.

3. Most Americans, including gun owners, support some degree of gun control.

Congress may not be able to come to a productive compromise, but Americans do agree on some key gun control policies. A survey last month found that a striking 83 percent of gun owners, including many NRA members, support requiring all prospective gun buyers to undergo a background check. A Gallup poll released in October—after the shootings at Umpqua Community College in Oregon but before last week’s attack in Sen Bernardino—found that 55 percent of Americans favored stricter control of gun sales.

Support for gun control has traditionally peaked following mass shootings, only to subside later. Recent polls suggest that fear of terrorism has edged out fear of guns in the popular psyche—despite the fact that jihadist terrorists have killed just 45 people in the United States since September 11, 2001, compared with the more than 12,000 people killed last year alone by gun violence.

4. More and more people say gun violence should be researched as a public health issue.

Last Wednesday, mere hours before the attack in San Bernardino, 2,000 doctors publicly urged Congress to repeal an amendment that has blocked government research on gun violence for nearly two decades.

The so-called Dickey Amendment was propelled through Congress by Republican legislators in 1996 under pressure from the NRA. Due to the provision, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health have been unable to put any federal funds toward gun violence research, leaving attempts to curb gun violence hogtied by a lack of information.

But opposition to the amendment is growing. Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have appealed for a return to federal gun violence research in recent months. Even the amendment’s author, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), has publicly called for it to be overturned.

5. Schools across the country are talking to their students about guns.

Tens of thousands of students across the country have signed their names to an anti-gun-violence pledge this year, promising not to bear arms at school and to resolve conflicts by nonviolent means.

The pledge was born in the mid-1990s, when creator Mary Lewis Grow realized that the conversation about gun violence rarely reached the nation’s youth. Determined to change that, she founded the Student Pledge Against Gun Violence in 1996. It enjoyed a decade of popularity before fading from public view.

Widespread dismay at the lack of government action following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary rekindled interest in the pledge, Grow told gun news website The Trace. “I think people started looking for other ways to address gun violence,” she said. Students in at least five states have taken the pledge this year, including 59,000 in Georgia and 21,000 in Louisiana.

The pledge goes as follows: “I will never bring a gun to school. I will never use a gun to settle a personal problem or dispute. I will use my influence with friends to keep them from using guns to settle disputes. My individual choices and actions, when multiplied by those of young people throughout the country, will make a difference. Together, by honoring this pledge, we can reverse the violence and grow up in safety.”

6. Gun control is now firmly part of our national debate.

President Barack Obama now calls for gun control legislation after every major shooting. The New York Times last week published a pro-gun-control editorial on its front page—its first page-one editorial since 1920. And while she shied away from the issue eight years ago, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has made curbing gun violence a central plank in her 2016 platform.

America’s gun violence crisis has clearly made its way into the highest levels of our national debate. What comes of that debate remains to be seen, but a whopping $229 billion a year—and, more important, thousands of lives—depend on it.

This article is from: 

6 Signs the NRA Is Losing Its Stranglehold on Gun Policy

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 6 Signs the NRA Is Losing Its Stranglehold on Gun Policy

Bernie Sanders Calls for a Carbon Tax

by trasze2aja Posted on December 7, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Bernie Sanders will unveil a sweeping new plan to fight climate change on Monday, calling for a carbon tax and an ambitious 40 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 to speed the transition to a greener economy.

The Democratic presidential candidate will use the crunch week of the climate change meeting in Paris to try to upstage rivals Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, releasing a 16-page plan aimed at showcasing his green credentials.

The plan goes beyond Barack Obama’s climate pledges, which aim to match the European Union in ambition by calling for a 40 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 on 1990 levels, according to a copy of the plan seen by the Guardian. The 1990 starting point is a more demanding target than the current US baseline of 2005.

Sanders will also call for a carbon tax, big investments in energy-saving technologies and renewable power sources, and promise to create 10 million clean energy jobs.

The climate meeting in Paris has attracted an unusual level of attention compared with earlier meetings, as Democrats and Republicans gear up for the first votes in the presidential primaries just over a month away.

A group of 10 Democratic senators flew to Paris to reassure the international community they would defend Obama’s climate plan. In Washington, meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have tried to block a global climate deal by trying to repeal Obama’s plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants.

Sanders’ plan – which will be released as talks aimed at reaching a global agreement to fight climate change kick into a higher gear – will feature the Vermont senator’s “take-no-prisoners” approach to the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers in Congress.

He will call for banning fossil fuel lobbyists from the White House, and ending subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

“Bernie will tax polluters causing the climate crisis, and return billions of dollars to working families to ensure the fossil fuel companies don’t subject us to unfair rate hikes. Bernie knows that climate change will not affect everyone equally,” the plan will say. “The carbon tax will also protect those most impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change.”

Sanders will also promise to keep the pressure on industry for spreading misinformation about climate change, saying he will bring climate deniers to justice.

“It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America,” the plan will say.

And Sanders will not back away from his assertions about climate change as a security threat—despite ridicule from Republican presidential contenders.

“Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet,” the plan will say.

Sanders’s call for a ban on new offshore oil drilling and fossil fuel projects on public lands won praise from groups such as Greenpeace and 350.org which have campaigned to keep coal, oil and gas in the ground to prevent dangerous climate change.

“He has broken free of the corporate and 1 percent money that has held back climate policy for far too long,” Annie Leonard, director of Greenpeace US, said in an emailed statement.

The plan appeared to be an attempt to regain ground lost to Clinton, as she took more ambitious positions on climate change.

Sanders was stung in November when the League of Conservation Voters delivered an early endorsement of Clinton – even though he scored far higher than the secretary of state in the campaign group’s green ranking score card.

Since the start of the campaign, the three Democratic presidential contenders have tried to outdo one another on their commitment to fighting climate change —making a striking contrast with Republican presidential candidates who deny climate change is occurring.

All three Democratic candidates have promised more ambitious climate actions than Obama.

O’Malley was the first off the blocks, unveiling his climate agenda in June in an opinion piece in USA Today, and continues to claim the strongest position by calling for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels by 2050.

Clinton meanwhile has slowly edged towards a stronger position on climate change as the campaign progressed, belatedly coming out against the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and hunting for oil in Arctic waters. She moved to outflank Obama on his renewable energy plan by calling for the US to get 33 percent of its electricity from clean energy by 2027.

Climate change occupies a far higher profile in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries than earlier contests—in part because of Obama’s focus on the environment in his second term in the White House.

Democratic operatives see climate change as a potential wedge issue—a chance to paint Republicans as anti-science and out-of-touch for rejecting the science behind climate change.

Originally posted here – 

Bernie Sanders Calls for a Carbon Tax

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Calls for a Carbon Tax

Hillary Clinton Was Discussing Gun Control Just as the San Bernardino Shooting Happened

by GarryMagarey2 Posted on December 2, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

There was a mass shooting on Wednesday afternoon in San Bernardino, California at Inland Regional Services, a center for people with developmental disabilities. Details are still sparse hours after the attack, with at least one suspect still at-large according to police. Fatalities have been confirmed, though no exact figure released by police so far. Check here for the latest updates.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded quickly to the breaking news on Twitter, pushing the need for further gun control in light of the latest in a long string of mass shootings.

Clinton happened to be speaking about the need for gun control at a campaign stop in Florida just as the attack was unfolding, per ABC News’ Liz Kreutz. “90 Americans a day die from gun violence, homicide, suicides, tragic avoidable accidents,” Clinton said, according to Kreutz. “33 thousand Americans a year die. It is time for us to say we are going to have comprehensive background checks, we are gonna close the gun show loopholes.”

See original – 

Hillary Clinton Was Discussing Gun Control Just as the San Bernardino Shooting Happened

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Was Discussing Gun Control Just as the San Bernardino Shooting Happened

The Six Biggest Moments in the Second Democratic Debate

by CooperRcvzvcerm Posted on November 15, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The three Democratic presidential candidates met for their second debate on Saturday evening in Des Moines, Iowa. Following the terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday night, the CBS News moderators scrambled to focus the first segment of the debate on terrorism and foreign policy—issues that gave former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a chance to demonstrate her foreign affairs expertise.

Both Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have largely focused their campaigns on domestic policy—and both garnered significant applause from the audience when it came to these issues. Sanders’ attacks on Wall Street and the campaign finance system, and his call for a raising the minimum wage were met with big approval from the crowd. O’Malley hit several of those same notes, though his biggest applause line came when he called Donald Trump an “immigration-bashing carnival barker.”

Though the debate remained civil, Sanders and O’Malley did attack Clinton on several issues, including the donations she has received from Wall Street over the years. Her strategy for rebutting such attacks came into focus during the debate.

Here are some of the night’s top moments.

Continue Reading »

Originally posted here: 

The Six Biggest Moments in the Second Democratic Debate

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Six Biggest Moments in the Second Democratic Debate

Bernie Sanders: Yes, Climate Change Is Still Our Biggest National Security Threat

by LinoMortlock7 Posted on November 15, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Bernie Sanders opened Saturday night’s Democratic debate by vowing to rid the world of ISIS, the terrorist organization that claimed responsibility for killing more than 100 people in Paris Friday. In a follow-up question, moderator John Dickerson pointed out that during a debate last month, Sanders had identified “climate change” as the greatest threat to national security. “Do you still believe that?” asked Dickerson.

“Absolutely,” replied Sanders. He added that “of course international terrorism is a major issue that we have got to address today,” but argued that “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.” Sanders warned that global warming could cause international conflicts “over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to…grow crops.” You can watch the full exchange above.

Sanders isn’t alone in arguing that climate change has the potential to make international conflicts worse. According to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “Extreme weather, climate change, and public policies that affect food and water supplies will probably create or exacerbate humanitarian crises and instability risks.” The Department of Defense says that climate change “poses immediate risks to US national security” and has the potential to exacerbate terrorism. There’s also substantial evidence that drought linked to climate change helped spark Syria’s civil war.

Source: 

Bernie Sanders: Yes, Climate Change Is Still Our Biggest National Security Threat

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders: Yes, Climate Change Is Still Our Biggest National Security Threat