Tag Archives: elections

A Big-Picture Conversation With David Corn on What the 2014 Elections Really Mean

by MargareKorth Posted on December 4, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Mother Jones DC bureau chief David Corn spoke at the Chicago Humanities Festival in November, touching on the aftermath of the midterm elections, what lies ahead in 2016, and the continued fallout from the 47% video. Watch here:

See more here – 

A Big-Picture Conversation With David Corn on What the 2014 Elections Really Mean

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Big-Picture Conversation With David Corn on What the 2014 Elections Really Mean

Are Term Limits a Good Idea?

by Remona20Ax Posted on November 24, 2014

Mother Jones

Jim Newton, a longtime local politics reporter in Los Angeles, wrote his final column for the LA Times today. In it, he offered up “a handful of changes that might make a big difference,” and the one that resonates with me is his suggestion that both LA and California do away with term limits:

Elected officials who were popular with their constituents once held their seats for decades, building up experience and knowledge; now, with term limits in place, they’re barely seated before they start searching for the next office. That’s brought new faces but at great cost. Power has shifted from those we elect to those we don’t, to the permanent bureaucracy and to lobbyists. Problems get kicked down the road in favor of attention-grabbing short-term initiatives that may have long-term consequences.

Case in point: Why do so many public employees enjoy budget-breaking pensions? Because term-limited officials realize it is easier to promise a future benefit than to give raises now. The reckoning comes later; by then they’re gone.

Term limits locally were the work of Richard Riordan, who bankrolled the initiative and later became mayor. I asked him recently about them, and he startled me with his response: It was, he said, “the worst mistake of my life.”

Term limits always sound good. The problem with the idea is that being a council member or a legislator is like any other job: you get better with experience. If your legislature is populated solely by people with, at most, a term or two of experience, it’s inevitable that (a) they’ll have an almost pathologically short-term focus, and (b) more and more power will flow to lobbyists and bureaucrats who stay around forever and understand the levers of power better.

For what it’s worth, I’d recommend a middle ground. I understand the problem people have with politicians who win office and essentially occupy sinecures for the rest of their lives. It’s often a recipe for becoming insulated and out of touch with the real-world needs of constituents. But short term limits don’t solve the problem of unaccountable power, they simply shift the power to other places. The answer, I think, is moderate term limits. Something between, say, ten and twenty years. That’s long enough to build up genuine expertise and a genuine power base, while still preventing an office from becoming a lifetime of guaranteed employment.

View article:  

Are Term Limits a Good Idea?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Term Limits a Good Idea?

Can We Talk? Here’s Why the White Working Class Hates Democrats

by JonahYIIko Posted on November 13, 2014

Mother Jones

Noam Scheiber takes on one of the lessons du jour that always crop up after a party gets shellacked at the polls: how do we appeal to demographic group X that voted so heavily against us? In this case, the party is the Democrats, and the demographic group is the infamous white working class, which voted Republican by a 30-point margin last week:

At first blush, the white working class would appear to pose a real dilemma. The set of issues on which the Democratic Party is most coherent these days is social progressivism….But while these issues unite college-educated voters and working-class minority voters, they’ve historically alienated the white working class.

….How to square this circle? Well, it turns out we don’t really have to, since the analysis is outdated. The white working class is increasingly open to social liberalism, or at least not put off by it. As Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin observed this summer, 54 percent of the white working class born after 1980 think gays and lesbians should have the right to marry, according to data assembled from the 2012 election.

….Long story short, there’s a coalition available to Democrats that knits together working class minorities and college-educated voters and slices heavily into the GOP’s margins among the white working class….The basis of the coalition isn’t a retreat from social progressivism, but making economic populism the party’s centerpiece….The politics of this approach work not just because populism is a “message” that a majority of voters want to hear. But because, unlike the status quo, it can actually improve their economic prospects, as Harold Meyerson recently pointed out.

I’d like to offer a different interpretation. I don’t have a bunch of poll data readily at hand to back this up, so it’s possible I’m way off base. But I don’t think so, and at the very least I welcome pushback since it might clarify some things that need clarifying.

Here it is: I agree that social liberalism isn’t quite the deal killer it used to be. Scheiber and Teixera are right about that. It’s still an issue—especially gun control, which remains more potent than a lot of liberals like to acknowledge—but it’s fading somewhat in areas like abortion and gay marriage. There are still plenty of Fox-watching members of the WWC who are as socially conservative as ever, but I think it’s safe to say that at the margins social issues are becoming a little less divisive among the WWC than they have been over the past few decades.

But if that’s the case, why does the WWC continue to loathe Democrats so badly? I think the answer is as old as the discussion itself: They hate welfare. There was a hope among some Democrats that Bill Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform would remove this millstone from around Democrats’ necks, and for a few years during the dotcom boom it probably did. The combination of tougher work rules and a booming economy made it a less contentious topic.

But when the economy stagnates and life gets harder, people get meaner. That’s just human nature. And the economy has been stagnating for the working class for well over a decade—and then practically collapsing ever since 2008.

So who does the WWC take out its anger on? Largely, the answer is the poor. In particular, the undeserving poor. Liberals may hate this distinction, but it doesn’t matter if we hate it. Lots of ordinary people make this distinction as a matter of simple common sense, and the WWC makes it more than any. That’s because they’re closer to it. For them, the poor aren’t merely a set of statistics or a cause to be championed. They’re the folks next door who don’t do a lick of work but somehow keep getting government checks paid for by their tax dollars. For a lot of members of the WWC, this is personal in a way it just isn’t for the kind of people who read this blog.

And who is it that’s responsible for this infuriating flow of government money to the shiftless? Democrats. We fight to save food stamps. We fight for WIC. We fight for Medicaid expansion. We fight for Obamacare. We fight to move poor families into nearby housing.

This is a big problem because these are all things that benefit the poor but barely touch the working class. Does it matter that the working class barely pays for most of these programs in the first place, since their federal income taxes tend to be pretty low? Nope. They’re still paying taxes, and it seems like they never get anything for it. It’s always someone else.

It’s pointless to argue that this perception is wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. But it’s there. And although it’s bound up with plenty of other grievances—many of them frankly racial, but also cultural, religious, and geographic1—at its core you have a group of people who are struggling and need help, but instead feel like they simply get taxed and taxed for the benefit of someone else. Always someone else. If this were you, you wouldn’t vote for Democrats either.

I hate to end this with the usual cliche that I don’t know what to do about it, but I don’t. Helping the poor is one of the great causes of liberalism, and we forfeit our souls if we give up on it. And yet, as a whole bunch of people have acknowledged lately, the Democratic Party simply doesn’t do much for either the working or middle classes these days. Republicans, by contrast, offer both the concrete—tax cuts—and the emotional—an inchoate but still intense rage against a government that seems not to care about them.

So sure: full-throated economic populism? That might work, though everyone seems to have a different idea of what it means. But here’s one thing it better mean: policies that are aimed at the working and middle classes and that actually appeal to them. That is, policies that are simple, concrete, and offer benefits which are clear and compelling.

This is going to require policy wonks to swallow hard. Remember Cash 4 Clunkers? Economically, that was probably a dumb program that accomplished little. But it didn’t do any harm, and people sure loved it. Multiply that by a hundred and you’re on the right track.

1The Democrats’ problem with the white working class is far worse in the South than anywhere else. Nonetheless, I think we’re kidding ourselves if we crunch a bunch of numbers and somehow conclude that it’s not a problem elsewhere. It’s not as big a problem, but in an electorate that continues to be balanced on a tightrope, five or ten percentage points among a sizeable group of people is still a pretty big problem.

Read this article – 

Can We Talk? Here’s Why the White Working Class Hates Democrats

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, Meyers, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can We Talk? Here’s Why the White Working Class Hates Democrats

Why Rand Paul Was the Only Kentucky Republican to Lose on Tuesday

by WilburnQMM Posted on November 10, 2014

Mother Jones

Republicans had a pretty good night last Tuesday. They won control of the Senate and added to their already-sizable House majority. They now hold 33 governors’ mansions and 69 of the 99 state legislative chambers. But even as they solidified their grip on state governments, they came up short in one red state they’d trained their sights on—Kentucky. And that’s bad news for Sen. Rand Paul.

While the national GOP’s resources primarily targeted the state’s Senate race, Paul focused his attention on winning control of the Democratic-controlled Legislature in Frankfort. His reasons went beyond mere party loyalty—he wanted a GOP statehouse majority to pass a bill, written with him in mind, that would allow a politician to run for Senate and president in the same year. He’s up for reelection in 2016, and is also seriously considering a White House bid. But given the depth of the GOP presidential field that year, he doesn’t want to bet the house on winning the nomination.

For Paul, a.k.a. the best-dressed man in Washington, this is hardly a deal-breaker. He got some good news on Wednesday, when Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom Paul dutifully backed in the face of a tea party primary challenge, all but endorsed his presidential bid. And if Paul were to drop out of the race early (say, in the face of an unstoppable Mitt Romney wave), there’d be plenty of time to get back into Senate reelection mode. But the longer he stays in the hunt, the more difficult things will become on the home front.

This article:  

Why Rand Paul Was the Only Kentucky Republican to Lose on Tuesday

Posted in Anchor, Bunn, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Rand Paul Was the Only Kentucky Republican to Lose on Tuesday

The War on Voting May Have Swung These 4 Races

by EdwinFortin Posted on November 6, 2014

Mother Jones

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

In several races around the country on Tuesday, the victors won by razor-thin margins. Many of these races were in states that had recently enacted voting restrictions expected to depress turnout amongst minorities, young voters, and the poor, according to a new report released Wednesday by the Brennan Center. No one knows how many of the newly disenfranchised may have voted. Nevertheless, the report’s author Wendy Weiser notes, “In several key races, the margin of victory came very close to the likely margin of disenfranchisement.” Here’s look at the numbers in some of those elections, all via Brennan:

Kansas Governor: Republican Gov. Sam Brownback got 33,000 more votes than his Democratic challenger Paul Davis.

In 2011, Kansas implemented a requirement that voters provide documentation of citizenship to vote, and just before the 2012 election, the state enacted a strict photo ID law.

More than 24,000 Kansas voters tried to register this year, but couldn’t because of the state’s proof of citizenship law. In addition, it’s estimated that the state’s photo ID law reduces turnout by about 2 percent, or 17,000 voters.

North Carolina Senate: Republican House state speaker Thom Tillis beat incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan by 48,000 votes.

In 2013, North Carolina enacted a law—which Tillis helped write—limiting early voting and same-day registration, which the Justice Department warned would likely depress minority turnout. During the last midterms in 2010, about 200,000 North Carolinians cast their ballots during early voting days that the state’s new voting law eliminated.

Virginia Senate: Democratic Sen. Mark Warner beat GOPer Ed Gillespie by a margin of just over 12,000 votes.

Voters this year faced a new voter ID law that the state enacted in 2013. This type of law tends to reduce turnout by about 2.4 percent, according to New York Times pollster Nate Silver. Applied to the Virginia Senate race this year, that would mean that turnout was reduced by over 52,000 voters.

Florida Governor: Republican Gov. Rick Scott eked out a victory over former Democratic Gov. Charlie Crist by roughly 72,000 votes.

In 2011, Florida reduced the early voting period. The same year, Scott imposed a measure making it nearly impossible to vote for convicts who have already served their time. The move essentially disenfranchised nearly 1.3 million formerly incarcerated Floridians, about one in three of whom are African-American.

See original: 

The War on Voting May Have Swung These 4 Races

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The War on Voting May Have Swung These 4 Races

My Fearless Predictions for the Next 18 Months

by HattieBrifman Posted on November 6, 2014

Mother Jones

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

We are, tediously, hearing lots of jabber this week about how maybe this election finally sent a message to Washington that the public wants government to work, dammit. Compromise is the order of the day. Republicans need to show that they can govern. Obama needs to show he can be flexible.

Meh. I don’t see why anyone thinks this. Mitch McConnell has spent six years obstructing everything in sight, and there’s no special reason to think that’s going to change. John Boehner has spent the past four years in a wholly futile attempt to make his tea party crazies see reason, and there’s no reason to think he’s suddenly figured out how to do it. President Obama has spent the past two years convinced that executive action is his only hope of getting anything done, and there’s not much reason to think he’s changed his mind about that. As for the public, they don’t want compromise. They want the other side to give in. Nothing has changed there.

In other words, control of the Senate may have changed hands, but the underlying fundamentals of Washington politics have barely budged. With that in mind, here are my predictions about what does and doesn’t have a chance of happening over the next 18 months:

Tax reform: Forget it. All the usual fault lines are still around. In fact, with the Republican caucus now more conservative and the Democratic caucus more liberal, the usual fault lines are even bigger than ever. This is a nonstarter.

Immigration reform: Forget it. See above.

Keystone XL: This depends on whether Obama actually cares about it. I’ve never been sure about that. But my guess is that he doesn’t care very much, so some kind of budget deal that includes authority to build the pipeline seems fairly likely.

Trade agreements: This actually seems doable. It’s mostly been Democrats who are opposed.

Obamacare repeal: Forget it.

Tweaks to Obamacare: A bit of tinkering around the margins might be possible. The employer mandate, for example, was never a pillar of the law, and it wouldn’t hurt much to get rid of it. Ditto for the medical device tax. But that’s about it.

Repeal of Obama’s environmental regulations. Forget it.

Executive/judicial appointments: This is going to slow to a crawl. It’s a good thing Democrats killed the filibuster when they did.

Iran nuclear treaty: This is actually a tough one to predict, partly because I’m not clear on (a) just how far Obama can go without congressional approval, and (b) whether Iran is serious about a deal in the first place. At a guess, though, Congress might very well decide to throw a spanner in the works that kills any chance of a treaty. A bunch of new Republican senators, combined with the existing strength of the Israel lobby, could be enough to make a real difference here.

So there you go. Those are my predictions. Have I missed anything big?

POSTSCRIPT: Oh, and the 2016 candidates for president will be Hillary Clinton for the Democrats and Scott Walker for the Republicans.

Credit: 

My Fearless Predictions for the Next 18 Months

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My Fearless Predictions for the Next 18 Months

Let the Ass Covering Begin!

by RevaL63sxmlt Posted on November 6, 2014

Mother Jones

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

I’m late to this story, but last night I finally got around to reading the big campaign tick-tock in the Washington Post by Philip Rucker and Robert Costa. The part everyone is talking about is the description of bad blood between President Obama and Senate Democrats, and Exhibit A comes via a series of stunningly bitter comments from David Krone, Harry Reid’s chief of staff. Here’s how the reporters managed to put the screws to Krone to get him to talk:

This past Sunday, two days before Election Day, Krone sat at a mahogany conference table in the majority leader’s stately suite just off the Senate floor and shared with Washington Post reporters his notes of White House meetings. Reid’s top aide wanted to show just how difficult he thought it had been to work with the White House.

Look: I get that Obama doesn’t socialize much with congressional Democrats. Even as someone who’s long thought that senators need to get over themselves, there’s no question that this is a real failing of Obama’s. Schmoozing and scheming are part of the president’s job, and if you don’t do it you’re going to end up with a lot of offended allies.

That said, take a look at that highlighted sentence. Apparently David Krone is such an unbelievable asshole that he actively decided to vent all his bitterness and bile to a couple of reporters solely to demonstrate just how hard poor David Krone’s job had been during this election season. He even made sure to bring along his notes to make sure he didn’t forget any of his grievances. As an example of preemptive CYA, this is unequaled in recent memory. To hear him tell the story, Dems would have swept to victory if only Obama had been less of a skinflint and given David Krone more money.

You betcha. Please raise your hand if you think lack of money was even on the top ten list of reasons that Democrats lost this year. Anyone? No?

Then there’s this bit of whinging, which I’ve heard over and over:

Exacerbating matters was Obama’s Oct. 2 speech in Chicago, in which he handed every Republican admaker fresh material that fit perfectly with their message: “I am not on the ballot this fall. . . . But make no mistake — these policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.”

“It took about 12 seconds for every reporter, every race, half of the Obama world to say that was probably not the right thing to say,” said a senior Democratic official. It was so problematic that many Democrats wondered whether Obama meant to say it. He did. “It is amazing that it was in the speech,” the official said. “It wasn’t ad-libbed.”

Good God. Are Democrats really delusional enough to convince themselves that this made even the slightest difference? Aside from the fact that virtually no one outside the political junkie community heard this speech, who cares anyway? Republicans had long since made the election all about Obama and his policies, and it didn’t matter a whit whether Obama acknowledged this or not. The GOP attack ads were going to be same either way. If anything, the truth is that Dems might have been better off if they’d been more willing to face the reality Obama tried to warn them about: that this election was about Obama’s policies whether anyone liked it or not. Instead of cowering in their corners, they needed to figure out a way to deal with this.

Obama has made plenty of mistakes over the past year. The healthcare.gov rollout was obviously a debacle that hurt Democrats. Foreign policy has been occasionally tone deaf, even if it’s been substantively fairly solid. The flip-flop on immigration was inept. But Obama has raised plenty of money. He’s been willing to either campaign or keep his distance as circumstances dictate. His relatively low approval ratings obviously hurt Democrats, but he was far from their biggest problem. They better face up to that sometime soon.

Continued here – 

Let the Ass Covering Begin!

Posted in alo, Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let the Ass Covering Begin!

If Millennials Had Voted, Last Night Would Have Looked Very Different

by UlyssesRockwell Posted on November 5, 2014

Mother Jones

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

The GOP’s big Election Day victory may have a lot to do with who didn’t show up at the polls—and one of the groups that stayed home at a record rate were young people. According to an NBC News exit poll, the percentage of voters aged 60 or older accounted for almost 40 percent of the vote, while voters under 30 accounted for a measly 12 percent. Young people’s share of the vote is typically smaller in midterm elections, but the valley between age groups in 2014 is the largest the US has seen in at least a decade.

NBC News

And that valley made a huge difference for Democrats, because younger voters have been trending blue. Some 55 percent of young people who did turn up voted for Dems compared to 45 percent of those over 60.

An interactive predictor on the Fusion, the news site targeted at millennials, indicated how Democrats could have gained if young people had shown in greater numbers. Using 2010 vote totals and 2014 polling data, the tool lets users calculate the effect of greater turnout among voters under 30 in several key states.

On Tuesday, according to preliminary exit polls, young voters in Iowa favored Democrats by a slight margin—51 percent—but they made up only 12 percent of the total vote, leaving conservative Republican Joni Ernst the winner. In Georgia, 58 percent of young voters went for Democrat Michelle Nunn, but they made up 10 percent of the total who showed up to cast their ballots. In Colorado, where a sophisticated political machine delivered Democratic wins in 2010, the calculator shows that a full 71 percent of young people voted for Dems in 2010; exit polls indicate that young voters made up 14 percent of the final tally, leaving Mark Udall out in the cold.

If historical voting patterns hold, it’s possible that these Democratic leaning millennials will turn out in greater numbers in the future. If so, that will bode well for Dems—as long as these voters don’t also become more conservative as they age.

Felix Salmon, Fusion

Originally posted here:

If Millennials Had Voted, Last Night Would Have Looked Very Different

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If Millennials Had Voted, Last Night Would Have Looked Very Different

Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

by AlysaFernandes Posted on November 5, 2014

Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

By

5 Nov 2014 3:31 PM

Share

Share

Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

×

This was the year of the fracking ban, at least in local elections: Eight municipal and county-wide bans went to voters in Ohio, Texas, and California on Nov. 4. Considering the money poured in by the opposition, they did pretty darn well: Four out of eight won by a country mile.

California 

Happily for local farmers like Paul Hain, San Benito County’s moratorium on “high-intensity petroleum operations” passed with flying colors (at least by American standards): 57 to 43 percent. And in Mendocino County, Measure S won with even more of the vote: 67 to 33 percent.

In oil-rich Santa Barbara County, however, where oil and gas interests poured nearly $6 million into their campaign against Measure P, the ban lost by margins just as wide: 37 to 63 percent. It’s a big loss for the folks behind the measure, but, as they posted on Facebook, they’re hardly defeated: “This campaign was the beginning of the fight. Not the end!!”

Ohio

Four Ohio towns put fracking bans to voters, too, and one of them took home the gold: Athens, whose citizens had tried and failed to get a measure on the ballot in 2013, overwhelmingly supported one this time that will keep the practice out of city limits. The bans failed in Gates Mills and Kent, though. And while anti-fracking campaigners in Youngstown gave it a fourth shot, after a third proposed ban failed last year, it got royally slammed again. Argh.

Texas

But perhaps the most meaningful results cane from Denton, Texas: The town’s fracking ban is the first ever to pass in Texas, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer (California was No. 3 in crude last year). Denton already has 275 fracking wells, so a moratorium on the practice here says a whole heck of a lot about the future of fracking — and, dare we dream, of fossil fuels?

Denton Mayor Chris Watts anticipated this, claiming that “the vote is not the end of the story.” Oil companies will probably contest it in court, but, he said in a statement, “The City Council will exercise the legal remedies that are available to us should the ordinance be challenged.”

Bring it, Texas Oil, bring it. The people have spoken.

Source:
Record Number of Anti-Fracking Measures on Nov. 4 Ballots

, Inside Climate News.

Why Oil And Gas Giants Are Trying To Buy Three Local Elections In California

, Think Progress.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

See original article here:  

Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

Posted in American Standard, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Holy sh*t, a town in Texas just banned fracking

Senate Now Has Enough Votes To Pass Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Bill

by Myrna Posted on November 5, 2014

McConnell finally has the chance he’s been waiting for. Gage Skidmore/Flickr WASHINGTON -– The new Senate Republican majority creates an opportunity for likely Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to force a vote on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline he’s been waiting years to hold. By The Huffington Post’s count, the new Senate will have at least 61 votes in favor of a measure forcing the pipeline’s approval — a filibuster-proof majority. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Tuesday in an appearance on MSNBC that passing a Keystone approval bill would be the second item on the Republican agenda, after a budget. “I actually think the president will sign the bill on the Keystone pipeline because I think the pressure — he’s going to be boxed in on that, and I think it’s going to happen,” Priebus said. To keep reading, click here. View original:  Senate Now Has Enough Votes To Pass Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Bill ; ; ;

Source:

Senate Now Has Enough Votes To Pass Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Bill

Posted in alo, eco-friendly, Eureka, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Landmark, Monterey, ONA, oven, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Senate Now Has Enough Votes To Pass Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Bill