Tag Archives: house

The Weird Campaign of John Kasich

Mother Jones

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

It was half a day before New Hampshire voters would start voting in the year’s first presidential primary, and John Kasich was talking about slowing down—how everyone should slow down. As a snowstorm struck, he was in the Searles Chapel in Windham speaking to about 100 people, a fifth of whom were college students from North Carolina, and the Ohio governor, who according to the latest poll was essentially in a four-way tie for second in the GOP race, began his talk by saying he was “trying to get the right pitch.” By that, he meant tone. And then it got strange. He meandered for a couple of minutes, discussing his failed presidential campaign of 16 years ago and griping that even in the Granite State campaigning has become less intimate. Then he talked for a bit about his parents’ death in a 1987 car crash, noting this “nightmare” made him “so much more sensitive to problems people have.” He then segued into a long, contemplative riff about modern-day society. “Speed,” he said. “Our lives are being lived so fast. We’re constantly on the device. The Apple TV…Have to get the new Apple phone.” He held up an iPhone, as he continued: “We have to slow our lives down and listen to people’s hurts and victories.” He repeated this call to de-accelerate: “When we do…it’s a more beautiful world.” Members of the audience were listening attentively but several looked puzzled. And Kasich gazed toward the stained glass at the back of the chapel and said with a sigh, “So why don’t we slow down and listen and help one another?”

This was hardly the conventional way to rouse a crowd the day prior to an election. And this moment demonstrated that Kasich is the oddest of the elected officials in the Republican contest. A former chair of the House budget committee when he was a congressman, Kasich has long been known as a policy wonk and champion of Reaganomics. But on the campaign trail, he has become an elegiac prophet, lamenting the detachment of modern life. At a town hall meeting the day before at Concord High School, Kasich offered a similar take: “I think many of us just feel lonely. We don’t know where to go. There’s nobody around to celebrate some of our victories. Sometimes there’s nobody around to sit and cry with us. Don’t we want that back in our country again?…Everybody on this Earth is connected. We’re just a part of a mosaic in a moment of time. And when people are broken, it hurts all of us.”

Continue Reading »

Link:  

The Weird Campaign of John Kasich

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Weird Campaign of John Kasich

Dot Earth Blog: As Rubio Waffles, Two Floridians in the House Seek Bipartisan Climate Solutions

Two Floridians in Congress, a Republican and a Democrat, create a House caucus to explore policy options on climate change. Read original article:  Dot Earth Blog: As Rubio Waffles, Two Floridians in the House Seek Bipartisan Climate Solutions ; ; ;

Read this article: 

Dot Earth Blog: As Rubio Waffles, Two Floridians in the House Seek Bipartisan Climate Solutions

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: As Rubio Waffles, Two Floridians in the House Seek Bipartisan Climate Solutions

Vampire Weekend Played This Classic Song in Honor of Bernie Sanders in Iowa

Mother Jones

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

Caucus season in Iowa produces weird, unexpected scenes. As I walked into a coffee shop in downtown Iowa City on Saturday afternoon for a writing pit stop between campaign events, I noticed a growing crowd in the far back of the room. Turns out the indie band Vampire Weekend (joined by a member of fellow Brooklyn hipster band Dirty Projectors), scheduled to play a major rally for Bernie Sanders later this evening, had announced on Twitter that they’d be playing a pre-show warm-up set at the coffee house, and the college kids from the University of Iowa had quickly flocked. Pressed into a corner in a packed room, it was difficult to get a good head count, but the wall-to-wall crowd easily numbered into the several hundred.

Was the young crowd there for Bernie, or just a free show? Mostly the latter from my vantage point. Joey Sogard, a sophmore at Iowa State University, made the two-hour drive for the rally. So a big Bernie supporter, right? “Well, more Vampire Weekend and Foster the People,” Sogard said, mentioning another band scheduled to play at Sanders rally. Well, would he at least be caucusing for Sanders? “I don’t know what caucusing is, I’ve been explained a thousand times, but I don’t know,” he said with a laugh.

The friends he had roadtripped with were more definitive Sanders fans, though. Zoey Mauck, an Iowa-native familiar with the caucusing process, said she would be in Sanders’ camp Monday night. “I just like his stance on a lot of issues, especially the environmental stuff,” she said. “Something about Bernie I just really like. But if it goes Hillary, I don’t really care.”

Nearby, a woman wearing a zebra-patterned-bear backpack was handing out buttons and stickers emblazoned with a Donald-Trump-as-fly-covered-feces design.

When the band took the stage, they encouraged the crowd to come to watch Sanders speak later in the evening—”that’s what this is all about,” lead singer Ezra Koenig said—but the crowd mostly saved its applause for Vampire Weekend’s hits. Still, Koenig did his best to keep things focused on the Bern, explaining that they mostly wanted to play a pre-rally set in order to tune up, since “we cannot embarrass ourselves in front of Bernie.”

The short, six-song set ended with a rendition of “This Land is Your Land,” which Koenig said was in honor of the album of folk covers Sanders recorded in 1987.

“How dope would it be to have a recording artist in the White House,” Koenig wondered to the students.

“Kanye 2020!” Came a shout from the crowd.

Originally from:  

Vampire Weekend Played This Classic Song in Honor of Bernie Sanders in Iowa

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vampire Weekend Played This Classic Song in Honor of Bernie Sanders in Iowa

Republicans Refuse to Vote on Banning Muslims From US

Mother Jones

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

House Republicans have passed a bill to ban refugees from Syria and Iraq, and today it was up for debate in the Senate:

On Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) slammed the refugee bill but said Democrats would allow it to advance if they could offer four amendments, including one aimed at Trump that would put senators on record about whether there should be a religious test for anyone entering the country.

….Senate Republicans declined Reid’s offer and Democrats blocked the refugee legislation….Earlier this month, Reid said he will use every opportunity to try to force Senate votes on policies touted by Trump. This drew a warning from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that he would counter by holding votes on campaign promises made by Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

I know this is all just political theater, but it’s still pretty entertaining. I wonder if voting for Trump policies would actually hurt Republicans? I wonder if voting against Trump policies would hurt Republicans? I guess we’ll never know.

Anyway, this is what things have come to: Faced with a ridiculous amendment that would ban Muslims from visiting America, Republicans are afraid to just vote No and then move along. They’re scared that their base would hold it against them. Amazing.

View original post here:  

Republicans Refuse to Vote on Banning Muslims From US

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Refuse to Vote on Banning Muslims From US

The Problem With Rooftop Solar That Nobody Is Talking About

Mother Jones

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

A couple of years ago, Steven Weissman, an energy lawyer at the University of California-­Berkeley, started to shop around for solar panels for his house. It seemed like an environmental no-brainer. For zero down, leading residential provider SolarCity would install panels on his roof. The company would own the equipment, and he’d buy the power it produces for less than he had been paying his electric utility. Save money, fight climate change. Sounds like a deal.

But while reading the contract, Weissman discovered the fine print that helps make that deal possible: SolarCity would also retain ownership of his system’s renewable energy credits. It’s the kind of detail your average solar customer wouldn’t notice or maybe care about. But to Weissman, it was an unexpected letdown.

Continue Reading »

Link – 

The Problem With Rooftop Solar That Nobody Is Talking About

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Problem With Rooftop Solar That Nobody Is Talking About

Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

Mother Jones

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

Just a few days after President Barack Obama promised new actions on climate change during his final State of the Union address, his administration has unveiled a sweeping overhaul of how coal can be extracted from federal land.

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced on Friday that she was placing a moratorium on new coal-mining leases on public land and that her department would begin a multiyear review of how those lease contracts are awarded. The policy change is likely to make the leases more expensive for mining companies, to generate increased royalties for the government, and to offset the damage coal production and consumption do to the environment.

“We haven’t done a top-to-bottom review of the coal program in 30 years,” Jewell told reporters. She added that her department will search for ways “to manage coal in a way that is consistent with the climate change agenda.”

This is a big win for environmental groups. But don’t expect it to result in an overnight decline in coal use, the nation’s No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions. Jewell said the lease moratorium will not “have any impact at all on coal production” and that the review will largely be carried out by the next presidential administration. All of the Republican presidential contenders have vowed to scale back Obama’s climate legacy; the Democratic candidates have vowed to push it forward.

About 40 percent of all US coal extraction takes place on federal land, much of that in Wyoming, the nation’s top coal producer. For years, environmentalists have complained that the coal industry enjoys royalty rates much lower than offshore oil or other publicly owned fossil fuels. Those low rates make it cheaper for coal companies to operate and may also be a raw deal for the public that has to deal with the impacts, from local environmental degradation to global climate change. While offshore oil companies typically pay a royalty rate of about 18 percent, Jewell said, the rate for coal is only 8-10 percent. A Government Accountability Office report in 2014 found that undervalued coal leases cost the US Treasury nearly $1 billion per year in lost revenue.

When the leasing policy was originally created decades ago, Jewell said, “our practice was really about getting as much coal as possible” to feed the nation’s power plants. Now, many scientists agree that the exact opposite approach is needed to have any chance of limiting global warming. A 2015 study found that 92 percent of US coal reserves need to stay buried to have any hope of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the cap enshrined in the international climate agreement brokered in Paris last month.

Jewell said there are about 50 pending coal leases that could be halted by the moratorium; leases that have already been approved will be allowed to go forward, and there will be no change to any current mining operation. There’s enough coal in reserve under existing leases to continue production at its current rate for another 20 years, she said. Many of the leases that could be put on ice were unlikely to have gone into production anyway, said Matt Lee-Ashley, director of the public lands program at the Center for American Progress. That’s because, with prices so low, big coal companies in the West routinely snatch up leases just to keep in their back pocket without necessarily developing them.

In effect, Lee-Ashley said, “it’s a pause on adding additional stockpiles on coal.”

The coal companies, he added, “are well resourced to continue mining for the foreseeable future.”

Still, the announcement is yet another headache for an industry that has already had a very bad start to 2016. Coal has been battered over the last few years by competition from cheap natural gas and by new climate regulations from the Obama administration. US coal production is at a 30-year low, one of the country’s biggest companies recently declared bankruptcy, and once-promising export markets in China now seem to be drying up.

The leasing reform quickly faced a backlash from Republican lawmakers who represent coal states.

“Once again the administration is circumventing Congress, the voice of the American people, to launch another unilateral attack on coal,” Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to ensure our policies promote access to affordable, reliable energy.”

Kentucky is among the two dozen coal-reliant states that are suing the Obama administration over its plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Lee-Ashley countered that the reforms are “a giant step forward” on Obama’s climate agenda. “This is the first time any administration has taken such a serious look at the management problems, and also the environmental costs, of fossil fuel production on public lands,” he said. He cautioned that if a Republican follows Obama in the White House, he or she could impede the climate-oriented aspects of the reform. But he said the financial overhaul should enjoy bipartisan support, since it boils down to giving the American people a fair price for their natural resources.

“When you look at the money being lost to taxpayers through these loopholes, anybody who believes in good business should be able to carry it forward,” he said.

Link to article: 

Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Things Just Got Even Worse For Coal

Ted Cruz’s War on Ethanol Mandates

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

Obama’s Final State of the Union: A Return to Hope and Change

Mother Jones

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

For his seven years as president, Barack Obama has mounted an ideological war against the Republicans. He hasn’t cast it as such, and, most times, he has not matched his rhetoric with the fury of the fight. Still, this battle has raged on, as Obama has contended that communal action spearheaded by government activism is critical for repairing the economy ruined by the Bush-Cheney crash and rejiggering it so middle-class and low-income Americans can survive, and perhaps even thrive, when confronted by the mighty challenges of the 21st century. Obstructionist Republicans, naturally, have argued that government is the problem and that the old Reaganish medley of tax cuts, social welfare program shrinkage, government downsizing, union-bashing, and regulation rollbacks is the path to prosperity. (At the same time, Obama has waged a parallel fight on national security, contending that multilateral action coupled with patient and aggressive diplomacy is a better bet than neocon hawkishness dependent on bellicose threats and the go-it-alone use of force.) In presidential speeches—State of the Union addresses, budget speeches, or on-the-road appearances—and during the 2012 campaign, Obama has repeatedly made his case: progressive-minded government is needed and delivers in this era of change and economic insecurity. And in his final State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Obama did extend this crusade, though, for good or bad, it was not his central theme.

Instead, an upbeat Obama offered a sweeping vision of the nation’s future—and tried to present a picture of an American society tapping its dynamic, can-do spirit to accomplish great things in the years ahead, if it can get its political act together.

Obama did recognize the deep divide in the political universe. Noting that it’s been difficult to find bipartisan agreement in many areas these past seven years, he cited the issue of “what role the government should play in making sure the system’s not rigged in favor of the wealthiest and biggest corporations.” And he continued: “here, the American people have a choice to make.” He explained why the GOP way is bunk:

After years of record corporate profits, working families won’t get more opportunity or bigger paychecks by letting big banks or big oil or hedge funds make their own rules at the expense of everyone else; or by allowing attacks on collective bargaining to go unanswered. Food Stamp recipients didn’t cause the financial crisis; recklessness on Wall Street did. Immigrants aren’t the reason wages haven’t gone up enough; those decisions are made in the boardrooms that too often put quarterly earnings over long-term returns. It’s sure not the average family watching tonight that avoids paying taxes through offshore accounts. In this new economy, workers and start-ups and small businesses need more of a voice, not less. The rules should work for them.

On paper, Obama certainly has a strong argument. The economy has created more jobs in the past two years than at any time since the late 1990s. The post-bail-out auto industry is booming. Following the implementation of Obamacare, the number of uninsured Americans has dropped greatly. (Premiums and health care costs are still rising, but at lower rates than before.) Americans with money to invest or speculate have seen an overall rise in the stock market. The number of people working part-time who desire longer hours has dropped. There’s even been a slight tick-up in wages—which for decades had flat-lined, a development that led to increased income inequality. Obama pointed all this out, and slammed “anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline” for “peddling fiction,” while acknowledging that several long-term trends have “squeezed workers.”

Still, economic insecurity bedevils the country, as a whopping majority of Americans tell pollsters the nation is on the wrong track. After all, the financial implosion of eight years ago demonstrated how precarious the United States’ economic foundation can be, especially when much of the economy is held hostage by the wheeler-dealers of Wall Street. (The Dodd-Frank financial reforms Obama signed into law, despite their merits, hardly insure there will be no repeat.) And all the churn of the globalized economy—and the bouts of chaos overseas—worry Americans, who rightfully wonder whether they should ever feel at ease about their jobs (let alone jobs for their kids) and their retirement. Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again schtick exploits the new normal of uncertainty that many Americans, even those gainfully employed, must acclimate themselves to.

Obama cannot deliver the security Americans desire (and the same is true regarding the ISIS-fueled disorder in the Middle East). So he is open to a convenient line of attack from the GOPers: Americans remain at risk from economic dislocation at home (and depressed wages) and from foreign threats abroad. The world is an iffy place. Beheadings overseas, shootings at home, factory shut-downs—none of this is going to end soon. And the federal government’s ability to eradicate these threats is limited. (How do you stop a lone wolf—or a lone couple—from going to a gun store and then launching an attack in a pubic place to advance jihadist extremism?) For Obama’s political foes at home, it is easy to assert that any particular event—an ISIS gain of territory in Iraq, a terrorist attack in the United States, a glitch with Obamacare—discredits Obama’s policies and his overall approach. So Obama has the heavy burden, especially as he tries to pass the White House to a Democratic successor, of defending progressive government at a moment when quick and permanent solutions to vexing problems here and abroad are hard to come by.

But rather than devote much of the speech to defending the past—that is, the Obama years—he declared, “I want to focus on our future.”

In a buoyant speech, Obama observed the obvious: this is a “time of extraordinary change,” and he counseled Americans not to wig out over the changes they encounter. He hailed American “optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery and innovation, our diversity and commitment to the rule of law.” He didn’t unveil a grocery list of new policies. He did reiterate those proposals he has already called for: a minimum wage hike, immigration reform, college affordability programs, gun safety measures, criminal justice reform, equal pay, and paid family leave. But he outlined four big questions the nation has to answer: how to give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and economic security, how to use technology to solve pressing problems (such as climate change), how to make the world safer (without the United States becoming the global policeman), and how to make the US political system more responsive to the public interest. He did not provide specifics across these fronts, though he did announce a moon-shot project for cancer research (to be helmed by Vice President Joe Biden).

This was a speech about American confidence—a confidence that Obama said should be predicated on the progress of recent years. It was a direct retort to Trump talk. Don’t fall for fear, he said: “Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon.” But how can our political system deliver on this? “Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise,” Obama said, “or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us.” Yet he once again declined to call out GOP obstructionism, observing, “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency—that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.”

Obama also counseled Americans not to freak out about the troubling developments overseas, including terrorism and the spread of extremism. He noted, “As we focus on destroying ISIL, over-the-top claims that this is World War III just play into their hands. Masses of fighters on the back of pickup trucks and twisted souls plotting in apartments or garages pose an enormous danger to civilians and must be stopped. But they do not threaten our national existence.” He dared Congress to vote on authorizing US military action against ISIS.

In one of the most passionate moments of the speech, Obama criticized the anti-Muslim attacks of Trump and others:

That’s why we need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion. This isn’t a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of understanding what makes us strong. The world respects us not just for our arsenal; it respects us for our diversity and our openness and the way we respect every faith. His Holiness, Pope Francis, told this body from the very spot I stand tonight that “to imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.” When politicians insult Muslims, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid bullied, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world. It makes it harder to achieve our goals. And it betrays who we are as a country.

And the president maintained that the United States is not as weak or at risk as GOP presidential fearmongers claim:

I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead—they call us.

The message: buck up, America. We’re doing better than many other nations, and we have the opportunity to make great strides.

This was, in a way, a return to hope and change. Perhaps a more realistic (or world-weary) version of his 2008 pitch. He was aiming to spark the US spirit, not to draw clear lines. But at this stage in the game, it’s unclear what a good speech—and this was a good speech—can or will accomplish.

In 2008, Obama’s election seemed a turning point. The Republicans were routed. A new progressive era was at hand. But conservatives struck back. Hatred of Obama fueled the tea party revival and reshaped the GOP. And as Obama failed to keep the millions who voted for his brand of hope and change fully engaged in the political process, Republicans realized that were leading an army of resentment comprised of foot soldiers who demanded Obama’s head on the pike. (For most of them, this was a metaphorical urge.) The president underestimated the opposition at first, but he combated Republican revanchism by trying to set up a political narrative focused on choice: the nation’s voters had to choose between his vision of government and that of the ever more conservative Republican party. Obama succeeded with this strategy in 2012. Yet the Obama years have not settled this fundamental clash for good.

With his final State of the Union, Obama, full of zeal and spirit, skillfully emphasized grand non-political themes: optimism, unity, progress, and innovation. But whoever the Democratic nominee will be in 2016, he or she will have to continue the ideological ground war. In the past eight years, Obama won many battles, and the United States is in a better spot now than the day he moved into the White House. But this war of ideas is not done. It may never be. And if Obama wants to preserve his accomplishments and cement his legacy, he will have to stay engaged in that fight

Jump to original:

Obama’s Final State of the Union: A Return to Hope and Change

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s Final State of the Union: A Return to Hope and Change

Biden Says Obama Offered to Help Pay for Son’s Cancer Treatment

Mother Jones

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

In an emotional interview with CNN‘s Gloria Borger, Vice President Joe Biden on Monday revealed that President Barack Obama once offered to help him financially amid mounting concerns over his late son Beau’s health.

The offer, Biden says, was made during one of their weekly lunch meetings, in which he told the president he and his wife were contemplating selling their house to help Beau’s family in case he was forced to resign as Delaware’s attorney general.

“He got up and he said, ‘Don’t sell that house. Promise me you won’t sell the house,'” Biden told Borger, who had asked Biden to reveal a moment he would remember ahead of Obama’s final State of the Union on Tuesday. “He said, ‘I’ll give you the money. Whatever you need, I’ll give you the money. Don’t, Joe—promise me. Promise me.’ I said, ‘I don’t think we’re going to have to anyway.’ He said, ‘Promise me.'”

“And then I’ll never forget the eulogy he delivered for Beau.”

Beau ultimately ended up being able to serve the rest of his second term as attorney general. He died in May from brain cancer.

View this article: 

Biden Says Obama Offered to Help Pay for Son’s Cancer Treatment

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Biden Says Obama Offered to Help Pay for Son’s Cancer Treatment

Obama Just Slapped Down a GOP Attack on Obamacare and Planned Parenthood

Mother Jones

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

President Barack Obama on Friday vetoed a GOP-backed bill that would have fulfilled two conservative dreams all at once: to gut the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s signature health care law, and to pull funding from Planned Parenthood for a year.

The House passed the bill on Wednesday, after it squeaked through the Senate in December thanks to a special budget process requiring only 51 votes for passage instead of the usual 60. It was the 62nd time that Congress had voted on repealing or gutting the law colloquially known as Obamacare since it became law in 2010. It is also the eighth time in a year that Congress has voted on defunding Planned Parenthood.

Obama said in a statement: “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 22 million after 2017…Reliable health care coverage would no longer be a right for everyone: it would return to being a privilege for a few.”

Referring to Planned Parenthood, the president noted the bill “would limit access to health care for men, women, and families across the nation, and would disproportionately impact low-income individuals.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately responded with a video in which he pledges to hold a vote to override the veto, saying that “it is just a matter of time” before Obamacare is done away with. Republicans do not have enough votes in the House to overturn a presidential veto, which requires a two-thirds majority.

Continued:  

Obama Just Slapped Down a GOP Attack on Obamacare and Planned Parenthood

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Just Slapped Down a GOP Attack on Obamacare and Planned Parenthood