Tag Archives: republican

Finally, a Candidate for People Who Think Jeb Bush Isn’t WASPy Enough

Mother Jones

Last week it was Ted Cruz. On Wednesday it was Rand Paul. And now, meet your newest presidential candidate: former Rhode Island Republican senator turned former Rhode Island Democratic governor Lincoln Chafee! Bet you didn’t see that one coming.

Rhode Island Public Radio reported the news this morning:

Chafee said the launch of his exploratory committee will be made via videos posted on his website, Chafee2016.com.

“Throughout my career, I exercised good judgment on a wide range of high-pressure decisions, decisions that require level-headedness and careful foresight,” said Chafee. “Often these decisions came in the face of political adversity. During the next weeks and months I look forward to sharing with you my thoughts about the future of our great country.”

Lincoln Chafee, of the Rhode Island Chafees, won’t be the next president, although he does enter the Democratic primary with strong name recognition among people who use “summer” as a verb. Chafee’s father, great-great grandfather, and great-great uncle all previously served as governor of the state. Lincoln ran for the family seat only after losing his spot in the Senate in 2006 to Sheldon Whitehouse (of the Rhode Island Whitehouses), whose father had roomed with Chafee’s father at some college in New Haven before entering the diplomatic corps (like his father before him).

But there is something worth highlighting in his announcement interview:

Chafee said his focus will be on building a strong middle class coupled with environmental stewardship. Chafee, who voted against former President George W. Bush’s Iraq War, noted that Mrs. Clinton voted for it. He said he aims to send a clear message that “unilateral military intervention has damaged American interests around the world.”

Did you catch that? It’s easy to forget now that she’s the email-destroying, dictator-courting villain of Benghazi, but there was a time when Hillary Clinton’s biggest weakness was something else entirely: Iraq. Clinton’s support for that war (and her inability to assuage its opponents) was the fuel for Sen. Barack Obama’s rise in the polls in 2007. Eight years later, the issue has been all but erased from the political debate.

Don’t bet on Chafee being the man who brings it back.

Credit:  

Finally, a Candidate for People Who Think Jeb Bush Isn’t WASPy Enough

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Finally, a Candidate for People Who Think Jeb Bush Isn’t WASPy Enough

These Maps Show Why We Keep Electing Climate Change Deniers

Mother Jones

One of the most significant obstacles to addressing climate change is the fact that huge numbers of US politicians reject the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are warming the planet. Why does the situation persist? How can a senator who (literally) holds up a snowball as evidence that global warming is a hoax keep winning reelection? How can someone who declares himself a climate “skeptic” be a front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination? As newly released research from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication makes painfully clear, GOP climate deniers actually hold views that are quite similar to those of the voters who elect them.

The Yale research is based on data from more than 13,000 survey responses since 2008. It estimates that nationwide, just 48 percent of people agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is caused “mostly” by humans. While other recent polls have found a somewhat higher percentage who say they believe humans are causing the planet to warm, Yale’s numbers are not a good sign for those—like billionaire activist Tom Steyer—who are trying to turn climate change denial into a disqualifying political position.

Things look even more discouraging when you use the researchers’ snazzy interactive maps to break down the estimates by congressional district. The blue districts on the map below are places where the researchers’ statistical model predicts that fewer than half of respondents believe that humans are primarily responsible for climate change. Yellow/orange districts are places where at least half of respondents accept the scientific consensus. As you can see, there’s an awful lot of blue—according to the data, 58 percent of US congressional districts have majorities that don’t accept the climate science.

Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

The margin of error on the data makes it impossible to rank with certainty the districts with the most climate denial. Still, the two darker blue portions on the map are noteworthy—these are the only congressional districts in the country in which under 40 percent of residents are estimated to accept the scientific consensus. Texas’ 1st District (where 38 percent believe the science) is represented by Louie Gohmert, a Republican who thinks that the world “may be cooling” and that the rising level of carbon dioxide is a good thing because it will mean “more plants.” Alabama’s 4th District (39 percent believe climate science) is represented by Republican Robert Aderholt, who has argued that “Earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change.” And it’s hard to see on the map, but California’s 12th District has the highest percentage of residents projected to believe that humans are causing climate change—65 percent. That district is in San Francisco, and it’s represented by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Adding elected officials’ party affiliations to the Yale data makes it clear that these aren’t simply one-off examples: In the average district with a Democratic member of Congress, 54 percent of adults believe humans are largely responsible for global warming; in the average GOP-controlled district, less than 46 percent agree.

Similar patterns exist at the state level:

Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

In Oklahoma—home to snowball-wielding climate denier Sen. James Inhofe—just 44 percent of residents believe humans cause global warming, according to the researchers’ estimates. The same is true in Kentucky, which is represented in the Senate by Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul. Paul has said that he’s “not sure anybody exactly knows why” the climate is changing.

One final note: Take a look at the early presidential primary and caucus states—Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. According to the Yale data, none of these states have majorities that accept the scientific consensus. (Nevada, at 50 percent, is the best of the four.) And when you consider that Republican primary voters are far more hostile to climate science than the general population, there seems to be very little incentive for GOP presidential candidates to embrace the truth about global warming.

From: 

These Maps Show Why We Keep Electing Climate Change Deniers

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Maps Show Why We Keep Electing Climate Change Deniers

"Everything Could Be Taken Away From Me": Watch This Woman Bravely Fight an Anti-Transgender Bill

Mother Jones

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

As Florida lawmakers continue to consider a bill aiming to make it a criminal act for transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice, we’d like to direct your attention to Cindy Sullivan, who spoke out against the bill in incredibly brave and emotional testimony earlier this month.

“I see this bill as effecting not just my business but my partner’s business,” Sullivan said. “If I go to use the restroom, everybody in that restroom has the ability to sue me and my family, affect my child, affect my reputation. Everything could be taken away from me.”

“You could put me in jail for being me!”

As her tears well, Sullivan repeatedly looks behind her shoulder, as the bill’s sponsor, state representative Frank Artiles watches on.

House Bill 583 has already been approved by two subcommittees and is expected to be reviewed by the house judiciary committee later this week. In Kentucky and Texas, lawmakers are attempting to pass similar anti-transgender legislation. All three states have the support and financial backing of the Alliance Defending Freedom, an influential conservative group.

Sullivan, who began her testimony noting she too was a Republican, slammed the bill as “government intrusion at its worst.”

“I’m a throw-away piece of trash, in this country of freedom, and liberty, and respect.”

Read article here: 

"Everything Could Be Taken Away From Me": Watch This Woman Bravely Fight an Anti-Transgender Bill

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Everything Could Be Taken Away From Me": Watch This Woman Bravely Fight an Anti-Transgender Bill

Ted Cruz Throws His Hat In General Direction of Presidential Ring

Mother Jones

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

The big news sweeping my Twitter feed last night was Ted Cruz’s rather sudden decision to announce that he’s running for president. Usually there’s a warmup period of some kind (an “exploratory committee,” etc.) but apparently Cruz decided to dispense with all that and simply throw his hat in the ring posthaste. The motivation for his sudden haste is a little mysterious at this point.

The other thing sweeping my Twitter feed was the fact that the URL tedcruz.com leads to the site on the right. Patrick Caldwell explains this and much more in his brisk overview of potential candidates and their unfortunate lack of attention to the basics of internet campaigning:

Unfortunately for the Texas Republican, long before he ran for Senate in 2012, TedCruz.com had been nabbed by an Arizona attorney who shares his name. Based on a search of the Wayback Machine, an internet archive, the Arizona Cruz’s website dates back to at least early 2008, when it was a normal, if slightly Geocities-tinged, business website. “Putting All Your Real Estate Needs In ‘CRUZ CONTROL,'” the attorney’s tagline said at the time. But sometime within the past year he ditched his law site to instead mock the would-be-president. On a simple black background, in large font, the website screamed: “COMING SOON, Presidential Candidate, I Luv CHRISTIE!!!!!” Attorney Cruz wouldn’t say anything to Mother Jones over email except to acknowledge that he has owned the domain for several years. But he deleted the section about loving Christie shortly thereafter. Given the initial message, though, it seems unlikely that the Arizona attorney will be easily persuaded to relinquish control of the domain to the senator.

That’s bad luck, no? Still, at least Cruz has control of tedcruz.org. It was obviously thrown together pretty quickly, though at least it’s got the basics. But why the slapdash approach? According to the New York Times this morning, Cruz was afraid of being upstaged: “By becoming the first candidate to declare himself officially in the race, Republicans briefed on his strategy said, Mr. Cruz hopes to reclaim the affection and attention of those on the party’s right wing who have begun eyeing other contenders, particularly Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.”

Cruz’s official announcement, inevitably, will be done at Liberty University, Jerry Falwell’s shrine to the Christian Right. I think we can expect many, many more speeches and announcements from Republican wannabes there. But Cruz will be the first! Take that, Bobby Jindal!

Source:  

Ted Cruz Throws His Hat In General Direction of Presidential Ring

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Throws His Hat In General Direction of Presidential Ring

What if Al Gore ran for president, again?

What if Al Gore ran for president, again?

By on 18 Mar 2015commentsShare

Al Gore’s an important guy to the climate movement. Back in 2006, he helped focus America’s attention (briefly) on the threat of climate change, and he’s been fighting the good fight ever since without attracting the same amount of attention (or ire). Until, maybe, now. The media is paying attention again — and some are even suggesting he run in the Democratic primary against Clinton in 2016.

Ezra Klein argues that a Gore candidacy would put climate change at the top of the agenda, where it should be. While income inequality, which many Democrats are currently focused on, is a “serious problem,” Klein writes, “climate change is an existential threat.” Also, a president can do more on his or her own to fight climate change than to fight inequality.

When it comes to climate change, there’s no one in the Democratic Party — or any other political party — with Gore’s combination of credibility and commitment. Bill McKibben, founder of the climate action group 350.org, calls Gore’s work on the issue “the most successful second act of any political life in U.S. history.” Perhaps that’s hyperbole, but it speaks to the regard in which Gore is held by climate activists. Though he’s been out of office for 15 years, he’s never left the climate fight. Gore has proven himself the opposite of those politicians who love the game more than they care about the issues.

Moreover, in an era in which very little moves through Congress, climate change is an issue where the president has real unilateral authority. The Environmental Protection Agency has the power to aggressively regulate greenhouse gas emissions — a process the Obama administration has begun, but that the next president will need to continue. Much of the crucial work on climate change requires coming to agreements with India and China — and that, too, is an arena where the president can act even if Congress is paralyzed.

Klein notes that running on climate change alone probably wouldn’t work. Unfortunately, Americans just don’t care that much about an issue they think of as a future threat (though by the end of the next president’s term, the American public might come to see that the threat has moved firmly into the present). But Klein points out that Gore, historically, has been more in line with the Democratic base than Clinton on other issues as well. “He opposed the Iraq War and endorsed single-payer health care, for instance. His Reinventing Government initiatives, mixed with his Silicon Valley contacts and experience, look pretty good for a post-Healthcare.gov era.”

So, according to Klein, a Gore presidency should sound pretty good to climate hawks. But some argue that Gore’s high-profile involvement with the climate movement keeps climate change a partisan issue, hurting the movement. From a New York Times profile on Gore this week:

Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, says Mr. Gore has become a symbol of climate change, which is both good and bad. He energized Democrats on climate issues, but alienated many conservatives, with the eager help of groups like the Heartland Institute and its allies like [Sen. James] Inhofe, who demonize Mr. Gore as part of their campaign to undercut the scientific consensus on the human role in global warming.

“Al Gore cannot ever reinvent himself from the fact that he became one of the country’s most polarizing political leaders,” Dr. Leiserowitz says. “Even as he is trying to explain climate change, he is reminding people, amplifying the conservative response around him.”

Maybe Gore did contribute to making climate change a partisan issue way back in 2006. But unfortunately, that ship has sailed. No matter what action Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat might propose to take on climate change, conservative politicians won’t be on board. The Republican Party has moved further and further to the right, and become more and more unwilling to work with Democrats on solutions to anything. Gore’s degree of visibility — whether he decides to run for president repeatedly or become a hermit in Mongolia for the rest of his days — won’t change that.

Another problem with a Gore candidacy could be the money he’s made while championing climate science, and the supposed hypocrisy involved in the lifestyle he’s lived with that money. As Luke Brinker writes at Salon, deniers tend to see Gore’s wealth as tantamount to proof that climate change is a hoax — a hoax intended to enrich Al Gore and those sniggering scientists at the IPCC:

You may remember that during the rollout of his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and for years thereafter, climate skeptics have proven all too keen to pounce on Gore’s hypocrisies — his sky-high utility bills, his fondness for private air travel, and so on — as if his own bad habits somehow debunked climate science; Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) even cited Gore’s marital troubles in explaining his about-face on the issue. It’s all patently ridiculous, but even the patently ridiculous helps shape our political discourse. So those of us who acknowledge climate change as an existential threat must also own up to the fact that the anti-science crowd relishes the idea of Gore as their foil. Laudable as Gore’s climate work has been, his political reemergence would risk debasing the climate debate at least as much as it would offer hope for moving that debate forward.

This whole debate is moot, for now, because Gore hasn’t publicly expressed any interest in running another campaign. But it does seem that, by merely continuing to exist and talk about climate, Gore has prompted at least a small discussion about how global warming will figure into the 2016 campaign. And that can’t hurt.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

See original article – 

What if Al Gore ran for president, again?

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What if Al Gore ran for president, again?

What Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitt Romney Have in Common

Mother Jones

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

As Tuesday’s national elections in Israeli neared, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was struggling to hold on to power, appeared to become more worried about his prospects and more desperate in his pitchmanship. Dropping all pretenses, he played the race card early on Election Day, posting a Facebook video with an explicit ethnic message: “Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls.” The intent was obvious—to scare the hell out of right-wing and anti-Arab voters who had not yet hit the polls. This brazen move followed another brazen sop to the right. On Monday night, Netanyahu declared that if he were elected, he would never permit the establishment of a Palestinian state. With this last-minute pander, Netanyahu reversed his previous public position—announced in a 2009 speech—that he supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

His back-flip was not much of a surprise. It’s an indicator of what was widely suspected at home and abroad: Netanyahu never really believed in the two-state solution, which has the been the foundation of Mideast diplomatic initiatives for two decades. But this issue is bigger than Netanyahu. Conservatives in his Likud party and Republicans in the United States have played the same game for years: expressing support for the two-state solution without meaning it. Why would they do that? Because there is a strong international consensus in favor of the two-party path to peace. Those who don’t buy it are not part of the mainstream debate; they’re outside the tent. Consequently, many Israeli conservatives and their comrades in the United States—who truly don’t want a Palestinian state—have figured out that if they mouth the words, they can gain entrance to the tent and piss away, or, at least, slyly obstruct.

Continue Reading »

Continue reading: 

What Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitt Romney Have in Common

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitt Romney Have in Common

Republicans Are Making Obama Popular Again

Mother Jones

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

This isn’t exactly Oprah levels of adulation or anything, but President Obama’s Gallup approval ratings have been rising steadily ever since Republicans won the midterm elections last year. He’s been bouncing around positive territory ever since the start of 2015, and today he clocks in at 48-47 percent approval.

Is this because the economy is picking up and people are just generally happier? Is it because his executive actions have made a favorable impression on the public? Is it because Republican incompetence makes him look good by comparison? Hard to say, but it certainly suggests that Democrats are pretty happy with him. As Ed Kilgore says:

Among Democrats, who are supposedly on the brink of a “struggle for the soul of the party,” and ideologically riven between Elizabeth Warren “populists” and Obama/Clinton “centrists,” Obama’s approval rating stands at 81%. And looking deeper, he’s at 86% among self-identified “liberal Democrats,” 78% among “moderate Democrats,” and yes, 67% among “conservative Democrats,” such as they are….This is another example of isolated data being somewhat limited in value, but worth a couple of dozen Politico columns.

Yep. And I’ll bet that once things get going, Hillary Clinton will poll about the same way.

View original:  

Republicans Are Making Obama Popular Again

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Are Making Obama Popular Again

The Washington Free Beacon Is Unapologetically Conservative. It’s Also Kind of Good.

Mother Jones

On July 21, 2013, Sen. Rand Paul reluctantly accepted the resignation of Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the “Southern Avenger.” Hunter had been one of the senator’s closest aides and had coauthored the Kentucky Republican’s 2011 book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington. But before that, a reporter revealed, he’d been a pro-secessionist shock jock who donned a Confederate-flag wrestling mask and annually toasted Abraham Lincoln’s assassin. Why, Paul was asked a few weeks later by a National Public Radio host, would he have worked with someone like Hunter? “Many of the things he wrote were stupid and I don’t agree with,” the presidential contender answered. “I do think, though, that he was unfairly treated by the media.”

The scoop that put Paul on the spot “and led him to blame the media” didn’t come from the New York Times, a Kentucky paper, or even a Democratic opposition researcher. Credit belonged to Alana Goodman, a reporter at the Washington Free Beacon, an avowedly conservative website that had launched just a year and a half earlier.

In its short history, the Free Beacon‘s tiny staff of fewer than two dozen journalists has pulled off an almost unprecedented feat: Amid a conservative movement that has often evinced something between disinterest and disdain for the work of investigative reporters, it has built genuine muckraking success.

In May 2014, reporter Lachlan Markay obtained a secret list of donors’ pledges to the progressive Democracy Alliance something akin to getting the Koch brothers’ political ledgers. A month later, Goodman posted previously unreleased audio of Hillary Clinton candidly discussing her vigorous defense, as a young court-appointed attorney, of an accused child rapist. In October, she uncovered Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor’s college thesis, in which he described school desegregation as a “figurative invasion.” Two weeks later, the Democrat lost his reelection race. Like the Southern Avenger expose, each of these stories was picked up by the mainstream media, a rare accomplishment for a conservative outlet. Taken together, the stories suggest that the Beacon may be poised to break out of the agitprop model of much conservative media to become a real player in hardcore news reporting.

The Beacon was initially inspired by ThinkProgress, the Center for American Progress’ blog, which fills liberals’ social-media feeds with quick-hit news and analysis. “There’s been a real gap between the left and right on reporting and the quality of the people engaged in those efforts, and we thought we could help,” says Michael Goldfarb, the Beacon‘s publisher. “Another objective was to have some fun going after people.”

Conservative outlets from Fox News to Breitbart and the Daily Caller also offer alternatives to the perceived liberal bias of the mainstream media. But they have mostly emphasized opinion and aggregation over breaking news. David Brock scored some scoops in the Clinton-era American Spectator, but right-leaning outlets’ record of hard reporting has since been spotty. While liberal sites like Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post have been awarded the industry’s highest honors (a Polk Award and a Pulitzer Prize, respectively), their conservative competitors have been notable mostly for overhyping and clinging to stories like Benghazi, Solyndra, or the IRS’s targeting of right-wing groups, long after mainstream reporters have moved on.

And when the Beacon‘s contemporaries do try to break news, they often get it wrong: In 2012, the Daily Caller published a series of now thoroughly debunked reports that Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, had consorted with prostitutes in the Dominican Republic. And then there’s conservative blogger Charles C. Johnson, who’s demonstrated a knack for flinging dirt but not a sense of proportion. (See “Citizen Troll,” page 46.) For years, Markay argues, many conservatives “thought all they needed to do was to point out bias” and satisfy a dedicated right-wing audience. The Beacon aims to pop that media bubble—to “break out of the insular conversation and report stuff that’s compelling enough that other people pick up on it.”

Part of the problem in producing smart conservative reporting, according to Goldfarb, is a lack of training grounds for right-leaning journalists. Becoming a reporter has “not been a real career path on the right,” says the former Weekly Standard writer and spokesman for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. Take Rob Bluey, a mentor for many of DC’s young conservative political journalists and the editor of the Daily Signal, a news site launched by the Heritage Foundation in 2014. When he graduated from college in 2001, Bluey says, “My dream job was at the Washington Post.” But, he recalls, “I could probably count on one hand, maybe two, conservative places that had jobs for journalists. The circle was pretty tight.” He took a job with the Media Research Center, and then moved to Human Events. He next headed to Heritage, where in 2011 he hired Markay as the think tank’s first investigative reporter. A few conservatives have tried to establish reporting outlets over the decades, Bluey explains, but the institutional right has only recently started to appreciate the need to get beyond messaging. Now, he says, conservatives are playing catch-up.

The Beacon hasn’t always steered clear of stories that please the base but don’t really stand up. One article, noted The New Republic, reported that then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had called Obama’s 2013 budget “unsustainable”; he’d actually been talking about future health care costs. Another article claimed NPR had carried water for a donor by publishing a “series” of anti-nuclear articles; one of the two examples was a reposted article from Foreign Policy. And the Beacon isn’t above titillating for traffic. The site serves up regular “news” about bikini model Kate Upton along with short pieces that push conservatives’ buttons (“Daniel Halper Explains How the Clintons Are Like the Mafia”), usually without a reporter’s byline.

Nonetheless, the Beacon‘s goals have become increasingly ambitious. In August, Goldfarb and Matthew Continetti, the editor in chief, declared that the site would one day take “its rightful place alongside the New York Times and the Washington Post.” That goal may not be so reality-based—those papers together employ some 1,800 journalists—but the Beacon has already proved its reporters can write the kind of stories it takes to shake things up. Conservatives “have better opinion journalism,” Goldfarb says, “but that has not been sufficient to win the fights. You need facts, and facts are in short supply on the right.”

This article:

The Washington Free Beacon Is Unapologetically Conservative. It’s Also Kind of Good.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Washington Free Beacon Is Unapologetically Conservative. It’s Also Kind of Good.

Joe Biden Blasts Republicans for Letter to Iran

Mother Jones

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

Joe Biden’s pissed. Yesterday, 47 GOP senators sent a letter to Iranian leaders suggesting that the negotiations with President Obama over their nuclear program were essentially a waste of time, stating: “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen…and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.” Biden, who served in US Senate for 36 years, responded with his own blistering rebuttal, writing that the senators’ letter is “beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.”

He wrote:

The senator’s letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American President, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States. Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger…

Since the beginning of the Republic, Presidents have addressed sensitive and high-profile matters in negotiations that culminate in commitments, both binding and non-binding, that Congress does not approve. Under Presidents of both parties, such major shifts in American foreign policy as diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China, the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis, and the conclusion of the Vietnam War were all conducted without Congressional approval….

In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary— that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous.

Iran’s response to the GOP letter, which was spearheaded by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton who previously argued that the US should seek “regime change” in Iran rather than conduct negotiations, was similarly dismissive. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Monday chalked it up to little more than “a propaganda ploy” that had “no legal value,” adding: “I wish to enlighten the authors that if the next administration revokes any agreement with ‘the stroke of a pen,’ as they boast, it will have simply committed a blatant violation of international law.”

Biden goes on to note that the senators have offered “no viable alternative” to the diplomatic negotiations, and the letter seeking to undermine them sends a message to the international community that is “as false as it is dangerous.”

Here’s Biden’s letter in full:

I served in the United States Senate for thirty-six years. I believe deeply in its traditions, in its value as an institution, and in its indispensable constitutional role in the conduct of our foreign policy. The letter sent on March 9th by forty-seven Republican Senators to the Islamic Republic of Iran, expressly designed to undercut a sitting President in the midst of sensitive international negotiations, is beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.

The senator’s letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American President, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States. Honorable people can disagree over policy. But this is no way to make America safer or stronger.

Around the world, America’s influence depends on its ability to honor its commitments. Some of these are made in international agreements approved by Congress. However, as the authors of this letter must know, the vast majority of our international commitments take effect without Congressional approval. And that will be the case should the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany reach an understanding with Iran. There are numerous similar cases. The recent U.S.-Russia framework to remove chemical weapons from Syria is only one recent example. Arrangements such as these are often what provide the protections that U.S. troops around the world rely on every day. They allow for the basing of our forces in places like Afghanistan. They help us disrupt the proliferation by sea of weapons of mass destruction. They are essential tools to the conduct of our foreign policy, and they ensure the continuity that enables the United States to maintain our credibility and global leadership even as Presidents and Congresses come and go.

Since the beginning of the Republic, Presidents have addressed sensitive and high-profile matters in negotiations that culminate in commitments, both binding and non-binding, that Congress does not approve. Under Presidents of both parties, such major shifts in American foreign policy as diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic of China, the resolution of the Iran hostage crisis, and the conclusion of the Vietnam War were all conducted without Congressional approval.

In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country—much less a longtime foreign adversary— that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments—a message that is as false as it is dangerous.

The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine.

There is no perfect solution to the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. However, a diplomatic solution that puts significant and verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear program represents the best, most sustainable chance to ensure that America, Israel, and the world will never be menaced by a nuclear-armed Iran. This letter is designed to convince Iran’s leaders not to reach such an understanding with the United States.The author of this letter has been explicit that he is seeking to take any action that will end President Obama’s diplomatic negotiations with Iran. But to what end? If talks collapse because of Congressional intervention, the United States will be blamed, leaving us with the worst of all worlds. Iran’s nuclear program, currently frozen, would race forward again. We would lack the international unity necessary just to enforce existing sanctions, let alone put in place new ones. Without diplomacy or increased pressure, the need to resort to military force becomes much more likely—at a time when our forces are already engaged in the fight against ISIL.

The President has committed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He has made clear that no deal is preferable to a bad deal that fails to achieve this objective, and he has made clear that all options remain on the table. The current negotiations offer the best prospect in many years to address the serious threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It would be a dangerous mistake to scuttle a peaceful resolution, especially while diplomacy is still underway.

Continue reading here:

Joe Biden Blasts Republicans for Letter to Iran

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Joe Biden Blasts Republicans for Letter to Iran

Iran’s Foreign Minister Dismisses GOP Letter as "Propaganda Ploy"

Mother Jones

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

On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif responded to a controversial letter signed by 47 GOP senators urging Iran to reject a nuclear deal with the United States, dismissing the message as “mostly a propaganda ploy” that aimed to undermine President Barack Obama’s diplomatic efforts. Zarif said in a statement:

It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

The Republican letter, which was organized by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, warned Iran’s leaders that a nuclear agreement with Obama could be scrapped by any president who succeeds him. The message was clear: if you accept this deal, you could end up screwed; so don’t do it. It was a brazen attempt to sabotage Obama’s attempt to curb Iran’s nuclear program through a negotiated accord between Iran, the United States, and other nations.

In his response, Zarif challenged Cotton and his fellow Republicans on their reading of international law:

The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.

Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor in a possible agreement about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program.

This latest attempt orchestrated by Republicans to undercut the president’s negotiations with Iran angered the White House and sparked a furious response by Vice President Joe Biden, who slammed the GOP senators’ letter as “beneath the dignity of the institution I revere.” Several GOP senators also criticized the move, expressing concern that Cotton’s letter could backfire and spur additional support for a nuclear deal.

“It’s more appropriate for members of the Senate to give advice to the president, to Secretary Kerry and to the negotiators,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said. “I don’t think that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my distinguished and high ranking colleagues.”

Visit link: 

Iran’s Foreign Minister Dismisses GOP Letter as "Propaganda Ploy"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran’s Foreign Minister Dismisses GOP Letter as "Propaganda Ploy"