Obama’s Apparent Climate Plan. First, Get Elected…
October 23, 2012
Ok. I guess that’s the calculus. Still no discussion of the greatest threat to national Security, global climate change. I blame Bog Schieffer and the mainstream media for letting both candidates slide on the issue.
See above video for part 1 of the take from senior military leaders. Part 2 below.
Below, a look at the 2008 debate between Obama and John McCain, just the key 6 minutes where they actually talked about climate and renewable energy as if they mattered.
October 23, 2012 at 3:22 am
[…] Ok. I guess that’s the calculus. Still no discussion of the greatest threat to national Security, global climate change. I blame Bog Schieffer and the mainstream media for letting both candidates slide on the issue. See above video for part 1 of the take from senior military leaders. Part 2 below. […]
October 23, 2012 at 3:24 am
Obama is for tarsands and for fracking…
Time for REAL change in the US.
October 23, 2012 at 4:01 am
Seattle Post Intelligence has an article on the presidential debates => Ignoring Climate Change and Global Warming
October 23, 2012 at 4:29 am
The Rolling Stone: Mitt Romney’s Dirty Dozen
“Meet 12 of the most anti-environment supporters behind the Republican nominee’s campaign”
October 23, 2012 at 7:29 am
On climate change and energy, the economy is the ultimate Koch-block. If Obama mentions AGW, he gets hammered on not caring about the economy. Politically, it’s an easy checkmate.
The great irony is that a good portion of our economic problems stem from energy issues. Examples: the rising costs of depleting fossil fuel resources that affect every aspect of the economy, the ‘need’ for draining our spending abilities (while taxing the citizenry) to pay for a military in 148 out of 196 countries on Earth to secure those resources (and the fact that this money isn’t being spent on our own infrastructure and citizenry), and that partly because of these aspects (which have been steadily increasing since 1970) we’ve cannibalized our industrial base (to increase profits without expanding production requires cutting costs, also known as offshoring jobs).
Real change at this point is a long shot – like hitting a bullseye on Jupiter from Earth with a six-shooter. We have to have deep and meaningful campaign finance and lobbying reform first, and like climate change the two main parties simply aren’t mentioning it. So, this pretty much requires the destruction or at least deep shock of the two-party system itself. Both R and D are going to keep the status quo as long as they can, and only a real response from the public is going to change that.
On this Tuesday night the 23rd, Larry King is going to have a third-party candidate debate (only on the web):
The candidates will range from a fascist in all but name (Virgil Goode), to a Libertarian (Gary Johnson), to a Democrat who thinks the Democratic Party has lost its way (Rocky Anderson), to someone who actually does have a plan to increase renewables and enact campaign finance reform (Jill Stein).
Let’s see if climate change gets addressed there.
On whether a third party can win in America: of course a third party candidate cannot win this year. But there is no reason why a third party candidate can never win in America – the only thing that stops us is ourselves, our assumptions, and the propaganda that enforces those assumptions.
The only way to build a strong third party is to support it from the ground up. For instance, say the first election cycle a third party gets 5% of the vote. It’s enough to get it noticed. The next election cycle, it gets 15% – and at this point it qualifies under campaign laws to participate in the main debates (instead of having its candidates get arrested for trying to enter the debates), and the debates themselves become more than staged events. The next cycle, it participates in the debates, develops a following, and gets 25%. And the next cycle, it has a shot at victory.
It is a lengthy and uphill process, but it never will get off the ground without that initial 5% of support in the first cycle.
On the thought that support of a third party candidate might seal the election for the greater of two evils, I’d say this: 1) a choice as meaningful as this should never come down to choosing a guy you don’t fully support, 2) candidates win or lose based on their own merits or faults (if Obama loses Florida it’s because of Obama, and not because of an Anderson or Stein supporter), 3) we always have the line that a third party candidacy is a ‘wasted’ or ‘spoiler’ vote, and look where that’s gotten us, 4) a strong third party showing is one of the best ways to influence the main parties’ platforms (this has happened multiple times in U.S. history), 5) the individual right to vote comes down to the principles of the individual, not the collective, and 6) election history suggests a cyclical pattern of cause-and-effect, anyway (Carter doesn’t win without Nixon, Reagan doesn’t win without Carter, Clinton doesn’t win without Bush/Reagan, Bush II doesn’t win without Clinton, Obama doesn’t win without Bush II, and so on).
The system will NOT change by itself.
October 23, 2012 at 10:51 am
Jim,
Overall, a brilliant comment. However I’ve got one quibble:
You said: “Clinton doesn’t win without Bush/Reagan”
That’s not historically accurate. 1n 1992, Ross Perot took 19% of the popular vote (30% in Maine). Almost all of the votes Perot got were from Right-leaning independents who otherwise would have been voting for G.H.W. Bush. Clinton won because Perot split away enough Bush votes for Clinton to prevail. It was at this moment that the decision was made by the DNC and RNC that allowing third party candidates to “debate” before the general election was just too risky. The League of Women Voters was maneuvered out of hosting the debates and that’s why we get the garbage debates of today.
Here’s a trenchant Glenn Greenwald comment on last night’s time-waster:
“That was just a wretched debate, with almost no redeeming qualities. It was substance-free, boring, and suffuse with empty platitudes. Bob Scheiffer’s questions were even more vapid and predictably shallow than they normally are, and one often forgot that he was even there (which was the most pleasant part of the debate.) The vast majority of the most consequential foreign policy matters (along with the world’s nations) were completely ignored in lieu of their same repetitive slogans on the economy. When they did get near foreign policy, it was to embrace the fundamentals of each other’s positions and, at most, bicker on the margin over campaign rhetoric.
“Numerous foreign policy analysts, commentators and journalists published lists of foreign policy questions they wanted to hear asked and answered at this debate. Almost none was raised. In sum, it was a perfect microcosm of America’s political culture.”
http://www.occupybendor.org/news.php?1299
October 23, 2012 at 10:53 am
Here’s someone who undoubtedly won’t be voting based on concern for global climate change:
October 23, 2012 at 1:15 pm
David Roberta at Grist.org has a new column up on the silence of the Presidential candidates on climate:
http://grist.org/politics/climate-silence-its-the-right-stupid/
Blurb:
Climate silence: It’s the right, stupid
By David Roberts
Watch this absolutely extraordinary video from the 1988 vice presidential debate, dug up by Brad Johnson of Forecast the Facts:…
October 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Hi rayduray – thanks, I did figure Clinton after Bush I was my weakest link. But, my understanding of that election was that it was largely a referendum on the economy, and as the Republicans had led for 12 years, the vote swung towards Clinton.
On Perot being a spoiler, that’s disputed. The ‘Analysis’ section of ‘United States presidential election, 1992′ in Wikipedia (I know, it’s a weak source but it’s along the lines of what I’ve seen) states: “The effect of Ross Perot’s candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush’s tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton, but of the voters who cited Bush’s broken “No New Taxes” pledge as “very important,” two thirds voted for Bill Clinton.”
BTW, I always enjoy your comments, even if I’m not in 100% agreement (more like 90%). I always check out the links you provide, too. Great stuff.
October 23, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Hi Jim,
Well, we have a mutual admiration society then! :)
If you agree with me 90% of the time I’m afraid you might be more in agreement with me than I am. I’m the sort who can hold two diametrically opposing views (eg.: I’m fond of internationalist Trotskyite analysis while being in agreement with Marin Le Pen about casual immigration being a bad thing for the environment) and never seek resolution between my views.
As to the Perot matter, I was living in San Francisco at the time. I involved myself with the Perot people in the City. They were various and sundry types. My favorite “omigod” example was a female pet beautician. Er, I mean she was a woman. The pets were of various sexes, this being San Francisco and all. She introduced me to a panoply of other small independent business persons who were the core of the Perot clique. I really didn’t fit in at all with them. They were a sort of proto-Tea Party. Very right wing, anti-government types. Whoever wrote up that Wikipedia item might just be engaged in a bit of revisionist history. Absolutely no one I met among the Perot partisans in SF would have dreamed of voting for the Democratic Party candidate in a City that votes 80% Democratic.
I trust my own lying eyes more than the political correctness clique that runs the Wikipedia entries at least on this topic.
***
Re: “that (1992) election was that it was largely a referendum on the economy”
Having voted now for the past 40 years, I can assure you of two things: 1) Just about every election is about the economy and 2) “this year’s election is the most important in history” will be heard every four years.
October 23, 2012 at 10:42 pm
imho: the right has pushed the debate of the table more than anyone. the far right have succeeded in pushing the political circus more to the right than it already was. the far left has had almost no influence on the circus (again, imho). the center left knows the majority of us are sensible enough people to vote for them rather than let oil- and bank-funded millionaires run the show.
how do we turn it around? that’s the hard question. i think visibility is key, getting out in the streets. otherwise, it’s simply far too easy to ignore us.
also, local & state elections. start running in and winning elections at the level where it might be possible. build up from there.
and, of course, keep educating the masses the best we can on the fact that we’re running full speed towards a very big cliff. and not only will turning around saving us from the fall, it will also lead us back to town, where the jobs & fun are.
October 24, 2012 at 1:42 am
A climate topic now would be awesome, since there is no valid point one could make against climate action. Even the cost are minor in comparison and everybody wants a clean environment, which is a nice side effect when switching to the clean economy.
To opt for climate change is a win win situation actually, you got mother earth on your side, what better ally can there be?
It comes down to climate messaging, to avoid the fear factor and push the spectrum of positive changes.
People want this topic sorted out and it will be a relive to society knowing that we act to prevent more extreme weather and do everything to protect our harvest.