Category: Bernie Sanders
Response to “Bernie Wrecks Republican Plans By Offering Climate Change Amendment To Keystone “
| January 14, 2015 | 8:54 pm | Action, Analysis, Bernie Sanders, Climate Change, National | Comments closed
January 13, 2015 | 8:39 pm |
By A. Shaw
This Climate Change Amendment is a many-sided thing.
Each side is a contradiction, a unity as well as a struggle of opposites.
The principal contradiction seems to be a struggle between science of weather and business of weather.
Scientists say the emissions from fossil fuels currently threaten the world.
Capitalists say fossil fuels yield profit and create jobs.
Closely related to the principal contradiction is the non-principal contradiction, concerning whether scientists or capitalists command the mass of the USA people on matters of science.
Climate change is a matter of science.
The mass of the USA people passionately or, more correctly, insanely loves their bourgeoisie.
The mass of the USA people accepts the findings of scientists about the reality and dangers of climate change.
Enslaved by an insane love for the bourgeoisie, the USA people stand on the sidelines as scientists and capitalists fight each other over climate change.
When, if ever, will the mass of the USA people get over this vile and perverse love for the bourgeoisie?
Bernie Sanders Wrecks Republican Plans By Offering Climate Change Amendment To Keystone XL
| January 14, 2015 | 8:51 pm | Bernie Sanders, Climate Change, National | Comments closed
more from Jason Easley

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/13/bernie-sanders-wrecks-republican-plans-offering-climate-change-amendment-keystone-xl.html
Tuesday, January, 13th, 2015, 2:24 pm

bernie sanders budget committee

Senate Democrats and Independents are pushing back hard on Keystone XL. Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders has kicked off the Democratic counter by filing a climate change amendment to the bill authorizing the construction of the pipeline.

The Sanders amendment takes direct aim at Republican climate change deniers:

It is the sense of Congress that Congress is in agreement with the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community that—

(1) climate change is real;

(2) climate change is caused by human activities;

(3) climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world;

Sen. Sanders said, “The American people need to know whether Congress is listening to the overwhelming majority of scientists when it comes to climate change. On this issue, the scientists have been virtually unanimous in saying that climate change is real, it is caused by human action, it is already causing devastating problems which will only get worse in the future and that we need to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. Do members of Congress believe the scientists or not?”

Republicans will never admit that climate change is real and caused by human activities, but the Senate Democratic caucus is using the Republican obsession with Keystone XL to advance their agenda that is based on scientific facts. Democrats are going to be proposing a series of amendments to the Keystone XL bill that are designed to turn the Republican gift to the oil companies into a real jobs bill.

These amendments are also a test of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s promise to run a more open Senate that will allow votes on amendments. Republicans are beholden to the special interests who are pushing climate changing denying propaganda, so it is doubtful that the Sanders climate change amendment will pass, but these amendments are important because they will force Republicans to debate and discuss issues that they don’t want to talk about.

Sen. Sanders (I-VT) and the Democratic caucus are already upsetting the plans of the Republican Senate majority. Republicans were under the impression that they were going to be able to pass legislation by rolling over Democrats. This has not happened. Congressional Democrats and the Independents who caucus with them have united with the president against the Republican plans.

The bill authorizing Keystone XL will eventually pass the Senate. It will be vetoed by President Obama, and Senate and House Democrats will make sure that his veto is sustained. Debates on climate change and presidential vetoes are examples of the new reality that is slapping Republicans in the face.

Bernie Sanders Wrecks Republican Plans By Offering Climate Change Amendment To Keystone XL was written by Jason Easley for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Tue, Jan 13th, 2015
Response to “Watch Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders Blast the Keystone Bill”
| January 12, 2015 | 8:22 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, Economy, National | Comments closed
By A. Shaw
Warren questions the integrity of reactionary senators, both GOP and DP reactionaries, who picked Keystone as the first item on the agenda for deliberation.
Sanders states the fundamental principle of the scientific opposition to Keystone.
In June 2014, Clinton gave The Globe and Mail, the big  Canadian bourgeois newspaper, this answer when asked about Keystone:
“[But] this particular decision is a very difficult one because there are so many factors at play. I can’t really comment at great length because I had responsibility for it and it’s been passed on and it wouldn’t be appropriate, but I hope that Canadians appreciate that the United States government – the Obama administration – is trying to get it right. And getting it right doesn’t mean you will agree or disagree with the decision, but that it will be one based on the best available evidence and all of the complex local, state, federal, interlocking laws and concerns.”ritygrity of reactionary senators,both
In June 2014, Clinton gave The Globe and Mail, the big  Canadian bourgeois newpaper, this answer when asked about Keystone:
“[But] this particular decision is a very difficult one because there are so many factors at play. I can’t really comment at great length because I had responsibility for it and it’s been passed on and it wouldn’t be appropriate, but I hope that Canadians appreciate that the United States government – the Obama administration – is trying to get it right. And getting it right doesn’t mean you will agree or disagree with the decision, but that it will be one based on the best available evidence and all of the complex local, state, federal, interlocking laws and concerns.”
On Keystone, Clinton bullshits. She’s a bullshiter.
Why does she bullshit on Keystone?
She must either support or oppose or bullshit Keystone.
If she supports Keystone, she will infuriate the scientific and technical sector of  US intelligentsia and the environmental movement.
If she opposes keystone, she will infuriate big business and Wall Street.
If she bullshits, neither the scientific intelligentsia nor big business is likely to be furious. Rather both sides will likely be only disappointed with her.
Watch Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders Blast the Keystone Bill
| January 12, 2015 | 8:17 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, Economy, National | Comments closed

January 10, 2015

As expected, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline sailed through the House of Representatives for the tenth time on Friday. The bill is predicted to pass the Senate next week, but Republicans may not have enough votes to override the veto Obama has promised.
On Wednesday we got a preview of the Senate debate when the Energy and Natural Resources Committee met to vote on the bill. Before the vote, which passed 13-9, Democrats used the opportunity to express their environmental concerns, question the bill’s job-creation numbers and propose that the steel piping must be American-made. Republicans touted the pipeline as an economy-boosting job creator that will give the US energy independence. The most striking moments came when the microphone went to Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who eloquently summed up the arguments against building a tar sands pipeline directly through the United States.
Taking the environmental angle, Sen. Bernie Sanders implored his fellow senators to think of their grandchildren, who will one day ask, “What were you doing? Did you not hear what the scientific community all over the world was saying?”
Later in the hearing, Sen. Sanders proposed a four-part amendment officially recognizing the following:
“One, climate change is real. Two, climate change is caused by human activity. Three, climate change has already caused devastating problems in the United States and around the world. And, four, it is imperative the United States transform its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy.”
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), the lone committee Democrat in favor of the pipeline, responded that while he agrees with parts one, two and three, “the fourth one’s a killer, Bernie.” Eventually, Sanders’ amendment was tabled.
When Sen. Warren had a chance to speak, she immediately challenged: “I want to to know why the pipeline is the very first, number one item on the agenda in this new Congress. Who does this new Republic Congress work for? Foreign oil companies or the American people?”
Here’s a rundown of some other memorable statements from senators on both sides of the aisle:
1. Using what has become something of a go-to pro-pipeline argument, Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) questioned why the bill has been stalled in Congress for six years, when “Americans won World War II in a shorter amount of time.”
2. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) described the destruction caused by a 2010 tar sand spill in her home state’s Kalamazoo River: “We still can’t fish. People along the river can’t use their property, their backyards. This is going to take tens of years to clean up.”
3. Committee Chairperson Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) stated that although she believes in climate change, I don’t agree that all the changes are necessarily due solely to human activity.” She welcomed her fellow senators to visit the Permafrost Tunnel in Alaska, to view evidence of long-term climatic shifts.
4. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) is worried about precedent: “My fear is that by making tar sands the linchpin of American energy policy, we are literally locking ourselves into a policy that fully embraces energy imports and extremely high levels of relative carbon pollution for as long as 50 years. All at a time when we should have a national policy focused on domestic production and ever cleaner fuel sources. A vote to approve Keystone sends the signal that carbon pollution and climate change are not serious economic concerns.”
5. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) said the pipeline will keep electricity rates low in rural Montana: “As I was traveling one day to a rural co-op in Glasgow, Montana, there in my pickup, show up in my jeans and my jacket, they told me that if the Keystone pipeline’s approved, electric rate for their co-op will remain flat for the next 10 years. Why? Because they will supply electricity to the pump stations in the pipeline.”
6. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) spoke out for the “hundreds of communities that are home to millions of people” along the pipeline’s path. “These communities rely on the surrounding land for clean water. They also rely on the land for grazing, cattle and other economic activities … We owe it to the people and communities in this region to follow the process that’s been set in law to proceed. And that is the presidential review process … This bill short-circuits that process.”
7. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) argued that the pipeline could curb US dependence on Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan oil. “We already buy 2.5 million barrels a day from Canada … We’re being told right now that if we don’t build this line, that the price will go up. I’ve never — I don’t understand economics. I understand one thing. Security of our nation depends on us having the ability to have control of our own destiny.”
8. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) noted that the bill is “peculiar,” explaining: “I don’t know if I’ve ever recalled seeing a bill in any legislature that starts with the name of a particular company that’s the beneficiary … We’re supposed to be establishing policy here, not issuing building permits to individual companies. You know, why not write a bill to give money to Apple Computer?” King also noted that the US added 20,000 construction jobs in November, “and this project is talking about 4,000 jobs over the course of two years. They’re important jobs, absolutely, but let’s put them in the context of the overall national economy. Permanent jobs: 35. A new McDonald’s in Fargo, North Dakota, would add more than 35 jobs.
Katie Rose Quandt reports and produces for BillMoyers.com. She was previously a senior fellow at Mother Jones, and has written for America, In These Times, and Solitary Watch. You can follow Katie Rose on twitter @katierosequandt.
Response to “This is How Bernie Sanders Will Run For President”
| January 8, 2015 | 7:47 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, National, political struggle | Comments closed
by A. Shaw
Rebecca Nelson’s piece, posted below, titled “This is How Bernie Sanders Will Run For President,” is perhaps the best piece published anywhere, so far, on the mechanics of the Sanders’ campaign.
Among other things, mechanics often include:
(1) Planning and budgeting ………… (6) Paid media
(2) Fundraising………………………….. (7) Candidate activity
(3) Targeting …………………………….. (8) Opposition research
(4)  Voter contact ………………………. (9) Volunteers
(5)  Free media ………………………….(10) GOTV
Let’s look at the Sanders’ campaign, as it is presented in Nelson’s piece, from the point of view of each of these subjects.
As for planning and budgeting, Tad Devine, the top political consultant for the campaign, didn’t say, during the interview with Nelson, anything about budgeting. As for planning, Devine shows that the campaign has come a long way in working out a plan for victory.  Practice will show whether the plan is any good.
As for fundraising, Devine was completely silent. At this time, the Sanders’ campaign is widely believed to have something like $4.5 million in its bank accounts. The campaign does not accept contributions from big corporations or from super-rich individuals like the Koch brothers.
As for targeting, again, Devine was silent.  But of course the campaign is during a lot of work on targeting.
As for voter contact, Devine says it is one of three “key elements” — “extensive research, sustained voter contact, and technology for mobilization.” Devine emphasizes “sustained” voter contact rather than just contact. Devine didn’t say how the campaign will “sustain” contact, but he hints that the
“the  technology for mobilization” is also a  technology for contact. This technology enables the campaign to initiate communication with targeted voters by  accessing their cell phones, laptops, tablets, etc.
As for free media, Devine seems to think that free media will be obtained chiefly by the candidate’s style and by the campaign through the use of leaks to the press. The Clinton campaign already leaks profusely.
Nelson writes “Devine got a kick out of Sanders’s direct, unequivocating style.” Devine believes the mass of the electorate will get a kick out of “Sanders’s direct, unequivocating style” after the electorate contrasts his style with the indirect and equivocating style of Hillary Clinton.
Devine doesn’t seem to think much of spontaneous grassroots efforts to generate free media coverage or support for the candidate whether the efforts are by volunteers working with the campaign or by independent supporters. On the Left, such efforts are rare, but on the Right, they’re common.
As for paid media, this is Devine’s expertise.
He threw this out there as something he may or may not push in paid media.
“My view of campaigns is, you get in them to win,” he said. Extensive research, sustained voter contact, and technology for mobilization are key elements of that. “You bring all those things together, not to make a statement, but to make a difference in people’s lives. And the way you do that is not “ just seeking political office, but winning political office.”
In other words, it is not about  “just seeking political office, but winning political office. It’s not to make a statement, but to win.
On the Left, some people believe the aim is to lose and to flaunt the candidate’s political independence from bourgeois parties, especially the DP. So, to them, a statement is more important than a win.
As for candidate activity, Devine is specific about Bernie’s role.
“Devine also repeatedly stressed the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire, the two key early-primary states,” Rebecca Nelson writes.
“The way you get over that skepticism and not be considered a fringe candidate,” Devine said, “is by putting together the resources that you need to communicate a message, putting together a campaign mechanism that people can look at and can see that there is the capacity to run a serious campaign on the ground in the early states, through mass media, and through the new tools of politics which President Obama has succeeded so well with in two presidential campaigns,” Devine says.
Again, these “new tools” are the technologies of voter contact and mobilization.
“Though unofficial 2016 campaigning has already started for many contenders—including Sanders, who has paid visits to early-primary states—voters across the country won’t have years to personally get to know the senator. That’s why Devine would hammer the early primary states—Iowa and New Hampshire, in particular—with ‘hundreds of town-hall meetings, a format that he will be extremely comfortable in,’ ” Nelson writes.
,
As for opposition research, Devine didn’t say one word, suggesting a clean campaign.
As for volunteers, Devine talks about “technology” for mobilization, but volunteers aren’t exactly  unmobilized technology.
Devine didn’t have much to say about volunteers, because the campaign must first attract and train volunteers before it decides how to use them. Devine teaches campaign management at Harvard University as well as at other schools. He has explored the potentiality of trained and untrained volunteers in line with the tenets of the Chicago school of politics — i.e., Harold Washington, Luis Gutierrez, Rudy Lozano, Jesse Jackson, David Axelrod, Barack Obama, etc.
Devine doesn’t seem keen on the idea of a key role for volunteers, trained by the campaign, in this race.
This is too bad because the Tea Bags, like the Chicago school, are real good at attracting volunteers, training them to do key work, and deploying them in key positions.
Devine should consider hiring one of his best and brightest at Harvard or some other school where Devine teaches, to handle volunteers.
Somebody with a lot of go.
As for GOTV, Devine didn’t say anything.
                                                                  CONCLUSION
Devine is on the right track.
This is How Bernie Sanders Will Run For President
| January 8, 2015 | 7:44 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, National, political struggle | Comments closed
The Vermont senator is going for the win, and a longtime friend and veteran media consultant is already strategizing his path to victory.
November 13, 2014 The first time Tad Devine met Bernie Sanders, in 1996, the political consultant did what he does best: gave him advice for how to win.
Then a House member from Vermont running for his fourth term, Sanders was skeptical of Washington political types, of which Devine was the epitome. An experienced Democratic media strategist, Devine had worked on the campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Michael Dukakis. He told Sanders, now Vermont’s junior senator, that to keep his seat in the House, he needed to make sure that voters knew which side he was on.
“Remember, Bernie’s an independent. I’m a Democrat,” Devine told National Journal. “I asked Bernie, ‘Listen, if it’s tied between the Democrats and Republicans, are you gonna vote for Gingrich, or are you gonna vote for Gephardt for speaker?’ And he was like, ‘What, are you kidding? What, are you crazy?’ He came back full Bernie on that.”
Of course, Devine recalled, he’d vote for Missouri Democrat Dick Gephardt. Devine got a kick out of Sanders’s direct, unequivocating style, he said, and the two hit it off.
Eighteen years later, Sanders has all but announced that a presidential run is in his future—and longtime friend Devine is on board. A few months ago, the senator broached the possibility with the veteran media consultant, who, since advising Sanders’s 1996 House campaign, has worked on both Al Gore’s and John Kerry’s bids for the White House. Ever since, the two have been talking about the prospect. “I think we have a meeting scheduled sometime next week,” Devine said.
The self-proclaimed socialist is widely considered a long-shot for the Democratic nomination—though he’s an independent, he has implied he wouldn’t run as a third-party candidate so as not to play spoiler—let alone for the Oval Office. A Sanders campaign would surely move the national conversation to the left, ensuring that the progressive issues he’s championed for decades—such as wealth inequality, the outsize role of special interests in politics, and campaign finance reform—get airtime, and push Hillary Clinton, the Democratic heir apparent, to address them. Beyond that, it’s assumed, he wouldn’t gain real traction. For Devine, though, success is absolute.
“My view of campaigns is, you get in them to win,” he said. Extensive research, sustained voter contact, and technology for mobilization are key elements of that. “You bring all those things together, not to make a statement, but to make a difference in people’s lives. And the way you do that is not just seeking political office, but winning political office.”
The GOP’s midterm romp proves just how ready the country is for a politician like Sanders, Devine said. Republicans didn’t win because voters want to embrace their policies; people were voting for a different direction—and voting against President Obama.
Likely Republican presidential contenders, such as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, have tried their hardest to tie Clinton, their assumed opponent, to Obama, whom many voters disdain. This, too, seems to be an emerging strategy for Sanders’s impending campaign.
“If a better alternative was offered,” he said, “an alternative that put people ahead of powerful interests, that made it clear who’s side of the fight you were on, that laid out a set of policies that could work in the real world, in favor of people, I think a lot of those people who voted for Republicans would make a different choice.”
Devine also repeatedly stressed the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire, the two key early-primary states. Sanders, a longtime proponent of campaign finance reform, would have a head start in those states because of the massive outside spending in the midterms there.
“People in Iowa and New Hampshire have just gone through this experience, have seen it up close in their Senate races,” Devine told National Journal. “So this isn’t gonna be some theory about how money affects politics. It’s very practical and very immediate for people in those states. And I think Bernie is really going to frame his message by talking about those things.
“Like a lot of issues he’s been talking about for a long time, they’re catching up with him,” he added. “He’s been talking about them for years, and now they’re coming into focus for people in a much more meaningful way.”
Still, a big hurdle for a Sanders campaign would be the senator’s hard-left political views. Devine admits that while Sanders is beloved in Vermont, he would face some struggle transitioning to a national stage. Devine is confident, however, that Sanders could gain not only name recognition, but also credibility as a serious contender.
“The way you get over that skepticism and not be considered a fringe candidate,” Devine said, “is by putting together the resources that you need to communicate a message, putting together a campaign mechanism that people can look at and can see that there is the capacity to run a serious campaign on the ground in the early states, through mass media, and through the new tools of politics which President Obama has succeeded so well with in two presidential campaigns.”
Devine said Sanders, a gruff man who, at 73, says what he means and could easily be described as crotchety if he didn’t talk so lovingly about his grandkids, is “easily misunderstood.” When people have the chance to really get to know Sanders, and spend time with him, “you realize why people like him,” he said. “He’s direct with them, he connects with them, he very much provides a voice for people who don’t have a lot of voice in Washington.”
Though unofficial 2016 campaigning has already started for many contenders—including Sanders, who has paid visits to early-primary states—voters across the country won’t have years to personally get to know the senator. That’s why Devine would hammer the early primary states—Iowa and New Hampshire, in particular—with “hundreds of town-hall meetings, a format that he will be extremely comfortable in.”
That, most of all, would be the key to Sanders’s success on a national stage: voters getting to know who the senator really is. Unlike Devine, though, they won’t have 18 years to do it.
Moveon.org: Bernie Sanders for President
| January 7, 2015 | 9:06 pm | Bernie Sanders | Comments closed

http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/senator-bernie-sanders-2