Well, Dennis Kucinich continues to speak for America rather than gross party politics. Speaking in New Hampshire, Wednesday, Kucinich stated:
the vow from his party’s leadership in Congress to stand up to President Bush on ending the war in Iraq amounts to a “total fraud.”
The Ohio congressman said the most recent House-passed plan to set a timetable for ending the war still would permit permanent bases in Iraq and allow Americans soldiers to train Iraqi military and police and to fight off insurgents.
It really does seem to me that only Kucinich understands, or at least is willing to admit, that this country is in serious danger right now. Kucinich, seems alone among the candidates who believes that this election is much less about reclaiming the White House for the Democratic Party, than it is about reclaiming the United States for all of its citizens.
Yet, there is such a disconnect within our political system that the Democratic Leadership will not act upon the wishes of a majority of Americans regarding the war/occupation or even in protecting the essence of our Democracy through accountability and beginning impeachment investigations. As kucinich duly noted:
“I think the outrage is building among the voting public, but to the political system, it’s business as usual.”
State Rep. Betty Hall, D-Brookline, who attended, decided to endorse Kucinich after he forced consideration of V.P. Cheney’s Impeachment a few weeks ago. Hall tried to bring in a non-binding resolution to the New Hampshire House supporting an impeachment proceeding against Bush and Cheney, which House leaders from both parties opposed, not allowing an up or down vote.
“It isn’t popular to speak up; I know. When I spoke in the Legislature, some people were angry, but we must talk about it. We must learn about it,” Hall said.
Hall also showed Kucinich an article in the New Hampshire State Constitution, which reads inpart:
“The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and repression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good of all mankind.”
Kucinich, who is now promising to bring more detailed articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush, said:
“I’m going to quote that language from the New Hampshire Constitution all over the country. Clearly New Hampshire is the place to bring this message.
Seems fitting for New Hampshire: “Live free or die”…
Kucinich will be a leading speaker Monday night at Dartmouth College for an “Impeachment Teach-In” sponsored by state and national liberal-leaning organizations.
Dennis Kucinich’s approach to the economy is so practical and farsighted, I sometimes wonder why it isn’t discussed more; even by Kucinich! But, I guess Iraq is always the dominating issue.
However, amazingly, this plan addresses: balancing the budget, tempering the Pentagon war machine, fair taxation reform, leveling the business sector to enable small businesses to compete, our $800 Billion trade deficit, worker’s rights human rights and environmental concerns, the millions of outsourced jobs, and rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure-while at the same time creating more national wealth with millions of jobs, promoting renewable energies and saving families money on bills! It is insanely practical and wholly part of his message of “Strength Through Peace” for America.
In the same way that Dennis Kucinich will strengthen our security internationally by creating pragmatic relationships of peace, based upon equality and fairness, so he will at home by creating a more balanced economy and more equal society. To start with, Kucinich will repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and then double the tax refunds and credits for Americans earning $80,000 and less. He will create a more level playing field for small businesses by reconstituting the trust-busting powers of the Justice Department and breaking up the monopolies that make competition next to impossible in many industries. Further, he will slash the bloated Pentagon budget that we spoke about earlier by 15% to provide for universal education, pre-kindergarten/daycare through college, as well as a new public works program, called the WGA, which in turn will create millions of new jobs.
Regarding our massive trade deficit, mounting over $700 Billion/yr, and the millions of jobs our country has lost through trade agreements (3 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 alone) Kucinich is the only candidate willing to address the problem head on. As one of his first acts in office, he will notify NAFTA and the WTO that America is withdrawing from the agreements, thus protecting massive outsourced job loss, stimulating the economy and getting us on the road to recovery nationally; as America starts to produce goods that Americans purchase. No longer will it only be about corporate wealth, but national wealth as well, and Dennis will agressively pursue that these corporations pay their fare share in taxes too.
We will return to bilateral trade, based upon workers rights, human rights and environmental principles. No more exploiting workers for slave wages. No more ruining the environment for profit. Workers will be empowered and the rights of American workers to unionize and enact effective collective bargaining will gain more strength by Kucinich’s promise to repeal the Taft-Hartely Act.
And finally, Dennis will create millions of new jobs and more wealth among the middle and working class and small businesses, while simultaneously addressing our crumbling infrastructural problems and energy needs. Through his Works Green Administration, or WGA, Dennis is investing in the environment, as well as our future, while stimulating the national economy. Inspired by FDR’s Works Progress Administration, the WGA utilizes the Environmental Protection Agency to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our schools, bridges, roads, ports, water systems, and environmental systems. Not only does the bold practicality of the plan lie in putting Americans back to work by investing in the national wealth of our own infrastructure, but the plan also incorporates environmental and energy concerns to further create wealth for the country and save individual families more money. For example, not only will the public works projects stress green building and renewable energy technology, but the plan will enable homes to be retrofit with green building, solar and wind microtechnology which will save families money on their energy bills.
Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.
Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:
1. A Bright Vision for America
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
This was originally posted on MyDD as part of its candidate series. I am not part of the Richardson campaign.
1. A Bright Vision for America
Richardson believes in using government to improve the lives of people and affect change in a positive way. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology. His vision for America is to be “a nation of opportunity and prosperity for all and guaranteeing real security for all our people.”
Earlier this year, in a speech to the Arab American Institute in April 2007, Richardson stated:
Here at home, we must adhere and protect the words, spirit and life of our Constitution for America is not just a country, it is a belief. A belief in a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A belief that every man and woman has the right to elect their government and a belief in freedom, justice and equality. America is the land of opportunity, but we have much to do to ensure that America is the land of equality of opportunity.
To get an insight into Richardson the person, I suggest you watch the following videos. The first features the person who knows him best, Barbara Richardson, his wife of thirty-five years:
The second is a profile of Richardson by Charles Gibson of ABC News:
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
Rocky Anderson, human rights activist and the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, has endorsed Richardson. In an essay in the Nation, Anderson states:
If ending the tragic, self-destructive occupation of Iraq is indeed a line-in-the-sand issue, only Bill Richardson stands out among the leading candidates as the choice for President.
While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards refuse to pledge an end to the occupation, even by 2013, Bill Richardson commits clearly to pulling out all US troops. He recognizes that the occupation is widely despised, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists beyond Osama bin Laden’s wildest dreams.
Richardson’s consistent message on the necessity for a prompt and complete withdrawal from Iraq is resonating with Iowa voters. This week STAR*PAC (Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee of Iowa) endorsed Richardson. Harold Wells, Chair of STAR*PAC, explained why:
Governor Richardson has consistently promised to get all the troops out of Iraq within one year and probably as soon as six months. He promises he will leave no residual troops behind. And his message is the same wherever he speaks — to a military audience in Georgetown, a New Hampshire town meeting, in a rural Iowa community or at STAR*PAC’s candidate forum with the Governor in August. Three generals — General Volney Warner, General William Odom and Lt. General Robert Gard — support Richardson’s plans to get the troops out of Iraq.
Richardson observes that a complete withdrawal gives us the leverage we now lack to get the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency. In an Op Ed published in the Washington Post entitled “Why We Should Exit Iraq Now,” Richardson wrote:
So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country.
To hear Richardson explain his plan for Iraq, the imperative for all of our troops to leave Iraq as well as discussing the approach the U.S. should take on Iran through seeking common ground, listen to the following interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
Being the sole Democratic candidate for President with executive branch experience, voters can evaluate Richardson from the unique stand point of an actual record of implementing policy on key issues, not merely the speeches he has given. Each year, the Conservation Voters of New Mexico releases a Legislative Scorecard breaking down the votes on key bills impacting the environment. The CVNM also rates the Governor. This year, the CVNM gave Richardson an “A”.
Richardson recognizes that the threats to our environment extend beyond our borders:
A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.
He has set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.
On the critical issue of climate change, Richardson has offered the most aggressive plan of any candidate, proposing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050. In a book published this week, entitled In LEADING BY EXAMPLE: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, Richardson argues that the U.S. should start a ten-year program immediately to eliminate its dependence on overseas oil and address global warming.
Can you believe this? Bill Richardson has written a truly exciting book. This is the book we’ve been waiting for – the one that takes us from the stage of awareness that Al Gore produced two years ago to the society that takes control of destiny and begins to live in global wealth, health and security.
Richardson begins by describing the existing current lag in leadership. America needs to reposition its image in the spirit that it has long held. Sacrifice and inspiration are essential to that image. With the image and presence of a compassionate America, nations will succeed in lifting themselves from tyranny, depression, illness and tragedy. We cannot afford to confuse our image as a people – that image that produces inspiration through compassion – with one that will overrun other nations to satisfy an addiction for oil.
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
I written previously that Richardson will be Karl Rove’s worst nightmare. With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.
We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. Add in Richardson’s Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson becomes the ideal Democratic candidate to convert Red states to Blue.
University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato recently made the same argument in an interview:
He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven’t recognized that. Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson. He is perfectly positioned.
Now contrast Richardson’s appeal with the current front runner and most well known Democratic politician in America. Even though opinion polls show most Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction and prefer a Democrat to succeed Bush, when Clinton is matched up against Giuliani the race is a dead heat. Why? More people rate Clinton negative on the quality of honesty than positive. The Democrats will win in a landslide in 2008, if Richardson is at the top of the ticket.
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
Before the campaign commenced, Richardson called for comprehensive immigration reform that strengthens our borders while also providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Last year, Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama caved into the anti-immigrant pressure groups in voting for a massive, 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. Richardson has repeatedly called the fence ineffective and a terrible symbol for America. In his view, it also creates a disincentive for Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. – which is essential for stopping illegal immigration.
On the current hot issue of the day – drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants – Dodd and Edwards are now talking like Republicans. Edwards flip on this issue is especially revealing. Here is a candidate that time and time again has proclaimed, “We are past the time for cautious, poll-driven politics.” Yet, Edwards has seen the polls and changed his position to that which serves his short term political advantage.
Richardson doesn’t play the anti-immigrant card. He signed legislation in New Mexico that gave licenses to all persons without proof of citizenship. When this topic was raised in a recent interview, Richardson commented:
MATTHEWS: Governor, what would you have said to that same question? Were you on base with regard to whether we should give, at the state level, driver’s licenses to the people in the country illegally?
RICHARDSON: I would have said yes. You know, four years ago, my legislature sent me a bill to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. I signed it, because my law enforcement people asked me to do it. They said it was a matter of public safety, that we want safe drivers on the roads. Insurance-uninsured drivers has gone down in New Mexico, from 33 percent to 11 percent, since I signed that bill. It’s a matter of being safe on the highways and also knowing where they are. I think Senator Clinton should have just said yes. It sounded like she agreed with the governor. She did fumble that.
To hear Richardson discuss his plan on immigration, listen to the above video clip, the interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer.
————
Finally, I’d like to comment on the issue of the day – the confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey. The vote on Mukasey was a vote the Dems in the Senate could have won if they showed a spine. Mukasey needed 51 votes to be confirmed. Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Obama were all missing in action.
Richardson spoke out first against Mukasey. On October 19th, prior to any statements by the other Presidential candidates, Richardson stepped forward and criticized Mukasey for refusing to say whether waterboarding is torture:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency. . .
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Shame on the Democrats that voted for Mukasey and those that didn’t show up at all. This was not a vote on one person. It was a vote on whether the U.S. government or agents acting for our government may commit torture in the name of national security.
Persons without a moral compass should not hold political power. And no surprise here – people under torture say what they believe their interrogators want them to say. The result is we get false and misleading information when we practice torture.
The results can be devastating. We went to war with Iraq in part because of intelligence based on the torture. I suggest everyone read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes. It is a fascinating history of the CIA. At page 487, he states:
[CIA Director George] Tenet provided his own grim warnings in a secret hearing before the Senate intelligence committee on September 17: ‘Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training – combat, bomb-making, and chemical, biological, radiological and nucler.’ He based that statement on the confessions of a single source – Ibn al-Shakh al-Libi, a fringe player who had been beaten stuffed in a two-foot-square box for seventeen hours, and threatened with prolonged torture. The prisoner had recanted after the threat of torture receded. Tenet did not correct the record.
Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Yet, it is her own equivocation on critical issues that, more than anything else, may stop her from securing the nomination. As noted by Dick Morris, the former pollster for Bill Clinton:
With linguistic obfuscation reminiscent of Bill's more famous remarks — “I didn't inhale” and “It depends on what the definition of is, is” — Senator Clinton is determined not to tell us where she stands on anything. Instead, she has come to believe, probably correctly, that if we knew what she really wants to do as president, we would never vote for her. So on Social Security (where she plans to raise taxes), Iran (where she will take military action if need be), Iraq (where she will keep the troops), the Alternative Minimum Tax (which she will only repeal if it can be used to hide massive tax increases) and drivers licenses (which she will give to illegals as soon as she can), Hillary resists telling the truth.
I would like to focus on Morris' claim that Clinton will keep our troops stationed in Iraq. On the surface, Clinton has from the beginning of the campaign offered an entirely different message. At the February 2007 meeting of the Democratic National Convention, Clinton claimed:
I want to be very clear about this. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war. I would not and if in Congress, if we in Congress, working as hard as we can to get the 60 votes you need to do anything in the Senate — believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage, you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will!
It's become obvious that Congress will not end the war by January 2009. It's also become obvious that Clinton's pledge to end the war in Iraq rests on a foundation of quicksand. Clinton has never called for a prompt and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. When questioned on whether she will commit to specific date for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as noted by Helen Thomas, Clinton reverts to “her usual cautious equivocation.” She she leaves open the possibility our troops will remain until 2013. David Broder commented that Clinton plays “dodgeball” on the question of leaving Iraq:
During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but “it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting” from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge — as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.
What circumstances must exist in Iraq in 2009 to permit a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? Clinton is silent on this critical point. What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq? In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study. As explained on her campaign website:
As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days. She simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months.
This begs the question: what if Clinton's advisers repeat the mantra of the D.C. political and military establishment that Iraq is too unstable and a withdrawal of our forces will threaten U.S. interests in the region?
What is clear is that Clinton lacks confidence in her own judgment. Instead, Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.
How can I make this charge? Look at whom is advising Clinton today on Iraq and military affairs. Among her military advisers, as reported in the Washington Post, are Gen. John (“Jack”) Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence; retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser; retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow. These are the persons that will form her inner circle of advisers should she become President.
Let's examine each of these persons.
Jack Keane was “vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning” and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld. In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign was “bold and brilliant.” There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was “catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic.” In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that:
We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be.
If we had planned for an insurgency, we probably would have deployed the First Cavalry Division and it would have assisted greatly with the initial occupation. This was not just an intelligence community failure, but also our failure as senior military leaders.
Fast forward to December 2006, whom is meeting with President Bush and advocating an escalation of the war in what became known as the “surge”? Yes, the answer is Keane. He along with Frederick Kagan developed the strategy of the surge. I encourage everyone to read the interview of Keane by Frontline earlier this year. Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled “The Evangelical President,” reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to “maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq.” One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq.
Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was “absolutely” certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded:
If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be — where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there.
Kennedy believes that it is not our invasion of Iraq that has caused so much difficulty for the U.S. Rather, the war has been botched by President Bush. Kennedy recently made national headlines when she stated:
I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'”
Donald Kerrick wrote an essay last year entitled “Iraq Not Lost Yet“. While calling for a review of our strategy in Iraq, Kerrick opposed those he labeled as advocating the U.S. cut and run. Such a course would lose Iraq to the extremists.
Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq. The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war. In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security.
Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. However, “victory” in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich:
Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq.
This year, Krepinevich sees the surge, if successful, resulting in American forces staying “in Iraq for decades — much as we have in Korea, for example, to ensure the security of that part of the world, we will have to have 30,000, 40,000 soldiers in Iraq, I think indefinitely.”
Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge. In an Op Ed entitled “A War We Just Might Win” published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”
After the latest Presidential debate in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their “flexibility” on Iraq. “I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months,” O'Hanlon stated.
Finally, Mark Penn, Clinton's top political strategist, may play a role in shaping Clinton's policy on Iraq should she become President. As noted by Bill Boyarsky:
Penn, is worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which helped prepare the chief of Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony defending the way that the company employees killed 17 and wounded 24 while fulfilling its contract to provide security for the State Department. It's all very clubby.
In conclusion, Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war.
Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq. If Clinton becomes President, the opportunity to end our open-ended military intervention in Iraq may very well be lost.
What is the alternative? There is a Democratic candidate for President that says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. He has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this.
This candidate is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq.
K Street and Corporate lobbyists are turning up the heat on Congressional leaders to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement, yet another trade policy that benefits only the bottom line of big corporations, at the expense of American workers.
Some Corporate Republicans and Corporate Democrats are sucumbing to the pressure of supporting the Peru Free Trade Agreement before the ink is even dry on the checks.
Barack Obama announced his support for President Bush’s bid to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru.
Yup – Obama is once again helping pass one of President Bush’s top priorities – even as Bush blocks the entire Democratic agenda and daily rains rhetorical abuse down on Democratic heads. Is this how Obama is going to negotiate in the White House?
I don’t know for sure if Obama honestly felt that the Peru Free Trade Agreement was, on balance, the right thing to do, or whether he just wanted to curry favor with the major corporations whose financial support is fueling his campaign. It’s probably a little of both.
Hillary Clinton is Silent on the Peru Free Trade Agreement
Hillary Clinton, who continues to accept federal lobbyist donations from multi-national corporations made a somewhat ambigous statement with regard to trade policies in early October: “It is time that we assess trade agreements every five years to make sure they are meeting their goals or make adjustments if they are not, and we should start with doing that with Nafta.” Yet, Hillary thus far, has failed to issue a formal statement on whether or not she will oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
Hillary’s silence on the Peru Free Trade Agreement coupled with her partnerships with big corporations and ambigious statements, has left many wondering if her words are merely “coded language.”
However, Clinton doesn’t want her position to be fully understood by the majority of her American audience. Yet you may trust that leaders of the anti- social dumping movement in the European Union and organizers for globalized unions had no problem decoding her message.
Environmental Groups and Labor Unions Oppose the Peru FTA
Meanwhile, no labor unions have endorsed the Peru FTA. In fact, a number of environmental groups and key Unions oppose the Peru FTA. The AFL-CIO notes that in addition to the several issues of concern to working families, particularly with respect to investment, procurement and services, The Peru FTA “will likely impose economic hardship on some of the sizeable rural and poor population of Peru.” (AFL-CIO Legislative Alert:PDF)
Change To Win, which includes the Service Employees International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and represents over 6 million workers, issued a statement urging Democratic leaders to “Vote No on Peru Free Trade Agreement NAFTA Expansion.
John Edwards Opposes Peru Free Trade Agreement
John Edwards, who holds the largest bloc of union member endorsements, opposes the expansion of the NAFTA model with the Peru trade deal. Edwards, who does not accept federal lobbyist donations, has called for measures that will benefit American workers and not just big corporations.
Today, the Edwards for President Campaign issued a Press Release detailing Senator Edwards’ opposition to the Peru Free Trade Agreement:
REJECTING THE PERU DEAL
George Bush is trying to expand the NAFTA approach to Peru, Panama, South Korea and Colombia. NAFTA was written by corporate interests and insiders in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, but workers have lost out, both American and Mexican. Under NAFTA, the U.S. has lost more than 1 million jobs, while average wages for Mexican manufacturing workers have fallen by 12 percent.
– Despite progress on labor and environmental standards, worker rights are no stronger than George Bush’s willingness to enforce them. He has proven his indifference to workers through seven years of inaction.
– Congress should not pass further trade deals without first taking steps to address the stagnant wages and insecurity caused by globalization. Congress needs to adopt universal health care, reform the tax code, strengthen unions, and expand and renew trade adjustment assistance.
– The four trade deals which have been proposed establish expansive investor rights that actually create incentives to further relocate U.S. jobs overseas, by compensating corporations if our environmental, health or even local zoning laws allegedly undermine their expected profits. They also unfairly allow foreign corporations to challenge many of our laws.
– The proposed deals even limit how we can spend our own tax dollars by banning many Buy America policies.
Edwards on Trade Policy
Time to End the Game
As Edwards has stated, “5 million jobs lost due to trade and 15 more may move off shore in upcoming years.” While wages of Americans workers have dropped, “corporate profits have doubled.” The system is rigged. It’s rigged against the American workers and the middle class.
It’s time to put the power of Washington back into the hands of the people.
Edwards is calling for an end to the corrupt Washington system and the influence large corporations bear on our legislation. He has stated, that the standard for trade policies should not be whether they will benefit the big corporate profits but “whether or not they benefit American workers and families. ”
CALLING FOR SMART TRADE POLICIES
John Edwards believes we need smarter trade policies that lift up American workers. He has proposed four principles to ensure that globalization works for everyone:
– Our trade deals and preferences must benefit American workers and communities, not just corporate bottom lines. This means that they must include strong labor and environmental standards and clearly prohibit illegal subsidies and currency manipulation.
– Our trade policies must lift up workers around the world. Making sure that all workers share in the gains from trade is the right thing to do economically, and it will make America safer and more secure.
– We must understand that “one size does not fit all” in trade agreements. Instead, we need to address differences in form of government, rule of law, state of economic development, and the day-to-day trade and business practices of our trading partners.
– Our trade deals must be fully and fairly enforced. Edwards will make top prosecutors at the Department of Justice responsible for enforcing trade agreements
Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.
When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive. As noted by NPR, Mukasey “danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is.” “If it amounts to torture,” Mukasey said carefully, “then it is not constitutional.”
Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates? Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?
John Hutson, former judge advocate general of the Navy said last week after Judge Mukasey’s confirmation hearing , “Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it’s the most iconic example of torture.”
The Bush Administration seems to believe that when anyone else does it, it’s torture, but when the U.S. does it, waterboarding is acceptable. Rudy Giuliani holds the same view.
During his confirmation hearings, when asked about waterboarding, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote:
Michael Mukasey suddenly seemed to morph into his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales — beginning with a series of openly evasive answers that ultimately led to what appeared to be a lie. At first, he repeatedly stated that he does not support torture, which violates the U.S. Constitution. This is precisely the answer given so often by President Bush like a mantra. The problem is that Bush defines torture to exclude things like water-boarding. It is like saying you do not rob banks, but then defining bank robbery in such a way that it does not include walking in with a gun and demanding money from the cashier.
The senators pushed Mukasey to go beyond the Bush administration mantra. He refused and then said something that made many of us who were listening gasp: “I don’t know what is involved in the technique,” he said.
In an editorial published this week, the Los Angeles Times states:
Michael B. Mukasey, who once seemed headed to confirmation as attorney general by acclamation, may now be facing a narrower and more contentious vote. That’s the price the retired federal judge from New York will have to pay unless he reconsiders some evasive testimony about torture.
. . .As the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee noted in a letter to the nominee, water-boarding “has been the subject of much public discussion.” What isn’t clear is whether the CIA reserves the right to resort to that appalling practice to elicit information, reliable or otherwise, from suspected terrorists.
. . .Mukasey owes the Senate, and the country, an unambiguous commitment to upholding the Geneva Convention’s ban on “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” The question to him is whether Americans — in any service, for any reason — should be allowed to engage in water-boarding. The only acceptable answer is no.
As noted by Professor Turley, there are only two explanations for Mukasey’s evasion: either Mukasey is the most ill-informed nominee in the history of this republic or, the more likely explanation: Mukasey is lying.
Where do our Senate Democrats and Presidential candidates stand on torture? That is what the vote on Mukasey has become.
The candidate I’m supporting for President, Bill Richardson, stated on October 19th:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency.
“ABC News has described waterboarding as follows: ‘The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face, and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in, and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.’
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Supporters of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and other the candidates – where does your candidate stand on the confirmation of Mukasey?
Let’s rally together and call on all Democrats in the Senate to vote “no” on torture and Mukasey.
he will go before the U.S. House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege to move the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Mr. Kucinich stated he will bring the impeachment forward before Thanksgiving.
Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President, Dick Cheney, back in April. H.R. 333 consists of three articles of impeachment, with supporting examples:
1.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests
2.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests
3.) In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States
Kucinich also provided roughly 50 supporting documents for the articles, on his Congressional website.
H.R. 333 has picked up 21 cosponsors, far short of what is needed to start proceedings, and House Speaker Pelosi has continually insisted that impeachment is “off the table”.
But, as Kucinich holds nothing higher than his duties to defend the Constitution and represent the people of the United States, Kucinich is making sure that it gets back on. when asked about the Congress’ failures to protect the Constituion, at the San Mateo Presidential Straw Poll, Kucinich replied:
“If Congress did the right thing, they would be talking … about impeachment…
“I introduced House Resolution 333 because I heard from the American people and they said they wanted some response to make Dick Cheney accountable for the statements that he made that took us into a war based on lies. And the statements he made that would take us into a conflict against Iran. Again, more lies.
“The President is now openly invoking the specter of World War III with respect to Iran. He ought to be held accountable also. I’m the only member of Congress who stepped forward on the issue of making Dick Cheney accountable. And now we have 21 members who’ve joined me. That’s a step in the right direction. But I’m going to go beyond that. I’m going to call a privileged resolution, at which point, would force a vote — at least if it’s only on a procedural motion — members are going to have to confront this issue of impeachment. They’re not going to escape it. This is a question of defending our Constitution. It really is.“
Kucinich proves yet again his courage and leadership in Representative Democracy against fear and political calculation. He proves that he will not play party politics if it is against the interests of the United States and American citizens. He proves, again, his credentials for holding our highest office. Support Dennis Kucinich!
President Bush plans to play the part of the hero by visiting California, now ravaged by fire. But on this issue he’s the villain — it’s two years after Hurricane Katrina and the only progress he’s made is actually acknowledging that global warming exists. If we’re going to avoid tragedies like this in the future, we must take the long-term view. On this point, the science is clear: global warming has already led to increased wildfire activity in the U.S., and if we don’t dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future, the problem is going to get much worse.
More than ever, we need a president committed to making real and deep change in how we treat the planet.
“After 7 years of George Bush – the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history – it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.”
Come around after the fold with me for Part II of my interview with Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action.
This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action, via email about the FoE Action endorsement of John Edwards.
FOE Action provides political muscle on legislative battles in the U.S. for its sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world. On October 14, FOE Action became the first major environmental organization to endorse a candidate for president, and they endorsed John Edwards:
“Friends of the Earth Action enthusiastically endorses John Edwards for President,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of FOE Action.
FoE Action well understands that you cannot sit down at the table with the corporate polluters and their lobbyists, and then expect them to treat the planet right. As John Edwards has said, if you sit down at the table with them, they’ll eat your lunch. You’ve got to beat them:
Q: You have been President of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action since 1994. In that time, you have witnessed the buying of the American government by corporate power and their lobbyists. How important is John Edwards’ willingness to take on these entrenched interests to you in making your endorsement?
A: This played a big part in our decision. John Edwards has taken a stand against the lobbyists and special interests that have so driven environmental policies in the Bush Administration. Only when candidates refuse to take money from the lobbyists for big oil and big coal can they pursue the kind of environmental polices that protect health and safety of our families. Of all the leading candidates running, we believe John Edwards has the greatest potential to stand up to corporate special interests in the White House.
We also talked about John Edwards’ plan to address global warming:
Q: At present, part of the costs of global warming are externalized on all of us. Does Edwards favor measures to auction polluter permits to, at least in part, ensure that part of the cost of global warming goes back to where it belongs – on the actual product?
A: Yes, polluter permits are an important component of Edwards’ plan. He would require polluters to pay for their global warming pollution, a portion of which will raise $10 billion a year for a New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart clean, renewable, and efficient energy technologies and create 1 million jobs.
Q: What is Edwards’ position on the annual taxpayer funded subsidies that currently exist for oil companies?
A: Edwards calls for eliminating $3 billion in annual government subsidies to oil companies. He even says he is “very open to the possibility of an excess profits tax” on oil companies. We feel this is a crucial first step in getting our country back on the right track with its energy policy.
I don’t know about you, but I agree with Brent Blackwelder and John Edwards about building new nuclear power plants: don’t do it! This is a clear distinction between John Edwards and the other two major candidates: Clinton and Obama:
Q. Senators Clinton and Obama have joined one of the top Republicans in the race, Senator McCain of Arizona, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The measure includes more than $3.6 billion in funding and loan guarantees for the planning and construction of nuclear plants using new reactor designs. Does FOE Action oppose the use of taxpayer money to subsidize the nuclear power industry? What is your position on this bill?
A. Friends of the Earth wholeheartedly opposes the construction and development of nuclear power in the United States. Edwards is on the same page, here. He believes nuclear power is too costly, too dangerous, and too vulnerable to attack by our nation’s enemies. New Hampshire, where FOE Action announced its endorsement of Edwards, has the unfortunate distinction of being home to the last-constructed nuclear power plant in the country, Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. The plant places great environmental and health risks on the areas around it, and if constructing a nuclear power was a bad idea 30 years ago, it’s an even worse idea now, particularly given the new realities we face in terms of national security. Nuclear power simply isn’t worth it’s risks, when accidents can have environmental implications that last for generations. And John Edwards is the only candidate to unambiguously say no to nuclear power.
And what about Coal to Liquid? I’m with Edwards and FoE Action on this.
Q: What is your position on Coal to Liquid technology? One Democratic presidential candidate cosponsored a bill to provide taxpayer subsidies for this technology. Edwards opposes CtL. What does using, let alone subsidizing, CtL really mean for our environment?
A: Liquid coal is a bad idea for our country and planet. It contributes twice the amount of carbon emissions to our atmosphere that petroleum does, consuming an inordinate amount of water per unit of fuel, and requiring the expansion of ecologically and socially disastrous mining practices. Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is the only leading candidate to oppose coal-to-liquid technology.
That’s right: “Liquid coal is a bad idea for our country and planet.”
We need a green president now, if we are to survive:
Q: Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President that actually enforced the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other environmental laws?
A: After 7 years of George Bush – the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history – it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.
A final word from FoE Action President, Brent Blackwelder regarding what they and we can do to help elect a green president:
We plan to be especially active in New Hampshire, establishing an independent campaign and organization to carry the message about John Edwards’ global warming plan and his vision for a healthy environment. There is a powerful, untapped environmental constituency out there that is up for grabs in this country and we are here to lend our voice to push that constituency toward Edwards. We believe he has the right vision and record to tap that constituency.
In New Hampshire, there are a lot of Democratic primary voters who care deeply about the quality of their environment and cite it as a top concern when choosing a nominee for president. In particular, voters in the Granite State are looking for real action to combat global warming. We plan to spend the next 3 months letting these voters know that John Edwards is the candidate best qualified and most committed to help achieve this big and bold goal.
Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in our campaign to elect John Edwards as president: FoE Action (www.foeaction.org)
Help FoE Action to elect our first green president: John Edwards.
Friends of the Earth Action endorse John Edwards’ candidacy for President on October 14, 2007, in New Hampshire:
Welcome to your Saturday Night EENR! Tonight’s theme is a big blue map.
Tonight’s stories below the fold:
Bill Maher Stalked by Big Blue Map
Carpenters Building a Big Blue Map in Nevada
True Blue Majority
YouTubes You May Have Missed
JRE Diary Roundup
Bill Maher Stalked by Big Blue Map
Suddenly, big blue maps are showing up everywhere! Talk show host Bill Maher is even being stalked by one. Check it out sneaking up behind him in this next clip! Oh yeah, and John Edwards is in the clip too.
I will be carefully checking Open Secrets after next quarter’s fund raising reports come out. I expect Bill Maher to put his money where his mouth is, otherwise you never know what that big blue map may be capable of. Mwahahahahahahahahaha!
Carpenters Building a Big Blue Map in Nevada
In Nevada today, John Edwards spoke to the Carpenters Union, which has endorsed him, and laid out his plan to train low-income workers and connect them to good paying union jobs.
“Right now, our public jobs programs send job seekers into low-wage jobs and do nothing to help build the middle class. I have a plan called Training Works to connect hard-working Americans to smart training for good-paying, union jobs that actually exist,” Edwards said at the Carpenters International Training Center.
Along with his Training Works plan, which includes Career Ladders to train low-wage workers on the job for higher-wage, higher-skilled jobs in their same field, Edwards talked about his Green Collar Jobs program to create over 1 million new jobs in the ‘new energy economy.’
Carpenters Union International General President Doug McCarron spoke about why the Union has chosen to endorse Edwards.
“The Carpenters Union chose Edwards as the candidate with the best chance of winning the White House and the person who will best represent hard-working families,” Carpenters Union International General President Doug McCarron said.
The Carpenters Union is one of the largest and most politically active unions in Nevada. The union, which represents over 12,000 members in the state, endorsed Edwards last month. Edwards has also received support from the United Steelworkers of America and the Transport Workers of America, giving him the largest bloc of labor support for any presidential candidate in Nevada.
McCarron continued, “John Edwards has committed to campaign in all 50 states when he wins the nomination. He believes that all Americans, whether they see themselves as Democrats, Republicans or Independents, want real change and bold leadership, and he is confidant that his message of telling the American people the truth and fighting for real change will win these voters and states.”
And this segues nicely into our next story…
True Blue Majority
Yesterday, John Edwards was in California to receive the official endorsement of the California SEIU, 656,000 members strong. During his speech, Edwards described his True Blue Majority initiative, a strategy to campaign in all 50 states and build a super majority for the Democrats in Congress.
“The press and the pundits think the most electable candidate is the one with the most money and the most ties to Washington,” said Edwards. “The problem is the press and the pundits have confused the candidate who would win an election inside the Beltway with the candidate who can win an election in the rest of America. I believe any candidate who takes money from lobbyists and special interests is not electable, and I believe any candidate who defends the broken system in Washington will not win.
Edwards continued: “The most electable candidate is the one with the best ideas who is committed to bringing change to every corner of America. The people who want change don’t just live in blue states or big cities. They don’t just live in swing states – they live in every state in this country, and on every street in America. I believe that if we offer real change, if we reject the broken system, say no to the corporate interests and stand once and for all with the people, nothing can stop us. We’ll not only win the White House, we’ll elect super-majorities in the House and the Senate as well.”
Just how likely is it that Edwards could win over red and purple states and help candidates for the Senate, the House, and on down the ballot in those states? Plenty likely, according to a Global Strategy Group polling memo released earlier this week.
The memo by Edwards campaign pollster Harrison Hickman examines polls from many different polling organizations to come to its conclusions.
Nationwide general election polling shows John Edwards is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the 2008 general election for President. Edwards is the only Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner Giuliani. Against the other three major Republican candidates, Edwards’ average margin of victory is identical to or better than that of Barack Obama, and significantly higher than Hillary Clinton’s average margin.
Edwards also outperforms the other Democratic candidates in match-ups with Republican candidates in key battleground states including Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio. Further, unlike other Democrats who must “run the table” in states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play. This provides alternate scenarios – and a margin for error – when it comes to amassing 270 electoral votes.
There’s the big blue map again! It’s following me!
YouTubes You May Have Missed
Here are two YouTube videos from the Edwards campaign that came out two days ago, but they don’t have very many views. I didn’t see them, and I suspect you may have missed them too.
Today, Chase Martyn of the Iow Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment. Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting “I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.”
Martyn came away highly impressed. Martyn described Richardson’s speech as “bold and informative. . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.
In his speech, Richardson set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war. Richardson stated: “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.”
In Iowa this week, Bill Richardson gave a major speech on U.S. foreign policy, setting forth a global agenda to address welfare of the human race. He noted:
For decades, we believed that the only Apocalyptic threat to human civilization was the possibility of nuclear war.
Now we know better. We know that poverty and overpopulation affect us all. Refugee crises. Pandemic diseases. Climate change. Environmental degradation. Resource Depletion. Ethnic and political instability. These are not just the problems of individual nations. They are the problems of an interdependent world.
These threats are insidious. They may take decades to develop. And they respect no borders. Problems that span time and continents can only be solved through coordinated and cooperative global efforts.
Time is of the essence Richardson argued:
If we wait ten or twenty or fifty years to address these problems, it will already be too late. Environmental degradation takes many forms, but the most urgent is global climate change. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the planet is getting hotter. This is a fact, not a forecast.
The ice caps and glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising.
300 million human beings live less than fifteen feet above sea level. Unless we act now, homes, villages, cities, and entire nations will be submerged.
Those not displaced by rising waters may go hungry as our unrestrained addiction to fossil fuels threatens both regional and global food shortages. Already severe drought has cut the world’s maize crops by as much as 15%, and wheat supplies will soon be at their lowest level in 26 years.
In a world where hundreds of millions go to bed hungry, major losses in staple crops foretell a time when we wake up to billions starving. In America … in a nation that has long fed the world…catastrophically rising temperatures threaten to decimate our farmland.
As a world traveler and peace maker, Richardson has a witnessed in person the challenges facing developing nations:
But we cannot comprehend the crushing burden of global poverty through statistics alone. Even in America, I have walked in communities with no access to clean water. We have all seen shamefully inadequate housing, and we know that even in our own country there are children that go to bed hungry every night.
In my travels abroad, I have seen human desperation — first hand. In the Sudan, I have been to camps filled with families who have lost every worldly possession. I was on the ground in Turkey during a terrible earthquake, where I saw impoverished mothers on their knees, digging through rubble for their lost children.
I’ve spent time in Darfur which today is the best-known example of environmental pressures cascading into instability and violence. A prolonged drought decimated the region’s grazing lands and nomadic herders moved south in search of water and food. They encroached upon farming land that belonged to other tribes, igniting the conflict that now has turned into a genocide.
We urgently need to find the courage and the will to address such crises. Not only because we are a decent and compassionate people, but also because of this inescapable reality: America will never be safe in a world riddled by poverty, desperation, hatred and violence.
A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.
And unless and until we have the wisdom and the skill to secure all the nuclear weapons and fissile material in the world, that terrorism could result in unthinkable death and destruction.
The key points of Richardson’s global plan as summarized in the Des Moines Register are as follows:
• Work through existing United Nations mechanisms to prepare for the possibility that millions of people could be displaced because of global-warming-related flooding of deltas and coastal areas.
• Focus on education in developing nations, where 115 million children do not receive any schooling.
• Institute a nationwide, market-based cap and trade system that reduces carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80 percent by 2040. Make sure China and India develop clean energy.
• Accelerate research into cellulosic ethanol and other low-carbon biofuels and construct distribution networks for retailers.
• Develop cost-effective methods for harvesting fresh water and cleaning up polluted rivers and streams. Protect tropical rain forests and pursue aggressive reforestation programs.
• Fight cross-border crime, end slavery and make progress to eradicate human trafficking.
Specific to the UN, Richardson reaffirmed that the organization is a necessary and important framework to confront international problems. He called for reforming and invigorating the UN, and he said he understands better than anyone in the presidential race the organization’s shortcomings. Richardson added he knows the “incredible power” that the legitimacy of international cooperation can lend to peacekeeping, humanitarian relief, addressing climate change and economic development.
In reviewing Richardson’s speech, Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent wrote:
If there were an award for “most improved presidential candidate” to be awarded in 2008, no one would deserve it more than Gov. Bill Richardson. The candidate Iowans got to know through a series of satirical TV ads over the summer is no longer kidding around. On the campaign trail here this week, Richardson left the distinct impression that he means business.
Kicking off his latest campaign swing Thursday, the New Mexico governor gave a speech on global threats, one which I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.
Richardson’s address, which he delivered using a teleprompter with unexpected precision and rhetorical skill, was bold and informative. Far from the repetition I have accustomed myself to in these sorts of speeches over the past few months, Richardson showed his true colors as a man devoted to humanitarianism and global citizenship. I dare say he sounded presidential.
Martyn was not the only one impressed with Richardson’s speech:
When he finished, the crowd of over 250 in downtown Des Moines gave him a standing ovation, but the format of the event — and the governor’s schedule — did not allow for questions.
Martyn decided to attend a town hall by Richardson that evening to see “if Richardson’s newfound seriousness would translate to his “town hall” style events or if it was merely a product of his teleprompter.”
I expected the torrential downpour that had lasted for much for much of the afternoon to depress turnout, but when I arrived 15 minutes early, the chairs in the “Story County Outdoor Recreation for Everyone” complex were already full.
True to form, Richardson kept his stump speech short, folding new sections of his speech (based on his address earlier in the day) into his standard talking points. “I’m troubled by the debate within the party on the war,” he said, before launching into a concise explanation of his plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq as soon as possible, because diplomacy will not succeed until our troops are gone. “I’m not happy with the congress,” he said. “They haven’t even made a dent” on Iraq policy.
He quickly concluded his remarks and opened the floor for questions, which covered a wide variety of topics. I had seen Richardson stumble at this point during previous events over the summer, so I was expecting things to get a little shaky. Again, my expectations were confounded.
He fielded questions on subjects ranging from peace between Israel and the Palestinians to fuel standards, and his answers were coherent and specific. He displayed an understanding of the complex problems facing the world, emphasizing the gravity of our situation, but he was careful to note that “I’m not trying to be an alarmist.”
. . . By the end of the event, Richardson had answered every question that audience members had, even if the last eight were done in rapid-fire succession. Onlookers were impressed enough that several filled out supporter cards, and I was impressed enough to eat a slice of humble pie (look at what I have written about Richardson in the past) and write this post.
