Message auto-removed

Repubs at it again; want to privatize public lands. Let's stake them to an ant hill.

Rhetorically, of course. This from Daily Kos

MON MAR 30, 2015 AT 06:00 PM PDT
This land is our land? Not if Republicans have their way
byJoan McCarter
46 Comments / 46 New
Located on the Colorado Plateau in northern Arizona, Vermilion Cliffs National Monument includes the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. The Monument borders Kaibab National Forest to the west and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area to the east.   This remote and unspoiled, 280,000-acre Monument is a geologic treasure, containing a variety of diverse landscapes from the Paria Plateau, Vermilion Cliffs, Coyote Buttes, and Paria Canyon. Elevations range from 3,100 to 7,100 feet.
One of the 43 amendments passed by Senate Republicans in Thursday's vote-a-rama was a sop to extremist state legislatures in the west who have been pushing states' rights bills that would allow the states to sell off the federal public lands within their borders. That's right, congressional Republicans—federal representatives—want to allow states to seize and sell off the nation's heritage.
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) amendment, which passed by a vote of 51 to 49, is now part of the Senate’s nonbinding budget resolution. The proposal would support and fund state efforts—which many argue are unconstitutional—to seize and sell America’s public lands. These include all national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments.
Murkowski’s amendment, which would need further legislation to become law, follows a similar proposal from House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-UT) to spend $50 million of taxpayer dollars to fund the sale or transfer of U.S. public lands to states.

That's right—they want to use our money to fund the loss of million and millions of acres of public land. That's not a popular position out here in the West, where 59 percent of voters are opposed to this transfer. Westerners are also okay with the federal government, for the most part: "approval ratings for the Bureau of Land Management—48 percent approve—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—73 percent approve—the U.S. Forest Service—73 percent approve—and the National Park Service—76 percent approve." A whopping 94 percent of people reported that their last visit to a national public land was a positive experience. That 94 percent would be outraged if they were blocked from accessing those lands in the future by fences and no trespassing signs.
That's a point outdoor groups have been making in fighting state efforts in Colorado, Idaho and Montana and the rest of the West. This comment by a Montana outfitter, Addrien Marx, really sums it up: "Montanans flatly reject any effort to privatize lands that belong to all Americans and provide the backbone to a $3 billion state outdoor economy, an economy that keeps small towns like mine alive."

That goes for the vast majority of Westerners who aren't Cliven Bundy. Access to public lands drives our economies, not to mention the way of life for many. Just something else Republicans want to destroy.

My worry list for the Clinton candidacy for President

Note: This is a companion piece to an earlier thread on why I want primary debates

Friends: I am a life long Democrat deeply worried about the state of our Party. I am worried that the current fixation on Hillary Clinton and her husband as our standard bearers will not work out well. This worry comes in three categories: damage already done, things that could go wrong in the campaign, and things we may not like if Hillary wins. Please don’t get me wrong. If she runs and wins the nomination I will vote for her. Meanwhile it feels like a grave mistake to simply anoint her. So herewith is a worry list covering both Clintons.
I use the plural because the Hillary candidacy (prospective as it is) is a package deal. They’re a team and make no mistake, Hill’s election would also be a third term for good old Bill and there is something fundamentally wrong about that in my opinion. First of all, it is unconstitutional by the spirit of the law if not the letter. Second, the guy doesn't deserve a third term. He didn't deserve to be impeached but that doesn't mean he deserves another award of the nation’s highest honor either. No, he needs to go away. I don’t want him residing in the White House again. It’s just how I feel about it.

So it is they, not her, who are running for President. And it is already off to a bad start. Here are the first three calamities I lay at their door:
First, the Democratic presidential field has effectively been frozen. No one dares confront Hill and Bill and run in opposition to them. No prominent Democrat dares criticize the Clintons. No one else can raise any serious money until Hillary announces her intentions. No one even seeks a place on the presidential primary debate stage. Hillary muses that she may not even take any debates. The Party collectively holds its breath waiting for Hillary to “announce” the tone and tenor of her campaign policy choices. They wait for her to come down from the mountain bearing stone tablets, all poll tested of course. The net result: well first, the political dialog on the left is all about politics devoid of any real substantive discussion of policy options, and second, if Hillary should decide not to run for some reason, we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Second, we can thank the Clintons for the robust candidacy of one Jeb Bush. And if he can navigate the Republican primaries he will be their strongest general election candidate by far. What the Clintons have done is neuter the one principled argument that could have stopped Jeb Bush. Too late for that now even if Hillary withdraws, the damage is done. I refer to the idea that handing the Oval Office out as a prize reserved for family legacies is anti democratic. It is a retreat to government by aristocracy. If Hillary wins why not call her Queen Hillary or maybe Queen Rodham, that has a nice ring to it. And if Jeb wins the obvious choice would be King Bush the Third. Is this really what we want?

Third, we have now seen Lanny Davis reappear with his mop and bucket cleaning up the latest Clinton mess. I cannot stand the man even when I agree with him and would rather be boiled in oil than be forced to listen to him on a daily basis for the nest ten years. God help us.

Now then let’s consider what other calamities might lay ahead. What can we expect if Hillary announces that she will run and wins the coronation? Here is what we can expect:
First, Hillary will turn out to be a weak candidate because she is too darn old. I say that as a 71 year old guy who knows well the infirmities of advancing age. If you are thirty and reading this take time to ask ten old folks if they want someone in their seventies running the country. I’ll bet a majority will tell you no.

Next, the Vegas bookies will immediately begin laying odds on Bill’s health. He is a walking advertisement for a heart attack and any health problems in that quarter would drop Hillary’s poll numbers ten points overnight.

And, of course, Gloria Allred will immediately begin the search for the next “bimbo eruption” Odds are very high that good old Bill has not been clean as the driven snow low these twenty years since Monica Lewinsky. Anyone doubting these high odds needs to have their crystal ball taken into the shop and recalibrated.
The net effect of these factors could well be that Hillary may soon enough drop behind old Jeb in the polls and all the air would be let out of the main thing driving her candidacy … all those voters who want a woman president and think she has it in the bag. What then; what will all this suddenly feel like if Hillary trails in the polls down the stretch?

And finally, what happens if Hillary and Bill do win and set up camp in the White House. Here is what would happen:
First, I’m not certain it would be seen as a clear victory for the Democratic Party because in many ways the Clintons are just barely Democrats. By some important measures they are their own third party, which is why Bill famously “triangulated” and called his approach to governing, “the third way”. And it would also not be seen as a clean victory for women. Hillary will always be seen as Bill’s husband and all the proclamations about her own accomplishments will never completely erase that label. The day Hillary were elected is the day the search would begin for the first “real” woman president. But there she would be and how would she govern you ask. Well, here is how, assuming past is prelude:
On war in the Middle East, the Clintons are somewhere to the right of Dick Cheney and the rest of the neo conservatives who brought us the War in Iraq and now bang the drums for war with Iran. Bombs away.
On Israel the Clintons are somewhere to the right of Benjamin Netanyahu. Anyone who thinks that will work out well is a poor student of human history, in my opinion.
On economic policy regarding investment banks and Wall Street the Clintons are somewhere to right of Mr. and Mrs. Greenspan. Watching the Clintons try to squirm out of that will be worth the price of admission.
On income inequality Hillary thinks $300,000 per speech is merely a feminist issue because Bill gets even more. Bill has chocked up a cool $100 million dollars since leaving office from “friends” in business. Those “friends” all think they bought something.
On climate change Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have no greater friends than the Saudi Royal family. We know what oil Sheiks think about burning fossil fuels.
The last time Bill lived in the White House he cut the capital gains tax rate in half, passed NAFTA and other trade laws that resulted in 50,000 manufacturing businesses moving over seas, ended Glass Steagall, and paved the way for tax cuts for the rich and law of the jungle regulation on Wall Street. His presidency was a flaming disaster in the long run and that is not even counting Monica Lewinsky. Where was Hillary on every one of these issues? Standing by her man, that’s where. This worries me. It should worry all of us.
And that’s the short list. I could go on.

In summary I hope other candidates emerge on the left and we have a robust primary debate season. Now I could be wrong. I could be very wrong about every complaint on these lists and I’m sure some readers will think I am wrong. But these worries are pervasive are they not? Am I alone? Really?

Need support for Klobuchar and Franken in Primary Debates

Fellow Minnesotans: If you want a series of Democratic primary debates this cycle please join this thread which is also cross posted in the front page Politics section. I am advocating that both Al Franken and Amy Klobucher belong in those debates. See if you don't agree with the following.

Hey, it is still only March, 2015. Let’s set aside for the moment the question of who will get our vote the first Tuesday in November, 2016 and let’s even set aside who will get our vote in the Democratic primary elections or caucuses in each state; plenty of time for all that. Instead let’s seriously consider who we would like to see in the Democratic Primary Debates. Now some may say we don’t want any damn debates. If you are one of those, go start your own thread. This is for those of us who think there is a real battle to be had over the very soul of the Democratic Party and we want to see substantive policy issues discussed openly, far and wide. So if this matters to you, please weigh in here. Who would you like to see in those debates? Let me begin.

There are three obvious choices that I believe will make most everyone’s list. I would simply like to see how these possible candidates present themselves in this forum.
Elizabeth Warren. I want her there. She can start off by saying “Don’t vote for me, I’m not running.” She should be there anyway. We all know why.
Bernie Sanders. I want to hear the old Socialist let’em have it with both barrels. That alone would be worth the price of admission.
Martin O’Malley. I don’t know much about him but I would like to. He might actually be electable as our VP nominee. That’s a little odd because most Dems don’t know him from Adam. Let’s fix that.

There are also three other folks who are certainly familiar if not obvious choices. I’ll call them the old guard. Here I am genuinely curious to know how these war horses assess the state of the nation and the state of democracy in America. I would like to see what direction they point and what pennants they fly.
Al Gore. He did win the popular vote in 2000 and he was right as rain about “The Inconvenient Truth.” He needs a chance to say, “I told you so”, and do it on a national stage. We need someone to champion the planet in these debates. Who better?

Howard Dean. Yah I know. “The Scream”. So what? He was right about the war in Iraq. He was right about the fifty state strategy. He is often right and reasonable on a wide range of other issues. His great mistake was to be four years ahead of the country. He knew in 2003 everything that was wrong with George Bush and his presidency. He had the courage to say it when few in the national spotlight dared to say it. It took the nation another four years to figure it all out. They’re slow learners. I’d like to remind folks of that by having Howard Dean on our debate stage.

John Kerry. John is a blow dried fluff ball but he looks like he should be president. I’m okay with him being there just to dress up the proceedings. It is also true that he is really being dragged through a knot hole in the Middle East as Secretary of State; he might surprise us and actually say something interesting.

Now I will go out on a limb and advocate two new names rarely heard that I feel belong on this debate stage. I happen to be from their home state. I am confident they would both hold there own.

Al Franken. Senator Al Franken. Newly re-elected and standing a little taller, he has the potential to bring a fresh outlook to the debate. He would attract younger viewers and happens to be a man of Jewish heritage not walking in lock step with AIPAC, Likud and Netanyahu. In short, he might be able to say things others on that stage dare not say.

Amy Klobuchar. This Minnesota Senator has one of the highest approval ratings in the Senate, is very well like and respected across Party lines, and has a winning communication style in her public appearances. Amy is baggage free. She would do well in these debates and she would wear well in the general election falderal, in my opinion. Full discloser, I am Amy’s local campaign manager though she doesn’t know that. She has never heard of me.

So by now someone is surely yelling, “What about Hillary?” Where is Hillary? Well okay. Yes, Hillary should be in these debates. I am also genuinely interested in learning where she hopes to take the nation and the Democratic Party. (Strange, isn’t it, we don’t know that, sitting here today?) My only suggestion in this case is that Bill also needs to be on that stage, sitting right behind Hillary, tied to his chair, with his mouth duct taped shut. That is, after all, what her presidency would look like on day one, should she win, until Bill pulls the tape off.

So there you have one potential set of debaters, nine in all. Well, nine and a half. So who are your nine? I demand to know. No shirking allowed.

Name nine people you want in the Democratic primary debates. I dare you

Or name at least a few. Note this is also posted in the politics forum on the front page.

Hey, it is still only March, 2015. Let’s set aside for the moment the question of who will get our vote the first Tuesday in November, 2016 and let’s even set aside who will get our vote in the Democratic primary elections or caucuses in each state; plenty of time for all that. Instead let’s seriously consider who we would like to see in the Democratic Primary Debates. Now some may say we don’t want any damn debates. If you are one of those, go start your own thread. This is for those of us who think there is a real battle to be had over the very soul of the Democratic Party and we want to see substantive policy issues discussed openly, far and wide. So if this matters to you, please weigh in here. Who would you like to see in those debates? Let me begin.

There are three obvious choices that I believe will make most everyone’s list. I would simply like to see how these possible candidates present themselves in this forum.
Elizabeth Warren. I want her there. She can start off by saying “Don’t vote for me, I’m not running.” She should be there anyway. We all know why.
Bernie Sanders. I want to hear the old Socialist let’em have it with both barrels. That alone would be worth the price of admission.
Martin O’Malley. I don’t know much about him but I would like to. He might actually be electable as our VP nominee. That’s a little odd because most Dems don’t know him from Adam. Let’s fix that.

There are also three other folks who are certainly familiar if not obvious choices. I’ll call them the old guard. Here I am genuinely curious to know how these war horses assess the state of the nation and the state of democracy in America. I would like to see what direction they point and what pennants they fly.
Al Gore. He did win the popular vote in 2000 and he was right as rain about “The Inconvenient Truth.” He needs a chance to say, “I told you so”, and do it on a national stage. We need someone to champion the planet in these debates. Who better?

Howard Dean. Yah I know. “The Scream”. So what? He was right about the war in Iraq. He was right about the fifty state strategy. He is often right and reasonable on a wide range of other issues. His great mistake was to be four years ahead of the country. He knew in 2003 everything that was wrong with George Bush and his presidency. He had the courage to say it when few in the national spotlight dared to say it. It took the nation another four years to figure it all out. They’re slow learners. I’d like to remind folks of that by having Howard Dean on our debate stage.

John Kerry. John is a blow dried fluff ball but he looks like he should be president. I’m okay with him being there just to dress up the proceedings. It is also true that he is really being dragged through a knot hole in the Middle East as Secretary of State; he might surprise us and actually say something interesting.

Now I will go out on a limb and advocate two new names rarely heard that I feel belong on this debate stage. I happen to be from their home state. I am confident they would both hold there own.

Al Franken. Senator Al Franken. Newly re-elected and standing a little taller, he has the potential to bring a fresh outlook to the debate. He would attract younger viewers and happens to be a man of Jewish heritage not walking in lock step with AIPAC, Likud and Netanyahu. In short, he might be able to say things others on that stage dare not say.

Amy Klobuchar. This Minnesota Senator has one of the highest approval ratings in the Senate, is very well like and respected across Party lines, and has a winning communication style in her public appearances. Amy is baggage free. She would do well in these debates and she would wear well in the general election falderal, in my opinion. Full discloser, I am Amy’s local campaign manager though she doesn’t know that. She has never heard of me.

So by now someone is surely yelling, “What about Hillary?” Where is Hillary? Well okay. Yes, Hillary should be in these debates. I am also genuinely interested in learning where she hopes to take the nation and the Democratic Party. (Strange, isn’t it, we don’t know that, sitting here today?) My only suggestion in this case is that Bill also needs to be on that stage, sitting right behind Hillary, tied to his chair, with his mouth duct taped shut. That is, after all, what her presidency would look like on day one, should she win, until Bill pulls the tape off.

So there you have one potential set of debaters, nine in all. Well, nine and a half. So who are your nine? I demand to know. No shirking allowed.

Name Nine People You Want in the Democratic Primary Debates. I dare you

Or name at least a few.

Hey, it is still only March, 2015. Let’s set aside for the moment the question of who will get our vote the first Tuesday in November, 2016 and let’s even set aside who will get our vote in the Democratic primary elections or caucuses in each state; plenty of time for all that. Instead let’s seriously consider who we would like to see in the Democratic Primary Debates. Now some may say we don’t want any damn debates. If you are one of those, go start your own thread. This is for those of us who think there is a real battle to be had over the very soul of the Democratic Party and we want to see substantive policy issues discussed openly, far and wide. So if this matters to you, please weigh in here. Who would you like to see in those debates? Let me begin.

There are three obvious choices that I believe will make most everyone’s list. I would simply like to see how these possible candidates present themselves in this forum.
Elizabeth Warren. I want her there. She can start off by saying “Don’t vote for me, I’m not running.” She should be there anyway. We all know why.
Bernie Sanders. I want to hear the old Socialist let’em have it with both barrels. That alone would be worth the price of admission.
Martin O’Malley. I don’t know much about him but I would like to. He might actually be electable as our VP nominee. That’s a little odd because most Dems don’t know him from Adam. Let’s fix that.

There are also three other folks who are certainly familiar if not obvious choices. I’ll call them the old guard. Here I am genuinely curious to know how these war horses assess the state of the nation and the state of democracy in America. I would like to see what direction they point and what pennants they fly.
Al Gore. He did win the popular vote in 2000 and he was right as rain about “The Inconvenient Truth.” He needs a chance to say, “I told you so”, and do it on a national stage. We need someone to champion the planet in these debates. Who better?

Howard Dean. Yah I know. “The Scream”. So what? He was right about the war in Iraq. He was right about the fifty state strategy. He is often right and reasonable on a wide range of other issues. His great mistake was to be four years ahead of the country. He knew in 2003 everything that was wrong with George Bush and his presidency. He had the courage to say it when few in the national spotlight dared to say it. It took the nation another four years to figure it all out. They’re slow learners. I’d like to remind folks of that by having Howard Dean on our debate stage.

John Kerry. John is a blow dried fluff ball but he looks like he should be president. I’m okay with him being there just to dress up the proceedings. It is also true that he is really being dragged through a knot hole in the Middle East as Secretary of State; he might surprise us and actually say something interesting.

Now I will go out on a limb and advocate two new names rarely heard that I feel belong on this debate stage. I happen to be from their home state. I am confident they would both hold there own.

Al Franken. Senator Al Franken. Newly re-elected and standing a little taller, he has the potential to bring a fresh outlook to the debate. He would attract younger viewers and happens to be a man of Jewish heritage not walking in lock step with AIPAC, Likud and Netanyahu. In short, he might be able to say things others on that stage dare not say.

Amy Klobuchar. This Minnesota Senator has one of the highest approval ratings in the Senate, is very well like and respected across Party lines, and has a winning communication style in her public appearances. Amy is baggage free. She would do well in these debates and she would wear well in the general election falderal, in my opinion. Full discloser, I am Amy’s local campaign manager though she doesn’t know that. She has never heard of me.

So by now someone is surely yelling, “What about Hillary?” Where is Hillary? Well okay. Yes, Hillary should be in these debates. I am also genuinely interested in learning where she hopes to take the nation and the Democratic Party. (Strange, isn’t it, we don’t know that, sitting here today?) My only suggestion in this case is that Bill also needs to be on that stage, sitting right behind Hillary, tied to his chair, with his mouth duct taped shut. That is, after all, what her presidency would look like on day one, should she win, until Bill pulls the tape off.

So there you have one potential set of debaters, nine in all. Well, nine and a half. So who are your nine? I demand to know. No shirking allowed.

Old Geezer from Minnesota Joins the Fray

Hello everyone. I am a 71 year old life long Democrat form the blue state of Minnesota. I am a John Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Gene McCarthy Democrat. These names mean anything to you young folks? These were politicians who were also statesmen, in part because they didn't spend 4 hours a day, every day begging billionaires for campaign contributions.
I am a long time reader of DU who has decided to post a few messages in order to join the debate about the future of our Party and to seek your support for including our two Minnesota Senators, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, in the discussion of possible candidates for president. In particular I would like to see them in the Democratic primary debates ... should there even be any. I am also deeply worried that the Clinton candidacy could be problematic. I'll start some threads on these topics soon if that is okay.