Mike Huckabee is the projected winner of the Iowa GOP caucuses, a surprising victory that puts him at the front of the pack in the Republican presidential race -- at least until the New Hampshire primary next week. Huckabee is one of just two GOP candidates who support a cap-and-trade system to fight climate change (McCain is the other), although Huckabee hasn't come out in support of any specific emission targets. In an interview with Grist earlier this year, Huckabee stressed the connection between his Christian faith and his desire to protect the environment. On the Democratic side, Barack Obama is the projected winner. Like all of the other Democratic candidates, he's got a strong, ambitious plan to tackle climate and energy issues, which he described in an interview with Grist this summer. For a thorough look at the winners' green stances, check out Grist's fact sheets on Huckabee and Obama.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Comments
View as Flat
BSchott Posted 12:36 pm
03 Jan 2008
Anyways, on to my point:
For the last 4 hours of political coverage of the caucuses does anyone want to guess how many times climate and the environment has been mentioned in any way, shape, or form???
>> ZERO <<
ITS DISGUSTING!
I'm a 19 year old student at SUNY-ESF in Syracuse, NY and I know the discourse of this country's young adults. I know the discourse of climate change and the discourse of this world's most pressing issues.
Why isn't this being openly talked about during these ever-more important political events?
What does it take to truly transform the arena by which we make truly insightful decisions in this country?
We must keep talking about these issues. We must let both the right and left know the facts, the philosophy and that the future is inevitably green(er). Its up to us to decide how it happens
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 1:51 pm
03 Jan 2008
Ah, it is all so predictable, isn't it? Wake me when November finally rolls around. Obama is not a perfect candidate by any means ... but if he can piss off the Limbaugh right, the smug and entrenched corporate elite, the private health insurance industry, the ever-more-consolidated and irresponsible mainstream media, the Karl Roves of the Repug party, and all the flat-earthers who voted for Huckabee ... well that's good enough for me.
It's gonna get brutal and it's gonna get ugly, kids. But we've gotta keep our eyes on the prize. 2008 may be the last chance to salvage a democracy which has absorbed seven years of brutal body blows, which is listing heavily to starboard, and which threatens to go under for good.
The salvaging process begins by running out of D.C. all of the swine who have been shamelessly looting the gov't coffers and compromising our country's environmental future in order to make a few more bucks for themselves and their spoiled friends.
We don't get fooled again.
Permalink
enki Posted 8:10 pm
03 Jan 2008
But the Bible doesn't say it that way. The Bible says that God gave humans dominion over the Earth to "dress and keep it" till his eventual return. To me "dress and keep" means something quite different than "rape and pillage".
Here's a parable; imagine a rich man has two daughters. He and his wife are going away on business and they leave the daughters with two of their employees. They tell the employees to dress and keep the daughters till they return but not to be afraid to make the girls do their share of household work, etc. He leaves them money and assures the employees that he will reward them further when he and his wife return.
One employee cares for the daughter he has as if she were his own. He makes sure she attends school, does her homework and does chores around his house after school. He uses the money her parents left to buy her nice clothes and feed her.
The second employee takes the money the parents left and uses it to buy crack. Stoned and broke he starts getting the daughter he is entrusted with to go get his crack for him, trading sex for drugs. The daughter develops a habit of her own and soon drops out of school and is out on the street turning tricks to pay the bills. The employee manages to save up some of the money she is making and buys himself a nice crib and an SUV. He figures the girl is earning her own way and it was so nice of her parents to give her to him to use till they got back...
Both of the employees interpreted the father's directions differently. Both think they are right. Or maybe the second employee doesn't even believe his own bullshit. Ok kinda bizarre I know but I hate evangelical spin. Sometimes I can't see how they can believe their own bullshit.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:24 pm
03 Jan 2008
Yes, Christians of the sort you describe are hypocrites, and imposters, who know as little about the Bible, really, as they do about science and the environment. But it is possible that their new-found hold on power may already be breaking up.
As for Mike Huckabee, a very sweet guy, apparently, but also an intellectual disaster: I certainly do not approve of anything like a faith test; but I think it is definitely in our interest to prohibit from holding office anyone who does not believe in the biological theory of evolution.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:44 pm
03 Jan 2008
But as Bill C put it, huckle berry is the only pub who can give a speech and tell a joke. And the only one acceptable to the christian right, still in control of the GOP at the grassroots.
Time to shift hatred for bush to hatred for huckle berry? Not yet, but soon.
If you want a repeat of corporate war disguised as christian jihad, keep thinking he is a harmless affable fool. And Rove style strategery will flush what is left of the good old USA right down the corporate bottomline toilet into the DC lobbying cesspoool.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:26 pm
03 Jan 2008
The "24" set designers worked on the set for "bushland security" central (yes, your tax dollars at work, believe it), homeland security to the bush faithfilled.
Did you see Chuck Norris in those cute Huckle berry ads? And Chuck and trophy spouse grinning behind huckle berry at his Iowa victory appearance?
Would Chuck, "Walker Texas Ranger", endorse torture? Ahh, yeah. He's a real life martial artist. No Kiefer Southerland hollywood actor wimp.
Does this scare you? It should.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 3:02 am
04 Jan 2008
From the Huckabee for President website:
"We will set aside a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector to seek the best new products in alternative fuels. Our free market will sort out what makes the most sense economically and will reward consumer preferences." And...
"We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass."
And, from the Grist fact sheet...
"Supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore in U.S. waters..."
"He dodges the issue of whether humans are responsible for global warming, saying we don't know for sure..."
And from his interview with CNN's Glenn Beck...
"As far as blaming human beings for enjoying the environment, I think that's a little bit extreme."
Now, from the Bush administration's White House website...
"We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. We know this can be done. Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases."
"Since 2001, the United States has invested more than $2.5 billion to research and develop clean coal. In addition, in partnership with other nations and the private sector, the U.S. is moving closer to producing energy from the world's first zero emissions coal-fired plant." And...
"Nuclear power is the one existing source of energy that can generate massive amounts of electricity without causing any air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions."
At the most basic level, Huckabee and Bush are almost indistinguishable, especially when you take a look at Huckabee's positions on the rest of the right-wing agenda. Does anyone really think Huckabee will be able to resist the industry lobbyists, who likely would be enormously influential in a presidential campaign?
Permalink
Greta Posted 3:51 am
04 Jan 2008
It seems to me that he began promoting environment issues (e.g., Climate Change) only when it suited him -- for his presidential campaign because other candidates were. And, he seems to simply mimic whatever Hillary Clinton says. (In even the briefest of interviews, Edwards mentions concerns for the environment. When Clinton speaks of it, she seems to have a well crafted plan.) Obama's details and commitment on the issues are lacking, imo.
Does he have any record of environmental leadership anywhere? Has he ever done anything more, at best, than vote the party line on environmental issues?
Truly, I'd like to know more, if I have missed it.
My prediction is that if he wins in 2008, he will sell out...on environmental issues, for sure. Environmental issues can be a very tough sell. He will just try to appease everybody and we will continue with watered down legislation, if any at all. Clinton will compromise too much (for my taste), but likely get more than others because of her political clout.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:01 am
04 Jan 2008
The Democrats have a real victory because the ousted the evil Hillary and her wicked husband. Now a new Prince has emerged, Obama.
Meanwhile, Republicans got Huckstered.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:49 am
04 Jan 2008
Barak Obama refuses to commit to removing all U.S. troops from Iraq and supports building U.S. military bases there. Remember, war and the military are very bad for the environment, so anyone who's strongly pro-military is anti-environment in that respect. Obama is from Illinois and thus strongly pro-coal, another highly anti-environmental position. And what has he said that's pro-environment? Just more grandstanding on global warming, which I'm personally getting sick of and which will do nothing for the environment unless other, equally serious environmental problems are addressed. Someone whose only contribution to the environmental dialog is to talk about reducing global warming is not pro-environment. The global warming issue has become a way to ignore other equally serious environmental problems, such as the massive rate of species extinctions and destruction of ecosystems, both of which humans are causing.
If you support Obama because you think he's progressive or pro-environment, you've been fooled. Obama's foreign policy advisors are from the military industrial complex and he has courted campaign contributions from large corporations, even though donations from average people would probably be enough to fund his campaign. (Being a politician first and foremost, he's probably afraid that if he doesn't court corporate America, it will attack him.) If you want to support the environment or other progressive causes, support Kucinich or Edwards, not people like Obama or Clinton, the latter two for whom one needs a microscope to distinguish any significant difference.
Permalink
el mono Posted 9:59 am
04 Jan 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 8:17 am
05 Jan 2008
After all, is mother was white. Therefore, if obsessing over irrelevant skin-color issues is important to the media, he can at most be called "half-black." But, in any case, according to my math, he could just as easily be called "white" as "black".
Therefore we might as well refer to Obama as the "white candidate". At least 50 percent of the time, by my figuring.
At least Barack is not a really scary shade of white like, say, Karl Rove or Dick Cheney. Gaaah.
I'm thrilled by Obama's momentum, even if he's not as environmentally pure as some other candidates. First we need wrest the White House from corporate America's greedy little hands. Then we can work on persuading the occupant to address pressing environmental concerns seriously. (A supportive House, Senate, and proactive governors and mayors across the country could help push him/her along. When the people lead, the leaders will follow).
There is no guarantee, of course, that Obama will minimize the horrific corporate influence over White House policies. However I'm pretty damn sure that Hillary's not gonna be the one to make a significant break with that tradition. And certainly none of the Republicans can afford to quit kissing corporate asses from coast to coast ...
Permalink
Greta Posted 9:36 am
05 Jan 2008
How would your boss (and fellow employees) feel if after such a short time with the company/organization, you spent your entire work day looking for another job elsewhere?
Fighting for the Environment won't earn Obama the power he craves. How often have you entered a room and had the crowd erupt in applause and cries of "All hail, Environmentalist!"
At least with Hillary Clinton, she already has the political clout, and no doubt has learned how to use it. She won't be distracted by a grasping for power or respect.
Rather than vote for a presidential candidate who wants to be like a Clinton, why not just vote for one.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 11:03 am
05 Jan 2008
Rhetorical question. I'd forgotten which country we're dealing with.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 1:50 pm
05 Jan 2008
As I've said in a different thread, it seems to me that Obama is a savvy guy doing the savvy thing to get elected. But behind all that I suspect, given his pre-Senate career path, that he's got some depth of character. I hope to be proven right.
I think the jury's still out on whether he'd deliver as president, but he's very smart and presumably teachable -- I think GonzoDon is right to point out that when the people lead, the leaders will follow. I hope that if he's elected, he'd choose to lead rather than compromise. That's my biggest worry about him.
But still, I'm hopeful.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:55 pm
05 Jan 2008
you sound like my Michael, who mistrusts Obama for reasons much the same as yours. On Thursday, I turned on PBS to hear Jim Lehrer give his report on the Iowa caucuses, and as soon as Obama's victory was announced, he ordered me to turn it off.
Then again, he dislikes Hillary much much more, for various reasons. We are New Yorkers, remember, and she is our Senator. In 2000 I voted for her, one of two winners for whom I voted that time, the other being Al Gore. Of course, the victory did not stick in the latter case.
Then, Michael mocks me for continuing to praise Dennis Kucinich, even after Dennis has announced that he saw a UFO while he was standing in Shirley MacLaine's backyard. (I am sure there is any number of curious things to see, while being in the vicinity of Shirley MacLaine.)
So if John Edwards (yes, thank God, we agree on John Edwards) does not pull off a miraculous trifecta, in NH, NV and SC, I do not know where Michael will end up.
I for my part will try to look more favorably on Barack Obama, if the current momentum carries him to the nomination.
GreenMom,
thanks for your encouraging words, Obama-wise. I have read excerpts from his books, and I do believe there is something "there" there. But like many Democrats, I am dreading that his talk of uniting red and blue states, etc., may amount to a feckless wishi-washiness, like that of Democratic Congressmen for some time now, with unsatisfactory compromise being the only movement in any direction.
Permalink
Greta Posted 3:56 am
06 Jan 2008
Put the candidates strongest qualities together -- Edward's passion and tenacity, Clinton's strength and reasonableness, Obama's affability and optimism, Richardson's executive and cabinet experience, and Kucinich's commitment -- and you get a great candidate.
The ones that more closely match my values (Kucinich and Richardson, for example) have the least chance of winning. The one that I like the best, isn't running.
So, I sit.
Permalink
jrlanman Posted 4:31 am
06 Jan 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:52 pm
06 Jan 2008
I cannot speak for Enki/Mike Johnston, nor can I speak for any other Gristmiller. But it seems fair to say that many Christians -- by no means all! -- , generally of a kind called "socially conservative," especially many evangelical Christians, are guilty of one or both of these sins against God's creation:
Starting with Jerry Falwell in the late 1970s, they have allowed themselves to be organized politically as a consistently Republican-voting bloc. Karl Rove manipulated them masterfully in 2000 and 2004. Theirs has been basically a "pro-life" "family-values" "faith in public" agenda, with no comment on any environmental issue one way or another; but by assuming that Republican candidates would always be the promoters of that agenda, they have empowered many ruthless enemies of the environment. More recently, as more and more evangelical leaders are encouraging an interest in environmental issues, the Old Guard have made attempts to discredit, marginalize and crush them.
Those who believe the Rapture is imminent think that at best it is a waste of time, at worst an act of disobedience against God's will, to show concern for the environment. These include all those who take Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series seriously. Related are all those Christians who are unquestioningly supportive of the state of Israel, the Israeli Defense Force and the irredentist Zionists who dream of a Greater Israel, in the belief that, that way, they are helping to set the stage for Armageddon and the biblically prophesied end of the world.
FWIW, I am a Christian, a Catholic, an X-treem progressive post-biblical one, whom no doubt certain of those conservative Catholics that John Paul II and Benedict XVI have empowered would gladly see excommunicated, if not burnt at the stake.
Permalink