The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers made a joint announcement this morning in Cleveland that the groups are throwing their support behind Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama.
"We believe Sen. Obama is the change our nation needs -- he is the leader who will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that creates and keeps millions of jobs, spurs innovation and opportunity, and makes us a more secure nation," said Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope in a statement before the official endorsement event.
The groups presented their endorsement in front of a wind turbine at the Great Lakes Science Center in Cleveland. Pope was joined by Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, USW president Leo Gerard, and Sierra Club president Allison Chin.
The Sierra Club has been expected to endorse the candidate for some time. Earlier this week, Pope released a statement chastising Republican presidential candidate John McCain for calling for an end to the moratorium on offshore drilling.
"Drilling our last undeveloped coastlines will do nothing to ease pain at the pump for the average American family. It will only add to the oil industry's tens of billions of dollars in record profits," said Pope. "If Senator McCain is really interested in breaking our addiction to oil, putting America back to work, and tackling global warming, we urge him to reconsider his support for the failed policies of the past."
The Sierra Club is one of the nation's oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organizations, counting 1.3 million members and supporters. United Steelworkers represents 850,000 workers in the metal, rubber, chemical, paper, and oil refining industries in the U.S. and Canada. The two groups have also joined together to form the Blue Green Alliance, which promotes green jobs and energy independence.
"The Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers are standing together in support of Barack Obama because we all share the common goal of putting America back to work by building a clean energy economy," said Gerard in the groups' statement.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
Steve Bloom Posted 2:29 am
20 Jun 2008
Permalink
cavecanem Posted 4:25 am
20 Jun 2008
With emphasis: and supporters.
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 5:53 am
20 Jun 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:54 am
20 Jun 2008
Groups like Sierra Club (SC) that lobby Congress, state legislatures, and city and county governmental bodies, will never offend the Democratic Party by endorsing someone like Nader. I fully agree with everything in your post and will be voting for whomever represents the Green Party on the California ballot, but this is a strategic decisions as much as anything.
SC does not want to offend the politicians they'll be lobbying in fear that those politicians will not listen to them any longer. Because SC has far more influence with members of the the Democratic Party than with those of the Republican Party, the two gangs that run the country on behalf of their corporate and otherwise ruling class masters, it is not willing to risk or sacrifice that influence.
A secondary reason is that SC is nothing more than a mainstream environmental group, which means that aside from environmental issues, its policies are those of the mainstream in the U.S., which are pretty conservative.
So I wouldn't waste your time trying to get groups like SC to endorse anyone running against a Democrat, so long as that Democrat is at least minimally environmentally friendly. Because Obama talks a good line about global warming and came out against the gas tax holiday, SC
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 10:16 am
20 Jun 2008
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:06 pm
20 Jun 2008
Wait. People who love trees and people who work in steel mills both endorse Obama and somehow the Gristwits are cheering?
I guess the Tree Huggers neutralize the carbon footprint of the Hunkies...
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 5:36 pm
20 Jun 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 2:44 am
21 Jun 2008
His style doesn't work. You don't build effective change by running for president once every four years. You build effective change by rolling up your sleeves and doing the hard, unglamourous, day-to-day work it takes to strengthen the organizational base and the think-tanks and the infrastructure that will support meaningful environmental change, WHOEVER gets elected president.
Nader, unfortunately, has done NONE of this for the last eight years. At least nothing I'm aware of. So he's lost any general-election support from me. (And this coming from somebody who did vote for him in '00).
I think Nader should be out campaigning for Instant Runoff Voting, coast-to-coast, for example. THAT will open doors to third parties and broaden the national discussion and generate more long-term change in this country than Nader's quixotic four-year-appearances ever will.
Look at what Gore has accomplished in terms of helping frame the national environmental debate since he got screwed out of being elected in '00.
Now look at what Nader has accomplished.
I rest my case.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:16 am
21 Jun 2008
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 9:37 am
21 Jun 2008
NADER IS AN AGENT OF CHANGE AND THE PROOF IS IN HIS LIFETIME OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Instrumental in the passing of the following legislation:
National Automobile and Highway Traffic Safety Act (1965)
Clean Water Act (1968)
Clean Air Act (1970)
Co-Op Bank Bill (1978)
Law establishing Environmental Protection Agency (1970)
Consumer Product Safety Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Mine Health and Safety Act
Whistleblower Protection Act
Medical Devices safety
Nuclear power safety
Mobile home safety
Consumer credit disclosure law
Pension protection law
Funeral home cost disclosure law
Tire safety & grading disclosure law
Wholesome Meat Act
Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
Wholesome Poultry Product Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1970
Safe Water Drinking Act
Freedom of Information Act
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Founded or sponsored the following organizations:
American Antitrust Institute
Appleseed Foundation
Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
Aviation Consumer Action Project
Buyers Up
Capitol Hill News Service Center for Concerned Engineering
Center for Auto Safety
Center for Insurance Research
Center for Justice and Democracy
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Center for the study of Responsive Law - 1969
Center for Women Policy Studies
Citizen Action Group
Citizen Advocacy Center
Citizen Utility Boards
Citizen Works - 2001
Clean Water Action Project
Clearinghouse for Professional Responsibility
Congress Project
Congress Watch
Congressional Accountability Project - 2000
Connecticut Citizen Action Group
Consumer Project on Technology
Corporate Accountability Research Group
Critical Mass Energy Project
Democracy Rising - 2001
Disability Rights Center
Equal Justice Foundation
Essential Information
FANS (Fight to Advance the Nation's Sports)
Fisherman's Clear Water Action Group
Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse
Global Trade Watch
Government Purchasing Project
Health Research Group
Litigation Group
Multinational Monitor
National Citizen's Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest
National Insurance Consumer Organization
Ohio Public Interest Action Group
Organization for Competitive Markets
Professional Drivers (PROD)
Professionals for Auto Safety
Public Citizen
Pension Rights Center
Princeton Project 55
PROD - truck safety
Public Citizen's Visitor's Center
Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS)
Resource Consumption Alliance (conserve trees) 1004
Retired Professionals Action Group
Shafeek Nader Trust for the Community Interest
Tax Reform Research Group
Telecommunications Research and Action Center
(http://slantblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccain-obama-macaca ...)
Not to mention numerous books, articles and speeches, all but one (a book remembering his father, and even in this he relates much of what his father taught him to the candidate he is today) are geared toward energizing and educating citizens, promoting involvement in politics and exposing bad public policies.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:22 pm
21 Jun 2008
I personally think instrumental is a bit too strong of a word.
Did eh vote in favor of these pieces? Yes, but then again, so did many others.
He wasn't the tie-breaker, primary negotiator, or writer/introducer for most of 'em.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 6:51 pm
21 Jun 2008
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 12:29 pm
22 Jun 2008
What I will say is he squandered an opportunity. Ralphie got -- what? -- something like 2.8 million votes for president in 2000. When he failed to win the election (surprise, suprise), what did he do to organize and build upon the support that 2.8 million people showed him?
Well. Um. Let me think about that a minute. I'm sure something will occur to me.
He could have rallied the 2.8 million of us behind some cause he believed in while he had a national platform and our attention. Instant runoff voting, for example, or renewable energy.
But he kind of disappeared off of the national stage, at least as far as I could tell. And I consider myself better informed and more curious about what's going on nationally than your average Joe. How many average Joes went out of their way to carefully track Ralph's activities through "Princeton Project 55", do you think? How many people who read this site have a clue as to what "Princeton Project 55" does, do you think?
OK, maybe our general ignorance can be blamed on the MSM, but they sure didn't ignore him when he popped up again 4 years later, like a prairie dog out of a different hole in the ground, ready to run again!
There are lots of people I'd like to see as president of the United States rather than Barack Obama or -- god help us -- John McSame. But it doesn't mean they all should get my vote under the crappy winner-take-all system we have now. Hell, maybe they should ALL run for president! Then we can vote for EXACTLY the person we each really want in the White House without compromising a single one of our precious values!
The person I'd vote for would probably garner about 12,000 votes nationally. Which means that McCain will install himself for 4 years, and worse yet will install two more fascist Supreme Court justices for life.
Hell yeah, that will show the corporate bastards who is boss around here!
Permalink
randino Posted 2:34 am
23 Jun 2008
If he gets in, he will betray us. He will disappoint us. He will piss us off. This is guaranteed. But he will also create openings and change the overall political atmosphere in such ways that it will cause issues to break in a way we haven't been able to enjoy in decades. We have to be ready to take the small opennings that he creates, and make them big enough to drive a truck through. That is our job. We need to be ready to back him and we need to be ready to kick his ass.
In the too many years I have been in this movement, I have met two types of people. Those who want to go to heaven and those who want to change the world. I wish all the luck to the first, and say to the later get ready for some fun, because it is going to be wild.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:59 am
23 Jun 2008
It's not at all true that corporate media do not ignore Nader when he runs for president. In fact, they censor him -- along with all other third party candidates -- by preventing him from participating in the debates.
Because the U.S. is mainly a fascist government (i.e., run by the corporations), the corporate media get to set the rules. As the airwaves are public, the government should at least exercise some control and regulation over them and require 1) provision of free air time to all candidates and 2) equal debate time for all candidates, with no exclusion from debates. The latter was not even provided to those whom the corporate media deemed minor candidates in the early primary debates, as those who were anointed by the ruling class got far more time.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:48 am
23 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:58 am
23 Jun 2008
Likewise, there's no connection between fascism and Haliburton, Blackwater, ExxonMobil, or any other corporations today. They all have the interests of humanity at heart, not the interests of stockholders (white northern europeans).
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:19 am
23 Jun 2008
Your reasons for supporting Barak Obama are strategic, logical, rational, and legitimate. But that doesn't mean that those of us who strongly object to his positions on major issues such as war, imperialism, and the environment, should all vote for him. Personally, I could never bring myself to vote for someone like him, and I'm not politically naive. I realize that whoever the Green Party candidate is in California, for whom I'll be voting, has no realistic probability of winning the election, but there are still two very good reasons to vote for the candidate who stands for your values:
1. CHANGING THE SYSTEM The U.S. electoral system is completely broken in that it is not at all representative. Because of the winner-take-all system, people are coerced into voting for the evil of two lessers instead of voting for the candidate who best represents their views. (The allowance of private campaign financing is another cause of this problem, but that's basically a different issue.) In elections to a single office, such as president or governor, what's needed is ranked choice instant runoff voting, as Gonzo mentioned. This would eliminate any "spoiler" claims and would allow people to rank their choices instead of being coerced to vote for people who don't represent their views.
But Randy and Gonzo are correct, we don't have that system, so why not vote the lesser of evils and at least prevent someone like McCain from getting elected? Because, by doing that you continue to support the lesser of evils system. This is an issue of whether you're Sierra Club or Earth First!, progressive Democrat or Green Party, and some of us are the latter. It's more important to us to stop the lesser of evils system than who gets elected president (or anything else), and that system will never be stopped if even progressives buy into it by participating. This does not preclude compromising. For me, even a Green Party candidate does not represent my values, which would be adequately represented only by a traditional Native American, such as someone representative of the American Indian Movement. So voting Green is a compromise for me, but it's as far as I'm willing to go. Moreover, just voting is a compromise for everyone, because you can't find anyone with whom you agree on every issue. But for some of us, voting for a Democrat, aside from people like Dennis Kucinich, is far too much of a compromise.
2. VOTING AT THE POLLS IS NOT YOUR MOST IMPORTANT VOTE By buying in to the lesser-of-evils argument and voting that way, people are led to believe that their vote for one of two meaningless candidates is all important. It is not! How one votes with one's pocketbook is far more important than how one votes at the polls. So convincing people to buy into the lesser-of-evils system not only supports that system, it also leads people to believe that their consumption or lack thereof has little or no effect and that they need not take any responsibility for it. By communicating that we should vote for candidates who best express our values even if we don't think they'll win, people can also be told that their daily actions count for far more than their votes. It would make no sense to vote for an evil of lessers if one believes that one's purchases or refusal to purchase has more power than one's vote at the polls.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:27 am
23 Jun 2008
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 5:11 am
23 Jun 2008
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 7:40 am
23 Jun 2008
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9E-5KivgwO4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t3kI8LNTqNo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lqZxnehm4FI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UUY9ahSCMG0
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:41 am
23 Jun 2008
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:06 pm
23 Jun 2008
Though I agree that corporations and facism are not necessarily the same thing, it should be pointed out that, historically speaking, Hitler did indeed ally himself with a great many corporate interests.
As do nearly all world leaders, both "good" and "bad".
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:51 pm
23 Jun 2008
As it is, I do pretty well, staying awake, while she tells me about her latest book review at her local Barnes & Noble.
She never much liked books about the Third Reich, as I recall. They depressed her awfully; and I can see why.
By the same token, must-reading for one and all is Christopher Isherwood's "Berlin Stories," inspiration for one of the greatest of all musical comico-whatevers, "Cabaret," by
Fred Ebb and John Kander.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:57 pm
23 Jun 2008
Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as among its integral parts: nationalism, militarism, anti-communism, totalitarianism, statism, dictatorship, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to classic political and economic liberalism.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:02 pm
23 Jun 2008
Of course, I would nt be surprised to find out he's a member of the ALF - Animal Liberation Front engaging in criminal activities.
Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.
Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as among its integral parts: nationalism, militarism, anti-communism, totalitarianism, statism, dictatorship, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to classic political and economic liberalism.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:33 am
24 Jun 2008
militarism - check
anti-communism - check
totalitarianism - getting there...does being jailed with no charges for 7 years count?
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:55 am
24 Jun 2008
E.g., in Italy, not only did the Fascists make the trains run on time, but they also did some praiseworthy archeological excavations and restorations.
Which is certainly not to justify their politics otherwise. ...
O poor Wolverine, watch out for those Dementors!
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:47 am
24 Jun 2008
Mac can rely on dictionaries published by the same corporations that run things and censor ideas they don't like, but I couldn't care less what a dictionary says when it runs counter to what the person who invented the term says it means. Fascism is exactly what I said it is, though it usually has other characteristics like nationalism and totalitarianism. However, it is totally incorrect to use Nazi Germany as an example of fascism. Nazism is a peculiar form of fascism. Mussolini and his Italy were much more representative.
And BTW Tasermon, John was being facetious. I too was originally taken aback by his comments, till I burst out laughing when I realized he wasn't being directly serious.
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 6:04 pm
24 Jun 2008
Nationalist aggression was a hallmark of Hitler's rule. He occupied Austria, the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, in each case declaring (falsely) that Germany's very existence was threatened by dark forces in those countries. Mussolini attacked Ethiopia and reasserted Italian control over Libya. Japan attacked Korea, Manchuria, China, Formosa (Taiwan), and much of southeast Asia.
In all three countries, the leaders used nationalist aggression to whip their people into militaristic frenzies and to intimidate opposition movements. At the Nuremberg war trials, Herman Goering, head of the German Air Force, gave one of the most lucid explanations of how this process worked:
"Naturally, the common people don't want war. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
The second classic characteristic of fascism is the fusing of the state with large corporations. It was the major industrialists who backed Mussolini's campaign to purge Italy of labor unions and leftists. In Germany, it was the Prussian aristocrats and corporate interests who funded Hitler's National Socialist party on his promise that he would eliminate liberal opposition. In Japan, it was the Zaibatsus - the industrial conglomerates - that underwrote the rise of the militarist state.
As each of these fascist governments ramped up for war, large corporations reaped fabulous profits as monopoly suppliers of energy, weapons, construction services, chemicals, and industrial machinery. In the German case, they benefited as well from the use of slave labor in factories, mines, and concentration camps in Germany and throughout Eastern Europe.
The third classic characteristic of fascism is single party rule. At its core, fascism is profoundly anti-democratic. In none of the fascist countries were competing parties tolerated. In Italy, the fascists deployed "blackshirts" - bands of thugs - to intimidate and in some cases murder opposition figures. In Japan, militarist fervor allowed only loyalty to the Emperor.
Germany adopted the model of Italy, employing "brownshirts" to harass and threaten opposition parties. Almost immediately after Hitler's assumption of power in 1933, the German parliament building, the Reichstag, was burned in a fire later attributed to the Nazis. Hitler used the event to outlaw all competing parties and consolidate political power in himself.
The fourth classic indicator of fascism is the suppression of civil liberties. Immediately upon being appointed Chancellor, Hitler began a systematic campaign of dismantling protections of the individual that were part of the Weimar Constitution. Freedom of speech, press, and assembly were aggressively suppressed.
Citizens could be arrested without charge, held without bail, transferred to remote prisons without notification of relatives, and executed on the flimsiest of pretexts. Spying on the people by the government became rampant. By August 1934, Hitler had effectively seized all power, leaving the national legislature as a mere rubber stamp and an echo chamber for his increasingly deranged rantings.
The final characteristic that marks the existence of fascism is pervasive propaganda. It was in Mein Kampf, written in 1925, that Hitler first propounded the Big Lie as a technique for controlling the thoughts of the masses: lie; lie big; and lie often. Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" became the canonical film embodying the practice of pervasive state-driven propaganda.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0905-22.htm
Freakin out yet?
Permalink