HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » RiverLover » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Home country: USA
Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2011, 12:59 PM
Number of posts: 7,830

About Me

FDR Populist Progressive who believes the environment trumps all. We\'re sinking the only ship we\'ve got, and govt leaders are ignoring it.

Journal Archives

"Can Sanders fill the Warren void?"

Can Sanders fill the Warren void?

Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders has a problem: He isn't Elizabeth Warren.

...Sanders, who is heading to New Hampshire for his first official campaign appearances on Saturday, wants to be that liberal option. His core positions -- breaking up Wall Street banks, making public college free, investing billions on infrastructure and guaranteeing health care for all -- are the same issues liberal groups have been championing for years. And his early campaign is starting to court organizers in key presidential states.

But as he settles into the Democratic presidential race, the response from some liberal groups and organizers has been markedly more focused on Warren, the middle-class champion and former Harvard professor, not Sanders, the Brooklyn-born, independent lawmaker with a gruff personality and an affinity for the moniker "democratic socialist."

Anna Galland, executive director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, welcomed Sanders into the race and touted his record on Wednesday before noting that the Vermont-based Move On and their allies would "continue to call on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to also bring her tireless advocacy for middle-class and working Americans to the race."

Democracy for America, another liberal group whose views track closely with Sanders, had a similar reaction.

Our "members are excited to have progressive champion Senator Bernie Sanders join the 2016 presidential race," said Charles Chamberlain, the group's executive director, before adding, "We continue to encourage Senator Elizabeth Warren to join the race for president."

..."I like his views, I like him a lot," said Timothy Horrigan, a liberal New Hampshire representative, before listing all the ways Bernie isn't Elizabeth.

"She is more plausible as a president," Horrigan said. "They have similar messages but they have different styles, and her style appeals to a lot of people. She is sort of like Hillary without all the baggage and just a stronger progressive message."

Many in the progressive movement are uncomfortable with questions about why they are supporting Warren over Sanders.


*That last posted sentence, that would be me. I realize my still backing the effort to encourage Warren to change her mind and run for president puts me at odds with most of my fellow FDR Dem DUers.

I will support Bernie once the primaries begin, if Warren hasn't jumped in. But it will be with much less enthusiasm than it would be for Warren if she were running. And it is extremely uncomfortable.

The reason I still want Liz to run is spelled out in the following article. My apologizes to my friends here who will vigorously disagree~

...Yet they still long for Warren to enter the race. “We and our allies continue to call on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to also bring her tireless advocacy for middle-class and working Americans to the race,” Galland said. “Our country will be stronger if she runs.” Why do liberals still yearn for a Warren campaign, with Sanders in the game? Electability. The left doesn’t believe that Sanders can top Clinton, whereas Warren just might. “We need Senator Elizabeth Warren in the race to make sure we have a Democratic nominee who will lead these fights all the way to the White House,” said Ready for Warren’s Erica Sagrans. Sanders, by implication, is not that nominee.

That analysis is correct. Sanders doesn’t have Warren’s charisma or her fundraising base. The “Run Warren Run” Facebook page has ten times more likes than the “Ready for Bernie” page. Her national profile far exceeds his. Among the chattering classes, Warren would be a serious challenger to Clinton. Sanders isn’t.

But even in that best-case scenario, with labor groups supporting him over Clinton, Sanders has approximately no chance of winning. When I asked Ruy Teixeira, a Democratic strategist, whether that hypothetical could put Clinton’s nomination at stake, he responded, “An easy one: No.”

To be fair to Sanders, he’s not entering the race expecting a victory. Citing “confidants,” the Washington Post reported Tuesday that he was mostly entering the race to participate in the debates. Fair enough. Sanders, not one to pull punches, will certainly try to rough Clinton up in any debates. Maybe he can nudge her to the left, particularly on trade. If that happens, his presidential run will be a success.

For the thousands of liberals dreaming of a Warren presidency, simply pushing Clinton to the left isn’t enough. They want to win; Sanders can’t accomplish that. So the futile campaign to convince Warren to enter the race will continue.


Why Elizabeth Warren thinks Bill Clinton made CEO pay even worse

Why Elizabeth Warren thinks Bill Clinton made CEO pay even worse
By Max Ehrenfreund April 27, 2015

...The story begins during Bill Clinton's earliest days in the White House. Soon after his election, he worked with Congress to limit corporations' ability to deduct executive compensation from their taxes, as they do for ordinary workers' wages and other expenses of doing business. A limit of $1 million was set for deductions for executive compensation. There was a big exception, though. Compensation that was dependent on the firm's performance was exempt from the threshold.

...As a result, the new limit didn't prevent executives from receiving ever fatter paychecks -- but they got the money in stock and options, rather than in cash. Clinton and Congress had failed to solve the problem.

"My cynical opinion is that they were trying to look like they were doing something," said Steven Balsam, a professor at Temple University.

Some, like Warren, say the provision was worse than useless. In a speech last week, she called on her colleagues in Congress to change the rules, although without discussing how they'd come about.

"This tax incentive has encouraged financial firms to compensate executives with massive bonuses – bonuses that too often reward short-term risk-taking instead of sustained, long-term growth," she said. "We can close that loophole and stop pushing companies to reward short-term thinking."

Lynn Stout, a law professor at Cornell University and an outspoken skeptic of today's corporate governance, says the Clinton-era shift led executives to try to boost stock prices in the near term by laying off employees and spending less on research and development. These measures, according to this line of thinking, made firms more profitable in the short term because their costs were lower, which resulted in high stock prices, but less able to generate value in the long term for investors and the economy....


Fail. You're really showing a lack of knowledge here.

But making Scott Alvarez a household name is child's play compared to Warren's latest fight: whipping up outrage over the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.

In a Washington Post op-ed today, Warren writes, "ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court."

Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

Warren goes on to argue that the rules of that arbitration end up favoring corporations both in the complaints that get hard and the decisions that get rendered. Interestingly, this isn't just a liberal crusade: the libertarian think tank Cato has a lengthy brief slamming the ISDS as "an unnecessary, unreasonable, and unwise provision to include in trade agreements" that, among other sins, "is not even essential to the task of freeing trade."

This puts Warren on a direct collision course with the Obama administration: passing the TPP deal is one of their top priorities this year.

So can Warren get people to care about ISDS? Maybe! As my colleague Matt Yglesias wrote in his newsletter last night, Warren "has a unique knack among today's elected officials for seizing on things that are languishing in obscurity and making them blow up. The greatest trick the special interests ever played was getting the world to stop paying attention. Warren makes people pay attention."


A staunch supporter of fair trade, Sen. Warren has been extremely vocal in her fight against “free trade” agreements. She’s rallied against the Korean – U.S. “free trade” agreement (KOR-US) a number of times, and has recently been heard speaking out against the highly secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), calling for greater transparency during negotiations. In fact, she has even sent a letter to President Barack Obama’s nominee to head U.S. trade negotiations that detailed her concerns about President Obama’s lack of transparency in the TPP negotiations.

In regards to manufacturing and outsourcing, Sen. Warren believes we need to shift the focus from imports and instead focus on manufacturing American-made products. She believes we must go back to our roots, back to what made America great. That means innovation is key so we can invent and create new products to sell to the rest of the world and aid our ailing economy.

Because she is also a supporter of fair trade, Sen. Warren believes that, to maintain a successful economy, the U.S. must strengthen its trade laws with our trading partners and demand those same trading partners respect workers’ rights and environmental standards.


I've got more links if you need them!

TPP Investment Chapter makes it ILLEGAL to favor local businesses

& local govts/taxpayers must pay corporations to stop polluting~

1. Favoring local ownership is prohibited

Let’s start with the Investment Chapter’s section on how the TPP’s member countries should treat foreign investors:

"Each Party [country] shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory."

Put in plain English, the above paragraph means that signatory countries renounce their right to favor the domestic ownership and control of the lands, waters and other productive assets and services essential to the lives and well-being of their people.

The 12 countries further renounce their right to favor locally owned businesses, corporations, cooperatives, or public enterprises devoted to serving their people with good local jobs, products and services. They must instead give equal or better treatment to global corporations that come only to extract profits.

2. Corporations must be paid to stop polluting

Another provision limits what member countries can do in regard to corporate investments:

"No Party may expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly through measures equivalent to expropriation or nationalization (“expropriation”), except: (a) for a public purpose; (b) in a nondiscriminatory manner; (c) on payment of prompt, adequate, and effective compensation [emphasis added] … ; and (d) in accordance with due process of law."

This provision may sound reasonable, until you look at the chapter’s definition of “investment,” which includes “the expectation of gain or profit.” This odd definition means that a corporation can sue a signatory nation if the country deprives the corporation of expected profits by enacting laws that prohibit the company from selling harmful products, damaging the environment, or exploiting workers. Other language in the chapter makes it clear that this applies to actions at all levels of government.

In other words, a country in the TPP has every right to stop a foreign corporation from harming its people and the environment — but only if the country compensates the corporation for the expense of not harming them....


DURec for the great OP & some truly spectacular replies!!

Here's to the People, and to Liz for Standing Up for all of US!!!

Lets all hope the purchased hearts & minds in congress can be swayed, because once this deal goes through, the only way it can be altered is if ALL countries sign off on the changes.

So if it sucks, we are screwed. If it didn't suck, there would be no reason to hide it from public view. Also, the AFL-CIO would be for it, not fighting like mad against it.

AFL-CIO's Trumka: USTR Told Us Murder Isn't A Violation Under U.S. Trade Deals

U.S. Chamber, AFL-CIO clash at Senate hearing over Obama’s free trade push

AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka explains why labor unions hate Obama’s trade deal

The people FOR this deal are just showing their stripes.

The Warren Fans Who Won't Take No for an Answer

The Warren Fans Who Won't Take No for an Answer

The crowd that gathered in Manhattan on Monday was there to hear a trio of progressive activists—Zephyr Teachout, the 2014 challenger to Governor Andrew Cuomo; Van Jones, an environmental activist; and Lawrence Lessig, the Harvard professor and former Warren colleague—make the case for Warren's candidacy at an event held by Run Warren Run, another draft effort backed by MoveOn.org. This was a Warren choir if ever there was one, but the event was designed, at a moment of possible despair, to persuade the persuaders to keep up the fight.

...When Lessig took the podium to deliver the evening's main address, he made the argument that the core problem facing America in the next election is broader than the individual progressive priorities of campaign finance reform, Wall Street accountability, and reducing the income gap. Fundamentally, he said, the corrupting influence of money in politics had allowed wealthy donors to pick the nominees, if not the winners, in almost the same way that Boss Tweed did nearly 150 years ago. "America has an equality problem," Lessig said, and the person with the most credibility to tackle it is Warren. He made clear that he bore no animus toward Clinton. "In an ordinary time, I think she is the obvious choice for everything she has done and is and could be as president," he said. "But this is not an ordinary time."...

...It hardly bears mentioning that the last politician who inspired this kind of talk among progressives was Barack Obama, who took on Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary after earlier pledging not to run. But Obama was already several months into his presidential candidacy at this point eight years ago, while Warren continues to say no at every opportunity. The gap between her lack of interest and the desperation of her backers is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. "I have no doubt she doesn’t want to run," Lessig told me after his speech. "The question isn’t what she wants to do. It’s a question of what she comes around to recognizing she wants to do." Others noted that it took a draft effort to persuade Warren to run for the Senate in 2012. "Sometimes at moments like this, reluctant leaders can be the most forceful leaders," Teachout said, without providing an example.

Beyond persuading Warren to change her mind, the goal of Ready for Warren and its allies is to put in place a campaign infrastructure and a network of grassroots supporters in the event that she does. And Ben Wikler, MoveOn.org's Washington director, said that with so much time before the primaries, it would be a mistake to "dismantle the runway" now. Bill Clinton didn't enter the 1992 campaign until November of 1991, as Warren supporters are quick to recall...


For me personally, I'm losing hope something will change & she will enter the race. There is a collective equivalent of Boss Tweed out there, pulling the strings in favor of continued corporate rule. But I will still hold a small strand of hope for a Warren run until the primaries truly gear up later in the year. Hey, you never know. Stranger things have happened.

Oh yes, that's the part of FDR's legacy we treasure.

Such a tired meme. It's nothing to do with the New Deal, or this~

We need to remember that we are the children and grandchildren of the men and women who rescued the United States from economic destruction in the Great Depression and defended it against fascism and imperialism in World War II.

We need to remember that we are the children and grandchildren of the men and women who not only saved the nation from economic ruin and political oblivion, but also turned it into the strongest and most prosperous country on earth.

And most of all we need to remember that we are the children and grandchildren of the men and women who accomplished all of that – in the face of powerful conservative, reactionary and corporate opposition and despite their own faults and failings – by making America freer, more equal and more democratic than ever before.

Now, when all that they fought for is under siege and we too find ourselves confronting crises and forces that threaten the nation and all that it stands for, we need to remember that we are the children and grandchildren of the most progressive generation in American history. We are the children of the men and women who articulated, fought for and endowed us with the promise of the Four Freedoms....

Populism2015’s Upshot – Hillary Clinton Has Her Challenger: It Is Us

Populism2015’s Upshot – Hillary Clinton Has Her Challenger: It Is Us

There is one respect in which politics is like investing: You don’t put your eggs in one basket.

The lesson we learned from the Barack Obama presidency is that while it is good to invest some of our hopes in a presidential candidate, no single candidate warrants the investment of all of our hopes. Some of our investment wisely goes to a movement that encourages that candidate to be true to our hopes and discourages that candidate from actions that would betray us.

It’s a lesson worth remembering in the wake of the Populism2015 conference, which brought around 800 activists together under an alliance of National People’s Action, Alliance for a Just Society, USAction and Campaign for America’s Future. Much of the news coverage of the conference revolved around how this emerging alliance will affect Hillary Clinton now that she is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Will the Populism2015 attendees be the foot soldiers for a Clinton challenger?

The answer is yes – but in bigger and more important ways than what some reporters and pundits may be thinking when they ask the question.

The people who attended the conference are not political operatives, even though some of them can be found as campaign volunteers, staffers and even candidates. They are people who have every reason to be fed up and disillusioned by what they have seen in the U.S. capital and in many statehouses around the country, yet fiercely cling to the idea that America’s political structures and economy should function for all of the people, and not just for the rich and powerful. These are the people who on Sunday endorsed a platform “for people and the planet” that will serve as a North Star for organizing and building coalitions, and a yardstick for measuring any candidate running for a major policymaking office – from city council member to president of the United States.

They are people like Eugene Lim, a recent college graduate who joined the community activist group One Northside. He graduated college in the wake of the Great Recession, into the worst job market in generations. Still, “I got angry at myself” for being unable to find work for two years after his graduation, he said during a speech at the conference. “I thought I was poor through some fault of my own.”...

...Sometimes that effort will take the form of marches like the one at the end of the conference on Monday against fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. An estimated 1,000 people took the streets, walking from the AFL-CIO headquarters to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative. They carried with them a Trojan horse, symbolizing the dangers the treaty holds for workers, consumers and the environment. (Watch a video of the march.)

They will be pressing demands like those of low-wage government contract workers, who are planning actions this week to highlight their demand that President Obama sign a “good jobs executive order” that will set the minimum wage for these jobs at $15 an hour and insist that companies with federal contracts allow worker bargaining if the workers desire it.

...That is a dynamic that organizers will seek to replicate again and again in the months and years ahead, with campaigns revolving around each of the planks on the Populism2015 platform for people and the planet. There will be chants of “Run, Warren, Run” (or, as there were at the trade protest yesterday, “Run, Bernie Run,” when Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont spoke). But the goal is to encourage an even more potent force into the 2016 political race: us.

In past elections, millions of us have not found our concerns, our issues, our vision for the country on the ballot. What we’ve seen too often instead is a choice between the truly awful and merely bad. It’s time, the Populism2015 alliance declares, that people have the opportunity to vote for themselves, and for the change they seek. That’s what can happen when an independent movement is in motion, on the streets and in the corridors of power.


Populism2015 Platform

Populism 2015 Opening Plenary~

(Love Jim Hightower...we are "Corporate Greed Weedwackers"! )

So this is the new spin

& its DU endorsed.


Thank you DerekG!

Another proud FDR Dem here, who appreciates you pointing out this manipulative term used by conservatives who are attempting to control the narrative.

Funny how a certain Democratic candidate is now pandering to those "far leftists" who are in actuality the majority of the country, because that is how Obama won in 2008.

...One reason we know voters will embrace populism is that they already have. It’s what they thought they were getting with Obama. In 2008 Obama said he’d bail out homeowners, not just banks. He vowed to fight for a public option, raise the minimum wage and clean up Washington. He called whistle-blowers heroes and said he’d bar lobbyists from his staff. He was critical of drones and wary of the use of force to advance American interests. He spoke eloquently of the threats posed to individual privacy by a runaway national security state.

He turned out to be something else altogether. To blame Republicans ignores a glaring truth: Obama’s record is worst where they had little or no role to play. It wasn’t Republicans who prosecuted all those whistle-blowers and hired all those lobbyists; who authorized drone strikes or kept the NSA chugging along; who reneged on the public option, the minimum wage and aid to homeowners. It wasn’t even Republicans who turned a blind eye to Wall Street corruption and excessive executive compensation. It was Obama.

A populist revolt among Democrats is unlikely absent their reappraisal of Obama, which itself seems unlikely. Not since Robert Kennedy have Democrats been so personally invested in a public figure. Liberals fell hardest so it’s especially hard for them to admit he’s just not that into them....


But this time around it will be different because this time, while the presumptive nominee will be attempting to sound like Obama (& Warren), we will know it is just rhetoric. So while we will get more of the same if she were to win the election, at least we will be spared the bitter disappointment of having been fooled again.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »