Author: TomP

I’ve written in the past about the preventable death of Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez and her unborn child.  California’s Occupational Safety and Health Agency recently issued a $262,700 fine against the Central Valley farm labor contracting company that employed Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez, the 17-year old farm worker who died of heat stroke because of the company’s negligence in following the law.  That’s not enough. United Farm Workers President, Arturo S. Rodriguez, thinks criminal prosecution is the only way to deter companies so that no more will die:

“This is a case of manslaughter – there is no difference between a driver killing someone while breaking our traffic laws and a labor contractor breaking the law and killing this beautiful young woman. Anything less than criminal prosecution is a desecration of Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez’ death.”

UFW President Arturo S. Rodriguez

More, after the fold.  

(also on Dkos)
I’ve written about Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez before.  For those unfamiliar with this tragedy, here are some links and a brief history.

“How much is the life of a farm worker worth? Is it less than the life of any other human being?”

Please Tell Fallen Farm Worker’s Family We Care

How much is the life of a farm worker worth?

Is it less than the life of any other human being?

Wednesday, May 14 was a hot day. The official temperature was 95 degrees; inside the vineyard where Maria and her boyfriend, Florentino Bautista, worked it was probably about 100 degrees.

It was Maria’s third day of work after arriving in California from Oaxaca, Mexico last February to make money to send to her mother, brothers and sisters in Mexico. Maria dedicated herself to helping her family.

She was laboring for a farm labor contractor, Merced Farm Labor Contracting, on a vineyard east of Stockton growing grapes for West Coast Grape Farming, a division of Bronco Wines, which is also part of Franzia vineyards.

Maria had been working for nine hours that day, since 6 a.m., suckering–removing suckers and leaving the stronger shoots to grow.

There was no water at all for the workers from 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.

There was no shade and since the vines were young, standing only a few feet tall, there was no protection from the hot sun.

There was no training for foremen or workers on what to do if someone became ill from the heat.

All these protections have been demanded by the state of California since 2005, when the United Farm Workers convinced Governor Schwarzenegger to issue the first state regulation in the country to prevent deaths and illnesses from extreme heat.

At 3:40 p.m. on May 14, Maria became dizzy. She was unsteady on her feet. She didn’t know where she was and didn’t recognize Florentino, her boyfriend. He approached her and she passed out, her body lying on the ground. Florentino held her in his arms.

The foreman for the labor contractor, Raul Martinez, came over and stood four or five feet away, staring at the couple for about five minutes. He said, “Oh, that’s what happens to people, but don’t worry. If you apply some rubbing alcohol to her, it will go away.”

Maria was carried to a nearby van that the workers pay seven dollars a day for rides to and from work. She was placed on a back seat. With no air conditioning, it was hotter inside the van than outside.

Someone wet Maria’s bandana with water and placed it on her forehead. She was still unconscious.

The foreman told Florentino to get rubbing alcohol from the store. But Maria’s crew was still working. They had to wait for them to finish as other workers relied on the same van.

The rubbing alcohol didn’t help either. So the van headed towards Lodi. The driver decided Maria looked so ill that she needed medical help. On the way to the clinic in Lodi, the foreman called on the driver’s cell phone and spoke to Florentino. “If you take her to a clinic,” the foreman said, “don’t say she was working [for the contractor]. Say she became sick because she was jogging to get exercise. Since she’s underage, it will create big problems for us.”

They arrived at the clinic at 5:15 p.m., more than an hour and a half after Maria was stricken. She was so sick an ambulance took her to the hospital. Doctors said her temperature upon arrival was 108.4 degrees, far beyond what the human body can take.

Maria’s heart stopped six times in the next two days. The doctors revived her. On Friday morning her good heart stopped again and efforts to revive her failed. The doctors learned Maria was pregnant. She probably never realized she was going to be a mother.

Doctors said if emergency medical help had been summoned or she had been taken to the hospital sooner, she might have survived.

Remarks by UFW President Arturo S. Rodriguez at Funeral Services for Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez, a 17-Year Old Farm Worker Who Died Due to the Heat, quoted in “How much is the life of a farm worker worth? Is it less than the life of any other human being?”

The State of California recently announced that the contractor implicated in Maria’s death would receive the largest fine since the heat regulations were enacted in 2006:  

Atwater-based Merced Farm Labor, the contractor investigated in the death of Lodi teen Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez last spring, was fined $262,700 by the state Wednesday for failure to follow heat illness prevention regulations at the time Jimenez was stricken.

Jimenez, a 17-year-old pregnant farm laborer, collapsed May 14 in a Farmington vineyard operated by West Coast Grape Farming and died two days later. Her death from heatstroke was ruled an occupational death by the San Joaquin County coroner.

The fine to Merced Farm Labor is the largest an agriculture operation has received under heat regulations enacted in 2006 and championed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. They require employers to provide adequate shade and water, employee and supervisor education on heat-related illnesses, rest periods and an emergency plan.

State fines labor firm over death

And it just keeps happenning. On July 13, 2008, I wrote about the fourth farm worker to die in the last few weeks:  
How many Farmworkers must die before someone cares??

Ramiro Carillo was the fourth farm worker in the last two weeks to die of heat stroke and the second this week alone!

Ramiro Carrillo Rodriguez, 48, father of two, died in Selma, CA on Thursday afternoon after working all day for Sun Valley Packing in Reedley thru a farm labor contractor.  

snip

42 year-old farm worker Abdon Felix Garcia, father of three, died on Wednesday after spending the morning and early afternoon working for Sunview Vineyards in Arvin. The coroner says Felix’s body core temperature was measured at 108 degrees just 13 minutes before his death.

64 year-old Jose Macarena Hernandez died during a record-breaking heat wave on June 20 while harvesting butternut squash in Santa Maria on land owned by Sunrise Growers.

How many more must die?  Here’s a list of 13 Suspected Heat Related Farm Worker Deaths: July 2004-July 2008

Any death is too much. Adriana Maestas, on AlterNet, asks How Many More Workers Will We Let Die in the Fields This Summer?  How many will die?  As UFW President Arturo S. Rodriguez said, “How much is the life of a farm worker worth? Is it less than the life of any other human being?”  Is it?  

For too long, the pursuit of profit in this nation was its highest value.  According to the State of California, the contractor was guilty of serious and willful violations of the law:

The citations issued Wednesday included three serious and willful citations, each with a $70,000 fine: failing to provide heat illness prevention training to employees; failing to provide heat illness prevention training to supervisors; and failing to provide prompt medical attention in the case of a serious injury in a remote location.

State fines labor firm over death

Maria died.  It was preventable.

Armando Elenes, a United Farm Workers organizer involved in seeking action against the contractor, said Wednesday that, “the bottom line for us, it’s a little too late, Maria should not have died.”

“To us, it’s obvious that the governor can’t enforce the laws,” he said. “That’s just our position.”

State fines labor firm over death

Please join the UFW in its call for justice for Maria:

“This is a case of manslaughter – there is no difference between a driver killing someone while breaking our traffic laws and a labor contractor breaking the law and killing this beautiful young woman.

Anything less than criminal prosecution is a desecration of Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez’ death.”

As The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. said,

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

“Letter from a Birmingham Jail

We should be outraged as Americans!  No more deaths.  We cannot be silent.  Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.  We all need to act to prevent any more deaths and obtain justice for Maria.  

Maria’s life is worth as much as my own or my child’s life.  She deserved the full protection of the law while alive, but the law failed.  The law did not save her life, but there should be justice.  

Please sign up to receive emails from the United Farm Workers.  Donate if you can to help their organizing campaigns.  Help them fight for justice for Maria.  The UFW will not let this go.  We need to help them.

X-Posted from MyDD

Martin Luther King, III Praises Edwards For Leading The Fight For Economic Justice In America.
Following a meeting at the King Center in Atlanta on the afternoon of Saturday, January 19th, 2008, Martin Luther King, III sent John Edwards a letter praising Edwards’ commitment to fighting poverty and speaking out for those without a voice. King, the first son of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the President and CEO of Realizing the Dream, said his father was a fighter and urged Edwards to continue the fight for justice and equality. He also urged the other candidates to follow Edwards’ lead.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter.

As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

Full letter, after the fold.

January 20, 2008

The Honorable John R. Edwards
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Dear Senator Edwards:

It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father’s legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father’s legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.

I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are – a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.

You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don’t have lobbyists in Washington and they don’t get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.

I am disturbed by how little attention the topic of economic justice has received during this campaign. I want to challenge all candidates to follow your lead, and speak up loudly and forcefully on the issue of economic justice in America.

From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.

I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.

So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.

Sincerely,

Martin L. King, III

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20080121-mlk3/

The talks are about to begin in Bali to create the framework for a new global climate change treaty.  Al Gore will be speaking there (from Al Gore’s mail to supporters of his efforts).

In Bali, Indonesia thousands of delegates from nearly 190 countries have gathered at the UN Conference on Climate Change. In ten days, I will address the conference to urge the adoption of a visionary new treaty to address global warming and I want to bring your voices with me.

Joyhn Edwards today pledged “to meet with world leaders in my first 100 days in office to personally offer America’s support for a vigorous and comprehensive effort to halt global warming.”

Come around after the fold and let’s talk about saving our planet.

X-Posted from Daily Kos..

The 13th United Nations Climate Change Conference started on December 3 – two weeks of talks taking place in Bali, Indonesia, between representatives of about 180 countries, some of which have ratified and some of which have not yet ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Good news at the very beginning of the conference came from Australia, whose government decided to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. New Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd signed the instrument of ratification of the protocol on December 3 and the country will be a full member to the agreement by the end of March 2008. (The Kyoto Protocol is an international legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world, which came into force on February 16 2005).

According to the European Greens, Australia’s decision will “intensify pressure on the US, now isolated among wealthy countries in rejecting the international global-warming pact”.

The Sofia Echo

And you all know this:

The U.S. is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is home to the globe’s largest economy.

Indeed, we are among the worst:

Indonesia: The United States and Saudi Arabia are the world’s worst “climate sinners,” environmental groups said Friday, citing their high and mounting greenhouse gas emissions and inadequate government policies to combat global warming.

AP: US on Defensive at Climate ConferenceHerald Tribune

But it’s okay.  Notwithstanding our terrible record, the Bush administration says it will not be a “roadblock.”  Right.  And Iran has a nuclear weapons program.  Can anyone believe anything they say?

“We’re not here to be a roadblock,” Harlan L. Watson, a top U.S. climate negotiator, told reporters. “We’re committed to a successful conclusion, and we’re going to work very constructively to make that happen.”

HuffPo

But a roadblock is as a roadblock does.

American negotiators at a climate conference came under mounting pressure Thursday to back mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, after Australia threw its support behind deep emission cuts and anti-global warming legislation passed a crucial test in the U.S. Senate.

Despite the pressure, Washington stood firm on Thursday in its refusal to sign the agreement, with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the No. 3 American diplomat, reiterating its stance in a series of appearances and interviews in Australia.

“We do not see eye-to-eye with Australia or many other countries on the signing of Kyoto, that’s obvious,” Burns said in a question-and-answer session after an address in Sydney.

AP

John Edwards pledged a new way when he is is President.  He’ll meet with foreign leaders to work on global warming.  Yes, global warming is a, if not the, major foreign policy issue facing America.  Why? Because if we have no planet on which we can live, the rest does not matter much, does it?

Remember Al Gore’s movie?  Gold bars vrs. the Planet.  John Edwards chooses the planet.

“Global warming is an emergency that requires immediate action from the world community. I applaud international leaders who are starting work in Bali to create a roadmap for a new binding global climate change treaty and urge them to hit the ground running with the knowledge that when George Bush leaves office, America’s next president will be there with them.

“Our government should be offering the world more encouragement than the inadequate remark by the U.S. representative that our country would `not be a roadblock.’ America should be a leader in development of a new treaty that arrests climate change to block the worst effects of global warming. That means binding emission reduction targets, protocols for technology transfers to support efforts by developing countries and an aggressive approach to stopping deforestation.

“As president, I intend to meet with world leaders in my first 100 days in office to personally offer America’s support for a vigorous and comprehensive effort to halt global warming.”

Edwards To World: Start Working And We’ll Be There

I wrote a diary a month ago about my interview with Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action that I titled:  John Edwards will be our First Green President

Q:   You have been President of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action since 1994.  In that time, you have witnessed the buying of the American government by corporate power and their lobbyists.  How important is John Edwards’ willingness to take on these entrenched interests to you in making your endorsement?

A:   This played a big part in our decision. John Edwards has taken a stand against the lobbyists and special interests that have so driven environmental policies in the Bush Administration. Only when candidates refuse to take money from the lobbyists for big oil and big coal can they pursue the kind of environmental polices that protect health and safety of our families. Of all the leading candidates running, we believe John Edwards has the greatest potential to stand up to corporate special interests in the White House.

I agree with Dr. Blackwelder:

Of the leading Democratic candidates for president, John Edwards is most committed, and best prepared, to halt global warming and promote a healthy, livable planet for our families and our future. Friends of the Earth Action feels John Edwards has set the paces among all of the Democratic candidates by putting forth a plan that provides real action to combat global warming.  

My Interview of Friends of the Earth Action President Dr. Blackwelder

More on Friend of the Earth Action’s endorsement of John Edwards and independent campaign to elect John Edwards’ is here:

Friends of the Earth Action Endorses John Edwards

More on the Edwards Plan to combat global warming is here:

Edwards Plan

I’ll end with this:

“Our generation must be the one that says, ‘we must halt global warming.’ Our generation must be the one that says ‘yes’ to renewable fuels and ends forever our dependence on foreign oil. And our generation must be the one that builds the new energy economy. It won’t be easy, but it is time to ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war.” – John Edwards

Meeting foreign leaders in the first 100 days to start work on a global warming treaty that we join.  That’s exactly what we need: real action.  The planet and we simply cannot afford half-measures.  Real change is necessary to survive.

Hi.  TomP here with tonight’s Edwards Evening News Roundup.  It was a busy day and I have a lot of good stories:

1.   A Clear difference: Edwards and Clinton: Leaving or Staying in Iraq: Combat Troops.
2.  Edwards opposes anti-worker Peru Trade Agreement; Clinton and Obama support it.
3.  A new endorsement in Iowa.

There’s a lot of news, but these threee stores are key tonight.  We’ll have an indepth focus on the first story.  Come around and enjoy EENR!

1.   A Clear difference: Edwards and Clinton: Leaving or Staying in Iraq: Combat Troops.

Combat Missions? Clinton, Edwards Spar

Edwards has been criticizing Clinton for her plan to continue combat missions against al-Qaida in Iraq. His campaign says that would be a continuation of what it calls the “U.S. occupation” that he will end if elected president.

Edwards says that doesn’t mean he’ll stop fighting against terrorists in Iraq. The difference, he told The Boston Globe in an article published Thursday, is that his counterterrorism missions would be based in Kuwait and elsewhere in the Middle East and conduct quick “expeditions” into Iraq.

“We’re battling Al Qaeda all over the world right now and we don’t occupy countries to do it,” he said. “We don’t have to occupy Iraq.”

Snip

As president, Edwards says he would immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops and bring the remaining troops home by the end of his first year in office, with the exception of a small military presence to protect the US Embassy. He said he believes a withdrawal would improve the prospects for political reconciliation in Iraq and for regional diplomacy to help stabilize the country, but acknowledged there are no guarantees.

“No one knows what’s going to happen,” Edwards said.

“Keeping troops in Iraq is “like putting a target on the foreheads of American combat troops who stay there ,” Edwards said.

AP

Here’s my view: the key difference between Edwards and Clinton is where the remaining trooops will be: inside or outside Iraq.  That difference matters.

Having troops based in Iraq, as Clinton will, means they have to be ON BASES in Iraq!  That is at least a semi-permanent presence.  Having them stationed outside Iraq in Quick Reaction Forces and moving in and out of Iraq to perform discrete counter-terrorism missions, as necessay, is fundamentally different.

Why?

In Iraq, the tropps are:

1.  Sitting ducks for attacks by Iraq insurgents: Keeping troops in Iraq is “like putting a target on the foreheads of American combat troops who stay there,” Edwards said.
2.  they are STILL occupiers of Iraq, even if only symbolically.  This, in turn, drives the insurgency;
3.  If they are in Iraq, the temptation to use them will bve overwhelming.  Inevitably, they will be pulled into extra and different missions. It’s called mission creep;
4.  Iraquis will never be forced to move toward the political solution necessary so long as they have the crutch of American troops.

Clinton’s choice to leave sgnificant combat troops in Iraq for combat missions means NOT ENDING THE OCCUPATION.

Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis:

“While John Edwards has clearly stated that he will end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, Senator Clinton says she will continue the occupation, keeping combat troops stationed in Iraq for combat missions.”

“Not only has Senator Clinton refused to commit to a timeline for troop withdrawal, she has also stated repeatedly she will continue to use combat troops stationed in Iraq for counterterrorism missions, to fight Iran, protect the Kurds and protect our oil interests.”

AP

“No more than a brigade of troops would remain to protect humanitarian workers and our embassy in Iraq – just as we do in countries across the world.  Stationed in neighboring countries, Quick Reaction Forces would no longer be symbols of an occupation and would continue to work against the emergence of an al Qaeda safe haven in Iraq.”

2. The Anti-Worker Peru Trade Pact Passes the House.

Clinton and Obama support it; John Edwards stands and fights for working people by opposing the New NAFTA.

    a. Edwards Statement On House Passage Of Peru Trade Deal

“I’m disappointed by today’s vote to approve the Peru trade deal and expand the failed NAFTA model that has cost us more than a million jobs.

However, I congratulate the 132 members – including a majority of the voting House Democrats – for their courage in standing up and voting against this flawed deal. The vote should be an alarm bell for President Bush: other flawed trade deals, including South Korea and Columbia, need to be improved before they are brought before Congress.

“I believe that American workers and businesses can compete with any worker or company in the world as long as our government stands up and fights for a level playing field. American workers deserve trade agreements that strengthen and maintain, rather than undercut and erode, labor rights, environmental standards and wages.”

     b.  Edwards Statement On Senator Clinton’s Support For The Peru Trade Deal

“I am terribly disappointed by Senator Clinton’s support for the Peru trade deal. At a time when millions of Americans are concerned about losing their jobs and the economy, it is dismaying that Senator Clinton would side with corporations, their lobbyists and the Bush Administration in support of a flawed trade deal that expands the NAFTA model.

“As I have said before, there are real and serious differences in this presidential race, and our stands on this trade deal are another example. Whereas voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and all across America have learned that I will fight for safe and smart trade, now they see that Senator Clinton, by supporting this trade deal, has chosen to follow a very different path.

“It’s time for Senator Clinton to stand up for working Americans and stop defending corporate lobbyists and a broken system in Washington.”

3.   An Endorsement in Iowa coming tomorrow!

Edwards To Be Endorsed By Key Iowa Group

By Greg Sargent – November 8, 2007

I’ve just learned from several sources that John Edwards will be endorsed by the fiscal group Iowans for Sensible Priorities, a very good get for Edwards in the key early-primary state.

snip

We have 10,000 Iowans who have taken a pledge saying they will vote in the caucuses and only support a candidate who supports shifting 15% of wasteful Pentagon spending into other priorities,” Ms. Huptert said, describing her group’s litmus test issue.

TPM

And that’s the Edwards News for tonight.  There’s a lot more, but this is all I can fit for now!

Update from our intrepid EENR reporters:

The decision to endorse Edwards over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama came down to “courage versus caution,” according to the group’s executive director. “There’s a rhetoric gap with Obama,” executive director Peggy Huppert told ABC News. “He told me personally: ‘Trust me. Ideologically, I’m with you.’ But people have told him to be afraid of being pushed too far to the left. He doesn’t bring up [cuts in Pentagon spending] on his own. He doesn’t incorporate it into his speeches. He skirts around it. He talks around the edges. He never gets to the heart of it in strong, bold language.”

abcnews

Xposted from Daily Kos.

Friends of the Earth and Moveon.org oppose the Lieberman-Warner bill that was passed earlier today by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.  This bill gives hundred of billions of dollars away to corporate polluters.

John Edwards today joined them in opposition to the Lieberman-Warner Polluter Giveaway bill now in the Senate. 

Edwards opposes Lieberman-Warner because the bill “gives away pollution permits to industry for free – a massive corporate windfall – instead of doing what is right and selling them so that we can use these resources to invest in clean energy research and help regular families go green.” 

I also have two comments from the comments in this diary at Daily Kos by Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FoE Action added as Updates here:

More after the fold.
On October 30, 2007, Friends of the Earth announced the results of their new analysis of the bill.  They found that:

Corporate polluters will hit the jackpot if global warming legislation proposed by Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Warner becomes law. The Lieberman-Warner bill will reward corporate polluters by handing them pollution permits worth almost half a trillion dollars, and that’s just one part of this bill. The levels of pollution-rewarding giveaways in this bill are truly obscene.

Friends of the Earth quantifies the giveaways here.

“The Lieberman-Warner bill will reward corporate polluters by handing them pollution permits worth almost half a trillion dollars,” said Friends of the Earth’s Erich Pica, one of the authors of the analysis. “And that’s just one part of this bill. The bill also includes hundreds of billions of dollars of other mind-boggling giveaways. The levels of pollution-rewarding giveaways in this bill are truly obscene.”

In particular, Friends of the Earth’s analysis found that the bill:

• Provides the coal industry and other fossil fuel industries pollution permits worth $436 billion over the life of the legislation; 58 percent of this amount goes to coal
• Returns revenue raised through auctions directly to polluters — for example, an additional $324 billion would subsidize the coal industry’s efforts to develop carbon capture and storage mechanisms
• Directs another $522 billion of auction revenue to low or zero-emissions technologies, which could result in handouts to the nuclear power, big hydro and coal industries, which are not clean (these funds could also be directed toward important clean technologies, such as wind and solar — the legislation is not specific)

snip

“The polluter giveaways are one of several major flaws in this bill,” Pica said.

Friends of the Earth releases new analysis

Moveon.org also opposes this bill:

No free ride for polluters

A new bill in the Senate could be the first climate change legislation that has a chance of passing. The only problem is that it won’t solve climate change, but it will give polluting companies billions in corporate windfall profits.

Companies could buy the credits from the government, and we can use the money to transition to a clean-energy economy. By carefully limiting the number of credits available, we can reduce pollution. But the bill being considered would give most of the credits away for free to the biggest polluters.

We need to speak out before this becomes law.

A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators.

Full petition text:

“Any climate legislation that gives ‘pollution credits’ away for free means windfall profits for big polluters. Congress should ensure that corporations pay taxpayers for these credits. The money raised should help develop clean energy sources and support the workers and consumers affected by the shift to clean energy.”

Sign the Petition

John Edwards opposes this bad bill:

EDWARDS STATEMENT ON GLOBAL WARMING LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement on the Lieberman-Warner bill that was passed earlier today by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works:

“Global warming is a crisis.  Every month, the evidence mounts that decisive action is urgently needed.  At long last, global warming legislation is moving in the Senate. 

“But we cannot be limited in our approach by the armies of lobbyists from big oil companies and other special interests. The critical question is simple: are we going to do everything climate science says is needed to save our planet? The Lieberman-Warner bill says no.  Worst of all, it gives away pollution permits to industry for free – a massive corporate windfall – instead of doing what is right and selling them so that we can use these resources to invest in clean energy research and help regular families go green.

“Ending global warming won’t be easy, but it is time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war.  If we take the necessary steps, we can emerge from the crisis of global warming with an economy built on clean, renewable energy and more than 1 million new jobs.”

http://johnedwards.c…

John Edwards stands with Friends of the Earth and Moveon.org in opposing this corporate giveway.  We need real action on global warming. With stands like this for the Earth, John Edwards is showing that he really will be our First Green President.

UPDATE I: From the comments in this diary (at Daily Kos), Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FoE Action:

John Edwards is showing real leadership on the environment here.  The Lieberman-Warner bill simply does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the rates that scientists say are needed, and it includes massive giveaways to corporate polluters.

Friends of the Earth Action will be urging other presidential candidates to follow Senator Edwards’ lead and call for much stronger legislation.

Dr. Brent Blackwelder,

President, Friends of the Earth Action (www.foeaction.org)

P.S. Friends of the Earth has information about the bill online.  A one-page factsheet is available here, and a longer analysis of the corporate giveaways can be found here.

by Brent Blackwelder on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 11:15:16 AM PDT

[ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Troll  ]

http://www.dailykos….

Update II  In the comments (at Daily Kos), a request for action from Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth Action:

Thanks Ellinorianne (2+ / 0-)

and everyone else for your comments and support.  We’re doing what we can.  But we won’t get anywhere if senators don’t hear from their constituents that this bill needs to get better.

I would encourage all members DailyKos community to call your senators with two key requests:

*  This legislation should ratchet down emissions to get us to a minimum cut of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.  The current bill falls far short of this goal — which is what scientists tell us is needed.

*  100 percent of pollution permits should be auctioned and giveaways to corporate polluters should be eliminated.

The Lieberman-Warner bill is not good enough.  The laws of nature don’t compromise and we must have legislation that does the minimum that scientists tell us is necessary to avoid catastrophe.  Emissions are rising more quickly than almost anyone has predicted and we may not have a second chance to get this right.

by Brent Blackwelder on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 12:42:52 PM PDT

[ Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Troll  ]

http://www.dailykos….

Crossposted with some revisions from Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/26/123221/85

THE big chill between the US and Iran has deepened, with the White House imposing its toughest sanctions in almost three decades on the rogue nation amid concerns the countries are headed for war.

Herald Sun (Australia)

Ben Smith and msnbc report that Senators Clinton and Obama support the Bush move on sanctions, although Senator Obama is verbally a little less hawkish and seems to support them with caveats.  

This is a defining moment in the presidential race.  John Edwards opposes these sanctions and Bush’s march to war:

Hillary backs sanctions

snip

That’s not a difference from Obama, who, Greg Craig wrote today, ” supports strengthening economic sanctions against Iran.”

.It is a difference from Edwards

Ben Smith’s Blog

John Edwards today:

“When Senator Clinton voted to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, she only aided and abetted George Bush and Dick Cheney’s march to war.  

Edwards To Clinton: American People Deserve The Truth – Not More Doubletalk – On Iran

More after the fold about enabling Bush’s march to war.

In announcing sweeping new sanctions against an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, Bush administration officials took pains to offer assurances on Thursday that at least for now, the United States is not going to war with Iran.

snip

The move designated the Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard and four state-owned Iranian banks as supporters of terrorism, and the Guard itself as an illegal exporter of ballistic missiles. The decision thus raised the temperature in American’s ongoing confrontation with Iran over terrorism and nuclear weapons.

snip

After 18 months in which the administration has touted the virtues of collective action against Iran by the United States and its allies, the sanctions are a major turn toward unilateralism.

NY Times

It is not a surprise that after her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Clinton agrees with Bush on this policy:

“I believe that a policy of diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war,” she says in a statement.

Ben Smith’s Blog

Indeed, Bush really is not hawkish enough for Clinton:

The United States is not accusing the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of being a terrorist organization, a step advocated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who voted in favor of such a measure last month and has since come under attack from antiwar members of her Democratic party. Some conservatives in the administration had also pushed for the broader declaration.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said he supports tough sanctions on the Revolutionary Guard, but he contended the measure Clinton supported “made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran – a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.” Obama missed the Senate vote on the Revolutionary Guard, campaigning in New Hampshire

msnbc

Romney is like Bush on steriods:

“If for some reason they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that’s available to us,” Romney remarked.

He added that “bombardment of some kind” must be an option that should be made readily available.

snip

Edwards urged the Bush administration to try more diplomacy to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

www.allheadlinenews.com

John Edwards is standing up to Bush and Clinton:

Presidential contender John Edwards criticized Democratic and Republican rivals alike Thursday for threats and a vote against Iran, accusing Hillary Rodham Clinton of helping a GOP march to war.

Earlier in the day, the Bush administration announced new sanctions against Iran and Republican candidate Mitt Romney said he would consider a military blockade or “bombardment of some kind” to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon.

“You expect that from Republicans, but the Democrats don’t need to be helping,” Edwards told a group gathered in an Iowa high school. “We need to stand up to these people. We need to stop them and we need to be strong in our opposition.”

Edwards, a Democratic former senator, said Clinton made a mistake when she voted recently to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization because President Bush could use the designation to launch military attacks.

msnbc

John Edwards has called on Senator Clinton to stop enabling the Bush/Cheney/Romney march to war with Iran:

The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership to stand against George Bush’s dangerous `preventive war’ policy, which makes force the first option, not the last.

“I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile – and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush’s new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.

“I have called for strong, capable diplomacy to deal with the challenge of Iran, and a carrots and sticks strategy aimed at results–not the Bush/Cheney path, which would escalate tensions, enable attacks, and lead to unintended consequences.

Edwards Statement Calling On Senator Clinton To Stop Enabling George Bush’s Path To War With Iran

Even General Clark, who supports Senator Clinton, opposes this move by Bush.  In an email today, he said:

There are 3 choices in dealing with Iran. You can engage them. You can isolate them. Or you can attack them.

These sanctions could be part of any of the 3 strategies. The sanctions themselves can only be evaluated within the context of the overall policy. Currently, the administration has chosen a path of isolation with the threat of an attack.

This is the wrong strategy. The Bush-Cheney Administration’s failure to use diplomacy in conjunction with these sanctions is unlikely to change Iran’s behavior.

Please join VoteVets.org and me. Send a message to President Bush to use diplomacy to deal with Iran. War is not the answer.

Jim Webb also is calling them out. On Hardball, Webb talked with Chris Matthews:

Matthews: “…But these guys, Kyl – Kyl and Lieberman are not diplomats, they’re hawks.

Webb: “Well, the Cheney element of the administration is well represented in the United States Senate.”

Crooks and Liars

John Edwards today:

“When Senator Clinton voted to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, she only aided and abetted George Bush and Dick Cheney’s march to war.  

“We now have clear confirmation that the administration is planning attacks on Iran.  This morning, NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell reported that Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters on a flight back to the United States last night that there are `contingency plans for an attack on Iran’ and that `the planning has been done.’

“Republican candidates are also beating the drums of war.  In an interview yesterday, Rudy Giuliani also said the military stage is `closer than some of the Democrats believe.’

“Even though she’s cozying up to the Republican approach when she’s inside the Beltway, when she’s in Iowa, Senator Clinton tells a different story.  But with a question so critical, the American people deserve the real truth, not more doubletalk.  And they need members of Congress to stand strong and fight the president on his march to war with Iran – not quicken the pace.”

Edwards To Clinton: American People Deserve The Truth – Not More Doubletalk – On Iran

We need to stop the new war!  Democrats must stop enabling Bush.  John Edwards is right to stand up to Bush, Romney and Clinton on the march to war with Iran.  We have to stop the new war before it starts!!

President Bush plans to play the part of the hero by visiting California, now ravaged by fire. But on this issue he’s the villain — it’s two years after Hurricane Katrina and the only progress he’s made is actually acknowledging that global warming exists. If we’re going to avoid tragedies like this in the future, we must take the long-term view. On this point, the science is clear: global warming has already led to increased wildfire activity in the U.S., and if we don’t dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future, the problem is going to get much worse.  

Friends of the Earth

More than ever, we need a president committed to making real and deep change in how we treat the planet.  

 

“After 7 years of George Bush – the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history – it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.”  

Come around after the fold with me for Part II of my interview with Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action.
This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action, via email about the FoE Action endorsement of John Edwards.  

FOE Action provides political muscle on legislative battles in the U.S. for its sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world.  On October 14, FOE Action became the first major environmental organization to endorse a candidate for president, and they endorsed John Edwards:

“Friends of the Earth Action enthusiastically endorses John Edwards for President,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of FOE Action.

Friends of the Earth Action Endorses John Edwards

FoE Action well understands that you cannot sit down at the table with the corporate polluters and their lobbyists, and then expect them to treat the planet right.  As John Edwards has said, if you sit down at the table with them, they’ll eat your lunch.  You’ve got to beat them:

Q:   You have been President of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action since 1994.  In that time, you have witnessed the buying of the American government by corporate power and their lobbyists.  How important is John Edwards’ willingness to take on these entrenched interests to you in making your endorsement?

A:   This played a big part in our decision. John Edwards has taken a stand against the lobbyists and special interests that have so driven environmental policies in the Bush Administration. Only when candidates refuse to take money from the lobbyists for big oil and big coal can they pursue the kind of environmental polices that protect health and safety of our families. Of all the leading candidates running, we believe John Edwards has the greatest potential to stand up to corporate special interests in the White House.

We also talked about John Edwards’ plan to address global warming:

Q:   At present, part of the costs of global warming are externalized on all of us. Does Edwards favor measures to auction polluter permits to, at least in part, ensure that part of the cost of global warming goes back to where it belongs – on the actual product?

A:   Yes, polluter permits are an important component of Edwards’ plan. He would require polluters to pay for their global warming pollution, a portion of which will raise $10 billion a year for a New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart clean, renewable, and efficient energy technologies and create 1 million jobs.  

Q:  What is Edwards’ position on the annual taxpayer funded subsidies that currently exist for oil companies?

A:  Edwards calls for eliminating $3 billion in annual government subsidies to oil companies. He even says he is “very open to the possibility of an excess profits tax” on oil companies. We feel this is a crucial first step in getting our country back on the right track with its energy policy.  

I don’t know about you, but I agree with Brent Blackwelder and John Edwards about building new nuclear power plants: don’t do it!  This is a clear distinction between John Edwards and the other two major candidates, Clinton and Obama.

Q.   Senators Clinton and Obama have joined one of the top Republicans in the race, Senator McCain of Arizona, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The measure includes more than $3.6 billion in funding and loan guarantees for the planning and construction of nuclear plants using new reactor designs.  Does FOE Action oppose the use of taxpayer money to subsidize the nuclear power industry?  What is your position on this bill?

A.   Friends of the Earth wholeheartedly opposes the construction and development of nuclear power in the United States. Edwards is on the same page, here. He believes nuclear power is too costly, too dangerous, and too vulnerable to attack by our nation’s enemies. New Hampshire, where FOE Action announced its endorsement of Edwards, has the unfortunate distinction of being home to the last-constructed nuclear power plant in the country, Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. The plant places great environmental and health risks on the areas around it, and if constructing a nuclear power was a bad idea 30 years ago, it’s an even worse idea now, particularly given the new realities we face in terms of national security. Nuclear power simply isn’t worth it’s risks, when accidents can have environmental implications that last for generations.  And John Edwards is the only candidate to unambiguously say no to nuclear power.  

And what about Coal to Liquid?  I’m with Edwards and FoE Action on this.

Q:   What is your position on Coal to Liquid technology?   One Democratic presidential candidate cosponsored a bill to provide taxpayer subsidies for this technology.  Edwards opposes CtL.  What does using, let alone subsidizing, CtL really mean for our environment?

A:   Liquid coal is a bad idea for our country and planet. It contributes twice the amount of carbon emissions to our atmosphere that petroleum does, consuming an inordinate amount of water per unit of fuel, and requiring the expansion of ecologically and socially disastrous mining practices. Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is the only leading candidate to oppose coal-to-liquid technology.

That’s right: “Liquid coal is a bad idea for our country and planet.”  

We need a green president now, if we are to survive:

Q:  Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President that actually enforced the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other environmental laws?

A:  After 7 years of George Bush – the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history – it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.  

A final word from FoE Action President, Brent Blackwelder regarding what they and we can do to help elect a green president:

We plan to be especially active in New Hampshire, establishing an independent campaign and organization to carry the message about John Edwards’ global warming plan and his vision for a healthy environment. There is a powerful, untapped environmental constituency out there that is up for grabs in this country and we are here to lend our voice to push that constituency toward Edwards.  We believe he has the right vision and record to tap that constituency.  

In New Hampshire, there are a lot of Democratic primary voters who care deeply about the quality of their environment and cite it as a top concern when choosing a nominee for president. In particular, voters in the Granite State are looking for real action to combat global warming. We plan to spend the next 3 months letting these voters know that John Edwards is the candidate best qualified and most committed to help achieve this big and bold goal.  

Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in our campaign to elect John Edwards as president: FoE Action  (www.foeaction.org)

Help FoE Action to elect our first green president: John Edwards.

Friends of the Earth Action endorse John Edwards’ candidacy for President on October 14, 2007, in New Hampshire:

Crossposted at Blue Hampshire and many other places.

Last week, Friends of the Earth Action (“FOE Action”) endorsed John Edwards.  This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and of Friends of the Earth Action, about FOE Action’s endorsement of John Edwards.

Part I of the interview is in this diary.  

Here’s a little about FOE Action for those unfamiliar with it:

Founded by David Brower in 1967, Friends of the Earth Action has established a 35-year record of not only fighting the tough battles, but winning them too. FoE Action provides extra political muscle on legislative battles here in the U.S. for to our sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world.  

snip

FoE Action looks beyond the symptoms of environmental degredation, to the systemic causes.

FOE Action

Come around after the fold to hear a real hero of the struggle to save our planet.
Mr. Blackwalder is a long-time advocate for the planet and the people on it.  He has worked in Washington DC for over 30 years fighting for clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet.  He has testified before Congress on environmental issues more than 100 times.  

Mr. Blackwelder was founder and first chairman of the board of American Rivers, our nation’s leading river-saving organization. He also founded the Environmental Policy Institute, which merged with Friends of the Earth in 1989.  In 1994 he became president of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action.  

More on Mr. Blackwelder here: Friends of the Earth

On October 14, FOE Action became the first major environmental organization to endorse a candidate for president, and they endorsed John Edwards:

WASHINGTON, DC — Friends of the Earth Action (FOE Action), one of the longest-standing, national environmental organizations in the country, today announced its endorsement of Senator John Edwards for President, citing his leadership on real solutions to combat global warming and his unequivocal position against dangerous and expensive nuclear power.

“Friends of the Earth Action enthusiastically endorses John Edwards for President,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of FOE Action.

Friends of the Earth Action Endorses John Edwards

Mr. Blackwelder answered 10 questions that I sent him via email.  Here is Part I of the Interview.  I will publish the remaining questions and answers in Part II tomorrow.

Q:  What most differentiates John Edwards from the other Democratic presidential candidates with respect to environmental issues?

A:  Of the leading Democratic candidates for president, John Edwards is most committed, and best prepared, to halt global warming and promote a healthy, livable planet for our families and our future. Friends of the Earth Action feels John Edwards has set the paces among all of the Democratic candidates by putting forth a plan that provides real action to combat global warming.  

We encourage people to visit our web site,  www.foeaction.org. to learn more about why we endorsed Edwards and facts about his environmental record.

Q:   John Edwards has proposed a global warming plan that will reduce greenhouse pollution by 20 percent by 2020, and reduce it by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.  What in this plan do you feel will be most effective in achieving this reduction?

A:   John Edwards plans to share America’s clean energy technology with other nations in exchange for binding greenhouse reduction commitments. If necessary, he will insist that strong labor and environmental standards in our trade deals include commitments on climate change. This new deal will require global participation, promote shared responsibility, and let American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field.  In addition, Edwards’ plan will lead America to a new energy economy by investing in clean, renewable energy and creating a million new jobs.  

Q:  Polluters often attempt to present a false choice between environmental degradation and jobs.  In fact, clean, green technologies can mean more jobs for Americans, and good paying jobs.   Edwards proposes creating at least 1 million “green collar jobs” by investing in clean energy and energy efficient technologies.  Can you explain the relationship of economic growth, including good paying jobs, and using clean, green technologies?

A: Edwards really gets it: green does not have to mean fewer jobs.  If our nation makes  serious and smart investments in clean energy technologies, such as wind, solar and geothermal, we can create good-paying jobs, expand markets for the renewable energy industry and secure our country’s energy future.  

Renewables are secure and viable alternatives to dirty, fossil fuels and costly and dangerous nuclear power. They can be scaled up relatively quickly, which means jobs and economic growth for states and local communities in the U.S., particularly in rural areas that have been hardest hit by economic downturns but have the space for these technologies to be constructed and brought online.

Q:  What can FoE Action do to help John Edwards be nominated and then elected?  I understand you plan to set up an independent campaign on Edwards’ behalf in New Hampshire.  How will that work?   How can people inside and outside New Hampshire help you ?

A:  We plan to be especially active in New Hampshire, establishing an independent campaign and organization to carry the message about John Edwards’ global warming plan and his vision for a healthy environment. There is a powerful, untapped environmental constituency out there that is up for grabs in this country and we are here to lend our voice to push that constituency toward Edwards.  We believe he has the right vision and record to tap that constituency.  

In New Hampshire, there are a lot of Democratic primary voters who care deeply about the quality of their environment and cite it as a top concern when choosing a nominee for president. In particular, voters in the Granite State are looking for real action to combat global warming. We plan to spend the next 3 months letting these voters know that John Edwards is the candidate best qualified and most committed to help achieve this big and bold goal.  

Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in our campaign to elect John Edwards as president: www.foeaction.org.

 

I’d like to thank Brent Blackwalder for granting me this interview and Jenna Moran for facilitating it.  I will publish Part II of the interview tomorrow.

I also want to thank Mr. Blackwelder for his years of service to people and our planet in fighting corporate polluters and a corrupt government.

And like he says:  Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in the campaign to elect John Edwards as president: www.foeaction.org.

Crossposted at
Blue Hampshire and Daily Kos and other places.

Also available in orange: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/21/151045/52

Well, I’m sure most of you know now that Clinton is trying to mislead Iowans about her vote for Kyl-Lieberman that sought to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.  She sent out a mass mailing to Iowans making the rather unconvincing argument that her vote was a vote for diplomancy:

After the problematic language was removed, it was clearly a vote for stepped-up diplomacy, not military action.

The full letter is here: Clinton Letter

David Bonior has a statement regarding her letter:

Particularly on the critical challenge on Iran, where the administration appears to be readying the guns of war, Democrats deserve a nominee who only has one mode – and that’s `telling the truth’ mode

Let’s talk Kyl-Lieberman, Clinton, and Iran after the fold.
John Edwards for President Campaign Manager, David Bonior, today released the following statement in response to Senator Clinton’s mailer to Iowa voters defending her Iran vote:

“This morning we see that Senator Clinton is defending her vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. She was entitled to her vote just like she’s entitled to defend it. The problem is her explanation to Iowa voters is different than her explanation to the New York Times.  Her backers told the New York Times that her vote was about shifting from primary election mode to general election mode. Now she’s telling Iowans something different. Apparently she has an Iowa mode and a Washington mode too.

“ We have already seen the devastating consequences of triangulation and manipulation in Iraq. Particularly on the critical challenge on Iran, where the administration appears to be readying the guns of war, Democrats deserve a nominee who only has one mode – and that’s `telling the truth’ mode.”

Edwards Campaign Statement on Clinton’s Iowa Mailer Defending Iran Vote

She is scrambling to try to hide the impact of that vote and what it reveals about her.  But there is no such thing as an “anti-war hawk,” and the truth of her vote is coming out.

In trying to appeal both to the Democrats’ liberal base and to a more centrist general-election audience, Mrs. Clinton, like her husband before her, risks feeding into the assessment of critics that she is more about political calculation than about conviction. The point has been driven home these past few days in her efforts to present herself as the antiwar hawk: vowing to an audience of Democrats to end the war in Iraq while voting in Congress for a harder line against Iran, a move that some Democrats argue could lead to another war.

NY Times: The Perils of Playing Front-Runner

The big problem with Clinton’s vote is that the Kyl-Lieberman resolution declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is part of the armed forces of Iran, a terrorist organization.  You know the Bush illogic: GWOT, call them a terrorist, invade.  We’ve seen it all before.

Senator James Webb sees all the implications of this designation quite clearly.  

Webb said that amendment’s attempt to categorize the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran. “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.”

Think Progress

A declaration that Iran’s Guard is a terrorist group would mark the first time that the United States has added the armed forces of any sovereign government to its list of terrorist organizations.

“The Revolutionary Guards are part of the Iranian government,” Webb said. “If they are attacking us, they’re not a terrorist organization. They’re an attacking army.”

Webb Urges Caution on Use of the “terrorist” label

So does Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and she will not bring it to the House.  She is standing tall on this one:

Asked by host George Stephanopoulos whether she agrees with a recent Senate decree that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a branch of the Iranian military, is a terrorist organization, Mrs. Pelosi replied that, “Whatever Iran’s impact is on our troops in Iraq should be dealt with in Iraq.”

Asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos to elaborate, she said: “It means deal with them militarily in the country that you’re engaged in. There’s never been a declaration by a Congress before in our history, before the Senate acted, that declared a piece of a country’s army to be a terrorist organization.”

NY Observer

John Edwards opposes Kyl-Lieberman’s designation of the Iranian Revoloutionary Guards as a terrorist organization:

“As the New Yorker recently reported, the administration is actively preparing plans to attack Iran. Despite this clear evidence, Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a bill Senator Clinton supported and that takes this nation one step closer to war. While Senator Clinton tries to argue both sides of the issue, the truth is her vote opens the door for the president to attack Iran. I believe we must not allow the president to use force against Iran when so many other diplomatic and economic options are still available.”

 Edwards Statement

Barack Obama, however, disagrees with Pelosi, Webb, and Edwards on labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organziation:

Obama missed the vote, and explained his position — that he favors declaring the Revolutionary Guard terrorists, but opposes other portions of the bill — later that night, a fact Clinton appears to highlight in her letter.

Ben Smith

This is not surprising since Obama cosponsored a bill to do that very thing on April 24, 2007.

Co-sponsors include Barack Obama.

Sen Obama, Barack [IL] – 4/24/2007

Section 3: Sense of Congress:

(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

“Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

This is a wrong road, designating a state entity a “terrorist organization.”  As Speaker Pelosi notes, it is unprecedented.  And as Jim Webb realizes, it could be a mandate for war.  

I know the Dems have been very disappointing.  Capitulated on Iraq, too many, including Clinton support the strategy of designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and still support Buhs’s sledgehammer slogan of the GWOT, but Nancy Pelosi stood tall here.  

Mrs. Pelosi vowed not to pursue in the House any legislation similar to similar to Kyl-Lieberman.

NY Observer

I think she deserves thanks:      Official Site for Nancy Pelosi

And Senator Clinton, Iowans don’t think lunching with Monsanto lobbyists is a rural policy and they sure as hell are not going to buy the load of bs in your letter.  As Bonior said:

Apparently she has an Iowa mode and a Washington mode too.

Also in Orange:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/17/213343/33

Hi all.  TomP here tonight with the Edwards Evening News.

I have several stories.  My first is from msnbc: John Edwards is still in the hunt

Before that: Into Action.  Now the fun begins!

With so little time left until the caucuses and primaries begin, we need your help now! Please join other supporters from all over the country as we travel to the earliest voting states–Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina–for a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks to help engage voters and spread John Edwards’ powerful message.

Road Trip for one America!

More after the fold.  
Some people want to be pundits and talk about political activism and spout off theories and predictions. Edwards supporters know that doing it is much more fun than talking about it.  The future must be lived.

Sign up here:

Road Trip for one America!

 1.  John Edwards is still in the hunt

When the exuberant and iconoclastic Obama entered the contest, Edwards’s candidacy was supposed to collapse like a house of cards. Many of the aides who helped Edwards in 2004 had quit. His wife, Elizabeth, revealed this spring that her breast cancer has spread to her bones. The fundraising of Clinton and Obama dwarfed Edwards’s. All the elites — the news media, the rivals, and especially the political consulting class in Washington — assumed that Edwards’s candidacy would not be viable with Obama in the race.

But here Edwards is, drawing 2,000 people in a tiny Kentucky town, winning second looks from the national press and outperforming Obama in Democratic debates and in the critical kickoff state of Iowa, even though Obama has spent more than $3 million there on biographical television ads.

snip

His “clear message” in this cycle is directed at Clinton. Since the beginning of August, Edwards has sharpened it to a point: She represents the hidebound, sclerotic Washington establishment; he has never taken a dime of lobbyist money. She would solve problems incrementally; he would solve them aggressively. Obama has also claimed that message terrain. But Edwards has generally been bolder in staking it out. Last weekend, Clinton was twice confronted by voters — none of them plants — who asked her tough questions about Iran and Iraq. Those questions were originally voiced not by Obama but by Edwards.

A lot more here: John Edwards is still in the hunt

 2. John Edwards visits Rock Rapids, Iowa, talks health care and Iraq

John Edwards came to northwest Iowa today to promote himself as the presidential candidate for rural America.

The former North Carolina senator spoke to about 100 people at the firehouse in Rock Rapids. Though it’s a heavily Republican part of the state, he focused on core Democratic issues: health care and pulling out of Iraq.

snip

Edwards also burnished his brand as the candidate who cares most about small towns.

“The values I take with me today, every single day, are the values I learned growing up in mill towns,” he said. “You have to believe that when tough times come, your president is going to tell you the truth.”

Argus-Leader.com

 3. Edwards Statement On The One-Year Anniversary Of The Passage Of The Military Commission Act

“A year ago today, a Republican-controlled Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which repudiated the writ of habeas corpus and has allowed the president to imprison whomever he pleases for as long as he pleases without trial, charge or judicial review. Meanwhile, there are indications that U.S. agents continue to use interrogation techniques long considered torture, such as cold cell treatment and waterboarding.

“Congress is considering new wiretapping laws that go well beyond the authority the president needs to keep our country safe by allowing wiretapping of Americans’ phone calls and emails without court supervision. Once again, George Bush is intimidating his critics with political threats.

“It’s time for Congress to show some backbone and stand up for the principles that have always made America strong. To defeat terrorism, we must preserve our moral authority to lead the world. If we are to succeed in spreading democracy abroad, we must defend the fundamental principles of democracy at home.”

 4. On Day Two Of “Barnstorm For Rural America,” Edwards Outlines Plans To Strengthen Rural Communities

“For too long, Washington has forgotten about the needs of rural Americans,” said Edwards. “Every four years, candidates come through Iowa saying that they’ll help rural communities, only to go back to Washington and ignore them again. I will never turn my back on rural America. Growing up in a small town, I learned about family, community and hard work. These are values I carry with me today. As president, I will protect the rural way of life and strengthen rural communities, so we can keep these values alive in our country.”

John Edwards’ Plan to Support Iowa’s Rural Firefighters

“The spirit of public service is so important to America’s small towns. When we honor the bravery of rural firefighters, we strengthen entire communities.” – John Edwards

Because rural areas have limited tax bases and smaller, more dispersed populations, they often struggle to provide vital public safety services. Death rates from fires are 35 percent higher in rural areas than in the rest of the country. Rural fire departments are stretched thin, and most small towns rely entirely on volunteers. As president, John Edwards will help Iowa’s rural firefighters by fighting for fair funding levels, ending the Justice Department backlog on death benefits and guaranteeing job protection for volunteers while they are responding to an emergency. Edwards believes that we must both strengthen support for professional firefighters and recognize the contributions of volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line for little or no pay. [U.S. Fire Administration, 2006]

More Here: John Edwards’ Plan to Support Iowa’s Rural Firefighters

Finally, don’t forget action.  

I never have considered myself a “blogger.”  I’m a commenter who writes a few diaries.  I wandered into Daily Kos a little over a year ago.  I now see myself as an internet activist.

Activists work to make change. I know Edwards supporters are not afraid of hard work.

If you can, sign up for a weekend or even a day in the next two months and travel to the earliest voting states–Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina–for a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks to help engage voters and spread John Edwards’ message.  

Bring EENR on the road!!   All of us, working together, can change America!

Road Trip for one America!