Organizing for America (nee Obama for America) is engaging in a wish-washing (TM -RR) exercise, barrel shooting Republican rejectionists, while ignoring the in the room approval of the Keystone pipline. Greg Laden posted about a local meeting in Minneapolis where OfA gathered together local activists to discuss climate change activism, and trying to avoid talking about Keystone
Eli, in the comments were a bit blunterThere are two things that I now know for certain. The first, which I learned tonight, is that Obama for America will not have an effective climate change component if Obama does not come out in opposition to Keystone. Every single one of those activists is involved in a half dozen different projects, some focused on one issue, other on many, that they devote considerable time to, and that they regard, quite rightly, as very important. Many of the individuals in the room are heavily involved already in climate change activism and are already working with existing political groups, churches, or other organizations on climate change (our local 350.org guy was there for example). These climate change activists don’t need the OFA, though the OFA needs them. . . . Right now, Obama has not moved forward enough for us to find any space behind him so that he can actually lead us.
The consensus at tonight’s meeting was this: The local Minneapolis OFA has to take a message back to Obama and OFA headquarters: Yes, of course we’ll help. But first you need to get your head out of the sand. In particular, the Alberta tar sands. And then we will do more than help. We’ll carry you.
The problem, of course, is that being from MN you were too polite. You should have told the guy, “look, this is our key issue. Either Obama kills the pipeline or he kills all support from environmental and climate change activists. Take that message back to Chicago.”
Eli might have added something about the hippy punching first term not having exactly built a level of trust.
Then you leave.
There is a saying that the Republicans fear their base and the Democrats despise theirs. It really is time to demand results, and to start putting up candidates in primaries even if that means loosing a few elections.
OFA is a pressure point because they need the spirited.
Now Eli does not do huffs, but Ms. Rabett has a policy that when someone gets difficult with her of sending in Eli with the admonition, Eli, you know how you are. Be that way.
The "Criticism of Obama is off limits" philosophy is hardly new or unique to OFA.
ReplyDeleteHardly.
It has been standard operating procedure for Democrats and quite strictly "enforced" by the party faithful.
And Keystone should be opposed because it is just a very bad idea (as pointed out by James Hansen, Bill McKibben and others) not because it means Obama might lose supporters.
Just how many would that actually be, anyway?
Where are these hypothetical "Obama deserters" supposed to be deserting to? (to say nothing of the fact that many Democrats mindlessly follow him no matter what he does.)
Obama certainly knows that better than anyone else.
The best time to criticize (with most leverage) was before the last election, but of course, the vast majority of Democrats were completely silent (and silencing) at the time for fear of giving Romney a couple votes.
~@:>
Hand sitting. OfA needs the people who care about stopping Keystone cause everyone else will anyhow sit on their hands. It's the price OfA and O are going to have to pay.
ReplyDelete"There is a saying that the Republicans fear their base and the Democrats despise theirs. It really is time to demand results, and to start putting up candidates in primaries even if that means loosing a few elections."
ReplyDeleteSo the solution is to create a climate-hawk Tea Party for the Democrats, just because Obama might not kill a single pipeline.
Jebus, talk about myopic.
If you think it's hard to get any support from Republicans for an effective climate-policy now, or just about any other Obama policy, just wait until you throw a noisy wing of climate hawks into congress.
Frankly, you have many of the technical tools to bring GHG emissions under control already, it's just getting the Republicans and wishy-washy Democrats to buy into them too. You don't need climate hawks to do this, but you do need people with broad political appeal willing to reach across the aisle. After watching the Republicans begin to implode because of their Tea Party, are you really sure you want something similar for the Democrats?
Because the big risks are legislative gridlock (which results in no climate action) or handing over congress or the presidency to republicans because the climate-hawk candidates can't appeal to enough voters (which also causes no action). I just do not see a winning scenario in this.
Miguelito, this is politics not afternoon tea.
ReplyDeleteObama (OfA is Obama) cashed a lot of chips with the environmental community. They are now being called in. If he doesn't pay up then he forfeits future support.
"If he doesn't pay up then he forfeits future support"
ReplyDeleteAnd Obama will send their names over to the IRS.
1
"Miguelito, this is politics not afternoon tea.
ReplyDeleteObama (OfA is Obama) cashed a lot of chips with the environmental community. They are now being called in. If he doesn't pay up then he forfeits future support."
But if you can't win elections or gather support in congress, then you'll never change the rules, afternoon tea or not.
Look at Canada. We have the Green Party here, which has some significant support amongst the general population and has been running a full-slate of candidates across the country for well over ten years. They share many of the goals of what you're talking about: GHG reduction, pipeline bans, etc.
But they've elected a total of one MP. The talk of pipeline bans from the British Columbia NDP may also have scared undecided voters into Liberal arms in the last provincial election, giving the Liberals another win. And this was in B.C., the most hippy-friendly province in the country.
What you're talking about is going to be much more difficult than you think.
Difficult, yes, but a start is necessary.
ReplyDelete> forfeits future support
ReplyDeleteWell, he could be the scapegoat, but as he's not running in another election, it's other support that has to go forfeit until it's earned.
I'm sitting on my hands, which are resting on my checkbook.
My message to the DMC amounts to:
We donate in hope, for future promises, mostly. They need to fool us better, or we need to elect some red-state representatives who, you know, will sometimes represent their constituents.
At this point the tactics used to manage voters seem to be basically yield management -- spray here, weed there, harvest, PROFIT. What, somebody gave cabbages the vote?
You couldn't long gerrymander in a town that had neighborshoods and communities, where people knew each other's people.
Or to put it simpler -- I'm ready to start asking if there are any local primaries in which a Republican candidates would represent people who try to understand the science and pay attention to their neighborhoods' health. Republicans for Public Health, if such exist. (I haven't dared look ...)
ReplyDelete"...You should have told the guy, “look, this is our key issue. Either Obama kills the pipeline or he kills all support from environmental and climate change activists. Take that message back to Chicago...”
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this is twofold. Obama doesn't need your support - he won't be standing for re-election again.
And anyway, who you going to vote for instead - the Republicans? I am pretty sure they won't be killing the pipeline.
Obama needs activist support to pass anything, and sitting on ones hands is not voting, or it is.
ReplyDeleteAs to voting, see Club for Growth. It is a lot easier to run candidates in primaries and given the disconnect between the more conservative Dems and their districts they can be taken out.
deserting to not voting. by not taking environment seriously, democrats are likely to increase the liberal gun nuts and domsday preppers, is my guess.
ReplyDeletethis is humorous: http://www.gayswithguns.net/
ReplyDeleteThis is funny "Cows With Guns - The Original Animation"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI
Your link was more disturbing than humorous.
"Obama needs activist support to pass anything,"
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to your faith in Obama's Grand plan to do an end run around Congress by implementing carbon reductions through regulatory measures?
Given that Obama himself was the one sitting on his hands during the cap and trade legislation failure, I don't think it's very likely he will be pursuing the Congressional route anyway.
And the real irony here is that Obama does not need anyone'ssupport on Keystone, since the decision is his alone to make and can be made with the simple stroke of a pen.
He could have made it long ago, in fact, simply be ruling that the pipeline is not in the US national interest, which is the primary requirement for awarding the permit. From the standpoint of Obama's Presidential prerogative, the rest (including the question of whether the tar sands will get developed anyway) is simply window dressing.
~@:>
Notice the success that Obama is having with his initiatives? He needs backing and that starts with the activists who are watching Keystone closely.
ReplyDeletePeople worked for Obama because Romney was a disaster in the making, but there was nothing like the enthusiasm of 2008. At this point the activists want to see Obama's buy in to their positions and are not going to do anything without it.
Oh, I'm voting, and writing, and supporting, and piling up the pleas for money (we go through them all at once every month or two and decide*).
ReplyDeleteJust sayin' -- if anybody reports seeing a sane Republican trying to win a primary election, in districts where the other Republican primary candidate is a science-denier -- I'll throw some money that way. I'm not into the "polarize the electorate far enough to eliminate the moderate center" approach. We know where that leads, we're there now.
____
* one way is to send money to those that spent less of the money we sent them last time on sending** us fresh appeals for funds.
____
**I'm all in favor of supporting the Postal Service, but that needs fixing the budget trap the Repubs put them in, trying to privatize mail delivery a few years back.
_____
Thanks for posting this! My blood pressure goes up when I see OfA climate change emails in my inbox, yet hear crickets from them on Kesystone XL. I haven't seen any concerted effort from the environmental groups yet on this obvious hypocracy, but hope that the pressure will start to mound.
ReplyDeleteDennis