Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (214036)	1/22/2007 3:37:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I am so glad that there are people like you here, who maintain hope and vision ... e'en as we can disagree on occasion.

To: michael97123 who wrote (214036)	1/22/2007 4:30:36 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

CEOs ask Bush to back climate protection ___________________________________________________________ By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer The chief executives of 10 major corporations, on the eve of the State of the Union address, urged President Bush on Monday to support mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution and establish reductions targets. "We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection," the executives from a broad range of industries said in a letter to the president. Bush, who in the past has rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, was expected to address climate change in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but has repeatedly argued that voluntary efforts are the best approach. Major industry groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers continue to oppose so-called "cap and trade" proposals to cut climate changing pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. But the 10 executives, representing major utilities, aluminum and chemical companies and financial institutions, said mandatory reductions are needed and that "the cornerstone of this approach" should be a cap-and-trade system. Members of the group, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, include chief executives of Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp. At a news conference, the executives said that mandatory reductions of heat-trapping emissions can be imposed without economic harm and would lead to economic opportunities if done economy-wide and with provisions to mitigate costs. Many of the companies already have voluntarily moved to curb greenhouse pollution, they said. But the executives also said they do not believe voluntary efforts will suffice. "It must be mandatory, so there is no doubt about our actions," said Jim Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy. "The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now." Fred Krupp, president of Environmenal Defense, a member of the alliance, called the executives' support "a game changer" in the debate over climate. "We are asking Congress to not wait for a new administration and not wait for the presidential debates." In the letter the executives urged Congress "to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions." The legislation should cut these releases 10 percent below today's levels within a decade and at least 60 percent by 2050, according to the action plan. At his daily news briefing, White House press secretary Tony Snow dismissed any call for mandatory carbon caps to deal with climate. "There's been some talk about, sort of, binding of economy-wide carbon caps in the speech, but they are not part of the president's proposal," said Snow. The first days of the new Democratically controlled Congress have seen a rush of legislation introduced to address climate change, all of which have some variation of a cap-and-trade approach to dealing with climate change. Among those pushing cap-and-trade climate bills are two leading presidential aspirants, Sens. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill. and John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz. Essentially such a mechanisms would have mandatory limits of greenhouse gas emissions, but would allow companies to trade emission credits to reduce the cost. Companies that can't meet the cap could purchase credits from those that exceed them or in some case from a government auction. Also signing the letter to Bush were the executives of Lehman Brothers, PG&E Corp., PNM Resources, FPL Group and four leading environmental organizations.

To: michael97123 who wrote (214036)	1/22/2007 4:47:48 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

How Obama Vs. Clinton Shapes Up ____________________________________________________________ By E. J. Dionne Jr. Monday, January 22, 2007; A19 washingtonpost.com Three differences and three similarities will define the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. The most important difference lies in where their respective political journeys began. After her early work as an advocate for children, Clinton came to political maturity in the South as part of her husband's efforts to rescue the Democratic Party from its low point in the 1980s. She was shaped by her party's need to win back moderate and conservative voters who had strayed to Ronald Reagan's banner. The resulting Clinton project was a brilliant top-down effort to shape new Democratic ideas that would appeal to Southern whites and the Northern working class. This explains why both Clintons were drawn to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, far more an elite policy shop than a grass-roots organization. In a 2002 speech, Clinton signaled her respect for this approach by praising Al From, the DLC's founder and chief executive, for understanding "from the very beginning . . . that the right ideas were more important even than improving technology, organization or fundraising." Both Clintons have employed Mark Penn, the premier New Democratic pollster who is incessant in his efforts to locate the political center. Obama, by contrast, began his political life as a community organizer in inner-city Chicago. His earliest experiences were of a bottom-up politics mobilizing the poor and the marginalized. This had the paradoxical effect of giving some of his ideas a decidedly progressive and activist tilt and others a more conservative tinge. Consider two statements he made in 1997, shortly after his election to the Illinois Senate. On the one hand, Obama noted that welfare recipients "generally are not represented down here in Springfield," the capital, and that his job was to stand up for them. But the organizer's emphasis on local and community responsibility sounded quite traditional when he declared the same year that "though we may be lobbying for more school funding, it's also important for us to bring education into the homes and ensure parents are checking children's homework, turning off the television, teaching common courtesy." In keeping with his grass-roots background, Obama's campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination kicked off with a sense that it was a national movement, while Clinton, from the moment she announced her intentions on Saturday, commanded a well-established, well-staffed and well-financed national organization. This second contrast can be exaggerated, since Obama will have ample financing. But the feel of the two campaigns is palpably different, with Obama enjoying an advantage on passion and Clinton on organization and discipline. There are warnings for both candidates from the 1984 Democratic primaries, when Walter Mondale, the clear favorite, was nearly upended by the bright young upstart, Gary Hart. The danger for Clinton is that her front-running campaign will develop the habits of a cautious, inflexible behemoth. The bad news for Obama is that the solid Mondale had staying power and ultimately prevailed, though he lost in November. There are, however, limits to the 1984 comparison, as a Clinton supporter noted over the weekend. Obama has been built up into a party savior a full year before the primaries -- he will not enjoy Hart's element of surprise -- even as expectations for Clinton have been defined downward by the incessant speculation about whether she can win. Thus the third difference: Clinton, more than any other Democrat, has been both scarred and toughened by the partisan warfare of the past 15 years, while Obama is unscathed and untested. This contrast was reflected in their announcement speeches. Obama attacked a politics that "has become so bitter and partisan" and pledged himself to "our common interests and concerns as Americans." Clinton spoke proudly of her ability to take on partisan foes. "I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine," she said. "I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate and how to beat them." Yet if Clinton and Obama present different profiles, they are, in certain respects, very much alike. Both have displayed an unusually sophisticated and apparently genuine understanding of the role of religious faith in American politics. Both pride themselves on their ability, proven in their home states, to win over political moderates and voters not tethered to ideology. And the woman who would become the nation's first female president and the man who would become its first African American president know how important the men and women of the white middle class will be to the outcome of the next election. Such voters will probably determine if either of them gets to become a national trailblazer -- and also if any other Democrat can find a way to get in the middle of their fight.