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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (46699)	10/25/2010 9:25:48 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 71588

Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000 Pdf: Read the full Climate Action Network report: ( image.guardian.co.uk ) Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 October 2010 22.57 BST guardian.co.uk US Senate climate change deniers and Tea Party favourites including Jim DeMint and James Inhofe are being funded by BP and other polluters. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images Tea Party Express Begins Final Bus Tour Before Mid-Term Elections US Senate climate change deniers and Tea Party favourites including Jim DeMint and James Inhofe are being funded by BP and other polluters. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned. An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma. The report, released tomorrow, used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe's biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: "The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people." Obama and Democrats have accused corporate interests and anonymous donors of trying to hijack the midterms by funnelling money to the Chamber of Commerce and to conservative Tea Party groups. The Chamber of Commerce reportedly has raised $75m (£47m) for pro-business, mainly Republican candidates. "Oil companies and the other special interests are spending millions on a campaign to gut clean-air standards and clean-energy standards, jeopardising the health and prosperity of this state," Obama told a rally in California on Friday night. Much of the speculation has focused on Karl Rove, the mastermind of George Bush's victories, who has raised $15m for Republican candidates since September through a new organisation, American Crossroads. An NBC report warned that Rove was spearheading an effort to inject some $250m in television advertising for Republican candidates in the final days before the 2 November elections. But Rove, appearing today on CBS television's Face the Nation, accused Democrats of deploying the same tactics in 2008. "The president of the US had no problem at all when the Democrats did this," he said. "It was not a threat to democracy when it helped him get elected." The Cane report said the companies, including BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay, which are some of Europe's biggest emitters, had collectively donated $240,200 to senators who blocked action on global warming – more even than the $217,000 the oil billionaires and Tea Party bankrollers, David and Charles Koch, have donated to Senate campaigns. The biggest single donor was the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which gave $108,100 to senators. BP made $25,000 in campaign donations, of which $18,000 went to senators who opposed action on climate change. Recipients of the European campaign donations included some of the biggest climate deniers in the Senate, such as Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a hoax. The foreign corporate interest in America's midterms is not restricted to Europe. A report by ThinkProgress, operated by the Centre for American Progress, tracked donations to the Chamber of Commerce from a number of Indian and Middle Eastern oil coal and electricity companies. Foreign interest does not stop with the elections. The Guardian reported earlier this year that a Belgian-based chemical company, Solvay, was behind a front group that is suing to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

To: sandintoes who wrote (46699)	11/8/2010 2:31:30 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

That tin ear An impenitent president Nov 4th 2010 \| Washington, dc NOW it is official: Barack Obama does not do contrition well. The usual form after your party has had an electoral thrashing is to appear on television looking ashen and justly chastised, promising to heed the message of the voters and reform your ways. That is what Bill Clinton did with superb theatricality after suffering his own mid-term setback in 1994. Mr Obama’s manner in this week’s day-after White House press conference was one of sombre defiance, in which he appeared graciously to forgive voters for their natural impatience at the pace of economic recovery. True, the president conceded that he had received a “shellacking” at the polls, and that “some election nights are more fun than others.” He accepted that the ultimate responsibility for the disappointment of voters rested with him. He claimed to be ready for compromise with the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, offering to “mix and match” ideas and, where necessary, disagree without being disagreeable. “I’ve got to do a better job, just like everybody else in Washington does,” he said. But the strenuous efforts of the White House press corps to get Mr Obama to say that his policy decisions of the past two years on health care, the stimulus package or anything else might have been mistaken came to naught. As to that mixing and matching, the president said that the parties ought to be able to work together on energy and education, hinted at flexibility on the expiring Bush tax cuts and allowed that he might “tweak” health care here and there. But he also gave warning against spending the next two years “relitigating” the battles of the past two. Perhaps mercifully, he was due to escape Washington on November 5th for the pomp of a ten-day visit to Asia. It will not be an easier town to work in when he returns. economist.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (46699)	11/13/2010 12:39:22 AM
From: Peter Dierks	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The 5 things Obama ought to do now By DANIEL A. CIRUCCI Posted on Wed, Nov. 10, 2010 IT WAS BASEBALL pioneer Satchel Paige who warned: "Don't look back. Something may be gaining on you." In the wake of the midterm elections, that's one bit of advice that President Obama would do well to follow. If his presidency is to survive, he must look forward and must begin to make changes now. But exactly what should Obama do, and how and why? Five simple suggestions: 1. Dump what's left of the Chicago Gang. Rahm Emanuel's departure was a good first step. But too many others in the Chicago clique are still around. All pols like to be surrounded by trusted confidantes. In the rough-and-tumble world of politics, loyalty is an understandably treasured commodity. But the president is different. He's the only public official directly elected by all the American people. Those around him must be attentive to the wide variety of views of a large, diverse society. The president's advisers must present a broad range options in open, vigorous debate. So, it's time for David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs to depart. They'd do the president a favor by making room for some fresh advisers. If they're unwilling to do that, they should be shown the door. 2. Lose the strut and the condescension. The president has a way of pushing himself up on the balls of his feet as he walks. I call it "the strut," and I suspect I'm not alone in finding it oft-putting. Along with this strut comes an air of condescension. Mr. President, those who don't agree with you aren't your enemies. And they aren't misguided or distracted or paralyzed by fear or blinded by anger. (And they aren't necessarily clinging to guns and religion, either.) When you dismiss or trivialize "we the people," you mock the very foundation of our democracy. 3. Get rid of the TelePrompTer. The members of India's legislature were astonished to find Obama reading from it as he addressed them. It was the first time the device had ever been used in India's Parliament House. As one Indian official put it: "We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact." We thought so, too. But the president simply can't seem to function without having his talking points projected in front of him. He's addicted. Why? As someone who's written many speeches and teaches public speaking, I believe it's a sign of insecurity. When you have to use a TelePrompTer (and speak from a script), you're afraid of messing up. If Obama is to be taken seriously, he must master the most common speaking style of the modern age, incorporating extemporaneous or impromptu remarks. If he can be clear and articulate without a manuscript, it will boost his credibility. 4. Bring the Grand Tour to a close. After the India trip, the president should stay home and tend to the problems at hand. That means bringing down the curtain on touring, and maybe even vacationing. It also means ending those frequent TV appearances. The president has been overexposed. It took us nearly eight years to develop Clinton fatigue. But Obama fatigue began to set in after only 18 months. 5. And speaking of Clinton, Obama should have a nice, long sit-down with the former president and elder statesman of the Democrats. Sixteen years ago, Clinton was in the same spot Obama finds himself in today. Clinton faced a GOP House and Senate after the '94 Republican sweep that was one of the largest turnovers in history till now. But with surprising speed, Clinton shook up his staff and moved toward the center. He listened to new people and embraced new ways. And he became a relatively popular two-term president. So call in Clinton. And sit down and listen. Mr. President, follow these steps and don't look back. Then, you won't have to worry about what's gaining on you. Daniel A. Cirucci is a lecturer in corporate communication at Penn State Abington. He blogs at dancirucci.com. philly.com