by Robert J. Brulle, excerpted from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
In a summer dominated by heat waves and a devastating nationwide drought, it would seem that climate change would be a major issue in the US presidential campaign. However, quite the opposite is happening. Neither President Barack Obama nor the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, has focused any attention on this critical issue.
In a recent speech on the Senate floor, Senator John Kerry characterized the political discourse in the United States as a “conspiracy of silence … a story of disgraceful denial, back-pedaling, and delay that has brought us perilously close to a climate change catastrophe.” This silence means that we can expect further delays in addressing climate change, delays that we cannot afford.
Presidential politics. Both presidential campaigns have ignored climate change on their web sites. The Romney site advocates vigorous energy development of coal, gas, oil, and nuclear power. Obama’s site focuses on an “all of the above” energy strategy, which advocates the development of all energy sources, including “clean” coal and alternative energy. The statements by the candidates echo this approach….
Public concern. The failure of either candidate to address climate change has had a significant effect on the level of public concern about this issue. Social science research shows that public opinion is heavily influenced by cues from elites — for example, statements issued by prominent politicians and their parties. Citizens use media coverage of controversial issues to gauge the positions of elites they find credible, and then interpret the news based on ideology and party identifications. In a recent study, my colleagues and I found partisan statements to be the largest single factor explaining the ups and downs of public worries about the threat of climate change — and a much more important factor than extreme weather events….
To read the entire piece, go to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Robert J. Brulle is a Professor of Sociology and Environmental Science at Drexel University.
Related Post:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Seriously clean coal? And no infos on the website, that is just bad priority messaging.
btw
Climate Change Will Be A Campaign Issue, We Need to Do Much More To Combat It http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/25/470940/obama-stunner-climate-change-will-be-a-campaign-issue-we-need-to-do-much-more-to-combat-it/
Even better, “clean fracking”: a little gem courtesy Richard Muller on a U.S. television interview on Sunday. Frack…
Good one, Robert.
The scary thing is, Obama will gain votes from crucial independents by featuring climate change, especially as a contrast to the oil soaked Republicans.
Who is he afraid of?
Obama better start addressing climate change.
“Change we can believe in.” is easy to understand if the ‘we’ are billionaires and the ‘change’ is NO change at all to the status quo.
If you live in a Red State, I suggest you vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. It might make some difference in 2016, if we make it until then. Here’s their climate statement.
http://www.gp.org/issue/climate.pdf
The only thing that any politician fears is losing their seat. While I will vote for Dr. Stein, it is because she is the only candidate who would be willing to take on the status quo.
Voting for a Green, or any other 3rd party only in “safe states” is to repeat the failed strategy associated with the Greens 2004 campaign. It lost more Green Party votes than it gained. ‘
However, if you announced that you were voting for Dr. Stein in a “swing state” it would start getting someone’s attention.
I think it’s “what.” Have a cool start to fall and many voters will think a focus on climate change is silly.
Clearly the massive PR campaign to demonize climate science has been a smashing success. I have fooled this campaign and seen most reasonable people cowed into silence.
Any mention of climate science on any blog brings out masses of deniers who either spew the denial talking points [some are paid to do this] or they launch personal attacks to silence the discussion. I can’t believe the otherwise intelligent people who simply go insane at the mere mention of climate science on any blog’s discussion board. “It’s all about instituting a carbon tax to kill the private sector and fund runaway government spending”. Seriously?
I am writing a book comparing my own personal denial and avoidance around dealing with some serious auto-immune diseases and reaching-and crossing- some tipping points because of that. Several hospitalizations and surgeries later (culminating in a live donor, life saving, liver transplant from my brother), I finally learned to take in and act on the information from the medical scientists. Liver disease is, especially in its earlier stages, a relatively ‘silent disease’; minimal overt symptoms. But when it really gets going- look out! Our climate system is clearly reaching (crossing?) tipping points, and our politicians and societies at large are in a similar state of avoidance and denial. My money is on drought – a relatively ‘silent’ area early on in the climate arena (didn’t garner the early press of sea level rise and huge storms)- being the most devastating and intractable aspect of this great disease of our times… and I don’t see a ‘brother’ out there coming to save us. I remain energized and committed (see my recent denial parody video… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvF97cf6x6c ), but sometimes feel overwhelmed with sadness.
I hear you David, I force myself to laugh for 15 minutes every day. Your video helped!
Regarding “The environmental movement should redouble its efforts to move climate change onto the presidential agenda” how can we get the big greens and little greens to all coordinate and focus on climate change together? It seems to me that if the EDF, NRDC, WWF, Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, Protect Our Winters, 350, CCL, and all the other various environmental groups had a coordinated effort we’d all have a lot bigger voice.
We, in the pro-environment community, are agreed about the causes of AGW and its fatal effects, but differ on the solution. That may make coming together difficult.
One suggestion would be for The Sierra Club and other groups to broker (using an enormous email list of members) an investment in wind or solar. All its members (and others) would be urged to invest in a chosen outside company and we would eventually receive a profit. The size of our investment would be based on our (caluculated) carbon footprint
Given that,
in the absence of a global climate treaty adopting a carbon budget under which national carbon emission allocations are defined, any fossil fuels locally displaced by renewable energies will continue to be bought and burnt elsewhere,
your proposal thus seems unlikely to do more than continue the trend of renewables’ deployment providing a small additional energy source alongside burgeoning fossil fuels usage.
How is that helpful ?
Regards,
Lewis
So a little more than half of the 1% concerned about environmental issues are worried about global warming. The report says that Americans will only increase their interest in the issue if they are influenced by “elites.” So they need to be herded like sheep on the most important issue facing mankind. Even in the face of the most devastating drought since the 1930’s it is still easier to get folks to rally against an oil pipeline or fracking than it is for this issue, the ultimate issue facing civilization! “We have met the enemy and he is us!”
Or our system, which has become compromised from ill fated intentions, the parasites are out of control.
Ah, Gore has gone! What a loss! Back to mundanity. The ‘elites’ are elite only in their depravity. The one and only chance for human redemption is that revolution (and the system is irredeemable and must be replaced) will bubble up, like leaking methane, from the lower depths. That is the human race, and I mean the human members, not the facsimiles. Waiting for the ‘elites’ to act would be worse than waiting for Godot.
“Waiting for the ‘elites’ to act would be worse than waiting for Godot.”
Mulga I have been thinking and saying the same thing for years and I do not believe a top down elite led approach will work unless actual world changing disaster occurs. I mean really world changing. Affecting North America and Europe. Not just Africa, Asia and Australia. I mean shutting down world trade and interrupting the food water and energy supply of the privileged nations like the US, Canada, G Britain, France, Germany. That is the only way a top down approach will work. To begin action now we need a bottom up approach like the fight for civil rights in the US.
So how many 100 thousands have to March on Washington for how long to get some attention?
The current ruling elites are ‘elite’ only in greed, arrogance, duplicity and hypocrisy. When the people take over, new elites will emerge, characterised by compassion, humanity, dignity and decency. But the system that puts all power in the hands of the worst in society, capitalism, must go, or humanity will. And the hour is very, very, late.
The only thing that politicians fear is the possibility of losing an election. Until they think that they might lose an election based on their position regarding climate change, nothing will change.
There are several writers here who have suggested a vote for Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein for president in Red States. This “save states” strategy did not work for David Cook in 2004. It won’t work now, since the Democrats will just discount that as a protest vote from a troubling minority.
If, however, those votes were to be cast in Ohio, or Virginia, or some other “swing state” then the Democratic Party will need to pay attention. This is one reason that the major parties will do everything in their power to keep Greens off the ballot in Pennsylvania, a state that is notorious for duplicitous dealings with a candidate’s ability to get on the ballot… like having state employees on tax payer time work to sabotage a voter registration drive.
I live in California, a safe Blue State, and will definitely vote for Dr. Stein. But then, I was one time CoChair of the EcoAction Committee, Green Party US.
It is a shame that Republicans have forgotten their history. I grew up in Arizona when Barry Goldwater was our Senator and understand that he knew Conservation and Conservatism were similar concepts. Or, to quote someone else from the Montana Association of Land Trusts:
Now, if Romm and McKibben and Hansen started to tell people that they should only vote for people who will act on climate change, we might succeed. But they won’t and we won’t.
I agree, and I still have hope that Romm, Hansen, McKibben and others — for example those who join in conversations such as these — will speak truth to power rather than just to each other and even more importantly DO what is necessary to influence or better yet change this broken electoral system. Otherwise we’re just singing clever lyrics to a funereal melody. I think we have to withdraw ourselves from the duopolist system by whatever means necessary.
That’s what we have been doing.
To strike a blow for survival you must vote for anyone but the Demopublicans or Republicrats. Anyone-Mickey flaming Mouse, or Yosemite Sam, is preferable to those who will not act, even now when all but the deranged can see the truth.
Well said (as always) Mulga.
Joe . . can you say who you are going to support for President? If it’s third party let’s mobilize. You are highly respected and have a HUGE voice in this!! I hope you can use your voice, your brilliance and your bully pulpit (if you will) and give it everything you’ve got re: the “election”. What you have done to date is truly heroic. I’m sure I speak for many others when I say this: you are one of my heroes.
MUST READ AND/OR POST: Article in Common Dreams today 8/2 re: Jill Stein. I think this is the beginning of something big . . .
The word “hope” has gotten a bad wrap lately but dare I say for the first time in years . . I’m feeling something that resembles hope–and faith which is the belief that our actions will make a difference!
COME TO MADISON SEPTEMBER 15 for Fighting(Robert M. LaFollette)BobFest. Join Jill Stein, Bill McKibben, Phil Donahue, Jim Hightower—–we could get HUGE momentum at this juncture. We’ve got to do what we can and it MUST include face to face, side by side action.
Whereas Professor Koomey’s post yesterday tended toward the simplistically optimistic, Professor Brulle’s post today tends toward the simplistically pessimistic.
What they both seem to have in common is an underlying idea that we can’t reverse emissions growth without first winning major political battles.
In fact, we have to win the political battles in the medium term. And as climate change impacts mount, that may not be too hard.
But we don’t have to wait for wins over opponents in order to start quantitatively-effective change.
This paper in Nature Climate Change documents a more effective short term approach:
Bridging the Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Gap
Kornelis Blok, Niklas Höhne, Kees van der Leun & Nicholas Harrison
Nature Climate Change 2, 471–474 (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1602
Since that is subscription-required, I’ve posted a summary here:
http://www.architectureweek.com/newsletters/green/127.html#roadmap
Kevin, thanks for the summary of ‘Bridging the Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Gap” you included in your comment.
Given the economic near collapseof some EU nations, China’s economic slowdown, US Senate poised to either go rethugican or comatose, I see the Bridging proposal as optimism on steroids.
Yes, on paper it would likely succeed, if it ever had a chance to be put to a vote. But, it wont create jobs fast enough to reemploy the fossil workforce and that is what Bridging is targeting.
The November Doha negotiation already is being written off as a likely failure. Durban made 2020 the kickoff date for getting serious. It takes a great deal of money for poor countries to invest in beating the SOBs into mitigation submission.
The worst case is coming into focus. Feedbacks, on the horizon, are like that massive dust storm or tsunami heading towards elites and the rest of us.
It is not giving up the fight to begin planning survival for those who will have the means to afford food, fiber and fuel.
Individual actions are not enough to turn climate change around but individuals will act to hold on to whatever we (they) have for as long as possible….ergo, assuring the worst case will be unavoidable.
We need the Jonathan Koomeys to keep our heads above water but they are racing against time in a tone-deaf world while the US big greens age planning their trip to Doha.
Kevin, thanks for the summary of ‘Bridging the Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Gap” you included in your comment.
Given the economic near collapse of some EU nations, China’s economic slowdown, US Senate poised to either go rethugican or comatose, I see the Bridging proposal as optimism on steroids.
Yes, on paper it would likely succeed, if it ever had a chance to be put to a vote. But, it wont create jobs fast enough to reemploy the fossil workforce and that is what Bridging is targeting.
The November Doha negotiation already is being written off as a likely failure. Durban made 2020 the kickoff date for getting serious. It takes a great deal of money for poor countries to invest in beating the SOBs into mitigation submission.
Although I believe the deniers will continue in their delusion when Fl and NY is mostly under water, one would think that big money from Big Agra, such as Archer, Daniels, Midland and other major corporations hurt by AGW would start some lobbying “on the other side” Apocalypse is not good for their bottom line.
The agri-business titans will make even more money when food commodities rise in price. The starvation of the poor is irrelevant.
The article underestimates the public concern over emissions . See
Poll: Most believe in climate change
By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 7/13/12 6:22 AM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78469.html
•66 percent want tax breaks to limit greenhouse gas emission
•Overall, about two-thirds say they think the United States should be a world leader in tackling global warming
Obama! Instead of looking for love in all the wrong places you might tap into what the VOTER is saying.
Obama’s ‘heart’ belongs to Obama and his owners and controllers who have financed and manipulated him since he was talent spotted at college. If he was to betray them…well I wouldn’t want to be in charge of his security.
That’s for sure.
I believe that if Obama had taken any serious action on the GW front earlier he would have put himself and his family up for serious consequences…. Mind you as president and considering the risk GW is it was his responsibility to have done so….
Wind turbine worker threatened with gun
CBC.ca4 hours ago
Wind turbine worker threatened with gun … says he had a shotgun pulled on him while working on a wind turbine site northeast of London, Ont.
The TeaParty did not go third party. They simply organized within the GOP.
As a 4-time presidential Green Party voter, it seems to me we could learn a lot from how the Tea Party has made such an impact, from within one of the major parties. Perhaps we need to kick off a Democratic counterpart, with serious players, and run climate hawks against say-nothing dems in the primaries?
Third party hasn’t been returning a great deal for the effort, so maybe its time to try something new? Something others have made work?
Excellent idea, although if you read the history of Left insurgencies, as outlined in Walter Karp’s ‘Indispensable Enemies’, the Democratic leadership will sabotage its own party if it looks like being taken over by the rabble.
I received a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee survey today asking about my ideas on issues for the 2012 Presidential campaign. I was asked to rank the worry level of Republican positions, who I thought the Republican VP choice might be, what issues I felt were most important for Democrats to run on, etc. There was not a single mention of the environment, much less Global Warming. It made me sick to learn that the calculation has been made to simply ignore these issues in the campaign.
Is there room to write in something like “CLIMATE CHANGE – Deal with it!”?
I received a mailer from the RNC which included a questionnaire and a plea for (unneeded) cash. If I had trashed it, I’d have lost the opportunity to have the RNC billed for the return postage. If I had just posted the return envelope empty, I’d have missed the opportunity to make a statement. So, without bothering to fill out the questionnaire, I scrawled across it in big red letters the phrase “I LIKE IKE”, and returned it in the postage-paid envelope. I’m sure the only effect is that it made me feel good…
So how about asking just why the democrat party has chosen to exclude climate from the election campaign ?
The standard answer, that it would benefit the republican campaign, lacks any supporting evidence stronger than hearsay.
The reality is that climate is a classic wedge issue, where around half of republican voters want action and the republican party is currently committed to denial. Democrats could make hay with this, but whatever it is that has gagged Obama on climate is potent enough to silence the party even in fighting an undecided election.
I don’t share the assumption that fossil lobby money can buy the silence of the entire democrat party machine under these circumstances, because:
1/. campaigning on climate could well be the difference between winning and losing the house, senate and presidential elections;
2/. climate is an issue that is clearly of critical impact on US security, prosperity, public safety, food supply, etc
3/. counter-funding by the great majority of US corporations who are threatened by inaction on climate could massively outweigh fossil lobby funding out of their petty cash.
The standard reason for democrats’ silence: “fear of blowback” and the standard alternative reason: “fossil lobby corruption” are thus patently bullshit.
So how about some discussion of just what is the actual reason for this critically pivotal negligence by the democrats ? So long as we’re attacking diversionary targets, we’ll continue to make no significant headway whatsoever. To make headway, we need to focus effort on real targets.
So what exactly is the reason for the democrats’ weird silence on climate ?
Regards,
Lewis
“The reality is that climate is a classic wedge issue, where around half of republican voters want action”
I’m sorry but I do not believe that. I know what the polls say but I do not believe them. I live in a Republican dominated county. I live in the land of Issa. I know what the voters are saying and before President Obama they were saying all the tired conspiracy crap that has become commonplace today. Since Obama it has become confused with latent Republican racism. The popular bumper sticker around town is OMG – Obama must go. It is common to hear the tired crap about foreign birth, Muslim, “he ain’t one of us” and cap ‘n tax is his secret plan to destroy America. The issue has become Obama’s secret plan to socialize America. Just like his secret plan for gun control…the president who signed the law allowing guns in national parks! The Republican voters are driving the elections of ultra-right Republican candidates. Republican voters are turning Texas into a battleground state. Republicans take the lion’s share of fossil fuel money. Very few Democrats will stand up for Big Oil. No Democrats apologized to BP for polluting the Gulf. Those few Democrats from oil or coal states might not be willing to stand up for a climate bill but the rest will. The Republican voters are much more enthusiastic about voting this year than Democrats and if President Obama were to begin to campaign on limiting CO2 the public firestorm will be real, focused and crippling for his reelection.
Forget the election.. what would the Secret Service’s protective detail think, if NCA went on the climate warpath … meaning leaving the “proven reserves” of the fossil fuel companies in the ground ? Would they consider those companies to be a serious domestic threat? After all, it it would only take a small moral step, considering the ultimate results of their present strategy, and those proven reserves have a huge street value under BAU.
Lewis, you point to 3 factors that could be the basis for a Democratic strategy to solve both political & climate problems. I agree and would add
4/. compelling arguments can now be made (and broadly supported by the business community) for the economic benefits of transitioning to renewables, via a vis job creation, health costs, etc., and
5/. the Climate Movement, increasingly bi-partisan outside Washington and potentially capable of getting out the vote in significant numbers, would be a willing partner to any pro climate Democratic strategy.
But if we are looking to Democrats as a whole “for this critically pivotal negligence”, you’ve already nailed it when you say “whatever it is that has gagged Obama on climate is potent enough to silence the party even in fighting an undecided election.”
He is the leader of his party, his strategy ignores the realities and advantages we’ve listed, and there won’t be a shift unless he initiates it.
So if we must focus on the President, the questions around why he’s dropped these critical issues from his calculations (though burning and infuriating) are less useful at this point than the question: what can be done, now, regardless of our understanding of his motives?
I’ve argued for years that the sword that can cut the Gordian knot is a coordinated grand alliance of the climate movement focused on the difficult task of bringing the public up to speed with the science, the danger, the medium and long term solutions, the moral obligations to our children and all the rest. Public engagement, if it were massive enough, determined enough, would turn the tide.
Brulle’s final three paragraphs of this post are not here. (click, above, to the original at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists):
“PUTTING CLIMATE ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA.
To end the conspiracy of silence, environmental organizations must challenge the irresponsibility of both presidential candidates. One example of how organizations can change the public agenda was the mobilization over the Keystone XL Pipeline. In August 2011, a series of protests and non-violent civil disobedience successfully forced the Obama administration to delay the pipeline.
A second example is the “Flat Earth Five” campaign by the League of Conservation Voters. This campaign has targeted five US Congressional representatives, who deny the basic science of anthropogenic climate change, for defeat in the fall election.
These sorts of approaches need to be applied to the presidential campaign. Both presidential candidates are maintaining the conspiracy of silence, abandoning citizens and future generations to the relentless onslaught of global warming. This political tactic must be challenged. The environmental movement should redouble its efforts to move climate change onto the presidential agenda.”
Of course this is the arena many are working in directly, e.g. 350.org, CAP, Chesapeake Climate Action Network. And you will not find a climate leader from a science, policy or political perspective who has NOT strongly emphasized how critical is to focus on public perception if any political will for change is to be created.
But so far there is no grand coalition that could initiate a media and networking strategy of sufficient scale. We talk about needing a moon-shot in international and federal action on climate. What we need first, and what could be accomplished, is a moon-shot effort from the climate community aimed at dispelling public uncertainty about climate realities and creating public demand for leadership and action. Discussion of this obvious potential and the reasons it is not emerging is sadly lacking in these pages, in my opinion.
Paul Hawkin in a recent interview mentioned the conundrum that incremental-ism will surely kill us, but we that are stuck with acting incrementally. So far that describes the situation. Instead we could have a process where the doers of never-ending incremental deeds, large & small, are ALSO united in a national voice with political clout.
Gore Vidal: ” Without a piper, there is no clarion call”.
“…the Climate Movement, increasingly bi-partisan outside Washington and potentially capable of getting out the vote in significant numbers, would be a willing partner to any pro climate Democratic strategy.”
Show me. Where is the “bi-partisan” movement? The House passed climate bill was attacked by the most powerful environmental groups for being too weak. They did not rally the troops. They did not call for demonstrations. And here we are, today, witnessing the worst drought since the 1930’s. And what are those “bi-partisan” voters likely to do this fall? Vote Republican deniers into the Senate. By January we could very likely have a completely Republican dominated congress. There is your bi-partisan movement.
The only marching on Washington has been against oil pipelines and fracking, not climate change. The marchers seem to have been mostly Democratic or liberal independents. I did not see any signs saying “t-party for climate action.”
The Democrats will be lucky to keep the Senate this year; it looks bleak. A massive movement of people, voters, wants anyone but Obama. He will only win this election if minorities and women turn out in large number and they are not being moved by climate action. So polls might indicate folks want to address climate change, the polls might indicate even Republican voters want to address climate change BUT they want to get Obama out more. So, in effect they are saying that they want a Republican president and a Republican congress to address the issue, as long as it does not involve regulations or big government action. They are more strongly against regulation and big government than they are for stopping climate change.
I do agree President Obama’s climate change messaging has been abysmal. But there are many in congress who have been working on this issue. They have been working for years, before the 2008 campaign, and finally the House got a bill passed only to have the Republican minority kill it in the Senate. Sure Reed could have made a bigger issue of that outcome but he could not have saved the bill. Such is the power of the minority in that body. And, if you think you might like to see an end to the supermajority rule, what will you think when Republicans have the majority and the only thing standing between a bill killing all environmental regulations is the Democratic minority. That is a very likely outcome this fall.
M Tucker, I agree. I see it coming at us; a rethug House and Senate and President Obama, our only line of defense, armed with a veto pen.
Sure. I’m wrong on the point if you read me as saying that the climate movement is bi-partisan over-all, which of course it is not.
By “increasingly” I had in mind a TREND indicated by groups like New Hampshire Republicans for Climate; the new Energy and Enterprise Initiative think tank led by former S. Carolina Republican Bob Inglis who is pushing for a carbon tax; Interfaith Power & Light and others, notably evangelicals, organizing from the religious right.
Also, bi-partisan collaborations on policy just got a vitamin shot with the recent “secret meeting” convened by the American Enterprise Institute earlier this month to look at “Price Carbon Campaign/ Lame Duck Initiative.”:
“Representatives from such liberal groups as Union of Concerned Scientists, Public Citizen, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Brookings Institute, the Climate Action Network and Clean, Air-Cool Planet joined centrist groups such as the Concord Coalition, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and conservatives scholars from AEI and R Street, a group that broke away from the Heartland Institute.”
Then there is Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley’s condemnation of Rommney’s commitment to end the production tax credit that has helped fuel “a boom” in Iowa’s wind industry.
This may be a small trend compared to the also increasing resistance of the congressional right, but I hardly think it’s wise to dismiss it when you consider that the entire U.S. agriculture and ranching sector is facing disaster. Those desperate conservative ranchers & farmers are going to be looking to their conservative reps for answers and in the end will not accept pat denialist idiocy. Oklahomans will turn on Inhof when they figure out that his delusions spell ruin for their economy & way of life. Any support that helps that happen is OK in my book.
I don’t find much use for your & John McCormick’s apparent view that we are screwed no mater what, or your narrow focus on a minor part of my comments.
You may think the idea of coordinated national action is Pollyanna thinking writ large, but I believe it’s the only way to create a social mandate for Obama and support a shift in voter action.
THAT’S what I was putting out and I’d be genuinely interested in your, or anybody’s, comments. I’ve already got plenty of reasons for despair, thanks anyway…
I have to add that what galls me most is the notion that a continued rise of denialist stranglehold on Washington politics and the conservative electorate is INEVITABLE, ending with a useless Presidential veto power in 2013. Too much trouble to try & rewrite the playbook? Wait for another day? Wait for the economy to collapse and say I Told You So? What’s the plan?