Obama’s Gamble Pays Off on Arms Control Treaty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a great story – it shows that President Obama can set a course, develop a plan, and make it happen. The “Yes We Can” mantra is alive and well, and Mr. Obama is showing that he CAN work across the aisle, get Republicans to join him, and do it despite some resistance from members of his own party. The more we hear about Senator Reid, the less impressed I am. Since I was never that impressed to begin, then his stock is VERY low in my portfolio. On the other hand, former Senators Clinton and Biden, in their new roles in the administration, have shown that they can be worthy partners with the president – and they have the ability to pull some levers as well to make it happen. Nice job, team!

Obama’s Gamble Pays Off on Arms Control Treaty – NYTimes.com.

Senate Advances Arms Treaty, 67-28

 

 

Good news! The Senate shows us that reasonable heads can prevail and that not all Republicans are out to get Obama. Maybe we cannot trust the Russians, but this treaty should allow us to keep a closer eye on nuclear weapons. We are safer because of it and because of the Democrats.

Senate Advances Arms Treaty, 67-28 – NYTimes.com.

Murray Wins Senate Race in Washington

Whew. Much-needed victory. Murray Wins Senate Race in Washington – NYTimes.com.

Green Party Monster Bash – Again

[Amended to include results of Illinois gubernatorial race]

When will members of the Green Party learn?

This post will undoubtedly get me in trouble with some my environmentalist friends, but it needs to be said. My environmentalist credentials are solid enough – try to reduce driving, increase our recycling, reduce energy use where possible, etc. I honestly believe that global warming is real and needs to be addressed, and there is plenty of research and data to support this view. I do, however, believe that we need to approach environmental issues with a balance that takes into consideration economic and social needs, but that is just reflecting my generally pragmatic viewpoint. So, all said, I definitely feel that we need to be very environmentally conscious and that our policies need to reflect a concern for the future of the planet.

That said, does the need to address these issues justify the Green Party’s ongoing attempts to make a dent in the national electoral map even when they are confronted by failure after failure? They may argue that winning is not the goal of their candidacies, but is rather merely an attempt to get a “green” agenda into the national debate. But how many failures need to occur before they realize that such a goal is a destructive use of resources?

Was the election of 2000 not enough of a lesson? Because of Nader and his Green Party candidacy, Al Gore lost Florida and therefore lost the edge to combat the Republican takeover of the presidency. Yes, if Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he could have won the election even without Florida. We all know the story, and Gore’s loss cannot all be blamed entirely on Nader. But, the numbers do not lie – simple math shows that the Green Party’s fantastical candidacy in 2000 left us with eight years of George Bush during which we saw some of the most abusive assaults on the environment since the green movement began. How does this sit with members of the Green Party? My guess is that their self-absorption in trying to combat the “two-party” system leaves them blind to their misguided priorities.

Yes, the Green Party lives on. In the process of trying to achieve something via the ballot box, the Green Party continues to squander realistic attempts to achieve real environmental progress. When will they learn? The election of 2010 has provided another set of examples – albeit smaller that the 2000 fiasco, but no less destructive.

A more thorough review of Tuesday night’s election results could probably bring forward even more examples, but a quick review of two races clearly shows the impact of the Green Party – an impact that clearly helps the Republican Party, not the party that can actually do the most for the environment.  That impact does not seem to align well with the platform of the Green Party.

I have heard the arguments – can we assume that all Green Party voters would vote for a Democrat if left no other option? Of course not, but I cna bet that a good portion would cast a ballot for a Democrat before a Republican……

Illinois Senate:

Republican Mark Kirk: 1.765M votes

Democrat Alexi Giannoulias: 1.694M votes (71K less votes than Kirk)

Green Party LeAlan Jones: 117K votes

Assuming that 75% of those Green Party votes went to the Democrat, Giannoulias wins. One more Democrat in the Senate.

Colorado Senate:

Democrat Michael Bennet: 799K votes

Republican Ken Buck: 783K votes

Green Party Bob Kinsey: 36K votes

Bennet wins…but this was too close. Assuming that 75% of those Green Party votes went to the Democrat, Bennet still wins but by a broader margin. Democrats should not have to fight to their left in these tight elections. In a similar vein…

Illinois Governor:

Democrat Patrick Quinn: 1.721M

Republican Bill Brady: 1.702M (19K difference)

Green Party Rich Whitney: 99K

I understand the Green Party’s desire to break the two-party system, but they need to get real. Even the upstart Tea Party produced winners in the election process. Not the Greens. They are just producing more Republicans who can further erode the environment.

Stay green, but join the Democrats so that they can actually win with better margins and do something to help you.