Republican president, senate and house will do for you? Do you really think that the environment will be better off? We will have cleaner air, water and safer food? Really???? Try living in Texas for a while and see what having a Republican controlled state is like. Want to sit back and watch all public park lands sold to the highest bidder? Watch reproductive rights go back to back alleys, coat hangers and women bleeding to death in hotel rooms? If you can't see the bigger picture here, then keep your fucking money, and I for one, as a woman and a Democrat, don't need your one issue idiocy.

withdrawn for further study and then rejected after much protest. I wish Obama WAS moving more rapidly on environmental issues, but, he certainly has a pack of corporatist Dems, including HRC, slowing things down.

little item she conveniently forgot.

This is the process. And we just got done with two terms of Arnold, remember?

Good grief. Susan has raised millions and millions of dollars for Democrats and you level all kinds of slurs at her because she's doing exactly what big donors do?

This thread is full of win.

she's made that Hillary wasn't offered V.P., I guess.

doesn't lister to her?

Why would I believe she would support him in 2012, when she didn't in 2008?

He can't lose what he never had.

That is where the real money is.

"In the past 10 years, she has given $25 million to progressive political and charitable causes and has raised $10 million for candidates and committees, her office said." I assume some of that was in 2008.

Most very wealthy people do not contribute directly to campaigns because the limits. They can only contribute a maximum of $2500. With the Super Pacs unlimited money can be contributed and then the Pacs support the campaign.

If you look at the other posts there is conflicting information.

94129 is the correct zip code.

This is just a convenient timing for her to spew about "disappointment" since she doesn't have the same cash flow anymore....

Esprit to Close All Stores in Unprofitable North America
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-08/esprit-to-close-all-stores-in-unprofitable-north-america.html

Feb. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Esprit Holdings Ltd., the clothing retailer struggling to recover from last year’s 98 percent earnings slump, plans to close all stores in North America after failing to find a buyer for the unprofitable business.

Hong Kong-listed Esprit intends to focus on “finding one or more license partner” to maintain the brand’s presence in North America, said Patrick Lau, head of investor relations and mergers and acquisitions, in an e-mailed statement. The U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries haven’t decided on whether to file for Chapter 11 or equivalent Canadian proceedings.

I understand the desire to undermine the messenger, but it is her money, and I find the idea that someone being disappointed that there hasn't been a stronger stand on issues impacting the environment is disloyal - I find that idea unsettling.

It was her responsibility to vet the project. Instead she produced a crap crony environmental impact study. Even before that she said she was inclined to okay the project. It was Pres O that took the responsibility for the pipeline's fate into his own hands and nixed the project. Susie either doesn't know that or doesn't care. I'm thinking it's the latter.

No doubt some will continue to try to resurrect the project and propose new routes to repackage it, but right now it's hit a brick wall. That's thanks to Pres Obama, not the State Dept and HRC. Was Susie up in HRC's grill when she announced she was inclined to okay the project? No, and that's the point. A pass given for some, not so much for others.

Pres O denied a permit for the Keystone project --- that's DENIED! --- and that unequivocally nixes the project. The fact that TransCanda isn't giving up does not change the status quo of that decision.

That is, they are allowing them to propose putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound. The denial of that particular route has not shut off the environmental disaster that ANY route would bring.

So yes. There is indeed cause for worry and a strong need for environmentalists to keep up the pressure.

Knock yourself out speculating what he might do in the future but you aren't entitled to just ignore what he actually has done here and that is deny the permit.

Last edited Fri Feb 17, 2012, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)

In fact, you keep repeating something I already talked about upthread - TransCanada is free to submit further applications for a permit if they choose. That has already been established. Let me step out of this swerve you've got going on.

Okay. What you haven't been able to do, however, is admit that Pres O denied TransCanada the permit. Look, I know it's tough for the president's adversaries to acknowledge when he's done something good. This subthread is a perfect example of that. HRC was on the verge of okaying the pipline and he stepped in. The GOP tried to squeeze him by demanding he decide, and so he did. He denied the permit. Most reasonable people were pretty happy about that, your denial notwithstanding.

his nomination?

Yeah, I don't think Obama's gonna lose any sleep over this one.

nt

Enquiring minds want to know!

We don't need her just like we didn't need her in 2008.

She's donated 25 million dollars to the Democratic Party in the last ten years, and you say "we" don't need her.

Are you a Democrat?

christ, this website gets stupider by the day

Let's ignore her interest in and donations for liberal/progressive causes, like protecting the environment and 25 million in donations to the Democratic Party. Those things don't matter when one has the temerity to question the Great Leader's leadership.

personality cults are pathetic

They're almost as pathetic as gazillionaires who are still butthurt their candidate didn't win almost FOUR FUCKING YEARS LATER.

that's pretty much the definition of "mean and selfish".

and the dems failed when Obama chose to focus on healthcare.. I often disagree with her, but on this I agree. Obama has to focus on this and the more pressure on him to do do, the better.

If Obama wants to go pay for play he needs his feet held to a fire. We can have enviromental issues, legal Medical pot, a sane foreign policy, and a rational energy policy if his reelection depends on bringing these issues to the forefront.
I would bet Buell is putting money in many House and Senate races which are really more important in turning the tide.

She's right, Obama has been a disaster on the environment...no Repuke would be worse.

after being faced with a near depression when Obama took office? I'm sorry, but some of these "causes" had to placed on the backburner. Hopefully, when we've reached tolerable levels of employment, we can once again turn our focus to issues like the environment.

And speaking for myself, I haven't "turned on her". Hell, until the o.p., I didn't even know she existed, and didn't give a shit, and still don't.

the country. But I guess people need somthing to convince themselves that it's a noble that they won't support Obama rather than their real motives. And it's a real myth that no Republican would be worse on the environment than Obama.

Er, yes they could.

Really? There's no Republican who would be worse for the environment than Obama?

Ron Fucking Paul's environmental positions:

money talks in politics, and when Buell talks the White House listens. It's not just Obama she donates money to, and, as the article points out, she has a lot of influence with other big ticket donors - her demands that Obama take a more environmentally progressive stand likely led to his decision against the Keystone pipeline.

But these are not normal times. The very wealthy, like this donor, are not feeling the pain. Robert Redford, too. They are activists for A cause. One cause. That's great. But we have been in a severe recession for three years, with millions of people unemployed, and millions more underemployed. People getting sick and dying from lack of insurance. Our economic system in danger with our banks having been on the edge of a breakdown and the possible loss of what little manufacturing we have. Add to that a coupe of wars, terrorism, European economy possible collapse, and a host of other issues.

Still, in the midst of all that, Obama has done quite a bit for the environment. He has not made it front and center, that's true. But gas mileage requirements have been instituted that are the strongest, and quickest, ever passed. He's set aside millions of acres of land for public preservation. He has pushed alternative fuels, including solar and electric cars. Stricter clean air requirements have been passed And more.

These are not normal times. A balance had to be hit among all the serious threats facing our country. The environment was one of them, but there were many others equally or more important.

Now that were are gradually coming out of the recession, maybe her pet project, whatever it is, can be addressed. But I think that Obama handled the problems he was facing with pretty good skill, and prioritized pretty darn well.

and the pressure she has put on the White House seems to have had an effect.

----

I would argue that the environment is not a "main" issue - in many ways it's the only issue. We're destroying the planet and with it we will destroy our civilization. I would call that a pretty damn "serious threat". She would like Obama to spell this out more directly. We're running out of time, if we haven't run out of it already. We needed a President willing to lead on the issue - to make the argument that the environment belongs on the front burner...


---------

ps - the gas mileage requirements instituted by the Obama admin are a joke - 2025? We don't have that long.

if the air is clean, if you're dead. It matters to the remaining people, of course, but I would argue that not stopping the Keystone Pipeline will not directly result in people dying. A lack of healthcare does.

Everything is important. Everything. He DID do a lot for the environment. Including rejecting the KP, for the time being.

I also don't think some donor is the cause of the rejection of the KP. It was because the Republicans forced him to make a decision on it before the full environmental studies could be done. So he had to reject it, which the Republicans knew he would do. They think it's a good political move, is why they did that.

Now maybe he hadn't allowed it before then because of some donors. I don't know. But this donor backed Kerry, it seems, and he was in FULL support of so-called clean coal mining (now that's a misnomer for you). Apparently that wasn't close enough to her house, so she didn't care about that. It wasn't her pet project. The KP will be passing on her end of the country, so there you go. It's not THE environment she cares about, it seems. It's HER environment.

Let's see what the environmental reports say re the KP, before we start electing Santorum or Romney.

it was about burning the coal FYI.

http://www.electricityforum.com/news/aug04/kerry.html

Not that I think it's a good idea, even though Obama also supports it -

It's under the bus with the PUMA, i guess - she said something bad about the Big O.

And this is nonsense -

"Let's see what the environmental reports say re the KP, before we start electing Santorum or Romney."

No one has said a thing about that - that's the cheap argument of last resort...

I feel like we've pretty much already run out of time, but maybe, just possibly there is still a chance to pull ourselves back from the brink.

I could list ten things off the top of my head that would keep me up every night if I let them.

But heck, there are a lot of people living in Louisiana and Florida - forget the kind of hell they've already been through in the last decade - the level of suffering that is in store for them without active change is horrifying.

You're defending the rich people getting a bigger say?

whether I like it or not is beside the point.

I would rather that money belonged to someone who believes in some of the same things I do and is in a position to influence decisions concerning those things than someone who is opposed. Like a corporation, for instance.

If you want to interpret that as "defending rich people", so be it.

does not extend to this? This is to be accepted as a reality? While things like the powers of Congress vs. the Presidency and the Courts are not. It is interesting to see the left suddenly being realistic.

Show why Obama was smart to get small donations from millions of people. (Yet he still gets crap for taking the big donations, too). As for this lady, like any other rich person, screw her, she has just one vote too, just like I do. One circumstance where they can't buy something.

congress he can promise anything but as we have seen it will not do him any good.

That seems to be the DU consensus.

Really? Old, Angry, Puma? Never needed her? Take a hike?

So there isn't one iota of truth to what she says? She doesn't have a point anywhere and we don't need her 25 million dollars?

No wonder we can't seem to win a fucking election.

into Obama. They are not close to him and don't really see him much. Bill Clinton was very good at being personable with donors. Obama isn't quite as much. I think this donor has a point but is overlooking the big picture: the Repub candidate will have tons and tons of money and will throw all kinds of crap at Obama. The Repubs would make anything Obama does regarding the environment look like nothing. Its an election year. The main goal to me as a Democrat is to keep the nutball Republican out of office.

That's OK we'll raise the same amount with a million small donations.

I see Susie Buell is no exception. A leopard does not change its spots.

They do , however send bucks to those who agree with them. Vis a Vis FDL.