These are the same Republicans who consider the Geneva Conventions of 1949 “quaint”.
They have no regard for the Constitution, a document composed 227 years ago, or even the Bible, for that matter.
The only thing they’re interested in defending is their bank balance.
Kinda assumed HRC wouldn’t want to run again…guess she isn’t that aged.
Good point…Warren…and Sanders, if he doens’t gain the WH, will lead that charge.
And it ain’t just court vacancies:
Late last year, Congress finally overrode objections from right wing members in the House who tried to kill funding for the 80 year old Export Import Bank. The Bank provides loan guarantees to help stimulate export sales by companies large and small in the global economy.
Regardless of how you feel about this process, the plain fact is that the ExIm Bank is one of about 60 such programs operated by governments worldwide, including the Chinese and such guarantees are often the difference between whether a sale or a project in many smaller countries go through. US companies are in constant competition in that marketplace with government loan guarantee programs a very competitive part of the process. Without ExIm, US companies would be at a distinct disadvantage.
Right now, Boeing is trying to complete sales of aircraft and engines to the Ethiopian airline. However, when Congress finally renewed support for the program for another five years last fall, the ExIm Board had 3 vacancies for its five seats and without enough directors (at least 3), the law states and ExIm cannot guarantee loans of over 10 million or with terms of over a year.
President Obama nominated a Republican to fill a vacancy and open the door to expanded approvals. That nominee is still awaiting approval.
According to the Financial Times:
But Richard Shelby, Republican chairman of the Senate banking committee, has refused to hold confirmation hearings for the nominee, leaving the board in limbo and the bank’s operations seriously constrained. Mr Shelby, who alongside other Republican opponents sought to block ExIm’s reauthorisation last year, this week said: “I’m in no hurry to move those nominations.”
So in other words, supporters of the Bank won a battle, but Shelby and his allies continue to win the war. And US workers may lose jobs as a result.
So off topic, but it has to do with being a giant. Lt. Gov Newsom is one because of his visionary remarks when California passed $15. an hour minimum pay legislation. A few days ago San Francisco passed six-weeks of fully paid parental leave, which again makes me proud and happy to live here.
“The nation is alive from the bottom up,” Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom of California said… “For all the disproportionate focus on Washington, D.C., there’s a whole other America out there, and it should give pause to the pessimists.”
Indeed, a new poll found that 44 percent of California residents approve the Legislature’s job performance — compared with a 14 percent approval rating for Congress.
An incumbent president doesn’t retire unless like LBJ for instance his party is so unhappy he’s run out of town. HRC’s 69 which is probably the new 49. I would disagree about Sanders however, because his stance is somewhere to the left of Clinton’s so I can’t see him becoming a cheerleader, maybe just a well meaning critic.
Don’t have enough 70 year old candidates to suit you now?
There is the possibility she will have a great deal of influence, no matter who wins the nomination. Somebody here, or somewhere, led to this:
The American Prospect intelligently looks at a wide range of issues.
After two weeks I’m able to actually comment. Not sure if that was a bug or a feature.
In the sense that now she’s gone from being quiet and peaceful and not particularly boat-rocking (I saw her give a talk about the fall in middle-class savings once, and it was a model of academic decorum) to outspoken and perhaps even a bit fierce.
The same way that Krugman used to be a fairly mild-mannered economist and then became “shrill”.
She is right. Sadly she is the minority.
Not to mention the insult to the American people!
Besides Republican opposition, some Democrats echo the bogus charge that the EX-IM Bank is an agent of crony capitalism.
Which is ironic as the EX-IM Bank was established by FDR.
He is a giant in my books and a dreamy one at that. Thanks for that
Bullcrap on Krugman being a shill.
That’s not radicalized, it’s the difference between an academic and being in the trenches fighting for what you created and believe in.
He did say “shrill” not “shill” – although I don’t get his point with respect to either Sen. Warren or Krugman.
my first choice this go 'round was always Elizabeth Warren… then I move to Bernie when she declined… I will vote or Hillary but I’m not willing to concede 2020 to her at this point until AFTER at least a couple of years of her administration…
the same thing that bothered me about her in 2008 bothers me now…
Bill… STFU…
There’s so much that can go wrong with another Democrat declaring herself/himself as in the running against the incumbent. It would get ugly. My senator Feinstein has said she will run again in 2018 when she’s 85 fer chrissakes, and while I’m sure she’s still got all her marbles, there needs to be a limitation imposed by voters because it’s not intended to be a lifetime gig. I for one will support any Democrat who has the skill (and in this case chutzpah) to challenger her. It could get ugly here.
my Senator too but her trying to push legislation to provide a back door to all encryption tells me she doesn’t understand the problem…
and when I say she’s my Senator too I mean I live in the Bay Area too…
I beg to differ. I spent some time back in the early 90s working with Krugman, editing a popular article he wrote. At that time he was still one of those economists who thought that free trade was good because the winners in a given country could compensate the losers, thus yielding a net improvement. He had also not yet started being, um, an advocate for truth in foreign policy (i.e. not lying the country into war).
He has since apparently learned from experience, and has become much less moderate, including in his columns. Which I believe is a good thing. Oh, and no, not a shill. “Shrill” – which is what many establishment conservatives have called him over the years as he kept pointing out how people in power were lying and damaging the country by doing so.
I think (from that experience and many years living around economists who straddled the line between academics and policy) that Warren has undergone a similar evolution, from initially believing that plutocrats and their political representatives could be reasoned with, to not believing that so much.