cal04
cal04's JournalJohn Nichols: Key Number for Bernie
Key # for @BernieSanders in Des Moines Register poll: He now leads among voters under age 45 by 23 points.
https://twitter.com/NicholsUprising
In this cycle, Sanders is attracting more first-time caucusgoers than Clinton. He claims 43 percent of their vote compared to 31 percent for Clinton. He also leads by 23 percentage points with the under-45 crowd and by 21 points among independent voters.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/iowa-poll/2015/08/29/iowa-poll-democrats-august/71387664/
Stephen Colbert to Interview Bernie Sanders, Lupita Nyong’o on ‘Late Show’ Week 2
(snip)
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Oscar winner Lupita Nyong’o will appear on the second week of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” CBS announced Monday.
Other guests for week two will include “House of Cards” star Kevin Spacey, “Everest” star Jake Gyllenhaal, and Oscar nominee Naomi Watts. Colbert will also speak with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush is due to appear on “The Late Show” during Colbert’s first week on the air ahead of Sanders. Bush will join George Clooney and musical guest Kendrick Lamar for the premiere episode.
http://www.thewrap.com/stephen-colbert-to-interview-bernie-sanders-lupita-nyongo-on-late-show-week-2/
Friday, Sept. 18: Lupita Nyong’o; Sen. Bernie Sanders; interview with and performance by “An American in Paris'” Christopher Wheeldon, Robert Fairchild and Leanne Cope
Move over, George Clooney. Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is among the guests set for Stephen Colbert's second week behind the Late Show desk, CBS announced Monday.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/late-show-stephen-colbert-week-819074
(snip from Rawstory)
Sen. Sanders is scheduled to appear on Sept. 18, along with actress Lupita Nyong’o. The senator will be the second candidate Colbert interviews on his new show, following Republican Jeb Bush’s appearance during the show’s premiere on Sept. 8.
Colbert will also have Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on the show on Sept. 14. Earlier this year, the host challenged Breyer’s colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, to appear on the program after mocking him for his opposition to the high court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
Sanders last appeared on Colbert’s previous show, The Colbert Report, last November. Footage from that interview can be seen below
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/bernie-sanders-set-to-appear-during-week-2-of-stephen-colberts-late-show/
Elizabeth Warren will campaign for Russ Feingold in Wisconsin next month
Elizabeth Warren Announces First Campaign Stop Of 2016 Election Cycle
She'll campaign for Russ Feingold in Wisconsin next month.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-russ-feingold-2016-election_55e471a4e4b0c818f618732b?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) will campaign for former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in Madison next month, in an attempt to help one of her ideological allies, who was defeated by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) in 2010, return to Congress.
"Ron Johnson sides with the big guys who have already made it, while Russ sides with Wisconsin students and working families," Warren argues in an email scheduled to be sent to supporters Monday afternoon, and provided in advance to The Huffington Post.
The email contrasts Feingold and Johnson's stances on higher education and student loan debt. While Feingold and Warren believe that the federal government shouldn't be able to profit from such debt, Johnson voted against Warren's legislation in 2014 that would have allowed students to refinance their loans. The Republican senator called the legislation “grossly unfair” because the bill would make up for any lost revenue by increasing taxes on wealthy households.
(snip)
"Here’s the really crazy part about Ron Johnson’s education policy: Forget refinancing – if he has his way, the federal government wouldn’t help college students with loans at all," Warren's email reads. "Kids whose parents can’t afford to write a check for college would lose basic consumer protections and be at the mercy of private lenders who offer loans not at lower government interest rates, but at 8%, 10%, 12% – or even higher."
Comparing Bernie Sanders To Donald Trump, Like Comparing Apples To Oranges
Pro-Hillary Senator Claire McCaskill and Trump advocate Roger Stone made headlines for comparing Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders. "Both these candidates are outsiders, both these candidates are non-establishment candidates," Stone told CNN. "The same anger and frustration by the voters that's propelling Trump is also propelling Sanders."
McCaskill agreed when she appeared on CNN the same day, "People are really aggravated at the government right now," she said. "There are a lot of people that are just going 'Really? You guy's can't get anything done? All you do is fight.'"
While anger and frustration with the status quo may be driving both candidates' soaring poll numbers, Trump and Sanders are certainly not two peas in a pod. When it comes to articulating clear policy proposals, Sanders excels while Trump hasn't even bothered trying. When asked for more details on policy proposals, Trump's campaign manager told The John Fredericks Show "we're waiting, you know, for our schedule." And, Trump himself answered a question about policy proposal simply assuring a reporter, "You'll be happy, you'll be very happy."
In contrast, Sanders has not shied away from any discussion of policy. While Hillary Clinton has refused to articulate a position on the Keystone XL Pipeline, Sanders has spoken out eschewing the pipeline's harmful effects on the environment and carefully outlined his other policy proposals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katerina-rosen/comparing-bernie-sanders-_b_7985100.html
Sen. Merkley's Statement on his support for the Iran Nuclear Deal
Sunday, August 30, 2015
WASHINGTON, DC – Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley released the following statement in support of the Iran nuclear deal:
“Just after Labor Day, the U.S. Congress will consider a vital question: whether to support or reject an international agreement intended to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon
“This objective is critical to our national security. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran, a sponsor of terrorism that considers the United States the “Great Satan,” would pose an enormous danger to America and an existential threat to Israel and our other allies in the region. An Iranian nuclear bomb would generate a destabilizing nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia and possibly other Sunni nations seeking to counter-balance Iran, a Shiite nation.
“The question, then, is whether the international agreement negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 nations (the United States, France, United Kingdom, Russia, China, and Germany) is the best strategy for blocking Iran’s potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
“This question is one of the most important that I will face representing Oregonians in the U.S. Senate. I have carefully read the agreement and met with policy experts, intelligence analysts, advocates, and the ambassadors of our partner nations to explore the strength of every argument and counter-argument. I have sought and received the counsel of Oregonians on both sides of the issue, and I deeply appreciate their passionate and extensive insights.
“Taking all of this into account, I believe the agreement, titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is the best available strategy to block Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “I have not reached this conclusion without reservations. The deal has strengths but also significant shortcomings.
“The JCPOA’s strongest aspect is that for 15 years it creates an effective framework for blocking Iran’s three pathways to development of a nuclear weapon: the uranium, plutonium, and covert paths.
“It blocks the uranium path by requiring Iran to dismantle two-thirds of its centrifuges, reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 97% to no more than 300 kg (which is below the amount necessary for a single weapon), and limit enrichment to 3.67% (far below the 90% enrichment necessary for a nuclear bomb).
“The agreement blocks Iran’s plutonium pathway by requiring Iran to pull out the core of its Arak reactor and to fill it with concrete, to build any replacement with a design that will not produce weapons-grade plutonium, and to forego the reprocessing of spent fuel.
“And the agreement blocks a covert path to a bomb by imposing extensive inspections and monitoring, including tracking the entire uranium production cycle from mining forward, employing electronic instrumentation to monitor equipment, and providing for on-site inspections where a violation is suspected. It includes unprecedented procedures to guarantee that Iran cannot indefinitely stall those inspections; and even if the maximum 24 days are required before inspectors gain entry to a site, any work with radioactive material will be detectable. These measures make it, in the words of 75 non-proliferation experts and diplomats in a recent letter, “very likely that any future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly.”
“But this agreement also has significant shortcomings. It does not block Iran’s importation of conventional arms, allowing Iran to acquire conventional arms after 5 years and ballistic missile technology after 8 years. It does not dictate how Iran can spend the dollars it reclaims from cash assets that are currently frozen. It does not permanently maintain bright lines on Iran’s nuclear research or nuclear energy program, lifting the 300 kg and 3.67% enrichment limits after 15 years.
“These exclusions raise troubling concerns. It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Iran will use its additional resources and access to conventional arms to increase its support for terrorist groups. And it is certainly possible that Iran will use its nuclear research or nuclear energy program to provide a foundation for a future nuclear weapon program.
“Because of these shortcomings, many have argued that the United States, instead of implementing the agreement, should withdraw from it, persuade our partners to set the agreement aside, and work together to negotiate a better deal.
“However, the prospects for this are slim. All of our partners in the P5+1 believe that the current deal—in regard to its central goal of blocking Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb—is sound. They have committed the good faith of their governments behind the agreement and intend to honor the deal as long as Iran does likewise, with or without the United States.
“And Iran has every reason to honor the agreement even if the U.S. rejects it. The JCPOA fulfills Iran’s goal of lifting the international sanctions, providing access to billions of dollars from currently frozen accounts, and setting the stage for valuable trade and investment partnerships. If Iran were to follow this course, it would gain many benefits while leaving the United States at odds with the balance of the P5+1, undermining American influence.
“On the other hand, if Iran were to exit the agreement in response to its rejection by the United States, the outcome is no better. The United States would be viewed by the international community as undermining a strong framework for peacefully blocking a potential Iranian bomb. Iran would be free of both the limits on its nuclear enrichment program and the extensive verification measures, greatly reducing confidence in the state of Iran’s nuclear activities. And international support for economic sanctions—which have met their aim of getting Iran to negotiate—would probably fray, with nations and companies eager to pursue long-delayed deals. This would give Iran some of the economic relief it is seeking without the burden of intrusive inspections.
“In short, in this situation the international diplomatic and economic tools for blocking an Iranian bomb would be damaged, increasing reliance on military options while at the same time diminishing confidence in the actual state of Iran’s activities. This is a dangerous combination.
“Thus, when all is added up, the best option for the U.S. is strong engagement in the JCPOA, utilizing that engagement to hold Iran strictly accountable to the agreement. This delivers a strong framework for ensuring Iran does not have a nuclear weapon program for at least 15 years and substantial time to respond if Iran attempts to launch such a program.
“After 15 years, where there is substantial concern about the possibility of Iran making a “dash” for a bomb, Iran will still be subject to the JCPOA’s requirement that it will never “seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” In addition, it will continue to be subject to ongoing intensive monitoring and verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
“The United States can and should work to strengthen this framework. It should direct a massive intelligence program to back up the JCPOA in the first 15 years and to strengthen the IAEA’s monitoring after 15 years. It should lead the international community in establishing, for the years after the bright lines on uranium enrichment expire, the size and enrichment level of Iran’s uranium stockpile that would constitute a violation of Iran’s commitment. And the United States needs to make clear that such a violation would have strong consequences.
“In addition, the United States should be vigilant in monitoring Iran’s potential use of cash released from frozen accounts to increase support to terrorist groups and should amplify efforts to counter Iranian activities that destabilize the region.
“No foreign policy choice comes with guarantees. The future, whether we approve or reject the deal, is unknowable and carries risks. But the agreement offers us better prospects for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and more tools and leverage to ensure that outcome.
“Therefore, when the Senate debates the Iran agreement after Labor Day, I will vote to support it.”
http://www.merkley.senate.gov/news/press-releases/merkley-statement-on-iran-nuclear-deal
Sen. Sanders interview with Martha Raddatz.
The unedited version of the senator's interview with Martha Raddatz.
Bernie Sanders on 2016 Campaign, Foreign Policy Positions
Sen. Sanders Slams ‘Corrupt’ Campaign Finance System
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-slams-corrupt-campaign-finance-system/BURLINGTON, Vt. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said that super PACs, the campaign financing schemes spawned by a disastrous Supreme Court ruling, have corrupted American politics.
“People do not like the idea that as a result of Citizens United our campaign finance system has become corrupt and politicians have become dependent on billionaires and super PACs for money,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Sanders also was interviewed Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
Sanders has actively discouraged super PAC support and instead relied on more than 400,000 donors whose average contribution to him is $31. With $15.2 million raised altogether during the quarter covered by the most recent Federal Election Commission reports, Sanders has more contributions of $200 or less than any candidate in either major party, according to an analysis of campaign finance reports for The New York Times.
Sanders raised the same issue on Friday during a speech to the Democratic National Committee summer meeting in Minneapolis.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/take-on-establishment-generate-excitement-sanders-tells-dnc/
“We need a grassroots movement which tells the Koch brothers and the billionaire class that they will not be able to continue to buy candidates and elections,” he said in the DNC speech.” In that speech to the DNC, Sanders also pledged not to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court “unless that candidate is loud and clear saying one of the first orders of business will be to rehear and overturn Citizens United.”
Super PACs were created after the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The 5-4 ruling in that 2010 case opened the floodgates to unlimited spending on campaigns by corporations and billionaires, like Charles and David Koch. The Koch brothers, who for decades invested their fossil-fuel fortune in right-wing political campaigns, have exploited the ruling by amassing a war chest with some 400 wealthy allies who will help them put $889 million into Republican campaigns this election cycle.
ABC's Raddatz Grills Bernie Sanders on Lack of Foreign Policy Positions
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abcs-raddatz-grills-bernie-sanders-on-lack-of-foreign-policy-positions/(snip)
She asked, “Don’t you feel these are issues a president should be very concerned about?”
“Absolutely, Martha, and in all fairness, we’ve only been in this race for three-and-a-half months, and we’ve been focusing on, quite correctly as you’ve indicated, on the economy, on the collapse of the American middle class, on massive income and wealth inequality,” the candidate explained. “But you’re absolutely right. Foreign policy is a huge issue.”
Sanders defended his anti-war record, not only voting against the Iraq War, but also opposing the 1991 Gulf War, even though Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. “Do we need to go to war in every instance, or we can be bring pressure of sanctions and international pressure to resolve these conflicts?” he asked rhetorically.
The candidate denied that he favors force only when the U.S. is directly attacked, such as after 9/11 when he did vote to authorize military action in Afghanistan. “No, not at all, not at all,” he said. “I think using our military is an option, obviously, that we will always have under certain circumstances, but it is the last option.”
interview link
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/sen-bernie-sanders-2016-campaign-33413797
Bernie Sanders Busts Raddatz, Trying To Take Credit Away From His Campaign
(snip)
SANDERS: Well, the polls that I saw said that there was massive enthusiasm for the message that we’re delivering, and that the vast majority of the people who are voting for me in that Iowa poll — and I think it’s true all over this country — are not necessarily anti-Hillary Clinton. They’re pro-Bernie Sanders, and they want a candidate who is not dependent upon super-PACs, a candidate who is prepared to take on and overturn this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, help have the United States lead the world in combating climate change, make college affordable to all people.
I have to tell you, Martha, I think the gains that we are seeing, and the enthusiasm and the huge crowds that we are seeing, this is not anti-Hillary Clinton: this is pro-Bernie Sanders and pro a message that says enough is enough. This country and our government belong to all of us, not just a handful of very wealthy people.
Bernie Sanders caught Martha Raddatz red handed. She was pushing the conventional media spin that pro-Sanders people are anti-Clinton. The Des Moines Register poll of Iowa Democrats revealed that 96% of Sen. Sanders’ supporters are not anti-Clinton. Only 2% of Sanders supporters are doing so because they are anti-Clinton.
There are two reasons why the media is trying to take credit away from Bernie Sanders. First, the mainstream press has convinced themselves that the United States is a conservative country. The corporate press can’t comprehend that a liberal candidate is popular based on his ideas. Bernie Sanders doesn’t fit their pro-conservative bias, so they feel compelled to explain his success in a way that fits their model.
video at link
Bernie Sanders Busts The Media For Trying To Take Credit Away From His Campaignl
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/30/bernie-sanders-busted-media-credit-campaign.html
Bernie Sanders State of the Union Interview with Jake Tapper
Bernie Sanders State of the Union Interview Jake Tapper - 8-30-15 - CNN
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Jan 6, 2004, 01:46 PMNumber of posts: 41,505
