Bob: “I am angry, frustrated and bewildered by the terrible decision taken by the DNC stifling debate in our party regarding the climate crisis. With the Amazon burning, Australia digging for $20 BILLION of coal to burn in a $20 BILLION Indian electrical generating station, and a buffoon for President calling the climate crisis a ‘Chinese hoax’ … the DNC looks a lot like Nero fiddling while Rome burned. How can the DNC can be so weak? The fact is our planet is disintegrating before our eyes … and too many people are willfully ignorant as to its consequences.”
→ Hey, Bob.
Is it better to have climate discussed at each of the next 11 debates (with possibly larger audiences than a single-issue debate might garner)? I don’t know.
I think I’d have voted for a single-issue climate debate if only because we should never be seen “opposing” action addressing the crisis.
I think the DNC should have made an exception to their decision not to have single-issue debates.
(The thinking: what do you tell the criminal justice folks when THEY don’t get a single-issue debate? what do you tell labor when there’s no single-issue debate on wages and jobs?)
Either way, the topic will surely come up at all or virtually all the debates; and DNC rules allow for an unlimited number of climate forums.
The big picture is: you’d be hard-pressed to find a single DNC member . . . or Democratic candidate . . . who denies the climate crisis and doesn’t urgently want bold action to confront it.
So the main thing, by ten thousand per cent, is ousting Trump and McConnell, and flipping state legislatures blue in advance of the 2020 census redistricting (and in time to possibly end-run the Electoral College for every race from 2024 on, via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact).
Want to help with that?
Here’s the case for chipping in — and possible fodder for your own fundraising:
