The fight against global warming

[Crackpot]

Oh I had a big reply typed up and then lost it because I didn't notice that wesw had posted in between times.

Summary - I don't care if she charters a jet or not. I'm interested in the perceived notion that what's important to one person trumps (no pun intended) what is important to many. I'd include myself in that since I'm fair sure that what is important to me is more important than what is important to others.

As noted that really isn't applicable in this case as she's traveling with large amounts of people. On top of that if they were to fly commercial the very fact that you have so many extra people flying to a single destination en masse that it would throw a huge monkey wrench into ticket pricing and seating availiaity of your ordinary travelers.

[MajGenl.Meade]

...which brings to mind the corollary argument - why so many people? Travel light



(I did think that the inconvenience of Security to ordinary mortals involved when any poobah travels is something worth the avoidance)

[Guinevere]

So you agree - polticians' desires and egos are more important than social responsibility. Because Hillary must be elected, screw the environment - she has a schedule and a very, very important date. And the rest of 'em

You've lost the ability to read over the weekend? I'm quite sure Crackpot said no such thing. Maybe you need more sleep, or better glasses.

Flying a small corporate jet instead of commercial isn't the most environmentally friendly way to travel, no one disagrees. But please do tell us how you would like a candidate to travel long distances in short time periods, and bring along security (former FLOTUS has lifetime secret service protection), staff, and press. I'm pretty sure because of the secret service she *never* will fly commercial again.

Bernie can't afford a jet (yet), and he's only traveling to Iowa and NH, but apparently even he appreciates the necessity:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation ... story.html

It’s 7:20 a.m. and Bernie Sanders looks irritated. He’s already buckled into his economy seat on Delta Flight 4516 and an attendant just announced that the flight would sit on the runway for 30 minutes before taking off.

“Planes,” grumbled the Vermont senator. “Don’t get me started about airplanes.” Then he added, in a tone that sounded only half-joking, “This is when you want a private jet.”

Huckabee likes private service:

Up in the air: Mike Huckabee’s private plane habit

The disclosed total, since the 2010 cycle, amounts to just over a quarter-million dollars. Additional trips, such as the North Carolina swing for White, have not yet been reported in campaign finance reports. (All campaigns are legally required to pay for the cost of their surrogates’ travel or report it as an in-kind donation.)

It’s not unheard of for well-funded politicians to charter flights for campaign events. But several of the groups that brought in Huckabee to speak said a private plane is an exceedingly rare request for them, particularly for some of the decidedly small-scale campaigns that have cut big checks to Blue Diamond Travel and MDH Group.

Long-shot North Carolina Senate candidate Mark Harris, a pastor whose campaign paid $14,611 to Blue Diamond travel on March 18, reported having just $72,000 in the bank a month later in the last weeks of his unsuccessful bid for the GOP nomination. The single largest check to Blue Diamond Travel in 2012 was cut on Oct. 19 for $20,310 — and came from the hapless Akin campaign, which just two days earlier reported having only $544,000 in the bank for the homestretch of a difficult race.

Other patrons of Blue Diamond Travel and MDH Group have included 2012 South Carolina congressional candidate Andre Bauer ($14,560), 2014 Texas lieutenant governor candidate Dan Patrick ($12,807), North Carolina Lt. Gov. Dan Forest ($12,807), former Wisconsin governor and 2012 Senate candidate Tommy Thompson ($7,402) and state parties in West Virginia ($11,353) and Arkansas ($11,909).

The upgrade in Huckabee’s travel arrangements mirrors a broader trend in his lifestyle, as the man who once derided his posh rival Mitt Romney as reminding voters of “the guy who laid you off” has cashed in as a TV and radio host, a paid speaker and the author of several books including “A Simple Government,” “Dear Chandler, Dear Scarlett: A Grandfather’s Thoughts on Faith, Family, and the Things that Matter Most,” and the forthcoming “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy.”

It was in the first book he authored after running for president, “Do the Right Thing,” that Huckabee griped in several extended passages about his rivals’ superior travel experiences. “The well-funded candidates didn’t just take in money; they burned right through it with their private jets, five-star hotels, and lavish meals,” he wrote. “We ate a lot of burritos and cheap burgers on the bus.”

Now, as a noncandidate, Huckabee’s spending on air travel appears to far outstrip that of his potential 2016 competitors: A review of FEC records found that Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s PAC has spent about $68,000 on chartered flights over the same time period, while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s PAC has shelled out just under $15,000.

Read more:http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/m ... z3hDN0d9n5

And Ben Carson is living like a rockstar:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson's latest fundraising report with the Federal Election Commission shows that his campaign brought in an impressive $8.5 million over the last three months—four times as much as Mike Huckabee, a politician with comparable appeal among Sean Hannity-watching conservative activists. Yet during that same period—a time in which Carson was sporadically campaigning while giving paid speeches, struggling to retain staff, and not running any television ads—Carson managed to spend a whopping $5.4 million. Much of that money went toward more fundraising, because his campaign depends heavily on third-party direct-mail firms. But, in stark contrast to Carson's fiscal conservative message, his campaign spent big money on private jets, luxury hotels, and slickly produced events.

Carson's campaign kickoff, for instance, came with a hefty price tag. While other candidates, such as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, have taken advantage of cheap outdoor public spaces and free media, Carson dropped $25,448 to rent the Detroit Music Hall. The campaign also spent $64,521 on "musical entertainment" over the last quarter, much of it on the kickoff event. That included $20,000 paid to Alexi von Guggenberg, the producer of the song that plays in the background of this Carson campaign video, which has less than 30,000 views on YouTube; $15,500 to the Selected of God choir, which performed at his Detroit event; $10,271 to the contemporary classical vocal group Veritas, which also performed a few songs at his kickoff; and $18,750 to producer Kevin Cates.

The Carson team has also spent big money on luxury travel and accommodations, an area where campaigns often emphasize frugality. (Hillary Clinton staffers are commuting from DC to New York City exclusively by bus.*) His campaign spent $60,035 on private plane rentals from Addison, Texas-based Starbase Jets. And it spared little expense on lodging. Carson and/or his staff checked in at the Luxe Sunset Hotel in Bel Air at a cost of $827; the Algonquin in New York City ($814); the Rosewood Crescent in Dallas ($704); and the five-star Umstead Hotel and Spa in Cary, North Carolina ($405).

Carson, who led one national poll last month, promised to run an unconventional campaign. His first big FEC report backs him up on that.

*Update: According to Clinton's own filings, her campaign did spend $8,700 on Amtrak tickets last quarter.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ury-hotels

[MajGenl.Meade]

But please do tell us how you would like a candidate to travel long distances in short time periods

I don't want them to travel at all in short time periods. They want to. Because they are SOOOOOOO important. And besides, they have all that election money to spend so ............

(also see my reply to CP above) Please and thank you.

[Guinevere]

Yeah, well, go live somewhere there aren't elections. You'd like to be a citizen of North Korea, perhaps?

[wesw]

we don t have to be drastic....

let s just change the way we do elections.

let s start with the PUBLIC airways. tv. radio.

surely access and availability to these PUBLIC things should not have to be purchased by OUR representatives? certainly not for more than cost....

surely all of these recesses are not necessary for our congress to pass Law?

let s decide that they need to stay in session for at least 10 months a year.

[Guinevere]

I've said it before, I'll say it again -- public elections should be publically financed. Decide Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United, and McCutcheon are bad law and institute actual, real, campaign reform. Make it possible for real people to run for office, return to the days of the citizen-legislator. Actual competition for seats would make the concept of term limits moot.

[Big RR]

I'm pretty sure because of the secret service she *never* will fly commercial again.

In the early 70s I recall Nixon flying commercial to San Clemente (not sure what airport he flew into) at least once. It may or may not be cost effective, but I think security concerns can be handled even in commercial flights.

[Guinevere]

BigRR, it's not the 70s any more.

[Big RR]

Meaning what? That we honestly cannot keep a commercial flight secure? I sincerely doubt that. It might be easier to protect a president (or ex presidential family member) secure in a charter flight, but I find it impossible to believe that a commercial flight could not be kept as secure. I've been on airplanes with plenty f recognizable people from politics, sports, and entertainment and all were kept safe from those who would do them harm. The same could be done for literally anyone so far as I can see. Face it, these are not people who hide in bunkers, but who stroll the streets and interact with people--sure security is ever-present, but so is the danger.

There may well be reasons to fly using charter or private aircraft; being able to meet and hold private discussions while enroute is one (and quite a compelling one IMHO). But I don't see security as a major one.

[Gob]

2) she has to maintain a schedule that doesn't allow for waiting for regular flights.

.

"Has" to, or "chooses too"?

[wesw]

I completely agree with guin s above post.....

Scooby vans for everyone!!!!!

[BoSoxGal]

Air travel accounts for less than 5% of global warming activities; I'd say in most cases it's a necessary evil at this point in time, especially for political candidates on the campaign/fundraising trail.


I'd be a lot more pissed off if somebody told me she and her staff went through X cases of bottled water every week - because nobody who calls themselves an environmentalist should EVER drink anything from a plastic bottle - JUST SAY NO! (A Nalgene or other brand plastic bottle, reused thousands of times, is the only way for a true environmentalist to get her daily H2O fix.)

[Gob]

I'd say in most cases it's a necessary evil at this point in time, especially for political candidates on the campaign/fundraising trail.
)

I'm pushed to think of a less necessary one!

Guess who?

It's our story because the carbon economy compromises our health, the air we breathe, and the environment in which we raise our children. One study found that pollution from power plants causes 24,000 premature deaths in our country each year. Nearly a third of our childhood asthma cases are caused by air pollution and environmental contamination.

[BoSoxGal]

Gob, are you going to give up your trips that involve flying?

[Gob]

Nope, not a chance.

I'm not going to lecture anyone of preventing global warming either.

[BoSoxGal]

Fine, but you're not a candidate for the highest office on the planet who is obligated to speak to the greatest issue facing mankind.

[Gob]

Fine, but you're not a candidate for the highest office on the planet who is obligated to speak to the greatest issue facing mankind.

...while currently contributing to it....

[Gob]

Her family’s charitable foundation takes lots of oil money. Big oil companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have given millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, as have Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich nations in the Middle East. Thursday brought the latest exposé on this issue from the International Business Times, which reports on donations from Pacific Rubiales, a Canadian oil company accused of human rights violations in Colombia.

Pacific Rubiales’ founder, Frank Giustra, now sits on the Clinton Foundation’s board. IBT reports, “After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation — supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself — Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it ‘strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.’” A cynic would say oil companies are buying influence with the Clintons without being subject to campaign finance laws. A Clinton defender would point out that the foundation gives away this money, it isn’t going into Hillary Clinton’s pocket or her campaign account.

She has supported offshore oil drilling. In 2006, Clinton sided with Republicans and against climate hawks like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) by voting in favor of a bill opening new Gulf Coast areas to offshore oil drilling. Obama has opened up many areas for offshore oil drilling, and it’s possible Clinton would do the same.

She avoids saying anything about Keystone XL. Even when asked directly about it, Clinton just refuses to answer. In January she told a Canadian audience, “You won’t get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made clear that I’m not going to express an opinion.” This, in fairness, may simply reflect her understandable concern that as a former secretary of state she should not take a position on an issue currently under review by her successor. It’s also a tough issue for her, though, as it pits environmentalists and climate hawks against Democratic-leaning construction unions and most independent voters who favor more oil production in North America.

[Econoline]

Okay, then. Let's see just how many votes the Amish candidate for POTUS gets next November.