SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Democratic presidential candidate and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg hosts a town hall meeting at the Lions Den in Fort Dodge, Iowa on April 16, 2019. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
September Candidates Climate Forum to Go On Despite Dropping Sponsor
"The voters deserve to know where all of the Democratic candidates stand on this issue, and how exactly they would address the climate crisis if elected."
Jul 14, 2019
A candidates' forum to discuss the climate crisis will go on despite several of the event's co-sponsors dropping out over an offensive article about one of the candidates because the environmental catastrophe "is simply too important to be ignored or sidelined in the 2020 presidential race."
The presidential climate summit, which is a direct response to the DNC's refusal to allow a debate focused on the climate crisis for the party's two dozen primary candidates, is scheduled for September 23 in New York City.
The event was originally sponsored primarily by progressive outlets Gizmodo and The New Republic, but the latter dropped out Sunday after backlash from an article about South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew outrage and accusations of homophobia.
The essay, an opinions piece by openly gay writer Dale Peck, mocked Buttigieg by calling him "Mary Pete" and implying he was too promiscuous to govern the country effectively. After intense criticism, the magazine pulled the piece, saying, in an editor's note, that "we regret its publication."
Buttigieg, on Saturday, said he "appreciated that article was taken down."
"I don't think it really reflects the New Republic that I know," said Buttigieg.
In response to the piece, a number of groups pulled out of the forum, which was announced Thursday, one day before the offensive opinion piece was published.
"In reaction to The New Republic article, the League of Conservation Voters, NRDC Action Fund, Earthjustice Action, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund have decided to remove themselves from the event," Gizmodo's Maddie Stone said in a statement.
On Sunday, The New Republic also withdrew. Gizmodo told HuffPost on Sunday that it hoped the groups would rejoin in light of that decision.
In her statement, Stone said that Gizmodo supported the decision of The New Republic to withdraw as its article was "was entirely inconsistent with our values as journalists and with the inclusive atmosphere we intend to foster at the event."
Nonetheless, Stone said, the show would go on.
"The voters deserve to know where all of the Democratic candidates stand on this issue, and how exactly they would address the climate crisis if elected," said Stone. "We still believe our focused forum is the best way to give climate change--an issue that intersects so many others, from health care to immigration to inequality--the nuanced attention it deserves."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A candidates' forum to discuss the climate crisis will go on despite several of the event's co-sponsors dropping out over an offensive article about one of the candidates because the environmental catastrophe "is simply too important to be ignored or sidelined in the 2020 presidential race."
The presidential climate summit, which is a direct response to the DNC's refusal to allow a debate focused on the climate crisis for the party's two dozen primary candidates, is scheduled for September 23 in New York City.
The event was originally sponsored primarily by progressive outlets Gizmodo and The New Republic, but the latter dropped out Sunday after backlash from an article about South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew outrage and accusations of homophobia.
The essay, an opinions piece by openly gay writer Dale Peck, mocked Buttigieg by calling him "Mary Pete" and implying he was too promiscuous to govern the country effectively. After intense criticism, the magazine pulled the piece, saying, in an editor's note, that "we regret its publication."
Buttigieg, on Saturday, said he "appreciated that article was taken down."
"I don't think it really reflects the New Republic that I know," said Buttigieg.
In response to the piece, a number of groups pulled out of the forum, which was announced Thursday, one day before the offensive opinion piece was published.
"In reaction to The New Republic article, the League of Conservation Voters, NRDC Action Fund, Earthjustice Action, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund have decided to remove themselves from the event," Gizmodo's Maddie Stone said in a statement.
On Sunday, The New Republic also withdrew. Gizmodo told HuffPost on Sunday that it hoped the groups would rejoin in light of that decision.
In her statement, Stone said that Gizmodo supported the decision of The New Republic to withdraw as its article was "was entirely inconsistent with our values as journalists and with the inclusive atmosphere we intend to foster at the event."
Nonetheless, Stone said, the show would go on.
"The voters deserve to know where all of the Democratic candidates stand on this issue, and how exactly they would address the climate crisis if elected," said Stone. "We still believe our focused forum is the best way to give climate change--an issue that intersects so many others, from health care to immigration to inequality--the nuanced attention it deserves."
A candidates' forum to discuss the climate crisis will go on despite several of the event's co-sponsors dropping out over an offensive article about one of the candidates because the environmental catastrophe "is simply too important to be ignored or sidelined in the 2020 presidential race."
The presidential climate summit, which is a direct response to the DNC's refusal to allow a debate focused on the climate crisis for the party's two dozen primary candidates, is scheduled for September 23 in New York City.
The event was originally sponsored primarily by progressive outlets Gizmodo and The New Republic, but the latter dropped out Sunday after backlash from an article about South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg drew outrage and accusations of homophobia.
The essay, an opinions piece by openly gay writer Dale Peck, mocked Buttigieg by calling him "Mary Pete" and implying he was too promiscuous to govern the country effectively. After intense criticism, the magazine pulled the piece, saying, in an editor's note, that "we regret its publication."
Buttigieg, on Saturday, said he "appreciated that article was taken down."
"I don't think it really reflects the New Republic that I know," said Buttigieg.
In response to the piece, a number of groups pulled out of the forum, which was announced Thursday, one day before the offensive opinion piece was published.
"In reaction to The New Republic article, the League of Conservation Voters, NRDC Action Fund, Earthjustice Action, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund have decided to remove themselves from the event," Gizmodo's Maddie Stone said in a statement.
On Sunday, The New Republic also withdrew. Gizmodo told HuffPost on Sunday that it hoped the groups would rejoin in light of that decision.
In her statement, Stone said that Gizmodo supported the decision of The New Republic to withdraw as its article was "was entirely inconsistent with our values as journalists and with the inclusive atmosphere we intend to foster at the event."
Nonetheless, Stone said, the show would go on.
"The voters deserve to know where all of the Democratic candidates stand on this issue, and how exactly they would address the climate crisis if elected," said Stone. "We still believe our focused forum is the best way to give climate change--an issue that intersects so many others, from health care to immigration to inequality--the nuanced attention it deserves."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.