Elaine Marshall: Following His ‘Mentor’ Jesse Helms, Burr Continuing Secret Holds On Minority Judges
Elaine Marshall: Following His ‘Mentor’ Jesse Helms, Burr Continuing Secret Holds On Minority Judges
Speaking with ThinkProgress at the Netroots Nation convention yesterday, U.S. Senate candidate Elaine Marshall (D-NC) harshly rebuked Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) for his use of secret holds on Judges James Wynn and Albert Diaz, who have both been nominated for the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Wynn, Marshall explained, was denied even a committee hearing when nominated for the same position in 1999 by Bill Clinton, due to Republican obstruction and a secret hold from then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC).
When President Obama renominated Wynn, Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Burr supported the decision. Although Wynn cleared the Judiciary Committee, a vote on his confirmation has not been scheduled because, despite his public support for Wynn, Burr placed a hold on Wynn’s nomination. When asked for comment by the press, Burr duplicitously said he that he “applauds Sen. Hagan for her ongoing efforts to encourage Majority Leader Reid to schedule their nominations for votes on the Senate floor.”
Marshall noted that Burr’s two-faced approach to Judge Wynn appeared to echo the tactics of Helms, who made a career of race-baiting, fighting Civil Rights laws, and intentionally blocking African American judges like Wynn:
MARSHALL: One of our judges who has passed the Judiciary Committee who cannot get a vote was also held up by Jesse Helms. A talented judge, this is now the second time he’s been nominated by the Fourth Circuit. He’s an African American judge, highly, highly qualified. And Richard Burr has the same hold on him that Jesse Helms had on him. North Carolina has got to put these vestiges behind them. Richard Burr, while he’s said wonderful things about Judge Wynn, presenting him and all that kind of stuff, he’s behind the curtain holding him up. [...]
One of them is Hispanic, one of them is African American. They both have military background. They both have strong judicial careers. They really don’t have valid enemies for reasons that anyone would talk about in the hearing. There are these subtle enemies, these subtle forces, the legacy of Jesse Helms, that are holding them back. So, I’m very unhappy about that.
TP: In terms of the legacy of Jesse Helms, do you think Jesse Helms in other ways is replicating the same type of politics Helms used to hold power for so long?
MARSHALL: Jesse Helms is his mentor and he learned his lessons well, yes.
Watch it:
Indeed, as Marshall contends, Burr ran for Senate in 2004 with Helms’ blessing. “North Carolina needs him in the United States Senate. The country needs him. And the president needs him—and he told me so,” Helms said of Burr when he made his official endorsement.
- Comments
- 32
BP fails to put money in promised escrow account.
BP fails to put money in promised escrow account.
In a deal negotiated last month, President Obama and BP officials agreed the company would pay $5 billion annually over the next four years into an escrow account for damage its oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico caused. Ken Feinberg, who was appointed to administer oil spill claims out of the escrow fund, has said he “hasn’t been able to start writing claims checks” because BP PLC has failed to deposit any money into the $20 billion fund it promised to create:
Feinberg, who was appointed to administer oil spill claims out of the fund, said he doesn’t have the authority to force BP to deposit the money, but his hands are tied until it does. “I don’t want the checks to bounce,” he said.
The day after the escrow account’s establishment in June, BP CEO Tony Hayward told Congress that BP is “unwavering in our commitment to fulfill all our responsibilities” and the company “won’t stop spending until the job is done.”
New study claims increases in infant mortality and cancer in Fallujah greater than in Hiroshima.
New study claims increases in infant mortality and cancer in Fallujah greater than in Hiroshima.
A new study in the International Journal of Environmental Studies and Public Health conducted by British researchers has found a startling increase in the number of infant mortality and cancer cases in the Iraqi city of Fallujah since the 2004 U.S.-led bombardment of the area. The Independent reports that the cases “exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki”:
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study. [...]
Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that “to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened.”
Among the researchers’ findings was a “a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia.”
RedState’s Erickson to GOP: ‘Stop lying’ and admit that you’re the ‘Party of No.’
RedState’s Erickson to GOP: ‘Stop lying’ and admit that you’re the ‘Party of No.’
Since President Obama first took office, Republicans have stood lock-step in opposition to his legislative agenda. In March 2010, Republican senators waged a record number of filibusters for a two-year term – after just 14 months. Given the GOP’s dearth of ideas, it’s understandable that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) told radio host Bill Bennett that Republicans shouldn’t “lay out a complete agenda,” because it could become “a campaign issue.”
Despite their blanket rejection of virtually everything President Obama has proposed, many prominent conservative leaders have urged the GOP to develop a substantive agenda instead of simply accepting their “Party of No” label.
Yesterday, ThinkProgress caught up with RedState founder Erick Erickson and asked his thoughts on the “Party of No” moniker. Erickson took the GOP to task for clouding the issue. He advised them to “stop lying” about being the “Party of No” because “everyone knows you are”:
TP: They are saying, if you accuse them of being the party of no or not having ideas, they will say “oh no!”
Erickson: That’s such crap. Say you’re the “Party of No.” Of course you are. Everyone knows you are. Stop lying.
Watch it:
Michigan Tea Party members want to teach Constitution in public schools.
Michigan Tea Party members want to teach Constitution in public schools.
During a taping of Michigan Public Television’s “Off the Record” today, Gene Clem — president of the Southwest Michigan Tea Party Patriots — said that the state’s Tea Party members “will look at ways to teach public school students the origins of the U.S. Constitution.” Clem noted that the Tea Party already holds sessions about the Constitution in public libraries and that the group has “plenty of retirees who could go in as Benjamin Franklin or whatever”:
“What we’re afraid of is individuals really don’t know where liberty, freedom and their rights come from, how the Constitution was written, the pain that went through in the summer of 1787 to write that and get it approved,” Clem said.
Tea Party volunteers are, of course, welcome to teach an accurate version of the Constitution to schoolchildren. Indeed, Michigan’s current social studies standards already require students to learn about the origins of the U.S. Constitution and “Core Democratic Values” — including liberty and patriotism — by third grade. Given the Tea Party’s close association with radical “tenther” views of the Constitution, however, it is unlikely that they wish to provide Michigan children with an accurate constitutional history. Similar attempts have already been made to inject right-wing ideology into public school curriculum. Earlier this year, the right-wing Texas State Board of Education successfully adopted new content for the state’s social studies curriculum, which included more conservatives, more Confederate glorification, and more distortion of progressive viewpoints.
Rove’s RNC ‘grassroots’ rival, American Crossroads, raised 97 percent of its money from four billionaires.
Rove’s RNC ‘grassroots’ rival, American Crossroads, raised 97 percent of its money from four billionaires.
Compensating for damage the Republican National Committee’s unsteadiness may cause Republican candidates this fall, several high-profile GOP operatives — including Karl Rove and two former RNC chairmen — recently founded American Crossroads as a “grassroots,” “shadow RNC.” Salon’s Justin Elliott now reports that the group raised 97 percent of its funding from just four billionaires:
The IRS filing of American Crossroads, an outside 527 group that was conceived by Rove and ex-RNC chair Ed Gillespie, gives a good taste of who is funding the GOP effort to make big gains in the House and Senate come the fall. … Chaired by another ex-RNC chair, Mike Duncan, American Crossroads has pledged to raise $50 million to beat Democrats in the midterms and has been seen by some as a competitor to the Republican National Committee itself.
And despite the group’s description of itself as “grassroots,” Salon’s review of its IRS filings show that four billionaires have contributed 97 percent of the $4.7 million it has raised to date. There are no limits on how much corporations, unions, and individuals can donate to 527 groups.
Elliott notes that two of the billionaire donors “made their fortune in the oil and gas industry.” One, Harold Simmons, “was the sole funder” of “a group that ran ads attempting to tie Obama to Bill Ayers in 2008.” Rove acknowledged earlier this month that his group raises money successfully largely because the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United opened the door to unlimited corporate donations in politics.
Barney Frank: ‘No one can stop’ Obama from nominating Warren as consumer bureau chair.
Barney Frank: ‘No one can stop’ Obama from nominating Warren as consumer bureau chair.
After the passage of Congress’s financial regulatory reform bill, a heated debate has sprung up over who will get to chair the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — which will be in charge of advocating for consumers in their dealings with financial institutions and products — with TARP watchdog and Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren being the favored choice of many. Last night, House Financial Services chairman Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell that while other progressive failures, like the lack of a public option in health care legislation and an inadequate stimulus package, were largely failures of Congress, nominating Warren is Obama’s choice alone. He noted that “no one can stop” the president from nominating her:
FRANK: I would say to the president, look, I sympathize with President Obama. He’s been criticized by some of my liberal friends. We didn’t get a public option and we didn’t get the other things we wanted. That wasn’t his fault. The economic recovery bill, the stimulus — it wasn’t as big as it should have been. That wasn’t his fault. He couldn’t get the votes. But with regard to appointing Elizabeth Warren, that’s his decision. No one can stop him from making it. And I hope he will appoint her.
Watch it:
Rep. Wamp Suggests Secession If Voters Reject Right Wing Views On Constitution
Rep. Wamp Suggests Secession If Voters Reject Right Wing Views On Constitution
In an interview with Hotline OnCall, Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) suggested forming a new Confederacy if voters reject the “tenther” view that laws that conservatives disapprove of violate the Constitution:
“I hope that the American people will go to the ballot box in 2010 and 2012 so that states are not forced to consider separation from this government,” said Wamp during an interview with Hotline OnCall.
He lauded Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), who first floated the idea of secession in April ‘09, for leading the push-back against health care reform, adding that he hopes the American people “will send people to Washington that will, in 2010 and 2012, strictly adhere” to the constitution’s defined role for the federal government.
“Patriots like Rick Perry have talked about these issues because the federal government is putting us in an untenable position at the state level,” said Wamp[.]
Like Wamp and Perry, many right-wing lawmakers embrace lunatic legal theories — and their numbers grew significantly once President Obama took office. Right-wing Governors Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and Bobby Jindal (R-LA) both signed wildly unconstitutional bills attempting to nullify health reform. Tenther Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas thinks that the ban on whites-only lunch counters is unconstitutional, and other tenther officials claim that everything from Social Security to Medicare to the federal highway system is unconstitutional.
Moreover, while Wamp and Perry’s secessionary agenda puts them at odds with the Constitution and the American people, it does have one famous precedent supporting it. In 1860, American voters elected an obscure former congressman named “Abraham Lincoln” to the presidency. Eleven southern states — all of whom disagreed with the new president on the issue of slavery — soon decided that they didn’t want to be bound by the results of that election. Before Wamp starts campaigning to become the next Jefferson Davis, however, he might want to give some thought to what happened the last time right-wing state governments engaged in an act of mass treason.
Bachmann: If GOP wins the House, ‘all we should do is issue subpoenas.’
Bachmann: If GOP wins the House, ‘all we should do is issue subpoenas.’
Yesterday, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) spoke to the GOP Youth Convention in Washington. One attendee asked Bachmann about what the Republicans will do if they win back the House:
QUESTION: I might be putting the cart before the horse here, but assuming the Republicans win the House back this next cycle, how do you feel about the chances for a little oversight and a little accountability now that the Republicans would have the subpoena power? How aggressive do you think?
BACHMANN: Well I think that’s all we should do. I think all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another and expose all the nonsense that has gone on. And it’s very important when we come back that we have constitutional conservative leadership, because the American people’s patience is about this big. [...]
And this is the year, this is it. All of our chips are on November. If we don’t get it back and then starve the beast, the House – we have the power of the purse – so we can starve Obamacare, we don’t have to fund any of these programs. And that’s exactly what we need to do: defund all of this nonsense and then unwind it.
Listen:
Bachmann’s comments echo those of many of her GOP colleagues calling for more investigations of the Obama Administration and a defunding or outright repeal of the new health care law. And considering that some in the Republican Party are afraid to put forth an agenda, fearing that their policies could hurt them in November, Bachmann’s remarks follow naturally. There’s no time for meaningful policy discussion if the GOP spends all its time having “one hearing after another” investigating fabricated controversies and attempting a highly unlikely defunding of health care reform.
(h/t TPM)
Tancredo echoes GOP Congressman, calls for Obama’s impeachment over immigration.
Tancredo echoes GOP Congressman, calls for Obama’s impeachment over immigration.
Echoing Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) false claim that President Obama is “awfully close” to violating his oath of office by not securing the border, former Rep. Tom Tancredo published an error-ridden op-ed in today’s Washington Times calling for Congress to impeach President Obama:
Eleven years ago, like every citizen elected to serve in Congress or any person appointed to any federal position, I swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
I’ve always thought it significant that the Founders included domestic enemies in that oath of office. They thought liberty was as much at risk from threats within our borders as from outside. … Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. …
Mr. Obama’s most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans’ desire to negotiate a “comprehensive” immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution.
Of course, Tancredo’s argument is built on fraud — even Kyl himself has walked back his false claim about Obama’s border security intentions, and spending on border security has “skyrocketed” under Obama. Sadly, Tancredo’s frivilous call to impeach Obama likely enjoys strong support among right-wing lawmakers. Yesterday, for example, newly-minted Tea Party Caucus leader Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) explained that a GOP Congress’ entire agenda should be to “issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another.”
Far-Right Activist Launches Tour To Burn Lindsey Graham In Effigy
Far-Right Activist Launches Tour To Burn Lindsey Graham In Effigy
Far-right activist Randall Terry, founder of the radical anti-choice group Operation Rescue, is notorious for his incendiary schemes to drive attention to his hate-filled rhetoric. Last year, he launched a contest encouraging people to make videos burning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in effigy and promoted a “Defeat Sotomayor” campaign that depicted the Supreme Court judge as a skull-faced killer.
Now, Randall Terry has announced a four-city series of demonstrations in South Carolina where protesters plan to “burn, hang, or beat” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for his recent vote supporting Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. In a press release , Terry explains that the effigy tour is necessary because Kagan supporters are the “enemy” of God:
“If a man brings the enemy into your camp, he is helping the enemy; when he helps the enemy, he has become the enemy, and must be treated as such. Mr. Graham has betrayed God and innocent babies; we must treat him as a fraud and a traitor from this moment forth.
“On a lighter note, since Mr. Graham uses babies as pawns in his game of politics, we will play some ‘games’ in front of his offices, such as ‘pin the flip-flop’ on the donkey, and beating a Graham pinata. We promise – it will be a lot of fun.”
Yesterday, in an interview with Birmingham News, the far-right activist again reiterated his plans to “burn, hang or beat Senator Lindsay Graham in effigy,” adding that “we’re going to make comedy out of it and it’s gonna be a lot of fun.” Watch it:
- Nina Bhattacharya
Boehner, Fox’s Shep Smith, And Other Journalists Slam Breitbart For His Race-Baiting Smear Campaign
Boehner, Fox’s Shep Smith, And Other Journalists Slam Breitbart For His Race-Baiting Smear Campaign
This morning, President Barack Obama apologized to former USDA official Shirley Sherrod for her forced resignation based on a highly misleading video produced by right-wing media tycoon Andrew Breitbart. Obama “expressed his regret” in a phone call with Sherrod, which she described as “a very good conversation.” Sherrod also said she is considering suing Breitbart — who has refused to apologize or retract the story — for defamation, noting, “He was willing to destroy me…in order to try to destroy the NAACP.”
But Sherrod isn’t the only one denouncing Breitbart’s deceitful tactics. Speaking to the Daily Caller, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called it “unfortunate” that Breitbart “didn’t lay out the whole story, as opposed to a part of it.” “They only put a little piece of the story out there and people make judgments and they rush and they make bad decisions. They make rash decisions,” Boehner said.
Meanwhile, Fox New anchor Shep Smith — whose network breathlessly promoted the smear campaign — slammed Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com as “widely discredited,” and blasted the White House for acting on its video. Smith even called out his own employer, saying, “The video, taken completely out of context, it ran all over the Internet, and television, including on this network:”
We here at Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons, among them: we didn’t know who shot it, we didn’t know when it was shot, we didn’t know the context of the statement, and because of the history of the videos on the site where it was posted, in short we do not and did not trust the source. [...]
[The White House based its decision on] an edited videotape on a widely discredited website that has had inaccurate postings of videos in the past–edited to the point where the world was deceived. … What in the world has happened to our industry and the White House?
Watch it:
As Media Matters documented, a number of high-profile journalists have joined Smith in condemning Breitbart. CNN’s Anderson Cooper said Breitbart’s video was “clearly edited to deceive and slander Miss Sherrod.” Cooper added that Breitbart’s efforts to “weasel his way out of taking responsibility for what he did to Miss Sherrod is a classic example of what is wrong with our national discourse.” Politico’s Ben Smith noted that “Breitbart’s sites now have a growing credibility problem.”
Even conservative journalists, like the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack, denounced Breitbart. “Breitbart’s posting of the partial clip, which leaves out crucial information, was unfair to Sherrod,” McCormack wrote. “Sherrod deserves an apology from Breitbart for posting the edited video.” The National Review’s Jonah Goldberg agreed, writing Sherrod is “owed apologies from pretty much everyone, including my good friend Andrew Breitbart.”
However, Breitbart has at least one defender in hate radio host Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh attacked Shep Smith for “cav[ing]” and said the NAACP should now be spelled “R-A-C-I-S-M,” Limbaugh added.
Nelson cites deficit to vote against unemployment benefits but backs budget-busting tax cuts for rich.
Nelson cites deficit to vote against unemployment benefits but backs budget-busting tax cuts for rich.
Earlier this week, the Senate finally voted 60-40 to extend unemployment insurance for the millions of Americans who are unable to find work due to the poor economy. One senator who voted against extending these benefits was Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), who cited the deficit as his reason for opposing an extension. He gave the following statement to the press:
“I support extending unemployment benefits for Nebraskans and Americans who remain out of work. However, I opposed the Senate’s unemployment bill today because it should have, and it could have, been paid for.
“I oppose another $33 billion in deficit spending and increasing the debt. The six-month extension of unemployment benefits is a priority that can and should be funded. Some of the $70 billion in offsets included in earlier proposals could have been used to offset the $33 billion in new spending in this bill.”
However, today Nelson came out for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. While the senator cites the cost of extending unemployment benefits for Americans who are down on their luck and unable to find work as a reason to oppose extending unemployment insurance, he is endorsing massively expanding the deficit by extending Bush’s tax cuts for the richest Americans. Extending unemployment benefits has a relatively tiny budgetary cost of $33 billion, but extending the Bush tax cuts for one year alone would add $115 billion to the federal budget deficit. Effectively, the senator is not standing up for fiscal discipline — he is standing up for the richest Americans over those who are the worst off.
Right Wing Economist Laffer Bashes Greenspan For Calling For End Of Bush Tax Cuts
Right Wing Economist Laffer Bashes Greenspan For Calling For End Of Bush Tax Cuts
Last week, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan called for allowing the Bush tax cuts he championed in 2001 to fully expire, as scheduled, at the end of the year. His reversal dealt a blow to Republicans who are calling for an unpaid-for permanent extension of the cuts for the rich, even falsely claiming that they increase government revenues.
Unsurprisingly, Greenspan’s comments have irked some right-wing pundits. The strongly discredited economist and former member of President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board Arthur Laffer criticized Greenspan on the Fox Business network, questioning his patriotism and accusing him of practicing “bad economics.” Media Matters has the transcript:
HOST: Hey, Alan Greenspan says let [all the Bush tax cuts] expire. The former Fed Chairman. Let ‘em all expire.
LAFFER: Good for him. I mean there he goes. Well, I guess he’s out of power. He’s a little old. I don’t think he has any kids. Heck, what does he care? You know, I have six kids. I have eleven grandchildren. You know, I really care about the future of this country and I really don’t want to be taxed into poverty. I really don’t think it’s smart in this day and age, with this type of unemployment, to tax people who work more and to pay people who don’t work more. That just is silly. It’s bad economics.
Watch it:
Actually, Laffer’s recent suggestion to suspend all federal taxes should be called “bad economics,” not Greenspan’s recognition that his suggested policy didn’t work. As Media Matters’ Walid Zafar points out, “No serious economist on the left, center or right actually believes this stuff [Laffer is saying]. It’s quackonomics. It resonates well with the Tea Party crowd, but is without a foundation.”
In the past, Laffer held a different view of Greenspan and his policies. Laffer “supported Alan Greenspan being reappointed [as Fed Chairman] twice” and, in 2004, called Greenspan’s work “exquisite,” saying that he “ha[d] done one of the best jobs on monetary policy ever.” Yet, now that Greenspan is “out of power” and “a little old,” Laffer apparently thinks his economic prowess is gone.
The Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo asked a prescient question last week: “Greenspan at least seems to be coming around to the notion that the conservative economic philosophy is a big sham that doesn’t work in practice. Will the rest of the GOP ever follow?” Apparently not.
Boehner Admits Some Tea Party Attendees ‘Want To Kill All Of Us In Public Office’
Boehner Admits Some Tea Party Attendees ‘Want To Kill All Of Us In Public Office’
During a lunch with reporters yesterday, when asked about Rep. Michele Bachmann’s (R-MN) new Tea Party Caucus, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) offered a rather candid assessment of the Tea Party, acknowledging that some of their activists are violent “anarchists“:
BOEHNER: I’ve been to my share of tea party events. … Let me tell you about these events. Yeah, there’s some disaffected Republicans there. There are always some Democrats there. Always a couple of anarchists who want to kill all of us in public office. But I’ll tell you this: 75 percent of the people who show up at these events are the most average, everyday Americans you’ve ever met. … As I said earlier this year, we should listen to them, we should work with them, and we should walk amongst them.
Watch the full exchange:
In April, a New York Times and CBS News poll found self-identified Tea Party members are more likely than the general public to justify violence against the government.
Before Boehner tries to dismiss the violent “anarchists” as a rogue element, he should remember how prominent Republicans have sought to marshal those violent attitudes. Referring to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in March, RNC Chairman Michael Steele announced on Fox News: “Let’s start getting Nancy ready for the firing line this November.” Fox News contributor Sarah Palin directed her fans to “reload” against Democratic candidates in 2010.
Amid the outpouring of vandalism and death threats against Democratic lawmakers when health care reform passed, ThinkProgress compiled a video of GOP members of Congress’ extreme, violent rhetoric on the issue.
At the same time in March, Boehner himself appeared to be encouraging the anger behind the violence: “Violence and threats are unacceptable. That is not the American way… I know there’s anger, but let’s take that anger and go out and register people to vote, go volunteer on a political campaign, and let’s do it the right way.” Rep. Tom Perriello, whose family was threatened and harassed after he voted for health care reform, called Boehner’s statement “fairly outrageous,” saying those who threaten violence “need to be prosecuted, not brought into the campaign room.”
GOP Senate candidate: Vote for me ‘because I do not wear high heels.’
GOP Senate candidate: Vote for me ‘because I do not wear high heels.’
Responding to a question at a local forum over the weekend, Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck said that voters should choose him over his female primary opponent, former lieutenant governor Jane Norton, “because I do not wear high heels.” Buck’s spokesperson quickly defended the sexist remarks, saying Norton’s campaign “has made gender an issue” and that “high heels have been invoked at several points in the campaign, including at least once by Norton’s campaign manager”:
“She has questioned my manhood; I think it’s fair to respond,” Buck continues in the video. “I have cowboy boots on. They have real bull— on ‘em. That’s Weld County bull—, not Washington D.C. bull—.”
Watch it:
Earlier this month at the Western Conservative Summit, the Buck said that “the greatest threat to this country is the man who occupies the White House.” His campaign spokesman later clarified that the greatest threat not is one man, but the entire progressive movement.
Angle holds three-minute press conference, then runs from questions.
Angle holds three-minute press conference, then runs from questions.
Yesterday, after “dodging the press” for more than a month, Sharron Angle, the GOP Senate candidate running against Sen. Harry Reid (D) in Nevada, held her first press conference since her primary win in early June. However, it wasn’t much of a press conference because, like another GOP Senate candidate last month, she dodged reporters’ questions and rushed out the door of the building. The Las Vegas Sun reports:
In the warehouse of a family-owned clean diesel manufacturer in Sparks, Angle delivered a three-minute speech on her desire to permanently repeal the estate tax. When invited by the final speaker to stay and answer a few questions, she turned on her heel and rushed out a back door with a small cadre of staff members.
Reporters, including one who is six months pregnant, chased after her, calling out questions on unemployment benefits and other topics she has largely refused to address.
Watch it:
Angle may have been reluctant to answer questions since she spent her last interview calling unemployed Americans “spoiled.” Or perhaps she just knew that she would not have had an opportunity to plug her website and ask for campaign donations.
(h/t TPM)
Big Oil Companies Lobby Against U.S. National Security Interests, Try To Weaken Iran Sanctions Act
Big Oil Companies Lobby Against U.S. National Security Interests, Try To Weaken Iran Sanctions Act
Our guest blogger is Joshua Dorner, Communications Director for Progressive Media.
The recent revelations about BP’s alleged role in pressing for the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi in order to secure valuable oil concessions in Libya provides a potent reminder of the influence oil companies and other major corporations exert over foreign policy. New evidence uncovered by ThinkProgress shows that America’s own oil giants are also trying to shape U.S. foreign policy to protect or enhance their own profits, even if it puts American security at risk.
Lobbying disclosure forms filed with the Senate this week show that the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Halliburton lobbied the House, Senate, and various executive branch agencies on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act during the first half of the year as the bill was being debated in the Senate.
Big Oil’s interest in weakening the law is obvious. Among other things, the new law, signed by President Obama on July 1, imposes significant new sanctions on individuals and corporations “that directly and significantly contribute to Iran’s ability to develop petroleum resources” and that sell more than $200,000 in fuel or other refined petroleum products to Iran. The new sanctions are important because “although Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the world, it lacks refining capacity and relies on foreign suppliers for nearly 5 million gallons of gasoline a day.” In addition, the country’s energy industry is “a huge source of revenue for the Iranian government and a stronghold of the increasingly powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps,” which “oversees Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.”
Big Oil has no shortage of experience in doing business with Iran. A New York Times investigation revealed that many of these same companies often want to have it both ways by doing business with Iran at the same time that they receive billions in contracts and revenues from the U.S. government:
- ExxonMobil, which spent $2.5 million on lobbying last quarter, currently enjoys $4.9 billion in revenues from federal oil and gas leases and sold fuel additives to Iran until 2006.
- Shell, which spent $4 million on lobbying last quarter, has $11.9 billion in revenues and benefits from the U.S. government, a wide variety of business relationships with Iran, and is alleged to be in violation of the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act—the very law amended by the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act.
- ConocoPhillips, which spent $5.5 million lobbying last quarter, accrues $1.7 billion in revenue from federal grants and oil and gas leases and still actively profits from selling gasoline to Iran via Lukoil, in which it holds a minority stake.
- Halliburton has a whopping $27.1 billion in government contracts and, until 2007, provided oil and gas drilling services to Iran through a foreign subsidiary.
Big Oil helps prop up Iran’s regime in another important way: by opposing strong clean energy and climate legislation. The kind of strong legislation to move us off oil that is vocally opposed by the American Petroleum Institute would deny Iran $100 million a day in petrodollars.
The Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Act passed the House 412-12 and the Senate 99-0, so it’s not surprising that Big Oil’s activities in Iran are not very popular. While the websites of API and the oil companies say virtually nothing about Iran, ConocoPhillips appears to have inadvertently posted dozens of complaints it received about profiting from doing business with Iran. One commenter simply says “screw your buddies in Iran,” while another writes “I hpoe [sic] you choke on the blood stained money that you make from Iran.”
EXCLUSIVE: New Docs Show Truman Integrated Forces, Despite Military Objections
EXCLUSIVE: New Docs Show Truman Integrated Forces, Despite Military Objections
Earlier this month, as part of the year-long Defense Department review of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, the Pentagon distributed surveys to some 400,000 servicemembers to gauge their reaction to repealing the policy. While LGBT groups have characterized the questionnaire — which asks the troops to speculate on the sexuality of fellow servicemembers — as “derogatory and insulting,” the Pentagon continues to insist that they need to know what the troops are thinking in order to properly repeal the ban. “How do we identify beforehand the problems, the issues, and the challenges that we’re going to face? The kind of training requirements we’re going to need, the kinds of changes in regulations, the impact on benefits — all of these things need to be addressed in advance…. That’s where we want to hear from you all,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates told troops stationed in South Korea.
Earlier this week, the Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld reported, contrary to prior reports, that this is not the first time the military had surveyed the troops. “Prior to President Truman’s 1948 executive order integrating the armed forces…our preliminary research shows that branches of the armed forces undertook a number of modestly sized surveys of the attitudes of enlisted and nonenlisted troops concerning racial issues, integration, and morale,” Eleveld quoted a Defense Department spokesperson as saying.
Following this lead, the Wonk Room traveled to the National Archives and recovered some of the surveys the military conducted about the troops’ attitudes towards black and Jewish people between 1942 and 1946. At the time, the military — along with the overwhelming majority of the country — opposed integrating black servicemembers into the forces and preferred a ’separate but equal’ approach that would have required the military to construct separate recreation spaces and facilities. The survey about Jews was no more promising, with 86% of the soldiers agreeing that “there is nothing good about Jews“:
While “no official Army action was being considered with respect to Jewish soldiers,” Truman integrated the forces despite the objections of the troops. He allowed them to voice their opinions but did not let them dictate the policy.
It remains to be seen if Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and President Obama (who have to sign off on the DOD study) are willing to do the same for Don’t Ask, Don’ Tell. So far, the Pentagon insists that it will. “It is abundantly clear to this working group that their marching orders from the Secretary of Defense are to determine how to implement a repeal of DADT,” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon’s spokesperson insists. “Their job is not to determine whether or not the force wishes a repeal to take place or not to take place. Their job is to prepare for that inevitability.” (While the results of the DADT survey are obviously pending, past surveys of military veterans have found that an overwhelming majority say it’s “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.”)
Post produced with research help from Think Progress intern, Nina Bhattacharya.
Senate GOP Candidate Carly Fiorina Flip-Flops On Unemployment Benefits
Senate GOP Candidate Carly Fiorina Flip-Flops On Unemployment Benefits
After weeks of Republican obstructionism, the Senate — in a 60-40 vote yesterday — cleared the way for the extension of unemployment benefits to millions of struggling Americans. In California alone, where current unemployment is 12.3%, the state’s Employment Development Department reports, “the delay in benefit extension…affected about 260,000 jobless Californians.” In an interview with San Francisco’s KGO-AM radio yesterday, California’s GOP Senate candidate abandoned her former stance on extending unemployment benefits, indicating she would now “probably” support the extension if she was elected:
“I probably would vote for this extension, but I’ll tell you what, I think it is absolutely appropriate for people to stand on their desks and say, ‘When is it that we’re finally going to do what needs to be done and cut government spending?’” Fiorina said.
This statement stands in sharp contrast to the GOP candidate’s previous sentiments. In June, CNBC’s Larry Kudlow asked Fiorina if her time at HP qualifies her “to go after the government payrolls…to make the spending cuts in their salaries and their benefits.” Fiorina said “sure.” And earlier this month, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO told Good Morning America she would not have voted for the unemployment bill “the way it is put together today” and — like many of her Republican colleagues — cited concerns over the deficit to justify her position.
Although the GOP candidate has had a change of heart on unemployment benefits, still, as Wonk Room’s Pat Garofalo points out, “Fiorina’s only real solution to anything is to cut taxes. But that doesn’t do much good for those who are already out of work and have no taxable income, and it doesn’t spur demand that will give businesses more customers and thus a reason to expand.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll