Liz Cheney, Whose Dad Dismissed Public Opinion On Iraq, Now Outraged That Obama Is Ignoring Prop. C
Liz Cheney, Whose Dad Dismissed Public Opinion On Iraq, Now Outraged That Obama Is Ignoring Prop. C
Seventy-one percent of Missourians voting in the state’s primary election last week supported a ballot initiative saying the state cannot require its citizens pay a fine to the federal government if they do not purchase health insurance. While Republican voters represented much of the 23 percent of the state’s eligible voters that turned out, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs noted last week that the measure carries little significance because federal law trumps state law. It’s “a vote of no legal significance in the midst of heavy Republican primaries,” Gibbs said.
Today on Fox News Sunday, Liz Cheney took issue with Gibbs’ comment:
CHENEY: You’ve also have Robert Gibbs this week, when asked what does it mean if 71 percent of the people in Missouri said they don’t want any mandate for health insurance, he said, “it means nothing.” Now when you have a White House that is that unwilling to listen to what people out there are saying, I think, you know, it causes some real concern about whether or not they are actually going to be responsive to the voters.
Watch it:
If Liz Cheney is concerned that the White House isn’t listening to what the American people are saying — really only a small number of mostly Republican Missourians — she must have been really troubled when her father dismissed in 2008 polls showing that Americans opposed the Iraq war:
MARTHA RADDATZ (ABC): Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
DICK CHENEY: So?
RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?
CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.
But the reality is that recent polling shows that Americans are giving the new health care reform law increasing support. Kaiser Family Foundation polling has found that “overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward.”
In another flashback to the Bush years, Cheney criticized President Obama’s comment last week that the GOP “can’t have the keys back” to running the country because Republicans “don’t know how to drive!” “You have the President saying you can’t have the keys back like he’s the decider,” Cheney grumbled.
- Comments
- 170
Deficit Frauds Boehner And Pence Can’t Answer How Tax Cuts For Wealthy Will Be Paid For
Deficit Frauds Boehner And Pence Can’t Answer How Tax Cuts For Wealthy Will Be Paid For
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, House Republican leaders John Boehner (R-OH) and Mike Pence (R-IN) had a tough time answering host David Gregory’s questions about how they would pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
Gregory asked Boehner to respond to former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said last week that extending the tax cuts without offsets would be “disastrous” and that they do not pay for themselves. “The only way we’re going to get our economy going again…is to get the economy moving,” was all Boehner could muster in response. Gregory repeatedly pushed Boehner to answer how they would paid for, but the Minority Leader simply wouldn’t respond:
GREGORY: You’re not being responsive to a specific point which is how can you be for cutting the deficit and also cutting taxes as well when they’re not paid for?
BOEHNER: Listen, you can’t raise taxes in the middle of a weak economy. […]
GREGORY: But tax cuts are not paid for is that correct?
BOEHNER: I am not for raising taxes on the American people in a soft economy.
GREGORY: That’s not the question. Are tax cuts paid for or not?
BOEHNER: Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there. …
GREGORY: Do you believe tax cuts pay for themselves or not?
BOEHNER: I do believe that we’ve got to get more money in the hands of small businesses.
Later in the program, Pence ran into the same trouble:
GREGORY: This tension that I got out with Leader Boehner. Republicans want more tax cuts seems to me he acknowledged that they’re not paid for and yet at the same time they want tax cuts but they’re so worried about the deficit. How do you resolve that tension?
PENCE: Well I think the way you resolve it is you focus on jobs. …
GREGORY: But congressman, you’re asking Americans to believe that Republicans will have spending discipline when you’re saying extend the tax cuts that aren’t paid for and cut the deficit, how is that a consistent credible message?
PENCE: Well I understand the credibility problem. …
GREGORY: You acknowledge, tax cuts being extended cannot be paid for, it would be borrowed money.
PENCE: Well no I don’t acknowledge that. … I think it’s apples to oranges.
Watch it:
The reality is that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will cost $830 billion over the next ten years and the Republicans — who have made bringing down the deficit one of their signature issues — have no idea how they will pay for them.
Boehner open to repealing parts of the 14th amendment: ‘I think it’s worth considering.’
Boehner open to repealing parts of the 14th amendment: ‘I think it’s worth considering.’
Although the Republican National Committee touts the 14th amendment as one of the GOP’s brightest “accomplishments,” many high-profile Republicans are now trying to appeal to their far-right base by calling for repealing parts of it. Sens. Lindsey Graham (SC), John Cornyn (TX), Jon Kyl (AZ), John McCain (AZ), Tom Coburn (TX), Mitch McConnell (KY), Chuck Grassley (IA) and Jeff Sessions (AL) all back holding hearings on the issue. Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) joined them, saying that “clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants”:
GREGORY: Do you support efforts to have the 14th amendment amended at this point?
BOEHNER: Well David, I’m not the expert on this issue. I have read these comments here over the past week. There is a problem. To provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw more people to our country. I do think that it’s time for us to secure our borders and enforce the law and allow this conversation about the 14th amendment to continue.
GREGORY: Do you have a position on it?
BOEHNER: Listen, I think it’s worth considering. It’s a serious problem that affects our country, and in certain parts of our country, clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants — a lot of whom came here just so their children could become U.S. citizens. They should do it the legal way.
Watch it:
Ted Olson To Chris Wallace On Marriage Equality: ‘Would You Like Fox’s Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?’
Ted Olson To Chris Wallace On Marriage Equality: ‘Would You Like Fox’s Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?’
This morning, Ted Olson — the conservative lawyer who represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore — appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss his recent victory in overturning Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California. Throughout the interview, host Chris Wallace attempted to trip up his guest with a series of familiar Republican talking points, all of which Olson repudiated.
Wallace asked Olson to identify the right to same-sex marriage in the constitution and wondered why “seven million Californians” “don’t get to say that marriage is between a man and a woman.” Olson replied that the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and pointed out that the constitution made no explicit mention of interracial marriage either. He stressed that under our system of government, voters can’t deprive minority groups of their constitutionally guaranteed protections and reminded Wallace that in the 1960s, “Californians voted to change their constitution to say that you could discriminate on the basis of race in the sale of your home; the United States Supreme Court struck that down.”
When Wallace pressed the point further, likening same-sex marriage to abortion and noting that “the political process in the case of same-sex marriage was working” since states had been deciding the issue on a “state-by-state basis,” Olson asked Wallace how he would like it if Fox News’ right to free speech was decided in such a manner:
OLSON: Well, would you like your right to free speech? Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights. Yes, it’s encouraging that many states are moving towards equality on the basis of sexual orientation, and I’m very, very pleased about that. … We can’t wait for the voters to decide that that immeasurable harm, that is unconstitutional, must be eliminated.
Watch a compilation:
At the end of the interview, Wallace conceded that his right-wing points failed to crack Olson’s arguments. “Mr. Olson, we want to thank you so much for joining us today. We’ll keep following your lawsuit. And I gotta say, after your appearance today, I don’t understand how you ever lost a case in the supreme court, sir,” he said.
Study: Contemporary Mosques Are A Deterrent To The Spread Of Terrorism
Study: Contemporary Mosques Are A Deterrent To The Spread Of Terrorism
In recent weeks, conservatives who have been arguing against the construction of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero have been claiming that such a building would be “offensive” to the memory of the 9/11 victims. They have also tried to imply that this mosque would embolden terrorists, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich saying:
The idea of a 13-story building set up by a group many of whom, frankly, are very hostile to our civilization — and I’m talking now about the people who organized this, many of whom are apologists for sharia, which is a form of law that I think we cannot allow in this country, period.
However, today the New York Times highlights an academic study that concludes the opposite of what Gingrich and his uninformed ilk are claiming, finding that many mosques deter terrorism:
A two-year study by a group of academics on American Muslims and terrorism concluded that contemporary mosques are actually a deterrent to the spread of militant Islam and terrorism. The study was conducted by professors with Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and the University of North Carolina. It disclosed that many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.
“Our research suggests that initiatives that treat Muslim-Americans as part of the solution to this problem are far more likely to be successful,” said David Schanzer, one of the authors of the study. Co-author David Kurzman added, “Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization. This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11.”
The Center for American Progress recently held an event on identifying, preventing, and responding to domestic terrorism, with Schanzer and other experts. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) was the keynote speaker, and he pointed to the “critical role Muslims in America have played and must continue to play in fighting domestic violent extremism.” For example, as ThinkProgress highlighted, Aliou Niasse, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a vendor in Times Square, was the first to bring the smoking car that was part of the failed Times Square bombing plot to the police’s attention.
Unfortunately, the battle at Ground Zero is playing out across the country. In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, protesters are similarly disparaging a proposed mosque. In June, Lou Ann Zelenik — a Republican candidate for Congress in that area — claimed the mosque was “designed to fracture the moral and political foundation of Middle Tennessee.” Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R), who is running for governor, wondered whether Islam is a “cult” and said Muslims “crossed a line when they start trying to bring Sharia Law into the state of Tennessee.”
Additionally, supporters of these Islamic centers are not the ones who are being extremists — it’s the opponents who are ramping up. Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), run by self-described “anti-jihadist” and right-wing blogger Pamela Geller — has launched a series of bus ads reading, “Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get answers!” in major cities. Opponents of a planned mosque in southern California have ominously warned of a “confrontational atmosphere” if the construction plans move forward:
The pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, just across a cul-de-sac from the site of the mosque, said the two religions “mix like oil and water” and predicted a “confrontational atmosphere” if the project moves forward.
“The Islamic foothold is not strong here, and we really don’t want to see their influence spread,” said Pastor Bill Rench.
“There is a concern with all the rumors you hear about sleeper cells and all that. Are we supposed to be complacent just because these people say it’s a religion of peace? Many others have said the same thing,” he said.
On Friday, the Connecticut Post reported that approximately “a dozen right-wing Christians, carrying placards and yelling ‘Islam is a lie,’” confronted Muslim worshippers outside a mosque. Using a bullhorn, the protesters yelled “Jesus hates Muslims,” and one protester “shoved a placard at a group of young children leaving the mosque.”
Dodd: It’s Not Worth A Fight To Get Elizabeth Warren Confirmed As CFPB Director
Dodd: It’s Not Worth A Fight To Get Elizabeth Warren Confirmed As CFPB Director
When it first looked like Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren might stand a serious chance of getting appointed at the first director of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a regulatory agency which she was the first to suggest — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) poo-pooed the notion, saying there’s a “serious question” about whether Warren is “confirmable.”
The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber wrote that “after surveying a dozen insiders over the last few days — congressional aides, industry officials, progressive activists, and a few administration officials — I’ve concluded that the odds are good that Warren would be confirmed if nominated by the White House.” And Dodd now seems to have shifted his rhetoric, saying that even if Warren is confirmable, it’s not worth a potential fight to get her the job:
What you don’t need to have is an eight-month battle for who the director or the head or chairperson of this new consumer financial protection bureau will be.
Watch it:
Dodd pretty clearly would prefer that current Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Shelia Bair receive the nod, but Bair has said that she’s not interested in the job. “I did some checking on Sheila Bair and I was going to have very little difficulty getting Sheila Bair confirmed,” said Dodd. “I’d probably confirm her in a couple of days. That’s how strongly people felt, Democrats and Republicans.”
Bair certainly has the credentials to do the job, as she was one of the first federal officials warning about the proliferation of subprime loans during the buildup of the housing bubble. But she’s doing very important work at the FDIC, and as The Wonk Room explains, there’s simply no reason for passing over Warren.
Leaving aside Warren’s qualifications, it makes little sense that Dodd feels a political fight here isn’t worth it. Warren is an unabashed, articulate consumer advocate, and her nomination would set up a clear choice: consumers or the banks. After having overwhelmingly voted against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, Republicans standing against her nomination would once again be siding with the financial services industry. It’s worth the fight to show that dynamic at work.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Pawlenty’s Plan To Extend The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy: Take From The Middle Class
Pawlenty’s Plan To Extend The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy: Take From The Middle Class
As Republicans double down on the need to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, most have been unwilling to a offer a way to pay for the lost revenue they represent, while others have concocted a fantasy world where tax cuts pay for themselves.
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt yesterday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) called for the extension of all the Bush tax cuts, and at least attempted to provide a way to pay for them — use unspent stimulus money to find $40 billion:
HUNT: Okay, alright. $40 billion is what those [Bush tax cuts for the wealthy] cost in one year. Where you take the $40 billion from?
PAWLENTY: That’s easy. You can start by going back and looking at the stimulus package, which is still half unspent, which is not a good package. That could be redesigned and redeployed. And number two, if you look at the growth in federal spending, whether it’s in the entitlement side or the mandatory outlay side or on the discretionary side, you could easily find $40 billion.
Watch it:
First of all, Pawlenty’s figure of $40 billion is pathetic. Renewing the Bush tax cuts for the top two percent of Americans alone would cost $830 billion over ten years, more than 20 times the amount Pawlenty thinks he can find in the stimulus.
But more importantly, Pawlenty is suggesting taking tax cuts away from the middle class in order to give them to the rich. Contrary to conservative talking points, the stimulus package actually cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans, and there are still $55 billion in tax benefits that have yet to be expended. So removing funds from the stimulus to pay for tax cuts amounts to raising taxes on all of those people.
The tax benefits in the stimulus include the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, which will give up to $400 to working individuals and $800 for working married couples this year; the Additional Child Tax Credit, which makes more families eligible for tax credits; and the Earned Income Tax Credit, which increases tax credits to taxpayers with three or more children. Bottom line: Pawlenty’s proposal is to take money from the middle class and give it to the rich.
Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award.
Fareed Zakaria returns Anti-Defamation League award.
CNN host and Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria has returned a prestigious award given to him by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), saying he is “stunned” at their decision to oppose the construction of an Islamic community center near Ground Zero. From his column:
The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center. Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation.
On his CNN show this Sunday (which was pre-taped), Zakaria further says that he was “personally and deeply saddened” by the ADL’s stance. In a response letter to Zakaria, Foxman writes, “I am not only saddened but stunned and somewhat speechless by your decision.”
Conservatives Go After Judges Who Rule In Favor Of Marriage Equality
Conservatives Go After Judges Who Rule In Favor Of Marriage Equality
On Wednesday, Vaughn Walker, chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, issued a landmark ruling declaring the state’s ban on marriage equality unconstitutional and without any “rational basis.” His opinion was widely praised by legal scholars, with Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick writing that “nobody can fairly accuse Judge Walker of putting together an insubstantial or unsubstantiated opinion today.”
The right wing is trying nevertheless, as they have in other states where judges ruled that denying same-sex couples marriage rights is unconstitutional. They have called for impeaching the judges, launched political campaigns to oust them, and perhaps most disturbingly, perpetrated nasty whisper campaigns about their personal lives:
– Impeachment: The right wing is already calling for the impeachment of Walker, whose main crime seems to be issuing a decision with which it disagrees. The American Family Association (AFA) sent out one of its many action alerts yesterday, saying that Walker “frustrated the express will of seven million Californians.” Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, said that after her decision legalizing marriage equality, opponents “hired a small plane to fly for weeks over Boston” — including over her apartment building — trailing a banner reading, “Impeach Margaret Marshall.”
– Political Campaigns: Last year, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that marriage equality is legal. Scholars said that while the decision was “politically divisive,” it was “legally sound.” Critics, however, have launched Common Sense PAC, an effort to vote three of the justices who are up for a “retention vote” in November out of office. Common Sense PAC has “spent $2,272, and had $1,392 on hand as of July 15,” and it is erecting black plywood signs that are “designed to look like a ballot, with red check marks in the “No” column for each justice.”
– Personal Attacks: The right wing is currently engaged in a vicious smear campaign to dismiss Walker’s opinion by arguing that he is gay. AFA wrote its supporters that Walker is an “open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.” MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan said Walker must be gay because it was “unnatural” for an “older white guy” to support marriage equality. The right wing similarly went after Marshall in 2004, saying that she allegedly “colluded with homosexuals.”
These attacks are nothing more than sour grapes and grasping for straws. As NPR’s Karen Grigsby Bates has pointed out, conservatives had no problems with Walker’s sexuality when it was first announced that he would be the judge. Supporters of Prop. 8 “did not ask that he be recused from it. They didn’t think that he’d have a conflict in overseeing it,” she said. President George H.W. Bush also nominated Walker, who was opposed by many Democrats for being perceived as anti-gay.
Asked multiple times, Cantor can’t name a single thing he would do to reduce the deficit.
Asked multiple times, Cantor can’t name a single thing he would do to reduce the deficit.
Earlier this week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) admitted what many of his Republican colleagues will not: that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans will “dig the hole deeper” when it comes to the deficit. But that hasn’t changed Cantor’s desire to spend $830 billion to extend the cuts anyway. But if the tax cuts were actually extended, how would Cantor go about reducing the deficit? Today, Robert Barbera, chief economist of Mount Lucas Management — who seems sympathetic to extending all of the Bush tax cuts himself — asked Cantor three times what he would do to get the long-term budget deficit under control if the cuts were extended. “Excuse me, do you have any proposals about out-year cuts in entitlement expenditures?” he asked. The results were predictable:
CANTOR: First of all, let’s just talk about these so-called tax cuts. If you look at the entrepreneurs and small and large businesses out there, nobody’s getting a tax cut. One of two things is going to happen in January. Taxes go up or they stay the same.
BARBERA: No, no, no, I agree. I want my taxes to stay the same. I agree with you. I’m just saying if the contention is that we have a large expenditure problem, can’t you attach to this, and end the debate, some cuts in out-year entitlement spending? You’re saying we need to cut spending, so let’s cut spending.
CANTOR: Absolutely, listen, we’ve got spending to cut in the short-term, and what we’ve got is a huge problem in the long-term, where we’ve got to get serious about it. You’re absolutely right.
BARBERA: We could get serious about it now. In other words, there’s nothing preventing you from saying ‘I would propose that we cut, ten years out, expenditures on Social Security by blank.’ You could do that today. You could put out a press release.
Watch it:
Cantor finally came to the eloquent conclusion that we need a “commitment to long-term address these situations.” As the Wonk Room explains further, the GOP’s collective inability to name any solutions for the deficit shows that they’re fundamentally disinterested in serious budgeting. Of course, considering that Cantor’s “big idea” for job creation is “to get, to get, to produce an environment where we can have job creation again,” his performance really isn’t surprising.
Reminder to critics who think a mosque is offensive to the legacy of 9/11: There’s already one at the Pentagon.
Reminder to critics who think a mosque is offensive to the legacy of 9/11: There’s already one at the Pentagon.
In opposing the planned Islamic community center two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City, conservative stalwarts have picked up on right-wing extremists’ paranoid hysteria over the initiative. In an interview with RealClearPolitics today, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) joined Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney, and many others in attacking the plan as an “inappropriate” affront to 9/11 victims. Deeming the site “hallowed” and “sacred ground,” he asserted that “we shouldn’t have images or activities that degrade or disrespect [the site] in anyway.” But, as Salon’s Justin Elliott points out, Pawlenty and company are “strangely silent” over the fact that “Muslims have been praying inside the Pentagon since Sept. 11″:
Yes, Muslims have infiltrated the Pentagon for their nefarious, prayerful purposes — daring to practice their religion inside the building where 184 people died on Sept. 11, 2001. They haven’t even had the sensitivity to move two blocks, let alone a mile, away from that sacred site.
In noting the Pentagon’s Ramadan celebrations and a Qur’an reading at a 9/11 memorial service one month after the attack, Elliott points out that “no one has ever heard about Muslims praying at the Pentagon — let alone cared.” “It’s almost as if the entire ‘ground zero mosque’ controversy was whipped up out of nothing by a right-wing tabloid and politicians in search of a wedge issue,” he said. (HT: Daily Kos)
Is McCain now ‘waving a white flag to al Qaeda’?
Is McCain now ‘waving a white flag to al Qaeda’?
Last night, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) called for unanimous consent to bring the Defense Authorization bill to the floor of the Senate after the August recess. The bill includes an amendment to begin the process of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who earlier in the day reassured reporters that he woud not filibuster the measure, objected, citing his opposition to the DADT amendment:
MCCAIN: I’m not going to allow us to move forward and I will be discussing with out leaders and the 41 members of this side of the aisle as to whether we’re going to move forward with a bill that contains a Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy repealed before, before a meaningful survey on the impact of battle effectiveness and morale on the men and women who are serving this nation in uniform. It’s again…moving forward with a social agenda on legislation that was intended to ensure this nation’s security.
Watch it:
During the 2008 presidential campaign, McCain accused Obama — who at the time voted against the defense authorization measure because it did not include a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq — of embracing the policy of surrender and called his vote “the equivalent of waving a white flag to al-Qaeda.” The Wonk Room peels back the layers of hypocrisy surrounding McCain’s claims.
Opponent Of Cordoba House Is Building A Museum On Top Of A Muslim Cemetery In Jerusalem
Opponent Of Cordoba House Is Building A Museum On Top Of A Muslim Cemetery In Jerusalem
Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center appeared on Fox News yesterday to argue against the Cordoba House project in lower Manhattan. “It’s a great idea, it’s the wrong location,” Hier said. “It’s very insensitive.”
HIER: For 3000 families, the 9/11 site is one of the — is the site of one of the greatest atrocities ever committed in the United States, and it’s a cemetery. And the opinion of the families should be paramount as to what should go near that site. Now having a fifteen-story mosque within 1600 feet of the site is at the very least insensitive.
Watch it:
Interestingly, while Hier believes that Ground Zero should be treated as a cemetery, Hier’s own organization is currently building a “Museum of Tolerance” atop an actual cemetery — the Mamilla Cemetery, a Muslim graveyard in Jerusalem “with thousands of grave sites that go back some 1200 years.” The planned museum has caused a huge international uproar, causing celebrity architect Frank Gehry to withdraw from the project.
In February 2010, the Center for Constitutional Rights and other groups filed a petition on behalf of the Palestinian descendants of those buried in the Mamilla Cemetery. The petition claimed:
A significant portion of the cemetery is being destroyed and hundreds of human remains are being desecrated so that SWC can build a facility to be called the “Center for Human Dignity – Museum of Tolerance” on this sacred Muslim site.
Great idea. Wrong location.
Howard Dean Launches Misguided Attack On Health Reform
Howard Dean Launches Misguided Attack On Health Reform
Speaking on MSNBC this morning, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D) made the wildly incorrect claim that the provision in the Affordable Care Act requiring almost all Americans to carry insurance is not “essential to the plan”:
DEAN: [T]he truth is the mandate’s not essential to the plan anyway. It never was essential to the plan. They did it in Massachusetts and had a mandate, but we have universal health care for kids in my state without a mandate. … I made this prediction before and I’m going to make it again: by the time this thing goes into effect in 2014, I think the mandate will be gone either through the courts or because it’s unpopular. You don’t need it. There will be two or three percent of the people who cheat. That is not enough to bring the system to a halt and people don’t like to be told what to do.
Watch it:
Sadly, Dean — who has been a leading progressive champion for health reform — is simply wrong about the mandate. As MIT economist Jonathan Gruber explains, this provision is essential to any health reform package that forbids discrimination against persons with preexisting conditions:
Insurance companies are also prohibited from excluding coverage due to preexisting illnesses. This is a highly popular reform, but it doesn’t work in a vacuum. If insurance companies must charge the same price to people whether they’re sick or healthy many healthy people will view this as a “bad deal” and not buy insurance. This results in higher prices that chase even more people out of the market. The result is a “death spiral” that leads only the sick to purchase insurance at very high prices. Several states tried such community rating reforms—offering health insurance policies within a given territory at the same price to all persons without medical underwriting—in their nongroup markets over the past two decades, and sharp rises in insurance prices ensued along with rapidly shrinking market size.
An amicus brief that I co-wrote on behalf of seventeen disease and health organizations goes into more detail. It explains that seven states attempted to ban preexisting conditions discrimination without also requiring everyone to carry a minimum level of coverage, and all of them saw their premiums skyrocket. According to a scholarly study of Vermont’s health plan, Vermont’s premiums shot up after it enacted a ban on preexisting conditions discrimination but no mandate in 1993. Between 1994 and 1996, most of the country only experienced single-digit increases in its insurance costs. In Vermont, however, average premiums increased by 16 percent during this same two year period.
In Massachusetts, the one state to enact a minimum coverage provision along with its ban on discrimination, the numbers are very different. There, individual premiums fell a massive 40 percent in the years after Massachusetts’ minimum coverage law went into effect, while the rest of the nation experienced a 14 percent increase.
Dean’s claim that the courts may strike down the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision is also misguided. No one questions that a ban on discrimination against persons with preexisting conditions is constitutional, and, as even ultraconservative Justice Antonin Scalia admits, when Congress passes a constitutional law “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.”
Whitehouse Assails GOP’s ‘Violation Of The Courtesies And Traditions Of The Senate’ Over Judicial Nominee
Whitehouse Assails GOP’s ‘Violation Of The Courtesies And Traditions Of The Senate’ Over Judicial Nominee
Before the Senate officially recessed last night, the chamber unanimously confirmed dozens of executive nominations, including three federal district court judges and one circuit court judge. Because of a Senate rule on recesses of a certain length, the remaining unconfirmed nominees will need to have their appointments resubmitted by the White House when the Senate returns in September.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) came to the floor yesterday evening to request unanimous consent to waive this requirement for John McConnell, a federal district court judge nominee for Rhode Island. While noting how Senators’ preferences on district court nominees for their home states are usually deferred to, he said the re-submission rule “adds nothing to the process other than…deliberate and unnecessary hassle.” However, Republican Senators had already “bolt[ed] town en masse,” so Whitehouse respected “the Senate’s long-standing tradition that the majority party does no business without a member of the minority party present.”
Still, he expressed his frustration about “holding myself back out of respect for the traditions and courtesies of the Senate,” while Republicans — who couldn’t be bothered to tend to their official duties — left him “on the loosing end of a violation of the courtesies and traditions of the Senate”:
WHITEHOUSE: Well, I’m in an interesting predicament here. I am informed that there is no one from the minority party in town that with the end of the session, everybody is headed home, and therefore there is no one around to respond to my request for a unanimous consent. I will confess that I’m inclined to take advantage of this moment by propounding the unanimous consent, which I would obviously win.
The presiding officer would grant the order because there would be no objection. But I also believe that to do so would be inconsistent with the courtesies and the traditions of the Senate. And so I will not take that step at this time, but it is frustrating to be in this position of holding myself back out of respect for the traditions and courtesies of the Senate when I feel that at the moment I’m on the loosing end of a violation of the courtesies and traditions of the Senate.
Watch it:
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved McConnell’s nomination by a 13-6 vote in mid-June, and his confirmation has been pending on the Senate floor ever since. Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “has launched an extraordinary campaign against seating McConnell” because he’s represented plaintiffs in lawsuits against companies for asbestos and lead-paint safety violations.
Last week, a Center for American Progress report by Ian Millhiser explained how the Senate Republicans’ rate of obstructing judicial nominees is unprecedented. The obstruction has even “extended like a blanket over” district court nominees, who have been “historically uncontroversial” and largely unopposed. Overall, the Senate has only confirmed around 40 percent of Obama’s judicial nominees, even though “every modern president saw 80 percent or more of his judicial nominees confirmed.” Because Senate rules let the minority party delay and obstruct action on the floor to an extreme degree, Millhiser explains that “to get the 48 pending nominees confirmed, the Senate would have to do nothing else for the next 120 days, working around the clock, 24/7.”
DeMint Tries To Rewrite History: ‘This Was Not Bush’s Recession’
DeMint Tries To Rewrite History: ‘This Was Not Bush’s Recession’
During a lengthy speech on the Senate floor yesterday about his opposition to the confirmation of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) went on a tangent, claiming the ongoing economic downturn “was not Bush’s recession” but was a “result of Democrat economic polices”:
DEMINT: The decision that have been made about our economy over the last couple of years have brought our economy to its knees. This is no longer something we can blame on President Bush. In fact, the Democrats have been in control of policy making, economic policy spending, for four years now. This is not Bush’s recession. This is the result of Democrat economic polices. This nomination will continue our move in the wrong direction.
Watch it:
Even the staunchly conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board understood it was Bush’s recession, writing in early 2009 that Bush’s comment that “Wall Street got drunk and we got a hangover,” “reveals how little the President comprehends about the source of his Administration’s economic undoing. To extend his metaphor, Who does Mr. Bush think was serving the liquor?” Even if one ignores everything after 2006, Bush still had the worst record of job creation in 40 years.
Moreover, the economy only began to recover after President Obama and the Democratic Congress passed the stimulus package in early 2009. Since then, the GDP has grown, the financial sector has recovered, and — while the overall employment situation is still bleak — private sector job growth has rebounded:
In a recent report, two leading economists “empirically proved” that the Obama’s stimulus package and other interventionist measures “helped avert a second Depression.” Without the stimulus package, GDP would have been 2 percent lower and an additional 2.7 million jobs would have been lost, they found. Meanwhile, “On every major measurement” of economic growth, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, citing Census data.
It’s odd that DeMint — a tea party leader who has tried to distance himself from Bush — would defend the former president. Bush’s economic record is clear — “the worst track record for job creation” of any modern president, anemic income growth, and increased poverty — but as Republicans attempt to repackage Bush’s failed economic policies as something new, perhaps it’s not surprising that DeMint is trying to resurrect Bush’s legacy.
Granholm: Limbaugh’s Attacks On American-Made Electric Vehicles Are ‘Un-American’
Granholm: Limbaugh’s Attacks On American-Made Electric Vehicles Are ‘Un-American’
Last Friday, President Obama visited General Motors and Chrysler plants in Detroit, MI to resoundingly reaffirm the administration’s decision last year “to rescue the ailing auto industry.” While visiting the GM plant, the President test drove Chevrolet’s highly touted electric car, the Volt. In anticipation of Obama’s visit to Detroit, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh launched a campaign to deride Chevrolet’s electric vehicle, attacking “everything from the federal bailout of Chevy’s parent General Motors Corp. to the supposed superiority complex of people who would buy electric or hybrid cars.”
At a Center for American Progress event yesterday entitled “Securing Michigan’s Clean Energy Future,” Think Progress spoke with Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) about Limbaugh’s high-handed criticisms of the Chevy Volt. Granholm — a passionate advocate of clean energy as an avenue of job growth and economic revitalization — said Limbaugh’s claims are “just un-American.” She also pointed out that the Volt is a “‘good’ new story” and GM has successfully paid back its loans to the public:
Q: And we know you’ve had the disaster in the Gulf, you’ve had an oil spill in your own state. You know, you guys are doing a lot in making these investments in batteries and in new care. And here you have people like Rush Limbaugh, come out and say that the Volt is an “overpriced lemon.” What do you say to critics?
GRANHOLM: It’s just un-American. I can’t believe that somebody would say this about this American product. He hasn’t even driven it. He hasn’t sat in it. You know, why wouldn’t you be supportive of American manufacturers building American vehicles with American workers, who now have jobs as a result of this. Why wouldn’t you be supportive of that? It is mind-blowing to me. And of course, the public is getting paid back. You know, GM has paid back the loan — the bottom line is, is this is a “good” news story, and somebody who would twist it to be something negative obviously has another agenda. Which we all know he does.
Watch it:
During his vitriolic attack on the Volt last week, Limbaugh announced “with no small amount of pride that he turned down General Motors’ lucrative offer to continue advertising for the company because his strong principles would not allow him to recommend to people the Chevy Volt.” Last year, however, the hate radio host was singing quite a different tune. As Media Matter notes, when GM’s advertising dollars began flowing to his network in April 2009, Limbaugh eagerly endorsed the auto company’s payment protection plan despite lambasting GM only weeks earlier.
Bill O’Reilly asks why Obama has not come out in favor of same-sex marriages.
Bill O’Reilly asks why Obama has not come out in favor of same-sex marriages.
Lately, Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly has been flanking to the left of President Obama on gay rights issues. Late last month, O’Reilly suggested that the President should “sign an executive order” ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). And yesterday, during a segment about U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision overturning Proposition 8, O’Reilly wondered why Obama has not come out in support of same-sex marriages:
O’REILLY: But why do you think he opposes it?
HOLDER: I don’t know. I mean, I wish we could get a reason from him…. I wish we could get a reason from him instead from Axelrod and his administration. Why do I think? I can’t speculate for the president. I don’t think anybody knows.
O’REILLY: Because I don’t know either. I mean, I got — I’ll sympathize with you. I don’t know why the president is against it either. I mean, you know.
Watch it:
O’Reilly’s concern is shared by many opponents of Proposition 8, who have expressed bewilderment over the administration’s response to the ruling. The Wonk Room breaks down the reaction to the President’s statement and recalls his past support for same-sex marriages.
Angle opposes civil rights protections for gays, wants clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit.
Angle opposes civil rights protections for gays, wants clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit.
In a June interview with a local Nevada NBC news affiliate, GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle reaffirmed her belief that the separation of church and state is unconstitutional. The drafters of the Constitution “didn’t mean that we couldn’t bring our values to the political forum,” she said. The AP reports that — according to a questionnaire for a conservative PAC that endorsed her candidacy — Angle has expounded on that view and revealed more of her far-right positions on social issues:
Republican Sharron Angle believes the clergy should be allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit and opposes laws allowing gays to adopt children. [...]
Among her positions, outlined in answers to 36 yes-or-no questions, Angle would oppose making sexual orientation a protected minority in civil rights laws. In a section on school prayer, she affirms that students and teachers should be able to talk openly about religion in schools, including the right to “publicly acknowledge the Creator.”
The federal government bans churches from participating in political campaigns on behalf of candidates, but Angle said clergy should be able to express views on candidates from the pulpit.
Also in the questionnaire, Angle reaffirmed her view that abortion should be illegal “in all cases” and considers a fetus a person under the Constitution. The GOP candidate had previously said that getting an abortion in cases for rape or incest would interfere with God’s “plan” and that women in those situations should instead make “a lemon situation into lemonade.”
ThinkFast: August 6, 2010
ThinkFast: August 6, 2010
The Labor Department’s employment report released this morning indicates the U.S. economy lost 131,000 jobs last month. Much of the decrease was due to the completion of work performed by temporary Census workers. Private-sector employment edged up by 71,000. June’s employment figures were revised downward from 125,000 jobs lost to 221,000.
The Obama administration named 14 U.S.-based individuals who were accused of being part of a “deadly pipeline” that routed money and fighters to the Somali al-Shabab network. “Attorney General Eric Holder said the indictments reflect a disturbing trend of recruitment efforts targeting U.S. residents to become terrorists.”
Yesterday, the Republican National Committee adopted a change to party rules requiring future candidates to “sign a pledge promising not to oppose their party’s eventual nominee in the race or else forego any national party money for their campaign effort.” The loyalty oath is meant to avoid defections like that of Gov. Charlie Crist, who dropped out of the GOP primary race to run as an independent.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell yesterday publicly asked WikiLeaks to return the tens of thousands of classified U.S. field reports from the war in Afghanistan it made available on its website earlier this month, as well as the 15,000 additional documents it may soon release. “We are asking them to do the right thing and not further exacerbate the damage done to date,” Morrell said.
“The number of Army soldiers forced to serve beyond their commitment has been cut in half in the past year and is on track to be eliminated by March 2011.” The practice, known as “stop loss,” has affected the majority of the Army’s soldiers since 2001, and has been blamed for low morale an even high suicide rates.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll