Ted Olson On FNS: ‘Would You Like Fox’s Right To Free Press Put Up To A Vote?’
Ted Olson On FNS: ‘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.
- Comments
- 119
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 there’s simply no reason for passing over Warren.
As Paul Krugman wrote, “Warren really is a pioneering expert on household debt and financial distress, who has also shown an ability to work effectively in an official position.” The Boston Globe called her the “clear choice” for the CFPB job:
Warren, a Harvard Law School professor, has conducted extensive research on bankruptcy, predatory lending, and other consumer-finance issues. Throughout her tenure as head of a panel appointed by Congress to provide oversight of the federal bailout funds, Warren has sought to connect the machinations of the financial system with the struggles of average families. She raised early alarms about subprime mortgages, and her work casts light on how a deliberate obscurity in the terms of credit cards and mortgages contributed to an unsustainable growth of consumer debt.
Leaving aside Warren’s qualifications, it makes no sense to me 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. I can’t see why we “don’t need” to show that dynamic at work.
By Pulling The Economy Back From The Cliff, Lawmakers Also Reduced The Deficit
By Pulling The Economy Back From The Cliff, Lawmakers Also Reduced The Deficit
Our guest blogger is Heather Boushey, Chief Economist at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
In their report, How We Ended the Great Recession, Economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi estimates the effects of the financial and fiscal policies enacted since the crisis began in 2008 on the economy. Their conclusion is that had the combined financial and fiscal policies not been enacted, “GDP in 2010 would be about 6.5 percent lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8.5 million jobs, and the nation would be experiencing deflation.”
Blinder and Zandi break out their estimates separately for the financial policies and the fiscal policies. They estimate that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other fiscal policies have saved or created 2.7 million jobs and without them, unemployment would stand at 11 percent and job losses would have totaled 10 million. On top of this, they estimate that if nothing had been done to address the financial crisis — no Troubled Asset Relief Program, no bailout of American International Group Inc, and no investment in the auto industry — our economy would have 5 million fewer jobs than we do today and unemployment would be sharply higher, at 12.5 percent.
However, one tidbit in the report that has received little notice is that by acting, Congress actually reduced our potential deficit problem. Given the policy steps taken, Blinder and Zandi estimate that by the end of the 2010 fiscal year, the federal budget deficit will be $1.4 trillion and it will fall to $1.15 trillion in fiscal year 2011 and $900 billion in fiscal year 2012.
However, had Congress done nothing, the deficit would have ballooned even higher, hitting over $2 trillion by the end of the 2010 fiscal year, $2.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in fiscal year 2012. That’s right, doing nothing would have meant that the 2012 federal budget deficit would likely be over 2.5 times as large as taking the steps we took.
How’s this possible? Quite simply: a big reason that the deficit is rising is because unemployment has risen and incomes are falling. As my colleague Michael Linden has pointed out, the reason for the deficit is the recession itself:
The great deficit of 2009 was the result not just of increased spending, but also of dramatically lower tax revenues. In 2009, federal receipts were $419 billion below 2008 levels, a 17 percent drop, which was the largest decline from one year to the next in more than 70 years. Individual income tax receipts decreased by 20 percent, and corporate income tax revenues plummeted by more than 54 percent, which means corporations paid less than half in taxes than they paid the year before.
Of course, the main culprit here is the economic recession. Corporations paid lower taxes because they made lower profits. Individuals paid less in taxes because they lost their jobs, didn’t get raises, and didn’t make as much on their investments. The tax cuts directed at both families and businesses passed as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had a part to play here as well—about 15 percent of the decline in tax revenues can be attributed to provisions in ARRA—but the overall trend was driven primarily by the weak economy.
By taking actions to avert greater unemployment, we averted a bigger deficit. It seems there’s a win-win here that everyone should get on board with: the steps taken to shore up our economy have ended up being a better investment for jobs and for the deficit than doing nothing at all.
Former Bishop Deconstructs Some Chaplains’ Complaints About Repealing DADT
Former Bishop Deconstructs Some Chaplains’ Complaints About Repealing DADT
Conservative groups argue that repealing the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy would silence military chaplains and undermine their constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of religion. “If chaplains are forced to council same sex couples or are limited in the moral teachings that they can present, you can look for Orthodox Christian chaplains to exit the military, leaving an insurmountable void in the fostering of an environment that ensures that the man and women who wear the uniform are in their best mental, emotional and spiritual condition necessary to defend the nation and the ideals that they represent,” the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins explained back in April.
But in a recent Letter to the Editor published in USA Today, Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson — the first openly gay priest elected bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion — argues that this argument “raises needless fears based on a flawed understanding of the policies that govern the military chaplaincy“:
These policies are designed to preserve and protect the free exercise of religion in the military and would remain in effect after the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT).
No Roman Catholic, fundamentalist Christian or Orthodox Jewish chaplain would have to change her or his beliefs about homosexuality. If any gay or lesbian servicemembers went to one of these chaplains, they would still receive the counseling against homosexuality they have always received. What they wouldn’t receive is a discharge from their military service for being gay and speaking about it.
Presumably, these same chaplains have counseled soldiers against getting an abortion, even though it is perfectly legal to do so. Speaking against homosexuality is what gay and lesbian soldiers have come to expect from these brands of religious leaders. Within each chaplain’s congregation, he or she will continue to be free to preach according to the tenets of his or her own faith. That will not change.
In other words, file this claim under “still can’t come up with an explanation of how same-sex marriage negatively affects straight people.” During the Prop 8 trial, “proponents in their trial brief promised to ‘demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass same-sex relationships’ would effect some twenty-three specific harmful consequences,” but provided “no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate.” When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention during closing arguments, “proponents’ counsel replied, ‘”you don’t have to have evidence of this point.’”
The lack of evidence about harm prompted Judge Walker to conclude, “Because the evidence shows same-sex marriage has and will have no adverse effects on society or the institution of marriage, California has no interest in waiting and no practical need to wait to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Proposition 8 is thus not rationally related to proponents’ purported interests in proceeding with caution when implementing social change.”
Robinson took one other swipe at the Chaplains who are complaining about ending DADT, “If chaplains can operate effectively in a war zone, surely they can withstand some subtle pressure to accept all soldiers as the children of God they were created to be,” he wrote.
Are Some States Unequipped To Review ‘Unreasonable’ Health Insurance Rates?
Are Some States Unequipped To Review ‘Unreasonable’ Health Insurance Rates?
The Los Angeles Times’ Noam Levey has an interesting article this morning examining just how powerless some state regulators are when it comes to controlling out of control health insurance premiums. Under the new health care law, these regulators are tasked with reviewing premiums and denying “unreasonable” increase, but as Levey discovered, in some states, insurers have effectively neutered their effectiveness:
Since 2003, insurance companies and HMO’s have given more than $42 million in state-level campaign contributions, often targeting lawmakers who sit on the committees that decide how much power regulators will have, according to campaign finance data analyzed by the Tribune Washington Bureau and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
In some of the nation’s largest states, those same lawmakers have effectively blocked legislative efforts to control the industry.
Now, consumer advocates and administration officials are urgently trying to spark new state efforts because the new healthcare law only gives the federal government limited power to regulate premiums, traditionally a state responsibility. The Obama administration plans to announce a series of $1 million grants next week to help states increase their oversight.
The health law makes $250,000,000 in grants available to states to review premium increases between 2010 and 2014. To qualify for a grant, a state must provide the Secretary with “trends in premium increases in health insurance coverage in premium rating areas in the State” and “make recommendations, as appropriate, to the State Exchange about whether particular health insurance issuers should be excluded from the Exchange based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.”
The first round of rate review grants did not require states to adopt a strict prior review process that would have given regulators the authority to deny “unreasonable” increases, and one would think that this will change with subsequent waves of grant dollars. Unfortunately, some states like California — a state that has passed legislation implementing large portions of the law — are already falling short of expectations, prompting the group Consumer Watchdog to ask HHS Secretary Sebelius to reject the state’s application. “We ask this not to deprive the state of needed funds, but to prevent the funds from being used for a purpose that is near-opposite the intent of the law,” the group wrote.” “In effect, the state would use the HHS grant money to hire actuaries who may be able to look at insurance rates but will be prevented by law from regulating them. The governor’s legislative proposal, referenced in the grant application, explicitly states that when an insurance rate is found to be both unreasonable and unjustified, or plain inaccurate, the most that regulators may do is to publish that information online.”
Currently, 23 states do not review and approve premium changes in the individual market and 5 of those 23 have no rate regulations at all. HHS will need to establish clear standards for giving out grant dollars and Levey’s article about the existing status quo only reiterates the importance of adequate rate review.
Republicans Mindlessly Obstruct Federal Reserve Board Nominee Amidst A Weak Economy
Republicans Mindlessly Obstruct Federal Reserve Board Nominee Amidst A Weak Economy
MIT Professor Peter Diamond
Also sent back to the White House due to inaction was the nomination of MIT professor Peter Diamond to the Federal Reserve Board. But unlike the judge Whitehouse is concerned with, Republicans were around to hear a request dispensing with the kick-back. They simply objected to it:
Under Senate rules, all nominations that aren’t completed before a lengthy recess go back to the White House and have to be resubmitted unless the Senate unanimously agrees to hold onto them and act later, Stewart said. Routinely, the Senate does agree to retain the nominations. If a single senator objects, the name goes back to the president’s office. In Diamond’s case, at least one senator did that. [Sen. Mitch McConnell's (R-KY) spokesman Don] Stewart said he didn’t know the identity of the lawmakers.
Whitehouse said that the re-submission rule “adds nothing to the process other than…deliberate and unnecessary hassle.” And in the case of Diamond, it leads to the Federal Reserve remaining shorthanded at a critical time for the economy. “It’s very hard for the Federal Reserve to operate with only five people,” said former Fed Governor H. Robert Heller. “To have the Fed at full strength with seven persons there is very important.”
As David Dayen put it, it sure seems like Republicans are “just obstructing for sport now.” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has expressed concern that Diamond was not qualified for the position, but as Matt Yglesias pointed out, his PhD in economics means he “would clearly raise the level of macroeconomic expertise on a board that’s currently dominated by bankers and bank regulators.”
This is just part and parcel of an unprecedented effort by Republicans to slow down, stall, and delay the Senate, thereby denying the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats the opportunity to claim any accomplishments. The Fed currently is contemplating, though hasn’t undertaken, more steps to boost employment amidst the sluggish recovery. Diamond, as well as Obama’s two other Fed nominees, would likely be in the camp that wants to take such steps.
Architects Of SB-1070 Looking At Challenging Historic Plyler Vs. Doe Decision
Architects Of SB-1070 Looking At Challenging Historic Plyler Vs. Doe Decision
Earlier this week, state Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ), the sponsor of Arizona’s newest immigration law, stated that he plans on introducing legislation that would require undocumented immigrant parents to pay tuition in order for their children to attend public schools in Arizona. However, Pearce’s proposal would be in clear violation of the historic Plyler vs. Doe decision in which the Supreme Court ruled against a state statute denying education funding to undocumented children in 1982. Nonetheless, in response to a question on whether Plyler vs. Doe will be “taken on,” Michael Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), stated in an interview with the Dallas Morning News that “[w]e have already drafted up the legislation in several different states, and I am sure that to the extent that the wave of this unrest continues you will see it tried.”
To begin with, the IRLI is the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant group that has most recently been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. While Pearce sponsored SB-1070, IRLI lawyers with an office based in Washington, DC were the brains responsible for crafting the legislation. IRLI describes itself as “America’s only public interest law organization working exclusively to protect the legal rights, privileges, and property of U.S. citizens and their communities from injuries and damages caused by unlawful immigration.” In other words, they get paid a lot of money to exploit fear and frustration over the nation’s broken immigration system by writing laws for states and localities that push the limits of legality and then make even more money when they get to defend them in court. So, chances are Hethmon has a pretty good idea about what kinds of anti-immigrant pieces of legislation his firm stands to profit from in the future.
With that said, challenging Plyler vs. Doe would likely be a costly legal battle. The majority opinion left little ambiguity. According to Justice William Brennan, the “denial of education to some isolated group of children poses an affront to one of the goals of the Equal Protection Clause: the abolition of governmental barriers presenting unreasonable obstacles to advancement on the basis of individual merit.” In his decision, Brennan cited the Brown v. Board of Education ruling which dictated that education “is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Brennan also noted that not doing so isn’t even in the state’s interest. “It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime,” noted Brennan while also adding that it probably wouldn’t be enough to cause undocumented immigrants to leave.
It would also be a logistical nightmare. Schools officials would basically become de facto immigration agents, checking the immigration status of all the students who register to receive public education. It’s also unclear exactly how high “tuition” would be, but it’s hard to believe it would make up for the exorbitant amount of money, training, and time associated with checking every student’s immigration status — resources that probably would be better spent on actual teaching. And if Pearce hypothetically succeeds in his ridiculous attempt to deny the American-born children of undocumented immigrants citizenship, not even a birth certificate would qualify as proof of legal residence.
Plyler vs. Doe probably isn’t going to stop Pearce or IRLI from moving forward with their attack on poor, mostly brown immigrants. And while it’s hard to say whether their efforts will get very far, their assault on children and babies shows just how far they’re willing to go on their “attrition through enforcement” crusade.
Global Boiling Fuels Disasters In Nuclear Nations
Global Boiling Fuels Disasters In Nuclear Nations
Fueled by the buildup of fossil fuel pollution, the world’s out-of-control climate is destabilizing many of the nations that control nuclear weapons, including Russia, China, North Korea, India, and Pakistan. Thousands have died in fires and floods, millions left homeless, and crops failed in the withering heat, the greatest the modern world has ever faced:
RUSSIA Moscow has reached 102.2° F, after never before even breaking the 100-degree mark in recorded history. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev have flooded the airwaves in response to outrage over the wildfires and droughts caused by the global heat wave, as officials are forced to admit the situation is out of control. The Russian government has recommended people evacuate Moscow, banned wheat exports, diverted flights, fired senior military officers, and warned the fires could pose a nuclear threat if they reach areas contaminated by Chernobyl. Medvedev called the linked disasters “evidence of this global climate change,” which means “we need to change the way we work, change the methods that we used in the past.”
CHINA The worst flooding ever recorded in northeast China, caused by weeks of torrential rain with no end in sight, has caused nearly $6 billion in damage to water projects there, In addition, “52 people are reported to have died and an additional 20 are missing following rain-triggered floods in central China’s Henan Province.” “In the southwestern province of Yunnan, at least 11 people died and 11 were missing following a landslide caused by heavy rain.”
INDIA “Record temperatures in northern India have claimed hundreds of lives in what is believed to be the hottest summer in the country since records began in the late 1800s.” “The death toll in flashfloods that hit the remote mountainous region of Ladakh in Indian-held Kashmir has risen to 103.”
NORTH KOREA “Flooding last month caused serious damage in North Korea, destroying homes, farms, roads and buildings and hurting the economy,” the secretive dictatorship of North Korea admitted yesterday. “About 36,700 acres of farmland was submerged and 5,500 homes and 350 public buildings and facilities were destroyed or flooded,” the official Korean Central News Agency said. “The news agency had previously reported heavy rains fell in the country in mid- to late July, but those earlier reports did not mention flooding or damage. State media in the impoverished, reclusive nation often report news days or weeks after an event takes place.”
PAKISTAN “Islamist charities, some with suspected ties to militants, stepped in on Monday to provide aid for Pakistanis hit by the worst flooding in memory, piling pressure on a government criticized for its response to the disaster that has so far killed more than 1,000 people.” “Thousands of people are fleeing Pakistan’s most populous areas as devastating floods” that have already affected more than 3 million people “sweep towards the south.” Fatima Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto’s niece, lashed out: “The floods are just the latest, most tragic example of how inept the Pakistani state truly is.”
As warming-fueled disasters grow more intense and more frequent, they put greater pressure on the governments of these nuclear states. This threat to global security was brought to the White House’s attention as far back as 1979, when top scientists warned that global warming “would threaten the stability of food supplies, and would present a further set of intractable problems to organized societies.” As the CNA Corporation wrote in 2007, “climate change is a threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that lead to failed states — the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.” The Pentagon’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review recognized that global warming impacts and disasters will “act as an accelerant of instability or conflict.”
After Accusing Dems Of Playing Politics With Defense Bill, McCain Hypocritically Refuses To Debate Defense Bill
After Accusing Dems Of Playing Politics With Defense Bill, McCain Hypocritically Refuses To Debate Defense Bill
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.
In the debate that followed, McCain misrepresented the language of the DADT repeal amendment and accused Levin of attaching “social legislation” — the hate crames bill — to last year’s defense measure. Levin reminded McCain that DADT won’t be repealed until the Pentagon and the President certify the review of the policy and explained how hate crimes relates to national defense:
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.
LEVIN: It was a Senate Armed Services Committee bill that put into place Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The provision that we have in there now, that changes that policy, makes it conditional upon that survey being completed and the certification from the military leaders that there is no negative impact on morale….But the main point is, that the place to debate these policies is on the floor of the Senate. ….I’m not going to deny the Senate the opportunity ot take up a bill that is essential for the men and women in the military because I disagree with some provisions in that bill. I would then move to strike those provisions, if I disagree that much, if we can get the bill to the floor….
MCCAIN: Instead of, perhaps the senator from Michigan can tell me what hate crimes had to do with the defense of this nation. It had everything to do with his social agenda, so I object.
LEVIN: Mr. President, I would be happy to tell the Senator from Arizona what the hate crimes bill has to do with the defense of this country. Men and women who defend this country, defend this country for a lot of reasons, one of them is that we try to act against hate in this country. That’s one of the values that we stand for, is that we try to defeat hate.
Watch it:
In some ways, McCain’s unwillingness to debate the defense authorization measure is ironic, given his emphasis on military service throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign and frequent jabs at Obama for allegedly allowing the issue of Iraq to trump the needs of the military. 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.” That year, McCain also lashed out against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) for temporarily pulling the Defense measure, asking “What have we done by not passing the Defense Authorization bill?” “We have placed the care of our wounded veterans in a lower priority than a debate over Iraq.”
Now, McCain is apparently comfortable placing “the care of our wounded veterans in a lower priority than” a debate about DADT — a policy he had previously questioned. Since the issue came to a head, McCain began lying about the repeal amendment’s language and even promised at one point to threatened the entire defense authorization measure in protest.
New Poll: 86% Of Arabs ‘Prepared For Peace’ With Israel
New Poll: 86% Of Arabs ‘Prepared For Peace’ With Israel
A new poll of the Arab world has been getting a lot of attention for the precipitous drop in confidence in President Obama that it reveals, but equally as interesting to me is what the poll shows about Arab attitudes toward a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
86% of respondents are “prepared for peace if Israel is willing to return all 1967 territories including East Jerusalem.”
A plurality of 39% believes that the conflict will be ended through negotiations, with a minority of 16% believing it will end through war.
Only 21% of respondents named the Palestinian “right of return” — a red line for Israel — as their most important concern, with a plurality of 46% naming the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as their highest concern.
While it’s unlikely that Israel will withdraw from all lands occupied in 1967 (the general understanding is that Palestinians will be compensated for post-67 land retained by Israel through agreed land swaps), this poll does effectively demolish the claim that the Arabs are simply unwilling to accept Israel — especially when combined with the fact that there has been a comprehensive Arab peace initiative on the table since 2002, an initiative to which Israel to this day has yet to formally respond.
As one Israeli official remarked to me on a recent trip, given that the Palestinians have fulfilled most of their road map obligations, the Israelis “are desperate to find evidence of Palestinian wrongdoing” in order to combat the perception — bolstered by Netanyahu’s refusal to honor Israel’s past commitments on settlements, which remains a huge issue for the Palestinians — that it is the Israelis who are the intransigent party. Given these new poll numbers, combating that perception just became a bit harder.
Given Three Chances, Cantor Can’t Name Anything He Would Do To Reduce Government Spending
Given Three Chances, Cantor Can’t Name Anything He Would Do To Reduce Government Spending
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.”
Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) had a nearly identical performance on MSNBC last week, where he couldn’t name one single solitary program that he would cut to rein in the deficit. The inability of Republicans to propose just one idea for dealing with the long-term deficit proves that they are fundamentally disinterested in actually grappling with the problem. They’d prefer to extend tax cuts now while making the long-term structural deficit someone else’s problem.
In fact, just yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) proposed a measure (which was ultimately defeated) extending all of the Bush tax cuts, with instructions “to offset as necessary through spending reduction.” As Charlie Eisenhood put, that’s “Senate-speak for ‘we’ll worry about the cost later.’”
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. See here for a list of programs that could be cut and revenue increasing steps that could be taken to begin addressing the long-term deficit.
Judge Throws Out Arizona GOP’s Attempt To Bamboozle Voters Into Supporting Anti-Union Ballot Initiative
Judge Throws Out Arizona GOP’s Attempt To Bamboozle Voters Into Supporting Anti-Union Ballot Initiative
Back in April, the Arizona legislature passed its controversial immigration law, SB-1070, that has brought the state a deserved amount of scorn. But that is not the only pernicious work being undertaken by the Arizona state government.
This week, Republicans in the Arizona legislature are scrambling to repair the language of an anti-union ballot initiative that they hope to put before voters in November, after a judge tossed out their previous version. The initiative is meant to pre-but passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — which would grant workers the right to immediate union recognition if a majority sign cards indicating that they support the union — by outlawing unionization not done by “secret ballot.”
But the initiative’s proponents tried to bury their intent by applying their secret ballot standard to all elections, including those for federal and state political offices. A Superior Court Judge was not amused by the move, which violated “a prohibition against constitutional amendments dealing with more than one issue”:
Courts generally have said the purpose of that ban is to prevent “logrolling,” where voters who want one provision are essentially compelled to approve something else they do not want. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig said the legal problems appear to go beyond that. He said elections for public office already are by secret ballot. And Oberbillig questioned whether that provision wasn’t included as an inducement to get voters to approve the more controversial union measure.
The Arizona GOP is now back at work, drafting a version of the language that it feels will pass a judge’s muster.
But this whole effort is silly for a couple of reasons. The first is that the states are usually not allowed to circumvent a process that has been explicitly laid out by the federal government. Even the attorney representing those pushing the initiative “acknowledged that the provisions of federal law generally preempt state regulations and even constitutional provisions.”
The second is that workers are already allowed to form unions without a formal election, and have been doing so without controversy for years. In fact, since 2003, more than half a million workers have been organized by majority sign-up, including those at Cingular Wireless, Dow Jones, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Kaiser Permanente. The only catch is that, in order for this process to proceed, the employer has to give its okay. Even if a vast majority of workers indicate that they want to join a union, the employer can demand an election, giving itself ample time to intimidate or even fire pro-union workers.
A joint study by Rutgers University, Cornell University, and the Universities of Oregon and Illinois, which examined data from union campaigns in four states, shows that “the majority sign-up provision was used extensively without hint of union or employer abuse,” and that “contrary to business claims…there was not a single confirmed incident of union misconduct.”
Yesterday, President Barack Obama said that “we are going to keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.” It’d be really great if that were so, Arizona’s suspect attempt to nullify it notwithstanding.
O’Reilly Wonders Why Obama Opposes Same-Sex Marriages
O’Reilly Wonders Why Obama Opposes Same-Sex Marriages
Late last month, Bill O’Reilly suggested that President Barack Obama should “sign an executive order” ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and yesterday, during a segment about Judge 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 administration attempted to portray the President both as a supporter of Judge Walker’s decision and an opponent of same-sex marriage.
“The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans,” the White House said Wednesday night after the ruling and tried to clarify its position the following day. “The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control,” Obama adviser David Axelrod told MSNBC. “The president opposed Proposition 8 at the time — he felt it was divisive and mean spirited,” he said, adding that Obama believes that governing marriage is “an issue for the states.”
Blogger Andy Towle described the response as “An odd statement from a President whose official position on marriage is not equality, and whose Justice Department continues to aggressively defend DOMA in the courts.” Similarly, John Aravosis remarked that Axelrod’s point suggests that “the President is for ’separate but equal’ benefits for gay couples.” “Putting aside the obvious horror of that statement, we can’t get ‘equal’ benefits because of DOMA. That would be the law that the President routinely defends in court against our civl rights challenges, and the law about which the President has done nothing to get repealed, even though he promised to repeatedly during the campaign.”
During the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, however, Obama expressed support for marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama said in an answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage. (H/T: Towleroad)
The WonkLine: August 6, 2010
The WonkLine: August 6, 2010
Welcome to The WonkLine, a daily 9:30 a.m. roundup of the latest news about health care, the economy, national security, immigration and climate policy. This is what we’re reading. Tell us what you found in the comments section below. You can also follow The Wonk Room on Twitter.
Environment
Fueled by record heat, “dense clouds of acrid smoke from peat and forest fires choked Russia’s capital on Friday” and “could pose a nuclear threat by releasing into the atmosphere radioactive particles buried in trees and plants from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster” as the death toll “rose to at least 50.”
Fueled by record precipitation, massive floods are sweeping through North Korea, China, and Pakistan, killing at least 2500 people and displacing millions.
Global warming and ocean acidification from burning fossil fuels mean that oysters are in “serious trouble,” according to scientists.
Immigration
The chairman of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors has asked Congress to subpoena certain Immigration and Customs Enforcement records that he thinks will “outrage the general public.”
The U.S. Senate approved $600 million in emergency funding to help secure the U.S.-Mexican border.
The two men found guilty of beating to death an Ecuadorian immigrant, José O. Sucuzhañay, in 2008 received the maximum sentence of 30 to 37 years in jail.
National Security
“Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin on Thursday banned all exports of grain after millions of acres of Russian wheat withered in a severe drought, driving up prices around the world and pushing them to their highest level in two years in the United States.”
“Japan marked the 65th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima on Friday with the United States represented at the ceremony for the first time.”
“US President Barack Obama said he remains willing to speak with Iran on its nuclear program and international sanctions if the Tehran follows “a clear set of steps,” according to comments published Thursday.”
Health Care
“For the 11 million people signed up for Medicare Advantage plans, their future with the popular program may depend on where they live.”
“Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s largest health insurer, has agreed to reduce a dramatic rate hike for individuals and small businesses, becoming the fourth major insurance company to reach a deal with the state after regulators rejected their initial price increases four months ago.”
“As Americans struggle with double-digit hikes in their health insurance bills, millions are coming up against a hard reality: the state regulators who are supposed to protect them can often do little to control what insurers are charging.”
Economy
According to the latest jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy lost 131,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate remained at 9.5 percent. Private sector employment increased by 71,000, while 143,000 temporary Census jobs came to an end.
Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer “has resigned her post to return to her old job as an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley.” Romer is also reportedly “a serious candidate to replace Janet Yellen as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.”
Senate Republicans used a procedural move to send the nomination of Peter Diamond, one of three nominees for the Federal Reserve Board, “back to the White House because of objections from at least one lawmaker.”
Why Is Virginia Allowed To Manufacture Standing In Its Health Law Challenge?
Why Is Virginia Allowed To Manufacture Standing In Its Health Law Challenge?
On Monday, a judge in Virginia ruled that the state’s lawsuit challenging the individual mandate in the new health care law should proceed partly because the state’s recently enacted ‘Virginia Health Care Freedom Act’ — which protect Virginia citizens from the individual requirement — conflicts with the federal requirement and “therefore encroaches on the sovereignty of the Commonwealth and offends the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.”
“Although this lawsuit has the collateral effect of protecting the individual interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia, its primary articulated objective is to defend the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act from the conflicting effect of an allegedly unconstitutional federal law,” Judge Henry Hudson wrote in his opinion. “Despite its declaratory nature, it is a lawfully-enacated part of the laws of Virginia. The purported transparent legislative intent underlying its enactment is irrelevant.”
Indeed today, during an appearance on MSNBC, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnel practically admitted that Virginia’s standing in suing the federal government is derived almost solely from the legislation he signed “about four months ago”:
MCDONNELL: Well Andrea, Virginia is one of 21 states that have a suit. Virginia has its own challenge in part because of the bill I signed about four months ago that makes it illegal under Virginia law for anybody to be forced to buy health insurance. That gives us unique standing. Twenty other states have joined a suit in Florida that are also challenging it. That is in a separate federal court. But Andrea, I would suspect that no matter what happens out of Judge Hudson’s ruling in October that one side of another is likely to pursue this up to the Supreme Court.
Watch it:
Here, McDonnell is almost gleeful about inventing standing for his state. And while Hudson believes that “the purported transparent legislative intent” of manufacturing tension between state and federal laws is “irrelevant,” one must wonder about what kind of precedent this establishes. If Virginia has standing, then the restriction on state standing is a joke. States can follow McDonnell’s lead and legislate around it, challenging any federal law they disagree with, resulting in a plethora of the very kind of frivolous lawsuits that Republicans typically detest.
700 Questions, One Purpose: Delay START
700 Questions, One Purpose: Delay START
The logic behind Sen. John Kerry and the Obama administration’s decision to delay the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on New START was not — as was widely reported — because START lacked support. Conversely, it was because they felt that they were very close to getting two Republicans Senators — Bob Corker (R-TN) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) to vote for the treaty, as both seemed genuinely supportive. Getting these two might have meant game over, as it would have given more moderate Republican Senators plenty of political cover to vote for the treaty.
Yet the prospects for Lucy taking the football away on this are pretty apparent. The principle reason for the delay was that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee couldn’t actually dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s on the treaty process such that Republicans would be satisfied. And as we all know, if there is one thing the GOP cares about it is process. But much of the reason for the process issue was due to the submission of more than 700 questions from GOP Senators on the committee to the Administration. Now asking questions is fine. Asking a lot of questions is also fine. But asking such a quantity of questions so late in the game after months of hearings frankly reeks of duplicity.
Even if you take the motivations behind these questions at face value – that GOP Senators genuinely had questions about the treaty — what has also become clear since the vote was delayed is that there is a concerted political strategy on the part of the GOP leadership, led by Senator Jon Kyl, to delay and stall the floor vote on the treaty until next year after the Administration submits its next budget. Kyl wrote this in the Wall Street Journal and said as much to Politico yesterday:
If they want to schedule Senate floor time for the Senate treaty ratification in September, they can figure a) it’s going to take a long time to get done, and b) some of these conditions would not have been fully satisfied.
Time Magazine also quoted a Senate Republican Aide (hmm… I wonder who he works for) who said:
This notion that [ratification] is going to happen before November is completely absurd… It reeks of politics.
In other words, if this is brought to the floor in September Kyl is going to make this long and painful. Kyl has roped his troops in line and Senators McConnell (R-KY), Corker, Isakson, Alexander (R-TN), and Bennett (R-UT) have all basically said they are Kyl lemmings. Therefore, it is quite possible that even if Corker and Isakson vote for the treaty in committee in September, they could still support Kyl’s efforts to delay the vote on the floor by noting their continued support is conditional on the Administration meeting Kyl’s demands for nuclear modernization funding.
But the demands from Kyl (as well as Corker) that the Administration lavish billions of dollars more of unpaid for pork on the nuclear weapons complex are so vague that the Administration likely couldn’t even meet these demands if they wanted to. Instead these demands seem to be about just as much about kicking the New START can into next year, where Kyl – with likely more GOP Senators to work with – will have even more leverage over the Administration.
What makes this all the more pernicious is that Kyl basically supports the treaty. He called it benign and others have said he is leaning toward supporting it. Last year he even warned of the dangers of the Administration not getting a START deal. So why is Kyl holding the treaty hostage? Simple, as an extreme nuclear hawk, Kyl is attempting to use START to extract as many concessions as possible from the Administration such that he in effect kills off any chance of further action on the President’s larger nuclear agenda. Kyl is essentially trying to make the Administration chose between START and its Prague Agenda.
In summation, Kyl is taking a very modest treaty, one that he supports, and one that he knows if it failed would have disastrous consequences for US national security, and holding a gun to its head threatening to pull the trigger unless the President commits to building and explosively testing new nuclear weapons – something that would kill the President’s whole agenda.
Delaying the vote, may have made sure that Senator Kerry and the Administration couldn’t be accused of “rushing” the process, but in the end it probably only strengthened Kyl’s hand and got him closer to his goal of blocking the treaty this year. In the end, the only way the treaty probably gets passed this year is if the Obama administration and the Senate leadership call Kyl out and force a vote. As Senator Lugar said, after the vote was delayed:
We ought to vote now and let the chips fall where they may. It’s that important.
Nelson And Lincoln Vote To Permanently Extend Bush Tax Cuts, Massively Increase Deficit
Nelson And Lincoln Vote To Permanently Extend Bush Tax Cuts, Massively Increase Deficit
Last month, as the Senate was gridlocked by a Republican filibuster of a bill to extend much-needed unemployment benefits to millions of out-of-work Americans, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) stood with the GOP against the extension. Nelson claimed that his concerns about the deficit overrode his support for the extension; he voted against the bill that finally passed 60-40.
Later that week, Nelson came out in support of an extension — “for now” — of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which adds many billions more to the deficit than the unemployment insurance extension. In fact, extending the Bush tax cuts for one year alone would add $115 billion to the deficit, compared to the “relatively tiny budgetary cost of $33 billion” for the extension of UI benefits.
Today, though, Ben Nelson provided further evidence that he is a deficit peacock — someone who claims to be concerned about the deficit but isn’t actually interested in taking serious steps toward a balanced budget. Before the final vote on the states’ aid bill that passed today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered two amendments that would, in effect, permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. David Dayen has the results:
Before passing the state fiscal aid bill, Democrats actually gave Jim DeMint two votes on tax rates. He wanted to add massively to the deficit – literally trillions of dollars – by freezing in place the tax rates on individuals and “small businesses” that we have now, and which make us one of the most lightly-taxed industrialized nations on the planet. And look at this: Democrats rejected the measure entirely. On both votes, only Ben Nelson [and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR)] crossed the aisle to vote with all Republicans [except deficit hawk George Voinovich (OH)]
Nelson and Lincoln (who also claims to be concerned about deficits) apparently don’t mind spending $3.1 trillion over the next ten years to pursue ineffective tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps they should have listened to their colleague, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who said of DeMint’s proposal, “that’s not serious. Is that a stunt? Yes, it’s a stunt. Is it a gimmick? Yes, it’s a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it’s not serious.”
DeMint is particularly “not serious” when it comes to paying for his extraordinarily expensive amendments. Both came “with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reduction,” Senate-speak for “we’ll worry about the cost later.”
New Medicare Trustees Report Demonstrates Republicans Can’t Repeal Bill Without Undermining Medicare Program
New Medicare Trustees Report Demonstrates Republicans Can’t Repeal Bill Without Undermining Medicare Program
A new Medicare Trustees report finds that the Independent Payment Advisory Board [IPAB], the payment reform demonstration projects, and productivity improvements in the new health care law will save Medicare $8 billion by the end of 2011, and $575 billion over the next decade. The law will also extend the life of Medicare’s hospital fund (Medicare Part A) by 12 years, which will now remain sustainable through 2029.
This afternoon, during a conference call evaluating the new report, Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), argued that should Republicans attempt to repeal all or portions of the health care law, the would significantly undermine the longevity of the Medicare program. Greenstein maintained that if the GOP becomes the governing party, it would be against their political interests to suspend IPAB and the payment reform demonstration projects — which the GOP has pledged to repeal:
GREENSTEIN: If the entire Affordable Care Act is repealed, that’s a different story, but then the Medicare trust fund finances would be in much worse shape. But assuming the bill remains in affect, I think that the fiscal pressures on the whole federal budget moving going are going to be so severe and Medicare plays such a central role in this, that it is really hard for me to imagine policymakers of either party…whoever is in the position of governing is going to desprately need to find efficiency savings in Medicare and it will be in their political interest…. to pursue whatever measures can devleop and produce savings, especially savings that result from payment and delivery system reforms, rather than from the more unpoular approch of cutting beneficiaries’ benefits and raising premiums.
Greestein also responded to the GOP’s claims that the trustees’ findings are contradicted by the CMS’s own actuary, Richard Foster, who has predicted that some of the savings from health care reform may not materialize. Under Foster’s more pessimistic analysis, only 60% of the projected savings would be realized. Consequently, the insolvency of the Medicare Trust Fund would be moved back to 2028 instead of 2029 and only half of the current shortfall would be closed (instead of four-fifth as the actuaries predict.)
“Under either conclusion, this is still a dramatic improvement.” “The most likely scenario probably lies in between those two.” But in their report, the trustees underscore the “the crucial importance of moving forward strongly with the pilots and the demos and the research and really running what results from that.”
Three Quarters Of Oil Disaster Unrecovered, Most Still In Gulf
Three Quarters Of Oil Disaster Unrecovered, Most Still In Gulf
A new government report estimates that three quarters of the two-hundred-million-gallon BP oil disaster remains in the Gulf of Mexico region in some form, with about one hundred million gallons of oil still of concern. The massive effort to burn and skim oil captured only eight percent of the total, confirming fears that the skimming operations would be largely ineffective. Most of the oil — 52 percent — has been dispersed or dissolved, either naturally or by the use of chemical dispersants. TNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of the Interior scientists believe that uncaptured oil is in the process of evaporating or dissolving, hopefully with little toxic effect. About 50 million gallons of oil — five times the Exxon Valdez spill — has either washed ashore or is in the remaining slicks that surround Louisiana’s marshes. Some government officials and news organizations gave an unusually rosy picture of the report’s findings:
Associated Press: “Report: Only one quarter of oil left in Gulf”
New York Times: “Oil in Gulf Poses Only Slight Risk, New U.S. Report Says”
Carol Browner, presidential energy adviser: “I think it’s also important to note that our scientists have done an initial assessment and more than three quarters of the oil is gone. The vast majority of the oil is gone. It was captured. It was skimmed. It it was burned. It was contained.”
Watch Browner on NBC’s Today Show:
“Let’s look at this another way,” marine conservationist Rick Steiner, a retired University of Alaska scientist, told McClatchy, “that there’s some 50 percent of the oil left. It’s still there in the environment.”
NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, while claiming that there is “a negligible amount of oil at the surface,” expressed serious concerns about the invisibly dispersed oil. “The oil that is in tiny droplets may be toxic,” she said at a White House press briefing. “We do remain concerned about the oil in the subsurface. Effects of this spill will likely linger for decades.”
The unusually precise figures being reported by the government are built on “educated scientific guesses,” admitted NOAA emergency response senior scientist Bill Lehr. “There’s some science here, but mostly, it’s spin,” oil spill expert Ian McDonald, a scientist with Florida State Univerisity, told NPR. “And it breaks my heart to see them do it.”
Natural degradation of the oil does not come without environmental cost. As bacteria multiply to consume the hydrocarbons, they deplete the ocean of oxygen, exacerbating the huge dead zone along Louisiana waters induced by agricultural pollution and global warming. “The microbial community is going to break this down, but it doesn’t come for free,” Dr. Mandy Joye, a marine scientist at the University of Georgia, told EarthSky. “It comes at the expense of the oxygen budget of the system, and that’s something that’s not easily corrected.”
The New York Times backpedaled a bit today, reporting that its claims the oil was “disappearing” have been met with “skepticism if not outright distrust.” Instead of admitting her paper had misinterpreted the report, however, reporter Campbell Robertson blamed “environmental groups that came to the gulf in droves, lawyers who have been soliciting clients from billboards along roads leading south, a sensation-hungry news media and politicians who have gained broad popularity for thundering in opposition to response officials.”
Is John McCain An ‘Apologist’ For Terrorism?
Is John McCain An ‘Apologist’ For Terrorism?
Eric Trager has a thoughtful piece on the Ground Zero Mosque, in which he calls out the stark idiocy of his erstwhile Commentary colleague Jennifer Rubin’s comparison of Cordoba House to a monument at Pearl Harbor to the Japanese Emperor Hirohito, and Newt Gingrich’s suggestion that the U.S. shouldn’t allow any more mosques until Saudi Arabia allows synagogues and churches:
Never mind that, whereas Hirohito was singularly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor, American Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11 (and, in fact, many American Muslims were murdered in the attacks). And never mind that America is not Saudi Arabia, and hence does not aspire to Saudi standards of religious tolerance.
The real outrage is that these opponents of the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” apparently agree with Osama Bin Laden that Al Qaeda’s way is the true Islamic way, rightly understood. It is only through this leap of logic that the institutions of a billion-strong faith become synonymous with the greatest crimes of its most radical adherents.
I think Trager steps wrong, however, when, in what I suppose is an attempt at even-handedness, he identifies “a second, equally disturbing trend” in the debate over Cordoba House: “the prominence of apologists for acts of Islamist terrorism within the American Muslim community”:
As critics of the Islamic center rightly noted, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the project’s principals, parroted the Saudi line immediately following the 9/11 attacks, telling “60 Minutes,” “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” [...]
The real outrage is that the imam of an Islamic organization that aims to “improve Muslim-west relations” rationalized the 9/11 attacks, rather than condemning them outright.
First, can the statements of one person really be a “trend”? Second, Rauf’s comments (while admittedly inelegantly and dodgily phrased) don’t seem to me to “rationalize the 9/11 attacks” as much as to explain and put them in an historical context (though I understand that there are those who simply refuse to admit any distinction there).
While one can agree or disagree with that context — that is, agree or disagree with the idea that U.S. policies contributed in any way to 9/11 — it’s important to note that this is a central contention of the post-9/11 neoconservative critique: That the U.S. was, in a sense, paying a price for decades of reliance on autocratic Middle East rulers for the maintenance of an illusive “stability.”
This was pretty clearly elucidated by Sen. John McCain in his big foreign policy speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in March 2008. “For decades in the greater Middle East,” McCain said, “we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to provide order and stability“:
[The United States] relied on the Shah of Iran, the autocratic rulers of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family, and even, for a time, on Saddam Hussein. In the late 1970s that strategy began to unravel. The Shah was overthrown by the radical Islamic revolution that now rules in Tehran. The ensuing ferment in the Muslim world produced increasing instability. The autocrats clamped down with ever greater repression, while also surreptitiously aiding Islamic radicalism abroad in the hopes that they would not become its victims. It was a toxic and explosive mixture. The oppression of the autocrats blended with the radical Islamists’ dogmatic theology to produce a perfect storm of intolerance and hatred.
We can no longer delude ourselves that relying on these out-dated autocracies is the safest bet. They no longer provide lasting stability, only the illusion of it.
So was John McCain “rationalizing” terrorism and extremism? Or was he simply recognizing that short-sighted U.S. policies had contributed to the problem?
Or is it only permissible to say such things if you follow it up with “…and that’s why we need to invade and occupy their countries”?
Obviously it’s important to recognize the sensitivities around this, but it seems that Rauf and McCain were making very similar critiques. Yet only one of them is labeled an apologist for terrorism.
Register
RSSLogin
Wonk Room Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
