GOP Congressional Campaign Committee Has No Plans To Defend Its Asian-American Members
GOP Congressional Campaign Committee Has No Plans To Defend Its Asian-American Members
In 2008, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) became the only Asian-American in the Republican caucus. The GOP leadership quickly embraced him, with House Minority Leader Joseph Boehner (R-OH) penning a memo titled, “The Future is Cao.” In May, another Asian-American, Rep. Charles Djou (R-HI) joined Cao, winning a special election in a heavily Democratic district. Now in the GOP caucus, in addition to Cao and Djou, there is “first-generation Filipino” Steve Austria, three Cuban-American members (Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen), and one Native American (Tom Cole). Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele has also said one of his major objectives is to increase diversity in the GOP.
Today, however, Politico reports that the National Republican Congressional Committee’s (NRCC) 2010 blueprint for winning back Congress leave Cao and Djou out in the cold. Republicans are pursuing an “offensive effort,” buying ads mostly in districts currently held by Democrats:
Cash-flush Democrats have used their deep pockets to invest in several competitive seats where national Republicans have yet to signal their intention to compete aggressively. The NRCC has so far bypassed a handful of open or otherwise reasonably competitive seats that offer some promise for GOP gains. [...]
Notably, the NRCC has yet to announce plans to defend several imperiled GOP incumbents who rank high on Democratic target lists. Rep. Charles Djou (R-Hawaii), Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.)—the two incumbents widely considered to be the most endangered Republicans—were left off the NRCC roster. Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), who is thought to be in better shape, was also not included.
Both Djou and Cao have occasionally broken from the party line, which may have angered the Republican leadership. Djou has criticized his party’s attempts to change the 14th amendment and supports efforts to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Cao was the only House Republican to vote for health care reform. Austria’s OH-7 district is also not on the NRCC’s target list.
- Comments
- 71
19 of the 22 states suing government over ObamaCare accept grant money from health care law.
19 of the 22 states suing government over ObamaCare accept grant money from health care law.
Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that 45 states and the District of Columbia “will receive $1 million in grant funds to help improve the review of proposed health insurance premium increases, take action against insurers seeking unreasonable rate hikes, and ensure consumers receive value for their premium dollars.” The $46 million are part of the $250 million in rate review grant dollars authorized by the new health care law. Indeed, interest is so high that states that oppose the health law applied for grants. As the Wonk Room points out, 19 of the 22 states that are suing the federal government over the constitutionality of the health care law will receive $1 million each to improve their rate review capabilities. Below is a sampling:
– ARIZONA: “The State intends to improve their filing review process by hiring an actuarial consultant to review 95% of submissions for compliance and make recommendations regarding whether filings are unjustified or excessive.”
– VIRGINIA: “Virginia will expand the information required to be submitted with rate filings and will develop a procedures manual for the review of rate filings.”
– FLORIDA: “The State will expand the scope to include large group and out-of-State products.”
The Wonk Room argues that this disconnect highlights the growing divide between state health commissioners’ implementation efforts and political rhetoric.
Hate Radio Host Mark Levin Attacks Gov. Chris Christie Over Mosque Comments: ‘Absolutely Dead Wrong’
Hate Radio Host Mark Levin Attacks Gov. Chris Christie Over Mosque Comments: ‘Absolutely Dead Wrong’
Yesterday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) warned fellow Republicans to stop “overreacting” to the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. He said that while some degree of “deference” must be shown to some 9/11 families who don’t want the center nearby, “it would be wrong to so overreact to that, that we paint Islam with a brush of radical Muslim extremists that just want to kill Americans because we are Americans.”
Even though Christie included obligatory digs at Democrats and President Obama for somehow “playing political football” with the issue, his comments were still apparently too much for right-wing hate radio host Mark Levin. He unleashed on Christie last night during his radio show, and called the governor “absolutely dead wrong” and questioned Christie’s conservative credentials:
“Just because you clobber public sector unions, and you fight to cut your state’s budget, does not necessarily mean you are presidential material. He will see….It’s a matter of right and wrong. If the 9/11 families hadn’t stood up, if some of the most, you know, outspoken individuals in conservative media hadn’t spoken up, many, many people not only wouldn’t know about it, they wouldn’t care about it. And this is something we should care about. This is fundamental. So, sorry governor. You’re absolutely dead wrong. It’s not a political football game.“
Listen:
Levin is right that Christie has been extremely conservative on budget issues: his budget proposal this year refused to extend a tax on earners over $400,000 — which would have generated $900 million for the state — but it did cut $820 million to public schools. He also vetoed a tax on residents with incomes over $1 million, which was designed to help fund property tax relief for senior citizens and the disabled, among other programs. According to the non-partisan Office of Legislative Services, due to Christie’s veto, “a retired couple living on a fixed income of $40,000 would see an increase of $1,320 in taxes under the governor’s plan while a family making $1.2 million would receive a tax cut of $11,598.”
Christie has been mentioned as a 2012 Republican nominee for president, and even Rush Limbaugh recently asked: “Is it wrong to love another man? Because I love Chris Christie.” Still, Christie does not appear to pass Levin’s notoriously strict litmus test for conservatives.
Rand Paul’s Answer To Kentucky’s Drug Epidemic: Help ‘Rich People’
Last week, Kentucky Senate candidate and Tea Party darling Rand Paul (R) told the AP of his desire to cut federal funding for undercover drug investigations and drug treatment programs that are “badly needed” in his state. While recognizing drugs as a “scourge,” Paul didn’t think Kentucky’s high-profile drug problem was “a real pressing issue.” His Democratic opponent and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway blasted Paul for being widely “out of touch with drug abuse woes” in the state, warning that “his policies would actually hurt the people of of Kentucky.” The AP suggested that he may lose votes over his stance.
In the face of the uproar, Paul is walking back his dismissal of the problem. In a local WYMT-TV interview yesterday, Paul insisted that, as “a physician and a father,” he is “very concerned” and thinks “we need to everything we can to stop drugs.” But, as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent notes, “it’s unclear whether his clarification will help much.” Because Paul, in feeling that the government solution is “still failing,” went on to offer his own answer to drug problem – help rich people:
“I personally think we’ve been trying the government solution, and maybe there are some good aspects to it. But we’re still failing, and we’re not getting rid of the drug problem,” Paul said.
Paul says reinvesting money in the local economy will help ease the unemployment, which he says leads to more drug use.
“You want rich people because that’s what creates jobs. If you punish people, they won’t expand or create jobs,” Paul said.
While Paul touts the magical remedies provided by the rich, it is the poor Appalachian residents in eastern Kentucky that are facing a tough reality where a “higher proportion of people abuse prescription pain killers that in the rest of the nation.” In fact, while trafficking in pain killers is the “largest drug problem” facing the region, Kentucky is also a prominent hotbed for marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine, according to the latest DEA study. This year, local officials reported 114 overdose deaths in the region within the first two months alone.
And, rather than failing, government-run programs are producing unprecedented success. Conway’s inter-governmental task force to cut prescription pill trafficking busted over 500 people in an interstate drug pipeline and was part of the “largest prescription pill bust in Kentucky history.” Kentucky law enforcement recognize the need for similar federal programs. State Fraternal Order of Police President Michael “Spike” Jones said he “would not be able to keep up with drug crime” without federal assistance to “pay overtime logged by tracking down drug dealers.” “It would be impossible to stop” drug traffickers “without federal assistance, because of the dire straits” state economies are in, said another Appalachian drug enforcement official.
But Paul seems deaf to their needs. In offering further clarification to Sargent, Paul now says that while prevention and enforcement are important, aiding the rich to ensure healthy employment is still a better cure. His insistence in remaining out of touch with his state’s epidemic even leaves members of his own party perplexed. “‘Apparently (Paul) just doesn’t know, or he wouldn’t make that statement’ about drugs not being a pressing issue” said former County Judge-Executive Tommy Slone (R). “It’ll hurt him if he says that because there’s a lot of people up here that’s been affected by these drugs.”
Gingrich Backs Out Of 9/11 Anti-Islam Rally?
Gingrich Backs Out Of 9/11 Anti-Islam Rally?
On Sunday, ThinkProgress reported that the right-wing group Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) had announced that it would be hosting a rally against the proposed Cordoba House Islamic community center on September 11, and that its confirmed list of speakers included both disgraced former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and far-right Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
Writing on her blog yesterday, anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller, one of the leaders of SIOA, confirmed that “Newt Gingrich, and Geert Wilders are among those speaking at our rally against the mega-mosque on 9/11.” Geller also referenced Gingrich’s participation in an earlier post.
Today, however, a spokesman for Gingrich, Joe DeSantis, told Politico’s Ben Smith that Gingrich “is not scheduled to be at this rally. He is not speaking.”
Was there a scheduling conflict? Given his rhetoric lately, it’s hard to believe Gingrich is experiencing a sudden onset of decency.
‘Shadow RNC’ Unveils Obstructionist GOP Agenda Proposal: ‘Stop,’ ‘End,’ And ‘Block’ Progressive Policy
‘Shadow RNC’ Unveils Obstructionist GOP Agenda Proposal: ‘Stop,’ ‘End,’ And ‘Block’ Progressive Policy
Republicans often bristle at being called the “party of no,” yet they have thus far failed to articulate a clear positive agenda with new ideas about how to govern. Earlier this year, former Bush advisor Karl Rove and former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie helped form American Crossroads as part of proliferation of new conservative advocacy groups that were quickly dubbed the “Shadow RNC,” and were designed, in part, to help generate these new ideas.
But today, Crossroads GPS, the advocacy arm of American Crossroads, will release a proposed platform on which Republicans should run in November that is based almost entirely on obstruction. As the conservative Daily Caller notes, “instead of things they think the GOP should do, the agenda…is made up mostly of things they think Republicans should oppose or eliminate.” Indeed, Crossroads GPS is even calling the platform an “emergency intervention to stop” President Obama’s policies:
The program calls on the GOP to “stop” the Bush tax hikes from expiring at the end of the year, to “end” stimulus projects deemed to be “wasteful,” to “call a ‘timeout’” on Obama’s health care bill, to enact a “moratorium” on “government handouts to banks, automakers, labor unions and other politically-connected interests,” to “block” any bill putting a price on carbon emissions, and to “stop stalling” on securing the border.
On the nation’s looming entitlement crisis, Crossroads’ GPS proposes a commission to study the problem and suggest solutions, even though President Obama has already created a commission that has been meeting for most of the year.
Even the seemingly positive items on the Crossroads GPS agenda use obstructionist language. For example, the “Prioritize American Energy Development” item calls for Republicans to “block” any means of pricing carbon, while the “Protect our Borders” bullet urges Republicans to “stop stalling” on border security.
American Crossroads vowed to raise $50 million to influence the 2010 elections, and are on their way thanks to just four right-wing billionaires, who alone have contributed 97 percent of the group’s money. Rove has directly credited his group’s fundraising prowess to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.
Does News Corp’s Donation To The Republican Governors Association Violate Its Own Company Policy?
Does News Corp’s Donation To The Republican Governors Association Violate Its Own Company Policy?
Yesterday, Bloomberg News reported that News Corp., the Fox News parent company run by Rupert Murdoch, donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association (RGA) in June. As Politico’s Ben Smith noted, “The company’s media outlets play politics more openly than most, but the huge contribution to a party committee is a new step toward an open identification between Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and the GOP.”
A look at News Corp’s own “Standards of Business Conduct,” however, raises questions about whether the $1 million contribution to the RGA violations company policy:
B. Dealing With Government Officials
Employees who have dealings with government officials shall conform to the following standards:
1. All employees who contact public officials must be familiar with the applicable lobbying laws and public disclosure requirements, particularly those laws or regulations pertaining to registrations or filings that must be made by the Company.
2. No payment shall be made to, or for the benefit of, any public official in order to induce or entice such official to: enact, defeat or violate any law or regulation for the Company’s benefit; influence any official act; or obtain any favorable action by a governmental agency or official on behalf of the Company.
3. Social amenities, entertainment and other courtesies may be extended to government officials or employees only to the extent appropriate and reasonable under applicable laws and customs. Gifts of greater than nominal value to, or lavish entertainment of, public officials are prohibited. No gifts in the form of cash, stock or other similar consideration shall be given, regardless of amount. Any gift about which an employee is uncertain should not be made without the prior written approval of the Company’s General Counsel. Any expenses incurred by a Company employee in connection with the matters discussed herein shall be accurately recorded on the Company’s books and records.
What’s not totally clear is the intent of News Corp’s donation. Was it to “induce or entice” a public official to “enact, defeat or violate any law or regulation for the Company’s benefit”? The only public response from the company so far comes from spokesman Jack Horner, who said, “News Corporation believes in the power of free markets, and the RGA’s pro-business agenda supports our priorities at this most critical time for our economy.”
The Democratic Governors Association told ThinkProgress that it has not received any donations from News Corp.
Many companies, for a variety of reasons, participate in the partisan political process, at various levels of government. As a publisher, Dow Jones has a different tradition. Dow Jones does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to political campaigns or to political parties or groups seeking to raise money for political campaigns or parties, and Dow Jones does not and will not reimburse any employee for any political contribution made by an employee. All news employees and members of senior management with any responsibility for news should refrain from partisan political activity judged newsworthy by their senior editor or in the case of senior management, the Chief Executive Officer. Other political activities (including "issue oriented" activity) are permitted, but should not be inconsistent with this code.
GOP WI Sen. candidate Ron Johnson claims ‘sunspot activity’ is the cause of extreme weather trends.
GOP WI Sen. candidate Ron Johnson claims ‘sunspot activity’ is the cause of extreme weather trends.
Yesterday, Wisconsin businessman and U.S. Senate candidate for the Republican Party Ron Johnson gave a wide-ranging interview to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel. Johnson, a global warming skeptic, detailed his views on climate change and explained that he believes that extreme weather occurring across the globe — like record flooding in Pakistan and massive forest fires in Russia — may not be a result of man-made global warming, and that it’s “far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity”:
A global warming skeptic, Johnson said extreme weather phenomena were better explained by sunspots than an overload of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as many scientists believe. “I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change,” Johnson said. “It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination.” [...]
“It’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time,” he said. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere “gets sucked down by trees and helps the trees grow,” said Johnson. Average Earth temperatures were relatively warm during the Middle Ages, Johnson said, and “it’s not like there were tons of cars on the road.”
In fact, sunspots have been at a historic lows. As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson notes, “Severe weather fueled by global warming pollution is having an even more devastating impact around the world. … All of these disasters were predicted by climate scientists as a consequence of greenhouse gas pollution from burning fossil fuels.” Unfortunately, Johnson’s anti-science, anti-environment views aren’t limited to his bizarre theory about sunspots. Last June, he claimed that global warming saved Wisconsin from turning into a glacier, saying he was “glad there’s global warming … We’d be standing on top of a 200-foot thick glacier.” He has also told the press he is open to oil drilling in Wisconsin’s Great Lakes.
Republican talking heads falsely claim no Republican wants to privatize Social Security.
Republican talking heads falsely claim no Republican wants to privatize Social Security.
In his most recent weekly radio address, President Obama noted that “some Republican leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They’re pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.” The Democratic National Committee also released an ad pointing to the GOP’s desire to privatize the 75 year old program. A few Republican talking heads have taken exception to this portrayal, and have claimed that no Republicans actually want to privatize the system in the way Democrats describe:
DANA PERINO: I don’t know of a single Republican who actually wants to do what the Democratic ad just said. It’s sad for the Democrats…they still can only run on fear of something that somebody is not suggesting.
ED ROLLINS: The President’s out there saying ‘Republicans are going to take away your Social Security.’ There’s no Republican, basically, standing up and saying that, and we haven’t for a very long time.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: How stupid does he think Americans are? Not only will Barack Obama not allow Social Security to be privatized, Republicans will not allow Social Security to be privatized.
Watch a compilation:
As The Wonk Room highlighted, a host of Republicans — most prominently Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) — have called for the creation of private Social Security accounts, akin to those proposed by President Bush in 2005. A Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis found that under a Bush-style privatization plan, an October 2008 retiree would have lost $26,000 in the market plunge of that year, and if the U.S. stock market had behaved like the Japanese market during the duration of that retiree’s work life, “a private account would have experienced sharp negative returns, losing $70,000 — an effective -3.3 percent net annual rate of return.”
Glenn Beck Attacks Imam Rauf For Understanding Failed Policies Radicalize Muslims, Despite Saying So Himself
Glenn Beck Attacks Imam Rauf For Understanding Failed Policies Radicalize Muslims, Despite Saying So Himself
Imam Abdul Rauf, the founder of the Park 51 Islamic community center planned near Ground Zero in New York City, has served as a diplomatic envoy to the Muslim world under both the Bush and Obama administrations and wants to build “a cultural center that includes Jews and Christians on the board.” Conservatives have lashed out at Rauf, calling him a “radical” and a “stealth jihadist.”
As The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart noted last night, one of these conservative smear artists is Glenn Beck. Stewart played a clip of Beck last mocking the idea that Rauf is a moderate Muslim cleric. As proof for his smear, Beck cited a statement Rauf gave to CBS News shortly after 9/11, in which the imam stated that he “wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”
Stewart, feigning outrage, then asked, “Wow! Abandoning our values and principles somehow caused problems for us and we weren’t just minding our business and got hit? What kind of scheming, America-hating extremist monster would say something so profoundly evil?” The host then played a clip of Beck’s show from April 15th where Beck essentially endorsed Rauf’s view. In the clip, Beck stands next to a white board labeled “Beck’s Policy On Defense” and explains that while the 9/11 attacks were unjustified, it “causes problems” for us in the world to be “in bed with dictators” and abandon “our values and principles”:
BECK: I wasn’t paying attention before 9/11. I didn’t know what the heck was going on in the world. Now I’m paying attention. When people said they hate us. Did we deserve 9/11? No. But were we minding our business? No. Were we in bed with dictators and abandoning our values and principles? Yes. That causes problems!
Watch it:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mosque-Erade | ||||
|
||||
Last spring’s Beck and Rauf aren’t the only ones who have recognized that pursuing foreign policy that fails to address the welfare of innocent Muslims can lead to their radicalization and provide propaganda for terrorist groups.
In September 2004, the Bush Defense Department under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld commissioned a report designed to study the causes of radicalization among the Arab and Muslim world. The report finds that “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists” and that Muslims “do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.”
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) made a similar argument, arguing that our “strategy of relying on autocrats” fueled “intolerance and hatred.” Even Bill Kristol has acknowledged that, prior to 9/11, “we had made too many accommodations with dictators” who “were exporting terror and extremism as a way of keeping themselves safe at home.”
Bolton calls for Israel to strike Iran in the next eight days.
Russia has announced that it will introduce fuel rods into Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor on August 21, which both Russia and Iran say is purely for civilian use. Appearing on Fox Business channel yesterday to comment on Russia’s move, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton told anchor David Asman, “If Israel’s going to do anything against Bushehr, it has to move in the next eight days.” “The point is that we can’t — we or Israel or whomever — can’t bomb these plants, this nuclear reactor,” Asman observed, “because it would send radiation flying in the air, it would affect thousands of people, Iranians.” Bolton reasoned that an Israeli strike must therefore happen immediately:
BOLTON: Well, unless the Israelis move within the next eight days. Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they’re in the reactor as you say, attacking it means a release of radiation, no question about it. So if Israel’s going to do anything against Bushehr it has to move in the next eight days. If they don’t, then as I say something Saddam Hussein wanted but couldn’t get, a functioning nuclear reactor — because the Israelis bombed it in 1981 — something that Bashar al-Assad in Syria wanted, a functioning nuclear reactor — until the Israelis bombed it — couldn’t get, the Iranians, sworn enemies of Israel, will have.
ASMAN: Boy, we’ve literally run out of time, but within the next eight days, do you think it’s likely that within the next eight days the Israelis will strike?
BOLTON: I don’t think so, I’m afraid that they’ve lost this opportunity.
Watch it:
So, according to John Bolton, after August 21 there will be no point in striking Iran. Good to know.
McCain Ludicrously Insists ‘I Have Not Changed In My Positions’
In a desperate fight to save his seat against a hard-right primary challenger, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has spent the past year veering hard to the right, reversing his positions on a host of issues to appeal to the increasingly fanatical GOP base. This campaign wasn’t the first time McCain reinvented himself to better suit his political ambitions of the moment, and — considering that he now has a strong lead in recent polling — it probably won’t be the last.
But in a recent interview with Politics Daily, McCain bristled at accusations that he’s flip-flopped, insisting that “it’s fundamentally false” to say he “changed” positions:
Then I ask him about Sen. Lindsey Graham’s remark to The New York Times, that Graham understands his friend’s moves away from risky past positions because “John’s got a primary. He’s got to focus on getting re-elected.”
McCain interrupts me. “Lindsey knows that I don’t change in my positions,” he says. “I have not changed in my positions. I know how popular it is for the Eastern press to paint me as having changed positions. That’s not true. I know they’re going to continue to say it. It’s fundamentally false. Not only am I sure that they’ll say it, you’ll say it. You’ll write it. And I’ve just grown to accept that.”
Indeed, Graham — McCain’s “closest friend in the Senate” — is right to point out McCain’s politically-motivated flips. On immigration, McCain has gone from being a fierce supporter for comprehensive immigration reform — he worked with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on bill that passed the Senate and included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants — to now arguing that comprehensive reform has to take a backseat to spending billions to secure the border. He’s even come out against the DREAM act, which would provide undocumented high school graduates a path to legal residency and the chance to attend college — a bill he sponsored in 2003, 2005, and 2007.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, McCain called on the U.S. to urgently address climate change, and was a key sponsor of cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate, touting that his policies were a sharp break from the Bush administration’s stance. Now he has adopted the far-right’s position, dubbing climate legislation “cap and tax” and opposing this piece of the “far left” agenda. In February, he even tried to claim that he had never supported cap-and-trade.
McCain also flipped on gun control, introducing a bill this year to force the District of Columbia to weaken its gun laws, in spite of the fact that McCain once served as a spokesperson for Americans for Gun Safety, a campaign that encouraged states to enact stricter regulations.
And despite once priding himself as a “maverick” who could work across the aisle, McCain has now tried to claim that he “never considered myself a maverick,” and recently promised not to work with Democrats on immigration reform.
Flip-flops are nothing new for McCain. During the 2008 campaign, ThinkProgress identified 44 separate policy items on which McCain had reversed himself, ranging from congressional ethics to foreign policy. A study from Princeton University even used statistical analysis to prove that McCain has made major shifts over his career. Still, this is not the first time McCain has tried to insist he has been consistent.
ThinkFast: August 17, 2010
ThinkFast: August 17, 2010
According to its July 15 filing with the IRS, Gov. Haley Barbour’s (R-MS) Republican Governors Association received a $1 million contribution from Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. While the company’s media outlets, including Fox News and the New York Post, “play politics more openly than most,” the donation to RGA is “a new step toward an open identification” between Murdoch and the GOP.
The CIA has discovered tapes of 9/11 plotter Ramzi Binalshibh being interrogated in 2002 at a Moroccan-run facility used by the CIA. The tapes, discovered under a desk, could illustrate how foreign governments aided the U.S. in detaining and questioning terror suspects.
An Air Force officer who sued the government over his pending dismissal under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has won a small victory, as the Air Force has agreed to at least temporarily delay any discharge. Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach sued to stop his discharge and asked that DADT be repealed on constitutional grounds.
A federal appeals court has stayed California’s ban on same-sex marriage until it decides whether the ban is constitutional. The ruling follows a lower court’s overturning of the ban, and marriages are now on hold until a decision by the appeals court, which would come in December at the earliest, or by the Supreme Court, which could take much longer.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) backed Obama’s decision to support the building of an Islamic center near Ground Zero. “That’s a local decision,” Brown said. “We’re not at war with a religion, we’re at war with terrorism.”
REPORT: Partisan Spending On Judicial Elections Soars
REPORT: Partisan Spending On Judicial Elections Soars
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a West Virginia State Supreme Court judge should have recused himself from a case involving Massey Energy because of an “extreme” conflict of interest. Massey CEO Don Blankenship had spent $3 million to get the judge elected, even running ads accusing the lawyer’s opponent of voting to free an incarcerated child rapist and of allowing that rapist to work in a public school.
An exhaustive study released today, however, shows that big-money influence in judicial elections is hardly limited to that case. A trio of nonpartisan policy groups — the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the National Institute of Money in State Politics — found that spending on state Supreme Court races has more than doubled in the past 10 years. From 2000 through 2009, $207 million dollars were spent on judicial races, with much of the money coming from partisan special interest groups. Among the study’s findings:
–Special interest groups and party organizations accounted for 52 percent of all national TV spending in 2009 — “the first time that noncandidate groups outspent the candidates on the ballot.”
– The top five spenders in the top 10 costliest states invested an average of $473,000 in judicial elections, while the remaining 116,000 contributors averaged $850 each. According to the authors, the disparity suggests that “a small number of special interests dominated judicial election spending even before the Citizens United case ended bans on election spending by corporations and unions.”
– In 11 of 17 races in 2007-08, the candidate that raised the most money won his or her contest.
In the forward to the report, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “This crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing. Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.” But not all of the current Supreme Court justices agree: Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia dissented from the Massey decision, saying that if judges recuse themselves because of the money spent to elect them, it would encourage “groundless” charges that other “judges are biased.”
The report does highlight some seeds of change, however: Wisconsin, North Carolina, New Mexico, and West Virginia have already enacted public financing for judicial elections, and polls show continued strong public support for reform measures like public financing, election voter guides, recusal reform and full financial disclosure for election ads.
Kevin Jennings speaks out about weathering anti-gay, right-wing attacks.
Kevin Jennings speaks out about weathering anti-gay, right-wing attacks.
Last year, the right wing took aim at Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s assistant deputy secretary at the Department of Education for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, smearing him with extreme anti-gay attacks and even death threats. This month, Jennings spoke to a group of progressive interns and explained why he stood firm and refused to succumb to the calls for his resignation:
“As the leading proponent of stopping bullying in America, I was not allowed to be bullied out of my job,” said Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. “I’ve been preaching for 25 years that bullying is not OK. There was no way I could then say, ‘OK, you can bully me.’” [...]
“The only things you’ll regret are things you don’t do,” Jennings told the luncheon guests. “At the peak of the attacks on me last fall, when I had Federal Protective Service in my office because there had been so many death threats, I thought, ‘This is the right thing to do?’ All I could think is, no matter how this ends, it’s better than sitting at home wondering, ‘Gosh, I wonder what it would have been like to be part of the Obama administration?’”
(HT: Women’s Media Center)
Conservative Base Erupts At Tancredo For Jeopardizing GOP Chances With His Third-Party Candidacy
Conservative Base Erupts At Tancredo For Jeopardizing GOP Chances With His Third-Party Candidacy
Last week, businessman and tea party hero Dan Maes defeated former congressman Scott McInnis to secure the GOP nomination for governor in Colorado. Both candidates stumbled to the primary under the weight of scandal. Maes’ razor-thin victory finally offered the GOP a chance to unite behind the GOP nominee against Denver Mayor and Democratic nominee John Hickenlooper.
However, during his victory celebration, Maes pointed out the “800-pound gorilla in the room” preventing conservative unity: former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO). Tancredo, who is now running a third-party candidacy under the umbrella of the American Constitution Party, abandoned the GOP in July after both McInnis and Maes failed to heed his demand that they drop out of the race. Deeming them “unelectable,” Tancredo believes he has “a better resume” as a committed conservative.
But his application is not faring well with the conservative base. On the same day he announced his candidacy, Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams and 21 state Tea Party leaders lambasted Tancredo for jeopardizing a conservative victory. And this Saturday, a defiant Tancredo was met by “a somewhat hostile crowd” at a Vail Valley 9.12 Project event in Colorado. The group of “constitutional conservatives” slammed Tancredo for pursuing the type of candidacy that he once said “guarantee[s] the re-election of liberals”:
Vail Valley 9.12 Project’s organizer Michael Schneider kicked off the event by talking about a letter Tancredo wrote to 9.12 members and Tea Party activists last December that said third-party candidates split conservative votes and guarantee the re-election of liberals and socialists.
“You will split the vote and (John) Hickenlooper will become the governor,” Schneider said. “Be a hero, be a champion of the conservative causes that you’ve always been — drop out of the race and come back to the conservative party.”
While Schneider believes Tancredo’s third-party candidacy ruins their candidate’s chances of winning, Tancredo insists on the opposite. In response to Maes’ request to stop his campaign, Tancredo said, “I think that [Maes is] the third-party candidate and it’d be a good idea for him to drop out to reduce the split among conservative voters.”
So far, Schneider is proving the wiser. A PPP poll of the gubernatorial race last week shows that while Hickenlooper is strong in any race, Tancredo reduces Maes’ support by 16 percentage points. This irony seemed to dawn on Tancredo during last week’s GOP primary. “Did you see the turnout? We did so much better than the Democrats,” Tancredo excitedly said of GOP voter participation before stopping himself. “I’ve got to quit saying ‘we,’” he said.
Stimulus hypocrite Barton attends groundbreaking for health clinic funded by stimulus.
Stimulus hypocrite Barton attends groundbreaking for health clinic funded by stimulus.
Last year, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) — the same Joe Barton who felt the need to apologize to BP after the oil giant caused an environmental catastrophe — requested stimulus funds for NASA despite having voted against the stimulus. Last week, Barton was at it again, attending a groundbreaking “for an expansion of an Ellis County clinic” that received $250,000 in stimulus money:
“As I told the crowd at the groundbreaking, I was opposed to the stimulus bill and voted against it. It has been largely wasteful and failed to produce the jobs that were promised,” Barton, R-Arlington, said in a written statement. “However, expansion of the Hope Clinic is a worthy project that deserves our support.”
The construction grant “comes in addition to more than $1.4 million the clinic has received in stimulus funds, which clinic staff said was secured with the help of Barton’s office.” Barton has previously called the stimulus a “boondoggle,” “a lesson in how to waste a lot of money in a hurry,” and the “most anti-competitive, anti-consumer, anti-free market piece of legislation I’ve ever seen on the House floor.” As The Wonk Room noted, Barton is actually doubling down on the hypocrisy, as the clinic will also receive money from the Affordable Care Act, which Barton also voted against.
Senate Majority Leader Reid opposes Obama on mosque project: ‘Should be built someplace else.’
Senate Majority Leader Reid opposes Obama on mosque project: ‘Should be built someplace else.’
Staking an unpopular political position, President Obama voiced his support Friday night for the right of American Muslims to build “a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan.” The Miami Herald reported today that Democratic candidates in Florida failed to exhibit the same courage. “Common sense and respect for those who lost their lives and loved ones gives sensible reason to build the mosque someplace else,” argued Senate candidate Jeff Greene. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink said 9/11 families “are opposed to this project and I share their view.” Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has joined the ranks of these weak-willed Democrats. Greg Sargent reports:
The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation.
The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss explains why the argument for relocating the mosque is so offensive. Duss writes, “It asks Muslim Americans to acknowledge the validity of the idea that the presence of a mosque at that location is an affront to those murdered — including the Muslims murdered — on 9/11. And while it’s important to understand the deep emotions involved, the idea that Muslims bear collective guilt for 9/11 is simply not valid, no matter how ‘thoughtfully’ phrased.”
Neo-Nazis Stage Anti-Immigrant Rally In TN, Demand We ‘Put Race And Nation First’
Neo-Nazis Stage Anti-Immigrant Rally In TN, Demand We ‘Put Race And Nation First’
This past weekend, anti-immigrant activists staged rallies in three different locations: “anti-amnesty” protesters gathered in Farmers Branch, TX, Tea Party members rallied at the border in Arizona, and neo-Nazis marched down the streets of Knoxville, TN. The three separate, but related protests illustrate how the white supremacist movement has latched onto the immigration issue.
As proponents of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law insist that their support of the law has nothing to do with race, they can’t deny that for some people it boils down to “white people who are not afraid to stand up,” as one Tennessee rally attendee noted. Watch coverage of the Tennessee rally:
At the neo-Nazi rally in Knoxville, protesters proudly displayed swastikas. One demonstrator explained the motivations guiding the march: “Federal economic policies are unsustainable. Our country is going broke. Stop giving away our jobs to countries that hate us. Secure our border. Put race and nation first.” The rhetoric in Farmers Branch and Arizona was not remarkably different.
In Hereford, AZ, where approximately 400 Tea Party activists gathered yesterday, Tucson radio host proclaimed, “[i]nstead of finding bugs in our beds, we’re finding home invaders.” Cindy Kolb, “a border activist” who attended the gathering screamed over the border fence, said “[w]e don’t like illegals hiding under bushes when our kids wait for the school bus. This border needs to be secure.”
The Farmers Branch rally was organized by the Salt Lake City-based Americans Against Immigration Amnesty, which states on its website, “Many of those seeking amnesty refuse to assimilate to our culture or language and refuse to respect our citizens and laws. Rather, they demand we assimilate to them and their culture, teach our children their language and shamelessly fly their country’s flag over ours.”
Meanwhile, a recent poll revealed that many Arizonans think the immigration debate has “exposed a deeper sense of racism in our community.” The Wonk Room has extensive coverage of this weekend’s anti-immigrant events.
Laura Ingraham To Co-Founder Of Ground Zero Mosque In December 2009: ‘I Like What You’re Trying To Do’
Laura Ingraham To Co-Founder Of Ground Zero Mosque In December 2009: ‘I Like What You’re Trying To Do’
One of the most vociferous opponents of the proposed Park 51 Islamic community center and mosque that will be built two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City is Fox News contributor and conservative personality Laura Ingraham. Earlier this month, Ingraham appeared on Good Morning America and told host George Stephanopolous that there’s a “disconnect between how elites” think about the proposed mosque and how the rest of the country thinks about the project. Ingraham complained, “600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam, and we’re supposed to be cheering this?!” She even went as far as to say that the “terrorists have won” because Park 51 is going to be built:
INGRAHAM: There’s a disconnect, George, between the elites and the way they think about this, and, I think most New Yorkers, and most of the country. I know Michael Bloomberg was out there saying, “Well, our values need to be properly represented to the world, and if this mosque isn’t going to be built, what is that going to say? The terrorists win!” Well, I say the terrorists have won with how this has gone down. 600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam, and we’re supposed to be cheering this?!
Watch it:
However, as Salon’s Justin Elliott’s research uncovers, Ingraham wasn’t always fearmongering about the proposed cultural center and mosque. On December 21, 2009, Ingraham hosted Daisy Khan, a co-founder of Park 51 and the wife of its Imam, Abdul Rauf. Despite using the sensational and inaccurate misnomer “Ground Zero Mosque” (Elliott believes it to be the first use of that phrase to describe the center) and raising various questions about her husband, Ingraham is courteous to Khan, does not appear to categorically oppose the existence of a mosque near Ground Zero, and tells her that she “can’t find many people who really have a problem with” the building of the mosque. Ingraham even went as far as to tell Khan, “I like what you’re trying to do”:
INGRAHAM: I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. [Mayor] Bloomberg is for it. Rabbis are saying they don’t have a problem with it. [...] I like what you’re trying to do and Ms. Khan we appreciate it and come on my radio show some time.
KHAN: Yeah, we need the support of people like you seriously.
INGRAHAM: Alright, you take care.
Watch it:
It appears that a campaign of hatred aimed at the mosque — and heavily assisted by the network she contributes to — has changed Ingraham’s mind. Fortunately, there are conservatives who have not joined the Islamaphobic campaign to try to stop Park 51’s construction. This morning, former Bush advisor Mark McKinnon noted that trying to prevent peaceful Muslims from worshiping near the site of Ground Zero will only serve to enforce “al Qaeda’s message” that the West is at war with Islam.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll