Take action: Ask 2010 midterm candidates a question.
Take action: Ask 2010 midterm candidates a question.
ThinkProgress is pleased to partner with the Personal Democracy Forum on a project called 10Questions, an effort in association with YouTube and Google to allow online readers to ask federal/state candidates direct questions in advance of the upcoming midterm elections. Some of the participating races include Minnesota’s 6th district House race (Rep. Michele Bachmann versus Tarryl Clark), California’s Senate race (Sen. Barbara Boxer versus Carly Fiorina), and Florida’s 22nd district House race (Ron Klein versus Allen West). There are many others. By visiting 10Questions.com, individuals will be given an opportunity to submit questions via online video or text. Once they are posted, citizens can vote on questions, pushing those they most want asked to the top. Questions can be posted and voted on through September 21st. The top ten questions — as selected by the public — will be posted and responded to by the candidates. The public can then vote on whether or not candidates answered the questions from October 15th through election day. It only works if you participate. So please take the opportunity to do so. Visit 10Questions.com.
- Comments
- 6
Granholm calls out Armey and Ryan for wanting to ‘effectively dismantle’ the social safety net.
Granholm calls out Armey and Ryan for wanting to ‘effectively dismantle’ the social safety net.
As ThinkProgress noted, former House Speaker Dick Armey laid out a plan this week that would effectively dismantle Social Security and Medicare “as you know it” by privatizing a large portion of these critical social safety net programs. On Meet the Press today, Armey and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) discussed a different Republican plan to privatize and dismantle the social safety net, Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “Roadmap for America’s Future.” Granholm calls Ryan’s plan “far outside the mainstream,” noting that 85 percent of Americans don’t want to cut Social Security to solve the deficit.” Armey responds by laughing, claiming that “no one is talking about dismantling these systems:”
GREGORY: Governor, is this an example of what they called a mainstream political movement, some of these candidates and their views?
GRANHOLM: No. I think it’s far outside of the mainstream. In fact, one of the things, you just held up Paul Ryan’s proposal regarding Medicare and regarding Social Security, I think a lot of which you’ve jumped on to as well. There was a recent poll out that says 85 percent of Americans don’t want to see Social Security cut to solve the deficit. … If you care about democracy and what every citizen believes and you want to empower them, and they don’t want the social security system to be dismantled, and they don’t want the medicare system to be dismantled because your picking and choosing and this is a contact between generations to be able to make sure all of our seniors have the funds when they retire, that they’re not going to be homeless, that they’re not going to have to go to a shelter. I’m not kidding you. The idea that 85–
ARMEY: [Laughing] You just crack me up. No one is talking about dismantling these systems.
GRANHOLM: You just crack me up too, man. Well if you ask every actuarial that’s looked at it says you effectively dismantle the system.
Watch it:
As has been repeatedly noted, Ryan’s plan would destroy Social Security and Medicare as we know it, whether or not its advocates are talking about it that way. And while Armey laughs insensitively when Granholm brings up elderly homelessness, the problem was no laughing matter before the passage of these programs. Social Security and Medicare “ultimately made poorhouses obsolete.” Meanwhile, elderly homelessness is projected to rise by a third in the next ten years, and as the National Alliance to End Homesless notes, “Social Security, Medicare, and housing programs targeting the elderly will be critical for meeting the challenge and reducing risk of homelessness.”
Deficit Fraud McConnell: Why Did Tax Cuts ‘All Of A Sudden Become Something We, Quote, Pay For?’
Deficit Fraud McConnell: Why Did Tax Cuts ‘All Of A Sudden Become Something We, Quote, Pay For?’
Earlier this month, Reps. John Boehner (R-OH) and Mike Pence (R-IN) appeared on Meet the Press and were unable to explain their desire to extend the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans with their rhetoric about deficit reduction. “Listen, what you’re trying to do is get into this Washington game and their funny accounting over there,” Boehner said, when asked if Republicans planned to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich.
Today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ran into the same trouble with MTP host David Gregory, and scoffed at the very notion of paying for tax cuts. “Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for?’” McConnell asked.
MCCONNELL: What are you talking about, paid for? This is existing tax policy. It’s been in place for ten years. [...]
GREGORY: For a final time, I’ll go back to my question which is, the extension of the tax cuts would cost $3.2 trillion. That’s borrowed money, that adds to the deficit. Do you have a plan to pay for that extension?
MCCONNELL: You’re talking about current tax policy. Why did it all of a sudden become something that we, quote, ‘pay for’?
Watch it:
In addition to incorrectly stating the effect that the expiration of the cuts would have on small businesses, McConnell basically summed up the Republican approach here, which is that cutting taxes for the rich is either free or worth exploding the deficit to implement. In reality, extending just the tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans — which President Obama has proposed allowing to expire — costs $830 billion over ten years and $36 billion next year alone.
This week, the Washington Post excoriated Republicans for almost unanimously backing a proposal by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would permanently extend all of the Bush tax cuts, calling it “a chilling sign of what a number of lawmakers believe passes for fiscal responsibility.” Of course, maybe McConnell and Senate Republicans simply agree with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s pronouncement that “deficits don’t matter.”
GOP candidate in NY gubernatorial primary calls for prison dorms for welfare recipients.
GOP candidate in NY gubernatorial primary calls for prison dorms for welfare recipients.
A consistent theme that has developed among conservative politicians this year is to degrade and demean the unemployed who are seeking unemployment benefits. From former House Speaker Newt Gingrich attacking a man who paid into the unemployment insurance system for 35 years for seeking benefits, to Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) suggesting that the availability of meager unemployment insurance was causing the unemployed of his state to sit back and wait instead of seek work, the conservative assault on the unemployed appear to have no end. Now, New York GOP gubernatorial primary candidate Carl Paladino, “a wealthy Buffalo real estate developer popular with many tea party activists,” is openly advocating for the creation of special prison dorms for recipients of unemployment insurance where they can receive special training and lessons in “personal hygiene“:
Republican candidate for governor Carl Paladino said he would transform some New York prisons into dormitories for welfare recipients, where they could work in state-sponsored jobs, get employment training and take lessons in “personal hygiene.” [...]
Paladino first described the idea in June at a meeting of The Journal News of White Plains and spoke about it again this week with The Associated Press. [...]
Asked at the meeting how he would achieve those savings, Paladino laid out several plans that included converting underused state prisons into centers that would house welfare recipients. There, they would do work for the state — “military service, in some cases park service, in other cases public works service,” he said — while prison guards would be retrained to work as counselors.
“Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we’ll teach people how to earn their check. We’ll teach them personal hygiene … the personal things they don’t get when they come from dysfunctional homes,” Paladino said.
Paladino did explain to the Associated Press that any such prison dorm scheme would be voluntary. What he failed to explain is why, as a tea party conservative, taking people away from their families to taxpayer-funded facilities to try to re-educate them is in any way conservative.
Despite His Anti-Government Rhetoric, Gov. McDonnell’s Budget Surplus Results From Government Assistance
Despite His Anti-Government Rhetoric, Gov. McDonnell’s Budget Surplus Results From Government Assistance
While most states are experiencing debilitating budget deficits, Virginia is “feeling flush” after turning a $1.8 billion deficit into a $403.2 million budget surplus at the close of the fiscal year. In a celebratory speech before the Virginia legislature Thursday, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) credited higher tax revenue, state agencies’ fiscal responsibility, and serious budget cuts for the state’s ability “to balance the books.”
McDonnell’s victory tour continued with a stop on the Fox Business network to tout “fiscal prudence and conservative budgeting” as “the key” to his surplus. When enamored host Gerri Willis asked him whether Washington “could learn something from Virginia,” McDonnell replied he hoped his fiscal responsibility in Richmond “would be a model for Washington”:
WILLIS: Well you know congratulations, it’s an amazing story. You started the year with $1.8 billion deficit – you turned it around completely, even have a surplus. How’d you do it?
MCDONNELL: Well it took a lot of work and a lot of bipartisan support in both houses of the legislature but I think we took a very conservative, fiscal, practical approach to budget. You can’t spend what you don’t have. [...]
WILLIS: And you mentioned some of the spending priorities in Washington, could they learn something from Virginia?
MCDONNELL: Well, as I said in my speech to the legislature today, they sure could. Everybody knows, families and businesses that are cutting in these tough economic times, this is an unsustainable level of spending. What we need to do is incentivize the free enterprise system which has been the strength of American democracy for hundreds of years to grow. And we can’t keep adding a trillion and a half dollars to the national debt every year with this deficit, you’ve got to be fiscally prudent and incentivize the free enterprise system so you don’t have more government bailouts and more dependence of people on government. It’s a very different model and I hope Richmond would be a model for Washington.
Watch it:
McDonnell’s “prudence” would be a shining example for the federal government if he hadn’t relied on one important contributor: the federal government. According to a Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis report released this week, last year’s Recovery Act provided $2.5 billion in stimulus relief to “maintain crucial services for [Virginia] citizens” and “help close the state’s budget shortfall in 2010-2012.” Virginia legislators relied on $1.3 billion in enhanced Medicaid funding, $1 billion in funding for K-12 and higher education, $39 million for public safety, and $200 million in general support to reduce “what would otherwise have been a $5.4 billion budget hole.”
But McDonnell has a history of selective amnesia when it comes to Recovery funds. During his gubernatorial campaign, McDonnell continually criticized the Recovery Act as a “massive” spending bill that would “do little to help the economy.” But, while in office, McDonnell heralded $24 million in federal funding to advance health information technology while sweeping the fact that it was stimulus funding under the rug. He even requested stimulus funds to cover rising health care costs and to help build a Rolls Royce manufacturing plant in Prince George County. As one Virginia legislator put it, “we wouldn’t even be talking about the surplus if it weren’t for the stimulus.”
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry Refuses To Join Rep. Lamar Smith In Discussing Obama Impeachment
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry Refuses To Join Rep. Lamar Smith In Discussing Obama Impeachment
Last month, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) became the first congressman in his party to hint at impeaching President Obama for purportedly violating his oath of office by not completely securing the border. Since then, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has joined Smith in declaring that Obama has violated his oath of office.
ThinkProgress caught up with Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) at a town hall meeting in Lincoln, Nebraska last week to get his take on the matter. Fortenberry, who lacks no conservative credentials with an 87% lifetime conservative rating from the American Conservative Union, was unwilling to join his colleagues. Not only did he argue that Obama had not violated his oath of office, but he also recoiled at the notion that his colleagues would make such incendiary comments:
TP: I had a quick question about immigration policy in particular. There’s a lot of hot feelings out here about it. Do you think that if President Obama doesn’t address the issue, that that would be a violation of his oath of office?
FORTENBERRY: Well, I don’t think it’d be a violation of his oath of office. The problem is, like I was asked today earlier, when is the immigration reform going to happen? [...]
TP: I know Congressman Lamar Smith has come out and said that Obama is permitting illegal immigration is coming really close to a violation of his oath of office.
FORTENBERRY: Lamar said that?
TP: Yeah, he did. If Republicans were to take back Congress next term and if he were to bring up a bill like that, you’re saying you don’t think you would support that?
FORTENBERRY: That the president had violated his oath of office? Well I don’t…These things get a little politically heated. I don’t like to throw things around like that, that’s pretty serious. I like Lamar Smith, he’s a friend of mine. [...] I just don’t want to throw stuff around like that, frankly.
Listen here:
BP Pulls Ads On ThinkProgress After Wonk Room Reports On Its Greenwashing Campaign
BP Pulls Ads On ThinkProgress After Wonk Room Reports On Its Greenwashing Campaign
Yesterday, ThinkProgress climate editor Brad Johnson reported on The Wonk Room that big oil giant BP has been engaged in a “massive greenwashing campaign, which includes months of full-page advertisements in national and regional newspapers, radio spots, television commercials, and Internet ads on websites including ThinkProgress.org.” Pursuant to Johnson’s posting, BP has decided to pull its ads from ThinkProgress.
Here’s what happened. BP purchased advertising on ThinkProgress through Common Sense Media, our outside ad company. Common Sense Media services a whole network of liberal sites, including Firedoglake, Crooks and Liars, AmericaBlog, Eschaton, and others.
BP has an agreement with Common Sense Media to be notified about blog postings that are critical of its advertising campaign, and BP reserves the right to pull ads if they are offended by the posts. ThinkProgress was aware that BP would in fact be notified of our post. Nevertheless, we felt the story of BP’s massive ad campaign was an important issue that deserved attention on our blog.
Today, our ad provider notified ThinkProgress that BP has asked that all its ads on the ThinkProgress sites (TP, Yglesias, and Wonk Room) be pulled through the end of their campaign.
When I informed the ThinkProgress community in Aug. 2008 that we were introducing one paid advertising spot on our site, I stated: “Please rest assured that our advertisers will have absolutely no bearing on determining or influencing what we do or don’t write about.” The commitment, of course, cost us some advertising money from BP in the short-run. But the cost for maintaining our long-term credibility, our progressive identity, and your readership is well worth it.
Congress Should Help Pakistanis Help Themselves By Lowering Or Eliminating The Tariff On Pakistani Textiles
Congress Should Help Pakistanis Help Themselves By Lowering Or Eliminating The Tariff On Pakistani Textiles
As Pakistan continues to be ravaged by “the worst floods in its history,” it is desperately in need of continued international assistance. Most of the international response to Pakistan has been focused on aid, with the U.S. leading the way by donating $150 million to the disaster relief effort. While increasing aid to Pakistan is important, there is another way the United States can help the people of Pakistan that wouldn’t require giving a single taxpayer dime to the country.
The United States currently imposes an average 17 percent tariff on textile products like cotton pants and shirts from Pakistan. This tariff imposes a significant strain on an industry that is crucial to Pakistan’s economy. 3.5 million Pakistanis are employed in the textile sector, and comprise 40 percent of urban factory jobs. Textiles and apparels account for 60 percent “of Pakistan’s total exports.” $3 billion worth of these textile goods went to the United States last year.
The Wall Street Journal talked to one textile company owner, Rana Hassan Sajjad, who viewed lowering the tariff as more important than receiving more foreign aid:
Umer Apparel Ltd., a Faisalabad company that exports $15 million in goods to the U.S. annually, including brands like American Eagle and Aeropostale, has laid off almost a fifth of its work force of 1,500 and is running at only three-quarters of capacity, says its chief executive, Rana Hassan Sajjad. [...]
“It would help if they would lower the tariff,” said textile company owner Mr. Sajjad. “Being an owner of a company, do I benefit from aid? No. I don’t know what the government is doing with the money. They are not spending it on us.”
The paper estimates that eliminating these tariffs on Pakistani textiles would “boost the nation’s textile exports by $5 billion annually,” meaning that simply eliminating this punitive tariff would provide 33 times more money to Pakistanis than all flood aid given by the United States so far — and it would all be done without spending a single taxpayer dollar.
Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow for “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” (ROZs) that would create special trade zones for Pakistanis manufacture and develop textile goods that were not subject to tariffs. Unfortunately, as the New York Times editorialized, it “was so hemmed in with protectionist limits that it was almost worthless.” And the Senate has failed to pass even this watered-down bill “because Republicans have objected to sound language in the House bill endorsing basic international labor standards for Pakistani export workers.” That is an extreme position to hold, given that Pakistan’s weak labor enforcement has made many labor rights advocates skeptical of the use of ROZs in the country because the labor standards would not be tough enough.
A better idea would be for Congress to lower or simply eliminate, country-wide, the tariffs the United States has imposed on Pakistani textile products. Doing so would add billions of dollars to the Pakistani economy and help Pakistanis help themselves with their own hard work and ingenuity.
McMahon claims raising taxes on the rich is ‘a big dig for small business.’
McMahon claims raising taxes on the rich is ‘a big dig for small business.’
Linda McMahon, the Republican senate nominee in Connecticut, is selling herself as the consummate business woman, thanks to her years as an executive with World Wrestling Entertainment. But if her appearance last night on CNBC is any indication, McMahon is a little unclear about how much money the typical small business owner is earning. CNBC’s supply-side devotee Larry Kudlow asked McMahon for her position on allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest two percent of Americans to expire, and McMahon used the standard Republican argument that permitting the expiration would cause a tax increase on small businesses:
The fallacy Larry, and you know this as well as anyone, it’s not just that top marginal tax rate that’s going to affect the wealthy, it’s going to affect small businesses. I’ve started as a Subchapter S corporation, and so when you increase that top marginal tax rate, if it goes from 35 to 39.6 percent, you know, that’s going to be a big dig for small businesses. And as I talk to small businesses all over the state of Connecticut, they’re telling me, ‘look, I’m not going to grow. I’m not going to go over that level. I’ll lay somebody off, I won’t take that next job, I can’t work any harder, and I’m just not going to work any more for the government.’
Watch it:
The fact remains that fewer than two percent of small businesses and less than three percent of people with any business income whatsoever will see a tax increase if the top two income tax brackets reset to the 2001 level, as President Obama has proposed. As The Wonk Room explained, small businesses are actually hesitant to hire because of weak economic conditions and lack of demand, not the political climate as McMahon claims. McMahon herself, who holds personal assets worth anywhere from $156 million to $400 million, would face higher tax rates if the tax cuts for the rich expire, but the same can’t be said for the vast majority of small business owners.
Iowa Gubernatorial Nominee Branstad Opposes Stimulus Money, State Aid Bill
Iowa Gubernatorial Nominee Branstad Opposes Stimulus Money, State Aid Bill
Though Republicans in Congress voted unanimously against the stimulus bill last year and all but two opposed the state aid bill this month, Republican governors have overwhelmingly supported the measures. Every single governor, Republicans and Democrats alike, accepted stimulus money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Similarly, 16 of the 23 Republican governors, including such conservative stalwarts as Bob McDonnell of Virginia and Haley Barbour of Mississippi, called on Congress to pass the state aid bill and help relieve state budget shortfalls.
Today, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) expressed doubt about whether he will accept money from a bill he has criticized as a “reckless spending spree.” Last week, ThinkProgress spoke with former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad (R), who sounded a similar note as Pawlenty. Branstad, who is currently running for his old job, kowtowed to extremists in his party:
TP: They just passed that big state aid bill out in Washington. I was curious how you felt about that.
BRANSTAD: I have real concerns because there’s strings attached to that. And it’s one-time money, so it doesn’t solve the problem, it just puts it off a year. And it increases the federal debt. I don’t think they should have done it. I’m not sure, we’ve got to see what the strings are and whether or not we should even accept it or not.
TP: Also, I’m just curious with the stimulus bill. If you were governor do you think you’d be requesting some of that money to help out Iowans or is that not so much what you’re interested in?
BRANSTAD: Well, it just depends whether there’s strings that are attached and whatever. I don’t think they should have done it. I’m against it. But I don’t know that I want to penalize the state. But I also, in some cases, some states are turning it down because the strings that are attached are just going to make the situation worse. So I think you’ve got to analyze it and really determine whether to take part of it or don’t take it or whatever.
Listen here:
Iowa has already received over $1 billion in stimulus funds and is scheduled to receive at least $1 billion more over the next two years. That money saved 10,000 Iowa jobs in the last quarter alone. The state aid bill provides an additional $225 million in funding for Iowa, without which the state would have faced a $121 million budget shortfall. Branstad may oppose using federal money to save Iowa jobs and balance the state budget, but he has yet to give specifics about how he would do so without stimulus funds.
Every GOP NH Senate Candidate Is A Global Warming Denier
Every GOP NH Senate Candidate Is A Global Warming Denier
NH GOP Senate candidates (l-r): Jim Bender, Gerard Beloin, Bill Binnie, Kelly Ayotte, Dennis Lamare and Ovide Lamontagne
Every single Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) is a global warming denier. Appearing at a debate hosted by the Seacoast Republican Women in Portsmouth, NH on Wednesday, the six candidates — from millionaire businessmen Bill Binnie and Jim Bender to former attorney general Kelly Ayotte — were unanimous in their denial of man-made climate change, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and the obvious changes that have already hit New Hampshire:
It was symbolic when the six Republican candidates for U.S. Senate stood up together side-by-side during a debate Wednesday. It resembled their positions on major issues. All said they would have voted against extending long-term unemployment benefits. All argued Elena Kagan should not have been appointed to the Supreme Court. All said man-made global warming hasn’t been proven.
With greenhouse pollution from fossil fuels building up in the atmosphere at an increasing rate, the world is now hotter than it has ever been in recorded history. New England is unambiguously warming. Fueled by the warmer world, catastrophic rainfall is rising, as “exemplified by the ‘100-year’ floods that have occurred in southern New Hampshire in 2005, 2006, 2007.” It also seems that the crop of anti-reality Republicans fueled by allegiance to coal and oil polluters is also on the rise.
Cross-posted from The Wonk Room.
Pot, Meet Kettle: Glenn Beck Calls Rick Sanchez The ‘Dumbest Man Ever On Television’
Pot, Meet Kettle: Glenn Beck Calls Rick Sanchez The ‘Dumbest Man Ever On Television’
On his radio show yesterday, Glenn Beck launched a lengthy diatribe against CNN anchor Rick Sanchez, calling him “the dumbest man ever on television.” Beck played a clip of Sanchez’s infamous volcano flub, where the CNN anchor joked that he didn’t understand how volcanoes could erupt in cold places like Iceland. Beck played a few other on-air errors from Sanchez over the years, and said, “I honestly don’t know how the man ties his own shoes.”
Watch it:
While Sanchez may be rusty when it comes to geology, Beck is hardly one to criticize the intelligence of fellow television personalities. Here are a few of Beck’s more intellectually challenged moments:
– Beck reveals that President Obama is an “oligarh.”
– Beck also misspells “heroes” and “villains” live on-air.
– Beck plays Connect Four against himself, and cheats.
– Beck displayed a graphic demonstrating that Silas from “The Da Vinci Code” is a member of ACORN.
Any discussion of “the dumbest man on television” should include “rodeo clowns” with a TV show.
Chamber Of Commerce COO Apologizes For ‘Ridiculous’ Post Blaming Women For The Gender Wage Gap
Chamber Of Commerce COO Apologizes For ‘Ridiculous’ Post Blaming Women For The Gender Wage Gap
As ThinkProgress noted this past Wednesday, the Chamber of Commerce’s official blog ChamberPost recently featured a post which argued that women themselves bear most of the responsibility for the gender wage gap. The post claimed that women could close the wage gap by simply choosing the right “place to work” and “partner at home.”
Now, the Chamber has posted a pair of updates to the post. The first comes from the post’s original author, Brad Peck, who serves as the Senior Director of Communications at the institution. In an update to the original post, Peck said he was “attempting, rather poorly, to point out that using the wage gap as the only measure of full equality provides an incomplete picture.” He claims his writing was “interpreted many different ways, few of which were intended,” but fails to apologize for his claim that women themselves are responsible for the U.S. pay gap:
The above post has been interpreted many different ways, few of which were intended. It is the belief of both the U.S. Chamber and I that women should have equal employment opportunity. In the above I was attempting, rather poorly, to point out that using the wage gap as the only measure of full equality provides an incomplete picture. The post was unclear in its message and I would like to apologize to those for whom it has caused offense. There was no intent to dismiss the challenges women face in the economy or diminish their substantial contributions.
The second update to the post links to a new post by the Chamber’s COO David Chavern. Titled “A Wrong and Wrong-Headed Look at the Wage Gap,” Chavern writes that he found Peck’s post “simplistic and misguided,” and even says it was comprised of “an argument from the 1960’s.” Chavern writes that “the ‘glass ceiling’ is real and simply blaming it on women’s work-life choices is ridiculous“:
Yesterday, Brad Peck posted a piece on ChamberPost about the wage gap between men and women. There is a lot that I don’t like about the piece. It is simplistic and misguided. Even worse, I find it very, very old fashioned. “Women still face challenges at work because of their own work-life choices”, blah, blah, blah. It is an argument from the 1960’s.
The trouble that it is an argument that doesn’t explain a whole bunch of bad things. Why, for example, does the number of Fortune 500 women CEO’s and senior managers seem to have topped out? That is a truth that impacts a whole bunch of women who have made a wide variety of work-life choices. It certainly isn’t an outcome one would predict if all companies were really the “equal opportunity” (let alone “equal outcome”) workplaces that Brad implies that they are. The “glass ceiling” is real and simply blaming it on women’s work-life choices is ridiculous.
Chavern assures ChamberPost readers that, “as the COO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce my opinion on these matters counts a lot more than [Peck's] does when it comes to Chamber policy and operations.” Unfortunately, the Chamber of Commerce has a long history of opposing legislation that would improve women’s lives. From opposing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to lobbying against legislation that would allow rape victims to bring lawsuits against their employers, the Chamber’s record is firmly anti-woman.
If Chavern is really serious about proving that the Chamber isn’t simply reflexively against progressive legislation that could advance the cause of gender equality, he should look to the first comment on his post. Commenter Carissa Snedeker writes that if the Chamber, “wants to show support for women, how’s about they whip the U.S. Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act? … Have at it, Dave. Put your money where your mouth is.”
GOP House Candidate On Obama: ‘I Don’t Have A Position On Whether He’s A Muslim’
GOP House Candidate On Obama: ‘I Don’t Have A Position On Whether He’s A Muslim’
Two news polls released yesterday show that a startling number of Americans — incorrectly — believe that President Obama is Muslim. A Pew poll found that 18 percent of Americans think he is Muslim, while a Time poll found that a “jaw-dropping” 46 percent of Republicans hold the same false view.
When Roll Call asked Tom Ganley, a Republican running for a House seat from Ohio, for his thoughts on the matter, Ganley proclaimed that he doesn’t “have a position on whether he’s a Muslim.” Ganley quickly tried to walk back his comments, but only barely:
“I don’t have a position on whether he’s a Muslim,” Ganley said Thursday in a telephone interview with Roll Call. [...]
In a statement later Thursday afternoon, Ganley sought to clarify his earlier comment about Obama.
“During an interview earlier today, I was asked a question about President Obama’s religion that I felt irrelevant to the story being written about my campaign for Congress,” he said. “I do not believe President Obama’s religion has any impact on the need for jobs in Ohio’s 13th district. According to the White House, our President is a Christian and I have no reason to believe otherwise.”
Of course, Obama is Christian, and “prays every day.” Several pastors who have prayed with Obama “defended his Christian faith” yesterday, with Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell — who married President Bush’s daughter Jenna — calling Obama a “devout Christian.” “Those of us who’ve spent time with him and have had a part of forming his spiritual life can testify with certainty of his commitment to Christ,” said Pastor Joel Hunter of Northland Church near Orlando, who has been a close spiritual advisor to Obama for several years.
Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner’s Byron York writes today that “Obama has himself to blame” for people falsely believing he’s a Muslim because he often “play[s] basketball or golf on Sunday mornings.”
“Is ‘Obama as a Muslim’ the new ‘Birther’ question for Republican candidates?” MSNBC’s Domenico Montanaro wondered.
ThinkFast: August 20, 2010
ThinkFast: August 20, 2010
The President’s Deficit Commission is “considering proposals to raise the retirement age and take other steps to shore up the finances of Social Security.” Some members of the commission do not believe such proposals would get enough votes to make it into its final recommendations. “People would rather pay more or have revenue raised than cut the benefits,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).
Former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales has come out against the GOP plan to revise the 14th amendment, saying it “will not solve our immigration crisis. “Based on principles from my tenure as a judge, I think constitutional amendments should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances that we cannot address effectively through legislation or regulation,” he writes in Sunday’s Washington Post.
Amid increased speculation of an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the Obama administration has persuaded Israel that Iran is at least one year away from developing a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence officials cited troubles within the Iranian nuclear program, and a limited supply of nuclear material.
Jobless benefits claims “jumped to the highest level since November,” coming in at 500,000 at the end of August 14, indicating that improvements in the economy may be coming slower than many expected. “There’s a red flag being waved right now that says ‘Danger,’” said Mark Vitner, an economist at Wells Fargo Securities. “Growth is going to slow in the second half and we might face something a little more ominous than that.”
Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the spiritual head of the Islamic center project near Ground Zero, has been smeared as a terrorist by the right wing. But the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg recalls just how moderate Rauf truly is. Speaking at a memorial service for slain journalist Daniel Pearl in 2003, Rauf emphasized the connection between the Abrahamic faiths. “Today I am a Jew” and “I have always been one,” he said.
Media: Maybe Obama Should Go To Church More Publicly So People Know He’s Christian
Media: Maybe Obama Should Go To Church More Publicly So People Know He’s Christian
Today, Pew put out a poll showing that 18 percent of the American public believes President Obama is a Muslim. That number includes 31 percent of Republicans. Only 34 percent of the adult public says Obama is a Christian, down from 48 percent in 2009. When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion, 60 percent of the respondents cited the media, with tv mentioned the most frequently.
While journalists and pundits on cable news today did acknowledge the “media” have had a role to play, they also seemed to place some of the blame on Obama and his staff, saying that perhaps the President should go to church more frequently and more openly to show the public that he truly is Christian. Watch it:
First of all, Obama should not have to be bible-thumping on C-SPAN every Sunday in order to prove how Christian he is. Second of all, the poll leaves out a very important source of this misinformation: the irresponsible right wing. As Salon’s Alex Pareene notes:
But the fact that thinking-he’s-a-Muslim tracks so closely with disapproval of his presidency is perhaps a sign that the disappearance of the “responsible” wing of the GOP is helping to make outright bigotry totally acceptable.
Going to church isn’t likely to change the minds of the far right. After all, it was his attendance at church that got him in trouble to begin with.
There have been many news reports over the past few years debunking the rumor that Obama is a Muslim. Nevertheless, the right-wing media continues to push the myth. These fringe views aren’t rejected by influential conservatives, but often embraced, and therefore picked up in mainstream discourse and media. Saying that he needs to publicly change his habits of worship in order to appease people is like saying he needs to roll around in big piles of money to show he isn’t a socialist.
And in the end, there will always be people who can’t be convinced of mainstream positions. Twenty-one percent of the public believes in witches, 41 percent believe in ESP, and 34 percent are convinced that “houses can be haunted.”
Fox News’ Van Susteren Hosts Three-Day Infomercial On Palin Without Disclosing Her Husband’s Ties To Her
Fox News’ Van Susteren Hosts Three-Day Infomercial On Palin Without Disclosing Her Husband’s Ties To Her
Last night, Fox News aired the final part of its three-day special on oil drilling in Alaska, in which host Greta Van Susteren got the “inside story” from former governor Sarah Palin and her husband Todd. The special, shot on location, featured airplane flights over the tundra, boat rides in Valdez harbor, and interviews with the Palins on their dock. As Media Matters noted, the special “basically boil[ed] down to a three-day infomercial of Palin touting her positions on ANWR and her record of ‘play[ing] hardball’ with oil companies as governor.”
Indeed, while the special included numerous interviews with pro-drilling advocates — including the Palins and a vice president of Shell Oil — “The Case Against Drilling in ANWR” was reserved for last night, confined to an interview with Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA).
Watch a compilation:
Beyond the questionable seriousness of Van Susteren’s report, there is a deeper ethical concern. Van Susteren’s husband John Coale is one of “the figures charged with guiding Palin’s political image in Washington,” but Van Susteren never revealed this connection during the special. Coale has described himself as simply a “friend” of Palin, but has acknowledged that he helped her start her leadership PAC. “Others familiar with Palin’s political team insist that Coale has far more power than he is letting on — essentially helping to run Sarah PAC,” the Washington Post first reported.
Van Susteren admitted on her blog that her husband “has given Governor Palin advice and helped her,” but she said her husband is not a “paid adviser.” Still, according to a Nexis search performed by ThinkProgress, starting on the day that Sarah PAC was unveiled, Van Susteren has never disclosed her husband’s behind-the-scenes role on air.
The oil special is merely the latest in a long string of Van Susteren puff pieces about Palin. During the presidential campaign, Van Susteren had perhaps the best access to Palin of any journalist, hosting a one-hour “documentary” on “Governor Sarah Palin — An American Woman.” She also scored an exclusive interview with Todd Palin, in which she grilled him “on everything from the story behind the name ‘First Dude’ to how he feels about the name ‘First Dude.’”
After the election, Palin chose Van Susteren for her first national television interview. Since then, Van Susteren has consistently covered Palin, keeping an eye out for any potential slights to the governor and gushing over her popularity. For example, when Palin’s memoir came out, Van Susteren was a strong promoter of the book, devoting plenty of air time to the “buzz” surrounding its publication.
Jennifer Aniston responds to O’Reilly: He is ‘insulting women that are out there doing this on their own.’
Jennifer Aniston responds to O’Reilly: He is ‘insulting women that are out there doing this on their own.’
Actress Jennifer Aniston stars in a new movie “The Switch,” a comedy about artificial insemination. At a Los Angeles press conference last week promoting the movie, Aniston said “women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.” Never missing an opportunity to engage in a culture war, O’Reilly slammed Aniston for “throwing a message out to 12-year olds and 13-year olds that hey, you don’t need a guy, you don’t need a dad,” adding, “that’s destructive to our society.” Today on ABC’s Good Morning America with George Stephanopoulos, Aniston fired back at O’Reilly for “insulting women”:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But usually you don’t respond to this kind of thing, why did you decide to respond?
ANISTON: I just felt it was .. it needed, it was begging for a response. It was just an unfair statement that he made against me. And you know people say things about me all the time and you just kinda go oh whatever. But his was not just about me, it was also saying something, insulting women that are out there doing this on there own. I was raised, my mother was single. You know? I mean it doesn’t always start off that way but sort of life, it happens.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’re right, the movie is a celebration of family.
ANISTON: It is! It’s family…home is where the heart is.
Watch it:
This is not the first time O’Reilly decided to school the Hollywood elite. Earlier this year, O’Reilly called actor Tom Hanks an “ideological sniper” with “political beef” against conservatives. He also thought actress Jessica Alba was a “pinhead” for telling reporters she wanted to “be Sweden about” the presidential inauguration. However, like Aniston, Alba responded and informed him that Sweden, like the more frequently cited Switzerland, remained neutral during World War II.
Toomey touts his ‘very important’ Social Security plan, without mentioning it’s based on privatization.
Toomey touts his ‘very important’ Social Security plan, without mentioning it’s based on privatization.
Earlier this week, a host of Republican pundits tried to claim that no members of their party are proposing to privatize Social Security. “There’s no Republican, basically, standing up and saying that, and we haven’t for a very long time,” said Republican talking head Ed Rollins. Of course, plenty of Republicans have proposed just that, most notably Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), whose Roadmap for America includes the creation of personal Social Security accounts. And then there’s Pat Toomey, the Republican nominee for the Senate in Pennsylvania, who during an interview with Real Clear Politics touted his plan for Social Security, conveniently leaving out that he would privatize the system:
RCP: Your campaign website, under “spending,” complains of “wasteful pork projects, multiple bailouts, the so-called stimulus, and new government programs.” But what about entitlements?
Toomey: You know, I’ve always said that we need to reform our big entitlement programs. These programs are not sustainable in their current form and so we’re going to have to put them on a secure footing. That’s what we have to do.
RCP: OK, how do we do that? Do we raise the retirement age? Do we cut benefits?
Toomey: I’ve got a whole chapter in a book that I wrote that deals with how I think, one of the ways I think we could reform Social Security to make it viable. So I have provided great detail on that whole idea. That would be a very important start.
In Toomey’s book, the first subhead under the “Transforming Social Security” chapter is “Personal Accounts Lead to Personal Prosperity.” And that’s really no surprise, considering Toomey said he was “thrilled” with President George W. Bush’s privatization scheme. The Wonk Room explains that Toomey may be avoiding mention of privatization, as such a step is both bad policy and bad politics.
While Demanding Muslims Be Sensitive To 9/11 Victims, Sarah Palin Defends Dr. Laura’s Racial Insensitivity
While Demanding Muslims Be Sensitive To 9/11 Victims, Sarah Palin Defends Dr. Laura’s Racial Insensitivity
As the right-wing hysteria over the proposed Islamic center in New York gathered strength, conservative maven Sarah Palin lent her own Shakespearean creativity to the effort last month by asking the Park51 developers to “refudiate” their plans, citing the “catastrophic pain” caused by the 9/11 attacks as “too raw, too real” for an Islamic center. On Fox’s On the Record Monday, Palin reprised that sentiment in admonishing President Obama for his stance, saying the center “is an insensitive move” that “feels like a stab in the heart to, collectively, Americans who still have that lingering pain from 9/11.”
In echoing the right-wing talking point, Palin insists that sensitivity should supersede the freedoms established by the 1st Amendment. It is curious, then, that Palin should completely forget that principle when defending Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s racist rant on the N-word directed at a black woman caller last week. Taking again to her Twitter followers, Palin blamed “Constitutional obstructionists” for unfairly silencing Dr. Laura, thus removing her 1st Amendment rights. She told Dr. Laura, “don’t retreat…reload!”:
As the American Prospect’s Jamelle Bouie points out, Dr. Laura’s entire tirade this week “drip[ped] with racial animus.” Not only does Dr. Laura use the N-Word 11 times in five minutes to dismiss a caller’s concerns about the word, she uses a racist joke to prove she’s not racist, resents that only “black guys” can use the N-Word, and admonishes her caller for being “hypersensitive about color” and lacking “a sense of humor.” As Bouie says, “Dr. Laura isn’t known for her sensitivity, but this is an impressive display of raw racial resentment.”
So, in asking Dr. Laura to “reload” on such vitriol, Palin is “refudiating” the social sensitivity banner she continues to wave at Ground Zero Islamic center supporters.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll