In a blog post yesterday, Republican strategist Eric Odom defended his tea party business strategy in response to Think Progress’ reporting on Tea Party Profiteers –- Republican consultants, political operatives, and others trying to take advantage of the tea party movement to make a profit and advance a special-interest agenda. To Odom, it is completely ethical for him and his business partners to “have created a means through which they can pay some bills through their activism”:
And even more absurd is the fact that some tea party activists within the “free market” movement are upset that some entrepreneurs have created a means through which they can pay some bills through their activism. [...] But more importantly, we as “free market” activists should applaud their work in writing these books and we should reward them with our pocket books, not balk at them for doing so.
Odom runs countless tea-party-themed websites around the country, many of them made to appear organic, or locally organized. Through his two for-profit companies, Strategic Activism, LLC and American Liberty Alliance, Odom is able to collect money from unknown sources while setting the agenda and the giving out marching orders for the tea party community forums he controls. As the AP reported, lobbyist Reid McMillian helped write the anti-health reform content for “Healthcare Horserace,” one of Odom’s many websites.
A longtime operative who made a career building what he described as Republican “stealth” “attack sites,” Odom recently proclaimed that the tea party movement should work exclusively to elect Republicans this year, writing, “the Republican Party must be our vessel in 2010.” Indeed, his business partner at Strategic Activism, Allen Fuller, runs a GOP public relations firm called Flat Creek Public Affairs where he helps to direct tea parties into volunteering and fundraising for Republican candidates.
Odom and his fellow profiteers are trying to pull off an elaborate scam. They posture as independents and activists, but they are truly Republican hacks, working largely for big business special interests. Instead of protesting the hegemony of an international corporation — as the original Boston tea party did against the London-based East India Company — they are helping to continue a Bush-era society where corporations like Goldman Sachs have unbridled power.
For instance, former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), another self-proclaimed tea party leader, rails against the Wall Street bailout and efforts to rebuild the foundations of the economy, even though his own lobbying firm represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouts. Armey, who is still paid a lobbyist salary of at least $550,00 a year, told the New York Times that although he does not believe in “death panels” or other “exaggerations,” he encourages others to spread falsehoods to advance his agenda. Armey’s willful lying is instructive for understanding the profiteers: in the most condescending way, they are exploiting the tea party movement to line their own pockets.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) waged a high-profile war against the economic stimulus package last spring, claiming that accepting the $700 million for which his state was eligible would lead to “a thing called slavery.” Even as his state’s unemployment rate climbed above the national average, Sanford maintained his partisan and politically motivated refusal to take the funds.
But yesterday, Sanford flew to Washington to demand $300 million in stimulus money for education, the State newspaper reports:
Sanford, who spent much of last year fighting parts of the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, now wants S.C. to have a piece of $4 billion in “Race to the Top” education money. [...]
Sanford met with [Secretary of Education Arne] Duncan to learn more about a charter school program Duncan started in Chicago, said Ben Fox, the governor’s spokesman. Sanford also took the trip to urge Duncan to support more charter school grants, Fox said. [...]
Sanford’s trip — which did not appear on his official calendar — is especially hypocritical because the majority of stimulus money destined for South Carolina was to fund education and save thousands of teachers’ jobs. Yet, in March, Sanford told Fox News host Glenn Beck that taking the money would be akin to “fiscal child abuse.”
Indeed, Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC) said of Sanford’s trip: “I am pleased to see that the governor is finally taking an interest in South Carolina’s public schools.” “After going to court last year to prevent stimulus funds,” Clyburn added, “his meeting with Secretary Duncan appears to be the governor’s admission that the stimulus was not only necessary but effective.”
Sanford’s objection to taking stimulus education funding became especially poignant after eight-year-old South Carolinian Ty’Sheoma Bethea famously asked President Obama to fix her crumbling school. In June, the state Supreme Court finally ordered Sanford to take the $700 million and now, Bethea’s school is being rebuilt with $23.5 million of stimulus money.
Sanford’s opposition to taking the federal aid — which mirrored that of other high-profile GOP governors, like Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and Rick Perry (R-TX) — was viewed by many as an effort to lay the groundwork for a run for higher office. But after his affair dashed these hopes, Sanford seems to have gained a new interest doing what is right for his state’s students.
Last night, Oliver North, the retired U.S. Marine Corps officer-turned-Fox News contributor, appeared on Hannity’s America to condemn the administration’s decision to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” North characterized Obama’s support for the repeal as a “stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world” and suggested that allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve openly was the tantamount to letting pedophiles into the military:
Stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world. Barack Obama now intents to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment, and it can be very, very detrimental. … In other words, this isn’t about rights. This isn’t about fairness. It’s all about national security. And apparently, Mr. Obama has forgotten it. … Now, here’s what’s next. NAMBLA [North American Man/Boy Love Association] members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing?
Watch it:
The irony of a convicted felon who lied about diverting proceeds from arms sales to a rebel group in Nicaragua supporting a policy that forces gay and lesbian servicemen to lie about their sexual orientation was lost on both Hannity and North. The pair also failed to mention that Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen personally supports the policy’s repeal, which would have forced North to condemn him for treating the troops “like lab rats in a radical social experiment.” (HT: MMFA)
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
The inaugural National Tea Party Convention began yesterday in Nashville, TN despite teabagger infighting and controversy surrounding the event in recent weeks. Tea Party activists have criticized the “scammy” convention’s cost, organizer Judson Phillips’ intention to make money of the event, and Sarah Palin’s $120,000 speaking fee. Just last week, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) withdrew from their speaking engagements at the convention. And today, the Washington Post reports that the teabaggers — who often boast of their patriotic bona fides — got off to a slow start:
And outside the convention hall, entrepreneurs sold souvenirs: sterling silver tea bag necklaces ($89.99), bags of “Freedom Coffee” ($9) and T-shirts emblazoned with a bald eagle ($20).
The convention’s first day lacked the orchestrated staging of most modern political events. The convention host delivered a meandering welcome speech without notes, saying he misplaced them. Former congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) offered a fiery defense of Judeo-Christian faith and traditional American values, but there was no prayer or Pledge of Allegiance to open the convention — nor was there an American flag in the convention hall. (Skoda blamed the oversight on the hotel staff.)
Newly sworn-in Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) has parroted his party’s line on most issues since he began receiving national attention, even changing his opinion on the health care bill. Yesterday, at his first press conference as a U.S. senator, he took another chance to side with the most orthodox conservatives, falsely claiming that the Recovery Act has not created “one new job“:
Last stimulus bill didn’t create one new job. Some states the money that was released hasn’t even been used yet. We lost another 85,000 jobs again, give or take, last month. Massachusetts has not created one new job. Throughout the country as well. May have retained some but has not created any new jobs.
After the conference, CNN’s David Gergen took issue with Brown’s claim, saying, “I think that there are an awful lot of people out there who would dispute the assertion.” Watch it:
Gergen’s right. Among those people are the nearly 600,000 whose jobs were saved or created in the last quarter of 2009 alone. Economists have consistently praised the Recovery Act for rescuing the economy, projecting that without the “boldest countercyclical fiscal stimulus in American history,” unemployment would have hit 10.8 percent and there would have been another 1.2 million lost jobs. Today, unemployment stands a full percentage point lower at 9.7 percent.
Brown understood this last week, when he asked Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick to increase “the pace of the state’s economic stimulus spending.” This came after reports that the stimulus had added last quarter more than 9,000 jobs to the 23,000 already created or saved in Massachusetts. Despite the evidence and the economists’ consensus, however, Brown has endorsed his fellow Republicans’ “clueless” denial of the stimulus’ effectiveness.
In recent weeks, CBS has been taking heat over its decision to allow a pro-life ad by Focus on the Family, featuring Heisman winner Tim Tebow, to air during the Super Bowl. Last week, CBS faced further complaints when it rejected an ad by a gay dating site. Today, USA Today reports that Focus on the Family will now be airing a second ad — also featuring Tebow and his mother — to run four times during pre-game airtime. More details on the organizations ads:
Although Focus on the Family won’t reveal its ads’ details, CEO Jim Daly says the original ad was rejected by CBS. In it, Pam Tebow, who was advised by a doctor to have an abortion for medical reasons when pregnant with her son, said, “Both of our lives were at risk.”
“They felt that was too much,” he says. “So we dropped the line. We didn’t fight them.” The word “abortion” is never used.
The ad is “an open discussion on the sanctity of human life — not just the issue of abortion,” Daly says. It was made for less than $100,000 with “a bit of humor in it — in fitting with the Super Bowl theme.”
This week, Dana Goldstein of the Daily Beast reported that CBS executives collaborated with Focus on the Family on making the ad fit for airing, giving the group guidance that other advertisers don’t receive. Yesterday, Planned Parenthood posted a pro-choice response ad featuring former college and professional football player Sean James and Olympic gold medalist Al Joyner. Watch it here.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is attracting a great deal of attention for putting a “blanket hold” on all 70 of President Obama’s pending executive nominations in order secure pork for his state. According to congressional experts, Shelby’s hold is both a “rare” and “aggressive” abuse of his power.
Unsurprisingly, Shelby had quite a very different attitude when a Republican sat in the White House. In early ’05 — shortly after winning his fourth term to the Senate — Shelby complained, “Far too many of the President’s nominees were never afforded an up or down vote, because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain.” He added, “Inaction on these nominees is a disservice to the American people.”
In Feb. 2005, Shelby specifically promised his constituents in Tuscaloosa that he’d do “whatever it takes” to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees, including killing the filibuster:
Shelby also pledged to do “whatever it takes” to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees. A vast majority of Bush’s appointees were confirmed in his first term, but a few controversial ones were filibustered by Democrats in the Senate.
One such nominee is former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, who Bush nominated more than two years ago to sit on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
With at least one Supreme Court vacancy expected in Bush’s next term, some Republicans are considering changing the rules of the Senate to force a vote, and likely confirm Bush’s appointees. Shelby said he’d support that option if Democrats continue to filibuster.
Later that year, the Senate struck a compromise to avert changing the filibuster rules. Shelby was quick to register his disapproval:
I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them.
By invoking his “blanket hold” yesterday, Shelby is now forcing Senate Democrats to “secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.” Unless, of course, Shelby is still “firmly” in favor of changing the Senate rules so that only 51 votes would be required to break his filibuster.
Yesterday, CongressDaily (sub. req.) reported that Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) had “placed a blanket hold on all executive nominations on the Senate calendar in an effort to win concessions from the Obama administration and Pentagon.” In a move that is “a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal,” Shelby is holding up more than 70 nominees.
Some of the nominees Shelby is blocking include “the top Intelligence officers at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security as well as the number three civilian at the Pentagon.” Yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) objected on behalf of Shelby when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) attempted to bring some of the national security nominees up for a vote:
We learned why Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked again to have votes on the nominees and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell objected, he said, on behalf of Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Al.
The reason? Shelby is concerned his state might lose some (very) lucrative defense contracts.
In other words – pork. Shelby calls them “unaddressed national security concerns.” McConnell called it “an issue with which I’m not terribly familiar.”
“He is not able to be here at the moment to state his position,” said McConnell of Shelby. McConnell implied that that he’d rather go ahead with the votes. “Maybe we can in discussions with him make some progress on these sooner rather than later. but for the moment I’m constrained to object on his behalf,” said McConnell.
In particular, Shelby has laid down the nearly unprecedented blanket hold in order to gain leverage for his home state interests on two federal contracts:
– A $40 billion contract to build air-to-air refueling tankers. From CongressDaily: “Northrop/EADS team would build the planes in Mobile, Ala., but has threatened to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force makes changes to a draft request for proposals.” Federal Times offers more details on the tanker deal, and also confirms its connection to the hold.
– An improvised explosive device testing lab for the FBI. From CongressDaily: “[Shelby] is frustrated that the Obama administration won’t build” the center, which Shelby earmarked $45 million for in 2008. The center is due to be based “at the Army’s Redstone Arsenal.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Armed Forces Committee, expressed his “frustration” and “dismay” over “the road blocks which have been placed in the way of Senate nominations for key positions at the Department of Defense” on the Senate floor yesterday. “Nobody has informed me of any concern about the qualifications of anyone of these five nominees and yet there’s an objection here on the floor of the Senate,” said Levin. Watch it:
“We’ve got a huge backlog of folks who are unanimously viewed as well qualified — nobody has a specific objection to them — but end up having a hold on them because of some completely unrelated piece of business,” said President Obama on Wednesday. “That’s an example…of the kind of stuff that Americans just don’t understand.”
Yesterday was the start of the National Tea Party Convention, which is “aimed at bringing the Tea Party Movement leaders together from around the nation for the purpose of networking and supporting the movement’s multiple organizations’ principal goals.” One of the featured speakers during the convention’s kickoff was former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo. Tancredo told the audience that the country had elected “a committed socialist ideologue in the White House” because “we do not have a civics, literary test before people can vote in this country“:
The opening-night speaker at first ever National Tea Party Convention ripped into President Obama, Sen. John McCain and “the cult of multiculturalism,” asserting that Obama was elected because “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.”
The speaker, former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., told about 600 delegates in a Nashville, Tenn., ballroom that in the 2008 election, America “put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House … Barack Hussein Obama.”
Given that the convention is being held in Nashville, Tennessee, Tancredo’s remarks are particularly offensive. For years, literacy tests were used across the South to disenfranchise African-American voters, who generally had illiteracy rates 4-5 times as high as whites due to historical discrimination and lack of opportunity. Unfortunately for Tancredo, the 1965 Voting Rights Act makes literacy tests illegal.
Yesterday during an interview with Don Imus on Fox Business, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace was promoting his interview this week with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. When Imus randomly asked whether she will “be sitting on your lap” during the interview, Wallace replied, “One can only hope.” This morning, Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy asked Wallace about his comment. Co-host Gretchen Carlson was flabbergasted by the exchange between Wallace and Imus, and asked, “Would you ask that of a man?” Wallace was silent for a few seconds before stumbling over a response and changing the subject to whether she would sit on Brad Pitt’s lap during an interview:
WALLACE: What happened was I was on Imus, which was my first mistake…and he said to me at the end — just kidding around — “So when you do the interview, will she be sitting on your lap?” And I said, “One can hope.”
CARLSON: Why would he ask such an inane question?
DOOCY: I think it’s a great question. (CROSSTALK) But you said yes.
CARLSON: Would you ask that of a man?
WALLACE: Would he have asked me if a man?
CARLSON: Yeah, would sit on your lap.
WALLACE: I don’t know. Let me ask you a question. Would you do an interview with Brad Pitt, with you sitting on his lap, Gretchen?
CARLSON: Absolutely not. I find nothing hot about Brad Pitt.
Watch it:
Transcript: More »
“The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly in January to 9.7 percent from 10 percent while employers shed 20,000 jobs.” According to the Labor Department, the number of employed Americans rose by 541,000.
An “aggressive lobbying campaign by the nation’s biggest student lenders” threatens to derail legislation that would overhaul student loans by ending subsidies to private lenders. The nation’s largest student lender, Sallie Mae, spent $9 million lobbying in 2009 alone.
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) reportedly “ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats.” Franken criticized Axelrod for White House’s lack of leadership on health care reform and other major pieces of legislation. “There was a lot of frustration in there,” said one unnamed Democratic senator.
President Obama called yesterday for Democratic leaders in Congress to finish working out differences on health care and then “call on our Republican friends to present their ideas.” “The American people can see and compare,” said Obama, and then “we’ve got to move forward on a vote.”
Saying the White House would never release information that “could endanger an operation,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called on Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) to apologize “to the law enforcement community” for accusing President Obama in a letter of leaking information the FBI did not want released.
Yesterday, after former Alaska governor Sarah Palin sharply criticized White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for calling liberal activists “f-ing retarded,” ThinkProgress and others asked whether she would likewise criticize hate radio talker Rush Limbaugh for using Emanuel’s comments as an excuse to utter a variation of the word “retard” over 40 times on his show yesterday. Limbaugh declared that “our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.” On his radio show today, Limbaugh claimed that Palin wouldn’t denounce him because she’s “a life long listener” of his program who “knows that all I’m doing is quoting Emanuel.” Listen here:
In a statement released to The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent today, Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded to Limbaugh’s comments with criticism, saying that “Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.” Politico’s Jonathan Martin notes, however, that Palin’s spokeswoman “won’t criticize the talker by name.” Perhaps the Palin camp avoided naming Limbaugh because they are like the other Republicans who are fearful of criticizing and offending the conservative talker. Several leading conservatives, including RNC Chairman Michael Steele, have been forced to publicly apologize to Limbaugh.
In October 2006, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that “the day that the leadership of the military comes to” and says the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy “ought to change,” he would “seriously” consider changing it. In an interview with the Washington Blade in 2008, he said he would “defer to our military commanders” on the issue.
But in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, McCain bristled when the Pentagon’s top military and civilian leaders, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, announced they were in favor of overturning the policy. “I’m happy to say we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat,” said McCain.
In an interview on Bill Bennett’s radio show today, McCain claimed “the policy is working” and repeated his opposition to repealing, but claimed that he would “be glad to listen to the views of military leaders”:
MCCAIN: Look, the policy is working. I talk to military all the time. I have a lot of contact with them. The policy is working and the president made a commitment in his campaign that he would reverse it and the president then made the announcement that wants it reversed. And it is a law. It has to be changed. So Admiral Mullen said, speaking for himself only, he thought it ought to be reversed and of course Secretary Gates said that. I do not. I do not know what the other military leadership wants. I know that I have a letter signed by over a thousand retired admirals and generals that said they don’t want it reversed. And so, I will be glad to listen to the views of military leaders. I always have. But I’m not changing my position in support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unless there is the significant support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I would remind you that we’re in two wars. You know that and our listeners know that. And do we need, don’t we need a serious assessment of the effect on morale or battle and combat effectiveness before we go forward with a reversal in a campaigning, carrying out an Obama campaign.
Listen here:
On Fox News last night, McCain also said that he was hoping “to get the opinion from our military leadership,’ saying that “If they can show me the evidence that it needs to be changed, obviously, then I would give that serious consideration.” McCain says that he has “respect” for Mullen’s view, but he dismisses it as simply an “individual opinion.”
But McCain has previously said that the “individual opinion” of military leaders for whom he has “respect” influenced his views on military policy. In June 2009, he told Ana Marie Cox that he originally supported the policy because General Colin Powell had “strongly recommended” it and he hadn’t “heard General Powell or any of the other military leaders reverse their position.” Powell released a statement yesterday saying he now opposes the continuation of DADT because “attitudes and circumstances have changed.”
So basically, McCain is willing to “listen” to military leaders on DADT — he’s just not going to let their expert opinions get in the way of what he already thinks.
Transcript: More »
Ever since Nigerian Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab’s failed attempt to blow up a U.S. airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day, Republicans and conservatives have been attacking and politicizing the Obama administration’s response. Many have been whining that Abdulmutallab had not been properly interrogated and that valuable information has been lost. In an attempt to bash the Obama administration, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) today denigrated U.S. counterterrorism officials:
MCCONNELL: This was a person who was trying to blow a plane out of the air from Nigeria. It’s clearly a case for the military and for our intelligence people, not for the U.S. court system. What happened? He was given a 50 minute interrogation, probably Larry King has interrogated people longer and better than that. After which he was assigned a lawyer who told him to shut up. That is not the way to deal with someone in the war on terror.
Watch it:
It seems McConnell would rather try to score political points by undermining the work American counterterror officials are doing in the field, particularly in Abdulmutallab’s case, where key information has actually been gleaned. In fact, reports surfaced this week that Abdulmutallab “has been cooperating for days” with the FBI. But this isn’t the first time a Republican has tried to attack the administration by insulting U.S. agents. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that getting information from Abdulmutallab was “blind luck.”
According to the Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, former FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan, who has interrogated al Qaeda members, said “What would you expect from Mitch McConnell? … They just don’t know what they’re talking about. They really don’t“:
“People keep talking about Mirandizing as if it’s a preventive measure, getting someone to shut up, but most critics have never been in position [to] have to Mirandize one,” Cloonan said. “It’s to keep pristine information you’ve already gotten and to have a prosecutable case. It’s not the end of an interview. … They’re gonna get all kinds of information from this guy.”
In fact, Abdulmutallab’s family members convinced him to provide information to U.S. authorities, an outcome that resulted from U.S. counterterror agents working in Africa “to gain an understanding of the subject.” “The intelligence gained has been disseminated throughout the intelligence community,” a senior administration official said. “The best way to get him to talk was working with his family.”
Yesterday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) surprised many by suggesting that he was open to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). Explaining that he saw both sides of the issue, Hatch told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that he “believe[d] there are very outstanding, patriotic gay people who serve in the military. … And they shouldn’t have to lie about being gay.” When Mitchell asked whether he would vote for repeal, Hatch left the door open, saying, “Well I don’t know about that, I’d have to look at it.” His comments were quickly picked up by liberal and pro-gay rights blogs, leading some to speculate that this “significant development” meant there was more support for repealing DADT in the Senate than previously thought. But today, Hatch made clear that he does not support repeal and attacked “liberal groups” for “misconstruing” his position:
“It’s deeply regrettable that liberal groups are misconstruing my position on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for activist purposes. I certainly do not support repealing this policy,” Hatch’s statement on Thursday said. [...]
“What I said was that I want to see Adm. Mullen’s report. This is a controversial issue with inflamed passions on both sides,” Hatch said.
“Over the years, the views of the military officers and experts, whom I respect, have said that repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would make life for our troops more difficult — especially as our armed forces wage a global war on terrorism,” Hatch said.
(HT: FDL)
Tuesday, during a hearing of the Helsinki Commission — an independent U.S. agency charged with promoting security and economic cooperation with eastern Europe and central Asia — that featured Kazakh foreign minister Kanat Saudabayev, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) showed contempt for human rights by telling Saudabayev that Kazakhstan’s nature as a virtual dictatorship doesn’t concern him because “Washington, D.C. is exactly the same” because it is controlled by Democrats:
ISSA: I want to share with you something here today. Washington, D.C., is exactly the same. This is a one-party town, even though there are people who are not Democrats. And this town has decided to have representation, at least one member of the council, who is chosen simply to represent minorities.
Of course, Democratic-controlled Washington, D.C., is not the same as Kazahkstan. The central Asian country is classified by the CIA as an “authoritarian” state with “little power outside the executive branch.” While Saudabayev “is in Washington speaking about Kazahkstan’s committment to democratic norms” as part of his country’s bid to lead the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the independent press in his country continues to face “harassment … and physical assault,” and Freedom House ranks it as one of the least free countries in the world, tied with Saudi Arabia.
The United States, meanwhile, is ranked by human rights and democracy promotion groups as one of the freest countries in the world. And unlike Kazahkstan’s government, Democrats were democratically elected to power in both 2006 and 2008. While Issa may be upset that voters rejected his political party at the polls, it is an insult both to people who voted those Democrats into power and to Kazakh human rights activists fighting for a more democratic Kazakhstan to compare the Democratic Congress to the current Kazakh regime. (HT: Harper’s)
This week, former Alaska governor and Fox News contributor Sarah Palin will be on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, in his first Sunday show appearance ever. This morning, Wallace spoke with Fox Business host Don Imus about how excited he is for the segment:
WALLACE: We’re going to be down in Nashville with her at the National Tea Party Convention, and I’m excited. First of all, I’m excited to finally meet and interview Sarah Palin. We’ve been chasing her like Captain Ahab and the great white whale for the last year and a half. [...]
IMUS: When you interview her, will she be sitting on your lap? (LAUGHTER)
WALLACE: One can only hope. (LAUGHTER)
Watch it:
In September, Wallace went on Mike Gallagher’s radio show and mentioned his upcoming interview with right-wing activist James O’Keefe and said that he wished he was also going to have his partner Hannah Giles — who played the prostitute in the ACORN scheme — on the show because “she’s pretty cute.” (HT: Michael Calderone)
The NAACP released its annual report card looking at how federal lawmakers voted on civil rights issues, such as hate crimes, D.C. voting rights, and expanding children’s health insurance. Glenn Thrush looks at some of the main points from the report:
– All Senate Republicans got an F but two (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Maine — they got C’s)
– All Senate Democrats and Independents got A’s, B’s or Incompletes
– Senator Arlen Specter, R-to-D-Penn., got a B
– All House Republicans but 6 got an F — 5 of those 6 got D’s — 1 got a C: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.
– House Republicans scored the lowest of an sub group.
– All BUT 23 House Democrats got A’s, B’s or Incompletes
– All Congressman who scored a 100% were Democrats
– Of the CBC Members ALL but 2 got A’s, Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., who is moderating his stances in prep for a gubernatorial run, got a B.
Later this afternoon, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) will expedite the process and seat Scott Brown (R-MA) as the next Senator from Massachusetts. In the last three months of his campaign, Brown attacked health reform efforts by largely misrepresenting the bills in Congress. Brown, who supports the Massachusetts universal health system, caustically sneered at national efforts to replicate their success. “Why would we go and subsidize the failure of other states?” Of course, Brown never mentioned that the Massachusetts system, which he voted for, is funded by $385 million in annual payments through the federal government.
Now, Brown is coming to the Senate promising to kill health reform. He reiterated this promise last Sunday, telling ABC’s This Week that legislators should scrap current legislation and “go back to the drawing board.”
But late last summer, before it was politically advantageous to capitalize on health reform misinformation, Brown actually endorsed the Senate bill he now wants to kill. In an interview with MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, Brown stated that the Senate health bill was “really mirroring” the “really great” Massachusetts health plan:
BROWN: Well it’s been interesting looking at the Senate and the US Senate is doing. They’re really mirroring what we did a couple of years ago through Governor Romney’s leadership. We had a bipartisan plan that was carefully crafted to make sure that everybody’s interests were taken into consideration: business, providers, individuals and obviously the Commonwealth. And as I said we have a plan that is somewhat similar to what the Federal plan [...] Without the Federal stimulus dollars and the waiver money filling our plan, it would fail. And you have a really great plan, we’ve gone from 10% uninsured to really 2.6 million people uninsured, er, 2.6% people uninsured. So it’s worked, but it also has its failures.
Watch it:
In the clip, Brown admits that the Massachusetts plan is buoyed by federal money. As the Wonk Room has reported, before the campaign heated up, Brown frequently bragged about relying on federal money and even floated support for the public option for other states. The health bill passed by the Senate would not penalize Massachusetts’ special funds. In fact, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has ensured that the Brown-backed Massachusetts system would become truly sustainable through “roughly $500 million” in expanded Medicaid funds for the Bay State.
The House-requested changes to the Senate bill, which can be passed at any point right now through reconciliation, would take out the subsidies to Nebraska that Brown has complained loudly about. Of course, for political reasons, Brown will still probably try to vote against reform. But he is doing so out of loyalty to his party, and certainly not by his own convictions that he spelled out so clearly last year. If the Senate bill is signed into law, Brown and his GOP allies fear that the country will act like Massachusetts — where an astounding 79% of people support the healthcare system and millions of previously uninsured people now have health care.
Uganda’s parliament is currently considering an anti-homosexuality bill that would impose the death penalty or life imprisonment for some homosexual acts, require people to report every LGBT individual they know, and criminalize renting property to gay men and women.
The measure has been widely condemned around the world, from UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to federal lawmakers of both parties in the United States. The Obama administration has issued statements condemning the legislation and was working privately with Ugandan officials, but the President himself has not yet commented. In December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referenced the Ugandan legislation, saying, “We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide.” She has also personally spoken to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni about the bill.
Today at the National Prayer Breakfast, both Clinton and Obama condemned the Ugandan legislation:
– CLINTON: And I recently called President Museveni, whom I have known through the Prayer Breakfast, and expressed the strongest concerns about a law being considered in the parliament of Uganda.
– OBAMA: We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are, whether it’s here in the United States or as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
Watch it:
Making these pronouncements today was significant because the Prayer Breakfast is sponsored by the Fellowship Foundation, the controversial group also known as “The Family.” As author Jeff Sharlet has detailed, The Family has ties to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality legislation. The author of the bill is Ugandan Parliamentarian David Bahati, who organizes the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and has been embraced by the far right in the United States. Watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on C-SPAN and government officials to turn their backs on today’s event.
Yesterday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced a resolution condemning Uganda’s anti-gay bill. “The proposed Ugandan bill not only threatens human rights, it also reverses so many of the gains that Uganda has made in the fight against HIV/AIDS,” said Berman. The bill has 38 co-sponsors, but only one — Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) — is a Republican.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
