In congressional campaigns across the country, GOP candidates are running ads tying the Democratic incumbent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. One such candidate is Jim Renacci, who made headlines most recently when he told an African-American constituent that he wants to “get our federal government out of the way” on civil rights.
ThinkProgress caught up with Renacci, who is running against Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) in Ohio’s 16th congressional district, at a town hall in North Canton this week. Renacci repeatedly levied the charge that Boccieri has voted with Pelosi 94 percent of the time. Therefore, since Renacci made a point that independence from one’s party leader was prized in the district, we asked him to give us one or two issues where he would break with a Speaker John Boehner.
Renacci could not name even a single issue where he would show independence from the Republican Party. Right after chastising Boccieri for voting “lock-step” with Speaker Pelosi, Renacci dismissed how his voting record would compare to a Speaker Boehner, declaring “it isn’t voting with John Boehner, it’s voting ‘no’ for the constituents of the 16th district.”
TP: I guess one question that voters might have is if you’ve criticized Mr. Boccieri for voting with Nancy Pelosi 94 percent of the time, can you name an issue or two where you would break with John Boehner if he were to become Speaker?
RENACCI: Well, I think those issues will come forward in the future, but what I would always say in the past is that I would vote ‘no’ on a lot of these bills because they deserved a ‘no’ vote. It isn’t voting with John Boehner, it’s voting ‘no’ for the constituents of the 16th district.
TP: I believe the gentleman right here had mentioned a middle-of-the-road approach that’s best for legislating from this country. Are there any examples that you can give us of areas that you might break with your party, areas where you would show independence from your party?
RENACCI: If our party, if the Republican Party, does things that do not allow jobs to be created, if they do things that do not represent the 16th district, I would break vote with those. We need to worry about jobs and the economy. But at this point in time, I think the Democratic Party is doing that and that’s why there are so many ‘no’ votes.
Watch the exchange here:
During a speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition convention today, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) explained that as a recruitment officer for the NRCC, the Republican campaign committee in charge of electing House Republicans, he picked candidates that would stand with the caucus in unified campaigns to slash government, starting with health care.
If Republicans take back the House, Westmoreland said, they would use their new majority to force a budget battle akin to the fight staged by former Speaker Newt Gingrich with President Clinton and shut down the federal government. Westmoreland cautioned that he was fully aware that such a move would close down hospitals for veterans and shut down National Parks. But, Westmoreland argued that taking down the government is worth “the pain” because health reform and government programs are like a “gangrene” that “need to be cleaned out”:
WESTMORELAND: If we hold the line, if we get those courageous men and women to be part of our majority. If we say look, the American people we’re listening to the American people, this is what we’re going to do. If government shuts down, we want you with us. We want you with us. We gotta have you because later on you all will call us and say look I didn’t get my check. Daddy can’t go to the VA. You know, the National Parks are closed. We need to be sure that you are with us because let me tell you this, all Americans need to understand. We need to understand this and I hope you can help share this analogy with people. Just as when you talk about what is going to possibly happen, you know I was unfortunate to cut myself with a chainsaw. I don’t know how many of you have cut yourself with a chainsaw. Chainsaw is not the cleanest instrument if you’re going to cut yourself. [...] He said this is going to sting a little bit and it hurt like crazy. But you know what, if he didn’t clean out that wound, it would have never healed. I would have got gangrene. I would have died from it. And what has happened with this country, we have put bandaids on things that need to be cleaned out. It’s going to take some pain for us to do the things that we need to do to right the ship.
Listen here:
Gingrich, who spoke after Westmoreland, has repeatedly advised that the GOP should follow through with a plan to shut down the American government.
Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) attended a ribbon-cutting event for the Health West clinic in Aberdeen, Idaho. Crapo praised the clinic, which will specialize in assisting low-income patients in rural areas, saying, “What is happening right here in Aberdeen today is one of the core pieces of the solution that we need in America today.” What Crapo did not mention in his praise for Health West is that most of its funding came from the stimulus package that he opposed:
During a brief speech at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, Sen. Crapo said the clinic is essential in providing efficient high-quality services in a rural community. He said the facility helps address two disturbing trends in U.S. health care — skyrocketing cost of services and limited access to quality care.
“What is happening right here in Aberdeen today is one of the core pieces of the solution that we need in America today,” Crapo said. [...] Stephen Weeg, executive director for Health West in Southeast Idaho, said the clinic hopes to partner with the larger medical hospitals to bring in specialists once a month. Green light for the clinic did not come until stimulus money was made available.
Weeg said stimulus money from the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided $500,000 of the $660,000 project. Additional money came from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. About $74,000 was raised locally, with about $35,000 left to raise.
At the time of the passage of the stimulus bill, Crapo called it “an avalanche of special funding, much of which is unrelated to stimulating our economy as a whole.” It now appears that the senator realizes, at least implicitly, that it has provided funding to important projects like the West Health center that he calls “one of the core pieces of the solution that we need in America today.”
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on Fox News today to bash President Obama’s recent proposal to help small businesses and jump start the economy. Dubbing it “TARP III,” Steele said Obama’s plan wouldn’t work because it focuses on extending credit lines to small business, which Steele claimed “they don’t need”:
STEELE: What we have right now is more of the same, you have the president proposing a small business bill, which is nothing more than TARP III or mini-TARP, in which basically, you’re going to put money into financial institutions on the assumption that small businesses are going to go and take out credit loans, or credit lines — they don’t need that.
Watch it:
Steele’s dismissal of the need to extend credit lines to small businesses is curious, considering that he touted the very idea as a key Republican proposal just last week on Sean Hannity’s Fox show:
STEELE: Republican leadership on the Hill has offered time and time again and will continue to do so until they take the majority in November when they can actually begin to act and put into place these policies that empower small businesses by creating — helping them create jobs by opening up capital and credit markets.
And on September 1st, Steele questioned Democratic efforts to help small businesses precisely because he claimed they didn’t extend enough credit to those firms. “[L]ook at the bill,” Steele told pundit Roland Martin on his podcast, “does it do for small businesses what small businesses need to have done? How much credit and capital is it made accessible to them?”
In fact, Steele has repeatedly expounded on the need to extend credit to small businesses. For example, in June on CNBC, countering the notion that Republicans haven’t presented any ideas, Steele said, “We talked about freeing up the capital markets and credit markets to allow small business to access that capital and credit so they can invest.”
Last year, on ABC’s This Week, Steele attacked the administration for not doing the very thing he is attacking them for doing today:
STEELE: And I didn’t hear anything from [White House economic advisor Larry] Summers that assured me or reassured me that this administration gets it when it comes to how you create wealth in this nation. It is not by spending dollars on programs that you can put in a separate bill and deal with later on, instead its focusing on, you know, tax credits and relief for small-business owners, incentives for people to get back into the credit markets.
The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent reports that Steele spokesman Doug Heye later clarified his boss’ comment, explaining that “Steele was referring to small businesses not needing the bill overall, and wasn’t focused specifically on the lines of credit.” He also cited a study saying that consumer confidence is more important than credit lines for small businesses.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) postures as a deficit hawk, attacking efforts to inject recovery spending into the economy because he fears “borrowing another dime from China.” In reality, Vitter is really a deficit peacock who is currently fighting vigorously to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans, a $678 billion dollar give away and one of the largest structural causes of the deficit.
Explaining his support for tax cuts for the rich on Wednesday, Vitter told a crowd at the Crowley city Chamber of Commerce that “virtually everybody” in the audience would be characterized as wealthy. As TPM notes, although the top tax cut set to expire applies to people earning over $250,000 a year, “the average household income in Louisiana was $43,635 in 2008.”
Earlier this week, Vitter doubled down on his deficit hypocrisy and told WorldNetDaily radio that paying for the Bush tax cuts for the rich would be a “recipe for disaster.” He added, “I don’t think we have to quote unquote pay for” the tax cuts:
VITTER: We aren’t talking about any additional cuts, we’re talking about keeping the present tax cuts in place. If we have to pay for keeping the present tax cuts in place, every year, every other year, that’s a recipe for disaster. That’s a recipe for significant tax increases, so I don’t think we have to quote unquote pay for that because it’s about Americans keeping their own money and our simply keeping the present tax rates in place.
Listen here:
Allowing the Bush tax cuts for the rich to expire would simply restore Clinton-era rates and help pay down the deficit — a move supported by even former Bush administration officials. For some reason, Vitter sees no problem borrowing more money from China to finance giveaways to the wealthy.
During a White House press conference this morning, President Obama responded to a question about whether he believes Elizabeth Warren could survive a Senate confirmation process. Warren has been rumored to be Obama’s leading nominee to head the Consumer Finance Protection Agency. In responding to the prospects of a Senate confirmation fight, Obama slammed the GOP for “playing games” with his nominees:
QUESTION: Are you unofficially concerned about a Senate confirmation?
OBAMA: [...] I am concerned about all Senate nominations these days.
QUESTION: But with respect to Elizabeth Warren, are you –
OBAMA: Hans, I wasn’t trying to be funny. I am concerned about all Senate nominations these days. I’ve got people who have been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can’t get a vote on them.
We’ve got judges who are pending. We’ve got people who are waiting to help us on critical issues like homeland security. And it’s very hard when you’ve got a determined minority in the Senate that insists on a 60-vote filibuster on every single person that we’re trying to confirm, even if after we break the filibuster, it turns out that they get 90 votes. They’re just playing games. And as I think Senator Voinovich said very well, it’s time to stop playing games.
Watch it:
The President is right. Since he took office, Republicans have abused a Senate rule which prevents the Senate from confirming more than a tiny fraction of Obama’s nominees unless its members unanimously consent to allowing the nomination to move forward. Specifically, even the majority breaks a filibuster, the minority can force up to 30 hours of additional debate on the nominee before a final vote can be held. Thirty hours may not seem like a lot, but when you multiply it across the hundreds of judges, ambassadors and other officials that require Senate confirmation, there is literally not enough time to confirm more than a fraction of these nominees. In other words, the Republicans are engaged in unprecedented use of this obscure loophole to hollow out the government and the federal bench — leaving the nation without essential judges, financial regulators and even national security officials in the process.
Despite the fact that Republicans in Congress have made reducing the deficit one if their signature issues this election season, they also have been arguing — without addressing the $700 billion cost — that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should not be allowed to expire. Yet a new USA Today/Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans see it differently. “While 37% support keeping the tax cuts for all Americans, 44% want them extended only for those making less than $250,000 and 15% think they should expire for all taxpayers”:
Gallup notes the bottom line: “Democrats may not be putting themselves at great political risk by allowing the tax cuts to expire for wealthy Americans. In fact, the middle ground of extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income Americans but allowing them to expire for wealthy Americans — the Democrats’ most likely proposal — is the specific option the public prefers most.”
With less than two months until the midterm elections, all eyes are on what a Speaker Boehner would look like if Republicans take back the House. Just as important, though, are those GOPers who would head the House committees. Republicans have vowed that House committee chairmen like these will see their power increase if their party returns to power. With that in mind, it’s worth asking: Who are the House Republicans who would control national legislation in the 112th Congress?
A new report from ThinkProgress takes a closer look. The potential committee and subcommittee chairmen aren’t your run-of-the-mill House Republicans. Rather, those who could be in charge of our nation’s laws are the GOP’s right-wing extremists. Of the 10 right-wing extremists we profiled, eight have voting scores of 95 percent or higher from the American Conservative Union, seven are stimulus hypocrites, four are members of the Tea Party Caucus, and one is even a birther.
Those would control the House committees and subcommittees also may include:
– A Judiciary chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who has hinted at impeaching President Obama
– Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who opposes the existence of the global warming committee he would chair
– The subcommittee that controls monetary policy would be headed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who has called paper money “nothing short of counterfeiting”
– Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who apologized to BP during the oil spill for a $20 billion “shakedown,” would control national energy policy
Click here to download a pdf of our report.
Explore the profiles of these right-wing extremists and decide for yourself: do you want these men in charge come January 2011?
A study released today by former leaders of the 9/11 Commission finds that “terrorism is increasingly taking on an American cast.” Warning of “a much more diverse threat,” the report urges the U.S. government to prepare for “the radicalization and recruitment of Americans to terrorist ranks.” While the report rightly warns of threats from radical Muslim extremists, law enforcement officials should also be concerned about right-wing zealots, as a 2009 Homeland Security report warned.
For instance, this past Tuesday, the FBI arrested 26-year old Christian radical Justin Carl Moose in Concord, NC for “providing information to create explosives” to “blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic.” Through his conversations with an FBI informant and his Facebook page, Moose expressed virulent “anger at abortion doctors, President Barack Obama’s health care plan, and plans to build a mosque near ground zero in New York city.” He goes on to describe himself as “the Christian counterpart to Osama bin Laden” who “has learned a lot from the muslim terrorists and have no problem using their tactics”:
Justin Carl Moose, 26, is a self-described “extremist, radical” and the “Christian counterpart of Osama bin Laden,” according to an affidavit filed by FBI agents. [...]
“Whatever you may think about me, you’re probably right,” he wrote on his Facebook page, according to the affidavit.
“Extremist, Radical, Fundamentalist…? Yep! Terrorist…? Well, I prefer the term ‘freedom Fighter.’” [...]
Status updates posted beginning in January urge violence, FBI agents said in their affidavit.
“The Death Care Bill passed last night,” he wrote when Obama’s health care plan was approved in March. “Keep your phone and rifle close and wait.”[...]
“If a mosque is built on ground zero, it will be removed. Oklahoma City style. Tim’s not the only man out there that knows how to do it,” the affidavit says he wrote in July, in a reference to Timothy McVeigh, who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City.[...]
FBI agents obtained search warrants and started reading his private messages. In one sent to a fellow abortion opponent, agents say Moose wrote: “I have learned a lot from the muslim terrorists and have no problem using their tactics.”
According to WCNC-TV, a yellow “don’t tread on me” flag – the anthem of the Tea Party movement – hangs over the door to Moose’s family home. Watch it here:
Moose is self-attested member of “Army of God,” an “underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and accetable as a means to end abortion.” According to its manual, the group’s purpose is to “officially declare war on the entire child killing industry.” Believing that “Our Most Dread Sovereign Lord God requires” bloodshed, members “are forced to take arms against” abortion clinics in which “execution is rarely gentile [sic].”
Arrested Tuesday, Moose will appear in federal court Monday. If convicted on all counts, he faces up to 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. Despite his arrest, Moose has no intention of surrending peacefully. In a post taunting the federal authorities monitoring him, he told “all the feds watching me: You can’t stop what is in motion. Even if you bring me in, my men will continue their mission. Furthermore, I will not go peacefully. Do you really want another Waco?”
But like nearly every other member of the Republican caucus, Blunt is trying to have it both ways. Despite Blunt’s assertion that the the stimulus is a complete failure, he has attended multiple groundbreaking ceremonies for stimulus-funded projects. Local Missouri papers have praised Blunt’s role in securing the projects, without noting his efforts to kill their funding. In other cases, he has sent out press releases claiming credit for stimulus-funded programs:
– In July 2009, Blunt attended a groundbreaking for the Neosho National Fish Hatchery in Neosho, Missouri. Earlier that year, the project gained two stimulus grants, one totaling $1.04 million and another for $100,000. Some local media outlets have reported the hypocrisy, while others have not.
– Blunt attended a groundbreaking ceremony for a new Ozone Disinfection System in the City of Springfield made possible by a $16 million combination low-interest loan and direct grant from the stimulus. As local blogger Jim Lee notes, Blunt’s ceremony unveiling the funding coincided with the one year anniversary of the stimulus. When approached about his opposition to the stimulus, Blunt simply smiled and said “no comment.”
– As FiredUpMissouri reported, Blunt’s office announced $942,000 for homeless assistance programs in Springfield and Joplin in February of 2010. The funds were provided through the stimulus, but Blunt made no mention of the funding source in his release.
As ThinkProgress has documented, Republican lawmakers and even GOP leadership have staked their political fortunes on lying to the public, claiming the stimulus failed to create jobs, while trying to take credit in their home districts for stimulus programs.
House Republicans have proudly touted their America Speaking Out website — which allows visitors to suggest and vote on various policy prescriptions — as a new and innovative way to involve the American people in the democratic process and the creation of federal policy. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) said the site is “revolutionizing the way we govern by engaging the American people and seeking your ideas for making things better.” Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said that America Speaking Out proves “the Democrat [sic] majority isn’t listening, but House Republicans will.”
But Republicans might want to look at what’s garnering interest on their own site, as the proposal receiving the most “interest” (and the second highest number of overall votes) in the job creation section is to “stop the outsourcing of jobs from America to other countries that do not pay taxes into the U.S. and stop the tax breaks that are given to these companies that are outsourcing.” Here’s a screenshot (from 5:27 p.m. yesterday):
As The Wonk Room explains, Democrats have proposed multiple pieces of legislation closing corporation tax loopholes that encourage the offshoring of jobs, and Republicans have opposed each one. So if America is speaking out so loud and clear, why aren’t Republicans listening?
A federal judge ruled yesterday that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional. “The don’t ask, don’t tell act infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members in many ways,” the judge wrote in her opinion. She said the defendants “failed” to prove that DADT “was necessary to significantly further the government’s important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion.” The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has more coverage of the opinion.
The hate pastor behind the Quran-burning protest said the church will “rethink our decision” to cancel the event after he claims to have learned that there were no actual plans to move the Islamic center in New York. Asserting that a Florida imam “clearly, clearly lied to us” about the deal, Pastor Terry Jones said today that “he won’t go through with the burning if he can meet with the New York imam” on Saturday.
After being criticized for profiting off 9/11, a spokesperson for Glenn Beck announced he “had always intended to donate the speaking fee from the event” with Sarah Palin on Saturday. Politico notes, “Neither Beck nor Palin had previously said that they would not be taking a fee for the event.”
Retiring Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) said he plans to help push through small-business aide bill that includes tax breaks, a move that would give the President and Democrats a key victory on the economy before the mid-terms. Voinovich said GOP obstruction was partisan “messaging.” “We don’t have time for messaging,” he said. “We don’t have time anymore. This country is really hurting.”
Yates Walker, the former communications director for the tea party group Liberty.com, has been fired for pushing an unfounded sexual rumor about a political opponent, and for failing to inform his employer that he had been accused of rape in college, as first reported by ThinkProgress.
The Ninth Court of Appeals in a 6-5 ruling dismissed a lawsuit against a company alleged to have assisted the CIA’s rendition program yesterday. The court said letting the lawsuit proceed “would present an unacceptable risk of disclosing state secrets.”
The current terrorist threat to the U.S. “is far more difficult to detect but less likely to produce mass-casualty attacks,” according to a report released today by former 9/11 Commission leaders. The report concludes that while nuclear or biological attacks are now unlikely, the U.S. is “ill-equipped to counter” the new threat of “radicalization and recruitment of Americans to terrorist ranks.”
“President Obama on Friday will promote a longtime economic adviser, Austan D. Goolsbee, to chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers,” who will serve as the replacement for Christina Romer. Goolsbee, who has served in the administration since its beginning, has known Obama since they both taught at the University of Chicago.
And finally: Republican California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger mocked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin yesterday, tweeting from an airplane over Alaska, “Looking everywhere but can’t see Russia from here. Will keep you updated as search continues.” Schwarzenegger included a picture of him looking out the window in vain.
ThinkProgress is hiring! Details here.
Earlier today, Imam Muhammad al-Masri, the head of a central Florida mosque, brokered an agreement with hate pastor Terry Jones whereby Jones would back off his pledge to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. Jones asserted that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf had “agreed to move” his Islamic center project near Ground Zero.
In a telephone conversation with ThinkProgress tonight, Daisy Khan — the wife of Imam Rauf — said there was no such deal made. She said Imam Masri had called her earlier today to ask whether Imam Rauf would be open to negotiating a relocation with Jones, and she said no.
Jones asserted earlier today that he and Masri are “flying up” to New York on Saturday to meet with Rauf. Khan told ThinkProgress that, while she and her husband are prepared to meet with Jones and Masri, she had not agreed to a meeting this Saturday. She said she told Masri that such a meeting should take place sometime in the future “when cooler heads have prevailed.” She explained that she would prefer not to meet with Jones on Saturday:
We do not want to take away from the solemn day of 9/11. Our Center is not about 9/11, the Quran is not about 9/11, we wish to commorate 9/11 with prayers for the families of the victims.
Khan also told us, “We reject any comparison to what we are prepared to build in NY and what Pastor was ready to destroy in Florida.” So what were the motivating factors for Masri and Jones to announce tonight’s deal?
For Masri, he likely felt pressure to make things happen quickly. Tomorrow, Muslims in America will be congregating in mosques to celebrate Eid ul-Fitr, a religious holiday to mark the end of a month of fasting. Masri likely wanted an announcement this evening so that the Eid celebration is not used to engender more animosity and division.
For Jones, as I told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann tonight, he probably felt like he needed a scapegoat in backing down. Jones had not previously linked the Quran burning effort to the Islamic Center project. Jones was trapped in a box because he received the call from Secretary Robert Gates that he had been requesting, asking that the pastor not proceed with his plans. In backing down, Jones — who had taken the world hostage with his hate-filled campaign — tried to shift the controversy back unto Rauf. Watch it:
On Tuesday evening, Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) conducted an “America Speaking Out” town hall with his constituents. Gingrey explained that Republicans would solicit ideas from the public using their America Speaking Out online platform to generate a new version of the 1994 “Contract with America.” However, he said regardless of the input received, the new political document outlining the GOP agenda would focus on extending the Bush era tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans. To reinforce his point, Gingrey said that extending the Bush era tax cuts “at any level” would be a promise so strong it would be akin to “God’s covenant with Moses,” and a “a pledge of your sworn sacred honor.” He also said that he would “sign it in blood if necessary”:
GINGREY: I had somebody say you know a Contract with America is a little redundant, going back to 1994. And I had somebody suggest at a town hall meeting recently maybe it ought to be a “Covenant with America.” Just as God’s covenant with Moses, really this is a convenant. This is more of a commitment, more than a contract. This is a pledge of your sworn sacred honor. And maybe that’s the kind of thing that we need to get, to truly get attention and sign it in blood if necessary. So we think it would be not be appropriate at a time like this to raise people’s taxes, at any level. At any level. [….]
GINGREY: When you start taxing men and women who create most of the jobs, you know that’s not the answer. So, our opinion I’m sure will be part of this covenant with America will be to keep taxes low for everybody.
Watch it:
Despite Gingrey’s colorful language, all President Obama is seeking to do is to keep tax cuts affecting the middle class, while allowing the tax cuts for some of America’s richest individuals to expire, returning to Clinton-era rates. Oddly, Gingrey also attacked public sector jobs and government spending, while in the same breath empathizing with “the pain that our teachers in Georgia are feeling.”
Viewing the GOP as “the party of ideas,” Republican Senate candidate Bill Binnie entered the New Hampshire senate race to “add my voice to economic challenges” as a self-described fiscal conservative who believes in a woman’s right to choose. According to Binnie, his pro-choice stance invited “over 1,000 pieces of mail” and threatening phone calls to his home. “We don’t answer our phone anymore,” he said.
In defending his pro-choice stance, he said, “I believe that the individual has the final say, not the government, in terms of how we live our lives.” He added, “There is a fight in my party for individual rights and what it means to be a Republican.” But as the GOP shifts towards a more radical stance, he says “it is a challenge” to “stand in a Republican primary” when the party “has morphed into parts that I don’t recognize”:
“My view of the Republican Party is the party of ideas. It morphed into parts that I don’t recognize. I think it’s one of the debates of my candidacy.” [...]
“I started out in this race to add my voice to economic challenges and my background,” he said. “I didn’t realize, you’re talking about the polarization, I am a centric New Hampshire citizen. I’m fiscally conservative, I’m socially moderate. I’m not an extremist in any way. And yet, as I stand up in a Republican primary, it is a challenge. That’s what I’ve learned from this process in the last few months.
“I went to a debate in Portsmouth and I was the only one when asked are you a social conservative, I said no,” Binnie said. “I couldn’t believe that. Everyone is a fiscal conservative and we all have to be social conservatives? I don’t think we all have to stand on the same square to be a Republican. That’s what this fight in my view has turned into. You could put a piece of paper between the substance of most of our decisions. By any measure I’m a conservative. Just ask my kids.”
Binnie is not the only Republican falling victim to the “hostile takeover” and radicalization of the GOP. The so-called “reasonable Republican” Rep. Bob Inglis criticized Republican leaders for the “lowest form of political leadership” and Tea Party-driven “demagoguery” that is “dividing the country into partisan camps that really look a lot like Shia and Sunni.” Though he received “a 93 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union,” he lost in his primary run-off.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), who fell victim to a Tea Party backlash, slammed the GOP for letting tea parties and Fox News lead it by the nose. Echoing Binnie’s sentiments, Bennett noted, “I find plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas.”
Former Bush Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell gave a strong endorsement of the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero in New York City today, saying, “If you believe in our system…then you can’t make a distinction between two, three, five, and ten block” away from the site of the 9/11 terror attacks. Appearing on ABC’s The View, Powell said “politicians” have stoked the emotional debate, and noted that the opposition to the mosque is part of a wave of “Islamophobia across the country,” citing the opposition to proposed mosques in Tennessee and California:
HOST: Is [the opposition] hurting our troops?
POWELL: I think eventually it will. … And I’m saying to myself, what is wrong with this? and does it make a difference whether it’s two, three, four, five or 10 blocks away? And the answer is, if you believe in our system and if you understand why we can do it at the Pentagon and Walter Reed, then you can’t make a distinction between two, three, five and 10 blocks. I think it should go forward. [...]
General Petraeus is right. There are a billion Muslims who are watching this mosque issue and they’re watching what’s going on in Florida and they’re wondering, has America changed? Is America different? … So I think we’ve got a problem. We’ve got to take a deep breath. And politicians are using this for all kinds of purposes.
Watch it:
This afternoon, hate pastor Terry Jones said his church is canceling its planned event to burn the Quran this Saturday. According to Jones, he made the decision because Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told him that he would move the planned Park51 community center away from Ground Zero in New York. Watch the press conference:
However, a Yahoo News reporter says a Park51 spokesperson said the group has no plans to move the Muslim community center.
The Democratic primary for a state senate seat in Maryland’s 39th district has been a “among the more spirited this year in Maryland.” However, the contest literally took a dark turn this week when incumbent State Sen. Nancy King (D) sent out a campaign mailer “deliberately darkening” the skin tone of her primary challenger Saqib Ali.
The mailer, first obtained by Maryland Politics Watch, features two images of the candidate — one that appears to be a real photograph of Ali and a replica of that image that has been vertically flipped and darkened. “Every aspect” of the altered image of Ali – “his hair, his skin, his five-o’clock shadow, his tie and his suit — is darker”:
The campaign then chose to enlarge the darkened version of Ali later in the mailer.
King’s campaign manager Amy Yockus Hartman told the Huffington Post’s Amanda Terkel that “at no time, in any way whatsoever, did we, or would we, alter photos or attempt to insinuate anything about Delegate Saqib Ali other than the verified facts we have consistently laid out through this campaign.”
Montgomery County Councilmember Valerie Ervin (D), who “is neutral in the race between King and Ali,” is not buying King’s explanation. Ervin left a comment on Maryland Politics Watch’s post, stating “this is the second piece of mail that has left me wondering if Senator King has any idea how many people of color that she represents in her district.” Ali was equally bewildered by King’s denial, “because clearly, to the plain eye, it’s obvious the photo has been altered. Without a doubt. So it’s one of those cases when someone says the sky is purple.”
Regardless of King’s intent, the alteration of skin tone has a clear impact on how people feel about candidates. A University of Chicago study last year showed that “people perceive lighter skin tone to be more representative of a candidate with whom they share political ideology than darker skin tone.” Even if an unknown candidate’s political affiliation is ambiguous, researchers found that voters “who saw a photo with darkened skin accompanying” an unknown candidate’s biography “reported that they were less likely to vote for this candidate.”
Today, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit stayed the court decision stopping federal funding of embroyic stem cell research:
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia granted a request from the Justice Department to stay an injunction issued Aug. 23 blocking the funding. In a major victory for supporters of the research, the court said the Obama administration could resume funding the research pending a full appeal of the case.
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, ruling in a lawsuit filed by two researchers working on alternatives to the cells, said the funding violated a federal rule that prohibits federal tax money from being used for research that involves the destruction of human embryos.
Significantly, the stay order was handed down by a unanimous panel of Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Janice Rogers Brown, and Thomas Griffith. All three of these judges are conservatives, and Judge Brown is arguably the most conservative judge in the country. Moreover, to stay a decision a panel is supposed to determine that the party requesting the stay has “made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits.” Such a determination does not guarantee that the stayed decision will ultimately be reversed — the panel which stayed the decision striking down Prop 8 also strongly hinted that their court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case — but today’s stay decision is a very hopeful sign that stem cell research will be able to move forward.
Prominent conservatives and right-wing groups are making plans to use the 9/11 anniversary this weekend to rake in some cash. Among them are Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, who are teaming up for a rally in Anchorage, AK. The right-wing duo are charging attendees between $74 and $225 to hear them speak. The Hill reported, “There was no indication as to whom or what the proceeds will go.” And, the AP reports that promoters for the Palin/Beck rally seem to want to downplay this perceived 9/11 profiteering:
Event promoter Christopher Cox says the 9/11 date is a coincidence. Cox originally eyed Sept. 4, but didn’t want to compete with the Alaska State Fair.
Cox says Beck will be introduced by Palin, a potential 2012 White House contender who hasn’t announced her political intentions. Palin spokesman Doug McMarlin didn’t immediately return requests for comment.
Is it a coincidence that Beck’s rallies happen to fall on important dates in history? Or do he and Palin know that they’re exploiting them for personal, political, and or financial gain? After all, Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally just happened to fall on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, and Beck just happened to deliver his speech near where King’s gave his nearly five decades ago. Beck denied that he knew he was scheduling his rally on the King speech anniversary. If they are coincidences, perhaps Beck isn’t much of a historian as some might think?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
