Right-wing hate reacts to murder of Dr. George Tiller.
Right-wing hate reacts to murder of Dr. George Tiller.
Earlier today, George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who administered abortions, was murdered “as he stood in the foyer of his church.” Tiller, who frequently wore a bullet-proof vest for protection, was shot and killed by an assailant, purported to be a 51-year old man named Scott Roeder. The killing comes only two months after he was found not guilty of performing illegal late-term abortions. People For The American Way’s right-wing watch blog notes that “those who had long targeted and demonized Tiller were quick to issue statements,” including this one by Randall Terry which essentially blamed Tiller for his own murder:
George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.
Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.
Some pro-life groups have been quick to denounce the murder. Attorney General Eric Holder said “the murder of Doctor George Tiller is an abhorrent act of violence. … As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.” And President Obama released a statement expressing his shock and outrage. “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” Obama said.
“He died the way he lived.” “His was a bloody death.” Rev Rusty Thomas, Operation Save America (OSA) Someone “chose” to end George Tiller’s life this morning, in his church.John Amato, Andrew Sullivan, Amy Sullivan, and Gabriel Winant have more.
- Comments
- 366
McConnell: I Have ‘Better Things To Do’ Than Ask My Party To Stop Calling Sotomayor ‘Racist’
McConnell: I Have ‘Better Things To Do’ Than Ask My Party To Stop Calling Sotomayor ‘Racist’
Just hours after President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh declared that Obama had nominated a “racist.” In the following days, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) followed suit, while Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared to come to the same conclusion.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) denounced such attacks as “terrible” late last week. This morning on Meet the Press, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) — who will help lead Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings — said that “he would prefer his colleagues refrain from calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist.” Similarly, on Fox News Sunday Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the accusations of racism were wrong, remarking that Limbaugh was simply attempting to “entertain” his audience.
On CNN’s State of the Union, however, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that he has “better things to do” than to ask members of his party to refrain from accusing Sotomayor of being a racist. Host John King noted that McConnell is the “highest elected Republican in the United State of America” and asked, “would it be best that language like racist not be used?” McConnell demurred:
KING: Are Rush and Newt making it a lot harder by using language like that? [...]
MCCONNELL: They’re certainly entitled to their opinions. … Look, I’ve got a big job to dealing with 40 senate Republicans and trying to advance a nation’s agenda. I’ve got better things to do than to be the speech police over people who are going to have their views about a very important appointment.
Watch it:
As Paul Krugman remarked on ABC’s This Week this morning, “I think the Republicans have got a real problem here. Because if they do go ‘no,’ they’re going to seem to be the party of Rush Limbaugh, the party of Newt Gingrich, the party of completely crazy accusations against someone who is after all a highly-respectable, very smart, middle-of-the-road jurist.”
Obama Administration Files Petition To Block Uighurs From Entering U.S., Praises Gitmo Conditions
Obama Administration Files Petition To Block Uighurs From Entering U.S., Praises Gitmo Conditions
The Obama administration filed a petition with the Supreme Court on Friday asking the Court to block the 17 Chinese Uighurs detained at Guantanamo from entering the United States — this, despite a court ruling last year ordering their release. The petition argues that the Uighurs “have already obtained relief” and that the government had no legal obligation to settle them in the U.S.:
Petitioners have already obtained relief. They are no longer being detained as enemy combatants, they are free to leave Guantanamo Bay to go to any country that is willing to accept them, and in the meantime, they are housed in facilities separate from those for enemy combatants under the least restrictive conditions practicable. Moreover, the government is actively seeking to resettle petitioners, and the President has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility by January 22, 2010. [...]
Petitioners’ continued presence at Guantanamo Bay is not unlawful detention, but rather the consequence of their lawful exclusion from the United States, under the constitutional exercise of authority by the political Branches, coupled with the unavailability of another country willing to accept them. Because the bar to petitioners’ entry into the United States is constitutionally valid, their resulting harborage at Guantanamo Bay is constitutional as well.
Somewhat shockingly, as ABC’s Jake Tapper notes, the Obama administration’s petition suggests that the Uighurs’ imprisonment “isn’t so bad,” and trumpets their comfy quarters at Guantanamo:
“In contrast to individuals currently detained as enemies under the laws of war, petitioners are being housed under relatively unrestrictive conditions, given the status of Guantanamo Bay as a United States military base,” Kagan writes, saying they are “in special communal housing with access to all areas of their camp, including an outdoor recreation space and picnic area.” They “sleep in an air-conditioned bunk house and have the use of an activity room equipped with various recreational items, including a television with VCR and DVD players, a stereo system, and sports equipment.”
Furthermore, the petition cites the Senate’s recent vote to block Guantanamo detainees from entering the U.S. as further reason to deny their release — despite the fact the vote was in defiance of a White House request. The petition comes just a week after President Obama, in a speech defending his plan to close Guantanamo, declared that “the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo.”
Does Michael Steele Still ‘Follow’ G. Gordon Liddy’s ‘Footsteps’ And Will He Appear On His Show Again?
Does Michael Steele Still ‘Follow’ G. Gordon Liddy’s ‘Footsteps’ And Will He Appear On His Show Again?
Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that former Watergate crook and current hate radio host G. Gordon Liddy had launched perhaps the most offensive attack against Judge Sonia Sotomayor yet. “Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something,” said Liddy, adding that she speaks “illegal alien.”
One day after Liddy put his over the top sexism and racism on display, RNC Chairman Michael Steele called on conservatives to quit “slammin’ and rammin’” Sotomayor with personal attacks. Presumably, Liddy’s offensive rant is exactly the message Steele wants to cease, which raises the question of whether Steele will continue to associate himself with Liddy.
As ThinkProgress reported in March, Steele appeared on the Feb. 5, 2009 edition of Liddy’s radio show and told the hardline right-winger that he follows in his footsteps:
STEELE: So, I, you know, I follow the footsteps of guys like you who, you know, who, you know, set the bar and pushed and pushed and pushed and made sure that we could obtain the results that would benefit people in communities, fighting for the rights of individuals and making sure that, you know, we don’t back down. Our opponents don’t back down. Why do we?
Listen here:
So, the question is: In light of Liddy’s degrading rhetoric, will Michael Steele continue to make appearances on his radio show or will he take a stand and refuse to appear with someone who so harshly disrespects women and Latinos?
Horton confirms reports that unreleased torture photos show rape and sexual assault.
Horton confirms reports that unreleased torture photos show rape and sexual assault.
This week, the Daily Telegraph reported that the torture photos President Obama recently decided to withhold from the public depict “rape and sexual abuse.” The Pentagon denied the report, saying, “None of the photos in question depict the images that are described in that article.” But yesterday, Scott Horton reported that he has confirmed that the photos do, in fact, “depict sexually explicit acts,” including “a government contractor engaged in an act of sodomy with a male prisoner and scenes of forced masturbation,” as well as “penetration involving phosphorous sticks and brooms.” Horton writes further:
A senior military officer familiar with the photos told me that they would likely provoke a storm of outrage if released. … Some show U.S. personnel engaged in sexual acts with prisoners and each other. In one, a female prisoner appears to have been forced to expose her breasts to be photographed. In another, a prisoner is suspended naked upside down from the top bunk of a bed in a stress position. [...]
Still other withheld photographs have been circulating among U.S. soldiers who served in Iraq. One soldier showed them to me, including a photograph in which a male in a U.S. military uniform receives oral sex from a female prisoner.
Horton also obtained what he characterizes as “rarely seen Abu Ghraib torture photos,” which can be viewed here.
Sessions ‘uneasy’ with Gingrich’s ‘rhetoric’ against Sotomayor.
Sessions ‘uneasy’ with Gingrich’s ‘rhetoric’ against Sotomayor.
On Wednesday, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich drew attention to himself when he tweeted that Judge Sonia Sotomayor should “withdraw” her nomination for the Supreme Court because she’s a “Latina woman racist.” Since then, some Senate Republicans have sought to distance themselves from Gingrich. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said he disagreed while Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called it “terrible.” Now, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has told the Washington Post that he is “uneasy” with the rhetoric:
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said today he was “uneasy” over allegations by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and talk-show host Rush Limbaugh that Sotomayor is racist. Sessions, who lost a 1986 bid for a federal judgeship amid concerns over his own racial sensitivity, said Republicans should focus on Sotomayor’s legal record to try to divine what sort of a Supreme Court justice she would make.
“I’m uneasy,” Sessions said in a 30-minute interview in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building. “I don’t think that’s good rhetoric. The question is, has the judge gone too far or not, given the established law of the land?”
Read more on right-wing hate in today’s Progress Report.
Tancredo: ‘I don’t know’ if the Obama administration ‘hates white people.’
Tancredo: ‘I don’t know’ if the Obama administration ‘hates white people.’
Recently, Rush Limbaugh declared that the way to get promoted in the Obama administration is “by hating white people.” On MSNBC this afternoon, when David Shuster asked right-wing extremist Tom Tancredo whether he agreed, Tancredo refused to object to Limbaugh’s characterization:
SHUSTER: Mr. Tancredo, do you agree that the Obama administration hates white people?
TANCREDO: Oh [sighs], I don’t know. But I’ll tell you this –
SHUSTER: You don’t know? In other words, they might?
TANCREDO: What do I — I have no idea whether they hate white people or not!
Shuster also asked Tancredo whether he wanted to apologize for calling the the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization a “Latino KKK.” Tancredo laughed at the idea of an apology. Watch it:
Petraeus Criticizes Gitmo And Torture: ‘I Don’t Think We Should Be Afraid To Live Our Values’
Petraeus Criticizes Gitmo And Torture: ‘I Don’t Think We Should Be Afraid To Live Our Values’
Last week, Gen. David Petraeus told Radio Free Europe that he supports President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and that he opposes the use of so-called “enhance interrogation techniques.” “I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention,” Petraeus said.
Today in an interview with Fox News, Petraeus reiterated his support for a “responsible closure” of Gitmo but went a bit further, noting that the prison has been harmful to the U.S.:
PETRAEUS: Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activities since 9/11. And again, Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.
As Fox host Martha MacCallum went through most of the right-wing talking points on Gitmo and torture (Gitmo terrorists will “go free” in the U.S, torture works and should be used for the “ticking-time bomb” scenario) Petraeus knocked them down one-by-one. “I don’t think we should be afraid to live our values,” Petraeus repeatedly said.
Seemingly referring to Obama’s decision to release the Bush-era memos documenting President Bush’s torture program, MacCallum asked, “So is sending this signal that we’re not going to use the techniques anymore, what impact will that have on those who do us harm in the field that you operate in?” Again, Petraeus noted that such policies and techniques harm the U.S.
PETRAEUS: What I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.
Watch it:
Transcript: More »
Right-Wing Ad Repeats Debunked Sotomayor Race Claim
Right-Wing Ad Repeats Debunked Sotomayor Race Claim
In a newly released ad, the right-wing Judicial Confirmation Network repeats the debunked claim that Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court places “equal justice…under attack”:
The ad quotes from a lengthy speech where Judge Sotomayor warned that “[p]ersonal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see” and expressed her “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” The ad cites the quotes as evidence that Sotomayor would not treat everyone who appears before her equally.
Judge Sotomayor conceded today that her now-famous “wise Latina woman” quote was a poor word choice, but it is clear from context that Sotomayor’s speech says the opposite of what the ad claims. Indeed, Sotomayor says in no uncertain terms that judges must ensure that their decisions are never compromised by prejudice:
I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
Moreoever, Judge Sotomayor’s statements that her own experiences as a Latina impact how she views her role as a judge mirror similar statements by conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who said that “[w]hen I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
The racial attacks on Judge Sotomayor have no basis in reality. Perhaps that explains why even conservative elected officials continue to distance themselves from the right-wing special interest groups’ race-driven smear campaign.
O’Reilly Defends Cherry-Picking Comments To Attack Blogs
O’Reilly Defends Cherry-Picking Comments To Attack Blogs
On Wednesday, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly attempted to demonstrate that the blogosphere is full of extreme hate-mongers. To do so, he pulled random comments from both ThinkProgress and Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air blog. However, he never noted that they were comments. Instead, he attributed them as official posts by the blogs:
ThinkProgress, another crazy website on the left: “It will be so funny seeing a bunch of old white guys questioning her during the Senate hearings.” Nothing racist about that. You know, these people — as I said on the conservative guy — they don’t think that they’re racist. They don’t think that they’re bigoted. But you know, it’s so obvious they are.
Malkin went on Fox and Friends the next day and responded that her site was “smeared” by O’Reilly.
Last night, O’Reilly responded to the criticisms, saying that he “should have been more precise” and identified that the remark was made by a “civilian” not by Hot Air’s staff. (O’Reilly never acknowledged that he similarly smeared ThinkProgress.) However, he then went on to defend his actions:
O’REILLY: Wow. Miss Malkin is upset, because I did not identify the Hussein comment was made by a civilian, not her or her staff. And that’s true. I should have been more precise.
But we often cite hateful civilian comments on blogs and say they should be edited, as we do on BillOReilly.com. That’s the point. The Daily Kos traffics in hatred all day long. It’s not enough to say, “I didn’t do it.”
And pointing out hateful things on any Web site is not a smear.
Watch it:
As ThinkProgress editor Faiz Shakir explained yesterday, “The comments policy of this blog — like most blogs on the Internet — is to allow postings from people with whom we agree and disagree. … Those comments do not always reflect the positions and views of the site’s editors and authors. As long as commenters abide by our terms of use, they are free to post whatever they’d like, even things which offend Bill O’Reilly’s sensitivities.”
But by O’Reilly’s logic, he himself should be held responsible for hoping that Hillary Clinton falls “into a moat filled leeches and (gulp) rats” and speculating that “it’s time to burn down the capitol building like Hitler did with the Reichstag building.” As Hot Air writer AllahPundit noted, “if the O’Reilly Factor can’t figure out the difference between a blog post and a comment, they have no business opining about the Internet at all.”
If O’Reilly is sincere in his belief that he “should have been more precise” in identifying the source of the comment on Hot Air, we expect that he will do the same next time he highlights something written on ThinkProgress, DailyKos, or any other liberal blog.
Transcript: More »
G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: ‘Let’s Hope That The Key Conferences Aren’t When She’s Menstruating’
G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: ‘Let’s Hope That The Key Conferences Aren’t When She’s Menstruating’
Yesterday on his radio show, conservative host G. Gordon Liddy continued the right wing’s all-out assault on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, just like Tom Tancredo, Liddy slammed Sotomayor’s affiliation with the civil rights group La Raza — and referred to the Spanish language as “illegal alien“:
LIDDY: I understand that they found out today that Miss Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, which means in illegal alien, “the race.” And that should not surprise anyone because she’s already on record with a number of racist comments.
Finished with the race-based attack, Liddy moved on to denigrate Sotomayor’s gender:
LIDDY: Let’s hope that the key conferences aren’t when she’s menstruating or something, or just before she’s going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.
Finally, Liddy disputed the entire idea that there’s anything wrong with the paucity of women and total lack of Hispanics on the Court:
LIDDY: And everybody is cheering because Hispanics and females have been, quote, underrepresented, unquote. And as you pointed out, which I thought was quite insightful, the Supreme Court is not designed to be and should not be a representative body.
Listen here:
Liddy and his radical colleagues, mostly on the radio, are so far failing to get the conservative leadership on board with their racist and sexist attacks. Last night, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called the attacks “terrible” and “wrong.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was asked if he agreed with Newt Gingrich’s characterization of Sotomayor as a “Latina woman racist.” “No, I don’t agree with that,” Hatch replied.
Despite Call To ‘Move On’ From Personally Attacking Sotomayor, Steele Recently Attacked Her Personally
Despite Call To ‘Move On’ From Personally Attacking Sotomayor, Steele Recently Attacked Her Personally
Earlier today, The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent flagged RNC Chairman Michael Steele saying on Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning that conservatives should avoid making personal attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Rather than “slammin’ and rammin’” her, “move on to the substance of the conversation about what this woman believes, why she believes it,” said Steele. Listen here:
Despite Steele’s current attempt to focus the debate on Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy, just two weeks ago he had no problem engaging. While hosting Bennett’s radio show, Steele described Sotomayor as “not a bell ringer” and “rather abrasive”:
STEELE: But the next justice nominee will be a female and I bet you a donut and a dime it will be hispanic. But, which case, that would be Ms. Sotomayor. But the problem with someone like her is, you know, while her story is compelling and all of that. Moving from the projects and you know, going to some of the best schools in the country and then to the federal bench. She’s not, she’s not a bell ringer. She’s not one of these justices who’s really kind of distinguished herself and made a name for herself on the Appeals court. And I think that that, you know, is something worth noting and looking at since, you know, gee that was a standard they put up against those Republican nominees. So I figure the standard should apply here as well. But they also, you know, the word on the street is that she is rather abrasive. And that’s the one thing the Supreme Court is not. Is a place for abrasive personalities.
Listen here:
It’s ironic that during his May 8th appearance on Bennett’s show, Steele justified his personal attacks on Sotomayor by saying “that was a standard they put up against those Republican nominees. So I figure the standard should apply here as well.” As Sargent points out, Steele argued today that “we don’t need to play this the way the Democrats have played it in the past.”
Additionally, Steele claimed back then that Sotomayor had not “distinguished herself and made a name for herself on the Appeals court.” But conservative law professor Eric Posner examined the data of Sotomayor’s record and found that she “may well be one of the top appellate judges in the country.”
Rove says that Gingrich’s demand for Sotomayor to withdraw is ‘premature,’ calls for a ‘respectful’ debate.
Rove says that Gingrich’s demand for Sotomayor to withdraw is ‘premature,’ calls for a ‘respectful’ debate.
Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove said that it was “premature” for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to call for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to withdraw from her name from consideration. He then called for Republicans to engage with her “respectfully”:
ROVE: So I think Republicans need to take her on in the appropriate fashion, which is about her judicial philosophy, her record on the court, her writings and her statements. Particularly her statements. But they — and they need to do so with respect. We don’t need to engage with the Democrats did with Alito and Roberts or famously Bork with Ted Kennedy’s Bork’s America speech. They need to do it respectfully. And it needs to be over philosophy. Because Americans of all backgrounds believe that judges ought to be impartial umpires.
Watch it:
Rove, however, has done far more than just “respectfully” criticize Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy and statements. He has said that she is ruled by “emotion,” called her “sort of a schoolmarm,” and questioned her intelligence. Yesterday, Rove also said that he “got wind of” allegations that Sotomayor “was combative, opinionated, argumentative” while reviewing the record of her “colleague on the court” Samuel Alito. However, as Media Matters pointed out, Sotomayor served on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; Alito served on the 3rd Circuit.
Transcript: More »
VIDEO REPORT: Who Is Rick Scott And What Type Of Health Care System Is He Advocating?
VIDEO REPORT: Who Is Rick Scott And What Type Of Health Care System Is He Advocating?
This Sunday, the front group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights will be airing a 30-minute documentary with “horror stories” aimed at chipping away public support for reforming our health care system. Ironically, the leader and financier of the organization, private health care executive Rick Scott, is actually credited with transforming the American health care system into the profit above-all-else culture that is currently plaguing America.
Rick Scott is not only known for his efforts to build the “McDonald’s” of the health care industry, but his company was also forced to pay a $1.7 billion fraud settlement, the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history, for systematically stealing from taxpayers.
ThinkProgress has compiled a video report detailing who Rick Scott is, and what type of health care system he is defending. Watch it:
For his anti-health reform film, Rick Scott has hired former CNN reporter Gene Randall to interview patients and warn of a “government takeover” of the American health care system. Of course, no one is proposing a “government takeover” — rather President Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) have said health reform will mean introducing a public plan option that Americans can opt into if they do not currently have health insurance or they are not satisfied with their private insurance plan.
Randall, after his employment at CNN, started his own private media firm that has produced publicity content for private health insurance companies and similarly made a documentary for Chevron to defend the company for dumping 18 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into the rainforest in Ecuador. As the New York Times has noted, Randall is hired by corporations to add a “journalistic” feel to the films he produces for his corporate clients.
Indeed, Conservatives for Patients’ Rights has also hired the same PR company that managed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign against John Kerry to direct its attacks on President Obama’s health care proposals.
AUDIO: Cornyn says Limbaugh and Gingrich’s attacks on Sotomayor are ‘terrible.’
AUDIO: Cornyn says Limbaugh and Gingrich’s attacks on Sotomayor are ‘terrible.’
Soon after President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, right-wing luminaries like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh attacked her as a “racist.” But some Republican lawmakers are trying to distance themselves from that argument. On NPR’s All Things Considered yesterday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) called that attacks “terrible.” “Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate and I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong,” said Cornyn. Listen here:
After criticizing Sotomayor for saying that her life experience affects how she approaches the law, Cornyn was stumped when confronted with Justice Samuel Alito’s statement that he takes his immigrant background “into account” on the bench. “I had not remembered that,” said Cornyn. “I think it is a fact that people do have different backgrounds, but I don’t think those backgrounds ought to determine what the law is.”
Bush wavers on whether Obama is a socialist: ‘People are waiting to see what all this means.’
Bush wavers on whether Obama is a socialist: ‘People are waiting to see what all this means.’
President Bush — in contrast to Dick Cheney — has insisted that President Obama “deserves my silence.” Yesterday, in his largest domestic speech since leaving office, however, Bush would not rule out whether Obama is a socialist, saying that “people are waiting to see what all this means.” In the same breath, Bush defended his own massive intervention in the financial system:
He strongly defended his Troubled Asset Relief Program as crucial to preventing capital markets from freezing up, which he said would have led to another Great Depression. He noted that he remains “a free market guy.”
Bush was asked what he thinks about conservative pundits who claim the Obama administration’s fiscal policies are opening the door to socialism. “I’ve heard talk about that,” he said. “I think the verdict is out. I think people are waiting to see what all this means.”
“I didn’t like it when a former president criticized me, so therefore I am not going to criticize my successor. I wish him all the best,” Bush said.
ThinkFast: May 29, 2009
ThinkFast: May 29, 2009
In a speech to the Atlantic Council yesterday, National Security Advisor Gen. Jim Jones rebutted Vice President Cheney’s assertion that the country is less safe under President Obama. He said that the current administration has rejected “the false choice between our security and our ideals” and the United States “is not only safe but it will be more secure…because of the president’s leadership.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) is “circulating the outlines of sweeping health-care legislation that would require every American to have insurance and would mandate that employers contribute to workers’ coverage.” The proposal also “calls for opening Medicaid to those whose incomes are 500 percent of the federal poverty level, or $110,250 a year for a family of four.”
On a conference call with Organizing for America volunteers yesterday, President Obama said it’s now or never for health care reform. “If we don’t get it done this year, we’re not going to get it done,” Obama said, urging callers to “work in your communities” to build support for reform. “[W]e’ve got to get it done this year,” Obama repeated.
Despite having ready access to the White House, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) sent in a suggestion to the White House website’s online suggestion box that currently has more votes — 599 — than any other idea. Boehner called on the White House “to back a mandatory 72-hour review period before Congress votes on any major spending bill.”
“The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s scant record on abortion rights.” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that President Obama never asked her about her view of abortion rights, but that he lwas “very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his,” an indication that she agrees with the basis of Roe v. Wade.
Barnes: Sotomayor ‘benefited’ from affirmative action ‘tremendously.’
Barnes: Sotomayor ‘benefited’ from affirmative action ‘tremendously.’
On MSNBC yesterday, Pat Buchanan repeatedly attacked Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an “affirmative action candidate,” echoing right-wing claims that she has “been the recipient of preferential treatment for most of her life.” On Bill Bennett’s radio show this morning, Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes argued “that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.” When Bennett noted that she graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton, which he called “a pretty big deal,” Barnes dismissed it, saying “I guess it is”:
BARNES: I think you can make the case that she’s one of those who has benefited from affirmative action over the years tremendously.
BENNETT: Yeah, well, maybe so. Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders.
BARNES: One wonders.
BENNETT: Summa Cum Laude, I don’t think you get on affirmative action. I don’t know what her major was, but Summa Cum Laude’s a pretty big deal.
BARNES: I guess it is, but you know, there’s some schools and maybe Princeton’s not one of them, where if you don’t get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you’re a D+ student.
Listen here:
On Tuesday night, former Bush adviser Karl Rove said that despite her stellar academic credentials, Sotomayor was “not necessarily” smart. “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools,” said Rove.
Transcript: More »
Fox News Embraces Right-Wing Theory That Obama Is Forcing GOP-Owned Car Dealerships To Close
Fox News Embraces Right-Wing Theory That Obama Is Forcing GOP-Owned Car Dealerships To Close
Citing a handful of right-wing bloggers yesterday afternoon, the Washington Examiner reported ominously, “Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has systematically targeted Chrysler dealers who contributed to Republicans” for closure. Not to be outdone, Fox and Friends hosted conservative blogger Michelle Malkin this morning to play up the conspiracy theory. “Believe me Steve, over the last several years, we’ve all documented the Obama-Chicago-gangland tactics that certainly make this a possibility,” Malkin said.
Malkin’s speculative hysterics were apparently enough to pique the interest of Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett. As he’s done with other right-wing conspiracy theories, he asked the White House for its response to the charges:
GARRETT: There is some concern in the blogosphere that of the of the Chrysler dealerships being closed, a disproportionate number appear to be in which the operators contributed to Republicans. And hardly which contributed to democrats have been closed down. I’m not saying the White House knows anything about this but would you be concerned about any taint of politics in any of the decisions.
Watch it:
As Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained to Garrett, it is Chrysler — not the federal government — that is in charge of selecting which dealerships will be closed. Further, as Nate Silver explained in a post that was published just hours after the Examiner’s initial report yesterday, “There is just one problem with this theory. Nobody has bothered to look up data for the control group: the list of dealerships which aren’t being closed.”
Silver explained, “It turns out that all car dealers are, in fact, overwhelmingly more likely to donate to Republicans than to Democrats — not just those who are having their doors closed.” In all, Silver found that “88 percent of the contributions from car dealers went to Republican candidates and just 12 percent to Democratic candidates,” while, the list of Chrysler dealerships being closed “gave 92 percent of their money to Republicans — not really a significant difference.”
Tancredo: Sotomayor Is A Member Of The ‘Latino KKK Without The Hoods Or The Nooses’
Tancredo: Sotomayor Is A Member Of The ‘Latino KKK Without The Hoods Or The Nooses’
Seizing the opportunity to vilify a female, Hispanic Supreme Court nominee, noted bigot Tom Tancredo has emerged from obscurity to denounce Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Earlier this week, Tancredo declared her to be a “racist” who should be “disqualified” from serving on the bench.
This afternoon on CNN, he went further, attacking her affiliation with the National Council of La Raza as equivalent to being a member of the Ku Klux Klan:
TANCREDO: If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case, which is, from my point of view anyway, nothing more than a Latino — it’s a counterpart — a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses. If you belong to something like that in a way that’s going to convince me and a lot of other people that it’s got nothing to do with race. Even though the logo of La Raza is “All for the race. Nothing for the rest.” What does that tell you?
SANCHEZ: Alright. We’re not talking about — we’re not talking about La Raza –
TANCREDO: She’s a member! She’s a member of La Raza!
Watch it
The La Raza line is the latest right-wing attack on Sotomayor. Right-wing groups have been waging war against La Raza since the 2006 immigration rallies. Conservatives, including Rep. Charles Norwood (R-GA), claim the group “supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.” The right-wing blog Stop The ACLU calls La Raza “an anti-white extremist group.”
These attacks — promoted by Drudge — are only going to escalate. Of course, the characterizations are wildly false. La Raza is the nation’s largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization that focuses on such nefarious issues as “civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health.” Used to these attacks, La Raza has a long fact-sheet debunking the unhinged claims of the right, including pointing out that “La Raza” translates as “the people,” not “the race,” as the right wing suggests.
Tancredo echoed a popular right-wing myth, claiming the group’s slogan is “All for the race, nothing for the rest.” When ThinkProgress asked a La Raza spokeswoman, she replied, “No. That’s very much incorrect.” In fact, the true slogan is “Strengthening America by promoting the advancement of Latino families.” A far cry from Tancredo’s egregiously false, race-based characterization.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll