ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Dick Cheney comments on ‘cousin Obama.’

In an interview with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, Dick Cheney commented on his wife Lynne’s revelation that Dick and Barack Obama are related. Lynne reported that Dick and Barack are connected through an eighth generation French descendant. Dick referred to Obama today as “cousin Barack,” and said he’s not sure whether the relationship “would help or hurt” Obama. Watch it:

Also in the interview, Cheney referred to the House’s recent passage of SCHIP as “veto-bait.”

Transcript: Read more

Politics

DHS rips FEMA’s propaganda presser as ‘inexcusable.’

Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner said that FEMA’s staged press conference is “inexcusable to the secretary.” FEMA is part of DHS. Keehner described the incident as a lapse in judgment, but said “stunts such as this will not be tolerated” and noted that “the senior leadership of the department is taking this very seriously.” “This is offensive, inexcusable,” she told USA Today.

Yglesias

Herbicide in Afghanistan

Jonathan Landay has the latest. Obviously, our priority over there should be stopping the Taliban, not stopping poppy growers. If Afghanistan were to become a stable, heroin-exporting country that didn’t play host to radical anti-American terrorists that’d be a pretty good outcome in the scheme of things. Heroin use is a real problem, but it’s not the biggest problem in the world, and there’s no good reason to think that crop eradication programs in Afghanistan are an effect way of tackling the problem anyway.

Politics

Horowitz: There’s a ‘figurative’ noose ‘over my head.’

Speaking at Columbia University today for the culmination of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, right winger David Horowitz compared the negative reception his campaign has received on campus to the recent incident of a noose being hung on the door of a black professor at Columbia. Horowitz claimed “nooses have been put figuratively on the doors of the College Republicans“:

We’ve had many distractions this semester, and I guess I’m one of them. A recent one was an unfortunate incident of a noose being put on a professor’s door. I think that the campus is right to be concerned about that. But I detect a somewhat of double standard at this university and other’s that I’ve been to, in that nooses have been put figuratively on the doors of the College Republicans here who have invited me. Of course, there’s always a noose over my head by a national hate campaign which has been organized by radical Muslim groups and radical leftist groups.

Watch it:

Apparently for Horowitz, being accused of racism is the equivalent of being the target of racism.

Climate Progress

Save the Earth in Two Not-So-Hard Questions: My reply to that silly Slate piece

Slate has published my reply to economist’s Steven Landsburg’s ill-informed hit-piece, “Save the Earth in Six Hard Questions: What Al Gore doesn’t understand about climate change.”

The editor wisely cut out some of my snarkier comments (Note to self: Slate is not Climate Progress!) but kept the title: “Save the Earth in Two Not-So-Hard Questions: What Steven Landsburg doesn’t understand about climate change” and the last paragraph:

Landsburg seems to believe that only economists can discuss climate change seriously, while the rest of us are wasting everyone’s time: “If you’re not talking about discount rates and levels of risk aversion, you’re blathering.” Landsburg’s piece proves that you can talk about those things and still be blathering.

I do have a serious point to make in the piece. There are two key questions that everyone in the climate change debate needs to answer:

  1. How great a threat does inaction on climate change pose for future generations’ quality of life–and for life itself?
  2. Will significant action on climate change require sacrificing our quality of life in any meaningful sense?

To see that the answer to the second question is a definite “no,” you need to define the threat in question 1, which I do at length in my book (and on Climate Progress) and briefly in the piece. My bottom line:

Read more

Yglesias

Auschwitz Lines

Sarah Stern in The New Republic explains that Israel can’t make peace with the Palestinians because of the “maximalist Palestinian position” which I was expecting to see described as the destruction of Israel, but which actually turns out to be reasonably characterized as “an Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 borders, which are actually the 1949 armistice lines.” So why not make a deal like that? “These boundaries were nine miles wide at their narrowest point, lacking the strategic depth to enable Israel to defend itself, which led the former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Abba Eban (of the Labour Party) to dub them ‘the Auschwitz lines.’”

Okay, but given that the ’49 armistice was the result of an actual war, the lines can’t have been all that indefensible. What’s more, the lines were successfully defending in 1967. And Israel’s conventional military superiority vis-a-vis its neighbors has grown larger. And now Israel has nuclear weapons! What’s more, Israel now has peace agreements with Jordan and Egypt. If non-nuclear Israel could defend the ’67 borders against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria combined surely it can defend them now against Syria alone with the help of its nuclear weapons.

Politics

Rich State, Poor State

Via Henry Farrell, Gelman et. al. post some interesting maps. First, which states would John Kerry have won were only poor voters allowed to vote:

Basically it seems that here Bush wins only the whitest of states, though not super-white Maine. Next, only people in the middle third of the income distribution:

This looks a lot like the actual election results, though there are a few states Kerry carried in reality despite losing middle income voters. There are no states Bush won without carrying middle income voters. Last, people in the top third:

Basically, rich people love Bush. But not the rich people who live New York, its suburbs in New York or New Jersey, or DC, or the DC suburbs (i.e., Maryland) or those who live in California. Interestingly enough, a huge proportion of political journalists and editors and people who run media companies live in precisely those places. One wonders if this doesn’t have a distorting effect on media types’ perception of what’s going on in politics.

Politics

Family Security Matters Advisers Have Ties To Their Own ‘Most Dangerous’ Organizations In America

familysecuritymatters.jpgYesterday, the conservative front group Family Security Matters (FSM) released its list of “The Ten Most Dangerous Organizations in America.” Among the top 10 “hate” organizations were MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, and “Universities and Colleges.” ThinkProgress earned the 10th spot in the rankings.

Ironically, various members of both the Family Security Matters board of directors and board of advisers have direct associations with some of the organizations that FSM now declares “the most dangerous” in America. For instance, former CIA director James Woolsey, who sits on the board of advisers, appeared on a panel discussion at the Center for American Progress in Sept. 2007. Unsurprisingly, other FSM advisers work for various “universities and colleges”:

- Executive Vice President Linda Cohen is also a trustee on the Santa Fe Community College Foundation Board, which seeks to “provide the college with ever-increasing funds.”

- Dr. Arthur Waldron, who sits on the board of advisers, is a professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania and has previously worked at Princeton, Brown, Harvard and the U.S. Naval War College.

- Dr. Cheryl L. Willman, who sits on the board of advisers, is a professor in the Health Sciences Center at the University of New Mexico.

- Dr. Latanya Sweeney, who sits on the board of advisers, is an associate professor of computer science, technology and policy at Carnegie Mellon University.

While the folks at Family Security Matters seem to think that higher education and the protection of civil liberties are “dangerous” to America, they should be more cognizant of the “dangerous” ideas emanating from within their own doors.

For instance, in August 2007, FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson published an essay, titled “Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy,” in which he counseled that President Bush should follow the example of Julius and Augustus Ceasar and become “the first permanent president of America”:

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Ceasar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nucelear weapons.

Atkinson also suggested that Bush should have used “his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead.” In the minds of Family Security Matters, supreme dictator Bush nuking the Middle East is less dangerous than this website.

Yglesias

Leftward Ho

Kevin Drum:

This year, though, we’re in a historically odd position. The Republican Party is still in stage (b), but to a smaller extent, the Democrats are back there too. The Democratic Party spent so long in stage (a) during the 90s, moving aggressively to the center after years in the wilderness, and the GOP moved so far to the right under Gingrich and Bush, that Democrats have the luxury of being able to move modestly to the left and yet still be moving relatively closer to the center than the Republican Party. On a scale of 1 to 10, it’s like the GOP is moving right from 8 to 9 while the Democratic party is moving left from 4 to 3.5. The lunacy of the conservative base is providing a huge amount of cover for liberals to make some modest progress this year.

I dunno. I think it’s important to talk specifics here. On a question like health care, all three major Democrats are running on similar platforms that are considerably more ambitious than what John Kerry or Al Gore offered. On the other hand, they’re considerably less ambitious than what Bill Clinton proposed in 1993 or what Bob Kerrey proposed during the 1992 primary.

On the use of force, most congressional Democrats opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War, taking a very skeptical view of the efficacy of American arms even when deployed in what was as close to a textbook instance of liberal internationalist collective security as the world has ever seen. By 1998, most Democrats were prepared to countenance the limited use of force with little-to-know risk to American lives against Serbia with the support of most of the UN Security Council’s members but in the face of Chinese and Russian veto threats that made an authorizing resolution impossible. By 2003 you had the bulk of the party leadership prepared to endorse a preventive counter-proliferation war against Iraq that was all-but-uniformly opposed around the world. Here in 2008, things have clearly evolved back in a dovish direction from where they were during the Summer of War but you still don’t see anyone ruling out unilateral air strikes against Iran.

What else? To me, that seems to generally be the pattern: Al Gore ran on a very timid platform in 2000, and 9/11 then sent Democrats into a years-long defensive crouch, but the point where the party’s gotten back to is pretty similar to where it was when Bill Clinton first got elected. Insofar as the party’s to the left of where Clinton was in at the end of his administration, that seems to mostly be because people are envisioning a Democratic congressional majority.

Yglesias

The Case for Cities

Tim Harford on the virtues of urbanism and the ways in which our public policy tends to give them short shrift. Via Ryan Avent who sums up the message, “it’s not about arguing the superiority of individual choices to live or not live in cities, it’s about fixing policy so that we aren’t irrationally undermining valuable resources.”

Photo by Flickr user TylerDurden used under a Creative Commons license

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up