ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

McCain rejects Parsley’s endorsement.

In February, Ohio televangelist Rev. Rod Parsley endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain called Parsley — who once said Allah was a “demon spirit” — his “spiritual guide.” In an interview with the AP today, McCain finally said that he rejected Parsley’s support:

I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn’t endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement.

Watch a Brave New Films video highlighting the relationship between McCain and Parsley:

McCain’s statement on Parsley came after the senator earlier in the day rejected the endorsement of radical pastor John Hagee.

Politics

Insert “Reject and Denounce” Joke

John McCain decides he can quit John Hagee after all. In one interesting possible future, McCain reaches the conclusion that he’s got the GOP nomination and conservatives have nowhere to go so he brings back the “agents of intolerance” talk, maybe picks a pro-choice running mate, and makes a serious high-risk high-reward effort to definitively separate himself from the mire into which the rest of the party is sinking.

Politics

Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric begins issuing fatwas against U.S.-led forces.

AP reports on a troubling development in Iraq:

Iraq’s most influential Shiite cleric has been quietly issuing religious edicts declaring that armed resistance against U.S.-led foreign troops is permissible — a potentially significant shift by a key supporter of the Washington-backed government in Baghdad.

The edicts, or fatwas, by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani suggest he seeks to sharpen his long-held opposition to American troops and counter the populist appeal of his main rivals, firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia.

So far, American officials have considered Sistani a “key stabilizing force in Iraq for refusing to support a full-scale Shiite uprising against U.S.-led forces or Sunnis — especially at the height of sectarian bloodletting after an important Shiite shrine was bombed in 2006.”

Economy

Slate’s Backwards Logic: Gas Prices Today Are Cheaper Compared To Period When No One Drove Cars

old_car.jpgSlate Magazine published a new piece outlining some of the reasons Americans should feel lucky paying “only” $4.00 for a gallon of gas. Robert Bryce argues the relative “cheapness” of today’s gas in terms of historic prices:

The simple truth is that Americans are going to have to get used to more expensive gasoline. And while they may continue grumbling at the pump, they need to accept the fact that even at $3.50 or $4 per gallon, the fuel they are buying is still a bargain.

This is wrong on a number of levels. Let’s start with the obvious that it’s completely disingenuous to compare fuel costs in 1922 to fuel costs today.

First of all, who was actually driving back in 1922? According to a historical study of vehicle ownership, only 22.7% of Americans owned cars in 1939 (17 years later), compared to 77.6% in 2005. Econ 101 will tell you that when nobody is driving and demand for gas is low, prices will be high for a non-readily available commodity. Until people are driving themselves around, there is no incentive to innovate, mass produce, and therefore cheapen the cost of gas.

Secondly, Slate forgets that driving in Europe is not the same as driving in the United States. Paul Krugman makes this point clearly in his most recent op-ed in which he reminds readers that sure, it may cost more to put petrol in your car on the other side of the pond, but in Europe, drivers have other options — namely city-wide public transportation systems and the option of walking to work, the grocery store, or the pharmacy:

[I]n the face of rising oil prices, which have left many Americans stranded in suburbia — utterly dependent on their cars, yet having a hard time affording gas [...] Changing the geography of American metropolitan areas will be hard [...] Public transit, in particular, faces a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s hard to justify transit systems unless there’s sufficient population density, yet it’s hard to persuade people to live in denser neighborhoods unless they come with the advantage of transit access.

Slate makes one last point that goes beyond wrong and borders on offensive:

Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.

Sorry, but Americans aren’t consuming gallons of coffee and beer every morning as they drive to work, school or the doctor. We spend a great deal more of our discretionary budget on gas than on any other commodity. Just another example of Slate’s backwards apples to oranges logic.

Politics

Anti-gay group compares marrying same-sex couples to helping the Nazis.

Reacting to the California Supreme Court’s decision overturing a same-sex marriage ban, the far right group Campaign for Children and Families compares county clerks issuing same-sex marriage licenses to Nazis gassing Jews during the Holocaust. Here’s what they say on their website, SaveCalifornia.com:

Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order.

(HT: Andrew Sullivan)

Politics

Santorum Mocks Gay Marriage: ‘I Love My Brother. Should We Call This Relationship Marriage Too?’

ap060324031180.jpg Today’s Philadelphia Inquirer column by former Republican senator Rick Santorum is a shrill rant against the California Supreme Court for its recent ruling allowing gay marriage. Santorum worries about the “future of marriage as the union of husband and wife” and points out that he was “sounding the alarm about marriage” back in 2003.

To underscore his assertion that gay marriage = the collapse of civilization, he points to Norway:

Look at Norway. It began allowing same-sex marriage in the 1990s. In just the last decade, its heterosexual-marriage rates have nose-dived and its out-of-wedlock birthrate skyrocketed to 80 percent for firstborn children. Too bad for those kids who probably won’t have a dad around, but we can’t let the welfare of children stand in the way of social affirmation, can we?

But what about love? That’s the question a student asked this winter when I spoke at Georgetown University.

Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too? Marriage is and always has been more than the acknowledgment of the love between two people.

Conveniently, Santorum gives no sources for his inaccurate statistics. Norway began allowing same-sex civil unions in 1993. But according to M.V. Lee Badgett, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Norway’s “big surge” in the nonmarital birth rate occurred in the 1980s, jumping from 16 percent to 39 percent. In the decade after Norway authorized civil unions, the nonmarital birth rate rose only “slightly,” and then, “after a couple of years, leveled off at 50 percent.” These rates are similar to those in countries without such laws.

Additionally, in a 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed, William Eskridge, Jr., a Yale professor, and author Darren Spedale found that heterosexual marriage rates have actually risen 12.7 percent in Norway since 1993. Similarly, divorce rates amongst heterosexual couples have fallen 6 percent.

Health

McCain’s Health Care Death Spiral: Higher Premiums For Sicker People

mccain1.gif
Earlier this month, Cato’s Michael Cannon argued that healthy individuals who purchase health insurance using Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) proposed health care tax credit, could buy “more secure coverage of high-cost conditions than the current job-based system” allows:

Researchers such as Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Susan Marquis of the RAND Corporation have found that the individual market covers lots of people with high-cost medical conditions — so long as they purchased the insurance when they were healthy… Over the long term, then, McCain’s plan would provide more secure coverage of high-cost conditions than the current job-based system does.

Cannon is mistaken. In what is known as ‘the death spiral,‘ health insurance companies entice healthy candidates into cheap plans and then increase prices for sicker patients. Consumer Reports explains the tactic like this:

[Companies] stop accepting new customers in a plan, which kicks off a process known as a “death spiral.” Even if everyone in an insurance plan starts out relatively healthy, as time goes on, people get sick, and the cost to insure them rises. Once the pool is closed, costs for the remaining members rise inexorably. Healthier members find cheaper plans, but sicker ones are effectively forced out because they can’t afford coverage.

While healthy patients who pass another round of medical underwriting can switch to a cheaper plan, patients who develop a disease after purchasing their coverage, fail their underwriting, and are stuck paying higher prices:

“Jesse Paul, 59, an Indianapolis lawyer, paid $25.50 a month for his individual, $100- deductible Prudential major medical policy when he took it out in 1980. Premiums rose steadily for years but at a pace that Paul deemed “rational in terms of medical costs.” In 2003 the premium shot up from about $1,200 to about $1,900 a month at renewal.

When Paul complained to the state insurance department, he learned that the policy had been closed to new entrants for years, that he was one of only 400 to 600 customers left in the state, and that the premium increase was permissible under Indiana law. Paul reached his breaking point when he got his latest renewal notice in August; the monthly premium was now $4,284.

Cannon claims that allowing anyone with pre-existing conditions to purchase insurance would “invite irresponsible behavior.” It’s curious that Cannon thinks the current behavior of private insurance companies, who would be further unregulated by McCain’s plan, isn’t “irresponsible.”

Politics

I Like The Snark

Joe Klein seems kind of pissed — “I’m mentioned in two columns today with similar themes: that people like me–the liberal elite media, we’re called–are playing into Obama’s hands by insisting on accuracy from John McCain (according to Bob Novak) and by hoping that, given the mess we’re in, this can be an election about big issues (Steven Stark).”

This has been going on for so long that it hardly even phases me anymore, but it’s striking the extent to which the conservative discourse about Iran hinges crucially on misrepresenting uncontroversial facts about Iran. How many articles or speeches have you read on the subject of the Iranian nuclear program that dwell at length on inflammatory rhetoric from Ahmadenijad without noting that he doesn’t control the relevant aspects of Iranian policy? Beyond that, I recall at least one Weekly Standard article that was unable to make due with outrageous things Ahmadenijad actually said and just decided to attribute some additional conduct to him. Beyond that, it’s been over two years since Charles Krauthammer said Iran was months away from nuclear capacity almost two years since Bernard Lewis confidently stated that Iran would unleash the apocalypse on August 22, 2006, etc.

There’s just no concern — at all — with facts or accuracy on this issue.

Politics

State Dept. employees deface portraits of Bush, Cheney and Rice with ‘fake mustaches.’

In 2003, Bush administration officials took down historic photos depicting significant moments in American diplomatic history. They replaced them “with huge color glossies extolling the diplomatic feats” of the Bush administration. Recently, however, things have taken “a turn for the worse” as unhappy State Department employees took matters into their own hands:

Outside the State Department ‘s press briefing room on the department’s 2nd floor hang large official photos of Bush, Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney. The pictures were, er…modified by persons unknown. (We did not personally witness this, we must admit — or we’d have a photo to post). We’re talking fake mustaches and the like. The defacements were promptly cleaned up. They reappeared.

McClatchy’s “Nukes & Spooks” blog asks, “Further evidence that the Bushies are losing control as they enter their final months?”

Yglesias

A Job Well Done

In my view, there’s no American interest in who controls which corner in Sadr City, but it’s always good to see fewer people dying. Apparently what it took to stop the situation where people kill each other was for the United States to stand aside:

Sadrist leaders said they had demanded that American soldiers remain on the sidelines of the military incursion.

“We stressed that the occupation forces do not come in,” said Selman al-Freiji, a senior Sadrist leader in Baghdad. “We welcome the entrance of Iraqi troops.”

U.S. officials have said they were happy to let Iraqi troops take the lead. “It is heartening to see Iraqi security forces operating peacefully while enforcing the rule of law,” Capt. Gordon J. Delcambre, a U.S. military spokesman said in an e-mail.

And you know what, it is heartening the see! So how about we take some troops out of Iraq, then some more, and then some more, until there are none left? It seemed to me back in late 2004 that the looming elections in January 2005 would be a good opportunity to declare victory and go home on a relatively upbeat note. Instead, the president decided that we needed to stay in order to forestall civil war and ethnic cleansing. Then came several years of civil war and ethnic cleansing. Now we’re looking at another spate of good news. So why not take the opportunity to leave?

Older

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

Sign Up