ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Senate Should Ignore Nutty Glenn Beck Conspiracy Theories And Appoint Harold Koh

By Guest Blogger on Apr 6, 2009 at 7:45 pm

Our guest blogger is Henry Fernandez, a Senior Fellow at the Center For American Progress Action Fund.

As ThinkProgress recently noted, a small number of conspiracy-theory, far-right conservatives have raised concerns about Obama’s appointment of Harold Koh to be Legal Adviser to the Department of State. Their nutty views have been trumped up by Fox News and the NY Post, with extremist Glenn Beck leading the charge. This despite there being no basis in reality for the charges against Koh.

Today on his Fox News show, Beck ranted some more against Koh. Beck conceded, “There is a big debate on the internet, in the New York Times and everybody else, saying that I’m a crazy nut-job because of Harold Koh.” Watch it:

Koh is currently Dean of Yale Law School, with an international law and human rights resume that makes him uniquely qualified to be the top lawyer at the State Department. Unfortunately, these stellar qualifications have not been sufficient to move him quickly through the Senate, as he is one of several appointees being delayed by conservatives.

The right’s fabricated concern is that Koh would allow international law to trump U.S. law. This is based apparently on Koh’s speech to the Yale Alumni Association of Greenwich Connecticut, from which observer Steve Stein gathered that Koh wanted Islamic sharia law to govern in U.S. courts. But there is good reason to not believe Stein. The organizer of the event and head of the Alumni Association, Robin Reeves Zorthian, wrote to the NY Post:

The account given by Steve Stein of Dean Koh’s comments is totally fictitious and inaccurate. I was in the room with my husband and several fellow alumni, and we are all adamant that Koh never said or suggested that sharia law could be used to govern cases in US courts. The subject of his talk was Globalization and Yale Law School, so, of course, other forms of law were mentioned. But never did Koh state or suggest that other forms of law should govern or dictate the American legal system. Hopefully, your readers are interested in the facts.

More facts: Koh has consistently used US federal law in the U.S. federal courts to go after the leaders of military juntas that have killed Americans and citizens of other countries. This is the exact opposite of allowing foreign laws to trump U.S. law. He has also used US law to protect those who face persecution at the hands of powerful dictators.

Koh’s commitment to the rule of law is what really offends the hard right. His belief in the supremacy of US law has put him in direct conflict with some of the conspiracists’ favorite folks. Dean Koh testified before Congress against the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General because of Gonzales’ support for torture. He also challenged the right of George H.W. Bush to house innocent Haitian refugees at a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. Koh’s opponent — then-Solicitor General Ken Starr — argued that US law did not apply at Guantanamo, and thus the Haitians had no rights. Koh argued that both U.S. law and U.S. morality certainly applied there.

Harold Koh should be appointed, while liars and crazy people should be ignored.

Health

Illinois Lawmaker On How Insurance Industry Tried To Kill Reform Bill

By Igor Volsky on Apr 6, 2009 at 7:01 pm

repgregharris2.JPGDuring the White House Health Summit, AHIP CEO Karen Ignagni told the president, “we understand that we have to earn a seat at the table…you have our commitment, to play, to contribute and to pass health care reform this year.”

Indeed, this year, the industry has portrayed itself as a proponent of comprehensive health reform and its health care proposal has generated a slew of positive media coverage. But some still question the industry’s sincerity. Will AHIP support health care reform that lowers the industry’s profit margins, and will the insurance industry sacrifice profits for progress, these critics ask?

The industry’s opposition to Illinois State Representative Gregg Harris’ (D-Chicago) effort to pass legislation regulate the individual insurance market may begin to answer these questions.

Recently, the Illinois House passed ‘The Health Insurance Consumer Protection Act (House Bill 3923),’ a bill designed to regulate the state’s ‘Wild West’ individual health market. The act requires insurance companies to “spend at least 75% of premium dollars on medical care rather than on executive salaries,” establishes an office to conduct “external independent reviews of denied claims and rate increases” and simplifies “the complicated application process for both individual and small group markets by creating a standard application.”

ThinkProgress spoke with Harris, who explained that while the insurance industry initially supported his efforts, it opposed the actual legislation:

It’s the same kind of language they’ve talked about at the national level: “We could be supportive of some of this stuff if there was an individual mandate,” and “we’re willing to talk and negotiate and talk about parts of the bill.” But when it came time for the vote, they were out in pretty strong opposition. Every procedural trick in the book was used to stall it and derail it on the last day, but we got it through.

Listen:

Reform on the national level “is going to be very difficult,” Harris explained. “You’re really going to have to stand up to some powerful interests to get done and people are going to have to make a decision. Where are your votes going to be as a legislator? Are they going to be to protect consumers, or are they going to be to protect an industry giant?”

The Health Insurance Consumer Protection Act will now move to the Senate where, Harris predicts, “the opposition will be just as strong.”

Transcript: Read more

Yglesias

Obama Open to Iranian Enrichment?

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 6, 2009 at 6:25 pm

One key issue in the Iran policy debate concerns whether or not the United States could live with a deal wherein Iran verifiably foreswears nuclear weapons but does not foreswear uranium enrichment. Since Barack Obama won the election, people who oppose talks with Iran have largely stopped bothering to actually oppose talks with Iran. Instead, the Israeli government and its allies in the United States (in congress and on the outside) have a threefold strategy to bend-but-not-break on the Iran issue. First, they want to make sure that military options stay on the table. Second, they want guarantees that the talking phase will be brief. And last, they want the United States to walk away from the table unless we can get the Iranians to stop enriching.

This last one probably ensures that talks would fail. But Steven Walt makes a nice catch and observes that Obama’s Turkey speech included a key bit of language that underscores how serious the administration is about reaching a diplomatic accord:

Finally, I was struck by the language he used when addressing Iran’s nuclear program. He said that “the peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions” (my emphasis), adding that “Iran’s leaders must choose whether they will build a weapon or build a better future for their people.” Was this a subtle hint that the United States might be willing to tolerate Iranian enrichment, provided that we are confident that it was not masking a covert weapons program? Hmmmmm.

Of course there’s still the issue of whether or not the Iranians are interested in diplomacy.

Related Posts

Security

Frank ‘I’m A Member Of Dick Cheney’s Fan Club’ Gaffney: Obama’s ‘Respect’ For Muslims Is Code For Submission

By Amanda Terkel on Apr 6, 2009 at 6:20 pm

The right wing has been apoplectic over President Obama’s words and actions while in Europe. A large amount of their outrage has been over the fact that Obama briefly bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

Today on MSNBC, right-wing commentator Frank Gaffney joined in, boldly declaring, “I’m a member of Dick Cheney’s fan club,” alluding to the former vice president’s comments that Obama is making Americans less safe. Gaffney said that today, for example, Obama told our “Muslim enemies” that the United States is “willing to submit to them.”

When asked by MSNBC host David Shuster and Mother Jones’s David Corn for proof of this supposed submission, Gaffney pointed to a secret “code” Obama is using — which apparently only he, al Qaeda, the Saudis, and the Taliban understand:

CORN: Where in that speech does he say we’re going to submit to anybody?

GAFFNEY: I think what he is using is code — … When he uses the word “respect,” in the context of a waist-bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example, and talks about respectful language, which is code for those who adhere to Sharia that we will submit to Sharia. We will submit to the kind of program –

SHUSTER: We have to know the code? We all have to know the code to understand how we’re making ourselves more vulnerable? … David Corn was asking you for a specific example, and you’re referring to code. You’re referring to code!

GAFFNEY: I’m telling you the code as they receive it in the Taliban headquarters and in al Qaeda’s cave and in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They perceive this as submission.

Watch it:

The “respectful language” that most likely galled Gaffney was from Obama’s speech to the Turkish parliament today:

Now, I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations. Iran is a great civilization. We want them to engage in the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security. But Iran’s leaders must choose whether they will try to build a weapon or build a better future for their people.

Apparently, the American public also doesn’t know this secret “code.” A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that 82 percent believe that it is important for Obama “to try to improve U.S. relations with Muslim nations.” Additionally, two-thirds believe Obama will handle this diplomatic outreach “about right.”

Transcript: Read more

Related Posts

Yglesias

Review of Wired for War

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 6, 2009 at 5:42 pm

wiredforwar.jpg

My review of Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century is now up at The American Conservative.

Key excerpt:

Unfortunately, too many of Wired for War’s human characters seem to have fallen into the trap of seeking to substitute technical solutions for problems of war that are fundamentally political or strategic in nature. Singer quotes Noah Shachtman fretting that excessive use of unmanned systems “makes us look like the Evil Empire [from Star Wars] and the other guys like the Rebel Alliance, defending themselves versus robot invaders.”

True, perhaps. Yet surely human invaders are just as unwelcome as robotic ones. American Predator airstrikes are unpopular in Pakistan not because the planes doing the bombing are unmanned, but because no country likes to see another country dropping bombs within its territory.

A great nation requires capable armed forces. And that, in turn, requires a military equipped with up-to-date technology. But no amount of technology is a substitute for sound strategy. Warring automatons, no matter how ingenious, cannot save a nation that squanders its wealth on foreign misadventures and risks undermining the economic foundations that support its military establishment by throwing ever more money at defense contractors rather than productive investments in domestic infrastructure and private business.

This book is almost certainly the first time that a Brookings Institution scholar has used the term “frak” in print. But with luck, it won’t be the last. So say we all.

Politics

Lincoln announces opposition to Employee Free Choice.

By Ryan Powers on Apr 6, 2009 at 5:42 pm

Earlier today, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) announced that she would oppose the Employee Free Choice Act — which would make it easier for workers to organize unions — should it come up for vote in the Senate in its current form. Lincoln, who is running for reelection in 2010, is the first Democratic Senator to openly oppose the legislation. The AP reports:

“I cannot support that bill. I cannot support it in its current form,” Lincoln told those gathered for the luncheon at the governor’s mansion. “I may not have said that as clearly before, but I’m saying it now.” … “It is one of those issues that creates great division, as well as distraction, at a time when we need all hands on deck,” Lincoln said. [...]

“We need workers and we need business at the table, if we’re going to put this economy back on track, and I don’t think the discussion on the Employee Free Choice Act has helped us do that.”

The Arkansas-based Wal-Mart corporation had hired a former Blanche Lincoln staffer to lobby against the Employee Free Choice Act. Notably, Lincoln waited until after Vice President Biden helped her raise $800,000 before announcing her opposition to a piece of legislation that both Biden and Obama strongly support.

Related Posts

Climate Progress

Adirondack Mountain High? New Attack On Western Climate Initiative Uses New York To Stand In For Colorado

By Brad Johnson on Apr 6, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Written by Kalen Pruss, intern with the Energy Opportunity team at the Center for American Progress, and Brad Johnson.

Adirondacks vs. RockiesA right-wing think tank that questions the reality of climate change is speciously claiming that a study of gasoline taxes in South Carolina and New York is an honest analysis of a greenhouse pollution plan in the Rocky Mountain states. Oil and coal lobbyists are continuing their desperate drive to undermine the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), an effort by 11 western states and Canadian provinces to develop a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases. A previous smear effort — headed by the Western Business Roundtable, a conservative fossil-fuel industry group that includes Peabody Coal and Shell Oil — amounted to little more than an industry-funded PR campaign. The latest attempt, by the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) at Suffolk University, is similarly biased, sloppy, and deceptive.

BHI’s study, “The Economic Analysis of the Western Climate Initiative’s Regional Cap-and-Trade Program,” claims that WCI’s cap-and-trade program will cause severe “economic damage” to all its states. The misleading title hides the actual content of the study, which is a model of state fuel tax and fee increases, not of a cap-and-trade program. The authors gloss over this error in an appendix:

For the 100% permit auction assumption, we modeled the price increases an increase to the state fuel tax, in the case of households and the transportation sector, or a state fee, in the cases of the commercial and industrial sectors. We chose state fees and taxes because they best mirror how the cap-and-trade system that would (1) drive up electricity and fuel prices and (2) provide a stream of revenue to the participating states. For the 25% permit auction assumption we modeled the 25% of the price increase as a tax and 75% of the increase as an increase in the price index for the applicable sector.

The supposed “economic analysis” models an entirely different program–a straight-up energy tax that causes a specific price increase. In contrast, the WCI program allows the market to set the price of emissions allowances in a regional trading system. Despite the playground math of Republicans and right-wing think tanks, reputable economists have repeatedly noted that the value of a cap-and-trade market is dramatically different from its effect on consumer prices. In fact, 100% auction cap-and-trade systems enrich working and middle-class households, by rewarding work instead of pollution. The Western Climate Initiative should not (and cannot) be modeled as such by BHI’s State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP).

Furthermore, BHI doesn’t model the states that are actually part of the WCI. Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah are all left out, meaning only one out of seven states in WCI is actually modeled. Instead, BHI relied on “South Carolina, New York, Indiana and Pennsylvania”:

Currently Washington is the only the WCI state that BHI has an existing STAMP model. However, BHI has recently built STAMP models for a number of states outside the WCI areas: Washington, South Carolina, New York, Indiana and Pennsylvania. We were able to utilize these models to simulate the WCI price increases and derive the percentage changes in the economic variables of interest, such as employment and investment.

The authors seem to be of two minds on Washington, counting it both as a WCI state as well as being outside of the WCI area. They also have remarkably flexible definitions for “utilize” and “simulate.” You may as well “utilize” oranges to “simulate” an apple pie.

BHI has refused to tell the Wonk Room who commissioned their report. But the organization, part of the Roe Foundation network, has produced studies attacking climate change initiatives in Maryland, Colorado, and North Carolina, as well as a wind farm in the Nantucket Sound. Many of these studies were apparently commissioned by other regional Roe think tanks such as the John Locke Foundation and the Independence Institute.

Further, the lead author of this study, David G. Tuerck, currently the executive director of BHI, is the former director of the Center for Research and Advertising at the Exxon-fueled American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He is also a former policy expert of the climate change-denying Heritage Foundation, and is a well-known critic of government action aimed at preventing climate change. It has been during his tenure at Suffolk University that the anti-climate policy studies were released by BHI, which should come as little surprise.

Politics

Kentucky gun show features Obama-Hitler shirts and warnings to ‘prepare for Obama’s citizen army.’

By Amanda Terkel on Apr 6, 2009 at 5:06 pm

As ThinkProgress has noted, the right wing continues to escalate its fear-mongering that President Obama will take away Americans’ Second Amendment rights. In a New York Times op-ed this weekend, Charles Blow reported that such rhetoric “has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms.” On Saturday, the Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel went to the bi-annual Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot in Kentucky and saw this phenomenon first-hand:

obamaguns4.jpg

Weigel noted that all three boxes of the Hitler-Obama shirt had sold out by 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. In November, ThinkProgress went to The Nation’s Gun Show in Chantilly, VA, which featured similar fear-mongering. For example, an ad in the Washington Post for the event read, “GET YOUR GUNS WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!”

Related Posts

Media

When Is a Cartel Not a Cartel?

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm

200px_adamsmith.jpg

This seems mighty odd to me:

Allen Mutter reports that a number of CEO currently in San Diego for the Newspaper Association of America convention are holding a clandestine meeting to discuss, among other topics, whether and how to start charging readers to view articles and other content online. The presence of a lawyer in meant to ensure the conversation doesn’t stray into antitrust territory, whatever David Carr might wish. Still, one might think these executives — whose companies are, after all, competitors — might wish to keep any brilliant ideas about monetizing journalism to themselves. Chances are this confab will be less a workshop than a support group.

It seems to me that when your trade association is contemplating cartelization schemes that are so clearly illegal that you need to keep a lawyer on hand to ensure that you’re avoiding illegal cartelization schemes, you’re probably contemplating an illegal cartel. This would be like the Brownsville Boys having an attorney around to advise them how to make things look like suicide.

As Adam Smith wrote: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

Yglesias

The Gates/Obama Reform Budget

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 6, 2009 at 4:31 pm

gates.jpg

Let me quote Matt Duss’ Wonk Room post on today’s defense budget announcement:

I don’t think it’s overstating things to say that Defense Secretary Gates’ announcement of his 2010 defense budget recommendations represents an appreciable shift in the way that the United States approaches the issue of military acquisitions. Applying lessons learned in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as signifying a recognition that the continuing economic crisis places real constraints on defense spending, Gates’ recommendations are an important — but by no means comprehensive — move toward a responsible re-balancing of America’s defense priorities. [...]

Gates laid a shot across the bow of those in Congress who are likely to try and reinstate beloved boondoggles like the Airborne Laser and the F-22 Raptor, (which Gates recommended canceling after 187 are built) saying “I know that in the coming weeks we will hear a great deal about threats, and risk and danger -– to our country and to our men and women in uniform –- associated with different budget choices. Some will say I am too focused on the wars we are in and not enough on future threats.”

These are important shifts and this is audacious policy. Frankly, you’ve got to worry that it may be too audacious. The defense budget looks the way it looks because that’s how the key players in congress want it to look, and I don’t really know what Robert Gates or Barack Obama can do about that.

Older

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

Sign Up