ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Corporate front group tweets approvingly about editorial equating Employee Free Choice Act with Nazism.

By Pat Garofalo on Jul 22, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Today, the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) — which is a corporate front group, “founded by several longtime Republican operatives,” that is lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — tweeted approvingly about an editorial in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that unequivocally equates EFCA with Nazism.

wfitweet1

The editorial says that “American public opinion came to the defense of the secret ballot when it was about to be junked. It needs to stay vigilant against these sly little provisions intended to achieve the same end”:

Have you noticed? Political parties supposedly dedicated to the workers’ welfare have a way of undermining their rights. They may begin by bullying management but wind up dictating to labor, too. And everybody else. For a European example to beware, note the sad history of the grandly named National Socialist German Workers Party, aka Nazis.

WFI’s Mark McKinnon has previously warned that EFCA is equatable with “tyrannies and socialism.” The group will not identify its funders, but National Journal reported that is likely funded by big retailers such as Wal Mart and Home Depot. The Center for Union Facts, another anti-EFCA front group that is run by super-lobbyist Rick Berman, also linked approvingly to the editorial.

Politics

Kit Bond says DeMint’s attack on Obama was ‘way off base.’

By ThinkProgress on Jul 22, 2009 at 8:00 pm

kit-bond1Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has been aggressively attacking President Obama recently, saying his efforts to reform health care will be his “Waterloo” and that it will ultimately “break him.” He’s also said the health care debate is “a real showdown between socialism and freedom.” When asked about DeMint’s charges during a conference call with local reporters, Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) called them “way off base.” The Hill reports:

“I didn’t like particularly the way that Sen. DeMint said it,” Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said in a conference call with Missouri reporters when asked if he agreed with DeMint’s sentiments on stopping the president’s spending.

“I think he was way off-base in his attack on the president,” added Bond, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of this term.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) also distanced himself from DeMint’s “Waterloo” comment yesterday saying, “I don’t think that’s a good way to look at it.”

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Somehow after writing about health care all day, every day for weeks the idea of a presidential press conference on health reform isn’t so thrilling:

— Lots of people have written interesting stuff on the Skip Gates arrest, but John McWhorter nicely plays against type here.

— Elsewhere, I can’t stop blogging about McDonald’s.

— Mort Klein of the Zionist Organization of America says calls for a settlement freeze are “racist.”

— San Francisco considers performance parking.

— Pelosi promises a public option.

I feel like I haven’t posted enough new stuff here lately, so song of the day is Amazing Baby’s “Headress”.

Politics

Glenn Beck likes to bring his gun to the movies.

By Ben Armbruster on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:08 pm

This afternoon, the Senate defeated an amendment sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) that would have allowed individuals with concealed carry gun permits to carry firearms into another state. Later on Fox News, Glenn Beck interviewed Thune to discuss the measure. “We’re going to disagree,” Beck warned Thune, but later, he made sure to present his gun-totin’ bona fides. “I’m a gun owner, and I’m a member of the NRA, and I am a concealed weapons permit holder. So, I mean, I love guns!” Beck boasted. He then aired a clip of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticizing concealed carry laws. “They’ll be able to go to the movies with guns and there will be nothing that our police officers can do about it,” Bloomberg complained. Beck then mocked Bloomberg’s concern:

BECK: I went to the movie this weekend with a gun. And surprise, surprise, I didn’t kill anybody!

Watch it:

Climate Progress

Sen. Byron Dorgan: The ‘Trade’ In Cap-And-Trade ‘Makes No Sense To Me’

By Brad Johnson on Jul 22, 2009 at 6:04 pm

In a speech on the Senate floor last Thursday, Sen. Byron Dorgan expressed his strong opposition to the establishment of a carbon market, sharply criticizing the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act, saying the bill would “find very little favor from me” if it were brought to a Senate vote:

Those in the Senate who are working very hard and talking about the issue of climate change and how we might want to cap carbon and what kind of a low-carbon future we might be able to do should understand at least there are some of us — and I certainly speak only for myself — who believe that cap-and-trade — quote, unquote around the “trade” — makes no sense to me. I don’t think we ought to embrace cap-and-trade, I think we ought to embrace a cap with different approaches.

And so, Mr. President, I will have more to say on this, but I wanted to explain at least as those who are writing this bill and attempting to take that which was produced in the House with 400-and-some pages on cap-and-trade, I want them to understand that some of us will resist very aggressively the “trade” side of “cap-and-trade.”

Watch it:

Dorgan’s concerns about “consigning our interest with respect to a carbon restrained future to a trading system of carbon securities that the biggest trading companies in the world have an interest in” have been widely noted, after he ran an op-ed that summarized his floor speech. Joe Romm wonders “if he is proposing to reduce emissions without using the free market,” and discusses how the carbon market established by Waxman-Markey would limit speculation and manipulation. Paul Krugman eviscerates Dorgan’s broadside attack on any kind of carbon market:

This is really bad — it’s not a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good, it’s a case of the perfect being an enemy of the planet.

“By all means keep a watchful eye on speculators and regulate derivatives — and make market manipulation illegal, as Waxman-Markey does,” Krugman writes. “But don’t apply standards to emissions trading that you don’t apply to any other market.” Thanks to Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Waxman-Markey also closes loopholes in existing energy markets. Brad Plumer notes that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have introduced legislation to establish even stronger carbon market regulation.

In his 18-minute speech, Dorgan reiterated his commitment to a “low-carbon future,” but said the Congress should not “create targets and timelines for CO2 emissions that are simply unachievable.” He argued that the energy legislation he helped craft in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee should be passed “first,” as he believes it “is a significant step toward the climate change challenge.”

In fact, the “targets and timelines” in Waxman-Markey — including a 14 percent reduction in current emissions levels and a renewable electricity standard of 15 percent by 2020 — are of course eminently achievable. Unfortunately, it is an open question whether such targets are sufficient to avoid climate catastrophe. Further, numerous studies have found that stronger targets lead to more innovation and job creation — just what the American economy needs now.

As Center for American Progress CEO John Podesta has pointed out, the Senate energy bill is “weak, toothless, and unacceptable.” In line with Bush-era energy bills, the bill fails to limit carbon pollution while promoting an expansion of fossil fuel production. Dorgan’s renewable standards are considerably weaker than the Waxman-Markey target, which itself is projected to have little effect on business-as-usual growth of clean energy. The Senate energy bill has helpful provisions for a clean, smart energy grid, but it is not comparable to the American Clean Energy and Security Act. A bill without mandated global warming pollution reductions simply does not address the “climate change challenge.”

Transcript: Read more

Related Posts

Politics

Alberto Gonzales says Sotomayor ‘should be confirmed.’

By Matt Corley on Jul 22, 2009 at 5:38 pm

Earlier today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Judiciary Committee, announced that he would vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is also on the committee, said he would vote for her. On NPR today, another prominent Republican, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, also endorsed Sotomayor’s confirmation:

MARTIN: And what is your assessment of that? What’s your view of that, if you got a vote? Which I recognize you’re saying you don’t, but if you had a vote, do you think she does?

GONZALES: Well, listen, based on the answers to the questions, I think that yes, she should be confirmed.

Listen here:

Gonzales had previously said that he believed Sotomayor was “well qualified” for the Supreme Court.

Security

Clinton: Hoping For The Best, Preparing For The Worst

By Matt Duss on Jul 22, 2009 at 5:27 pm

hillary-clinton-secretary-statepreview1Secretary of State Clinton’s statement earlier today that the U.S. would consider extending a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East if Iran continues down the path toward developing a nuclear capability were met with unhappiness in Israel:

Dan Meridor, Israel’s minister for secret services, told Army Radio that the comments imply a willingness to reconcile with the eventuality of a nuclear-armed Iran.

“I heard, unenthusiastically, the Americans’ statement that they will defend their allies in the event that Iran arms itself with an atomic bomb, as if they have already reconciled with this possibility, and this is a mistake,” Meridor told Army Radio. “Now, we don’t need to deal with the assumption that Iran will attain nuclear weapons but to prevent this.”

Interesting that Meridor was upset by Clinton’s language, given that Israel’s entire Iran policy seems to be based around the idea of assuming, and preparing for, the worst. But there’s no reason to think that Clinton is changing policy here — she’s acknowledging the possibility of a bad outcome, and letting Iran, and U.S. allies, know that the U.S. prepared for that eventuality. Certainly, language and signaling matters in politics, especially in international politics, but it seems pretty silly to insist that U.S. government officials simply refrain from publicly addressing the possibility that Iran continues down it’s current uncooperative course.

The New York Times reports Clinton as saying “We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment that if the U.S. extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it’s unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate, as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon.”

“[Iran] faces the prospect, if it pursues nuclear weapons, of sparking an arms race in the region,” Mrs. Clinton said. “That should affect the calculation of what Iran intends to do, and what it believes is in its national security interest.”

Clinton was making clear that, whatever benefits the Iranian regime hopes to realize from the development of a nuclear weapons capability, the United States is prepared to make sure the costs will be far higher.

Meanwhile, the offer of engagement remains on the table, and it can’t be stressed enough that President Obama’s outreach to the Middle East, and to Iran specifically, has been essential to making clear that it is not the U.S. that is the recalcitrant party, and making stark the choice that faces the Iranian government right now.

Related Posts

Yglesias

Dude, Where’s My Sperm?

By Matthew Yglesias on Jul 22, 2009 at 5:26 pm

I’ve been freaking myself out over the past 24 hours by reading Reece Rushing’s CAP report on dangerous chemicals impairing American fertility. For the fellows, there’s reduced sperm count:

spermcount

And the ladies aren’t being spared either:

rr_fig1

What’s to blame? Well:

The following slides provide an overview of this problem and spotlight three chemical groups—phthalates, Bisphenol A, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers—that are linked to reproductive health consequences, including miscarriages, endometriosis, male genital defects, low sperm count, and others. Phthalates and BPA are found in toys, food containers, cosmetics, and many other consumer products. PBDEs are used as flame retardants in household furniture and electronics. Other chemicals also threaten reproductive health, but these three are among the most prevalent in the daily lives of all Americans and are just starting to receive serious attention from the U.S. Congress and federal regulators.

Nick Kristof wrote about some closely related issues, including intersex fish and frogs with extra legs. Be afraid. The overwhelming urgency of the climate change issue has tended to push other environmental concerns off the table, but dangerous chemicals are still bad.

Climate Progress

Harvard stunner: “Realistic” first-generation CCS costs a whopping $150 per ton of CO2 — 20 cents per kWh!

By Joe Romm on Jul 22, 2009 at 5:00 pm

Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs has published a blockbuster study, “Realistic Costs of Carbon Capture.” The paper concludes that First-of-a-Kind (FOAK) carbon capture and storage plants are going to be much more expensive than most people realize:

1.  The costs of carbon abatement on a 2008 basis for FOAK IGCC plants are expected to be approximately $150/tCO2 avoided (with a range $120-180/tCO2 avoided), excluding transport and storage costs….

This yields “levelised cost of electricity on a 2008 basis is approximately 10¢/kWh higher with capture than for conventional plants.“  So pick your favorite price for new coal plants — Moody’s said last year that is about 11¢/kWh — and add 10¢ and you get 20+¢/kWh.

We’re talking nuclear power prices (see “$26 Billion cost “” $10,800 per kilowatt! “” killed Ontario nuclear bid“).

But all is not lost for CCS, because we have many optimistic assumptions yet to be thrown in:

Read more

Politics

Ohio legislator’s bill dictates that men should have final say on abortion.

By Nate Carlile on Jul 22, 2009 at 4:50 pm

johnadamswebState Rep. John Adams (R-OH) has re-introduced radical legislation that would prevent a woman from having an abortion until she gets written consent from the biological father. As proposed, the bill triggers criminal penalties against women for “providing a false biological father.” Adams says the “first-degree misdemeanor” would be punishable with up to “six months” in jail and a “$1,000 fine.” Labeled by Adams as a “father’s right bill,” the lawmaker would give men the final say on abortion in the state of Ohio:

In the case where the father isn’t known, House Bill 252 would compel the woman to provide a list of names of people who may be the father in an effort to determine paternity. The bill also would make it a crime for women to lie about who the father is, and make it illegal for doctors to perform abortions without the father’s consent.

The bill would force a woman to have a child if the father does not agree to an abortion.

“That child should be born, not killed,” Adams said.

Adams first introduced the legislation in 2007. Already, this bill has at least 15 co-sponsors. Pro-Choice Ohio issued a statement saying Adams’ bill “is a clear attack on a woman’s freedom and privacy.” AJ at Feminists For Choice says the bill is “another mechanism for demonizing and isolating women who have sex.” (HT: Pam’s House Blend)

Older

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

Sign Up