ThinkProgress Logo

Justice

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Supporting Campaign To Oust Iowa Judges

By Igor Volsky on Aug 31, 2010 at 9:30 pm

Judge Walker’s decision against Proposition 8 in California only bolstered the ongoing conservative campaign to oust three judges who overturned an Iowa law banning same-sex marriage and now, at least three potential Republican presidential hopefuls — former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Senator Rick Santorum, and Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty — are tripping over themselves to endorse the Iowa effort:

- GINGRICH: “Iowans are unique in that they have the ability to send a very clear and simple message that the court’s behavior is unacceptable by just voting ‘no’ on the three judges who are up for reappointment. If a majority of Iowans vote ‘no,’ that will send a signal to the whole country that there is a citizens revolt under way.”

- SANTORUM: “People should decide issues, not courts. This court attempted to impose its values on society.”

- PAWLENTY: “The notion that judges stand for election is embedded in the Iowa Constitution…I would want to look at their records as a whole, but the extent that they have opined or decided they are not going to support traditional marriage, that’s not something I would agree with.”

Social issues like gay marriage may still be a driving force in Republican politics, but given Ken Mehlman’s recent admission of his homosexuality, Ted Olson’s strong advocacy for marriage equality, and the growing support for marriage equality in the states, gay issues aren’t as important in the conservative movement as they were just six years ago. As former McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt told Sam Stein today, “[t]here is a strong conservative case to be made in favor of gay marriage. Marriage is an institution that strengthens and stabilizes society. It is an institution that has the capacity to bring profound joy and happiness to people and it is a matter of equality and keeping faith of one of the charters of the nation, the right to live your life.”

“More and more conservatives are saying that opposition to gay marriage would not be a litmus test for membership in the GOP. And more conservatives are making the case that no more do you want big government conservatives in the bedroom than big government liberals telling you how to live your life,” he added.

Indeed, some conservatives are even questioning the ability of candidates like Gingrich to carry the so-called “values mantra.” Gingrich “is a super-smart man, but he doesn’t know anything about commitment to marriage,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said this past Friday of the thrice-married former House speaker. “He’s the last person I’d vote for for president of the United States. His life indicates he does not have a commitment to the character traits necessary to be a great president.”

Security

As Troops Come Home From Iraq, Iraqi Refugee Applicants Are Caught In Red Tape

By Andrea Nill Sanchez on Aug 31, 2010 at 8:00 pm

iraq-troop_1202915cToday, “combat operations” operations in Iraq came to an official and momentous end which will be marked by a speech from the Oval Office tonight. However, for the millions of displaced Iraqis abroad, the hell is far from over. In an op-ed published in today’s New York Times, student director of the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project Saurabh Sanghvi explains that we are also “leaving behind the thousands of Iraqis who worked on behalf of the American government — and who fear their lives and families are threatened by insurgents as a result.” There are currently 15,000 available “special immigration visas” (SIV) made available to the many Iraqis who have “provided faithful and valuable service to the U.S. Government,” however, almost 13,000 have gone unused.

Sanghvi notes that the surprising low participation rates are not for lack of will or interest, but rather, red tape and bureaucratic hoops. SVI applicants must first obtain a letter of clearance from the U.S. Embassy. A mistake as minor as using the wrong letterhead can delay an application for months. Then the applicant must send the paperwork through the unreliable Iraqi postal service to Nebraska before going through two more similar approval rounds that can each takes months to complete.

The SIV program was specifically implemented to bypass the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, or “the regular refugee program,” which many displaced Iraqis other than those who worked for the U.S. qualify for. However, at this point, even senior State Department officials admit that “the refugee program administratively is just easier to navigate.”

Sanghvi offers a few recommendations that the agencies involved in determining the fate of Iraqi SVI applicants should implement:

  • Gather information on Iraqi employees from contractors and internal databases so that they can verify the applicants’ employment records themselves.
  • Allow Iraqis to submit their applications by e-mail, and then bring their original documents to a subsequent interview.
  • Provide rejected applicants with sufficient information about why they were denied visas and a fair, transparent process for challenging the decisions.

    • Retired U.S. Air Force Major Dorian de Wind wrote last week, “As a nation that bears a special responsibility for the Iraq war and for the resulting humanitarian crisis, we can still reflect the ‘character of our nation’ by, as we leave Iraq behind, not leaving behind the helpless Iraqi refugees.” Meanwhile, President Obama has already warned troops in Fort Bliss, TX that “our task in Iraq is not over yet.” And it shouldn’t be considered over until the responsibility we have to those Iraqi men and women who risked their lives to work for the U.S. is fulfilled.

    Politics

    Ohio Tea Party Survey To Candidates: Reject Gay Rights, Let God Deal With Climate Change

    By Tanya Somanader on Aug 31, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    OHTPYesterday, after soliciting input from the GOP base, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) announced that “the long-awaited Republican manifesto” will be released after lawmakers return to Washington in September. One part of that base that has been particularly vocal and influential is the Tea Party. But while some Republicans view the Tea Party as toxic to the GOP, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has fully embraced the Tea Party’s input, stating that members “represent the same values, concerns” of “tens of millions of other Americans” and that “we should listen to them, we should work with them and we should walk amongst them.”

    If Boehner “walked among” Tea Party members in Erie County, OH, they may provide interesting insight for his new “manifesto.” As the Guardian’s Leo Hickman reports, a local Ohio newspaper the Sandusky Register obtained an email sent out last week by a local Tea party group called The Freedom Institute of Erie County. According to the email, the Tea Party group is creating a “Conservative voter guide” on the positions of candidates seeking office in upcoming elections in order to “rate, recommend, and endorse candidates” based on how they answer 15 questions. While such surveys may be fairly “mundane,” it’s the questions outlining the group’s priorities that provide, as Hickman puts it, “a hearty serving of insight with a side order of jaw drop”:

    Now let’s hear those 15 questions. (The document states that the respondents should give one of the following answers: A = Agree; D = Disagree; U = Undecided; A* = Pro-life with exceptions of Rape or Incest, * = Added comments; NR = No Response; CR = Incumbents Conservative Rating.)

    1. The Right to Life is a Constitutional right, therefore innocent human beings should have legal protection from conception until natural death. If you hold any exceptions please state them.
    2. The regulation of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere should be left to God and not government and I oppose all measures of Cap and Trade as well as the teaching of global warming theory in our schools.
    3. Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, any other type of Union is not marriage.
    4. Children should not be placed into foster homes where the parents are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender.
    5. Parental consent should be required for sex education that teaches more than direct abstinence.
    6. The second Amendment to the Constitution [the right to keep and bear arms] should not be weakened in any way.
    7. Only US citizens should be allowed to vote and a photo ID should always be required to vote. (The Mexican government requires a photo ID and fingerprint).
    8. I oppose Ohio’s State Income Tax.
    9. I oppose the Obama Health Care Reform and would like to see more affordable healthcare through a competitive, open, and transparent system.
    10. I oppose the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy of the military and believe that all same sex partners should be banned from combat duty in the military because of the propensity to transmit blood-borne diseases in the theatre of battle.
    11. I support a law that will allow the people to place on a ballot all collective bargaining agreements of all government associations, unions, and guilds, for their expressed approval. Defeat of such an agreement would mean government workers would not be immune from the free market system.
    12. I oppose card check for voting to implement a Union as this could give unions an unfair intimidation tactic to implement unionisation.
    13. I am not an economic pacifist. I believe that we need to protect our economic borders in order to ensure free and fair trade. Tariffs should be used to stop the wealth and jobs of Americans from leaving her borders.
    14. The Federal Reserve as it is currently conceived needs to be abolished or at the very least audited.
    15. I advocated moving our currency to a debt-free supply-side labour-based currency.

    The email’s author, the Freedom Institute Steering Committee member Jon P. Morrow, tells candidates to “please keep it short sweet and simple” as their answers will “reach 1,000+ Republicans and at least 4.000+ Independents that have a history of voting conservatively.”

    According to its website, the Freedom Institute’s purpose is to act as the government’s watchdog and to “raise funds to advocate, advertise, educate, and inform the public on constitutionally conservative positions and conservative candidates we endorse.” Membership only requires taking “the Patriots Oath” constructed by Iran Contra operative Oliver North and right-wing Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson. But ab endorsement, it seems, requires a rejection of LGBT rights and that environmental regulation be “left to God.”

    While Boehner has not outright endorsed the group’s principles listed in the survey, significant bastions of the conservative establishment, including the Heritage Foundation and the Koch-funded Cato Institute, are listed as “partners” of the group. President Obama, however, gets his own separate tab and title: “the enemy.”

    Security

    Obama Implemented CAP’s Progressive Plan For Ending Iraq War – Chaos Didn’t Ensue

    By Max Bergmann on Aug 31, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    iraq-redeployment-05Back in the fall of 2005, the Center for American Progress released a report called Strategic Redeployment, authored by Larry Korb and Brian Katulis. It argued for the redeployment of 80,000 troops from Iraq in 2006 to Afghanistan and other US bases in the Middle East and around the world. They then called for the rest of US combat forces to be withdrawn in 2007. The report concluded that:

    By the end of 2007, the only US military forces in Iraq would be a small Marine contingent to protect the US embassy, a small group of military advisors to the Iraqi Government, and counterterrorist units that works closely with Iraqi security forces.

    This report essentially laid a two-year timeline and while that timeline would shift up by a year in future documents, the central premise of the argument was that the US should set a date certain to prompt Iraqis to take control of their security and should withdraw its forces deliberately but responsibly in that period. It was the first Washington think tank report calling for withdrawal based on a fixed timeline.

    Last year, Laura Rozen in March 2009 Laura Rozen wrote a piece for the Cable asking “Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan: who won the think tank wars?” Rozen concluded that the centrist Center for New American Security, which came on the scene in Washington in 2007, had won the debate largely because they were getting jobs in the Gates Pentagon.

    But the CNAS approach was essentially an effort to find a centrist withdrawal strategy. As a result, CNAS advocated a more watered down, or “responsible” version of CAP’s plan with an extended timeline for withdrawal, leaving a very sizeable remaining force. In March of 2008 they released a policy brief titled the “case for conditional engagement,” which held that:

    A policy of conditional engagement—a nuanced middle position between “all in” or “all out”—offers a better chance of producing lasting progress in Iraq. Under this strategy, U.S. negotiators would make clear that Iraq and America share a common interest in achieving sustainable stability in Iraq, and that the United States is willing to help support the Iraqi government over the long-term, but only so long as Iraqis move toward political accommodation.

    One could argue that the Administration’s plan did include an aspect emphasized in CNAS’s plan to leave behind a large amount of advisors and trainers. But overall the CNAS plan has little resemblance to the plan put forth by Obama on the campaign and the plan that his administration implemented. There is little doubt that the Obama plan to set a date certain and to withdraw more than 120,000 troops in 16 months was essentially what CAP had been arguing for since the fall of 2005. In other words, Obama went with the progressive plan on Iraq.

    If one was listening to conservatives over the last half decade, this should have led to disaster. Yet chaos didn’t ensue. The world did not end. Arguments that the enemy would just “wait us out” or would be “emboldened” didn’t materialize. The only thing emboldened have been Iraq’s own security forces.

    Unfortunately, the mainstream media have yawned at this achievement and have largely bought the false conservative claim that this is because of the surge. But one should remember that if conservatives were in charge and John McCain had won the presidency the explicit plan was not to withdrawal troops. There was no conservative withdrawal plan. Instead of having just over 40,000 troops, there would almost assuredly be well over 100,000 troops still in Iraq. The reason there are just over 40,000 troops, is not because of the surge, it is because Obama decided to withdraw more than 100,000 troops.

    Climate Progress

    Geological Society: Acidifying oceans spell marine biological meltdown “by end of century”

    By Joe Romm on Aug 31, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    Co-author: “Unless we curb carbon emissions we risk mass extinctions, degrading coastal waters and encouraging outbreaks of toxic jellyfish and algae.”

    A unique ‘natural laboratory’ in the Mediterranean Sea is revealing the effects of rising carbon dioxide levels on life in the oceans. The results show a bleak future for marine life as ocean acidity rises, and suggest that similar lowering of ocean pH levels may have been responsible for massive extinctions in the past.

    That’s the opening (and headline) of a news release from the Geological Society of London.  The new study is “Modern seawater acidification: the response of foraminifera to high-CO2 conditions in the Mediterranean Sea” (subs. reqd.) in the latest Journal of the Geological Society.

    For background on ocean acidification, see Nature Geoscience: Oceans are acidifying 10 times faster today than 55 million years ago when a mass extinction of marine species occurred.

    The study identified a tipping point at “mean pH 7.8″:

    Read more

    Politics

    9/11 Victims’ Families Group: Sept. 11 Mosque Protests ‘Disrespect The Memories Of Our Loved Ones’

    By Alex Seitz-Wald on Aug 31, 2010 at 6:08 pm

    protest3 One of the chief arguments critics have employed against the construction of the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero in New York is that the center would be “insensitive” to the families of the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks. “[T]he overriding concern should be the sensitivities of the families of the victims,” wrote Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who surprised many by coming out against the Islamic center. “The question here is a question of sensitivity, people’s feelings,” said former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Some 9/11 families “are crying over this,” he added.

    But now a “key” 9/11 victims’ families group is breaking with the mosque opposition movement, demanding that an anti-mosque protest planned for September 11th be rescheduled, “and, if it isn’t, that participants back out.” In an email to members reposted by Politico, Dennis McKeon (who started the group Where to Turn as a clearinghouse of information about the attacks and subsequent plans to redevelop Ground Zero) wrote that any protests planned for the ninth anniversary of the attacks “disrespect the memories of our loved ones on this sacred day at this sacred site”:

    As most of you probably know there is a proposed protest rally against the mosque being planned for 9/11. There are also reports that there is a pro mosque rally in the works for 9/11 as well. … We have always stood against any rallies scheduled for September 11th and we will do so again with these events.

    We will be joining other 9/11 organizations in asking that the organizers change the date for these events. If they refuse to change the date we will also ask those scheduled to appear to withdraw from the events.

    Over the past 9 years more and more of what’s been going on at Ground Zero has excluded the families. …
    We will never support such activities that disrespect the memories of our loved ones on this sacred day at this sacred site.

    Indeed, while conservative critics have attempted to co-opt the families of the 9/11 victims for political purposes, painting them as monolithically opposed to the proposed community center, in reality, their opinions are split, much like those of other New Yorkers.

    The September 11th protest is to be the biggest yet, featuring former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, right-wing media tycoon Andrew Breitbart, and Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders, a proud hater of Islam. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scheduled to deliver a video address, but canceled under mysterious circumstances. The protest is being organized by anti-mosque crusader Pamela Geller, who has organized other demonstrations against the proposed center, and uses her blog Atlas Shurgs to pump out new smears against the project’s organizers every day.

    Related Posts

    Health

    Costs Of Expanding Medicaid Program May Be Lower Than They Appear

    By Igor Volsky on Aug 31, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Since health reform became law, states have expressed a great deal of anxiety about expanding their Medicaid programs, releasing studies demonstrating that the state portion of the expansion (the law expands the program to 133% of the FPL) would run in the billions of dollars. But now, a new report from the Urban Institute finds that the expanded population may be healthier than current Medicaid enrollees and that states can lower their Medicaid price tag by expanding their enrollment efforts:

    Results from our microsimulation model indicate that the adults who enroll in Medicaid under reform are likely to be more expensive to cover than those who remain uninsured but still not likely to be as expensive as those currently enrolled in Medicaid. [...]

    The higher the Medicaid participation rate among the eligible population of adults and the less adverse selection that occurs, the lower the average costs will be under reform, and the broader the mix of new enrollees will be in terms of health status. This does not mean that the new population covered by Medicaid will be uniformly in good health since there are still relatively high percentages in fair or poor health and with two or more chronic conditions within the underlying population. But on average, those newly covered are likely to be healthier and less costly than those who are currently enrolled.

    In other words, sates will have to expand their enrollment efforts to net healthier (and maybe younger) enrollees who are below the poverty line to balance the costs of covering the sicker population. But that may take some time. The study finds that “a high rate of adverse selection is especially likely in the initial period following implementation of the Medicaid expansion and the other major policy changes associated with health reform, as we expect that those with the greatest health needs will be among the first to enroll.”

    Fortunately, states will receive the highest federal matching fund during that critical early period. The federal government picks up the entire tab of Medicaid expansion until 2016 and then pay for 95% of the expansion in 2017, 94% in 2018, and 93% in 2019. As we get into the out years, however, it will be critical for states to enroll more people if they wish to lower their per capita spending.

    Yglesias

    Sabotage

    By Matthew Yglesias on Aug 31, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    250px-Ben_Bernanke_official_portrait 1

    Stan Collender muses on the possibility that congressional Republicans will attempt to pressure the Fed to deliberately tank the economy: “With Republican policymakers seeing economic hardship as the path to election glory this November, there is every reason to expect that the GOP will be equally as opposed to any actions taken by the Federal Reserve that would make the economy better, and that Republicans will openly and virulently criticize the Fed for even thinking about it. The criticism is likely to come both before any action is taken to try to stop it from happening and afterwards to make the Fed think twice about doing more.”

    I think this is pretty unfair in ascribing motives to the GOP. The goldbug outburst I noted this morning at the Heritage Foundation strikes me as stemming from a perfectly genuine strain of right-wing thinking that likes deflationary monetary measures.

    But it is interesting to note that Collender has accurately identified the objective incentive structure here. Something those of us taken with the political scientists’ view of how electoral outcomes are determined are often frustrated by is how few political professionals in Washington DC seem to share this view. But while it’s always nice when people start agreeing with you, there would actually be something potentially quite scary about a scenario in which the party that doesn’t control the White House started consciously acting to sabotage the economy at every turn. Under the circumstances, it may be a great blessing to the world that inaccurate views are widespread.

    Politics

    Sebelius Brushes Off Pawlenty’s Political Moves To Thwart Health Reform In His State

    By Igor Volsky on Aug 31, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    Whereas the overwhelming majority of states and governors who oppose the federal health care law are accepting its grants, Minnesota Governor and GOP Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty (R) is only interested in the abstinence-only portions of the law. Pawlenty has issued an executive order (EO) preventing the state from applying for any more federal funding, noting in campaign-like rhetoric that reform “represents a dramatic attempt to assert federal command and control over this country’s health care system” and “includes unprecedented federal intrusions into individual liberty”:

    NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby order that:

    All executive branch departments and agencies are directed that no application shall be submitted to the federal government in connection with requests for grant funding for programs and demonstration projects deriving from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA” or “the Act”) (Pub.L. 111-148) unless otherwise required by law, or approved by the office of the Governor.

    The order puts Pawlenty out of sync with many cities, counties, and businesses in his state — 97 of which applied for the law’s reinsurance grants. But the sheer transparency of Pawlenty’s effort was not lost on HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today, who when asked about the governor’s EO, visibly snickered before noting that Minnesota residents are already benefiting from reform:

    SEBELIUS: I’m afraid of citizens of Minnesota may be the victims of whatever it is that’s coming their way. I know we have companies from the great state of Minnesota who have applied to be part of this plan. … I know that we have seniors in Minnesota who have received $250 checks for prescription drug coverage because they have reached the prescription drug doughnut hole. … So I have no idea if those are the kinds of benefits he intends to eliminate for the citizens of Minnesota.

    Watch Sebelius’ reaction at 0:28:

    In the order, Pawlenty also notes that he has already determined that Minnesota will “not participate in the early expansion of the Medicaid entitlement program offered by the federal government as part of the legislation” or apply for federal grants that could help the state review unreasonable premium hikes.

    Cross-posted from The Wonk Room.

    Health

    Sebelius Brushes Off Pawlenty’s Political Moves To Thwart Health Reform In His State

    By Igor Volsky on Aug 31, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    Whereas the overwhelming majority of states and governors who oppose the federal health care law are accepting its grants, Minnesota Governor and GOP Presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty is only interested in the abstinence only portions of the law. Pawlenty has issued an executive order preventing the state from applying for any more federal funding, noting in campaign-like rhetoric that reform “represents a dramatic attempt to assert federal command and control over this country’s health care system” and “includes unprecedented federal intrusions into individual liberty“:

    NOW, THEREFORE, I hereby order that:

    All executive branch departments and agencies are directed that no application shall be submitted to the federal government in connection with requests for grant funding for programs and demonstration projects deriving from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA” or “the Act”) (Pub.L. 111-148) unless otherwise required by law, or approved by the office of the Governor.

    The order puts Pawlenty out of sync with many cities, counties, and businesses in his state — 97 of which applied for the law’s reinsurance grants. But the sheer transparency of Pawlenty’s effort was not lost on HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today, who when asked about the governor’s EO, visibly snickered before noting that Minnesota residents are already benefiting from reform:

    SEBELIUS: I’m afraid of citizens of Minnesota may be the victims of whatever it is that’s coming their way. I know we have companies from the great state of Minnesota who have applied to be part of this plan.…I know that we have seniors in Minnesota who have received $250 checks for prescription drug coverage because they have reached the prescription drug doughnut hole…. So I have no idea if those are the kinds of benefits he intends to eliminate for the citizens of Minnesota.

    Watch Sebelius’ reaction at :28:

    In the order, Pawlenty also notes that he has already determined that Minnesota will “not participate in the early expansion of the Medicaid entitlement program offered by the federal government as part of the legislation” or apply for federal grants that could help the state review unreasonable premium hikes.

    Older

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

    Sign Up