ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Do GOPers Taking Campaign Funds From DeMint Agree With His Extreme Views On Unmarried Women, Gays?

jim-demintSen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Senate, has made a name for himself by supporting tea party insurgents against establishment Republican candidates in this year’s hotly-contested primaries. For instance, he supported Rand Paul over Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) preferred candidate and endorsed Joe Miller over his own Senate colleague Lisa Murkowski in Alaska. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) called this behavior “a new and shocking development.” Some new and revealing comments DeMint made over the weekend are likely to cause even more division among Republicans, while also providing yet further evidence of the tea party’s hostile takeover of the GOP.

Speaking to the “Greater Freedom Rally” on Saturday at a church in Spartanburg, SC, DeMint actually advocated for fewer basic freedoms for gays and unmarried women. According the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, DeMint “said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.” These comments come just days after DeMint and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully blocked approval of a National Women’s History Museum, on the grounds that it unnecessarily duplicated existing local museums honoring quilters and cowgirls, and other sites such as a lilac garden in Washington state.

While DeMint’s extreme statements and tea party endorsements have grabbed headlines, less well-known is the fact that two political action committees controlled by DeMint — MINT PAC and the Senate Conservatives Fund — are spending millions of dollars to elect GOP candidates from coast-to-coast. According to OpenSecrets.org and a ThinkProgress review of the most independent expenditure reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, DeMint’s PACs have lavished nearly $2 million on fifteen GOP candidates whose success or failure at the ballot box will determine which party controls the Senate in the 112th Congress. The beneficiaries of his largesse include:

– Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio: $406,250

– Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck, who famously implored GOP primary voters to choose him over his rival Jane Norton because he “[doesn]’t wear high heels”: $359,654

– Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, herself a former teacher: $337,903

– Utah Senate candidate Mike Lee: $251,945

– Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller: $180,067

– Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell: $130,326

– Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul: $79,421

– Pennsylvania Senate candidate Pat Toomey: $68,796

– Wisconsin Senate candidate Ron Johnson: $51,858

– Washington Senate candidate Dino Rossi: $37,000

– South Dakota Senate candidate John Thune: $7,500

– North Carolina’s Richard Burr, Georgia’s Johnny Isakson, Ohio’s Rob Portman, and Indiana’s Dan Coats have each received $5,000.

The Hill reported last Friday that DeMint plans to spend hundreds of thousands more on another round of television ads targeting his Democratic Senate colleagues Harry Reid (NV), Michael Bennet (CO), and Russ Feingold (WI) in order to further aid challengers Angle, Buck, and Johnson. One wonders whether these and other GOP candidates, including rumored 2012 hopeful Sen. John Thune (R-SD), will continue to accept money and support from their putative leader or whether they will disavow DeMint’s hateful and extreme attack on unmarried women and gays by returning his money and refusing any further support.

Health

Health Insurers Fund GOP, Secretive Attack Groups To Weaken Reform

Lee Fang points out that after spending millions on trying to kill health care reform, insurers have “massively shifted their campaign giving to Republicans,” and independent groups dedicated to defunding or repealing the law — including this one run by veteran Republican lobbyist Scott Reed to run ads against Democrats:

Meanwhile, lobbyist Reed’s fledgling Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity, a 501 (c) (4) raised over half its $25 million goal to run ads in 20 House districts and a few Senate contests, Reed says. Where’s the dough coming from? “The big three stepping into the batter’s box are the financial services industry, the energy industry, and the health insurance industry,” Reed said.

Reed credits the recent Supreme Court ruling knocking down nearly a century of campaign finance laws with the increased fundraising haul for Republican attack groups. “Citizens United opened the door for the unparalleled participation by corporations at the financial level,” Reed told reporter Peter Stone. Earlier this year, Bloomberg reported that the health insurance industry met and planned a $20 million dollar “war chest” to be used against its opponents during the election this year. It is still unclear if Reed’s group or the Tea Party caucus donations are part of that fund.

Publicly, the industry is singing a different tune. Issuers have nominally agreed to assist the administration with implementation and promised to work with the government to implement the new provisions — which they claim to fully support.

But they also have their own interests in mind. Not only are insurers leaving certain markets, and raising rates as they see fit, they’re also trying to protect themselves for all of the new regulations and fees. The industry has watched as Democrats — led, most recently by the six Democratic Committee chairman with jurisdiction over health care — argued that insurers should have to abide by a strict interpretation of the law and spend 80 to 85% of premium dollars on health care and contrasted that approach to Republican senators, many of whom recently took to the Senate floor to speak out against any effort to review insurance premium increases. That kind of hands off approach is exactly what they’re purchasing with their contributions.

Therefore, insurers’ donations shouldn’t be interpreted as an industry endorsement of the GOP’s repeal efforts or its attack on the individual mandate — which could make the industry millions. The industry is turning to the Republican party not so that it could repeal the entire law — that seems highly unlikely — but so that it can push for favorable regulations that don’t cut into industry profits. And, the GOP is obliging.

Climate Progress

(Astro)Turf Wars: New Documentary Explores Corporate Influence Over Tea Parties

Since the beginning of 2008, ThinkProgress and the Wonk Room have been closely tracking the hidden influence of the corporate right over national politics, including pollution billionaires David and Charles Koch, mountaintop removal kingpin Don Blankenship, and big oil’s vast front group networks. These polluter magnates have worked with Republican operatives to shape the Tea Party movement that has redefined American politics.

Now, a new documentary fully exposes how front groups like the Kochs’ Americans for Prosperity, Energy Citizens, and Blankenship’s Friends of America have taken populist discontent during a Democratic presidency and redirected it to their radical right-wing corporate agenda of global warming pollution, regressive taxation, and health-care profiteering. In (Astro)Turf Wars, Australian filmmaker Taki Oldham journeys from Philadelphia to West Virginia, interviewing angry grassroots conservatives and the corporate public relations experts who are manipulating them. Going undercover at several Tea Party rallies, Oldham has exclusive coverage of how corporate profiteers are attempting to bring the United States government back under their thumb.

Watch the trailer:

The complete documentary can be seen online for $1.99 at astroturfwars.com.

(HT Kevin Grandia)

Media

National Review Writers Defend County Whose Subscription-Only Firefighters Watched Home Burn Down

selfishness As ThinkProgress reported earlier this morning, South Fulton firefighters from Obion, Tennessee, last week stood by and watched as a family’s home burned down because their services were available by subscription only, and the family had not paid the $75 fee. As ThinkProgress noted, the case perfectly demonstrated conservative ideology, which is based around the idea of the on-your-own society and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well-off and privileged.

Now, leading conservative authors from modern conservatism’s bulkhead magazine, The National Review, have come out in defense of Obion County firefighters’ policy of servicing rural citizens by paid subscription only. The magazine’s commentary on the issue started with a blog post by Daniel Foster, one of the magazine’s staff writers. Writing on the National Review blog The Corner, Foster condemned the behavior of the county, saying that while he has “no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle,” he sees no “moral theory” under which the firefighters would be justified in watching the house burn down:

I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?

Yet, Foster’s fellow conservative writers found it hard to tolerate his view that families shouldn’t have to watch their homes burn down as firefighters stand there with their hoses. First, Kevin Williamson responded, comparing the family whose home was destroyed to “jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates”:

Dan, you are 100 percent wrong. [...] And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.

Next came Jonah Goldberg, who said that while the story is “sad,” it will probably “save more houses over the long haul” because more people will pay for the subscription fire service:

Here’s the more important part of the story, letting the house burn — while, I admit sad — will probably save more houses over the long haul. I know that if I opted out of the program before, I would be more likely to opt-in now. No solace to the homeowner, but an important lesson for compassionate conservatives like our own Dan Foster (Zing!). As Edmund Burke said, example is the school of mankind and he will learn from no other.

Finally, John Derbyshire joined in. The writer said he was “entirely with the South Fulton fire department” and then launched into a complicated analogy explaining that the firefighters’ actions inject certainty into the surrounding society:

Dan, Kevin: I am entirely with the South Fulton fire department here. In the terms of Nico Colchester’s great 1996 essay, they are being crunchy rather than soggy:

Crunchy systems are those in which small changes have big effects leaving those affected by them in no doubt whether they are up or down, rich or broke, winning or losing, dead or alive. … Sogginess is comfortable uncertainty. … The richer a society becomes, the soggier its systems get. Light-switches no longer turn on or off: they dim.

One of the duties of conservatives in this soggy fallen world is to stand up for crunchiness. For the fire department to have extinguished the Cranicks’ fire would have been soggy, even aside from the considerable degree of sogginess it would have left on the property.

It has been 28 years since conservative historian Doug Wead first coined the term “compassionate conservative.” It now appears that if any such philosophy ever existed, it has few adherents in the modern conservative movement.

Featured

P.D. writes, “What a disgrace! What if a person was in the house? A pet? This is utter insanity.”

Yglesias

Endgame

I know you can’t appreciate it:

— The brave new world of massive undisclosed special interest spending in political campaigns.

The Social Network is more misogynistic than the reality.

— The Swedish Education System explained in a convenient English-language flash thingy.

— Glenn Beck’s Hitler fetish.

— China’s shipbuilding boom.

Patent trolls are a hugely underrated problem.

DC had some cool rainy weather today, which is my favorite (I really need to visit Portland/Seattle/Vancouver one of these days) because “I’m Only Happy When It Rains”.

Security

While Defending Meg Whitman, Megyn Kelly Contradicts Fox News Reporting On No-Match Letters

Today, Fox News host Megyn Kelly vehemently defended California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R), whose housekeeper of nine years, Nicky Diaz Santillan, came out last week claiming that Whitman employed her for nine years and knew she was an undocumented immigrant, but turned a blind eye. Whitman has flatly denied Diaz Santillan’s allegations, saying she stopped employing Nicky Diaz Santillan as soon as she learned of her immigration status shortly before she decided to run for governor in 2009. However, Diaz Santillan’s lawyer produced a 2003 letter addressed to the Whitman family from the Social Security Administration stating Diaz Santillan’s name didn’t match her Social Security number. The letter included a handwritten note from Whitman’s husband, suggesting the family knew of Diaz Santillan’s status.

In her interview Diaz Santillan attorney, Gloria Allard, Kelly insisted that the Whitman family had no legal obligation to do anything upon receiving the letter:

KELLY: There was a red flag raised and they asked Meg Whitman to follow up on it. But Gloria as you know, legally, legally, she had no obligation to follow up on that letter. And if she had questioned her maid, Nicky Diaz, about her legal status after Nicky had provided her with a drivers’ license and a Social Security Number and asserted under the penalty of perjury that she was in this country legally, Meg Whitman could’ve been subject to a discrimination violation.

ALLARD: Well I totally disagree with you –

KELLY: No, that is a fact! That is a factual statement of the law.

Watch it:

However, the website of Kelly’s employer provides a different interpretation of the law. According to an article posted on the Fox News website in 2007 entitled “What to Do If You Get a No-Match Letter From Social Security Administration” an employer must follow “reasonable steps” outlined by the Department of Homeland Security upon receiving what is commonly referred to as a “no-match letter.” Those steps do include verifying the employee’s documents and asking the employee to resolve the situation. But, according to Fox News, “The bottom line is that the discrepancy will only be considered resolved when and if the information sync with the records of SSA or DHS.” “Discrepancies are to be resolved within 90 days of receiving a no-match letter,” instruct Fox News. “If they are not, the employer can take action to terminate the employee; or ‘face the risk that DHS may find that the employer had constructive knowledge that the employee was an unauthorized alien and therefore, by continuing to employ the alien,’ be found in violation of the law.”

It’s true that by firing Diaz Santillan, Whitman and her husband could’ve opened themselves up to a potential discrimination lawsuit. However, nowhere on the Fox News website is this warning issued. Instead, Fox News coverage of no-match letters usually is reported from an angle that simply presumes that employers will fire employees who can not clarify their immigration status after receiving a no-match letter attached to their name.

Chances are if the tables were reversed and Whitman’s opponent, Jerry Brown (D-CA), was being accused of receiving a no-match letter concerning one of his employees, Kelly would not be so understanding of the legal quandary that no-match letters present to employers.

Finally, Kelly overlooks the irony of the situation. Whether or not Whitman knew Diaz Santillan is undocumented in 2003 or in 2009, and whether or not the Whitman family did the “right” thing concerning the no-match letter, her immigration platform doesn’t line up with her own experiences with the immigration system. Whitman rejects comprehensive immigration reform and a path to legalization in favor of a militarized border and a harsh crackdown on immigrants and those who employ them. “If we don’t hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem,” said Whitman. However, if Whitman can’t even hold herself accountable for hiring an undocumented worker how can she hold others accountable?

Politics

Pence’s Priorities: Stopping Marriage Equality Is As Important As Fixing The Economy

Pence2 Rep. Mike Pence’s (R-IN) surprise win of the presidential straw poll at the Values Voters summit last month has generated speculation that he is positioning himself for a White House bid as a champion of social conservatives, who have been somewhat pushed aside by the tea party’s focus on economic issues.

On Saturday night, Pence traveled to Iowa — a key state for any presidential hopeful — to speak at the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition dinner. The Iowa Independent reports that Pence made an “impassioned plea” for the audience to vote this November in order to “protect your Christian values and freedom.” In his speech, Pence suggested that advancing socially conservative policy is more important than fixing the economy, bizarrely implying that marriage equality will further damage the economy:

Pence said although economic issues are important for the country right now, its a lack of morality that pains the nation most. Everything that is great about America, he said, could come crashing down because of the lack of values in Washington.

“We will not restore this nation with public policy alone,” he said. “It will require public virtue and that emanates from the traditional institutions of family and religion.”

He continued by shooting down sentiments that moral issues must wait until the failing economic climate passes. Moral issues, he argued, are the bedrock of the American nation.

To those who say that marriage doesn’t matter, I say, ‘you would not be able to print enough money in 1,000 years to pay for the government you would need if the traditional family continues to collapse.’”

Beyond its insensitivity to gay Americans, Pence’s prioritization of preventing marriage equality over fixing the economy if an affront to the 15 million unemployed Americans who, regardless of their stance on social issues, no doubt see joblessness as a more pressing threat than two men getting married.

Meanwhile, polling indicates that the economy is by far the most important issue for Americans, while a slight majority of the public now favor same-sex marriage. Reflecting this, Pence has presented a very different message when speaking to anyone outside of far-right Christian groups. In an interview with Radio Iowa two days before his speech, Pence said, “Creating policies that will open the doors of opportunity to families during this difficult economy and create jobs has to be the first priority and I believe will be the first priority if Republicans are given another opportunity to lead.” Late last month, Pence told ABC news that “the most important things to do right now” are to “[g]et this economy moving again, get spending under control, reform government.” Pence has even attacked President Obama for supposedly not priortizing the economy.

Pence seems to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth, depending on who’s listening. When speaking to social conservatives, who may be a crucial base for a presidential bid, Pence dwells on their unpopular issues; but when speaking to the country as a whole, he focuses the economy — something that actually matters to most Americans.

Yglesias

Terror Alerts Are Useless

The State Department did something a bit funny Sunday morning and put out a travel alert warning people who might be thinking of going to Europe that al Qaeda might kill them if they do so. “Terrorists,” their release helpfully clarified, “may elect to use a variety of means and weapons and target both official and private interests.” Scary stuff.

Meanwhile, I was up early Sunday morning and I like to travel so I thought I’d try an experiment and ask my Twitter followers if anyone was canceling European travel plans and wanted to hand some free tickets and/or hotel rooms over to me. But unfortunately for me, the American people (or at least the 14,000 or so who follow me on Twitter) are too sensible for that. I’m a bit sad I didn’t score my free trip, but of course it’s the alternative scenario that was really terrifying. What if tens of thousands of people really had canceled their business travel or tourism plans, disrupting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of commerce? It would have been among the greatest coups in the history of al Qaeda, and achieved without a shot. All of which raises the question: What on earth are the pointing of these alerts, and why on earth can’t the government get out of the business of self-defeating cautionary notes that are disconnected from any conceivable course of action?

Read the rest at The Daily Beast.

LGBT

NOM Tries To Link Its Anti-Marriage Message To Economic Anxieties

In an election year relatively devoid of LGBT campaign issues, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — a conservative group that lobbies against marriage equality — has launched a new attack ad against New Hampshire Governor John Lynch (D), who last year signed a law legalizing same-sex marriages in the state. The ad alleges that Lynch broke his promise on taxes, prison reform and same-sex marriage, the latter of which has now allowed him to raise “thousands” form “out-of-state gay marriage activists“:

ANNOUNCER: And gay marriage?

LYNCH: I do not support gay marriage.

ANNOUNCER: Lynch signed gay marriage into law and now he’s raising thousands from out-of-state gay marriage activists. John Lynch has changed but not for the better.

Watch it:

Lynch’s campaign claims that the governor simply listened to the needs of his constituents, 55 percent of whom now say they support same-sex marriage (despite efforts by conservatives to repeal the law.) But it’s an interesting commentary on the state of anti-gay activism when NOM — which has fared horribly in recent elections — is forced to pair its ‘traditional marriage’ message with an economic/spending package (i.e. something voters actually care about).

Climate Progress

Hottest September in satellite record; new daily high temperature records outpace record lows by 5-to-1

ENDLESS SUMMER:  September was the hottest on record globally in the RSS satellite dataset.  In this country, the record-smashing temperatures in Southern California got most of the attention (see “No on Prop 23: It’s getting HOT out here!“)

But, as Steve Scolnik of CapitalClimate reports, “that event was just one of literally thousands of daily high temperature records set in the U.S. during September,” continuing a trend that has persisted for almost the entire year.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oy2DMM6iwUU/TKo3kxZuF5I/AAAAAAAABz0/atyImuK90d4/s1600/temp.records.100410.gif

I like the statistical aggregation across the country, since it gets us beyond the oft-repeated point that you can’t pin any one record temperature on global warming.  If you want to know how to judge whether the 5.2-to-1 ratio for September is a big deal, here’s what a 2009 National Center for Atmospheric Research study found for “1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States” over the past six decades (see “Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.“):

Read more

Older

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

Sign Up