ThinkProgress Logo

LGBT

DADT STUDY: Majority Of Troops Would Not Object To Serving Alongside Gay Soldiers

By Igor Volsky on Oct 28, 2010 at 10:09 pm

Tonight, NBC News’ Richard Engel has learned some early results from the Pentagon’s Working Group study of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. According to military sources who have seen the report, a majority of American troops would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers:

ENGEL: The findings are that for most soldiers, and this wasn’t the sum total of all soldiers, it wasn’t that big of a deal…The majority — the number one answer, first answer was ‘I don’t care.’ That’s significant.

MADDOW: Predominant answer is ‘no big deal.’

ENGEL: Most common, number one. Number two was, ‘I would deal directly with the person involved.’ So when you put the two of those together, it is the majority. Now, there were some people who said, three, they would go to the chain of command and some four, who hated it, hated it. But the answers one and two are considered positive. So these studies show a relative if not positive outlook, at least an accepting outlook.

MADDOW: So the military study is, as you said, the survey of the troops is part of it. It’s an overall study of the feasibility of the issue….this survey of the troops, what you’ve learned is that a majority of troops it’s not going to be a major deal.

ENGEL: Not a deal breaker, that they they’re not going to be running from the army in droves. A key thing this study kept coming back to is that it’s very important about the chain of command. What commanders say. How far commanders act. What tone they set. The marines were the most negative out of the services. They had the most people who were — with negative responses. And the marine corps leadership has taken a stance and has been very vocally against this issue. And the study found that most soldiers and sailors and all different service members follow a chain of command. So if the chain of command accepts this as the law, the data is that so will the soldiers.

Watch it:

The study, which Engel described as the ‘core’ of the Pentagon’s review, is particularly significant since moderate Republicans have pledged to listen to the troops before voting to repeal the policy. In fact, when Republican (and several Democrats) filibustered the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — the bill in which the amendment to repeal the ban is housed — most argued that their final vote would depend on the study. Now that the results seem positive, they should have no reason to oppose the measure:

– SEN. OLYMPIA SNOWE (R-ME): “We should all have the opportunity to review that [DADT] report which is to be completed on December 1, as we reevaluate this policy and the implementation of any new changes.”

– SEN. SCOTT BROWN (R-MA): “The Pentagon is still in the midst of its study of the matter, and its report is due in December…. I am keeping an open mind, but I do not support moving ahead until I am able to finish my review, the Pentagon completes its study, and we can be assured that a new policy can be implemented without jeopardizing the mission of our military.”

– SEN. GEROGE VOINOVICH (R-OH): “The DREAM Act deals with immigration and shouldn’t be on this bill. ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a controversial issue that needs to be debated on the Senate floor but I believe it would be logical to wait for the Department of Defense to issue its report on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): “I do not support the idea of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell before our military members and commanders complete their review. This so-called compromise would repeal the legislation first then receive input from the military. This is not the proper way to change any policy, particularly something as controversial as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

– SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): “Let’s let the military professionals work through their process. I’d hate to kind of short-circuit that with congressional action, so I’d rather let that occur before we start making policy here on ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

The final results are due the first week of December. Earlier today, Alex Nicholson of Servicemembers United outlined a strategy for how advocates could use the study to urge the Senate to repeal the policy in the lame duck session.

Media

How The ‘US’ Chamber Uses Its Money To Pay Pundits, Manipulate Google, And Create Fake News Outlets

By Lee Fang on Oct 28, 2010 at 8:00 pm

Earlier this month, ThinkProgress published an exclusive series of investigative pieces into the fundraising program of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the far right corporate lobbying juggernaut. We uncovered millions from corporations like Procter and Gamble, outsourcing giant CSC, and Microsoft, but also discovered that the Chamber has been actively fundraising from foreign corporations like the Bahrain Petroleum Company and the State Bank of India. We provided documentation for over 80 foreign corporations donating at least $885,000 to the same Chamber 501(c)(6) general account the Chamber is now using to run an unprecedented $75 million attack campaign against Democrats.

Responding to our posts, the Chamber launched a massive smear campaign using its large in-house communications staff and a network of well funded public relations firms:

– Manipulating Google And Blogs: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce retains public relations giant Fleishman-Hillard for much of their online communications work. Fleishman-Hillard VP Pat Cleary posts on the Chamber’s blog, and says he works closely with conservative bloggers through RedState. Other Chamber lobbyists collaborate routinely with conservative bloggers through the Heritage Foundation’s Bloggers Briefing to help get the message out for business lobbyists. As Cleary has told conferences of business lobbyists, he helps trade associations like the Chamber buy AdWords to promote the business lobby’s message. For example, when anyone Googles the words “US Chamber” and “foreign,” they see a link to the Chamber’s false response that it receives only $100,000 from foreign affiliates.

– Paying For Television Pundits: GOP lobbyist John Feehery has appeared on cable television to attack ThinkProgress’ reporting, taken to Twitter call President Obama a “business-hating socialist” for calling attention to this story, and even penned an article in The Hill newspaper to defend the Chamber and lie about our investigation. Feehery never mentioned the foreign corporate direct donations to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6). But more importantly, neither The Hill nor any of television outlets Feehery appears on disclosed the fact that Feehery’s public relations firm, The Feehery Group, counts the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as one of its clients. Shortly after our story broke, Feehery was hired by another public relations/lobbying firm, Quinn Gillespie, which is also a client of the Chamber. Moreover, Fox News’ parent company is an active member of the Chamber, and hate-talker Glenn Beck met with the Chamber’s second in command earlier this year to plot the 2010 election. While Fox hosts and Beck have endlessly defended the Chamber’s secret money, there has been no disclosure of the network’s financial ties to Chamber lobbyists.

– The Chamber Owns Fake News Sites: As the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard reported, the Chamber owns a variety of news websites in West Virginia, Illinois, and elsewhere, while also maintaining a wire service called Legal Newsline. All of these websites posture as independently owned and objective journalism outfits, and do not disclose that they are fully owned subsidiaries of Chamber lobbyists.

Unfortunately, the Chamber’s sophisticated smear campaign deceived many reputable media organizations into distorting our reporting. Reporters from the New York Times (Eric Lichtblau), the Associated Press (Alan Fram, Jim Kuhnhenn), McClatchy (David Lightman), Time (Mark Halperin), and other outlets misrepresented ThinkProgress’ reporting by refusing to acknowledge any of our key revelations about the Chamber’s foreign fundraising (the fundraising documents we published, the Bahrainian or Indianian corporate donations). None of these reporters directly contacted ThinkProgress, and instead opted to only interview Chamber lobbyists.

In many cases, these traditional reporters reprinted the Chamber’s lie that it only fundraises from foreign affiliates called AmChams, and that AmChams are composed of only American companies (this has been thoroughly debunked). Ignoring ThinkProgess’ reporting, these journalists reprinted the Chamber’s unproven assertion that it only accepts $100,000 from foreign affiliates. In other cases, these reporters reprinted the Chamber’s false claim that its political operation is equivalent to labor unions. In fact, labor unions face double disclosure because they must reveal their donors to the public through both the Department of Labor and the Federal Election Commission. The Chamber, on the other hand, refuses to disclose both its American and foreign donors to anyone. Although ThinkProgress has demonstrated that the Chamber receives at a minimum of $885,000 in foreign cash every year to its primary 501(c)(6) campaign account, few journalists have bothered to cover the thrust of our story.

Related Posts

Security

Corker Says Defense Cuts Have To Be ‘On The Table,’ Because ‘There’s A Lot Of Waste There’

By Zaid Jilani on Oct 28, 2010 at 7:00 pm

This past Friday, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) guest hosted CNBC’s Squawk Box. The senator covered a variety of topics while hosting the show, including his belief that Republicans should and will alter the recently passed health care bill instead of simply repealing it.

At one point, the Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen explained that the show received e-mails asking them to ask Corker “what he wants to cut” in order to reduce the budget deficit. Corker responded that “everything need to be on the table.” Kernen followed up by asking, “Everything’s on the table? Defense? Entitlements?” Corker once again replied, “Everything! I mean look, Secretary Gates will tell you there’s a lot of waste there. We need to streamline it”:

KERNEN: We get e-mails coming in saying, “You’re going to have Corker on. For once ask a Republican what he wants to cut.” [...] The rap is all you say is cut but you’ve got no idea what to cut. What would you specifically cut?

CORKER: Well, first of all I think everything needs to be on the table.

KERNEN: Everything’s on the table? Defense? Entitlements?

CORKER: Everything! I mean, look, Secretary Gates will tell you there’s a lot of waste there. We need to streamline it.

KERNEN: Other than waste, though?

CORKER: Well, obviously that’s going to be more difficult, let’s face it. Because it’s our national security, that’s the most important thing we do in Washington, but everything we do needs to be looked at. So I would say nothing’s off the table, nothing.

Watch it:

Corker’s sentiments are in line with at least five Republicans running for Senate this year. Last week, Oregon nominee Jim Huffman called for defense cuts, citing the “vaste amount of money wasted in defense.” Earlier that week, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” The week before, Illinois candidate Mark Kirk said we need “across the board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier this month, Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” A few days later, Kentucky candidate Rand Paul criticized Republicans for exempting the military from waste-trimming, telling PBS’s Gwen Ifill that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” All of these candidates are stating positions in direct opposition to the GOP’s much-touted “Pledge To America,” which explicitly exempts the Department of Defense from waste-cutting.

If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.

LGBT

The Top Secret Plan For Repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell This Year

By Igor Volsky on Oct 28, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Servicemembers United’s Alex Nicholson — who attended Tuesday’s high-level meeting between President Obama and advocates of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — has laid out the group’s strategy for passing legislation to gradually repeal the policy during the lame duck session of the Senate. In a video published on YouTube, Nicholson stresses that advocates should lobby Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), President Obama, and moderate Republicans like Sens. Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME) and Richard Lugar (IN) to take up the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — in which the repeal amendment is housed — as soon as possible.

Given the time constraints and the tradition of Senate debate (senators will need about two weeks for floor debate and another two to conference the House and Senate versions of the bill), if the bill is not introduced before the Thanksgiving recess, Nicholson argues, “it’s possible in theory to still get it done, but the chances go down from 50 to 60% to 5 or 6%.”

His timeline looks something like this (calendar made by me):

Watch it:

Reid will be responsible for bringing up the NDAA during the lame duck session and should do so under open amendment rules. But the President also “has to get engaged in the process himself, personally and in a public way,” he adds. “The White House needs to do 3 or 4 times what it did in September or May. And the President has to be out there, making calls, doing press, sending his surrogates out, sending seniors, staff out, working Capitol Hill and actually showing that the White House has a serious stake in the Senate getting this done this year.”

One possible hiccup in the schedule is the Pentagon Working Group study, scheduled to come out on December 1st. Nicholson notes that a number of Senators — Brown, Voinovich, Lincoln, and Pryor — have argued that they preferred to wait for the results before voting on repeal but argues that “they need to realize that the final vote will take place way before the study is do on December 1.” “So they’ll have have ample of opportunity to see its conclusions and recommendations and make final decisions after it comes out,” he says.

Yglesias

Endgame

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 28, 2010 at 6:23 pm

Une presence inconnue:

— Think tanking is hard.

— China builds world’s most super super-computer.

— All about QE2.

— The scale of QE we need is considerably above what the Fed seems to be contemplating.

— There are huge impediments to the use of RMB as a reserve currency.

The eight years I spent studying French in school have very little practical purpose, but ability to understand the lyrics to Placebo’s “Mars Landing Party” is among them.

Politics

Crossroads GPS’ One-Size-Fits-All Ad Falsely Claims North Dakota’s Booming Economy Is ‘Reeling’

By Tanya Somanader on Oct 28, 2010 at 5:56 pm

With veteran GOP operative Karl Rove at its back, and a little help from the Citizens United decision, the conservative PAC American Crossroads and its 501(c)(4) counterpart Crossroads GPS bombarded the airwaves with over $16 million in attack ads this campaign season. With 5 days to go until the election, American Crossroads announced $6 million worth of ad buys yesterday in its final blitz to defeat Democrats. But, while a GOP victory might be the Crossroads groups’ top priority, one ad proves that accuracy is certainly not.

This season, Crossroads created a one-size-fits-all ad slamming targeted Democrats for supporting the Recovery Act. Running in different races across the country, the ad claims that while whichever state’s “economy is reeling,” whoever the Democrat happens to be is “making [the economy] worse” by supporting the “stimulus boondoggle.” Confident that this “fill-in-the-blank” issue ad fits every state, Crossroads ran the ad against Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D) in North Dakota. “North Dakota’s economy is reeling and Congressman Earl Pomeroy is making it worse,” the ad warns.

Watch it:

The ominous ad, however, fails to mention one important detail: North Dakota’s economy is not reeling. In fact, it’s booming. This summer, North Dakota saw employment rise from 362,100 in December 2007 to 371,300 last month — a record in job creation for the state. Indeed, along with Alaska, North Dakota is the only state “to have created jobs since the onslaught of the Great Recession.” And with the highest rate of personal income growth and the nation’s lowest unemployment rate of 3.7 percent — well below the 9.6 percent national average — this state’s economy “sticks out like a diamond in a bowl of cherry pits.”

But truth in advertising isn’t exactly Crossroads’ modus operandi. According to Factcheck.org research, American Crossroads regularly makes “false and misleading claims” in their “blizzard” of attack ads in states like Colorado, Illinois, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri, and New Hampshire. And while American Crossroads must disclose its donors, Crossroads GPS is a 501(c)(4) organization and therefore does not have to. Thus, like its “kissing cousin” the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Crossroads GPS can take advantage of legal loopholes to inject massive funds into this year’s election without ever having to disclose its funders.

Pomeroy’s campaign ripped into Crossroads today for the “phony,” “cookie-cutter” ad. “Next time Karl Rove wants to funnel secret money to North Dakota to influence our elections, he ought to visit our state first or at least pick up one of our newspapers,” said Pomeroy’s spokesman Brenden Timpe. “If he did, he would know that North Dakota’s economy is doing quite well thank you very much, and Earl has been a strong partner in that progress.”

Economy

Bank Of America’s Robo-Signer Comes Clean: ‘I Had No Idea What I Was Signing’

By Pat Garofalo on Oct 28, 2010 at 5:45 pm

Bank of America, to its credit, was the only bank to freeze foreclosures in all 50 states as a result of revelations regarding the “robo-signers”: bank employees who were approving thousands of foreclosure without verifying basic information. However, BofA restarted its foreclosure machine just ten days later, saying that it had examined more than 100,000 foreclosure cases and found no problems.

Shortly thereafter, BofA backtracked and said that it had actually found some problems, but tried to downplay them as simple paperwork errors — like misspelling names — rather than a systemic effort to rush foreclosures through the pipeline with almost complete disregard for the legal process. But a former BofA robo-signer told his story to CNN Money and painted a very different picture:

[Former BofA employee Tam Doan] didn’t have time to actually read the paperwork he was signing, he said, and in some cases, he didn’t even know what documents he was putting his pen to. “I had no idea what I was signing,” said Doan. “Either you were in or you were out.” [...]

The paperwork he robo-signed most often were the notices to delinquent borrowers that the servicer was proceeding to foreclosure. By signing that document, he was affirming that the bank had reviewed the loan and it didn’t qualify for a modification. But, he said, the reality was he had no idea whether Bank of America had really tried to save the borrower’s home. “We had no knowledge of whether the foreclosure could proceed or couldn’t, but regardless, we signed the documents to get these foreclosures out of the way,” he said, noting that he assumed another department had checked that the review was done.

Doan’s description of BofA neglecting to verify whether or not borrowers qualified for a loan modifications fits in with our previous reporting. We found that the bank was siphoning borrowers into its own private loan modification program without checking whether they qualified for federal modification programs, in clear violation of the bank’s contract with the Treasury Department.

But more importantly, Doan’s story strikes right at the heart of the image the banks want to convey regarding foreclosure-gate. They want to make it a story about careless mistakes and sloppy paperwork, when it’s really one about a system explicitly designed to cut corners, even if that meant violating due process and the legal requirements for foreclosing on a home.

Even if there were no homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon (and we know there were, including some who literally didn’t have a mortgage), the banks’ blatant disregard for process should be enough to warrant slamming the brakes on their foreclosure factories, especially considering that the extent of the problem is still unclear. One investor told CNBC today that he estimates that the mortgage mess could cost the banks $97 billion in losses.

Yglesias

The Downward Spiral in Greece

By Matthew Yglesias on Oct 28, 2010 at 5:31 pm

(cc photo by simon_music)

Recession leads to deficits lead to austerity leads to worse growth and bigger deficits:

With economic conditions weaker than expected, tax revenue is coming up short of projections in parts of Europe. As a result, countries struggling with high deficits are now confronting the prospect that they will miss the budget deficit targets forced upon them this year by impatient bond investors.

Greece, for one, looks as if it will run a budget deficit for 2010 greater than the 8.1 percent of gross domestic product it agreed to as part of a rescue package from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union that amounted to more than $150 billion, according to a person briefed on the matter but not authorized to speak about it.

Again, what would normally happen to a Greece-sized country with Greek-sized problems is that the value of its currency would decline. Everyone would, consequently, become quite a lot poorer in “real” terms but the pain would be spread and unemployment wouldn’t necessarily skyrocket. The newly poor country would be cheap to visit, its exports would be priced competitively, and import-competing industries would remain in great shape. Things might either stabilize like that, or else structural reforms could be undertaken that lay the groundwork for growth.

Thanks to the Euro, none of that’s possible and it’s not at all clear to me what the endgame here really is. For understandable reasons, German (and Austrian, Dutch, etc.) taxpayers don’t want to bail out the government of Greece. And also for understandable reasons, German policymakers prefer the European Central Bank to run a monetary policy that’s appropriate for Germany rather than one that’s appropriate for Greece. So Greece is stuck on a path to default.

Climate Progress

RI-01: ‘No Climate Tax’ Candidate John Loughlin Is Radical Global Warming Denier

By Brad Johnson on Oct 28, 2010 at 4:55 pm

State Rep. John Loughlin, the Republican candidate for Rhode Island’s First Congressional District, is part of the radical science denial movement that is a core plank of Tea Party ideology. When asked why he signed the Americans for Prosperity “No Climate Tax” pledge at an October 19 debate, Loughlin launched into a falsehood-drenched rant about climate science:

I’m not a scientist, but I did work for NASA. And when I was at NASA we had a scientist who I actually did some of the press release work for by the name of Dr. James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen released a peer-reviewed paper in the ’70s that talked about global cooling. And then it’s only later that he’s kind of gotten the conversion to global warming. The IPCC had the leaked emails, I think there’s no scientific consensus. And I think it’s foolhardy to link tax policy to science when there is really not a scientific consensus on global warming at this point. . . .

I’m saying really the earth is warming, but it’s not conclusively caused by man. It’s not conclusive. I mean 94 percent of the carbon emissions which you so want to get rid of are caused by nature.

Watch it:

PolitiFact has soundly debunked Loughlin’s conspiracy theories and pseudoscience, interviewing Dr. James Hansen himself, who said quite simply that Loughlin “is speaking nonsense.”

Americans for Prosperity has repeatedly complained that their “No Climate Tax” pledge has nothing to do with questioning the science, even though AFP regularly questions the science. Speaking at a screening of (Astro)Turf Wars, AFP VP of Policy Phil Kerpen dismissed his organization’s climate denial as just being “off message.” In reality, AFP and Loughlin’s denial that fossil fuel pollution is destroying our climate serves the interests of the oil and gas companies who fund them.

“I believe global climate change is real,” Loughlin’s opponent, David N. Cicilline, retorted:

I believe we have a responsibility to address it and do whatever we can to protect our environment and develop and produce clean energy. I believe it is an opportunity for America to lead the world again in the production and development of clean energy. When Rep. Loughlin is out publicly talking about global climate change, he mocks it, that it’s not serious. This is a serious issue. We have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions, to address global climate change that is caused by pollution. There is broad scientific consensus on this.

“This is not just something you believe in! This is not like the Easter Bunny!” Loughlin interrupted.

To the crowd’s applause, Cicilline retorted: “No, it’s science.”

Security

Peter King Claims American Muslim Communities ‘Do Not Cooperate’ To Combat Terrorism

By Ben Armbruster on Oct 28, 2010 at 4:50 pm

Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly has been on an Islamophobic tear lately. O’Reilly initially took heat for saying that “Muslims attacked us on 9/11″ and he has since defended that claim, saying that “there is a Muslim problem in the world.” After receiving criticism for that statement, O’Reilly defended himself again, claiming that there is a “Muslim problem” because “good” Muslims don’t combat extremism — a point radio host Don Imus told O’Reilly was not “accurate.”

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) seems to have picked up on O’Reilly’s spurious reasoning, telling Imus yesterday that leaders in the Muslim community “do not cooperate”:

KING: It’s not just people who are involved with the terrorists and extremists, it is people who are in mainstream Islam, leaders of mosques, leaders of Muslim organizations who do not come forward and denounce, officially denounce, officially cooperate with the police against those extremists and terrorists. So, it goes beyond the terrorists and the extremists and also includes those in what others call mainstream Muslim leadership.

Watch it:

King didn’t provide any evidence that Muslims aren’t cooperating with authorities. While many Muslim leaders have complained of a heavy-handed FBI presence in their communities, American Muslims have been integral in combating domestic terrorism. As Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) said at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress, according to the Muslim Public Affairs Council, “About a third of all foiled al-Qaida-related plots in the U.S. relied on support or information provided by members of the Muslim community.” Indeed, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a vendor in Times Square was the first to bring the smoking car that was part of the failed Times Square bombing plot to the police’s attention. And the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — who failed in his attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit last year — alerted U.S. authorities of his son’s “extreme radical views” months before he tried to carry out the attack.

Moreover, a recent academic study found that American contemporary mosques are serving as a deterrent to the spread of extremism and terrorism. The New York Times noted that the study found that “many mosque leaders had put significant effort into countering extremism by building youth programs, sponsoring antiviolence forums and scrutinizing teachers and texts.” “Muslim-American communities have been active in preventing radicalization,” said study co- author David Kurzman. “This is one reason that Muslim-American terrorism has resulted in fewer than three dozen of the 136,000 murders committed in the United States since 9/11.”

King’s claim that Muslim organizations in the U.S. aren’t denouncing terrorism is simply false. For example, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a leading American Muslim organization, unequivocally condemned terrorism and has launched numerous anti-extremism campaigns.

Older

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

Sign Up