ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Giffords’ GOP Challenger: So, Can I Run Again Already?

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was successfully moved to a rehabilitation center in Houston today after a miraculous recovery since being shot in the head two weeks ago. While most politicians from both parties have hoped for a speedy recovery, some have questioned whether Giffords should be allowed to continue to hold her seat or be forced to vacate it since she is incapacitated — a question the Republican who challenged Giffords last year also appears to be asking. According to Arizona Capitol Reports (subscription-only newsletter), Jesse Kelly is so antsy to challenge her again, that he requested a legal inquiry as to whether he could run again if Giffords lost her seat:

Attorney Lee Miller, who serves as legal counsel for the Arizona Republican Party, told our reporter Kelly’s campaign contacted him earlier this week to find out how the seat would be filled if Giffords couldn’t serve.

The next day, the newsletter added:

Yesterday’s item about Jesse Kelly exploring a special election for the CD8 seat in the wake of Giffords’ shooting created waves in Tucson political circles, one source from south of the Gila said today. ‘I think Jesse Kelly has more problems than just dealing with a Yellow Sheet story. It’s probably going to be picked up by Politico,’ said the source.

The last time Kelly ran, the former Marine ran a campaign ad urging suporters to “get on target for victory in November.” “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly,” it continued. (HT: Salon)

Climate Progress

Republican Study Committee proposes unilateral disarmament to China in innovation, clean energy

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has explained why China’s bid for clean energy leadership should be our “Sputnik Moment.” The Center for American Progress and ClimateProgress have proposed a variety of common sense strategies for responding to China’s innovation and competitiveness policies.  But the conservative movement is hell-bent on forever ceding leadership in the most important job-creating industries of the next several decades, as Kate Gordon, CAP’s VP for Energy Policy explains in this cross-post.

On Thursday, the Republican Study Committee unveiled its Spending Reduction Act, a broad swath of recommendations aimed at cutting trillions of dollars out of the budget. The committee, which includes the vast majority of Republican House members (175 out of 242), claims these cuts are necessary so government does not “rob our children of the opportunity to reach for the American Dream.”

But the American Dream depends on American prosperity and leadership. And several of the committee’s cuts explicitly undermine our future prosperity, especially in the area of clean energy technology.

Read more

Yglesias

Endgame

There’s not much for me there:

— TED talks throughout history.

— Robyn converts Katy Perry to feminism.

— I don’t endorse this full analysis, but it’s definitely true that the cash/benefits mix for federal workers is out of whack.

Everyone is unpopular.

— Stephen Breyer and Ted Kennedy are neoliberal sellouts.

Excellent profile of Phillip Weiss.

— What Beijing learned from the neocons.

Yeasayer, “Madder Red”.

LGBT

Iowa’s Anti-Marriage Crusader Compares Same-Sex Unions To Polygamy, Rails Against ‘Absolute Tolerance’

On Wednesday, 56 Republicans in the Iowa House introduced a resolution to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Varnum v. Brien, which struck down Iowa’s law denying marriage to same-sex couples. The measure would allow voters to consider an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would eliminate not only same-sex marriages, but also civil unions. It states: “Marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.”

Conservatives are also rallying behind three-time failed gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, who is spearheading his own campaign to “build statewide support for all ‘pro-family’ government policies” and oust the four remaining judges who voted for marriage in 2009. Plaats is courting potential Republican presidential nominees to endorse his agenda and will likely force national Republicans vying for higher office to take a position on the state’s numerous anti-marriage initiatives. To bolster his case, Plaats has embarked on a 99-county tour of the state to introduce voters to his new group, The Family Leader. During one such event, Plaats was challenged on his marriage views by two supporters of marriage equality. In the amusing exchange that follows, Plaats compares same-sex marriage to polygamy, rails against “absolute tolerance” and calls for government to adhere to “higher standards” than the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence:

Q: How is preventing same-sex couples from getting married not going against the 14th amendment….[or] the first Amendment against the establishment of religion. By using your values and putting them in our legal system, how is that legal? [...]

PLAATS: We’re not denying anyone the right to the institution of marriage….we’re just saying it needs to be one man and one woman.

Q: You’re denying them marriage, just not your definition of marriage. [...]

PLAATS: It’s not my definition of marriage.

Q: It’s the bible’s and the Constitution prohibits any law respecting the establishment of religion.

PLAATS: And the Declaration of Independence, much like the law of nature, and the law of nature is God. ….The First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, I’m glad you recite those, but I think there are higher standards. I really do. Because if it comes down to my standards, or your standards, it becomes absolute tolerance [...]

To me, the danger in that — let everyone in this country just explore their truth. So under that paradigm, I can inform Darla tonight, I’m going to marry Mary and Sue with you, that’s my truth…but if you want to explore the truth and say let’s just put whatever standards where. That can happen. And everybody shakes their head and says that’s not what we’re talking about, but that’s what we’re talking. [...] We’re going to be a vehicle of truth about what the Bible says and what the Constitution says.

Watch it:

A poll released last week found that 34 percent of Iowans supported full same-sex marriage rights, while 28 percent favored “only civil unions.” Thirty-four percent of respondents said they were “against any recognition.” Meanwhile, 54 percent of responders said they opposed impeaching the judges who brought same-sex marriage to the state.

Earlier this month, Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Mark Cady defended the court’s decision to overturn the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by reminding lawmakers that “the duty of courts to review the constitutionality of laws is known as judicial review and is one of our most basic responsibilities.” “This is the very duty the court exercised in the Varnum decision,” he said. (H/T: Good As You)

Yglesias

Why Do People Agree to Give SOTU Responses?

My first reaction to the news that Paul Ryan has been designated to give the Republican response to the State of the Union address was to fulminate a bit about the unseriousness of it all. After all, Paul Ryan’s written a famous “budget roadmap” that does an excellent job of showing what it takes to balance the budget without raising taxes—massive, massive, massive cuts in Medicare. But since massive Medicare cuts are unpopular, the GOP leadership doesn’t want to get behind Ryan’s plan for massive Medicare cuts. Indeed, they don’t even want to bring it up for a vote. But instead of facing the fact that the GOP is not, in fact, willing to endorse the kind of massive Medicare cuts that are the only way to make their tax policies work, they’re going to . . . put Ryan up as their speaker so everyone can pretend there’s a plan here.

It’s enough to drive a person crazy.

But I’m enjoying a Percocet mellow today, so let’s think about a different issue. Is the SOTU response gig anything other than a quick way to trip up a rising star in one’s party? The Bobby Jindal experience is the most vivid cautionary tale, but he’s hardly alone. The vast majority of people given this task do a bad job of it. And even those who do well, like Jim Webb, don’t accrue much in the way of anything in the way of real benefit.

Education

Are For-Profit Colleges Really Training The Health Care Workforce Of The Future?

In addition to hiring a horde of lobbyists to help it fend of new regulations, the for-profit college industry — composed of schools like the University of Phoenix and Kaplan University — has launched a public relations offensive, in an attempt to bolster its image with the public. In response to a proposed regulation having to do with “gainful employment” — which would cause the schools to lose their access to public money if their graduates fail to meet a certain debt-to-income ratio or have high rates of student loan default — the for-profit colleges have released ads emphasizing the jobs that their graduates go on to fill.

Of particular focus for the for-profits is the claim that graduates are entering the heath care workforce. Here’s an example, from an ad by the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities:

America’s 3,000 private sector schools employ 250,000 people and educate 3.2 million students each year. Last year, nearly 60 percent of new allied health care professionals earned their degrees from our schools.

However, as a new report from CAP’s Julie Morgan and Ellen-Marie Whelan notes, these numbers only add up if you take into account that the for-profits are training “health care” workers for positions that are not in critical demand, such as massage therapy:

For-profit colleges are graduating students in health care fields but generally not the fields at the top of the nation’s growing health care needs. For-profit schools are making a contribution to the health care workforce but much of that contribution is concentrated in one educational program: medical assisting. The second-largest educational program in health care at for-profit schools is massage therapy, which does not correspond to any significant workforce need. For-profit colleges make a modest contribution in other areas such as registered nursing and licensed practical nursing. Clearly, traditional not-for-profit colleges are doing the bulk of the work in addressing our projected health care workforce needs.

The problem here is that the sort of jobs for which for-profit schools are preparing students tend to be lower-paying, rendering students incapable of paying back the student loans that they take out. Since many of those loans are federal, it’s the government that ends up on the short end of the financial stick, in addition to the student who paid a small fortune for a degree that doesn’t lead to a high-paying job. Many for-profits make as much as 90 percent of their revenue from the federal government.

At the moment, just 11 percent of higher education students attend for-profit schools, yet they receive 26 percent of total federal student aid and account for 43 percent of total student loan defaults. The schools have profit margins as high as 30 percent and pay their executives far more than their non-profit and public counterparts, while providing what, at the moment, is a product that is not always living up to its billing.

Politics

Republican Mayor: The Stimulus Package ‘Worked,’ It’s ‘Unfair’ For House GOP To Attack It

Yesterday, the House GOP lawmakers quickly manufactured an unwieldy proposal to axe $2.5 trillion from the federal budget. In a tribute to zeal, Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-OH) new Spending Reduction Act not only scraps 15 percent of federal jobs but also eliminates “all remaining stimulus funding.” Because, as they say, this is what the American people want.

Unfortunately for Republicans, the American people don’t live in their delusion. They live in states and cities — both of which depend on the Recovery Act and will get hosed by this repeal. Bristling under the GOP’s out-of-touch demonization of the Recovery Act, even Republican mayors like Tulsa, OK Mayor Dewey Bartlett are pointing out just how “unfair” a repeal of the Act would be. Speaking at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in DC yesterday, Bartlett”it worked“:

“I would prefer them to at least give us an opportunity to use them for another reasonably supportive project,” Bartlett said.

In Washington for the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Bartlett again made positive comments about the impact of the 2009 stimulus package, which was opposed by every Oklahoma Republican in Congress.

“It worked,” said the mayor, who is also a Republican.[...]

Bartlett conceded he did not know whether any of Tulsa’s funding would be covered by the proposal but made it clear he did not favor a repeal.

“To me, that seems a little unfair,” he said.

Bartlett pointed to specific Recovery projects — “crime, public safety, energy and environment, poverty and infrastructure projects” — and the “Inner Dispersal Loop state project to improve access to downtown Tulsa” that helped Tulsa “come out of the recession.”

While at odds with the conservative anti-stimulus mantra, Bartlett is certainly not alone. Today, more than 230 mayors attending the Conference called for “a second wave of stimulus money.” Forced to “impose layoffs furloughs, service reductions and fee increases to deal with falling municipal revenue,” the mayors, many of whom are Republicans, said “cities are being deprived of the federal aid owed to them.” Burnsville, MN Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, also a Republican, said “We are in the middle of a ‘jobs emergency’ that demands decisive and swift action.” “We need the Senate to pass a Main Street jobs package now,” she insisted.

The 4.5 million people kept out of poverty and the millions employed because of the Recovery Act might be inclined to agree. So would the numerous GOP governors who used these funds to balance their budgets if they weren’t so wedded to hypocrisy. And at least 114 of the GOP lawmakers who wanted to eliminate this “wasteful” stimulus package were only too happy to take credit for its successes. But, it seems the House GOP is hellbent on marching forward in their delusion, even if it means trampling on the economic recovery to do so.

Alyssa

Cryptonomicon Book Club, Part VI: DNA

Previous parts of this discussion are linked to here. Below the jump, the discussion will range up to, but not beyond, the section entitled “Glamor,” and there will be spoilers. But please don’t ruin any developments beyond that point for folks who haven’t gotten so excited about the book that they spent all night up getting to the end, like, ahem, your hostess. And for next week, let’s finish the book.

I think this section of the novel helped me clarify both a theory I had about the characters and a reaction I’ve had to much of the novel. I’ve had a hard time feeling as engaged with the contemporary section of the novel, despite the fact that I have a lot more in common with Avi and Randy than I do with Lawrence and Randy. I am a nerd rather than a genius, a nice person rather than a hero. And ultimately, I think Stephenson both recognizes the difference and think it’s important. I realize my preoccupation with this strain of the novel during the book club may seem too focused, and I hope you guys will continue to uses these posts as wide-ranging open threads to talk about whatever you want. But I do really think that this is the core concern, and it informs everything Stephenson is doing.

In this novel, Lawrence Waterhouse deals in secrets where Bobby Shaftoe is direct and relatively straightforward. The ways in which their descendants resemble them—and come to realize they resemble their forebears—have everything to do with those means of living.

Lawrence and Randall Waterhouse never meet each other during the events of the book, so Lawrence never knows that his grandson cracks his code. And Randy only slowly begins to understand who his grandfather was. It actually becomes clear most of the way through his book that none of Lawrence’s family has any idea what he did during the war:

Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse’s widow and five children agree that Dad did something in the war, and that’s about all. Each of them seems to have a different 1950s B-movie, or 1940s Movietone newsreel, in his or her head, portraying a rather different set of events. There is not even agreement on whether he was in the Army or the Navy, which seems like a pretty fundamental plot point to Randy.

It’s an interesting question as to whether this means Lawrence’s family didn’t really know him at all. Obviously, they know the choices he made afterwards, the way he diverted his life into a path that made him a competitor for history but not its sole possessor, that’s left him behind smeared glass in an obscure college. But they don’t know what he did, and as a consequence, they don’t know about other situations he found himself in, about other choices he made, mettle he showed. When Randy freaks out about Andrew Loeb’s involvement in the suit against Epiphyte, he doesn’t know something fundamental about himself, that his distance from epic awesomeness is actually far smaller than he realizes:

Randy’s body has now finally had time to deploy a full-on fight-or-flight reaction—part of his genetic legacy as a stupendous badass. This must have been very useful when saber-toothed tigers tries to claw their way into his ancestors’ caves but is doing him absolutely no good in these circumstances.

And when Randy does realize, belatedly and very slowly, what his grandfather was, there’s this beautiful
moment of nerd’s regret, as if Randy realizes himself as fallen:

They are surrounded by ring after concentric ring of cops, media, and law-firm minions—collectively, what Tolkien would call Men—and a few non- or post-human creatures imbued with peculiar physiognomies and vaguely magical powers: Dwarves (steady, productive, surly) and Elves (brilliant in a more ethereal way). Randy, a Dwarf, has begun to realize that his grandfather may have been an Elf. Avi is a Man with a strong Elvish glow about him. Somewhere in the center of this whole thing, presumably, is Gollum.

I think Stephenson, whether intentionally or not, gets at the core of most nerd’s insecurities here. There’s this sense that people like Randy, like Chester, could be in touch with mysterious, powerful forces if only the circumstances that generated those forces were available to them. Chester can reassemble a fallen plane in his roof, even turn it into something beautiful, but he lives in a world where people can’t be brought back from the dead, so he doesn’t have to worry about failing to be the person who resurrects them. Randy is coming to the belated realization that the age of miracles and wonder is less long-departed from him than he imagines, and thus, he maybe could have lived a more astonishing life than he has.

Things are different if you’re a Shaftoe, and I actually think one of the central problems of the novel is that we only get Amy and Doug as they’re translated by Randy. Bobby Shaftoe is a sort of astonishing creation, a morphine-addicted, honor-bound, horn-dog adaptationist and possible hero. Living inside his head is one of the most refreshing dips I’ve ever had inside a hypermasculine world. But we never get the sense of the virus of time in his descendants that we do in Randy. Bobby was a stupendous badass. Doug and Amy remain stupendous badasses. There’s something impersonal about the translation. We don’t know how they changed along the way, except, perhaps that they’ve lost some purpose. Where Randy might not be able to do what his grandfather was capable of, we’re left without distinction between the generations of Waterhouses, but I don’t believe they haven’t changed. What we’re mostly left with is Randy’s sense of inferiority towards even the most junior Shaftoes, so we understand his striving, but not their perspective. There’s Randy’s attitude towards Amy’s cousins, which he sort of fails to explain to Avi: ”‘You described them as teenagers.’ ‘But I don’t think that teenagers are the way they are because of their age. It’s because they have nothing to lose. They simultaneously have a lot of time on their hands and yet are very impatient to get on with their lives.’”

And then there’s Randy’s desire to impress Doug, which I suppose is driven by the fact that he’s hoping to perform a kind of familial alchemy, to become someone worthy of being a Shaftoe as well as a Waterhouse:

If Tombstone is shut down and grabbed by the cops before Randy can erase those traces, they will know he has logged on at the very moment that Tombstone was confiscated, and will put him in prison for tampering with evidence. He very much wishes that Douglas MacArthur Shaftoe could somehow be made aware of what a ballsy thing he is doing here. But then Doug has probably done all kinds of ballsy things of which Randy will never be aware, and Randy respects him anyway because of his bearing. Maybe the way to get that kind of bearing is to go around doing ballsy things in secret that somehow percolate up to the surface of your personality.

Randy can’t erase his history and become one of Bobby Shaftoe’s descendents, but if he’s worthy of being loved by Amy, it’s as if he’s retroactively made his grandfatherfather worthy of being truly respected by Bobby Shaftoe, a code Lawrence never quite managed to break in life. And what makes Amy inherently a Shaftoe, of course, is the fact that she doesn’t quite feel the need to make that leap. Like her grandfather and Goto Dengo, she simply crosses the line, this time into nerdland rather than into enemy territory:

This is potentially worse. A bunch of tubby guys who never go outside, working themselves into a frenzy over elaborate games in which nonexistent characters go out and do pretend things that aremostly not as interesting as what Amy, her father, and various other members of her family do all the time without making any fuss about it. It is almost like Randy is deliberately hammering away at Amy trying to figure out when she’ll break and run. But her lip hasn’t started to writhe nauseously yet. She’s watching the game impartially, peeking over the nerds’ shoulders, following the action, occasionally squinting at some abstraction in the rules.

Randy longs for something big in his life, “wonders if he’s ever had a serious experience in his life, an experience that would be worth the time it would take to reduce it to a pithy STOP-punctuated message in capital letters and run it through a cryptosystem.” In a sense, Stephenson is saying, this is it. Carrying our DNA forward, unlocking that simple but astonishingly complicated code of who we are, and figuring out how we relate to other people, is the big, complicated, worthy and impossible thing. And it’s why nothing else, not the gold in the mountain, not the Dentist, not General Wing, not even Epiphyte matters. The plot is not important. Only that desperate and terrifying act of decoding who we are, and what we mean.

Yglesias

Could Vermont Do Single-Payer?

An interesting AP story earlier this week explained a report produced by Harvard economist William Hsiao for the Vermont state legislature about ways the state could save money by shifting to a single-payer health care system.

My colleague Igor Volsky runs down some of the hurdles and possibilities offered by federal law:

Hsiao said that Vermont faced “no fewer than 15 hurdles before it would be able to implement the plan,” not the least of which are some of the new requirements and regulations in the Affordable Care Act. The Vermont Congressional delegation has introduced an amendment that would expand a provision in the law that allows states to propose their own pilot health care programs and seek a waiver from the federal health care law so that they can pursue their own approaches to health care reform. The current law allows states to pursue these waivers in 2017; the amendment would move this waiver date up to 2014. A companion measure has also been introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Scott Brown (R-MA) in the Senate, but it remains to be seen how cooperative HHS will be in granting waiver and allowing the state to pursue these reforms.

In political terms, it seems to me that being generous about the state customization possibilities is probably the best way to start shifting the Affordable Care Act out of the toxic partisanship box and regularize its place in the firmament. Among other things, this provides something of an exit pathway for politicians like Scott Brown who don’t want to embrace ACA but also don’t want to repeal it.

Security

Immigration Restrictionist Group Tries To Stifle ThinkProgress By Shutting Down Our Youtube Account

Over a year ago, YouTube terminated ThinkProgress’ original account due to copyright infringement complaints. We were surprised to recently learn that the videos were removed due to complaints from NumbersUSA — a designated anti-immigrant group which has occasionally been a topic of my posts. The YouTube website reads:

YouTube account thinkprogress has been terminated because we received multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including: NumbersUSA

Chances are, NumbersUSA took issue with two posts I have written in the past that included excerpts from troubling videos it was promoting on its website. One of those videos was aimed at making the case against Mexican migration and the “exportation of poverty.” The other included speakers who, in the past, have expressed concerns about an “illegal alien invasion” and the spread of bilingualism.

NumbersUSA adamantly denies the claim that it is anti-immigrant and its website clearly states “nothing about this website should be construed as advocating hostile actions or feelings toward immigrant Americans.” The group doesn’t seem to take any allegations to the contrary lightly. We learned that when a member of its staff sent us a sharply worded email threatening to sue ThinkProgress for libel after I wrote a post which linked back to a Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report that identified NumbersUSA as an anti-immigrant group and quoted a respected researcher who challenged several of the group’s questionable research findings.

However, despite shutting down our YouTube account and using threats and intimidation against ThinkProgress, NumbersUSA has not been able to stifle its critics entirely. The perception of the group as an anti-immigrant organization has penetrated the mainstream. Roll Call recently reported on the “nativist lobby,” and specifically identified NumbersUSA as one of the groups founded by a Michigan ophthalmologist — John Tanton –with a white-supremacist ideology. “Tanton’s groups are making use of economic hard times to argue that immigrants — legal and illegal — are stealing jobs from Americans and straining government budgets,” wrote Roll Call.

Meanwhile, SPLC claims that NumbersUSA’s director, Roy Beck, was employed by Tanton for 10 years, edited his “immigrant bashing” magazine, and vacationed with him and his wife.

We take copyright complaints very seriously and respect NumbersUSA’s right to protect its digital property. But, we suspect NumbersUSA’s complaints to YouTube had more to do with waging an ideological campaign than a genuine concern about copyright infringement.

Older

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

Sign Up