President Obama devotes his address this week to remembering the “indomitable spirit of the first American citizens” who built this country and the lessons we can apply to the current challenges:
That is the spirit we are called to show once more. We are facing an array of challenges on a scale unseen in our time. We are waging two wars. We are battling a deep recession. And our economy – and our nation itself – are endangered by festering problems we have kicked down the road for far too long: spiraling health care costs; inadequate schools; and a dependence on foreign oil. [...]
These are some of the challenges that our generation has been called to meet. And yet, there are those who would have us try what has already failed; who would defend the status quo. They argue that our health care system is fine the way it is and that a clean energy economy can wait. They say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals.
These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy. That is not how a cluster of 13 colonies became the United States of America.
Watch it:
Scientists are increasingly worried that the beautiful fireworks millions of Americans will be watching this Independence Day contain toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to the environment. A particular focus is perchlorate, which helps “create the combustion reaction needed for the explosion.” According to a 2009 article in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, “the amount of perchlorate in nearby bodies of water could increase by anywhere from 24 to 1,068 times the amount present before the fireworks, and that it takes 20 to 80 days for the chemical levels to subside.” When ingested, perchlorate can hinder the thyroid’s production of growth hormones. In response, some chemists are looking for other solutions, including cleaner-burning fireworks that use nitrate-based oxidants.

The right wing has a new target: Kevin Jennings, whom President Obama appointed Assistant Deputy Secretary at the Department of Education for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS). Jennings has had a distinguished career as a teacher, author, and founder of Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), an organization that works to make schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
It is primarily Jennings’ work with GLSEN that has so outraged the far right. The Family Research Council (FRC) launched the “Stop Kevin Jennings” campaign this week, warning that he is a “radical homosexual activist” who has “worked tirelessly to bring the homosexual agenda into our nation’s classrooms.” “His history demonstrates disregard for our obligations to safeguard the health and well being of the student population,” writes FRC President Tony Perkins.
ThinkProgress investigated FRC’s claims and spoke to people who have worked with Jennings. A look at some of the “facts” about him:
FRC CLAIM: “Jennings’ and GLSEN’s concept of ’safe schools’ means special protections for privileged groups (especially homosexuals), rather than safety for all.”
FACT: As the gay son of a Southern baptist preacher, Jennings had a “childhood of prejudice, taunts, and harassment.” As an education leader, he has used those experiences to promote tolerance and anti-bullying measures in schools nationwide. ThinkProgress spoke with Molly Spearman, executive director of the South Carolina Association of School Administrators. Spearman first heard Jennings speak at the 2007 convention of the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP). Spearman said that she was so impressed with Jennings, she decided to invite him to speak at her organization’s October 2007 summit on bullying:
I was a little nervous, being in South Carolina, a very conservative state. But once again, he handled it extremely professionally. He did a magnificent job, and it was a huge success. We had a waiting list of people who wanted to come. … We had several hundred people there. … He was very very well-received — absolutely rave views. And that was in conservative South Carolina. So he handled what could have been a very sensitive topic in a very professional way that was accepted by everyone.
Spearman added that while Jennings did present statistics on the harassment of LGBT students, he more broadly focused on the bullying of all students, pointing out that it was a problem that wasn’t specifically confined to one group.
- - - - -
FRC CLAIM: “Jennings is viciously hostile to religion.” More »
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove went on Fox News this morning and attacked President Obama’s health care town hall meeting yesterday as “pre-packaged, organized, controlled, [and] scripted,” adding that the Bush administration would never have done something so audacious:
ROVE: This White House has carried pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted events to a new height, and they’re getting away with things that in any previous White House, the media would have eviscerated the press secretary and the White House for it.
Watch it:
ThinkProgress contacted a White House spokesperson who said that at yesterday’s health care town hall event in Virginia, half of the tickets were given out by the school (to “students, faculty, staff, as well as members of the health community from the area”) and the other half by the White House (”grassroots activists and people involved in the issue in the area”). The spokesperson then explained how questions were chosen:
The President posted a video on YouTube several days ago, saying respond to this video with questions for me on health care, and we got hundreds, and all of those are online. So in terms of the videos that were selected, anyone can look at the range and see which ones we did and didn’t select. That’s fully transparent. They’re all up on YouTube; they were all up yesterday on our website.
Because YouTube doesn’t actually have a voting function, our new media staff took videos that were rated highly by other users and selected, from among those, questions that represented the range of things being asked. So a lot of people in the progressive community still want a single-payer system, so the first question was from a single-payer advocate. We took a question from a Republican member of Congress, Mike Burgess, about medical malpractice reform.
The spokesperson then noted that there were also questions taken from people who were following along on Twitter and Facebook. When asked whether these questioners or audience members were pre-screened for their political ideology or whether they agreed with the President, the spokesperson replied, “Absolutely not.”
Of course, pre-screening for political ideology is exactly what the Bush administration did.
In March 2005, people seeking tickets to a Social Security event were quizzed about their support of President Bush and his Social Security plan ahead of time. In April 2005, Bush’s security detail threw out three people from an event in Colorado because they had a bumper sticker reading “No More Blood For Oil.” White House spokesman Trent Duffy said that if there’s any evidence people might “disrupt the president,” they “have the right to exclude those people from those events.”
Bush even screened the assembled group of soldiers he would meet in Iraq during a 2003 Thanksgiving visit: Soldiers had to fill out a questionnaire asking whether they supported Bush.
Transcript: More »
Last year at the height of his “fame,” Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher — aka “Joe the Plumber” — said that he was considering a run for public office. “I’d be up for it,” he said. Excited fans even set up a “Draft Joe the Plumber” site. But in a new interview with WorldNetDaily, Wurzelbacher said that he now isn’t planning to run because God doesn’t want him to:
Asked if he has plans to run for public office, he replied, “I hope not. You know, I talked to God about that and he was like, ‘No.’”
He continued, “I believe he’s gotten me on this grassroots movement. If I can encourage leaders to step up, that’s what I would like to do. That’s a heavy role. That’s something I don’t know if I am prepared to do yet.”
But Wurzelbacher said he will keep that door open if God ever calls him to be that leader.
Right now, Wurzelbacher is preparing to participate in the upcoming tea parties.
During a June 19 radio debate, Pennsylvania State Sen. John Eichelberger (R) repeatedly asserted that same-sex marriage is wrong, “dysfunctional,” and would lead to “polygamy, marrying younger people.” (Eichelberger is “sponsoring a Constitutional amendment to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman.”) But perhaps his most shocking comments came when fellow lawmaker Sen. Daylin Leach (D) asked him how gay men and women should be treated:
Leach: Should our only policy towards [same-sex] couples be one of punishment, to somehow prove that they’ve done something wrong?
Eichelberger: They’re not being punished. We’re allowing them to exist, and do what every American can do. We’re just not rewarding them with any special designation.
Listen to excerpts of the debate here:
LGBT activists were incensed by Eichelberger’s comments, calling on him to apologize for his “insensitive remarks.” Yesterday, gay and straight protesters briefly met with Eichelberger, “after [he tried] ducking them twice.” They presented him with 5,000 signed petitions asking him to apologize. Eichelberger refused to do so:
EICHELBERGER: You know, the public process is very important in this country. That’s what my bill does. It allows the public to make a decision, which I think is a healthy thing. So I appreciate your support of at least that concept.
SPEAKER: So are you going to apologize to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people in Pennsylvania — and all the people in Pennsylvania for those comments about allowing to exist and calling them dysfunctional.
EICHELBERGER: No, I think you know my answer to that. Thank you very much.
Watch it:
John Morgan of the Pennsylvania Progressive, who was at the Eichelberger confrontation and captured the exchange on video, said, “The fact he knew we would be at his office at noon and chose not to be there showed his cowardice. It was not until we waited an hour and returned that his receptionist allowed us a few minutes with the Senator in an additional hour.”
Eichelberger has said that his June 19 remarks have been taken out of context. ThinkProgress contacted the senator’s office, asking for clarification and whether he would be issuing an apology. Chief of staff Jason High simply said that the Eichelberger “has already clarified his statement in multiple media outlets.” He pointed us to a June 27 Altoona Mirror story. However, while Eichelberger repeatedly says that his comments are being misinterpreted, nowhere in that article does he shed any more light onto what he actually meant:
He [Eichelberger] said members of Keystone Progress have taken what he said out of context. He said Thursday afternoon he has no intention of taking back or apologizing for anything he stated during the discussion with Leach about heterosexual marriage, bigamy, polygamy, other different forms of marriage and procreation. … Eichelberger said Morrill and his group are purposefully misinterpreting his comment.
Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents, an LGBT blog in Pennsylvania, writes, “It is one thing to disapprove of my identity or believe it is a choice, but quite another thing to suggest that I am permitted to exist in spite of my identity. Should I be grateful to Senator Eichelberger for not condoning someone taking away my existence?”
Republican Norm Coleman conceded the 2008 election to Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) today. “It’s over,” Coleman said at a press conference in Minnesota, adding that he had called and congratulated Franken. Watch it:
President Obama issued a statement reading, “I look forward to working with Senator-Elect Franken to build a new foundation for growth and prosperity by lowering health care costs and investing in the kind of clean energy jobs and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century.”
Eight months after the 2008 election, the Minnesota Supreme Court has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of the state’s U.S. Senate election. The unanimous decision clears the way for Franken to be seated:
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. 32 Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota.
This weekend on CNN, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) said that he would be ready to “sign” the certificate officially declaring Franken the winner as soon as the supreme court gave the “green light“:
CNN: Your state supreme court has a ruling before it, it could come very soon. After that ruling, the next step would be for you to certify the election. Will you certify the election based on your state’s supreme court ruling, is that for you?
PAWLENTY: I’m going to follow the direction of the court, John. We expect that ruling any day now. I also expect them to give guidance and direction as to the certificate of election. I’m prepared to sign it as soon as they give the green light.
Today’s decision doesn’t contain any language specifically instructing Pawlenty to sign the certificate of election — which isn’t surprising, since the governor wasn’t a party to the litigation.
Coleman still has the option to “seek a review from the U.S. Supreme Court or file a whole new case in U.S. District Court.” If he does so and the court says to “put a limit on or stop the effect of the state court ruling,” Pawlenty said that he will abide by that decision. However, he said that “if that doesn’t happen promptly or drags out for any period of time, then we need to move ahead with signing this, particularly if I’m ordered to do that by the state court.”
TPM’s Eric Kleefeld has also raised the possibility that the Senate GOP could “attempt to filibuster” Franken’s acceptance, even if Pawlenty signs the certificate. NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) has said that he’s willing to wage “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Franken before Coleman carries his case out through federal court — even though it could take “years” to resolve.
Franken will be the 60th Democrat in the U.S. Senate, giving the party enough votes to overcome Republican filibusters.
Radio host Alex Jones has stirred up considerable controversy over the years, talking about FEMA concentration camps, promoting 9/11 conspiracies, and comparing President Obama to Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Yesterday, several media outlets reported that Jones said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) would soon be appearing on his show. “She’s on next week,” he said. Watch it:
The City Pages in Minneapolis/St. Paul contacted Bachmann spokesman Dave Dziok, who said that the rumors weren’t true, and she has no plans to go on the show. “I can tell you unequivocally that she is not scheduled, nor ever was,” he said in an e-mail response.
Shortly after midnight on Sunday, police raided a gay bar in Fort Worth, TX, and arrested seven customers for public intoxication. (One man was reportedly taken to the hospital “with bleeding in his brain after officers threw him to the ground and used zip-ties to handcuff him.”) Police said they were simply conducting an “alcohol beverage code inspection” when several customers made sexual advances toward the officers. However, the owner of the Rainbow Lounge, J.R. Schrock, said that claim was a “lie.” “The groping of the police officer — really? We’re gay, but we’re not dumb,” Schrock said. Todd Camp, the founder of Q Cinema and former reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, was at the Rainbow Lounge when the police showed up:
“I have friends who are cops and I know what to do when officers are working,” Camp said. “No one was acting aggressive to officers.”
Camp said that he has been attending bars for years in Fort Worth when TABC conducts raids.
“Usually, they’re very orderly and respectful –- they work with the bar staff and check IDs, it’s quick and painless and then it’s over and then they’re out,” Camp said. “This was not that. This was harassment, plain and simple.“
The Rainbow Lounge incident came on the 40th anniversary of the famous Stonewall uprising that sparked the modern LGBT movement, when police also raided a gay bar in New York City. Today, protesters rallied in downtown Forth Worth over the weekend’s raid. (HT: Pam’s House Blend)
Ken Pagano, the pastor of the New Bethel Church in Louisville, KY, recently invited his congregation to bring their unloaded firearms into the house of worship to “celebrate our rights as Americans!” Yesterday’s bring-your-gun-to-church day, to which more than 200 people showed up, also featured “a $1 raffle of a handgun, firearms safety lessons and a picnic.” Pagano reportedly thought up the event “after some church members expressed concern about members of President Barack Obama administration’s views on gun control, though the president hasn’t moved to put new restrictions on ownership.” Since Obama’s election, there has been a boom in gun sales, stoked largely by a multi-million dollar misinformation campaign by the National Rifle Association.

Tomorrow is the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq, a date Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is calling a “great victory.” But in a new interview with Washington Times radio, Vice President Cheney was still pushing the U.S. to stay in Iraq, saying that withdrawal would “waste” the sacrifice of U.S. troops:
Mr. Cheney told The Washington Times’ America’s Morning News radio show that he is a strong believer in Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and that the general is doing what needs to be done.
“But what he says concerns me: That there is still a continuing problem. One might speculate that insurgents are waiting as soon as they get an opportunity to launch more attacks.
“I hope Iraqis can deal with it. At some point they have to stand on their own. But I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point.“
Cheney said that he respects Odierno, who is concerned that there “is still a continuing problem.” Cheney was referencing Odierno’s comments from a CNN interview yesterday. However, Cheney left out the rest of the general’s comments, in which he said that he doesn’t see such “a breakdown in stability” likely to happen:
ODIERNO: Well, again, I think — I think it has to do with if we see a breakdown in stability in Iraq; if we see a consistent increase in violence; if we see that the Iraqi security forces aren’t able to respond; if we have some event that it caused some instability, then that would cause us to, maybe, after we’re asked by the government of Iraq, to help.
I don’t see that right now. I believe we’re on the right path. And I want to make sure you understand that. I believe we are still on the right path. I think security and stability is headed in the right direction as we move through 30 June.
Furthermore, in an interview with CBS yesterday, U.S. ambassador to Iraq Christopher Hill said that in “overall trends, you see that violence in this year, ‘09, are considerably less. … We think, we are certainly ready to make this move and most importantly we believe the Iraqi forces are ready to take over this mission.”
Cheney has long been fear-mongering on U.S. withdrawal, hoping to keep troops in Iraq as long as possible. In April 2008 he made the misleading claim that al Qaeda would “acquire control” of Iraq’s oil resources if the U.S. left, also compared withdrawal to “betrayal.”
Last week, the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney (who is also a former member of ThinkProgress) found himself in the center of controversy after President Obama called on him at a press conference. One of the harshest pieces came from the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who called Pitney a “planted questioner.” Today the two faced off on Howie Kurtz’s “Reliable Sources” segment on CNN. Pitney called some of Milbank’s past reporting “pathetic,” and Milbank claimed that Nico had “worked in collusion with an administration.” Watch it:
The discussion was evidently so heated that Milbank called him a “dick” at the end of the segment, as Pitney writes on Huffington Post:
The only thing that surprised me was when Dana turned to me after our initial sparring and called me a “dick” in a whispered tone (the specific phrase was, I believe, “You’re such a dick”). Howie Kurtz wrote on Twitter that he didn’t hear it, which is understandable — he was doing the lead-in for the next part of the segment on the ABC White House special. But it happened (I urge Howie to watch the video of the panel during the ABC intro) and it was frankly pretty odd.
Today on NBC’s Meet the Press, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney bristled at criticisms that Republicans don’t have any ideas. “We have a health care plan. … We believe in allowing people to have choice in their health care,” he said.
However, despite this belief in “choice,” a few minutes later Romney said that allowing people to choose a public option is out of the question:
One state in America, my state, was able to put into place a plan that got everybody health insurance. And it did not require a public government insurance company. That’s the last thing America needs. You know exactly what it is.
President Obama, when he was campaigning, said he wanted a single-payer system. That’s what it would lead to. He would subsidize this over time. It would become larger and larger, drive the private options out of the health care industry.
Watch it:
Obama is not trying to create a single-payer system. In 2003, Obama did say, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal health-care program.” However, he admitted that such a system was unrealistic in the United States. Since that time, he has reiterated his belief that a single-payer system would be unworkable in America. From an online town hall discussion on March 26:
And so what evolved in America was an employer-based system. It may not be the best system if we were designing it from scratch. But that’s what everybody is accustomed to. That’s what everybody is used to. It works for a lot of Americans. And so I don’t think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have. Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps.
So why are Republicans so afraid of giving the public one more option in health care, if they are supposedly all about “choice”? In his press conference last week, Obama addressed this hypocrisy:
Why would it [a public option] drive private insurers out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care, if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government — which they say can’t run anything — suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.
In fact, one of the reasons that Obama has said a public option is so important is that it will “give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest.” The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has put together a document debunking the myths surrounding the public option here.
Transcript: More »
The Washington Post reports today that Obama administration officials are possibly “crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely.” Impetus for the executive order comes from officials being “increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible.” Additionally, such an order “could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation.” Over on The Wonk Room, CAP’s Ken Gude explains that while there are still concerns over the emerging policy, “it would be a significant improvement over the Bush administration and would go a long way towards cleaning up the mess at Guantanamo”:
After Congress’ pathetic performance during consideration of Guantanamo funding in the supplemental appropriations bill, it is now evident that no matter how well-intentioned the president and some responsible members are, Congress is not a reliable partner. Whatever would emerge from the sausage grinder risks being far worse than even the already unacceptable status quo. [...]
[Obama's order] would be a significant shift from the Bush administration’s policy that swept into U.S. military detention virtually anyone suspected of terrorist activity captured anywhere in the world. It would restore the bright line between criminal and military detention, a crucial distinction to preserve not just in the United States, but also in other countries that look to or use the U.S. as an example.
There are still ambiguities about whether or not there actually is a draft executive order, as Time’s Michael Scherer notes. Spencer Ackerman spoke to Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Policy, who also said that if Obama “issues an executive order like the one [the Washington Post story describes], it’ll be a major victory.” However, Glenn Greenwald, Digby, the ACLU, and the Center for Constitutional Rights still have significant concerns about the possible order. Steve Benen has more here.
In the past couple weeks, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has used her public appearances to fear-monger about the 2010 Census. In a radio interview with the Washington Times, Bachmann said that she and her family would ignore most of the survey’s questions and answer only “how many people are in our home. We won’t be answering any information beyond that, because the Constitution doesn’t require any information beyond that.”
In an interview with Fox News, Bachmann suggested that the Obama administration could use the Census data for nefarious purposes — including the imprisonment of Americans in concentration camps:
BACHMANN: If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the census bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations, at the request of President Roosevelt, and that’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I’m not saying that’s what the Administration is planning to do. But I am saying that private, personal information that was given to the census bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up.
Yesterday, Census Bureau spokesman Steve Buckner spoke to Minnesota Public Radio and said that many of Bachmann’s concerns were misguided. First, filling out the entire Census is required under federal law.
Second, Bachmann may be hurting her own constituents by not filling out all the necessary information. As Buckner said, the Census information — and the more detailed American Community Survey, which “goes to roughly 3 million addresses every year as part of a continual rolling survey” — is used to determine political representation and direct $300 billion in federal funds to state and local governments.
Finally, it’s a federal crime for any Census worker to violate the confidentiality of the Census form, punishable by a federal prison sentence of up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. The information is not even shared with other government agencies, so there’s no chance that it would be “handed over to the FBI and other organizations,” as Bachmann claimed in her Fox News appearance.
Buckner also said that Census officials have been working with Bachmann’s office to clear up the misinformation:
BUCKNER: Well, we certainly are working with the Congresswoman’s office here in DC, and have already had a briefing with her to explain the rules of the Census and why they’re there, and explain some of the Constitutional law. I mean, the Supreme Court has upheld the powers of the data to be collected. But we’re not asking anything on the 2010 Census that I can see that would be intrusive in terms of the basic information.
As Buckner also pointed out, “For the most part, people put more information on a credit card application than they do on the Census form.”
Transcript: More »
RNC chairman Michael Steele attended a town hall forum at the Detroit Athletic Club yesterday, an event “meant to establish a dialogue with Republicans in urban centers.” Steele was largely silent on recent GOP scandals and made fewer controversial or silly comments than he has in the past, telling the audience, “My mama told me when I was a little boy: ‘You just need to learn how to shut up and listen.’” A sampling of what he heard at the forum, according to the Detroit News:
Marie Kaigler-Reese, a Ph.D student at Michigan State University, said that is not enough. She said the party takes African Americans like herself and trots them out to show they care about blacks but does nothing to address matters like corruption in Detroit’s City Hall.
(Republicans) “are out of touch,” she said, noting her son has become so disenfranchised with the party he has become a Democrat and is running for office in Ohio. “Michael Jackson is dead. God rest his soul. I am not going to be the Michael Jackson of the Republican Party. You will not use me until I am dead.“
Yesterday, the Center for American Progress released a report detailing a clear, realistic, and comprehensive road map for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the discriminatory ban on gay men and women serving openly in the military. The steps include:
1. Signing an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT and sending a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress
2. Forming a presidential panel on how to implement the repeal
3. Repealing DADT in Congress and changing the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, or UCMS
4. Changing other necessary military guidelines to conform to the new policy
5. Following-up to ensure that the armed forces implement the policy changes
In today’s press briefing, David Corn of Mother Jones asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the report and whether the Obama administration thinks this is “the way to go.” Gibbs largely dismissed CAP’s recommendations, saying that the White House is not interested in signing an executive order to temporarily halt DADT:
GIBBS: Well, the President has had meetings about this, has talked with members of Congress. His staff has talked with members of Congress. All of them have talked to Pentagon officials and the administration believes that this requires a durable, legislative solution, and is pursing that in Congress.
Q: I understand that for the long-term solution, but what do you take issue with about signing an executive order that will suspend the separations before an endurable solution is reached through the slow legislative process?
GIBBS: I mean, I think there could be differences on strategy. I think our belief is that the only and best way to do this is through a durable, comprehensive legislative process.
Watch it:
ThinkProgress spoke with CAP Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb, one of the authors of the report, who reiterated that it’s essential for Obama to suspend the dismissals of gay men and women while working on a long-term solution with Congress:
We agree on the need for a durable legislative solution. But a presidential suspension on further dismissals on the basis of DADT is not only within the authority of the president but is necessary to begin the process of repealing this counterproductive, costly, and unnecessary law.
Read the full report here.
Transcript: More »
As former TP editor Judd Legum reported earlier this week, the website of the Republican Women of Anne Arundel County — “one of Maryland’s most prominent Republican organizations” — prominently featured a letter from RWAAC President Joyce Thomann that compared Obama to Hitler. “Obama and Hitler have a great deal in common in my view,” she wrote. That letter has now been taken down and replaced with an “urgent message“:
The article put on our web site by Joyce Thomann was done solely by her. Our Board of Directors never saw the article and would never have approved it. We are not in support of Mrs. Thomann’s personal thoughts ot [sic] opinions.
Ms. Thomann’s husband, Charles, told the Baltimore Sun that the letter “wasn’t meant in the way people are taking it.” He conceded that “maybe she wasn’t as artful as she could have been,” but said the main point was still valid: “The methods that [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [President] Obama are using to get the socialist view point across, is similar to what Hitlder [sic] did. … I happen to be a history teacher.”
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) was one of President Clinton’s harshest critics in the 1990s, an “impeachment ‘manager’ who attacked the moral failings of the president.” However, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Inglis says that while he has since recognized that nobody’s perfect, his party is still clinging to its “self-righteousness”:
But with his governor now felled by similar temptations, Inglis sees an opening for the Republican Party, a chance to “lose the stinking rot of self-righteousness” and “to understand we are all in need of some grace.”
This is not “Bob Inglis 1.0,” the one that was a “self-righteous” expletive, he said in an interview with Washington Wire today. [...]
Indeed, Sanford’s political fall could be a saving grace for what remains of his governorship, Inglis suggested. “This may be an opportunity to extend a little grace to other people, to realize that maybe it’s not 100% this way or that way,” Inglis said.
Inglis also said that while he voted against the stimulus package, he opposed Sanford’s decision to reject the funding. He said that he told the governor, “for goodness sake, take the money.” (HT: TPM)