Politico headlined ThinkProgress' success in 2009

– You reward journalism that focuses on substantive issues. Our reporting has always put an emphasis on impacting public policy debates, operating on the theory that readers didn’t want substance-less punditry on our blog but rather wanted to be educated with facts and research. We built it, and you came.

– You appreciate fact-based coverage that has a point-of-view. News events almost always have a moral valence: They make us angry or happy; there’s someone who we think is is right or wrong; there are truths, and there are lies. We rejected the “false balancing” of the traditional media and instead did our best to be the most credible umpires around. Because we call it as we see it, our value to you as advocacy journalists increased rather than decreased.

– The base of our power exists among self-motivated activists. You don’t just read our stories; you act on them. You take our reporting and you share it with your friends, the media, politicians, and others. Because you do, we’ve been able to attain real-world impact with our reporting, including recent successes in highlighting Rush Limbaugh’s sexism, Koch’s dangerous ideology, ALEC’s agenda of disempowering minorities, Heartland’s science denial, and so much more.

Ultimately, all we do is write words and publish them on a webpage. You make them important, and we can’t thank you enough for it. For that reason, ThinkProgress is a community-wide success. The Center for American Progress and John Podesta deserve much credit for making repeated investments in the blog and understanding its value.

I’ll miss waking up everyday and watching the impact that we can have together. I’ll miss figuring out which stories you wanted us to focus on. And most of all, I’ll miss working with a phenomenally dedicated and hard-working team that is the best-of-the-best in online journalism.

If you’d ever like to reach me in the future, you can email me here. Thanks for making this such an enjoyable seven years and for teaching me lessons that will last a lifetime.

Frank Gaffney warning of Sharia

Oklahoma passed a Sharia ban by ballot in 2010, but that measure has been deemed facially unconstitutional by the courts because it specifically targets Muslims for discrimination. Because of Oklahoma’s experience, state legislatures are moving bills that are more oblique about their discriminatory intent. South Dakota, Louisiana, Arizona, and Tennessee have all passed laws that ban “foreign law in American courts” and don’t mention Muslims or Sharia by name.

Kansas’ proposed anti-Muslim law also similarly asserts it is about promoting “American law for American courts.” (Note: the Constitution already establishes this in its Supremacy Clause.) As Kansas Republican state Sen. Chris Steineger noted, the measure was “presented” to him as a bill specifically targeting Muslims:

But Sen. Chris Steineger, R-Kansas City, said a marketing campaign by supporters of the bill inundated him with materials that “explain why sharia law is coming and Muslims are trying to take over America.”

“I thought that was quite ludicrous at the time, and I still do,” Steineger said. “I pointed this out, because this was not presented as protecting the Kansas Constitution. The proponents of this measure, clearly by the literature they gave me and by the video link they directed me to, they presented this as protecting us against sharia law. Despite the fact that this doesn’t mention sharia, that’s how this whole issue was presented.”

Indeed, Kansas was bombarded by anti-Sharia emails and letters from out-of-staters. The bill’s sponsors and advocates proclaimed that it was really about protecting “women’s rights.” The bill helps “women know the rights they have in America,” said sate Rep. Peggy Mast (R). “To me, this is a women’s rights issue,” said Sen. Susan Wagle (R). Nevermind that these same legislators have been engaged in a war against women’s health, Planned Parenthood, the right to choose, and so many other far more relevant “women’s rights” causes.

Right-wing legislators have been pushing Sharia bans across the country; roughly 20 other states are also considering similar legislation. The anti-Sharia legislative movement was spawned by David Yerushalmi, an influential Islamophobic lawyer who we profiled last year in Fear, Inc.

The anti-Sharia movement continues despite the fact that no evidence has been provided that there is any threat that a Sharia takeover is occurring. Kansas Republican state Sen. John Vratil “said he quizzed the bill’s supporters on when a Kansas court had ever based a decision on sharia law and had yet to be provided with an example.” As Vratil asserted, “Ladies and gentleman, this is a solution in search of a problem.” True, unless you are someone who views the increasing presence of Muslims in America as the problem.

During the proceeding, prosecutors revealed some new pieces of evidence from an affidavit of Zimmerman’s ex-girlfriend testifying that he attacked her. Media outlets had previously reported that, in July 2005, Zimmerman and his ex-girlfriend had a physical altercation.

While interviewing Zimmerman’s current wife, the state proscecutor read from an affidavit by the ex-girlfriend. She alleged in the sworn statement that he “pushed her,” then slapped her with an open hand to the mouth and “asked her how it felt.” She said he “picked me up and threw me on the bed” and then “grabbed me again.” Zimmerman’s wife responded that her husband was simply trying to “protect himself from being attacked by her.” Watch it:

Zimmerman subsequently filed an injunction against his ex-girlfriend claiming that she was the aggressor in the incident.

Defending his son this morning, Zimmerman’s father said, “I’ve never known him to be violent at all, unless he was provoked.”

Unfortunately, she was unable to attend. Why? Because Duckworth, who serves in the Army National Guard, was on duty this past weekend. As VoteVets told ThinkProgress, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Duckworth was legally prohibited from appearing at any campaign events while on duty. VoteVets Chairman Jon Soltz issued the following statement:

Joe Walsh just cannot stop trying to use Tammy Duckworth’s service against her, and he needs to stop, now. Whether or not his campaign was aware of her Army obligations, he now is, and should immediately apologize for this stunt. We should be thankful for the service of all of our troops, not use their time in uniform as an opportunity to play a political stunt.

The Duckworth campaign has made clear that it would like to hold a series of debates with Walsh.

Walsh’s denigration of Duckworth’s service seems to be a recurring theme. In a recent interview with Politico, Walsh diminished Duckworth’s sacrifice for her nation (she lost both of her legs and has a damaged right arm because her helicopter was gunned down in Iraq in 2004) by saying, “What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh…. She is nothing more than a handpicked Washington bureaucrat.” Walsh refuses to apologize for those remarks and has instead doubled down. “Wearing the uniform should immediately earn everyone’s respect. It should not, however, earn everyone’s vote,” he said earlier this month.

Since 2006, Duckworth has been serving our nation’s veterans, first by directing the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, and more recently by serving as an Assistant Secretary in the federal Department of Veterans Affairs. But Walsh has been “trying to pretend that [Duckworth’s] service ended when she came home from war.”

Reed Elsevier stated that the campaign to highlight ALEC’s promotion of measures that disempower and disenfranchise minorities played a role in its decision. “We made the decision after considering the broad range of criticism being leveled at ALEC,” said a Reed Elsevier spokesman.

American Traffic Solutions spokesman Charles Territo said his group’s decision not to renew its membership with ALEC “was based on how best to allocate our resources.”

To recap, here is the list of companies that have dropped ALEC so far:

Coca-Cola
PepsiCo
Kraft
Intuit
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Wendy’s
Mars, Inc.
Arizona Public Service
Reed Elsevier
American Traffic Solutions

Zaid Jilani reports that, while complaining about “bullying” and “intimidation” by others, ALEC is “apparently deleting comments on its Facebook page that are critical of the corporate front group.”

Oklahoma law currently requires that people must generally conceal their handguns. In 2010, then-Gov. Brad Henry (D) vetoed an open carry bill because state police expressed concern that it would make it hard for them “to distinguish criminals from law-abiding citizens.” Keith Barenberg, the president of the Oklahoma State Troopers Association, maintains his concern: “Law-enforcement officers will be that much more jumpy and nervous if they see a gun.” And such confrontations could lead to loss of innocent life. As Norman McNickle, president of the Oklahoma Association of Police Chiefs, put it: “How does the first arriving officers know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? It makes their job exponentially harder.”

Proponents of the “open carry” legislation, like Tim Gillespie, director of the Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Association, claim the measure is necessary because “we live in a dangerous world.” So dangerous, according to Republican state Senator Ralph Shortey, that people need the open display of guns to help fend off attacks from wild turkeys:

During committee discussions, Shortey argued that he shouldn’t be required to pay fees and get a license to carry a weapon. Here’s how he justified that:

“I was in oil and gas,” Shortey said. “I was out on a lease at one time and I got attacked by a turkey. Wait until you get attacked by a turkey. You will know the fear that a turkey can invoke in a person. And so I beat it with a club. That was all I could do.

“I wish that I had a gun with me,” he said. “And I started carrying a gun in my truck after that without a license because I didn’t want to get attacked by a mountain lion. Turkeys are bad enough.”

The Tulsa World opined, “Open-carry is needed to protect us from enraged turkeys? Seriously?” The editoral joked, “Maybe Oklahoma’s stand your ground law covers turkey attacks.”

Sen. Shortey is full of “asinine” ideas. As ThinkProgress noted earlier this year, Shortey introduced a ludicrous and unnecessary bill that would prohibit the manufacturing and sale of food “which contains aborted human fetuses.” He also has proposed legislation to “abolish the state Court of Criminal Appeals and…to eliminate the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s power to review the constitutionality of laws.”

In trying to portray his client in as sympathetic terms as possible, Zimmerman’s new attorney Mark O’Mara said this evening that Zimmerman is “troubled by everything that has happened.” O’Mara added, “Truly, it must be frightening to not be able to go into a 7/11 or into a store and literally to be in fact a prisoner wherever he was.” Watch it:

What is more frightening is to innocently die for going to 7/11.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation today became the latest backer to withdraw financial support for the American Legislative Exchange Council.

A foundation spokesman told Roll Call that it does not plan to make future grants to the conservative nonprofit, which has come under fire from progressive activists for its support of voter identification laws and other contentious measures.

The Gates Foundation said it supported ALEC on issues regarding “teacher effectiveness and school finance.” Lee Fang reports the funding could potentially have benefited “Microsoft as privatized charters adopt more technology in the classroom.”

Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Color of Change, among others, had targeted the Gates Foundation for giving more than $375,000 to ALEC over the past two years. PCCC garnered more than 28,000 signatures in a matter of hours.

Rep. Wes Keller (R-Wasilla)

Interrogating the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Bettye Davis (D-Anchorage), Keller referenced “information that’s floating around the internet” to demand whether there’s a connection between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. “Is there not?” Keller wondered. “Frankly, I haven’t looked into it, but I see it’s out there. I just wondered if you want to make a statement on that.”

Davis was rightly bewildered by the false right-wing internet meme. “I would like for you to give the information you’re referring to because I don’t even know what you’re talking about,” Davis said. Keller proceeded to announce that “he was going to hold up the resolution until he got answers,” but he assured Davis he did not want to be “the death knell” for the resolution honoring the Girl Scouts. Watch the proceeding:

Since the initial dust-up, the Girl Scouts have issued a statement clarifying that they “take no position on the subjects of birth control or abortion,” and that “neither Girl Scouts of USA, nor Girl Scouts of Alaska has a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood.” And Keller backtracked on the House floor, touting the Girl Scout’s “fantastic reputation.”

But even if the Girl Scouts were involved with Planned Parenthood — which, to be clear, they are not — why would that be grounds for rejecting a simple resolution honoring them for their service in developing young girls? Sadly, the Girl Scouts have become subjected to the right-wing war on women, in which advocacy for women’s health is cause for public shaming.

His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.

Lowry and the National Review deserve credit for finally cutting ties with Derbyshire’s long record of hateful rhetoric.

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I’ll say this – if it were to be, I wouldn’t lose a minute’s sleep.

COLMES: We’d be a better country if women didn’t vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don’t you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

Listen here:

In an Oct. 2009 interview with Thom Hartmann, he clarified his stance, arguing that women should have the right to vote but simply shouldn’t exercise it. As he stated, “the proposition that women voting is bad for conservatism, and as a conservative, of course, I think that’s bad for society.” Listen here:

But remember, anyone who tells you there’s a conservative “war on women” is spouting pure “fiction,” according to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

I am not very careful about what I say, having grown up in the era before Political Correctness, and never having internalized the necessary restraints. I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going.

The National Review has tried to distance itself from Derbyshire’s views, but the magazine has gone silent on whether it will take any action. As Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates writes to National Review: “‘Derb’ told you what he was in 2003. And National Review continued to employ him. That’s who they are.”

RedState’s Wolf states, “[Derbyshire] is not, as his defenders at the execrable Taki mag say, confronting the world with uncomfortable truths, he is proudly declaring himself to be a racist and arguing that it is correct to be racist.” Thus, says Wolf, “The longer this drags on without a definitive severing of the relationship, the more damage will be done to National Review. I cannot imagine what sort of deliberation is required to make this decision, but I hope, for National Review’s sake, that it can be completed before the weekend is over.”

On the National Review’s website, editor Rich Lowry called Derbyshire’s column “appalling” and asserted that “no one at National Review” shares his views. But Lowry did not indicate whether Derbyshire would continue to be employed. Does the National Review have a no tolerance policy for racism?

For the National Review, which has frequently complained about unfair accusations of racism, this ugly moment provides an opportunity to demonstrate leadership. As National Review contributor Josh Barro writes in Forbes:

[T]his is the problem for Lowry and other conservatives who want to be taken seriously by broad audiences when they write about racial issues. Lowry wrote a column containing advice for black Americans. Why should black Americans take him seriously while he’s employing Derbyshire? If Lowry wants NR to be credible on race, he should start by firing John Derbyshire.

National Review staff have been taking turns trying to distance themselves from Derbyshire. Here’s senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru:

I know I don’t. RT @ObsoleteDogma Does @NRO want to be associated with someone who publishes racist trash like this? bit.ly/Ht4hmz

— Ramesh Ponnuru (@RameshPonnuru) April 6, 2012

And National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg said a similar thing (National Review contributor Robert George retweeted this):

For the record, I find my colleague John Derbyshire’s piece fundamentally indefensible and offensive. I wish he hadn’t written it.

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) April 6, 2012

The New York Daily News’ Alexander Nazaryan writes, “An editor at the supposedly esteemed National Review, [Derbyshire] is a perfect poster boy for what conservatism has degenerated into.” The National Review can begin to change this perception if it takes action.

Both President Obama and Mitt Romney have issued statements indicating their disagreement with the club’s policy. Meanwhile, club chairman Billy Payne insists that Augusta will decide for itself whom to allow in its ranks.

The golf writer for the New York Times, Karen Crouse, weighed into the controversy yesterday, telling GOLF.com in an interview that she would like to use her influence to bring about a change:

“If it were left to me, which it seldom is in the power structure of writer versus editor, I’d probably not come cover this event again until there is a woman member,” Crouse said Thursday. “More and more, the lack of a woman member is just a blue elephant in the room.” [...]

“I love the [Masters] tournament for the reasons the players do — the course is beautiful, the history is abundant,” Crouse said. “But I find it harder and harder to get past one thing that’s missing. [PGA Tour commissioner] Tim Finchem is not making a stand. High-ranking players with daughters are not willing to talk about it. Somebody has to make a stand. Why not me in my own little way?”

Crouse’s willingness to speak out about a discriminatory policy that affects her personally didn’t go over well with her employer. The New York Times’ sports editor Joe Sexton admonished her publicly:

Contacted by The Associated Press, New York Times sports editor Joe Sexton said the comments were, “completely inappropriate and she has been spoken to.”

Crouse deserves credit for being willing to stake a principled position on the issue, despite knowing it would anger her male colleagues and the existing power structure. As Alyssa Rosenberg has previously observed, women reporters are often subjected to double standards that devalue their opinions.

Yesterday, Kraft told NPR that “it was keeping its membership in ALEC.” But by this evening, Kraft reversed its position, announcing it would no longer support ALEC. The company has issued the following statement:

We belong to many external groups, including ALEC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes growth and fiscal responsibility.

ALEC covers numerous issues but our involvement has been strictly limited to discussions about economic growth and development, transportation and tax policy. We did not participate in meetings or conversations related to other issues.

Our membership in ALEC expires this spring and for a number of reasons, including limited resources, we have made the decision not to renew.

The progressive advocacy group Color of Change has targeted ALEC’s corporate sponsors because they are helping to support voter suppression laws and pushing dangerous “Stand Your Ground” laws.

“We welcome Kraft’s decision to stop supporting ALEC, an organization which has worked to disenfranchise African-Americans, Latinos, students, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor,” ColorOfChange executive director Rashad Robinson said. “We reached out to Kraft months ago and have been in dialogue with them since then to convey the concerns of more than 85,000 ColorOfChange members who called on major corporations to stop supporting ALEC.”

Reuters reports that many other companies, such as drug-maker Pfizer and cigarette-makers Reynolds and Altria are sticking by ALEC.

The Coca-Cola Company has elected to discontinue its membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Our involvement with ALEC was focused on efforts to oppose discriminatory food and beverage taxes, not on issues that have no direct bearing on our business. We have a long-standing policy of only taking positions on issues that impact our Company and industry.

Impressively, Coke’s retreat came just five hours after Color of Change announced its petition, which read: “ALEC has pushed voter ID laws which disenfranchise large numbers of Black voters. Along with the NRA, ALEC also pushed a bill based on Florida’s ‘shoot first’ law – which has shielded Trayvon Martin’s killer from justice – into two dozen states across the country.”

Just this morning, the Center for American Progress released a report highlighting ALEC’s role in voter suppression:

ALEC charges corporations such as Koch Industries Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and The Coca-Cola Co. a fee and gives them access to members of state legislatures. Under ALEC’s auspices, legislators, corporate representatives, and ALEC officials work together to draft model legislation. As ALEC spokesperson Michael Bowman told NPR, this system is especially effective because “you have legislators who will ask questions much more freely at our meetings because they are not under the eyes of the press, the eyes of the voters.”

Yesterday, Republican Judge Jerry Smith, speaking presumably for the entire panel, demanded a 3-page, single-spaced letter from the Department of Justice on whether it agrees with President Obama that it would be inappropriate for “unelected judges” to strike down Obamacare. Obama himself clarified yesterday that, “[w]e have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care,” which is correct.

Judge Smith asked the DoJ attorney whether courts have the power to overturn an act passed by Congress and signed by the President. The lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, straightforwardly answered yes and referenced the landmark case affirming such power of judicial review — Marbury v. Madison. Van Susteren said last night, “What I see, first of all, the judge doesn’t need this information, and she [DoJ attorney] answered the question. It really should be over at that point.” Explaining “I’ve never seen anything like this,” she urged the DoJ to refuse to comply with the Judge’s request:

VAN SUSTEREN: I imagine the discussion tonight at the Justice Department – I would certainly be having this discussion – is to refuse to do it. Because it really is beyond what is necessary in the case. It has nothing to do with the case. And the lawyer answered the question in court. And it’s clearly just, you know, the judge is mad. And to refuse to do it, maybe you draw a contempt charge but then I would then take it up with the full court. I’m not so sure the Department of Justice has to comply with this.

Watch it:

As Ian Millhiser observed, the 5th Circuit is mostly interested in trying to “embarrass the president.” He writes, “This is not how judges behave. This is how politicians behave. If Judge Smith and his co-ideologues cannot refrain from such purely political tantrums, they should resign their seats and run for office as Republicans.”

Calling Aronsohn a “sexist creep,” Alyssa Rosenberg noted the comment “tells you everything about how cosseted Hollywood’s disgusting sexists are.” Aronsohn issued a flippant apology on Twitter: “Yes, yes – it was a stupid joke. I’m sorry.”

While Aronsohn elicited widespread anger as a result of his snide insults, he did find one defender: Rush Limbaugh. The hate radio host, who constantly bemoans the “chickification” of various aspects of American life, used that term his defense of Aronsohn, urging women to leave them alone today:

All he’s talking about here is the chickification of his business. He writes sitcoms – he’s a comedy writer. He says the women have taken over. It’s all vagina all the time. We get it! Ok women, let us alone.

Watch it:

Limbaugh is trying to repair his corporate brand with advertisers, hordes of whom have left his show due to his willingness to engage in sexist attacks. Limbaugh is of course a suitable defender of Aronsohn, given his distinguished track record and his willingness to call female advocates “sluts.”

President Obama: “I think it’s going to be a clarifying election about who we are and what we stand for. But it’s enormous — a lot is at stake in this election. And we’re going to have to fight for it. We’re not going to be complacent and be able to deliver on what we think is the right path for our kids and our grandkids and future generations.”

Mitt Romney: “I believe Americans face a fundamental choice in this election, a decision that is much more important than the candidates or the political parties. We should understand that we are selecting not just who should guide us but a choice between two distinct paths and destinies for our nation.“

To monitor this important election cycle, ThinkProgress is expanding its reporting and launching a new webpage devoted specifically to breaking election news, covering stories that other news sites are not, and focusing on the issues that we think matter. While much of the media delivers horse-race coverage of the latest polls and fundraising numbers, we’ll be putting our emphasis on what we do best — dissecting where the candidates stand on policy and why that matters.

ThinkProgress Election 2012 will make a concerted effort to go beyond the presidential election and cover leading House and Senate races, important ballot initiatives, and other interesting state/local elections. Our Election 2012 page will be a collaborative team effort, led principally by the reporting and editing of Alex Seitz-Wald. We’ll also be posting frequent updates on our new Elections Twitter account — @TPElections. We hope you appreciate our coverage, and let us know if you have information to share.